House of Commons

Thursday 21st November 2013 Commons Chamber

Thursday 21 November 2013

The House met at half-past Nine o’clock

Prayers

Thursday 21st November 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker in the Chair]

Oral Answers to Questions

Thursday 21st November 2013 Commons Chamber

The Secretary of State was asked—

[Karen Lumley (Redditch) (Con)]

1. What assessment he has made of the importance of broadband to the rural economy.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Dan Rogerson)]

The UK broadband impact report, undertaken by analysts SQW, was commissioned by the Government and published on 14 November. It looks at the economic, environmental and social benefits of superfast broadband, including in rural areas. The report estimates that the net annual gross value added impacts for the UK attributable to faster broadband speeds will rise to about £17 billion by 2024, of which approximately £4.6 billion will accrue to rural areas.

[Karen Lumley]

Given the importance of small and medium-sized enterprises in the rural economy, will my hon. Friend inform us what support the Government are providing for superfast broadband, especially in places such as Hanbury, the Lenches and Inkberrow in my constituency?

[Dan Rogerson]

I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend about the huge value of broadband in rural areas, particularly to the small and medium-sized enterprises that are so important to the rural economy. The roll- out of broadband to all rural communities across the country is a top priority for us. The Government’s current £530 million rural broadband programme will ensure that 90% of the country has access to superfast speeds. The Government recently announced an extra £250 million investment to extend superfast coverage to 95% of premises by 2017. Together with the industry, we are exploring how to expand coverage further, using more innovative fixed wireless and mobile broadband solutions to reach at least 99% of premises in the UK by 2018.

[Andrew Stephenson (Pendle) (Con)]

17. I recently met the managing director of ELE Advanced Technologies, a fast-growing, mid-sized engineering business based across two sites in Colne in my constituency, one of which is in a particularly rural area. It could grow even faster with better broadband connections between the two sites. Will my hon. Friend assure businesses in Pendle, such as ELE, and those in other rural areas that they will not be left behind under this Government?

[Dan Rogerson]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right to ensure in his discussions with local delivery bodies that the projects now being put in place by the Government are delivered effectively in his local area. If he has any concerns about that, I will of course be happy to take that up locally.

[Jason McCartney (Colne Valley) (Con)]

18. Towns in my constituency, such as Hade Edge and Marsden, are still struggling with poor broadband provision. Does my hon. Friend agree that with snow coming and threatening to cut off businesses in such rural communities, strong broadband connections are vital for our local rural economies?

[Dan Rogerson]

I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend that broadband is crucial for the future of the rural economy. He sets out that if other communication links are cut for any reason, businesses will be even more reliant on it, so it is absolutely right that we press forward with it. I hope that communities in his local area will receive the benefits of schemes that we are putting in place nationally.

[Nick Smith (Blaenau Gwent) (Lab)]

2. What plans he has to tackle the effect of rising water bills on the cost of living.

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

7. What plans he has to tackle the effect of rising water bills on the cost of living.

[The Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Mr Owen Paterson)]

Ofwat estimates that, from 2015, pressure on bills could be reduced by £120 million to £750 million annually. I have written to water companies to call on them to consider the pressure on household incomes when making future bill decisions and, in particular, to consider whether they need to apply the full price increases next year allowed for in the 2009 price review. The Government encourage water companies to introduce social tariffs for vulnerable consumers and to reduce bad debt.

[Nick Smith]

That is just not good enough. As families struggle with this Government’s cost of living crisis, can we have a duty on water companies to introduce social tariffs?

[Mr Paterson]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his question, and I entirely agree with him, I think. We fully appreciate the pressure that many of our hard-working constituents are under to pay their bills, but I am afraid that I have to remind him that in the last five years of his Government, between 2005 and 2010, water bills rose by 20% to £389. As of today, water bills are just under that, at £388.

[Karl Turner]

Water bills have increased by almost 50% since privatisation, and yet last year, regional water companies made £1.9 billion in profits and paid £1.8 billion to their shareholders. What are the Government doing to ensure that water bills come down for the consumer?

[Mr Paterson]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his question. Unfortunately, he did not listen to my preceding answer, which was that under the watch of his Government—because Ofwat did not do its job and because, as with the banks, the last Government did not regulate properly—bills went up. We are fully conscious of the impact of bills on our hard-working constituents. We have a robust regulator in Mr Jonson Cox. It is clear from his statements and negotiations that he expects water companies to hold or reduce prices, while continuing with the enormous investment that privatisation has brought. Do not underestimate the £116 billion that has been brought into the industry, which will make it efficient and keep bills down.

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

Does the Secretary of State agree that a large component of the increase in the cost of water bills comes from European directives, such as the waste water directive, the urban waste water directive, the bathing water directive and the drinking water directive? All of us would support those directives, but will he commit to the earliest possible engagement of the Department and Ofwat in limiting the cost of implementing them?

[Mr Paterson]

I am grateful to the Chair of the Select Committee for that question. She is absolutely right that we are bound by European law and regulation in this area of competence. We intend to regulate the industry in conformity with those laws. There is a balance to be struck. As I have mentioned, since privatisation, £116 billion has been brought into the industry. We have improved the quality of our rivers and water enormously, but we have to respect the impact of bills on our hard-working constituents.

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

The people of the west country have been suffering the pain caused by their water bills for many years. We are grateful to the Government for the recent help in that regard. Given that the wholesale price of water is not rising, in that it falls from the sky and is free, is my right hon. Friend convinced that the regulator is robust enough to ensure that rises will be kept to a minimum?

[Mr Paterson]

My hon. Friend is right to focus on the regulator, because the last Government did not have a robust regulator. The whole system depends on having a rigorous and robust person in charge of Ofwat. I am pleased that we have that person in Jonson Cox.

[Maria Eagle (Garston and Halewood) (Lab)]

Will the Secretary of State set out for the House the steps he took to tackle the rising cost of water bills between his meeting with the water companies on 10 July and his follow-up letter four months later on 4 November?

[Mr Paterson]

The shadow Secretary of State has to recognise that it is not for me, in my office, to dictate prices. The industry is a combination of private companies and a vigorous independent regulator. It is important that I do not overstep the mark and that I support the vigorous regulation that he is bringing in. When the new price review comes through, I think the hon. Lady will be pleasantly surprised to see that prices will be held and that some may fall. However, we need to have the balance that I have spoken about because if we are to keep the industry efficient and keep prices down for the long term for our hard-working constituents, we need to keep the investment coming in.

[Maria Eagle]

In other words, the Secretary of State did absolutely nothing. Does he understand that families who are struggling to pay their water bills want action from the Secretary of State, not a weak letter? With only three companies helping just 25,000 households, it is clear that the voluntary approach has failed. Will he therefore commit to amending the Water Bill, which we will debate on Monday, to require all water companies to be part of a new national affordability scheme and finally ease the cost of living crisis on families?

[Mr Paterson]

The shadow Secretary of State has to recognise that the schemes that help some water bill payers are paid for by others. She wants to require there to be a universal tax on all water bill payers. I would not endorse that.

[Peter Aldous (Waveney) (Con)]

3. When the ban on fishing discards will come into force.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (George Eustice)]

The UK secured a landing obligation as part of the agreement on reform of the common fisheries policy this summer. The final agreement includes a phased timetable, with a landing obligation in pelagic fisheries coming into force in January 2015 and a landing obligation in other fisheries beginning in 2016. Preparatory work has begun and we are talking to the fishing industry and other stakeholders about how we can best implement those changes in practice.

[Peter Aldous]

I am grateful to the Minister for that answer. Recent research has shown that a ban on discarding alone will not lead to sustainable management of the nation’s fish stocks. Will the Minister confirm that the Government will introduce a range of measures alongside the discard ban, and that full regard will be given to the interests of the inshore fleet, such as those who fish out of Lowestoft in my constituency?

[George Eustice]

I confirm that there will be a range of other measures. We have never claimed that a discard ban alone would work, and there are three parts to the reform. The discard ban was one part, and we also introduced regional decision making for the first time. Finally—and most importantly—there is now a legally binding commitment to fish sustainably. Taken together, those measures represent a radical reform of the common fisheries policy, and that is a tribute to my predecessor, my hon. Friend the Member for Newbury (Richard Benyon), who led the charge on those reforms.

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

The reforms are welcome and what the Minister said is correct, but the regulation on discards will require not just UK Administrations to comply, but other EU member states to do so as well. Will the Government ensure that the European Commission takes measures to ensure that, as far as possible, all member states comply with the regulations on discards?

[George Eustice]

I absolutely agree. We need other member states to comply with the regulations, and we will raise the matter with the European Commission if we have concerns that they are not doing so. I stress, however, that there is a legally binding commitment for member states to fish sustainably. Regionalisation will mean that for the first time, groups of member states with a shared interest in a shared fishery will come together and come up with better decision making.

[Richard Benyon (Newbury) (Con)]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his kind remarks. With a ban on discards, the roll-out of marine protected areas, a legally binding commitment to fish sustainably, the introduction of marine planning, and a whole range of other measures to ensure that our seas are sustainable, is this not a good time for those who are concerned about the health and sustainability of our seas?

[George Eustice]

My hon. Friend is right and I am delighted to continue the good work that he started in those areas. That shows the commitment of this Government to protecting and enhancing our marine environment.

[Damian Collins (Folkestone and Hythe) (Con)]

15. Instead of establishing a marine conservation zone across Hythe bay, will the Minister consider other conservation measures that could be carried out in harmony with the work of the inshore fishing fleet in the bay?

[George Eustice]

We have today made clear our intention to designate 27 sites as marine conservation zones. I confirm that Hythe bay is not currently one of those, although we are doing further work on that and holding further discussions with stakeholders. We hope to make a decision on Hythe bay in the new year. One interesting area we are considering is whether we might reach an agreement with stakeholders by looking at zoning that site, rather than having it as an entire block.

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

4. What steps he is taking to reduce levels of food waste.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Dan Rogerson)]

We are working with food manufacturers and retailers to reduce food waste under the Courtauld commitment, which is targeting a further reduction of 1.1 million tonnes in food and packaging waste. We have also launched an agreement with the hospitality sector, which includes restaurants, pubs and canteens. We are helping households waste less and save money through the Waste and Resources Action Programme’s Love Food Hate Waste campaign.

[Mr Bain]

I am grateful for that answer, but does the Minister not accept that with food prices rising nearly five times as quickly as wages under the Government’s cost of living crisis, the most pressing issue for millions of families across the country this winter will be finding enough food to eat, not throwing it away?

[Dan Rogerson]

Obviously, we want affordable choices for people across the retail sector, and we have an efficient retail sector in this country. Excellent local food is also produced, and we hope that people will take advantage of what is provided locally to ensure they are well fed over the winter. Having said that, it is important to consider waste because if we do not look at what is being wasted across the supply chain, we will be wasting resources that could be used to help feed people, and that will also have an effect on the environment.

[Mr Philip Hollobone (Kettering) (Con)]

A staggering amount of the food purchased in supermarkets ends up not being consumed. Will my hon. Friend liaise with supermarkets to ensure that any surplus they have goes to food banks, and that they look closely at their packaging so that food for consumption in people’s homes is sold in the requisite amount of packaging?

[Dan Rogerson]

My hon. Friend raises a number of ways forward. There are many solutions for dealing with surplus food at different points in the chain, including at supermarkets. Further up the food chain there is the option advanced by Company Shop, which I visited recently. It looks at making affordable food available through company shops and, hopefully in the future, to people on low incomes as well.

[Glyn Davies (Montgomeryshire) (Con)]

5. How many cattle have been slaughtered as a result of bovine TB in 2013 to date.

[The Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Mr Owen Paterson)]

In the 10 years to 31 December 2012, 305,268 cattle were compulsorily slaughtered as reactors or direct contacts in Great Britain. Since 1 January to the end of August, a further 22,512 otherwise perfectly healthy cattle have been slaughtered solely because of bovine TB.

[Glyn Davies]

Does my right hon. Friend agree that any political party or animal welfare group that accepts the massive cost in the wholesale slaughter of cattle, silent suffering among wildlife and huge disruption and worry to the farming community, is acting without care or responsibility by not combating this terrible disease?

[Mr Paterson]

I agree entirely with my hon. Friend. I wish we could go back to the bipartisan approach of the 1950s, 1960s and 1970s, when we got this disease beaten—we got it down to 0.01%. [Interruption.] The chuntering goes on, but we are following the science from Australia, which is TB-free; we are following the science from New Zealand, which is down from 1,763 infected herds to 66; and we are following the science from the Republic of Ireland, where reactors are down from 40,000 to 18,500, and the average Irish badger is 1 kg heavier because they are healthy. We will end up with healthy badgers and healthy cattle.

[Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab)]

Recent figures from Natural England show that only 60% of farms in the west Somerset cull zone and only 43% of farms in the west Gloucestershire cull zone contained cattle. Why are the Government culling badgers on farms without cattle?

[Mr Paterson]

The hon. Lady must understand that badgers move around. When they are “super-excreters” and they move on to cattle farms, they are sadly very effective transmitters of this disease. That is why we are addressing the disease not just in cattle, but in wildlife.

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

13. It was announced this week that a record 220 farms in Wiltshire have been closed down because of bovine TB. One of my farmers has lost his entire herd on three separate occasions. He is reported to be driving a bus at the moment and going through terrible stress. Does the Secretary of State agree that tests in both Somerset and Gloucestershire are showing encouraging results? Will he announce when he intends to roll out the programme for culling badgers across the west country and, in particular, in my constituency of North Wiltshire?

[Mr Paterson]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Sadly, the disease continues to increase in his constituency. It is absolutely our intention to continue the policy of bearing down on the disease in wildlife, as well as continuing our severe policy of bearing down on the disease in cattle. We will be announcing further measures in the new year.

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

The inconvenient truth for the Secretary of State is that there has been a fall in TB in new herds and in TB-infected herds since 2008, before the badger culls began. Now that we know that nearly half the board of Natural England, including its leading scientific officer Professor McDonald, challenge the badger cull extensions, is it not clear that the Secretary of State is a complete stranger to evidence-based policy, but a master of moving the goalposts?

[Mr Paterson]

Sadly, the hon. Gentleman is wrong. The number of cattle slaughtered has gone up by 22,512. These herds are closed up, which means that they are already in a TB area, and the shadow Minister has to understand that. We are following a clear policy that has worked in every other country where there has been a problem of disease in cattle and in wildlife. I have cited Australia, New Zealand, Michigan, with the white-tailed deer, and badgers in the Republic of Ireland. I just wish that those on the Opposition Front Bench would join us, as they did back in the 1970s, in getting this disease under control.

[Duncan Hames (Chippenham) (LD)]

Does the Secretary of State accept that there would be no sense in pursuing this course further if we did not see progress towards our objective of a significant reduction in TB among cattle in the trial areas?

[Mr Paterson]

My hon. Friend is right that there is no point in doing this unless we see a reduction in the disease in cattle—that is our intention—but I am happy to report that I was in Somerset last week talking to those conducting the cull, and they were doing so with great professionalism, skill and restraint, in the face of some opposition, and they were delighted with the results, were convinced there had been a significant reduction in the number of diseased badgers and were looking with great confidence to that part of Somerset being rid of the disease.

[Julie Hilling (Bolton West) (Lab)]

6. When the research commissioned by his Department into the provision of food aid in the UK will be published.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (George Eustice)]

DEFRA has commissioned research to review publicly available evidence on the landscape of food aid provision and access in the UK. All Government-funded research projects are required to go through the necessary review and quality assurance processes prior to publication. Once this process is complete, the conclusions of the work will be made available on the Government’s website.

[Julie Hilling]

With more than 350,000 people using food banks since April alone and a more than 800% increase in the past three years, is the Minister delaying publishing the report because he is embarrassed to admit that the dramatic rise is due to the cost of living crisis caused by this Government?

[George Eustice]

No. As I just made clear—if the hon. Lady had listened—all Government reports must go through a review and quality assurance process, as set out in the Government’s social research service code introduced in 2008. There are many complex reasons for the increase in the number of food banks, but it is worth noting that there was a tenfold increase in their number under the last Government.

[Sir Tony Baldry (Banbury) (Con)]

Is not the innuendo of the question from the hon. Member for Bolton West (Julie Hilling) and similar questions that the Labour party wants welfare spending increased? If it wants that, should it not spell out by how much it wants it to rise and who should benefit and in what ways?

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Minister to respond, but on food aid in the UK, rather than on Labour party policy.

[George Eustice]

My hon. Friend makes a good point. We all know that the best way to tackle poverty is to help people back into work.

[Justin Tomlinson (North Swindon) (Con)]

8. What effect partnership funding has had on the number of flood protection schemes initiated in the last 12 months.

[The Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Mr Owen Paterson)]

Of the 507 schemes receiving DEFRA funding in 2013-14, 143 schemes have secured external contributions. Partnership funding contributions to schemes being built by the Environment Agency are expected to reach £22 million in 2013-14, up from £5.4 million in 2011-12. Contributions of up to £148 million have been identified for the four-year programme to 2014-15, and early indications suggest that up to 25% more schemes will go ahead than if costs were met by DEFRA alone.

[Justin Tomlinson]

I welcome such schemes in Swindon, but what steps has the Department taken to assist local authorities to use section 106 agreements to secure flood alleviation works for existing communities?

[Mr Paterson]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his question. Local authorities are best placed to determine their infrastructure requirements through the local plan process and local flood risk management strategies. DEFRA, with the Environment Agency and the Local Government Association, has provided guidance, including practical examples of flood projects that have secured funding through section 106 agreements.

[Barry Gardiner (Brent North) (Lab)]

DEFRA’s own figures show that climate change could see the number of homes at risk of flooding more than double to more than 800,000 by the mid-2020s, yet the Committee on Climate Change’s report on adaptation makes it clear that even these figures underestimate the risk and that up to 500,000 homes might be left without protection. Why is the Secretary of State ignoring the science?

[Mr Paterson]

We are not. We are investing, with the various sources mentioned in my previous answers, a range of funds. Over this four-year period, we will spend more than any previous Government and protect 165,000 households—20,000 more than expected. This unprecedented programme is going ahead, despite the mess we inherited from the last Government.

[Mrs Caroline Spelman (Meriden) (Con)]

Yes, indeed, the Department secured an extra £120 million from the Treasury last year, taking the amount of flood protection money to more than £2.3 billion, but may I impress on my right hon. Friend the urgent need to stress to the Treasury, in advance of the autumn statement, that for every £1 of taxpayers’ money spent on flood protection there is an £8 return?

[Mr Paterson]

I am grateful to my right hon. Friend and predecessor for her question and congratulate her on all the work she did in preparing for this. She is absolutely right. Shortly after I took over, I saw a scheme in Nottingham where there was an eight-to-one payback on a £45 million scheme protecting about 16,000 houses, but on the other side of the river there were 500 acres, blighted and left alone by the last Government, that are now up for redevelopment.

[Valerie Vaz (Walsall South) (Lab)]

9. What plans he has to reduce the number of deaths from air pollution.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Dan Rogerson)]

Air quality in the United Kingdom has improved significantly over many years, but it still has an effect equivalent to reducing the average life expectancy of everyone living in the UK by six months. The Government are committed to ongoing work to reduce the impact and have invested many billions of pounds in measures that will help to reduce air pollution from transport, energy and industrial sources.

[Valerie Vaz]

With 29,000 early deaths from poor air quality, a Supreme Court judgment against the Government and the World Health Organisation saying that poor air quality is a primary cause of cancer, what more can the Government do to avoid a public health crisis?

[Dan Rogerson]

If we take the transport sources of air pollution, for example, we have invested over £1 billion in measures to promote growth in electric vehicles, which will help to transform future air quality, along with cleaner buses and a range of other policies. We are also negotiating at the European level for better standards in diesel vehicles, which contribute significantly to oxides of nitrogen levels.

[Jim Fitzpatrick (Poplar and Limehouse) (Lab)]

Most of the polluted roads in the country are in London. What meetings has the Minister had with the Mayor of London to address this serious situation for residents in the capital?

[Dan Rogerson]

In the last month I have had no such meetings, but my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has met the Mayor to discuss this issue.

[Mark Pawsey (Rugby) (Con)]

10. What assessment his Department has made of the role of packaging in minimising food waste.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Dan Rogerson)]

Food packaging plays a vital role in ensuring that consumers do not throw away the food they buy. The Waste and Resources Action Programme’s “Fresher for Longer” work shows how the way we use food packaging and the storage advice it carries can help to keep food fresher for longer, by using techniques such as vacuum packing, shrink wrapping or re-sealable packaging to maximise the safe-storage life of food. This saves consumers money and reduces the impact of food waste on the environment.

[Mark Pawsey]

The Minister has already acknowledged the Love Food Hate Waste campaign. I am sure he will agree, as my predecessor as chairman of the all-party group on packaging, that innovations in packaging such as vacuum and re-sealable packs, which he described, help to keep food fresher for longer. Does he agree that they also play an important role in reducing the value of the food thrown away by the average family, which is currently £270 a year?

[Dan Rogerson]

I thank my hon. Friend for his kind words about my work with the all-party group, but if there are things that I think the industry needs to be challenged on, as Minister, I will be happy to do that. However, I completely agree with him that we can see significant gains in tackling food waste through innovative packaging solutions.

[Andrew Griffiths (Burton) (Con)]

11. What increase there has been in pork exports to China in the last year.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (George Eustice)]

Our work in opening up the Chinese market to British pork saw an increase of pork exports to China from £5 million for the first nine months of last year to £14 million for the same period this year. That trade has helped to lift China into our top ten biggest international food markets for the first time.

[Andrew Griffiths]

I congratulate the Minister on that great success. British pork is the best pork in the world, and much of it is produced in Staffordshire. The potential for growth and jobs in British agriculture from exporting to China is huge. With just a little more support, in terms of marketing, promotion and trade shows, more jobs could be created. What plans does he have to help British farmers to sell in China?

[George Eustice]

I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend that British pork is the best. My family breed British lop pigs, which I would argue is the best breed. To answer his question, earlier this month the Secretary of State took a delegation of British food and drink companies to champion British food at Food and Hotel China, the largest food fair in Asia. Food and drink is also a key pillar of the “Great” campaign to raise the profile of the food and drink industry internationally, and a “Great”-themed reception was held in China during the Secretary of State’s visit.

[Harriett Baldwin (West Worcestershire) (Con)]

It is not just pork to China; it is beef to Russia as well—

[Mr Speaker]

Order. The question is about pork to China. I am sure the hon. Lady will try to work that into her question.

[Harriett Baldwin]

In addition to pork to China, there is beef to Russia. My hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Neil Parish) and I led a delegation to Russia last year with the UK chief vet—

[Mr Speaker]

Order. I am sorry; I was trying to be helpful to the hon. Lady, but let me say in the kindest possible way that Members must learn to be a bit versatile. If they are to come in on an earlier question, I am happy to accommodate them, but they have to adjust to the question. The question cannot be adjusted to them.

[Neil Carmichael (Stroud) (Con)]

I welcome the news about our pork, and I would like to underline the importance of beef, too, particularly to the dairy sector. That is an important point to make.

[Mr Speaker]

This will require very considerable elasticity and dexterity from the Minister.

[George Eustice]

Perhaps I can help hon. Members out by saying that the combined estimated worth of pork, beef and lamb to China and Russia is £230 million over three years. In September this year, the Secretary of State visited Russia to help open these markets.

[Andrew George (St Ives) (LD)]

12. What progress he has made on reform of the common agricultural policy; and if he will make a statement.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (George Eustice)]

A common agricultural policy reform deal has been agreed between the European Agriculture and Fisheries Council, the European Parliament and the Commission. Overall, the CAP package does not represent a significant reform, but we did improve the Commission’s original proposals, increased flexibility and fended off attempts by others to introduce a number of regressive measures. Our formal consultation on CAP implementation in England was launched earlier this month and will run until 28 November.

[Andrew George]

I am grateful for that reply. In order for British farmers to remain competitive in world markets, it is important that the CAP helps them to meet the reasonable constraints that stop them simply turning the British countryside into ranch and prairie. Is the Minister content that, as drafted, the CAP will deliver public goods without simply giving money to large farmers who do not need it?

[George Eustice]

One area we are looking at in our consultation is how to develop an agri-environment scheme in pillar two. We are keen to build on the fantastic track record we have in these areas. It has always been the Government’s position that we can do more for the environment by spending through pillar two rather than through pillar one. That is why we have aimed to keep as simple as possible the greening measures in the conditions for the single farm payment.

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

Earlier this week, I met leaders of the Scottish National Farmers Union who had come all the way to London to express their deep concern that the CAP convergence uplift, which the UK received only because of the historically low area payments in Scotland, is to be split four ways. Does the Minister accept the principle of convergence and, if so, will he look again at how to bring the review process forward before 2016?

[George Eustice]

As the UK Government, we have had to take an approach that is fair to all parts of the UK. The reality is that farms in Scotland tend to be larger and the per hectare rate has been lower historically because the land is less productive, but the average farmer in Scotland receives about £25,000 a year, the average farmer in England receives approximately £17,000 and the average farmer in Northern Ireland receives less than £8,000. On that basis, Scottish farmers are getting more than farmers elsewhere in the UK.

Topical Questions

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

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

[The Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Mr Owen Paterson)]

DEFRA’s priorities are growing the rural economy, improving the environment and safeguarding animal and plant health. As part of our determination to leave the natural environment in a better state than the one we inherited, I am pleased to announce today the designation of 27 marine conservation zones in the waters off the English coast. The new MCZs will protect nationally important habitat for species and build on the 30,000 sq km of inshore and offshore waters that are already protected. Since 2010, the area of inshore marine sites surrounding them has increased substantially. With the MCZs designated today, just under 25% of English inshore waters are now within protected areas.

[Grahame M. Morris]

I would like to draw the Secretary of State’s attention to an outbreak of bovine TB in my constituency in County Durham this month. Will he explain how badgers are the cause of the spread of bovine TB in my region?

[Mr Paterson]

The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right to raise the fact that this disease is spreading and it allows me to draw attention to the fact that we are bringing in even more rigorous cattle movement controls. We know perfectly well that the disease is spread by cattle. It is also spread by wildlife, and that is why we are going to bear down on both, and we will make an announcement shortly on cattle movement.

[Karen Lumley (Redditch) (Con)]

T2. In 2011 more than 23 tonnes of illegal elephant ivory was seized across the world. What action are this Government taking internationally to counter this disgusting and barbaric trade?

[Mr Paterson]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right to raise this issue. Two weeks ago I went to Lewa in northern Kenya where the situation is shocking—since I have been there a number of elephants have been killed. Ivory is being sold at $2,000 a kilo and rhinoceros horn is selling at $65,000 a kilo. We offered immediate help to the rangers who are working very bravely there, so that some of our paratroopers could help train them. We are organising a conference at Lancaster house in February to which a whole number of nations from right across the world will be invited, in order to enforce better, to reduce demand and to end up with sustainable alternative activity in these countries.

[Nia Griffith (Llanelli) (Lab)]

T3. A few weeks ago we asked the Secretary of State about plans to take helpful food additives out of flour. What are the results of those plans, and is he thinking of looking at any other foods and taking away things that we know can help people? We do not want people to suffer because they are not getting the things they need.

[Mr Paterson]

I am grateful to the hon. Lady. We look at various regulations the whole time. We are studying that matter and we will make announcements in due course.

[Karl MᶜCartney (Lincoln) (Con)]

T4. My right hon. Friend is no doubt aware that Lincolnshire produces a quarter of the nation’s food and does quite well in recycling waste, but with 15 million tonnes of food across the country going to waste annually, what steps is his Department taking to encourage the uptake of anaerobic digestion?

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Dan Rogerson)]

Government financial support and action under our anaerobic digestion strategy and action plan is leading to growing uptake of AD. Since the strategy was published the number of plants has increased from 54 to more than 120 and a further 200 projects have planning permission.

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

T6. The Government claim that excluding homes built since 2009 from the Flood Re insurance scheme is sending a message to developers not to build in flood-risk areas, so can the Minister explain to me why posters heavily promoting the Government Help to Buy scheme are plastered around Kingswood in my constituency, even though my constituents will be outside the flood insurance scheme in an area that is prone to flood risk?

[Dan Rogerson]

The details of the scheme agreed with industry, which I welcome and we look forward to taking forward in the forthcoming flooding Bill, are predicated on what was agreed under the previous regime. We are happy to debate this, of course, and if the case is made to change it, we will look at that. As the hon. Lady says, however, our current plan is to send a very clear message that we do not want to see further building on the flood plain.

[Mark Menzies (Fylde) (Con)]

T5. Farmers in Fylde are losing thousands of pounds each year and homes are at risk from flooding in the fields around Main Drain and Liggard Brook. The Environment Agency came up with options to resolve this, but funding was denied. Will the Minister meet me to discuss how we can move this vital work forward?

[Dan Rogerson]

I am happy to meet the hon. Gentleman to discuss the case in his constituency.

[Sheila Gilmore (Edinburgh East) (Lab)]

Over several months—indeed, nearly two years now—I have frequently raised the issue of the health effects on certain individuals of low-energy lighting. Has the Department made any progress in its negotiations with Europe on this issue?

[Dan Rogerson]

That is not an area I have discussed in recent weeks, but I am happy to write to the hon. Lady about any progress we have made on it.

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

T7. Does the Minister share my concern about the apparent monopoly British Telecom has in installing broadband in hard-to-reach areas such as Monmouthshire under the terms of public schemes?

[Dan Rogerson]

My hon. Friend is clearly making a case to examine this. There have been a number of reports into our delivery of the broadband programme saying our approach will lower risk and reduce cost to the taxpayer. If my hon. Friend has any specific concerns and he would like to write to me, I will be happy to examine them.

[Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab)]

Proposals were made for 127 marine conservation zones, which it was agreed were necessary to create an ecologically coherent network. It is therefore very disappointing that the Government are going ahead with only 27 zones, and if press reports are correct they will not be consulting on the second tranche until 2015. Why is there such a delay?

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (George Eustice)]

We have made it clear that there will be two further tranches. I can confirm that next year, we will begin the research work necessary to start identifying some of the next sites. We will launch the formal consultation for the next tranche at the beginning of 2015, but that does not mean we will not be doing work in the meantime.

[Sheryll Murray (South East Cornwall) (Con)]

Fishermen in my constituency are periodically economically reliant on dredging around the Eddystone reef. Will my hon. Friend consider issuing permits that would expire after retirement or sale of vessel to allow them to continue to earn a living?

[George Eustice]

One of the principles of the marine conservation zones is that we want to development management measures locally with the inshore fisheries and conservation authorities, the Marine Management Organisation and harbour authorities. We want them to be constructive and, given how technology is developing, it is possible still to fish sustainably, in a way that protects many of the features we are trying to protect through these designations.

[Nick Smith (Blaenau Gwent) (Lab)]

Asthma UK has condemned the Government’s proposals to reduce air quality monitoring across the UK. Will the Minister drop these damaging proposals?

[Dan Rogerson]

We want to focus our efforts on reducing air pollution, and we are confident that we will have enough information coming back from monitoring to ensure that we can update the position. As I said in answer to a previous question, this issue remains a Government priority and we will take action on it at European, national and local levels.

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

There is conclusive scientific evidence that sheep as a species is not infected with a prion that causes new vCJD. Nevertheless, certain regulations relating to sheep, such as the compulsory splitting of carcases over 1 year old and the ban on on-farm burial, are based on the belief that sheep are so infected. What will the Minister do to take forward an investigation to ensure that these costly regulations can be brought to an end?

[George Eustice]

My hon. Friend makes a valid point, because no vCJD prions have been found to be present in sheep. The European Food Safety Authority looked at this issue in 2010 and concluded that the spinal cord from sheep aged over 12 months should still be removed as a precautionary measure. However, we are investigating alternative methods of spinal cord removal that do not require splitting the carcase, and continuing to raise with the Commission the case for reviewing the current controls.

[Julie Hilling (Bolton West) (Lab)]

If the amount of air quality monitoring taking place is being reduced, how will we know that air quality is improving? How does this work?

[Dan Rogerson]

There will still be air quality monitoring; we are talking about the level of monitoring. We want to focus resources on where we can do the most on this issue.

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

I am pleased that the marine conservation designation for the Stour and Orwell site has not been approved. I thank the Minister for that, and can he assure me that it will not be reconsidered in future rounds?

[George Eustice]

Throughout all the assessments we have made of these designations, we have taken account of socio-economic factors, and in the case of Stour and Orwell that was one of the effects we looked at. We recognise the importance of those ports to the economy, both locally and nationally, and that is why we decided not to designate in that instance.

The hon. Member for South West Devon, representing the Speaker's Committee on the Electoral Commission was asked—

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

1. How the Electoral Commission proposes to increase the numbers of military personnel on the electoral register.

[Mr Gary Streeter (South West Devon)]

The Electoral Commission, working in partnership with the Ministry of Defence, runs a campaign each year to encourage service personnel and their families to register to vote. All military units worldwide run a unit registration day, and the commission encourages electoral registration officers to work closely with unit registration officers in their areas.

[Oliver Colvile]

I thank my hon. Friend for that, but is he aware that of the 200 military at the Citadel, where 29 Commando are based, only 17 are currently on the register? May I therefore suggest that the adjutant on bases should be given the job of ensuring that everybody is registered?

[Mr Streeter]

My hon. Friend raises a serious and important issue that he should discuss directly with the commanding officer of the Royal Marines in his constituency, which of course borders mine. However, he will be pleased to know that in February 2014, the Electoral Commission will undertake a joint campaign with the MOD—this might help in the Citadel—in advance of the European elections to raise awareness of the importance of military personnel registering to vote.

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

Does my hon. Friend agree that this is not good enough? We know where our service personnel are, and we know that they have a duty to be registered. Their commanding officers should publish the figures, so that we know where they are when a vote takes place. In that way, the ballot papers can get to them and be returned in time; alternatively, a proxy can be appointed.

[Mr Streeter]

The Electoral Commission completely agrees with my hon. Friend, but these are questions that must also be put to the Ministry of Defence, because a more joined-up effort is required to ensure that the young men and women serving in our armed forces here and overseas have the opportunity to vote in British elections.

[Nick Smith (Blaenau Gwent) (Lab)]

Given the high turnover in voter registration, could the upcoming awareness campaign be highly targeted at military families?

[Mr Streeter]

It is certainly the Electoral Commission’s intention to target military families, and I will take the hon. Gentleman’s representations back to the commission and ensure that that does indeed happen.

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

Does my hon. Friend agree that now is a particularly good time for such a campaign to be launched? We are bringing our troops back from Afghanistan and Germany, and we are establishing five super-garrisons around Britain, which will mean that troops will be based in one place for their entire lives. Now is the moment to get them on to the electoral register.

[Mr Streeter]

As usual, my hon. Friend makes a strong point. Perhaps we should really be looking for a change in the culture of the armed forces, so that it becomes the norm for our fine young servicemen and women to register to vote and to take part in our democratic processes.

The hon. Member for Banbury, representing the Church Commissioners, was asked—

[Andrew Stephenson (Pendle) (Con)]

2. What progress has been made by the General Synod of the Church of England on legislating to enable women to enter the episcopate.

[The Second Church Estates Commissioner (Sir Tony Baldry)]

Yesterday, the General Synod voted by 378 votes to eight, with 25 abstentions, to approve a new package of proposals that will enable women to become bishops in the Church of England.

[Andrew Stephenson]

This is obviously very welcome news. Can my hon. Friend give us an idea of the likely time scale for the introduction of the change?

[Sir Tony Baldry]

My hon. Friend is right; this is very welcome news. As a result of the vote yesterday, I am confident that this House will have an opportunity to pass the necessary legislation in the lifetime of this Parliament.

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

While I of course welcome the progress that has been made, may I point out that if the same arrangements were put in place for a black bishop’s leadership to be challenged and for the case to be taken to an ombudsman, there would rightly be outrage?

[Sir Tony Baldry]

I am not entirely sure what point the hon. Lady is trying to make. The proposals put forward by the General Synod have had overwhelming support. If she looks at the figures, she will see that they have complete support throughout practically the whole of the Church. Perhaps she would like to discuss her concern with me outside, because I do not really understand the point she is trying to make.

[Martin Vickers (Cleethorpes) (Con)]

I, too, welcome the fact that the Church has at long last made progress on the matter of women bishops. I know that my hon. Friend has seen the report by Professor Linda Woodhead entitled “Telling the truth about Christian Britain”, which makes rather depressing reading for those of us who are members of the Church. Is he confident that the Church can now move on from these endless internal debates and start preaching the gospel and working for the good of society?

[Sir Tony Baldry]

My hon. Friend makes a good point. The sooner we can resolve the issue and have women deacons, priests and bishops in the Church of England, the sooner the Church will be able to move forward and fulfil its broader national ministry.

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

After the disappointment of last year, this is indeed welcome news. Perhaps those members of the clergy who still have reservations—I hope that they are few in number—should come to the House of Commons and see the exhibition in the Admission Order corridor showing the struggle that women had to get the vote and the right to be elected to the House. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that, now that the Church of England is taking this welcome step, other religions and faiths that discriminate against women—I could list them, but I will not—should follow the same path?

[Sir Tony Baldry]

May I gently say to the hon. Gentleman that it is slightly more complex than he suggests? Some of those who are opposed to women bishops are themselves women. They are conservatives and evangelicals who have theological objections because they believe in male headship. I do not think that we can necessarily castigate people who are against women bishops as being against women. The good news is that we now have a way forward that will enable us to have women bishops—I hope by the end of this Parliament.

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

The congregation of the Church of England has been in headlong decline for a long time, and that is continuing. How likely is it that that trend would be reversed were the Church of England by some chance to pursue its existing policy of barring women from being bishops, which most people think is redolent of a past era?

[Sir Tony Baldry]

I am glad to say that a large number of parishes are growing. The Archbishop of Canterbury has made it clear that his primary mission is growth. We want to see the Church of England grow. Hopefully, now that we have resolved the issue of women bishops, everyone in the Church of England and everyone who supports it can focus their intention on that growth.

[Valerie Vaz (Walsall South) (Lab)]

3. What recent assessment the Church Commissioners have made of trends in recruitment of clergy.

[Sir Tony Baldry]

The number of ordinations to stipendiary ministry has remained broadly stable over the past 20 years. In 2012, 11,375 ordained clergy and at least 1,411 chaplains were serving in the Church of England, and there were 12,953 parishes. As a result, it is not unusual for a parish priest to have the care of souls for more than one parish.

[Valerie Vaz]

The vicar at St Lawrence church in Darlaston in my constituency has to cover All Saints in Darlaston and All Saints in Moxley. Will the hon. Gentleman find a way to support her, perhaps by considering the appointment of another full-time vicar?

[Sir Tony Baldry]

The pay of clergy and how clergy are organised is a matter for the diocese and the local bishop. The hon. Lady has kindly written to me about this issue, which is causing her concern. I will, if I may, take it up with the Bishop of Lichfield and come back to her.

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

Local churches are at the heart of rural life. We have parish priests who are asked to look after sometimes four, five or six parish churches. Can we keep that situation under review? We want to keep the parish churches open, but it is more than humanly possible for one person to nurse so many parish churches.

[Sir Tony Baldry]

Those are all challenges that we face. How we maintain and keep churches open in rural areas and ensure good ministry for new housing estates in urban areas are the responsibilities of diocesan bishops. We are fortunate in having some excellent new stipendiary clergy coming forward and a large number of self-supporting ministers who support the work of the Church of England. The point that my hon. Friend makes is a good one. Essentially, the Church of England has to be a national church, serving all parts of the country, and we are determined that it should continue to do that.

[Mr Robin Walker (Worcester) (Con)]

4. What plans the Church of England has to support credit unions.

[Sir Tony Baldry]

The Archbishop of Canterbury has highlighted the need to support credit unions, so the Church is developing a credit union in association with some other national churches from across the country. To drive that, Archbishop Justin has convened a task group, which will be chaired by a senior figure from the banking industry with much relevant experience of the whole sector.

[Mr Walker]

I welcome the archbishop’s commitment to credit unions, but is my hon. Friend aware of the investment by the Worcester diocese in the Castle and Crystal Credit Union in Dudley, which is available to many of my constituents living in social housing in Worcester?

[Sir Tony Baldry]

That credit union is a model one. This will be a generational change; it will not happen overnight. We all need to support the credit union movement to ensure that those on low incomes and those who may have difficulties accessing credit do not fall into the hands of loan sharks. We are determined to take forward the building up of the credit union movement in this country.

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

Following on from the credit union question, the Church of England has many assets and quite a lot of cash investments, could it not invest that directly in a credit union to help the situation?

[Sir Tony Baldry]

My hon. Friend will find that something like 45 bishops in at least 31 dioceses have already been involved in a range of activities to support and raise awareness of credit unions, including investing in them.

[Mr Philip Hollobone (Kettering) (Con)]

Given the financial firepower available to the Church Commissioners, this is an excellent way for the Church of England to re-engage with some of the most vulnerable in our society in these difficult times. Will my hon. Friend encourage the Church Commissioners to devolve the management of these credit unions down to parish level so that the parish priests and vicars can direct the help to those who most need it?

[Sir Tony Baldry]

Credit unions are local organisations. The Church of England will not be running credit unions but will, wherever possible, support them with expertise and buildings and in any way we can. Credit unions are already local organisations and that is part of their importance, just like with local community banks. Of course it is very important that they deliver their services locally.

The hon. Member for South West Devon, representing the Speaker’s Committee on the Electoral Commission was asked—

[Michael Fabricant (Lichfield) (Con)]

5. What further progress has been made on encouraging British nationals resident overseas to vote in UK general elections; and if he will make a statement.

[Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (The Cotswolds) (Con)]

7. What progress has been made by the Electoral Commission on setting a target for increasing the number of eligible overseas voters registering before the next general election.

[Mr Gary Streeter (South West Devon)]

Since May 2013, the Electoral Commission has met representatives from political parties and officials from the Foreign and Commonwealth Office to discuss how they can work together to reach eligible electors overseas to encourage them to register to vote. That has helped to inform the development of the commission’s extensive public awareness campaign for overseas voters in 2014 ahead of the European parliamentary elections. Finally, the commission has set a target for its overseas public awareness campaign for the 2014 parliamentary elections to be more than three times as effective as the campaign it ran in 2009.

[Michael Fabricant]

With 1.6 million Brits living in the US and Spain alone, all entitled to vote in the European elections and the general election, what thoughts has my hon. Friend had about advertising in expat newspapers in those areas and others or perhaps using the embassies and high commissions to promote the fact that those people could and should vote?

[Mr Streeter]

Those are all issues that the Electoral Commission has considered and will continue to consider. In particular, it sends press releases and articles to English-speaking newspapers and radio stations in areas that are strongly populated by expats. The Electoral Commission also conducts a rigorous online campaign to try to persuade people of the benefits of voting in a British election.

[Geoffrey Clifton-Brown]

Is my hon. Friend aware that there are estimated to be 3 million Britons living abroad who could potentially vote yet at the 2010 election only 20,000 were registered to vote? Does he not think that that is a shocking statistic and will he encourage the Electoral Commission to set a target to increase that figure to 100,000 by the 2015 election?

[Mr Streeter]

I certainly agree that it is a shocking figure. Many people are working very hard to try to increase the numbers of British people who are registered to vote. There is a target to increase the number of overseas voters who download the registration form for the 2014 European election to three times the number there were in 2009. If we were to increase the 2010 figure threefold, that would take us to about 100,000 downloads in 2015, which would perhaps be much more beneficial.

[Mr Speaker]

I call Mr Barry Sheerman—not here.

The hon. Member for Banbury, representing the Church Commissioners, was asked—

[Jeremy Lefroy (Stafford) (Con)]

9. What assessment he has made of the effects on churches of metal crime since introduction of the Scrap Metal Dealers Act 2013.

[The Second Church Estates Commissioner (Sir Tony Baldry)]

The enactment of the Scrap Metal Dealers Act is warmly welcomed by the Church. The additional powers under the Act have strengthened the hand of the important agencies against this crime, which for churches is now at its lowest level for many years.

[Jeremy Lefroy]

I thank my hon. Friend for that statement. Will he provide some information about the effects of this welcome Act, promoted by my right hon. Friend the Member for Croydon South (Richard Ottaway), on churches in my diocese of Lichfield, led by the lord bishop?

[Sir Tony Baldry]

In 2011 in the diocese of Lichfield there were 100 claims for lead metal theft costing nearly £200,000. As of May of this year, there were fewer than 10 claims costing less than £10,000. Churches still have a duty to use things such as SmartWater and CCTV, but the fact that it is now no longer possible for robbers to strip churches of lead at night, go round to the scrap metal yard next day and get paid in cash means that we are seeing a considerable drop in lead theft. That is good news and the whole House should be grateful to my right hon. Friend the Member for Croydon South (Richard Ottaway) for getting the Bill through Parliament.

Business of the House

Thursday 21st November 2013 Commons Chamber

10:33

[Ms Angela Eagle (Wallasey) (Lab)]

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

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

The business for next week is as follows:

Monday 25 November—Second Reading of the Water Bill.

Tuesday 26 November—Remaining stages of the Gambling (Licensing and Advertising) Bill, followed by: the Chairman of Ways and Means has named opposed private business for consideration.

Wednesday 27 November—Opposition day (13th allotted day). There will be a debate entitled “Cost of Living and the Government’s Economic Failure”, followed by a debate on business rates. Both debates will arise on an Opposition motion.

Thursday 28 November—Launch of a report from the European Scrutiny Committee on reforming the European scrutiny system in the House of Commons, followed by a debate on a motion relating to issues facing small businesses, followed by a general debate on the G8 summit on dementia. The subjects for both debates were determined by the Backbench Business Committee.

Friday 29 November—Private Members’ Bills.

The provisional business for the week commencing 2 December will include:

Monday 2 December—Second Reading of the Mesothelioma Bill [Lords], followed by a debate on motions relating to Back-Bench business (amendment of Standing Orders) and Select Committee statements.

Tuesday 3 December—Opposition day (14th allotted day). There will be a debate on a motion in the name of the Democratic Unionist party. Subject to be announced.

Wednesday 4 December—Consideration of Lords amendments to the Energy Bill, followed by business to be nominated by the Backbench Business Committee.

Thursday 5 December—My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer will deliver his autumn statement, followed by business to be nominated by the Backbench Business Committee.

Friday 6 December—The House will not be sitting.

I should also like to inform the House that the business in Westminster Hall for 28 November will be:

Thursday 28 November—Debate on police procedures in dealing with mental health issues, followed by debate on retail and the high street.

[Ms Eagle]

I thank the Leader of the House for announcing next week’s business. The Water Bill will finally have its Second Reading on Monday, after nearly three years of parliamentary hanging around. I find it extraordinary that, despite all that time to plan it, nothing in the Bill addresses the key issues of affordability and company taxation arrangements and that only one clause is devoted to flooding. When hard-pressed consumers are struggling to pay their bills, does the Leader of the House not agree that this long-delayed piece of legislation is a missed opportunity to take action on the cost of living crisis? Will he tell us when he expects the Government to set out a more comprehensive package to address flooding?

I note that the Conservative party spent last week’s short recess trawling the annals of its website and confining its pre-election promises to the outer reaches of the dark web in yet another Orwellian attempt to rewrite the past. One of the deleted lines was a promise by the Chancellor

“to harness the internet to help us become more accountable, more transparent and more accessible.”

You just could not make it up! After their recent jaunts to Beijing, I fear that they have fallen further under the spell of the Chinese Communist party than anyone realised.

In another deleted speech, the Prime Minister said that this would be

“the most family-friendly Government we’ve ever had”.

But what has happened? There are 578 fewer Sure Start centres since he got into power and the cost of child care has gone up by 30%. Instead of voting with us on Tuesday to extend child care provision, members of the influential Tory Free Enterprise Group spent their week plotting to slap an irrevocable 15% tax on children’s clothes, and it has emerged that the Government have presided over a cut in the cash going to maternity units.

John Major was right this week when he criticised the dominance of a public school elite in the upper echelons of public life, but how did the Prime Minister respond? He blamed poor young people for their lack of aspiration. How out of touch can this Government get? May we therefore have a debate on the increasing tendency of Ministers to blame the victims of their misguided policies for the plight they find themselves in?

The Leader of the House might remember another promise that mysteriously disappeared from the Conservative party website last week: no top-down reorganisation of the NHS. He might have seen yesterday’s report stating that his £3 billion reorganisation, which no one wanted and no one voted for, has weakened the NHS and put it in a worse position to deal with winter pressures. He will also remember another deleted promise:

“I’ll cut the deficit, not the NHS”.

But today’s figures show that we now have 6,642 fewer nurses. As the winter months arrive, I have heard that the Prime Minister is so worried about the way the Leader of the House’s successor as Secretary of State for Health is handling the NHS that he has personally taken control of accident and emergency planning, so will the Leader of the House arrange for a debate, in Government time and led by the Prime Minister, on how prepared the NHS is for the coming months?

In yet another deleted speech from 2009 the Prime Minister promised to cut the cost of politics. Despite the coalition agreement to cut them, the number of special advisers stands at a whopping 98, rather than the 72 in place when we left office. This week we have discovered that the Government are planning to let Cabinet Ministers appoint 10 more each, at a potential cost of £16 million. Can the Leader of the House arrange for an urgent statement from the Government on yet another broken promise? The Prime Minister might wish that he could erase the Bullingdon Club picture from the internet, but nothing prevented his donning a white tie and tails and standing behind a golden lectern in the City to announce that the cuts are not just for now but permanent. He used to pretend that he did not come into politics to make cuts, but now he has really let the mask slip. Is it not time to admit that the rebranding of the Tory party has been a total failure? It is just as toxic as ever. The Conservatives said, “Vote Blue, go Green.” They have even changed their logo to a tree. But now apparently they want to get rid of all—I have to use this phrase, Mr Speaker—the green crap. They said that they would reform our politics, but now in the lobbying Bill the Government are legislating to shut ordinary people out. They said that they believed in a big society, but now they just play the politics of division and the dog whistle. The Conservatives can delete what they like from their website, but the British people will not forget that they were sold a husky pup. It is no wonder that the planning Minister wants to delete their name as well.

[Mr Lansley]

I am grateful to the shadow Leader of the House. We are quite used to business questions being not really about the future business so much as what is currently off the top of the head of the Labour party, but it is normally a bit funnier. I will confine myself to the questions.

There was a question about the Water Bill. We will have the opportunity to debate that Bill on Monday. I think it is rather important that the Bill introduces, in addition to measures that will promote competition in the water industry and more rights for consumers, measures relating to flood insurance, which have been the subject of a detailed and difficult negotiation, but which give people most at risk of flooding considerable reassurance. I look forward to that point being made clear in the debate on Monday.

I am afraid that the shadow Leader of the House continues to propagate incorrect statistics relating to Sure Start centres. There are 49 fewer—about 1%. She should have heard what was said by the Deputy Prime Minister on Tuesday and the Prime Minister yesterday and corrected that fact.

I was not quite sure about the character of the debate that she asked for on the so-called public school elite. I am not sure whether I count myself in that elite. She may recall that I attended a public school on a direct grant, in exactly the same way as the right hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr Straw) did. Whether he is a member of the public school elite, I am not sure. It will be entirely in keeping with the Labour party’s approach that, in the case of the right hon. Gentleman, this is a manifestation of social mobility, whereas in my case it is a manifestation of exclusivity. I cannot imagine why that should be.

I am pleased that the shadow Leader of the House referred to young people. I am proud of what we are achieving in relation to young people. We have 1.5 million new apprenticeship starts since the election. We have a reduction of 93,000 in the claimant count for young people. We have the fewest young people not in education, employment or training. These are vital things, and we are doing more. What is being achieved with not only apprenticeships but the new traineeships will make a big difference to young people in the years ahead.

The hon. Lady referred to the NHS and preparations for the winter. She used another incorrect statistic. The reforms of the NHS did not cost £3 billion; they cost £1.5 billion and, by the end of this Parliament, will have delivered savings of £5.5 billion and £1.5 billion of reductions each year on a continuing basis. It is precisely because, in addition to that, the NHS is focused on delivering £17 billion of efficiencies that are able to be reinvested, that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has in recent weeks been able to allocate £250 million to address some of the greatest pressures in accident and emergency departments and only yesterday made it clear that he would make £150 million more available to tackle those difficulties.

We all know that there are staffing shortages in A and E departments. I inherited those when I came into office as Secretary of State for Health, and I sat with the College of Emergency Medicine and said that we would do everything we could to employ more emergency doctors. However, we cannot just magic up more emergency doctors overnight; it takes a considerable time.

As for nurses, I do not think the shadow Leader of the House has been attending the House and listening carefully, because my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said in his statement on Tuesday that more nurses are now being employed in hospitals in relation to acute general and elderly beds, that according to Health Education England hospitals are anticipating recruiting 3,700 more nurses, and that the ratio of nurses to occupied beds has improved since the election so that there are one and a half to two hours additional time per nurse per occupied bed. I am afraid that, as ever, the facts do not support the Labour party’s approach.

There was one omission in the shadow Leader of the House’s requests regarding future business in that she did not ask for a statement or a debate on bank regulation. Labour Members often do that. As the Prime Minister rightly noted yesterday, they are very keen on inquiries but they do not appear very keen in this respect. I hope that there will be an early opportunity for us to hear from the Chancellor of the Exchequer about an inquiry. I think the public are very concerned about the failure of banking regulation that led to the appointment of a wholly improper person as the chair of Co-op Bank. If the Leader of the Opposition is able to tell the press that he is, I think he said, confident of the integrity of the Labour party’s relationships with Reverend Flowers and others, then, by extension, he must know the facts relating to that relationship, and it is incumbent on him to publish them or to admit that he has not actually undertaken an internal inquiry but just wishes the questions would go away.

[Sir Roger Gale (North Thanet) (Con)]

The European Court of Human Rights has drawn attention to the fact that prisoners in this country do not have voting rights, and much consideration has been given to that. Far less consideration has been given to the fact that among the member states of the Council of Europe a large number of countries—Malta is a particularly bad example—hold prisoners for a very long time without charge or trial. Instead of just leaving this matter to the Backbench Business Committee, will my right hon. Friend consider that there ought to be at least one day of the year when this House gives the opportunity to those of us who represent the United Kingdom on the Council of Europe to indicate precisely what we are trying to do about this? A regular debate would be a very good idea.

[Mr Lansley]

My hon. Friend is very knowledgeable about matters relating to the Council of Europe. He will be aware that in terms of the management of business, the establishment of the Backbench Business Committee and the amount of time made available to it was expressly intended to ensure that some of the issues that are regularly the subject of general debates in this House could be considered by the Committee and scheduled for debate in line with the priorities of Back Benchers and not at the whim of Government. That is how the business should be conducted.

My hon. Friend will know about the reforms to the Council of Europe made in Brighton last year, which will, I hope, enable the European Court of Human Rights to focus much more strongly on issues of importance rather than a very large number of proceedings that have not been taken forward. I hope that he and others in the House appreciate the way in which the Secretary of State for Justice gave evidence to the Joint Committee that is considering the draft Voting Eligibility (Prisoners) Bill yesterday. That demonstrated how seriously we take our obligations in this respect.

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

May we have an urgent debate on domestic violence? In my constituency there is a lack of a joined-up policy between the Government, the police and the local authority. We are seeing the closure of refuges, and everyone is blaming each other. We need a joined-up policy on this very serious issue. Will the Leader of the House commit to provide a debate in Government time?

[Mr Lansley]

I cannot promise a debate at the moment. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will be aware, as will the House, that that was one of the areas focused on in some important debates relating to international women’s day last year. The Government, my right hon. Friends the Home Secretary and the Secretary of State for Culture Media and Sport and others have been working very closely together to tackle issues relating to domestic violence through the action plan on violence against women and girls. This is an important issue for us and we are taking action on it. We will continue to return to it on a regular basis.

[Harriett Baldwin (West Worcestershire) (Con)]

May we have a debate on flexible working? The employment rate in the UK is one of the highest in the world and I think that is down to some of the steps that the Government have already taken to improve the right to request flexible working. Such a debate would also allow us to discuss the plans for shared parental leave, which I think will also increase the employment rate, particularly among women.

[Mr Lansley]

What my hon. Friend says is true and important. I think that we have now demonstrated that it is a myth to suggest that flexible working and the rights associated with it are somehow an impediment to successful business. In fact, they are often integral to successful business, because they enable businesses to acquire and retain the skills they are looking for, especially as far as women in the workplace are concerned. This country has a very high participation rate of women in work and record levels of women’s employment. I think that is absolutely part of what is enabling businesses in this country to respond successfully to, and to recover at the same time as, the economy.

[Helen Jones (Warrington North) (Lab)]

Could the Leader of the House find time for a debate in Government time on taxation policy? Many of us would like to debate the unfulfilled promise that the Chancellor and the Prime Minister made to publish their tax returns, so that we can see exactly how much they have gained from cuts in the top rate of tax and work out how much they might gain from the current proposals to impose VAT on food and children’s clothing in order to cut taxes for the rich.

[Mr Lansley]

On the last point, I do not think the hon. Lady listened yesterday when the Prime Minister said that we had no such proposal. On other tax matters, the Chancellor of the Exchequer will, of course, deliver his autumn statement at the Dispatch Box on 5 December.

[Dr Matthew Offord (Hendon) (Con)]

Many couples in my constituency choose to have children at a younger age for religious and social reasons. Although I support their decision to do so, I would like assurances that there is appropriate support for those younger mothers. May we have a debate on what this Government have implemented to ensure that every mother has a health visitor before her baby is born and continues to receive support afterwards?

[Hon. Members]

Sure Start centres!

[Mr Lansley]

My hon. Friend makes an important point. Opposition Front Benchers mention Sure Start. One of the most important things for mothers and young families is to get that start right, but it is not just about the availability of a centre; it is about the availability of a health visitor for every family to give them the right start in life. Under the previous Government, health visiting ceased to be a universal entitlement for mothers and young families as they started out. That is why we committed ourselves—it is in the coalition agreement—to providing 4,200 more health visitors. From memory, I think there are about 1,000 more health visitors already. We are on track to deliver on that commitment. That increase of 50% in the number of health visitors will be integral to giving mothers and young families the support they need to get the right start in life.

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

John-Paul Conley of Middlesbrough has been missing since Tuesday 19 November, when he was caught in a current and carried away while swimming in the Don Khon 4,000 islands region in Laos. Since yesterday, more than £23,000 has been raised to aid the rescue effort. May we have a statement at the earliest opportunity from the Foreign and Commonwealth Office on the search and rescue attempt for John-Paul?

[Mr Lansley]

I know that the House will be as concerned as the hon. Gentleman and his constituents about this. I will, if I may, talk to my right hon. Friend at the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and ask him to respond to the hon. Gentleman and the House on what steps can be taken.

[Jake Berry (Rossendale and Darwen) (Con)]

The Britannia Coco-nutters, led by their longest serving member, Dick Shufflebottom, have danced in Bacup in my constituency for the past 156 years. They survived the depression, two world wars and the winter of discontent, but it looks as though their boundary dance may not survive the health and safety inspectors from Rossendale borough council and Lancashire county council. Will my right hon. Friend ask the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government to come to the House and make a statement about how the Britannia Coco-nutters can be accommodated for generations to come?

[Mr Lansley]

I am interested to learn about this from my hon. Friend as, I am sure, are my hon. Friends at the Department for Communities and Local Government. If the matter relates to the Health and Safety Executive in particular, the Minister of State, Department for Work and Pensions, our hon. Friend the Member for Wirral West (Esther McVey), who I know takes a common-sense view of things, will be happy to talk to my hon. Friend about how such provisions are properly applied in this case.

[Kevin Brennan (Cardiff West) (Lab)]

Later today we will debate the cost of this place and the savage cuts being imposed on it. At the same time the Government are creating more Lords at the other end of the building. The other place is a model of care for the elderly. May we have a debate on introducing a retirement age in the House of Lords so that this massive job creation scheme can at least be brought under some sort of control?

[Mr Lansley]

I was not quite sure where the hon. Gentleman was going with that. We will of course have an opportunity to debate the finances of this place. It is a bit rich for any Labour Member to talk about savage cuts. In order to reduce the deficit, we have as a matter of necessity to reduce the costs of administration, and we are doing so in this place in the same way as is being done in other public services. I am not sure whether those in the other place would take kindly to the way in which the hon. Gentleman expressed himself. They have done a lot of work on the Care Bill and we are looking forward to seeing that. The hon. Gentleman will be aware of the House of Lords Reform (No. 2) Bill being promoted by my hon. Friend the Member for North Warwickshire (Dan Byles) which, if passed, would allow Members in another place not simply to have leave of absence, which they do at present, but to retire.

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

The Leader of the House will be aware of the statement in the House yesterday from the Secretary of State for Defence that this House will be given an annual opportunity to consider our reserve forces. May we please have a statement on whether it is the Government’s intention that this annual debate should be in Government time or whether it will be diverted to the Backbench Business Committee?

[Mr Lansley]

I did indeed hear my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State. I recalled him making it clear that there would be an annual report to the House. I do not think he made a specific commitment as to how that report would be received by the House and debated, but I will discuss that collectively and through the usual channels, as usually happens.

[Nic Dakin (Scunthorpe) (Lab)]

Yesterday the Prime Minister failed to acknowledge that more than 500 children’s centres have closed on his watch. May we have a debate about the impact of the closure of children’s centres on the Government’s watch?

[Mr Lansley]

I heard the Prime Minister respond to that question and provide the accurate figure, which was that something approaching 1% of Sure Start children’s centres have closed—nothing like the figure the hon. Gentleman refers to. The Prime Minister also pointed out that financial support for early intervention is rising in this financial year from £2.3 billion to £2.5 billion.

[Jonathan Evans (Cardiff North) (Con)]

May we have an early debate on the future of mutuals and co-operatives, so that those of us who have consistently supported the mutual concept have the opportunity to argue the case on behalf of well run, properly regulated and non-political mutuals and co-operatives, and to demonstrate the contribution that they have made to this country?

[Mr Lansley]

I cannot promise a debate immediately, but I completely understand the point that my hon. Friend rightly makes. The failings that have been evident in the way in which the Co-operative bank was run and the implications of that are a matter of the greatest disappointment to many of us. I personally share with my hon. Friend a sense that we do not want that to undermine the commitment to mutuals and co-operatives as a form of organisation for businesses. They have tremendous potential—as yet unrealised potential in many cases—for ensuring that businesses are very successful in the long term because they engage staff successfully and enable staff as well as customers of an organisation to feel that they have a stake in its long-term future.

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

In April 2010, there were 3,631 Sure Start centres in England, according to the Department for Education. The Government currently record 3,053, which is 578 fewer. May we have an urgent debate on children’s centres, given that discussions are still continuing on the Government Benches about whether or not more than 500 have closed since the Prime Minister took office? A debate might help Ministers to prompt his memory.

[Mr Lansley]

I will not repeat myself at length, but the Prime Minister made it very clear yesterday and I have already said today that about 3,000 children’s centres are open and only 49 have closed.

[Mr Stewart Jackson (Peterborough) (Con)]

There is concern in Peterborough and Cambridgeshire that the future funding of the clinical commissioning group might be based on historical primary care trust budgets, rather than on the formula developed by the Advisory Committee on Resource Allocation, which focuses on such things as demography, age and rurality. Will the Leader of the House implore Health Ministers to base future health funding fairly and equitably on empirical data?

[Mr Lansley]

I completely understand my hon. Friend’s point. Although I will obviously ensure that Ministers at the Department of Health see what he has said, that is no longer a matter for them. By virtue of the Health and Social Care Act 2012, that matter is no longer susceptible to the kind of political influences we saw in the past. It will be determined by NHS England and, as I understand it, we do not expect it to do so until its board meeting in December.

NHS England has conducted a fundamental review of allocations, and it has statutory responsibilities that are set out in the Act. Under the mandate—openly—the Government have made it clear that we expect

“the principle of ensuring equal access for equal need to be at the heart of the NHS England’s approach to allocating budgets.”

I think that that will be of help to my hon. Friend.

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

Following Hull’s wonderful success in becoming the city of culture for 2017, may we please have a debate about why arts funding is still skewed to London, not to the north of England and areas such as Hull?

[Mr Lansley]

I recall a recent discussion relating to the distribution of Arts Council England and arts funding, so if I may, I refer the hon. Lady to my hon. Friends at the Department for Culture, Media and Sport when they are next here to answer questions.

I do not want the moment to pass, however, without expressing the appreciation felt across the House at the exciting decision for Hull to be the city of culture in 2017. Many of us are aware of how exciting it has been for Derry/Londonderry, and I know from personal experience what a big difference it made to Liverpool. I am looking forward to exactly that kind of personal experience, which we can all have when we visit Hull in 2017, of seeing the tremendous show that it will put on as the city of culture.

[Mr Speaker]

Of course, Hull also has a fine university, which I had the great pleasure to visit and address last year. I think that there is general consensus around the House on this matter.

[Julian Sturdy (York Outer) (Con)]

I am sure that the whole House shares my affection for our local independent radio stations that provide an invaluable service in keeping us up to date on community issues, such as Minster FM in my constituency, but there is concern about the proposed switchover to DAB transmission. As such, may we have a debate on the digital upgrade plan and the impact it could have on local independent radio stations?

[Mr Lansley]

My hon. Friend makes an interesting point, which he may want to raise when that matter comes up at Culture, Media and Sport questions. In the meantime, I will try to secure a response in relation to Minster FM and other stations from my hon. Friends at the Department, who I know are very interested in ensuring that the digital switchover does not impede that kind of local access to community broadcasting.

[Nick Smith (Blaenau Gwent) (Lab)]

The local police and crime commissioner thinks that crime figures have been capped in Gwent, and the chief constable of Derbyshire said yesterday that he thought crime figures were being manipulated. May we have a debate in Government time on crime figures? Some police need to drive down crime, not numbers.

[Mr Lansley]

If the hon. Gentleman is in his place on 2 December, he may wish to raise that matter with my colleagues at the Home Office. From everything I know, I think we are very clear that crime statistics must be accurate and properly reflect crime in an area. As in so many areas, if we are to have confidence in the accountability of organisations, the statistics on which they are held to account—the Home Secretary has been very clear that she is focused on reducing crime—must be accurate and truthful. Fortunately, we have the recorded crime statistics and the national crime survey, and they show in parallel that there has been a substantial reduction in crime under this Government.

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

In my constituency, Labour-run Dudley metropolitan borough council is planning to close Tenterfields children’s centre, which will affect some of the most vulnerable communities in Halesowen and leave residents having to walk 3 miles to attend another centre. May we have a statement on the new statutory guidance that the Government have issued to local authorities on the provision of children’s centres in local areas?

[Mr Lansley]

My hon. Friend makes an interesting point, because the plan to which he refers is being put forward by a Labour-run council. That is interesting, given what is being said by Labour Members. I am sure that that fact will not be lost on his constituents and others.

It is for local authorities to ensure that the provision they offer meets the needs of local communities. As I mentioned, the support that is being provided for early intervention this year is £2.5 billion, which is up from £2.3 billion last year. As my hon. Friend said, councils have a statutory duty to consult when they are planning changes to children’s centre provision so that parents and the public have an opportunity to influence the proposed changes.

[Barry Gardiner (Brent North) (Lab)]

May we have an urgent debate on the Ratner effect, which is the effect on a company when its chief executive describes its products in unparliamentary language? I am sure that the House would want to discuss not just whether but how and why the Government’s green policies have become mired in controversy.

[Mr Lansley]

You have the advantage over me, Mr Speaker, because I was not able to be here throughout questions to the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, when the hon. Gentleman graced his party’s Front Bench. If he wished to raise such a question, he might have had an opportunity to do so then.

[Philip Davies (Shipley) (Con)]

May we have a debate on the activities of Labour-run Bradford council? Not only are there questions about whether there was a cover-up regarding Paul Flowers, but my constituents in Menston have serious and legitimate complaints about the planning process, which led to a planning application being approved on a wholly inappropriate site. I have received a letter from a developer saying that Bradford council planning officers are supporting developers in pursuing another bid for housing on another inappropriate development site, which has been rejected by a planning committee, a planning inspector and the Secretary of State twice. Is it not time that my constituents had a council that worked in their interests, not against their interests?

[Mr Lansley]

I understand why my hon. Friend wants to raise issues on behalf of his constituents about which he has concerns. He will understand that I am not in a position to comment on the specific matters to which he refers. Fortunately, he has the opportunity to raise those matters in the House by seeking an Adjournment debate. That would allow him to set out in more detail for his constituents and for others the concerns that he has about Bradford council.

[Jason McCartney (Colne Valley) (Con)]

I am a proud Co-op member and I use my local Co-op in Honley and Holmfirth every week. May we have an urgent debate on why the Co-operative Group feels unable to give the annual members’ dividend this year, which would help hard-pressed families in the lead-up to Christmas, when it is able to find hundreds of thousands of pounds to donate to Labour party politicians?

[Mr Lansley]

My hon. Friend makes an important point. He will know that there are 7.6 million Co-op members across the country who will not get a dividend, whereas last year they received a dividend of £64 million. That is 7.6 million people who have a legitimate question to ask about why they will not get a dividend when, through the Co-op, loans continue to be made to the Labour party, including in the past few months and—[Interruption.] The Co-op party, yes. Loans are being made by the Co-op bank and the Unity Trust bank. Co-op members will all be asking why the below market rate loans and the donations are continuing, while their dividends are not.

[Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con)]

I do not know whether the Leader of the House saw the front of The Sun today before skipping to the inside, but it clearly states that the Prime Minister is going to get rid of green c-r-a-p levies. That is great news and will keep energy prices down. We are doing something about keeping energy prices down; Labour wants to put them up. May we have a debate on that to make our position clear?

[Mr Lansley]

My hon. Friend will be aware of provisional business for a debate in this House to consider Lords amendments to the Energy Bill, and that may afford him, and others, the opportunity to make such points. Through competition and better electricity market reform, the Government are setting out to ensure that the public have access to the lowest possible tariffs, and that we bring prices to the lowest point that is consistent through competition. At the same time, we must ensure that we fulfil our obligations on the reduction of carbon emissions and meet climate change objectives, but without—quite properly, I think, under the circumstances—loading those costs on to consumers. To meet those otherwise competing objectives, it is important that we help consumers to lower their energy bills and reduce energy consumption. As far as newspapers, and particularly that newspaper, are concerned, I tend to start at the back—I think I am not alone—as I enjoy the sports coverage rather more than I do the front.

[Mr Philip Hollobone (Kettering) (Con)]

An independent civil service is a key cornerstone of the British constitutional system of government. My constituents—and, I suspect, a majority of the great British public—will be deeply troubled by suggestions that each Cabinet member will be allowed to appoint up to 10 political advisers to their office. Given that the number of special advisers is already too great, and their cost too high, may we have a statement from the Cabinet Office on those proposals, and a debate and vote in the House, so that they can be put to rest before they come into existence?

[Mr Lansley]

I realise it may be a little way off, but my hon. Friend may wish to raise that issue when my right hon. Friend the Minister for the Cabinet Office and Paymaster General responds to questions in the House on 11 December. I do not agree that we have too many special advisers at the moment; we need special advisers for a number of reasons and they do an important job. The particular circumstances of coalition government inevitably give rise to an additional requirement, because it is important for both parties in the coalition to have access to independent and politically supportive advice. As part of the civil service reform plan we must understand that valuable and excellent as civil service support can be, civil servants do not have a monopoly on advice. Ministers should be able to draw on additional expert support and advice, and it is sometimes difficult for that to be achieved wholly by organisations outside Government. Sometimes the only way Ministers can get access to that further advice is by bringing experts into the Government, and that is part of the civil service reform plan.

[Paul Uppal (Wolverhampton South West) (Con)]

Recent figures from the Department for Communities and Local Government have shown that Wolverhampton city council failed to collect more than £6 million of business and council tax last year. Given that nationally we are demonstrating a prudent attitude to public moneys, may we have a debate on how we could improve collection rates by local councils? Shockingly, if Wolverhampton city council mimicked neighbouring Sandwell, it could safeguard more than 700 jobs and protect services.

[Mr Lansley]

I completely understand and agree with my hon. Friend. I am fortunate in having in my constituency South Cambridgeshire district council, which last year won an award for the amount of council tax it collected. That is right and makes a big difference. People expect, as a matter of fairness, those who are liable for council tax to pay it, as that enables services to be provided to everybody. If a council is failing to achieve that, my hon. Friend, and others, should draw attention to it and press the council to match the record of the best. If he is in his place on Monday when the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, and other Ministers in that Department, are here, my hon. Friend might wish to reinforce that point with them.

[Stuart Andrew (Pudsey) (Con)]

I was pleased this week to co-host a reception in Parliament for Together for Short Lives. We heard a powerful speech from young Lucy Watts about the impact of her condition and the support she receives from her mother and her local children’s hospice. Together for Short Lives launched eight policies that it would like to see to support children and young people with life-limiting conditions. May we have a debate on those policies to examine them properly and to celebrate the tremendous and wonderful work of children’s hospices?

[Mr Lansley]

I hope there will be an opportunity for the House to consider this issue. We all appreciate the work of children’s hospices in our constituencies. I was pleased to attend the reception my hon. Friend sponsored and to meet people from East Anglian children’s hospices. I was very glad to meet Lucy and to hear directly from her. I hope that as a Government we will be able to respond to some of the things that children’s hospices have wanted for a long time. In particular, pilot sites are doing important work to prepare for a change in the funding system, so that children’s hospices can be assured of a per patient system of funding. While that is being prepared for 2015, we continue to provide more than £10 million annually to support children’s hospices. I personally think that the assurance of per patient funding will enable children’s hospices to plan with even greater confidence.

[Glyn Davies (Montgomeryshire) (Con)]

The terrible impact of Typhoon Haiyan on the Philippines will continue long after the tragedy no longer dominates headlines across the world. May we have regular statements over the coming year to update the House on progress in bringing relief to the people suffering in the Philippines?

[Mr Lansley]

I hope we can find time for statements—written statements and, if possible, a further statement to the House—on the support we are giving to the Philippines. The public have demonstrated, in a magnificent way, their compassion and support for the people of the Philippines through their donations to the Disasters Emergency Committee. The Secretary of State for International Development and the Government have shown that we are able to lead the world in the scale and quality of that support. The House heard from the Prime Minister on Monday that we are now able to do so much more to provide support. For example, the Big Lottery Fund can provide longer-term support to help to rebuild damaged communities. I hope the House will have a chance to hear about that shortly.

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

On 27 June, the Chief Secretary to the Treasury announced that more than £4 billion would be spent on national road maintenance; enough to resurface 21,000 miles of road and 19 million potholes. In my constituency, I am campaigning with The Plymouth Herald’s Pothole Pete for some of that money to be spent on our potholes. Indeed, some are so deep that when it rains people start applying for fishing licences. May we please have a debate or a statement from the Treasury on the amount that Plymouth city council has received, and on the number of potholes that have been fixed nationally?

[Mr Lansley]

My hon. Friend is commendably on the spot in understanding the issues in his constituency. I can give him the news, which I hope he will find welcome, that not only did the spending review announce £12 billion of funding for highways maintenance on strategic and local road networks from 2015-16 to 2020-21, but I am advised that from 2011-12 to 2014-15, the Department for Transport will have provided £9.6 million in capital funding to Plymouth city council for local highways maintenance. I hope that that funding will help to tackle the potholes to which my hon. Friend refers.

[Jeremy Lefroy (Stafford) (Con)]

May we have a debate on how we can better promote to out-of-work UK citizens the tens of thousands of annual vacancies in fruit and vegetable production, which tend to be more widely advertised overseas than in our country?

[Mr Lansley]

My hon. Friend makes a good point. At the moment, we are blessed not only with record levels of employment—1.4 million more private sector jobs—but with record levels of vacancies, so if people are out of work, they should be looking for work; those opportunities are available to them. With the ending of the seasonal agricultural workers scheme, it is particularly important for fruit and vegetable growers to have increased access to the work force they need, when they need it.

Point of Order

Thursday 21st November 2013 Commons Chamber

11:20

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

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. Have you had any notice from the Department for Transport of a ministerial statement today, either written or oral, because although in the past half-hour the Mayor of London has announced a welcome weekend night-time extension of tube services by a few hours, he has also announced 750 job cuts? That obviously relates to the deal he did with the Department for Transport and the Treasury in this year’s Budget, so clearly the Government have a role in the scale of job cuts on the London underground, which will undermine safety on platforms for many of our constituents. Are we to receive any notice of a statement from the Government today?

[Mr Speaker]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his point of order. I confess that I have received no indication that any Minister intends to come to the House today to address this important matter. He is both an indefatigable and a rather ingenious Member of the House, however, and I am sure he will find ways, through the Order Paper and debate opportunities, of which there are many, to raise his concerns further and doubtless in more detail. I hope that is helpful to him and the House.

Backbench Business

Thursday 21st November 2013 Commons Chamber

Finances of the House of Commons

Thursday 21st November 2013 Commons Chamber

11:21

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

I beg to move,

That this House notes the medium-term financial plan for the House of Commons as set out in Appendix A to the First Report from the Finance and Services Committee, HC 754; endorses the intention of the Finance and Services Committee to recommend to the House of Commons Commission a House of Commons: Administration Estimate of £200.6 million, which includes funding for the proposed Education Centre; further notes that, in line with the target for the Savings Programme, this is consistent with a reduction of 17 per cent in real terms since 2010-11; and further endorses the intention of the Finance and Services Committee to recommend to the Members Estimate Committee a House of Commons: Members Estimate of £33.3 million.

I am extremely grateful to the Backbench Business Committee for allowing this debate. Last year was Members’ first opportunity to have a substantial debate on the finances of the administration of the House and their own budget, and this year’s debate very much follows the same procedure. The Finance and Services Committee, which I have the honour of chairing, has produced its report on next year’s estimate and is proposing to advise the Commission that the estimate be £200.6 million. This debate is an opportunity for Members to discuss the report and the related documents, to consider the advice before it is made to the Commission and, I hope, to approve it.

Following a change to Standing Orders this year, the Committee now has a duty to advise on the Members estimate, and I want to make clear the difference between the two estimates. The substantial amounts required to look after Members, in terms of pay, office costs and so on, are dealt with by the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority in the IPSA estimate. The remaining Members estimate deals with the small number of costs left over after most of the costs went to IPSA, and they are such things as IT provision, stationery, liability insurance coverage and the occasional pension liability that occurs as a result of movements in the bond price within the Members contributory pension scheme.

I would like to begin by paying tribute to the staff who serve us. We have the good fortune to be looked after, in all areas of the House, by very dedicated and extremely professional staff who do their utmost to ensure that we can do our work smoothly and efficiently. They often work in difficult circumstances and for long hours, mirroring our work patterns, and are run by a management who do everything possible to help us in everything we seek to do. I am therefore happy to pay that personal tribute, but I believe it is one that Members in all parts of the House would be happy to pay too.

I should like briefly to set out some wider points about the estimate and then make a small number of points that I believe should be addressed individually. At the start of this Parliament, the Commission decided that, in a time of considerable austerity, it was right to have a look at the costs of running the House service. During 2010-11, a rigorous examination was made of expenditure, based on the principle that we should be able to do whatever was necessary for our proper work as scrutineers of Government, legislators and promoters of our constituents’ interests, but that, within that principle, we should seek to do that work as effectively as possible. The result of that examination, which took place over some considerable time through that year, was the medium-term financial plan, which the House agreed to last year and which broadly delivers a 17% reduction on the estimate over the course of this Parliament, from what was estimated would be £231 million at the start to £210 million by 2014. This year’s estimate of £200.6 million is on track to achieve that.

I should add, for those who are aficionados of dissecting the numbers, that some areas of the numbers are not entirely like-for-like. Therefore, to make an exact comparison, one has to take account of those areas of transfer in or transfer out. I can assure the House, however, that in broad terms we are on track to achieve the estimate that we were seeking to achieve of £210 million by the end of the period.

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

Paragraph 2 of appendix A, which is entitled “Medium-Term Financial Plan” and appears on page 12 of the report, lists

“a number of significant policy matters and events on the horizon that may have a bearing on the budget”.

The variability of the sums derived from those items seems to be enormous, so how can we have any confidence in the figures that the hon. Gentleman is presenting to us?

[John Thurso]

The Finance and Services Committee has looked in detail and scrutinised all these areas. One of the major factors that will affect the estimate is the movement of the House pension fund from our own resources across to the civil service, which will change the way it is accounted. The other areas where there is a degree of uncertainty include, for example, the impairment costs, which we have been advised should be made in respect of certain buildings, and the way we account for them. These have been moved from the capital cost, which is where they were budgeted for, to the resource account of the administration budget, where it is thought they should more properly be. I hope that answers, in part, the hon. Gentleman’s question.

[Andrew Miller]

With respect—I do not mean that to be interpreted in the usual way—the first item on that list is:

“Palace of Westminster Restoration and Renewal”.

That is a massive imponderable. We have no idea at present of the scale of that cost, the timetable or where all the other items on the list ought to fit into the context of that project.

[John Thurso]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for narrowing his question down. I will come to the restoration and renewal project in a moment. The key point is that, except for the points I will make shortly about the contract to make a full, professional and robust estimate of the costs and cost probabilities going forward, none of the costs to which he refers will fall in this Parliament or in the current medium-term financial plan. What the hon. Gentleman has identified will fall into the costs that go forward beyond the time frame of the costs that we are debating.

[Kevin Brennan (Cardiff West) (Lab)]

The hon. Gentleman rightly pays tribute to the staff of this House, and the report refers to our desire to be an “exemplary employer”. Will he confirm that no one working in this place is employed on a zero-hours contract and that staff receive at least the London living wage?

[John Thurso]

I can confirm both those points. Indeed, this was going to be my first substantive point. I suggest that I come right on to it and make my points; if the hon. Gentleman is not satisfied with them, he can intervene on me again.

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

Allowing for ins and outs, the global reduction on House expenditure is 17%. Does the same apply to expenditure by, and on behalf of, Select Committees? Will the same reduction in expenditure be achieved for Select Committees?

[John Thurso]

I intend to cover resources to Select Committees as one of my five main issues. The 17% figure applies to the total, but there are variances within it. I believed it was important to approach this from the beginning not by saying, “There is the budget; let’s just slice it and take 17% off everything”, but by looking at areas where bigger savings or fewer savings might be made. The objective was to deliver the appropriate service that we as parliamentarians require to do our work. That was certainly what lay behind the work that was done. There is an issue relating to Committee resources, and I promise to come on to it. Again, I invite my hon. Friend to intervene on me later if he is not satisfied by what I say.

[Sir Paul Beresford (Mole Valley) (Con)]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his point. He would add, of course, that some positive savings may be made—in other words, the work of the Administration Committee and other Committees can support positive saving, so it is not just a case of making cuts.

[John Thurso]

Indeed. I believe my hon. Friend refers to the income generation strand. I intend to refer to that, too, so I invite him to intervene again after I have dealt with it. I suspect that the Chair of the Administration Committee intends to catch your eye, Mr Speaker, and may well speak on this subject, as I know that this Committee has done a considerable amount of work on it.

[Thomas Docherty (Dunfermline and West Fife) (Lab)]

The hon. Gentleman is giving us a foretaste of his speech, so will he say whether he intends to speak about the cost of maintaining the fabric of the House as well?

[John Thurso]

Indeed. Another of my five points deals with restoration and renewal. Perhaps it would be a good idea if I just got on with it, Mr Speaker!

I was about to clarify the five points on which I wanted to focus: first, pay and contracts; secondly, income generation; thirdly, restoration and renewal; fourthly, the education centre; and, fifthly, Committee resources. There are a huge number of other issues within that. I have with me the last three days-worth of reading provided for me on virtually every subject. I am happy to try to answer any points raised, but I would like to stick mainly to the five points that I have drawn out as being the most important for our consideration today.

On pay and conditions, then, I have said before that we have a very high quality of staff. In my judgment, it is imperative to maintain that, and to do so, we must be exemplary employers. It is indeed the firm intention of both the House of Commons Commission and the Management Board that the House service be regarded as a model employer, using the best practices in employment. As we all know, however, the road to hell is paved with good intentions, and it is not so much the intentions that count as how we give effect to them.

Let me deal with our commitment to the London living wage. I may be in danger of getting pelted for what I say, but I pay tribute to you, Mr Speaker, because you have led the drive with the Commission and the Management Board to ensure that we make a full and true commitment to the London living wage. You have provided an important piece of leadership on that issue. Both the chair of the Commission and the chief executive of the House service take the issue of the London living wage extremely seriously. The House is aiming to secure accreditation as a living wage employer from Citizens UK before Christmas this year and to achieve full compliance on all our contracts by April next year. That means our approach goes beyond the accreditation requirements. I can report that as of today all current House staff and all agency staff supplied to the House are paid at least the London living wage, and that contractors with dedicated staff who are based on the estate are paying those staff at least the London living wage, with a small number of exceptions that are currently being addressed and which we anticipate will have been addressed within a very short space of time. The final category is other contractors that provide services to the House. Good progress is being made to ensure they are paying their UK staff at least the London living wage if in London, or the living wage if outside London. I reiterate that we are on course to be accredited by Christmas and we are on course to meet the goal of having everybody, including our contractors, in compliance by next April.

[Thomas Docherty]

The hon. Gentleman will recall that, with the support of my hon. Friend the shadow Leader of the House, I tabled some parliamentary questions a few months ago about the living wage. At the time, the hon. Gentleman said a small number of new starters—agency staff, I think—were not receiving the living wage in their probationary period. Has that issue now been addressed? If the hon. Gentleman could write to me about that, I would be most grateful.

[John Thurso]

My belief is that that issue has, indeed, been addressed—and I think I have just had a little divine inspiration to confirm that. If, by any mischance, I have misinformed the hon. Gentleman, I will most certainly write to him, but otherwise he may take it that that has indeed been addressed.

The second issue I wish to touch on is what are termed zero-hours contracts. The Commission asked the Finance and Services Committee to look at that issue and prepare advice. We are in the final stages of preparing that advice and it will go to the Commission at its next meeting on Monday, so it is still, as it were, in draft, but I would like, if I may, to outline what the content of that advice is going to be.

In summary, we are advising that the House should not take on zero-hours contracts. Their key feature is that they do not have mutuality of obligation; that is the critical point that came out. We had a fascinating written and oral evidence session involving some very good employers ranging from supermarkets to the Royal Household and others, and what came out clearly was that good employers with good HR practices are not particularly keen on zero-hours contracts because of this lack of mutuality. We came to the firm view that, as that is the principal feature of zero-hours contracts, we should have nothing whatever to do with them.

We further go on to advise that where staff are currently being employed on a casual basis they should be placed on proper contracts that provide for full and appropriate employee rights with mutuality of obligation, and that that should be supported by best practice and, in particular, by the adoption of a code of conduct. I was particularly grateful to my right hon. Friend—if I may refer to him as that—the right hon. Member for Knowsley (Mr Howarth) who, with other colleagues, put together a report on this issue that included a model code, which we think is very fit and which we intend to recommend to the Commission.

This kind of call-off contract is a much better way of dealing with the perfectly legitimate need to have some casual staff within our service, particularly in regard to catering. We believe that by doing that in the way I have set out, and which we intend to advise the Commission to follow, we will be fulfilling our goal of being employers of the first order.

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

I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on the work he is doing on this, which I think is very helpful. We have been in correspondence over the past year now about the interpretation of the contract of the staff in the Members’ Tea Room. Some of them have been working to certain customs and practice conditions for over 25 years and have had wage cuts as a result of a new interpretation of their contract. That still has not been resolved, and my understanding is that, following last week’s negotiations, the staff are still awaiting an offer from management. Can we try to resolve this situation as quickly as possible? It has gone on for more than a year and is undermining morale.

[John Thurso]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for raising that issue with me. I do not have a specific answer to it, but I take very seriously what he said and will look at it, do what I can and come back to him.

The final point that we learned from our evidence session, and which absolutely every one of the HR directors of the various enterprises made, was: never allow HR and management to use zero hours as a sloppy way of managing staff. Our advice will contain a statement to that effect: that it is proper to have call-off contracts and to deal with casual staff properly, but it must be done with rigorous HR. I do not know what fellow commissioners may or may not say to all that, but I am hopeful that the Commission will accept the advice we are proffering.

The final point I would make on pay and conditions is that change is always difficult and unsettling, even in the best of organisations. I have had experience of, to use the jargon, “re-engineering” two businesses that were going bust to make them sustainable for the future. In making changes and asking people to change the way they do things, there are difficulties and there is absolutely no way round that. That is going on here, but what we are trying to ensure—and seeking to impress on the management—is that this be done as transparently and fairly as possible. There will be blips in morale from time to time, but everything possible should be done to mitigate that, and I believe the House service has listened to the points we have made.

There is of course one major area of disagreement on pay and conditions, which is going to end up being dealt with in court. That is regrettable, but as I understand it the legal advice on both sides is robust, and that is what happens in such situations. However, in most other areas —probably all—the discussions, based on good will, are likely to progress well, and I pay tribute, frankly, to the union representatives who have also engaged in those discussions with House management.

[Andrew Miller]

Of course, we are not a business that is going bust; we are a Parliament, and I am sure we all agree that that is the top priority in this discussion. What contingency is there in the figures if the House is proved wrong and has to pay legal fees and the increments involved?

[John Thurso]

The sums are fully provided for, as the hon. Gentleman would expect. I cannot tell him off the top of my head exactly what they are, including all the elements; if I may, I will write to him. It is obviously several million pounds, but I do not know exactly how many several million, and I would not wish to give the House the wrong information.

When I was saying earlier that I once re-engineered two businesses, I thought, “I know exactly what I would say to that if I was sitting somewhere else in the House”, and the hon. Gentleman has not disappointed me. Of course we are not a business going bust, but in looking at costs, any organisation can look hard at what it is setting out to do and the way it is setting out to do it. We now use iPads and we have radically changed our hours, so how and when we do things have changed out of all recognition, in just a decade. It is therefore right that we look at these issues, and clearly there has to be change.

I turn to income generation, an issue that I anticipate the Chairman of the Administration Committee, my right hon. Friend the Member for Saffron Walden (Sir Alan Haselhurst), will fill the House in on if he catches your eye, Mr Speaker. Parliament, in addition to being a working institution, is an iconic visitor attraction and world heritage site, so it is right that we develop ways of making it available to visitors. It is also right that we retrieve the costs of that. The principles, which I have set out before, are, first, that Parliament is a working institution and its work as Parliament takes primacy over all other activities. Secondly, all citizens have a right to access their MP on all aspects of the legislative process without let or hindrance or charge. Subject to those two overriding principles, however, the House has a duty to open to visitors as much as it can, and to recover the costs involved. The three relevant areas are: the development of more commercial tours; the development of retail activity; and the use of the banqueting facilities by outsiders.

[Kevin Brennan]

It is that last point that disturbs quite a few colleagues in the House. Point 26 of the financial plan talks about

“commercial hire on a limited number of occasions”

and

“on an experimental basis”.

We have managed to survive as a Parliament for several hundred years without having to hire ourselves out, in some cases to the very commercial interests that caused the austerity that has resulted in our cutting our budgets. It would be ironic, would it not, if the bankers were sipping champagne in the people’s Parliament because we needed to raise money as a result of the damage they had caused. I believe that that is a line we should not cross.

[John Thurso]

I completely respect the point that the hon. Gentleman is making, but there are huge amounts of time when we are in recess and not sitting here. Our dining rooms and banqueting rooms are very good facilities that match the best facilities offered by the livery halls and other venues. If we can operate during those times to make money that can be put towards restoration and renewal, for example, that is an absolutely legitimate thing to do.

[Kevin Brennan]

No, it is wrong in principle.

[John Thurso]

The hon. Gentleman and I will disagree about this. Last year an amendment was tabled on the subject, and it was duly defeated. I completely understand his point, and it is critical that the people who have access to this place are properly vetted, but if venues such as Buckingham Palace can open in this way, I see no reason why we cannot do so. We should also be able to recover the costs involved. Clearly we should not charge for room hire for Member-organised events while we are working here, but otherwise, I believe that this is the right thing to do. The House, with its customary caution in these matters, is doing it on the basis of a two-year trial, which is being overseen by the Administration Committee. At the end of that time, we will be able to see how it is going.

[Sir Paul Beresford]

My hon. Friend might be aware that, being close to London, I use the facilities here for charity events to the nth degree. Those events do not involve bankers; they involve ordinary members of the public who, because we are opening our doors, are given a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to see the facilities here and enjoy the expertise of our banqueting service. I believe that, as MPs, we should be opening the House in this way.

[John Thurso]

My hon. Friend serves on the Finance and Services Committee, and I am grateful to him for his comments.

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

I share the view of my hon. Friend the Member for Mole Valley (Sir Paul Beresford) that outside organisations such as charities should be able to have access to these facilities. I am a patron of a charity that had its launch here two years ago, and many people were grateful for that opportunity to come here. However, I also share the concerns of the hon. Member for Cardiff West (Kevin Brennan) to some extent. One of the reasons that the catering department has had to look so much more widely is that political parties and trade unions, which regularly used to use the facilities, were effectively prohibited from doing so following the reforms of a few years ago. We want healthy political parties and well-organised trade unions that serve the interests of their members, and it is something of an irony that those bodies in our civic society that are among the most closely connected to this place are now the least able to use our facilities. Should not that matter be addressed?

[John Thurso]

If I may, I will write to the hon. Gentleman about that, unless the Chair of the Administration Committee happens to know more about the exact criteria involved and can give him an answer now. I believe that the reforms involved removing sponsored events, and that it would still be possible for other events to take place under the new system, but I will find out exactly what the situation is and get back to the hon. Gentleman.

[Andrew Miller]

We need some clarity on that in this debate, as there is some confusion. The events that I run on behalf of the parliamentary and scientific committee, the oldest all-party group, are rocketing in price under the new propositions. Learned societies, universities and science-based organisations should not carry such a burden.

[John Thurso]

I can confirm that there is no charge for events undertaken by Members, and there is a 25% discount on events for outsiders that are sponsored by a Member. There is no discount on events that are run purely by outsiders. That is my understanding, but I will happily confirm that to him.

[Kevin Brennan]

rose—

[Mr Jenkin]

rose—

[John Thurso]

I will give way to the hon. Member for Cardiff West (Kevin Brennan) and then I want to move on.

[Kevin Brennan]

I was endeavouring to organise an event, on behalf of an all-party group, and was told that there was a minimum charge of £750 for the Terrace marquee. Does that square with the point that the hon. Gentleman is making?

[John Thurso]

I really do not want to go further in making comments when I do not have fully accurate data in front of me. In my role as president of the Tourism Society of the United Kingdom, I am sponsoring an event next March, and it is on the same conditions as the event last March. There might be a cut-off for events that are already booked, which is why I might not have the full facts. I will, if I may, come back to the hon. Gentleman and make sure that everyone who is in the Chamber is fully aware of exactly what is happening.

[Mr Bacon]

I am sorry to labour this point, but the hon. Gentleman half makes the point for me. I was told last week by my secretary that a social housing provider in my constituency, which has held events here in the past, thinks that the new terms and conditions will be absolutely crippling and that it will not be able to hold events here in the future. My point, which echoes that of the hon. Member for Cardiff West (Kevin Brennan), is that this is not the InterContinental.

[John Thurso]

I am very well aware of that. The principle is that we should recover the appropriate costs. It would be quite wrong for this House to subsidise anyone from outside in the provision of any facility. It is a matter of retrieving the appropriate cost for an event. That goes back to the principle that I set out at the beginning of the debate. I ask hon. Gentlemen to let me get the exact truth of the matter and give it to them, rather than carry on and possibly make a mistake. The Chair of the Administration Committee might be able to give a fuller answer.

The Palace of Westminster is a heritage site, an iconic building and a major visitor attraction. Most importantly, it is also a working institution in which we work throughout our time as Members of Parliament. It is also a building in which the fabric is at, or well past, its sell-by date. Some mechanical and electrical elements have been nursed on by brilliant engineers, but in any other building they might well have been replaced quite a long time ago. It is clear that a major project of renewal and restoration is required. The Commission’s internal report suggested a number of possibilities, and three broad strands were chosen. It was decided that, as the matter was so important, it should be looked at by external experts who can look both at the robustness of the business cases and at the cost, so that we have the very best possible advice. It has always been my experience that money expended at the start of a process on good understanding of the problem, so that we bottom out and scope the project, saves a great deal of money later on.

Broadly, the three main options are: a rolling programme with no decant—something like we are doing now—but with quite significant changes to working patterns; a rolling programme with a partial decant; or a complete decant to get everything done quickly. Those options will be appraised by the professionals. In order to get the best possible people to do the work, a contract has been put out to tender. I hope to be in a position to announce to the House before we rise for the Christmas recess who has won the tender and the details of it. They will then commence work, which will enable a decision to be made based on robust professional work at some point early in the next Parliament.

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

Is it not clear from what the hon. Gentleman has said that vast sums of money are being spent and will continue to be spent to ensure the upkeep of this building? Nevertheless, decanting must come at some stage because the money that is being spent will not, of course, bring about the total work that is clearly required. I worry that if we continue to delay the decision it will cost much more. I hope that by the end of the Parliament the decision will be reached so that the work that clearly is required—a completely new building, on this present site, of course—can be done.

[John Thurso]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for that point and he and I have corresponded on the matter. It was precisely to ensure the robustness of the decision that the Commission decided to look for external professional assistance with no optimism bias, internal bias or anything else. I have a private view on what the result will probably be, but it would be quite wrong of me to state it publicly before we have seen the results of the work. If we get the best experts we can to consider the issue completely dispassionately and judge it against the criteria we put forward, we must wait and see what they say. I will not prejudge the outcome of their work. It will take a little time to do the report and I suspect that the decision will therefore be one for the next Parliament—although probably for very early in that Parliament. That is probably the correct way forward.

Let me now turn to the education centre. In the last Parliament, a decision was made on the recommendation of the Admin Committee to create a dedicated education centre substantially to increase the number of school visits to Parliament. In the light of the likelihood of the restoration and renewal programme’s going ahead and the financial conditions prevailing at the time, the Commission decided not to proceed with the full-on version but instead to proceed with a more modest approach, which is that being proposed at the moment. The proposal is for a demountable building to be placed on Victoria embankment. It will comprise five education rooms with appropriate facilities for looking after schoolchildren and a dedicated security entrance. The latter, of course, will have the added benefit of meaning that they will not have to come through security at Portcullis House. I know that occasionally there is a clash between the interests of Members and those of the education centre, so that is a happy bonus.

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

I am grateful to my noble and hon. Friend for giving way. Will the separate entrance to the proposed building have annual security cost implications? Is not the estimate for maintaining security at the education centre almost £500,000 a year?

[John Thurso]

Indeed. I would say to my right hon. Friend, who also serves on the Finance and Services Committee, that I was about to bring out the proper concerns he and other members of the Committee hold on that point. I will deal with them fully in just a moment.

The plans I have outlined will allow an extra 55,000 pupils a year to visit us. The current number is 45,000, so it will more than double. I emphasise that quite a lot of research has been done that makes it very clear that engaging with schoolchildren by getting them to come and see this place first hand and be shown how we work is by far one of the most effective ways of securing engagement in politics. I therefore set out not only to defend the education centre, but to advocate it robustly—we ought to be very proud of it.

The plans will depend on a number of factors, one of which is planning permission, which probably will not be dealt with until January or February. I thought it appropriate to draw that to the House’s attention today, as with a bit of luck, a fair wind and planning permission children could be using the new education centre this time next year.

Some Members have made the valid point that perhaps we should put the education centre on hold until renewal and restoration have taken place, but I respectfully argue the exact opposite. The centre will allow twice as many children to come here, so if we were to wait the likely five to 10 years for R and R it could be 12 to 14 years before the additional children came here, by which time several generations of schoolchildren would have missed their chance completely, so it is very important.

The costs involved—about £7 million in capital costs and approximately £1 million in running costs—are quite appropriate and proportionate to what is proposed. My right hon. Friend the Member for East Yorkshire (Sir Greg Knight) is correct that a substantial chunk of the running costs—£470,000 or thereabouts—is for security, but the House’s total security costs are about £25 million, so in context it is not a particularly large sum. My point of view—I happily recognise that it is purely personal—is that £1 million, which we hope their lordships will consent to share with us, would be a suitable and proper investment in the education of our children and in getting them engaged with politics.

[Mr Clive Betts (Sheffield South East) (Lab)]

I am very supportive of the comments the hon. Gentleman has just made. Perhaps it would help other Members to know that that was not the only option that was looked at. Other options for increasing the number of schoolchildren coming here were considered. The only alternative available was putting a facility in No. 1 Parliament street. Anyone who considered that realised that fewer schoolchildren would be able to get through the facility and that it would simply transfer the congestion from Portcullis House and make it even worse at No. 1 Parliament street, so there is no real alternative to the proposal before us.

[John Thurso]

The hon. Gentleman, who also serves on the Finance and Services Committee, makes a valid point. The key point is that the per-pupil cost of this option was the lowest, so those of us who are in favour think that it gives the best value for money. Having said that, I completely recognise the point of view put forward by other Members. I am yet to meet a Member who is against the concept; the question is one of timing. I believe that we have to get on with it, but I fully accept that others do not necessarily share that view.

[Nigel Mills (Amber Valley) (Con)]

Will my hon. Friend answer the concern about how we can end up spending £7 million on a temporary building for this purpose? I imagine that schools across the country could do quite a lot with £7 million, but they cannot get it. It seems a lot for a temporary structure.

[John Thurso]

I am delighted to reassure my hon. Friend that it is not a temporary structure in the sense of being a glorified portakabin. In fact, it is quite the reverse. It is actually a purpose-built, demountable building with a minimum guaranteed shelf life of around 30 years. For a number of years we have had a very good-looking demountable building that used to be used on the green when we first started giving tours of the House. Everybody thought that it was a pretty good building and good value for money. Ultimately, it is about balancing the fact that it would be lovely to have something permanent that might or might not come with R and R with the possibility of having something not very good-looking but extremely portable. This genuinely offers extremely good value for money. The design has been undertaken by architects who were involved in some of the work on the Olympic site. It is really terribly well done. As I understand it, it is so well designed that the only objection so far on seeking planning permission is that one cannot see it—that it is not obvious enough. I therefore think we have probably got it just about right. I reassure my hon. Friend; I genuinely believe that it is good value for money. I commend it to Members of the House.

My final point is about Committee resources. One of the interesting things about this Parliament is the way in which Select Committees have taken on a more robust role following the introduction of election of their Chairs. Other than the Public Accounts Committee, which of course has the full and mighty resource of the National Audit Office behind it, Select Committees’ resources have remained broadly the same. The current plan does not envisage any particular increase, but Parliament should look carefully at what we want to do and how we might best do it. If it is recognised that there is a need for more resource, I would certainly look favourably at that in the next financial plan.

The Liaison Committee, under the chairmanship of my right hon. Friend the Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Sir Alan Beith), should look at the resources of Select Committees, and I would certainly commend that work. The Finance and Services Committee would be happy to engage with the Liaison Committee in that.

[Richard Ottaway (Croydon South) (Con)]

I am grateful for the remarks that my hon. Friend has made about resources for Select Committees. He is absolutely on the button—they have become a victim of their own success. For example, the Foreign Affairs Committee, with a staff of six, is meant to exercise oversight over 900 employees in 140 locations around the planet. We cannot do it. It is critical that the resources are reviewed.

[John Thurso]

I share my right hon. Friend’s views. I am signalling to the House that this should be considered in the same measured manner in which we have looked at other things. If we cut resources in places because we can do things more effectively, we must be able robustly to state why it is necessary to increase resources where we might wish to do so, and how that should be done.

Well ahead of the next planning round, which will be in a year or two, I am signalling that work should be done on Select Committee resources, and I encourage Select Committee Chairs to engage with the Liaison Committee and elsewhere to look at the resources properly and ensure that Parliamentarians’ key job of scrutiny of the Executive and some outside bodies, which we do through Select Committees, is undertaken.

[Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (The Cotswolds) (Con)]

May I preface my question by saying what an excellent job my hon. Friend does in chairing the Finance and Services Committee? Will he confirm that one of the overriding tenets of our decisions on these cuts, which have not been easy, is that they should not affect the way in which Members of Parliament do their job? We have to look carefully at Select Committee expenses because they should not be used as a reason to restrict their effectiveness.

[John Thurso]

I confirm that, in determining the appropriate resource for every activity, we always consider what we are seeking to achieve and the most effective way of achieving it, and we base the resource on that. That is how we wish to proceed.

[Mr Bacon]

The hon. Gentleman is right that the PAC is in a separate category because it has the resources of the NAO behind it, and of course the NAO seconds people to the Scrutiny Unit as well, but even the European Scrutiny Committee, of which I was a member some years ago, had 16 members of staff. It is curious that Select Committees, through the Liaison Committee, routinely undertake foreign visits—for very good reasons, I might add—but if a Committee wants to get even the smallest piece of independent legal advice for itself, it is inordinately difficult. In making the case for more resources, should that not be one of the things that is seriously considered? We need to make sure that Select Committees have access to the best legal advice and subject experts as a matter of routine within the warp and weft of their own activity, without being dependent on others.

[John Thurso]

The hon. Gentleman makes a good point. For most of last year I had the honour of serving on the Parliamentary Commission on Banking Standards. We had the opportunity to engage senior counsel, junior counsel and experts from a wide range of areas. We worked at breakneck speed and in a year came up with what has generally been accepted as a pretty comprehensive and far-reaching report that the Government are now putting into legislation—not enough of it, some commissioners believe, but most of it. The report was paid for by the Government because they had asked for it. That is an indication of how one might consider working in future.

I do not want to prejudge anything, nor do I wish to open a can of worms. It might be possible to say that a Select Committee should or should not travel or that it should spend more money on this or that. It is a debate that Committee Chairs and others involved in Committees need to have. They should do it in a thorough way and put forward something that is really robust, and then, at the financial end of things, we consider it based on fact rather than their saying, “Please give me 20% more.” The days when people just said, “Let’s have 20% more and go and do X, Y and Z with it”, are gone. The right approach is to work out what we want to do and how scrutiny can best be achieved, and then look at how best to deliver the resource.

[Mr Jenkin]

I think that my hon. Friend the Member for South Norfolk (Mr Bacon) was referring to the lack of flexibility in the budgets—the fact that, for example, a Committee cannot forgo its right to go on a foreign trip and use the money to buy, say, part of or a whole extra member of staff. Obviously some Committees have very big travel commitments, but I do not see why those that do not have travel commitments cannot spend their allocation on something different.

[John Thurso]

The hon. Gentleman puts forward the interesting proposition that instead of having a series of silos that each Committee can dip into, each Committee has a budget and then decides how best to use it. That is quite a departure from where we are today, and I therefore could not comment on it other than to say that I find it an attractive intellectual possibility to pursue. My point in raising this was to suggest to people such as him who are considering these matters that a process is needed, and I think the Liaison Committee is the best place for it to be kicked off.

Before anybody else has a chance to intervene, may I say that I think I have now carried out a tour of everything? I apologise for occupying the crease for so long—it is not my habit—but I wished to take all the interventions that were offered as best I could. I commend the motion and the estimate to the House.

12:09

[Thomas Docherty (Dunfermline and West Fife) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (John Thurso) and to be called to speak in the same debate as the Chairman of the Administration Committee, the right hon. Member for Saffron Walden (Sir Alan Haselhurst), who is looking rather less bleary-eyed than I expected having no doubt been up all night watching the Australians collapse in the opening test.

Several years ago, there was a by-election where the Labour party did not do particularly well, and a then Labour Minister, who I will not name for obvious reasons, went on the radio to explain our poor showing and said that the reason Labour voters had stayed at home was that they were clearly very happy with what the Labour Government were doing. Looking around the Chamber at today’s attendance, I wonder whether some colleagues may wish to draw the same conclusion—that the reason there are not as many colleagues here as there might have been is that they are so delighted with the work that has been done by the Commission under your chairmanship, Mr Speaker, the Administration Committee and the Finance and Services Committee. It is surprising that many of the MPs who on previous occasions have complained vocally have not come along or tabled an amendment. I therefore assume that they are broadly content or have no better plans for how to make the necessary savings. I appreciate the incredibly difficult job that you, Mr Speaker, and your fellow Commission members have in trying to come up with those savings. I am struck by the fact that at a time when we are always preaching across the House about the need to make savings, some Government Members are asking for more money. That is very difficult to justify to our constituents. We must get better at spending the limited resources that we have.

I want to address three of the areas that have been covered so well today. First, on the catering and retail services, the Administration Committee has made it absolutely clear—I do not think I am speaking out of turn in saying that the Commission shares this view—that it is ludicrous that we have in the Palace of Westminster two sets of catering and two sets of retail outlets that are run completely separately. I know from the Clerk of the House and from you, Mr Speaker, that there is genuine good will towards the idea of seeking to merge the two services. I hope that my hon. Friend the shadow Leader of the House will set out the Labour party’s position and the Leader of the House will set out the Government’s position on whether that is a good idea. We could achieve significant savings for the taxpayer that would help us to fund other services if we were to persuade the House of Lords that while the House of Commons is making real savings, it must do more at its end of the building to bring down costs.

On the broader point about catering costs, I fully support the work that has been done by the right hon. Gentleman who ably chairs the Administration Committee in bringing forward proposals not to make money from charities but to offset the costs. A new set of charges is in place for a trial period, as of course you fully know, Mr Speaker, because it is costing the House money to provide our facilities to outside organisations.

[Kevin Brennan]

Just for clarity, let me say that in objecting to this House being hired out to certain organisations, I am not talking about charities but about corporate interests.

[Thomas Docherty]

I think we can all agree that pop bands would certainly not be classed as having a corporate identity. We are all looking forward to the world-famous parliamentary pop band MP4 entertaining us in a few weeks’ time. I am sure that you will be coming along to the Strangers Bar to see them on 10 December, Mr Speaker. I hope that that will generate some extra revenue. We all commend that excellent band for what they are doing.

My hon. Friend makes a valid point about which are the right organisations to bring in. The Administration Committee and the Commission have looked at this very carefully. We are saying that it would not be open to any organisation—there will be a vetting process—and it will be for the House itself, through the Chairman of the Administration Committee and the Committee more widely, to ensure that only appropriate organisations come here. I know that my hon. Friend is phenomenally busy doing a fantastic job in our education team, but if he wanted to come and have a chat with the Committee about the type of organisation that he would not like to see here, I am sure that we could reach a suitable accommodation with him.

[Mr Speaker]

Order. So that our proceedings are fully intelligible to those outside this place, it might be helpful to point out, with reference to the hon. Gentleman’s observations on MP4, that the right hon. Member for East Yorkshire (Sir Greg Knight) and the hon. Member for Cardiff West (Kevin Brennan), both here present, are distinguished members of said band.

[Thomas Docherty]

I am most grateful for that clarification, Mr Speaker.

If my hon. Friend or other Members on both sides of the House have genuine concerns about specific organisations they do not think are appropriate to be using our facilities, I am sure that the Administration Committee and the Commission would be happy to hear representations from them. The intention is not to turn Parliament into a Disneyland, as an hon. Member who is not here has said previously, or to rent it out to any old organisation. My hon. Friend makes a valid point, because some organisations have, in the business parlance, a reputational risk for Parliament. At the same time, we need to offset the cost of running Parliament and, as you have set out, Mr Speaker, we cannot simply keep going back to the taxpayer to ask for more money. We have to look not only to reduce our costs but to offset them wherever possible.

Concern has been expressed on both sides of the House about charities being charged, but the fact is that it costs us money to make these facilities available, and charities have a 25% discount on their hire charges because we recognise that they are not-for-profit organisations. We do not seek to prohibit or inhibit the ability of charities and other organisations to use our facilities—we very much welcome it—but we have to make sure that we are not, in effect, subsidising those charities.

[Kevin Brennan]

I am sorry to intervene again; my hon. Friend is being very generous in giving way. I think it is impossible to distinguish between different corporate interests. There will be issues of controversy with regard to all sorts of corporate interests. There might even be an issue of controversy in this House, which we will then be hiring out to those organisations. I think it would be better—I will not make this point again—if we simply stuck to charities that are registered with the Charity Commission; then we would all know where we were.

[Thomas Docherty]

I am genuinely grateful for my hon. Friend’s comment, but where I disagree with him, with the greatest respect, is that we already rent out to the private sector. If Members were to walk down the Dining Room Corridor at 8 am every morning, they would see each Dining Room being used for breakfast. A large number of those breakfast events are—

[Kevin Brennan]

Sponsored by Members.

[Thomas Docherty]

But they are paid for by businesses. If Members were to go to the Terrace Pavilion every evening, they would see receptions taking place that have been paid for by companies.

[Kevin Brennan]

Sponsored by Members.

[Thomas Docherty]

The Dining Rooms also have events that are paid for by companies. My hon. Friend keeps saying from a sedentary position that they are sponsored, but that will not change; it is just that it is the right hon. Member for Saffron Walden, in his capacity as Chairman of the Administration Committee, who will be the sponsoring Member. In the same way that individual Members currently sponsor events during sitting times—it is up to hon. Members to make those decisions—the Administration Committee seeks to do so during recess.

I honestly do not see the difference. If my hon. Friend is genuinely saying that private organisations should not be able to hold breakfast, lunch, dinner or drinks receptions, that is a legitimate position, although I do not agree with it. I think that saying that it is okay for an individual Member to do it, but that it is not okay for the right hon. Gentleman to do it, is a false divide.

[Mr Jenkin]

I am entirely in agreement with the hon. Gentleman and I disagree with earlier comments. In fact, it is surely much less compromising of the integrity of Parliament that if commercial organisations want to rent facilities in the House of Commons, they should not need to sweet talk a particular Member in order to do so, but instead make a straight commercial arrangement. Has he thought about having a different scale of charges for, say, a merchant bank that wants to use the facilities to promote the flotation of a stock market company, compared with a charity that does something that is recognisably for wider public benefit?

[Thomas Docherty]

We are indeed proposing that there be different rates. As my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff West (Kevin Brennan) has said, charities that are registered either with the Office of the Scottish Charity Regulator or with the Charity Commission will receive a 25% discount, for the very reason given so eloquently by the hon. Gentleman.

I want to make progress, because I am conscious that there is another debate to follow. My second point is about the new MPs who will arrive in 2015. Labour Members hope that we will welcome a very large number of new MPs, but others may be less keen on that. The Administration Committee took a thorough look at the process that took place over the past couple of Parliaments. It is important to place on record our thanks to the House service and in particular to the Clerk of the House for the work he did with you, Mr Speaker, to prepare our induction in 2010. Those colleagues who have been in the House slightly longer have told us just how chaotic—I put it politely—the process was for them. Perhaps that was your experience when you entered the House only a few short Parliaments ago, Mr Speaker, but the process has improved dramatically under your chairmanship and as a result of the Clerk’s work.

We very much welcome the plans for the future, but they will clearly have cost implications. We recognise that it is important to get Members up and running as quickly as possible. As we all know, constituents—not unreasonably, having in their wisdom voted us into office—expect us very quickly to be able to take up their cases. The lag of six or perhaps eight weeks because of the general election has meant that MPs have not been able to take on new cases. I know from my experience three and a half years ago that deserving cases that need time get lost. The Administration Committee therefore proposes a series of sensible steps to ensure that when a Member arrives, even before they have been sworn in, they will be able to begin to tackle their casework.

That is why Members will be issued with tablets along with their pass as soon as they arrive on their first day. They will get them going and they are also a way of trying to reduce costs, because, frankly, we waste a huge amount of paper every day. I certainly hope we will never get to the point where we wave our tablets during Prime Minister’s questions, but do we honestly need the vast amount of paper we generate every day? Surely we can do much more through electronic devices such as tablets and iPhones. The move that you have championed with the Order Paper is hugely welcome, Mr Speaker, and the move towards greater use of the cloud in the next Parliament is also important.

My third point follows on from the excellent opening remarks by the hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross about restoration and renewal. We are spending a huge amount of money just to keep the place running. The building is now about 160-something years old and the piping and wiring are about 60 or 70 years old. The building has not had an overhaul since the restoration work that took place at the end of the second world war. It is not fit for purpose. Colleagues in both Houses who have difficulty getting around have told me how difficult it can be to get to Divisions because of the building’s lay-out.

I think everyone knows that I am of the view that we need to make the very difficult decision to decant, not only because that will allow us to overhaul this place, which appears to be the cheapest option, but because it will allow us to upgrade our facilities. We really need to make sure that we have a Parliament fit for the 21st century. As has been said, there is an opportunity to do it in one go. I used to work for Network Rail, which was pretty efficient in the end at doing what is called a blockade, whereby it would shut a section of line and do everything—the signalling, wiring and track maintenance—at once. We need to use this opportunity, in the next decade, to have a thorough overhaul so that this place is fit not only for Members, but for the illustrious Press Gallery and for visitors who want either to see Parliament in action or to participate in our democracy.

[Mr Winnick]

I should have said earlier that I want a restored building, not a new building on the site. Does my hon. Friend agree that it would be useful if the Commons decided to fix a date in the near future—for example, 2020—for the work to start, because if we do not do so we will just carry on spending money, as he has rightly said, on work that will not resolve the issue at all?

[Thomas Docherty]

The key thing is that both Houses of Parliament, not just the Commons, need to make that decision. If Members were to go down to the bowels of this place, they would see that it is so interlinked that it is not possible for just the Commons to make a decision. The decision needs to be made on a bicameral basis. I know that you are taking the issue very seriously, Mr Speaker. It is not for me to say when the decision should be made, but I agree with my hon. Friend that 2020—after the new intake has been sworn in and when we get to the summer recess—would be an obvious point at which to decant.

I am conscious that other Members want to speak. I commend the motion and thank the Select Committees that serve this House so ably.

12:19

[Sir Alan Haselhurst (Saffron Walden) (Con)]

In view of the prefatory remarks made by the hon. Member for Dunfermline and West Fife (Thomas Docherty), I think I should assure the House that I was tucked up in bed well before the test match commentary began, in deference to the fact that I hoped to catch your eye today, Mr Speaker. I awoke immensely reassured by the fact that, according to the Australian press, a medium-fast bowler aged 27 years had achieved a considerable breakthrough.

I suppose it is inevitable that I should be speaking from the angle of the Administration Committee, which I have the honour to chair, and dealing—if I may be forgiven for saying so—with bread and butter issues. The Committee has accepted with varying degrees of enthusiasm or concern the need for budget constraints, and we have tried to exercise our role in advising the Commission as to how we could fit in with those requirements.

I would like to add to what my hon. Friend the Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (John Thurso) said about the staff of the House. I have every bit as much cause as he and many of us to recognise what they do for us and the way they serve us. It is also worth remembering that apart from being deliverers of services, they are also consumers of some of those services.

The basic approach I share entirely with my hon. Friend—to recognise that this House is a working building and also an iconic visitor attraction. It is clear that the second consideration should in no way impinge on the first, but it is equally clear that the working pattern of Members of this House has altered dramatically. The amount of time spent in the building has changed, the division of time between constituency and Westminster has changed, and this has had an impact on the availability of facilities.

I emphasise that there is nothing unusual about a subsidy for catering in the House as a place of work. It is unfortunate that too often we are reported in the papers as apparently being 650 people who are running this place to our own advantage in terms of the catering. There are more than 13,000 pass holders who have access to this estate and who need to avail themselves of its facilities for normal refreshment in the course of a working day. Those 13,000 pass holders, be it noted, include representatives of the media, who enjoy the supposed advantage which sometimes they denigrate for others.

We have, nevertheless, a duty to address the scale of the catering subsidy. It was of the order of £6 million in 2010-11 and the aim is to have it down to £3.8 million by 2014-15. It seems sensible to the Committee that we have a twin approach—cutting costs where that could be done in an obvious way, and increasing income. It is right that efficiencies could be achieved. These have been undertaken, and a new, intelligent approach to how we deliver our services on the catering side has, I believe, been achieved. But it is also necessary to increase sales. Surely we want to make sure that what is on offer in our catering outlets meets the needs of all the people who may wish to avail themselves of it. I can report that the footfall in the cafeterias is up 9% and the banqueting covers are up by 14%, so we are making progress in getting the facilities used.

Attention has been drawn in this debate to the room hire charges, which are another element of the changes that we have made. I should say that the charges that are proposed are benchmarked. There is a discount for charities and a further discount for Member functions. This is for a trial period and it is under the strict scrutiny of the Committee. We will feel our way on this. I give an undertaking to the House—words I never thought I would be in a position to offer—that we will look at this very carefully. I recognise that there are possible points of difficulty and so on. We will watch this and, if necessary, look at it again, but the principle is clear and has been enunciated by the hon. Member for Dunfermline and West Fife.

[Andrew Miller]

I, too, woke up enjoying the news on the radio and I was very tempted to listen to it. Has the Committee given any thought to the events that are organised through outside bodies and that are designed to help Parliament, such as parliamentary links day, which you, Mr Speaker, open each year, and events run by the Parliamentary and Scientific Committee, which are designed to help Members of Parliament? Why should they be disadvantaged under the room hire scheme?

[Sir Alan Haselhurst]

We give constant thought to these things and will continue to do so to make sure that we have broadly categorised people correctly. I do not want to get into a mini-debate about some of the functions. I attend many of them and they do not always seem to me to be quite how they are painted, in terms of who patronises them and so on. Often the number of Members attending may not be quite as large as the event organisers were hoping, but we will look at the matter.

My hon. Friend the Member for South Norfolk (Mr Bacon) raised the question of political dining. The change that was made was instigated by two hon. Members who are still Members of the House. It was thought improper that profit should be made by a political organisation, be it a party or a trade union, through having access to these facilities. For many people that has seemed unduly restrictive, but I have always taken the view that if we were to be more relaxed about that, it would have to be on an understanding among the parties in this House that no one was seeking to gain an advantage over another. It is odd, is it not, that those who perhaps take the closest day-to-day interest in political affairs are the ones for whom it is now slightly more difficult to come here in the way they used to.

The other matter to which we have given attention because we believe it is capable of great improvement is how to achieve greater revenue from retail sales. I will admit to being a retailer at heart. My dad kept a shop and I served behind the counter from an early age to earn my pocket money. I have always had a desire to see how I can sell things to people. There is a tremendous opportunity. The people who come here appreciate the fact that there are things they can buy as a souvenir, and we could be much more effective in that regard.

[Sir Greg Knight]

I regularly show visitors around this building but I was shocked recently, going into St Stephen’s Hall, to see that it looked rather like a building site, with workmen hacking up the floor, removing the old tiles—I presume to be destroyed—and replacing them with new tiles. On the subject of increasing sales, why are those old floor tiles not being marketed for sale?

[Sir Alan Haselhurst]

I think I can give my right hon. Friend a definitive answer. There are aspects of the tiles that would make them an unacceptable item for sale. Some of them are to be re-used. We are examining the possibility that reproductions of the original be considered for sale. They will not contain any noxious substances or sharp edges. It might be a very good sales item. I assure my right hon. Friend that I take his point.

[Mr Jenkin]

I have raised the matter in correspondence with Mr Speaker. An opportunity to market tiles on which Disraeli, Gladstone and Churchill walked has more appeal than selling a new tile. We buy bits of the Berlin wall, for goodness’ sake, which have sharp edges. I do not know what noxious substances there are in the tiles, but the precautionary approach seems to be taken to an unnecessary extreme in this case, with the result that we are not exploiting this resource for the House.

[Sir Alan Haselhurst]

The issue is the asbestos element, because we do not want to be seen to encourage people to buy something that is not the safest item to have. We are prepared to consider whether a replica would have any sales value or would be of interest to people, but not to do anything reckless. Equally, we wish to save money by reusing some of the tiles, if we can, so there is not necessarily a bounty to be had from them.

Sales in retail went up by 11% in the year to October 2013, and in the visitor shop by 18%. A new range is being developed, and new marketing and design skills are being brought to bear, with the potential to go much further in that direction.

We are doing everything we can to increase availability for Members’ tours. At times of the year when it is appropriate to have paying visitors—as opposed to people who come in at the behest of Members and, of course, do so for free—we received 161,000 visitors in 2012-13, a number that we aim to double by 2014-15, which could raise an extra £1.2 million.

Another suggestion made to the Administration Committee, which came as a great surprise to me, was the possibility that film makers would pay to use certain locations in the Palace that we were prepared to make available. That could yield a considerable income, and would be done when the House was not sitting. It has been done in the Treasury, for example, so if a Department can do it, there is no reason why this House of the legislature should not consider doing so.

Bringing greater numbers of people into the House raises the question of access. The Palace is an iconic visitor attraction, and if we recognise that people want to come here—whether they be visitors from overseas prepared to pay during the summer months and at other times when we make tours available, or people who have asked their Member of Parliament to host a visit—we should do everything possible to maximise their opportunity to do so.

We must also do so in a way that makes those visitors seem welcome, as I am not sure that we achieve that as much as we should. I am extremely concerned, as is the Committee, which did a report on this, about exactly how we get people expeditiously and comfortably into the building. Because of the understandable dictates of security, the access points become very congested, with people kept waiting for a very long time, which is bad in all circumstances. The queue for the Cromwell Green entrance is unprotected against the elements, and general inconvenience is caused to Members waiting for people to come in, and to those who need to get in urgently but are caught up in a crowd who have just come for a visit rather than to give evidence to a Select Committee or any specific purpose.

For our young visitors, I believe it is important to develop the education centre. Although I understand the views of right hon. and hon. Members about the capital and security cost elements, the fact is that we ought to recognise the importance, from the point of view of a parliamentary democracy, of doing everything possible to encourage young people to come here.

[Jake Berry (Rossendale and Darwen) (Con)]

I am glad that my right hon. Friend is addressing the point about the education centre. Has he ever had a complaint from any visiting school or constituent about the standard of the education service in the House?

[Sir Alan Haselhurst]

I am certainly not aware of any complaints. The education service does a very good job. The question is how we can increase the capacity and do a better job. At the moment, we are very constrained by such circumstances as where people are brought into the Palace.

It is absurd that people may have to queue for a long time before being brought in at the north door of Westminster Hall, and then have to be taken all the way through the building to commence the tour back through it. Handling our visitors in that way makes us unique as a visitor attraction. With a dedicated education centre, there is no doubt that we could enhance the experience of people when they arrive and take them through the building along the proper pathway originally established for tours, as well as to extend our reach to many more schools. I accept the need to expand the funding that we have made available to schools further from London to make it easier for them to come here.

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

The right hon. Gentleman is making an important point. The change of hours on Tuesdays and Wednesdays makes it very difficult to get school parties down here so that they can experience the Chamber and the other place.

[Sir Alan Haselhurst]

I entirely agree. I want to say in the hearing of the Leader of the House and the shadow Leader of the House that no matter what the Procedure Committee has said, I seriously believe that we ought to have an opportunity before 2015 to test the opinion of the House about Tuesday hours, because the change has really cut short the opportunities to bring people into the House. We now have to wait months for a slot for a party from our constituencies, which absolutely flies in the face of what we should be doing.

I am a strong supporter of getting on with the education centre. I think we can say to the public that we are not spending the money on ourselves to increase our comfort; it is for them, for the public. Surely no one will stand up and say that we ought to restrict opportunities for young people to come here and learn something about this important bastion of democracy.

I hope that the Administration Committee’s guidance about ways of increasing income and access does not threaten the prime role of Parliament, which we all understand. The public has a right to suppose that we operate efficiently and effectively, with the modern tools that are now needed in any environment of this kind, but equally, we should recognise that people have a deep love and respect for this institution.

On very many occasions I have escorted parties round—with people coming into the Chamber when they can, and standing where some of the famous names of the past and of the present have stood—and seen them get a genuine thrill. Elderly people have said, “I’ve never been here before in my life,” and the experience is a very emotional one for them. We should respect that and try to make such visits easier, without feeling any shame about the fact that people might want to buy a mug, a pencil or a box of chocolates before they leave the building.

By extending access and maximising opportunities for income generation responsibly and appropriately, we can all benefit from a House of Commons and a Parliament that are as open to as many people as possible, at minimum expense to the taxpayer. That seems to me the objective that we should hold in front of us, and not be distracted from.

[Mr Speaker]

I call Andrew Miller.

12:39

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

Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. [Interruption.] Sorry, Mr Speaker. I was looking at the right hon. Member for Saffron Walden (Sir Alan Haselhurst), who is a past Deputy Speaker.

The right hon. Gentleman’s eloquent speech contained a slight contradiction, which I want to bring gently to his attention, and which I invite him to discuss with his Committee. In response to my observation about the Parliamentary and Scientific Committee, he said that sometimes not enough Members turn up—I totally agree with him on that—but education is a two-way process. People come here not only for us to learn about their skills, but for them to learn about what we do, as per the education unit. It is hugely important that we encourage not only young people, but other people —he mentioned older people who have not had the opportunity—to come here. People might not understand how their life or occupation fits into this place and it is hugely beneficial if they get exposure to it. There is a huge gap between Parliament and areas such as science and engineering, and it is vital that we strengthen our links with them. The Administration Committee is supporting access for young people—I totally agree with him about that—but restricting it for others on an arbitrary basis.

[Sir Alan Haselhurst]

I certainly was not attempting to decry the Parliamentary and Scientific Committee, of which the hon. Gentleman is a distinguished member. It is a matter of observation that at many functions, the host who is paying for the thing brings in a great many people who are associated with them, whether they be volunteers, employees or associates. They of course hope that they will meet some Members, but the dictates of the business of this House, which cannot be predicted, might mean that the number of Members who can attend is quite small. The host brings a lot of other people to Parliament and I am very happy that they should do that. The proposal will not necessarily have an impact on what goes on now.

[Andrew Miller]

When I bring a school party here, I am one MP meeting 30, 40 or 50 schoolchildren. When I host events, as I did the other day on the important issue of immigration policy and science, the number of Members of Parliament who are present is unfortunately sometimes very small. However, an awful lot of people left that room better informed and educated about the processes that are going on inside the Government and the Opposition.

[Mr Kevan Jones (North Durham) (Lab)]

I understand the point that my hon. Friend is making. However, it does not relate only to this place. I want to thank the parliamentary outreach department. I know that you visit different parts of the country, Mr Speaker. A few months ago, my hon. Friend the Member for Easington (Grahame M. Morris), the hon. Member for Redcar (Ian Swales) and I took part in an event in which we talked to health service charities in the north-east about how they can get engaged in Parliament. Sometimes we place the emphasis on this place, whereas what we need to do is to take Parliament out to the regions. Those events are well attended and very beneficial to people.

[Andrew Miller]

I could not agree with my hon. Friend more. Indeed, I did a gig for the outreach unit in his constituency, which was linked to the activities of the British Science Association. It was a hugely successful event. The young man who services the outreach unit in Durham is a first-rate example of what my hon. Friend is talking about.

I want to talk a little about what we are doing with electronic devices.

[Kevin Brennan]

Before my hon. Friend moves on to his iPad, may I return to the intervention by the distinguished Chair of the Administration Committee, in which he made the point that things will not change? When I inquired recently about the Terrace marquee, I was told that for an all-party group that does not represent any commercial interests—the all-party group on folk arts, in fact—the room hire alone would cost £750, which meant that the event could not take place. It is bad enough to have to get sponsorship for the catering, but having to pay £750 is prohibitive for a Member who chairs an all-party group.

[Andrew Miller]

That is exactly the point that I want to make. Many of the events to which I am referring are sponsored by me, but financed by learned societies, which by definition are not-for-profit organisations. They get trapped in the same way. That is why I invite the right hon. Member for Saffron Walden and his Committee to take a fresh look at the interpretation of the proposals.

As you know, Mr Speaker, my Select Committee was one of the first to take up the challenge of using electronic communications. Somebody said that if the Science and Technology Committee were not prepared to do it, either we had the wrong people on the Committee or we were asking the wrong question. It has been an interesting experiment. It has the potential to generate savings. The innovation was prompted by the need to make savings, but there are other drivers of it. It will allow multi-media, audio-visual and social media mechanisms to develop within the Committee structure and within the House more generally. Those elements need to be factored in, although some of them would be easier to achieve during a major refurbishment of the House.

I was on the old Information Committee in the days when we took the decision to move away from 405-line televisions and to use 625-line televisions with the cabling that we use now. That was the wrong decision and it was done on the cheap. We went for copper instead of the blown fibre that we should have used, because the costs were enormous and the House rejected that option.

My hon. Friend the Member for Dunfermline and West Fife (Thomas Docherty) is right that a radical decision must be taken, whether we like it or not. When we get to that point, we need to have a comprehensive, strategic plan for how the communications systems will be developed. The opportunities would be endless if one had open access to this building to put in modern systems.

The experiment with iPads has thrown up some interesting new ways of working, but it has also thrown up challenges. With the of greatest respect to the hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (John Thurso), who made a brilliant presentation, he had under his arm a 2 inch-thick file of papers, because such detailed accountancy work cannot be done on an iPad. The software systems that are available are not up to the multitasking approach that one must adopt when dealing with complex projects. With the current technology, it is difficult to make the drafting of a Select Committee report a genuinely paperless process, which would be the ultimate conclusion of this approach, but developments in technology will assist in that. There will therefore be ongoing costs associated with the experiment. I hope that the Finance and Services Committee will ensure that those costs are supported properly.

I understand that the Committee Office is committed to saving more than £1 million through the digital-first programme, but that will not happen without investment, because it is an invest-to-save programme. We must consider the cost of iPads and the fact that they have a finite life. Given the way in which Members have to move around within this building and between here and their constituencies, I guess that the typical life of an iPad will be no more than a couple of years. Ongoing costs will therefore be associated with the project.

[Mr Kevan Jones]

Does my hon. Friend agree that we should consider using other platforms because iPads are quite expensive? In the past few years, equally good and cheaper products have been developed that run on different operating systems. That could be a way of getting the costs down.

[Andrew Miller]

My hon. Friend is clearly looking over my shoulder at my notes, because I was going to say that one of the considerations is to undertake a parallel project using tools such as the Microsoft Surface. Historically, the House has used Microsoft tools for its base documentation, so the software support for other technology may prove to be more efficient and effective if the Microsoft operating system is used, instead of crossing over between it and the Apple operating system. The Finance and Services Committee needs to make investment decisions if it is to continue with this project.

I intervened a number of times on the hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross, and I make a number of pleas to him and the House. He rightly set out a solid case for why we should be an exemplary employer—if we cannot do that, how can we expect the rest of the country to follow suit? In his final remarks he mentioned the potential court case. I do not accept that an exemplary employer will, at some stage, inevitably end up in court, and I urge the House to use all resources available to you, Mr Speaker, the Committees and the Commission, to work to resolve that problem and avoid the courts.

Court costs are astronomical. Lawyers get rich in these things—[Interruption.] There are a few lawyers in the House saying, “Hear, hear”, which is worrying. Vested interests always come forward. It seems to me, however, that it is incumbent on all Members of the House to try to resolve the problem without recourse to the courts, both because I do not want to make the lawyers any richer, and because that is our duty as a good—exemplary—employer. I present the challenge not only to the hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross, but to you, Mr Speaker, to try and resolve that.

I am 110% in support of the Visitor Centre, and my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield South East (Mr Betts) set out a logical case for the use of the location. One more entrance that could have been considered are the gates from Derby Gate to the gap between Portcullis House and the Parliament street building. That may not be suitable for other reasons, and although it is not true to say that the proposed route is the only way, I recognise it is one that would work.

It is hugely important that early indications from the restoration and renewal project are factored into questions of timing so that we do not end up spending money on a project that will then be mothballed for years. It is not a question of whether people support the project—all Members will support facilities that help us bring in the next generation of people and improve their understanding of what we do—but it must be considered carefully before any major commitments are made. An early interim report from whoever the Finance and Services Committee appoints, could easily result in someone saying, “Hang on a minute”, which would put everything on hold because we would have to get out of here sooner rather than later.

I spent time on the Terrace during the September sitting, and I was astonished at the rodent infestation that I saw.

[Jake Berry]

That’s just the MPs!

[Andrew Miller]

I was going to say that I did not mean Tory MPs by that, but we are facing serious problems. Through an interest in this building, some years ago I made a film about its geology. That resulted in me getting into places where most right hon. and hon. Members never go, such as the roof of the House of Lords or down in the basement. I have been down and looked at some of the structural issues, which are potentially very concerning, and we should not ignore the possibility that the subject of decanting might come up quicker than we thought. Against that background, when considering expenditure plans we must be prepared to say that a lot of them might have to be put on hold if an interim report suggests that things are as serious as they appear.

My final point is to the Leader of the House and my hon. Friend the Member for Dunfermline and West Fife. One cost we are bearing—I do not know the exact figures, but they would be possible to calculate; I do not know whether the Finance and Services Committee has done that—concerns the terms during which we sit, particularly the September sitting. I fully understand the argument used by the late Robin Cook and subsequently the current Government about the merits of the September sitting, but is a bit of a myth. If we shifted those two weeks to either end of the summer period, what savings could be built into the restoration and repair programme during that period? I think they would be quite significant, and the House needs to look at that as another way of saving money.

[Kevin Brennan]

Part of the reason for it being a problem is because of the party conferences. Would it be sensible for the parties to get together and move their conferences to earlier in September? Then the House could return before the end of September without the need for this peculiar and expensive break.

[Andrew Miller]

That is why I addressed my remarks to the Front Benchers. There is place for a discussion about how we can avoid the silly coming-back for two weeks, which causes breaks in repair and maintenance contracts and disrupts a lot of organisation in the building. We need mature dialogue about how we can return to a more sensible approach—my hon. Friend has hit the nail on the head.

In summary, in some areas we can work towards savings based on the way we work, whether the September sitting or the use of electronic tools. All those issues require serious, mature thinking, and some up-front investment. The Visitor Centre will command support only if it is seen to be a genuine investment for a long-term facility, and I worry that the possible juxtaposition of the two projects might mean that it ends up as an investment that never gets its full use. As I said, I urge the House to use every possible resource to resolve the HR issues. Having spent 15 years in HR, I know that that is sometimes easier said than done, but getting things away from the courtrooms is by far the best solution and I urge everyone to work hard towards that goal.

13:08

[Sir Paul Beresford (Mole Valley) (Con)]

We have heard a few comments about the superb news from Sydney, and with my accent may I back that? I will not mention last Saturday and Twickenham, save to say that our family had a motto imposed on us by our youngest son who said that he supports the All Blacks and anyone—but anybody—playing the Australians, which I also support.

I have sat with the two Committees behind this report. We have heard a good review from the two Chairs—one of whom has just disappeared—on the report’s key aspects, so I can be fairly brief.

As the report’s introduction explains, this is the second year that the Committee has produced a report. Assuming the motion is agreed, the report will go to the House of Commons Commission, which I assume will ratify it. As has been said, the report was put together with considerable assistance from the Management Board and senior staff, particularly the finance team. They did that under the unusual difficulties our system imposes on us, and they are to be congratulated on their expertise, persuasion, and—probably even more so—tolerance.

Having been in the private sector in a small and medium-sized business, been associated with a large national retailer, and had some small influence for a number of years on the finances of a local authority, I found our procedures to be quite bizarre, although at the end of the day they seemed to work. There are similarities with the outside world in that the Committee, with considerable input in certain areas from other Committees, in particular the Administration Committee, works with the Management Board and puts together the financial report. The bizarre part—in our system, the important part—is putting the financial report before the House, where individual Members with individual foibles, of which we have seen a little today, can seek to change individual parts of it. That risks an unbalancing effect on the whole estimate package, but that is democracy.

The difficult part for the Finance and Services Committee and the Management Board has been the necessity that the administration estimate be reduced by 17% by 2014-15. This is an obvious basic requirement, as similar savings are being sought and achieved across the public sector. Interestingly, although it is not obvious to the outside world, the majority of the savings, whether positive or negative, have been produced with imaginative thinking and in many cases with an improvement in the service. They have also come with a recognition that some services were expensive, out of date and redundant, and have generally, if not entirely, not been missed.

The response of the Management Board and the staff has been remarkably positive and is distinctly worthy of our thanks, which have already been given but which I reiterate. All the changes, it seems to me, have been done without affecting the day-to-day work of Members of Parliament. Some of the modernisations set in train, particularly current and impending changes in our IT systems, will bring positive benefits to MPs who are prepared to utilise new ways, although some are a little slower than others. The new benefits post-election for MPs and their IT opportunities is, when grasped, an overdue advance that will bring us slightly in the direction of modernity.

Moving to a cloud system makes us more vulnerable to cyber attack. That raises the issue of security, which has increasingly become a deep concern. We face more complex attacks, which make security more expensive. This is an area we share with the other place and that itself gives us problems, which have been subtly touched on. In this area and others, sharing brings considerable complications.

Another major area of complication is the proposed new education centre. That has been walked over and I do not intend to follow the same steps, but I would guess that no Member would decry the importance of extending education opportunities to the United Kingdom. The new proposals have been mentioned at some length by others. I have a constituency close to London, so my schools are in the best situation to benefit and increasingly do so. The relatively new transport grant should help the spread elsewhere. Nevertheless, this is an area where co-operation with the other place appears, for the moment, to have stumbled. It is amazing and astonishing that the facilities—I touched on this point in an intervention—particularly the dining rooms, in addition to the historic tourist attraction of the Palace, have not been used for income generation. At last, the Administration Committee has taken the brilliant step to expand services, in particular by utilising our dining facilities to the benefit of the House. These rooms are a brilliant addition, especially with our excellent banqueting team. Our change of hours has enabled the opportunity for a considerable extension in this area, although there are kick-backs that were touched on earlier. The Administration Committee should be congratulated on grasping this opportunity, which will increase income greatly.

Perhaps the biggest area of concern is the repair and renewal of this amazing historic building as we move towards a full capital expenditure of repair and renewal in the 2020s. All in all, we have to recognise that although we have pondered on this matter today, it is not what the report is about. Assuming the House agrees the estimates, we will move slowly towards having tighter functions and better services. Despite our bizarre system of financial control, it does seem to work and I hope these estimates are agreed without change.

13:14

[Mr Clive Betts (Sheffield South East) (Lab)]

I support the comments made by the Chair of the Finance and Services Committee, the hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (John Thurso). I congratulate him on the excellent way in which he has chaired the Committee in the past year. He has taken us forward on a number of difficult and contentious issues with a general degree of consensus, and it is important that we have agreement across the House on these matters.

It is important that we have sought to reduce expenditure by 17% during this Parliament. It would have been inconceivable to our constituents if, while they faced cuts in their public services, we in this House had been immune to reductions and carried on regardless. It was important to take that initial step. A number of factors have been borne in mind in making those reductions and it is important to put them on the record.

As has been said, the reductions have been made in a way that has not affected the ability of MPs to do their job and hold the Executive to account. That is a fundamental principle that, by and large, we have achieved. As the Chair of the Select Committee on Communities and Local Government, I have not noticed any impact on the Committee’s ability to do its work properly in holding Ministers from that Department to account. Nevertheless, I welcome the commitment from the Chair of the Finance and Services Committee to review Select Committee resources. That is a helpful move in the right direction to deal with any problems that might have arisen and been identified.

We have made the work of discussing, deliberating and making decisions on our finances more transparent. As a member of the Finance and Services Committee in previous Parliaments, I was often unsure what we had debated and what decisions we had reached. If we had reached a decision, I was often unsure what then happened to it. I was confused on that, and I think that if I had asked most MPs about how decisions on financial arrangements for this place were made, they would not have had a clue. In this Parliament, we have clarified the relationship between the Finance and Services Committee and the House of Commons Commission. We make recommendations to the Commission and it is clear what the Commission does with them. That is a helpful first step.

It is important that we are having this debate today, the second such debate, so that matters are available for all Members to discuss, and, if necessary, vote on. It is also important that we have an annual budget, that we take decisions collectively across the piece on financial matters, and that, with the changes to Standing Orders, individual items with financial repercussions are not decided outside the framework of an annual budget. All financial matters must be taken within that framework. It is not too revolutionary to think of having an annual debate in this Chamber on the budget: any self-respecting council will have being doing just that for years. The fact that Parliament has only just got around to it shows we do not always move as quickly as local government. Nevertheless, we have got there in the end.

Despite the reductions, we have tried to treat our staff properly. They do an excellent job for us throughout the House. We should remember that and I think we have tried to reflect that. My hon. Friend the Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Andrew Miller) drew attention to the dispute over staff increments, which is to be regretted. I hope we will continue to engage in dialogue to resolve the issue before it goes to court. We have to remember that even the best employers occasionally have a disagreement with their employees. Both sides have genuinely tried to resolve the matter, but have not come up with an agreed solution. The disagreement should not go to court through a lack of effort in trying to find a solution. I hope both sides redouble their efforts to find a solution to what is clearly a difficult matter.

On the opportunity for staff to engage with management and improve the delivery of services, I think it was the right hon. Member for Saffron Walden (Sir Alan Haselhurst) who tabled an amendment to the motion last year to give staff and management in the House the opportunity to bring about improvements before we moved to market testing. It is to the credit of both management and staff that their efforts to achieve savings and improve service delivery has meant that market testing has not been necessary because of the success of in-House improvements. The fact that the opportunity was given and taken ought to be on the record.

The Chair of the Finance and Services Committee referred to the discussions and decisions on the living wage and avoiding the worst forms of zero-hours contracts. That, too, is the right thing for a good employer to do, and it is right that this House of Parliament has done so.

Problems remain with the Metropolitan police contract. Over the years, there have been difficulties, and there remains quite a bit of staff unrest, including over changes in shift patterns. We have discussed that. In the end, it is a matter for the Metropolitan police, but if it affects the morale of staff in this place, particularly those with security responsibilities, it is of concern. I think that the new Chief Superintendent, Sandra Looby, whom I have spoken to about this, is up for having further discussions with trade union representatives. I hope those take place and that they can find a way forward that provides Members with a good service and staff with working and family-life arrangements they feel comfortable with. The Metropolitan police contract is up for renewal in a year’s time, so we need to consider this further.

Finally, on the education centre, it is right that in reducing our expenditure, we have not done anything that affects Members’ ability to do their job, but neither should we take any actions that affect the ability of members of the public—our constituents—to visit this place and to see what goes on here and how Members do their work. It is particularly important that we do not impact on the opportunity of young people and schoolchildren to visit this place. I understand the concerns about spending money on the education centre—I think everyone agrees that in principle it is the right thing to do—and I do not think we should delay that expenditure if it means schoolchildren losing out on the opportunity to come here. After all, if we delay the expenditure for five years, some of those children will have ceased to be schoolchildren. It is right and proper, if we have a bit of extra money to spend, that we spend it on opening up access to schoolchildren. With that included, I hope we pass today’s motion. I, certainly, am happy to support it.

13:22

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

In the interests of brevity, I hope the hon. Member for Sheffield South East (Mr Betts) will forgive me if I move on to different themes. I rise not to criticise the motion, which has my support, but to appoint myself unofficial shop steward of the Select Committee Chairs, in the absence of my right hon. Friend the Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Sir Alan Beith), the Chairman of the Liaison Committee.

There is universal acclaim for the progress Select Committees have made as a direct result of the Wright reforms implemented by my right hon. Friend the Member for North West Hampshire (Sir George Young), now Chief Whip, at the outset of this Parliament. The Conservative party pledged to implement those reforms, and I am proud that we are following in the footsteps of Margaret Thatcher, who established the comprehensive system of Select Committees, and continuing in the tradition of strengthening the House and the scrutiny of the Executive. We have done that and improved Select Committees, despite a 10% reduction in expenditure so far, and will continue to do so, despite a continued squeeze on our expenditure, to achieve what I believe will be a 17% reduction in Committee spend over the planned period.

To reinforce that point, I refer the House to comments made by Oliver Wright in The Independent under the headline, “Once mice, parliamentary select committees have finally learnt to roar”:

“Some will argue that, at present, Parliament should not be spending more. But holding those in power to account is exactly what Parliament should be doing, and would be worth every penny. It might lead to less heat. But it would shine a lot more light.”

James Forsyth in The Spectator refers to you, Mr Speaker, somewhat erroneously as an “accidental reformer”. I do not think there is anything accidental about your reform agenda. Perhaps unfairly, he argues that you should have fought harder to protect or increase the resources of Select Committees. I do not feel that you have been reticent in your support for Select Committees, but asking you to magic money out of a thinning overall budget would have been quite a big ask. Nevertheless, the challenge has been laid down to you, and I will leave you to respond in your own inimitable style, Mr Speaker, rather than defend you. The point is that Select Committees should be getting more money, not less.

Like many others, my hon. Friend the Member for North East Cambridgeshire (Stephen Barclay)—a member of the Public Accounts Committee, which, backed by the National Audit Office, is richer in resource than any other Select Committee—suggests constructively that we could do more to tap into external expertise. I agree that we could do that; I think we are doing that. Indeed, he might underestimate how much Select Committees now draw on secondments and staff loans, not just from Departments, but from the NAO, outside firms and so on. It is something we should be encouraging.

What have Select Committees done to save money and make ourselves more efficient? I am told that we carried out a “lean process review”—a term recognisable to management consultants—which has led to many practical steps being taken. When I was first appointed a Select Committee Chair, I noticed that we got all our press cuttings on wads of photocopied paper that the Clerks had got from the Library. I said there were ways of doing it electronically. I hope that all Select Committees now have electronic cutting services. There are some glitches in the system—understandably, it took some time to get electronic copies of the Financial Times—but the Committee Office and the Library have been assiduous in ironing them out and delivering a much better electronic “digital first” strategy for Select Committees.

Controversially, of course, that includes our being given iPads for our work. It should be put on the record that our iPads mean that our staff no longer spend hours photocopying, collating and sending out vast quantities of paper in the post. All evidence is now electronic. Giving iPads to Select Committee members, apart from a few colleagues who understandably find it difficult to adapt to new technology, has probably saved about £1 million a year. That can be devoted to scrutiny, instead of photocopying, saving an enormous amount of staff time, freeing them up to do more interesting and rewarding work. Given the high quality of Committee staff, it is absurd that so much of their time is spent on this unproductive work.

The Committee Office also decided to establish a web and publications unit. Painfully, that will take resource out of the direct control of Select Committees. For example, the Public Administration Select Committee will have to share a Committee assistant with another Committee. I would have preferred it to have been paid for by additional resources, but the unit will make our websites and publications more usable for the public and more up to date. A new web portal has also been created for the submission and publication of evidence by electronic means. PASC was one of the early pilots. Now all but one departmental Committee—my briefing does not say which is the miscreant Committee—have moved to accepting submissions in this way. We have also switched off the printing of written and oral evidence altogether. Therefore, although I was against accepting a savings programme initially, I have to admit that it has succeeded in accelerating innovation and new ways of working that have improved what Select Committees do.

Looking to the future, the Liaison Committee reported a year ago on the effectiveness of Select Committees and their resources and powers. That report was rather voluminous and contained lots of work on practical things that Select Committees could do. I particularly commend the training of MPs in the art of cross-examination. We all think we are frightfully good, until we are confronted by somebody who points out our tics and habits. Would you believe it, Mr Speaker? It was pointed out to our Committee that we all liked talking rather a lot and asking questions that made our points, rather than seeking information from our witnesses. I hope we have improved as a result of our training, and we will have another away-day of training later this month. I commend that to other Select Committee Chairs.

The Liaison Committee said in its report a year ago:

“Now may not be the best time to argue for increased resources, but it should be the long term goal of the House to build up the capacity of select committees, to improve their effectiveness and status, to increase their powers and influence, and to improve their efficiency by providing chairs and staffs with accommodation and infrastructure to enable them to hold Government to account.”

I am bound to say that it puts us on the moral high ground that we can look Departments in the face and say that we have taken our cuts as well, as we scrutinise their expenditure and efficiency. That long-term goal reflects the shifting nature of the work of Parliament. Less and less can we control the detail of legislation from this Chamber and the old-fashioned Standing Committees. It is clear that the public are more and more engaged with the cross-party, consensual approach adopted by Select Committees in the scrutiny and exposure of inefficiency, wrongdoing or whatever else is going on in Departments. As we monitor the recommendations of Select Committees, we see that, although the Government so often reject them in their formal responses, they recognise increasingly that Select Committees generate ideas and analyses that lead to changes in Government policy.

The Liaison Committee report went on to say:

“One clear message from this work is that chairs of committees are under considerable pressure to attend events, make speeches and respond to media inquiries above and beyond what used to be expected of a committee chairs. This means that a higher proportion of a chair’s time is spent on work related to the committee, compared with other parliamentary and constituency duties. In many cases part of this extra work is borne by the Member’s personal staff.”

Select Committee Chairs are now paid the equivalent of what an Under-Secretary of State is paid. Personally, I think that is extremely welcome. It means that I have willingly turned down offers of outside interest, because not only does my Committee absorb all my available time, but it reflects the additional responsibilities, particularly now that Select Committee Chairs are elected by the whole House to deliver a service to the House. I cannot describe to hon. Members how different it must feel from the old days. Indeed, I remember a senior Select Committee Chair, who had previously been effectively elected by his party’s Front Benchers, telling the Liaison Committee at the outset of this Parliament how much the terms of trade of Select Committee’s engagement with their work had changed.

The points that need to be addressed by extra resources include additional support for Chairs in all the extra work that we increasingly take on—as we take on a higher media profile, more and more demands are made on our time. That could mean providing either an additional member of staff for each Chair’s office or more staff in Committee teams to assist the Chair with his or her wider duties. I have no illusions. That is not going to happen very quickly. We have also pressed for more media support. It is extraordinary. I do not know how many press officers Departments have, but they run into the hundreds and hundreds. Each Select Committee shares a single media officer with several other Select Committees. The media that are generated are almost self-generated. However, when we issue a report, the entire Government media machine might be deployed in deflecting the criticisms made in it. This is an unequal battle. The need for a larger pool of shared media officers is something that Select Committees are focusing on. I pay tribute to our media officers. They work incredibly hard, are very enthusiastic and help us to put Select Committees on the map effectively, even with their limited resources.

There are other, obvious things. My office is at the top of Portcullis House and my Committee staff are in 7 Millbank. I do not know how long that is, but by the time one has bumped into a few colleagues on the way, it is at least a 15-minute walk. Would Ministers running Departments accept not having an office in their Departments? Again, that puts us at a disadvantage. The co-location of Committee Chairs with their Committee staff would be an instant efficiency gain. Indeed, Parliaments in other parts of the world would be aghast that a Chair of a Committee was not co-located with the staff of his or her Committee. That will clearly need to be thought about in the future, if Select Committees are to continue to develop their status and effectiveness.

Personally, I think the long-term game must be to do what we did with the Derby Gate Library—we acquired a building and put all the Library staff there to create a corporate centre for the Library—and have a similar building for Select Committees. I have in my mind’s eye the Canon row police station. I cannot believe that the police will be there for ever or that when that building becomes available, the parliamentary estate will not wish to acquire it. It is already in the public sector and would be an ideal building in which to co-locate Chairs of Committees, their Committee staff and their constituency staff, so that they are not separated. That would be a major step forward in the effectiveness of Select Committees. It would also mean that we could vacate 7 Millbank and release it from the parliamentary estate, because it is largely occupied by Select Committee staff.

Incidentally, in thanking the staff of the House, we should add our thanks to the Library staff, whose work for my Committee and others has been invaluable. I know that it was a bit counter-cultural for the House of Commons to do this—there is a sense that the Library staff work for all Members, not Select Committees, whose own staff should deliver for them—but the ability to lend Library staff to Select Committees for particular inquiries has been extremely useful and very welcome. Personally, I am extremely grateful for the good will and enthusiasm that the Library staff have shown in that work.

In the vision for the future, our aim is that Select Committees should be respected, listened to and, indeed, feared by Departments and Ministers for the quality of our investigations, the rigour of our questioning, the depth of our analysis and the value of our reports. Our influence should go beyond the subjects that we choose to inquire into. I am reminded of an anecdote by a special adviser in a new Government, who told me, “You have no idea how much the attention of a Select Committee on a part of a Department galvanises the civil servants in that part of the Department, because they know they’re going to come under intense public scrutiny.” The benefits of Select Committees doing more of their work, producing more reports and doing more inquiries are obviously beyond doubt. Our ability to do our job cannot be limited by constraints on access to information or on the witnesses from whom we want to hear, and we must be able to draw on expert advice and research.

Select Committees will be seen by our stakeholder communities as important players, influencing Government and public opinion, and as the natural place to go with concerns or ideas. On Tuesday, my Committee held a hearing about crime and the recording of crime statistics, which demonstrates the role we can play in public life in empowering individuals whose ability to give evidence is being stifled. We can provide them with a unique opportunity to explain their concerns, protected by privilege. The role of these Committees and the powers they can draw on will need to become better understood by the public. Then we can engage with the wider body of people and evidence to improve the quality of our work. Our work will be respected for its integrity and relevance to people’s lives, and can contribute to reviving faith in the value of parliamentary democracy.

13:41

[Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (The Cotswolds) (Con)]

Thank you, Mr Speaker, for allowing me to catch your eye in what is the second of our annual debates on House of Commons estimates. It is a great tribute to how my hon. Friend the Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (John Thurso) has chaired his Committee that this whole matter has been brought before us so that a spotlight can be shone on the finances of the House of Commons, a highly complex organisation.

Since we started having these two annual debates, the whole culture of financial management in this place has changed. The hon. Member for Sheffield South East (Mr Betts) and I served on the Committee in the last Parliament, during which time the emphasis was on how much money we could spend—and the more money spent, the better the project. Now it is all about trying to get value for money and making sure that the House is run efficiently. I have to say that that has been a huge improvement. The savings target of 17% will bring this place’s budget down to £200 million by 2015. It has been met only after a lot of hard work by the Finance and Services Committee. In that respect, I pay tribute to our staff, to the Clerk of the Committee and to members of the Management Board who help us in various aspects of the task.

On the ongoing pay dispute, I echo what other Members have said. I hope that, as a result of this debate, there is enough good will on both sides. The Chairman made particular reference to us wanting to be an exemplary employer and, on the other side, I hope that the unions will want to be exemplary pay negotiators. This matter could go out to some form of mediation so that it does not end up in the courts, lining the pockets of the lawyers, which I think would be a most unfortunate outcome.

I shall be brief, as much has already been said, but it is worth noting some of the savings we have made. The print-to-web project has saved £2.2 million, and the new ICT strategy has saved £2.4 million. I want to pay tribute to the Chairman of the Administration Committee —I was formerly a member—who has rightly championed the cause of opening this place up so that we can generate more income.

There has been some controversy in the debate over how much we should open up and to whom. In the same spirit of openness that this debate brings to the whole issue of House of Commons finances and how this place is run, I personally think that we should open it up and charge a commercial rate to anybody, providing they are legal, and that includes political parties and trade unions. They should be fully declared and the information should be fully open on the public register. After all, what is the difference between a political party or a trade union making a profit as opposed to a commercial bank making one? Provided everything is properly declared and provided a full commercial rate is paid, I cannot see the difference. Indeed, I put in a freedom of information request the other day relating to two events I sponsored last year, trying to ascertain exactly who was there and what they were all about.

I view that as the way to go forward. Let us put it all in the public domain. At the same time, however, the Chairman of the Administration Committee has made it perfectly clear that there are to be some exceptions to full commercial cost recovery, for charitable organisations or events run by Members, for example. I think a third category of events run by all-party groups could be considered. If they are registered, proper all-party groups—bearing in mind Mr Speaker’s dictum that they should not be in hock to any particular commercial organisation —it seems perfectly reasonable for them to benefit from the same regime of exceptions.

[Thomas Docherty]

I can assure the hon. Gentleman that we miss him on the Select Committee since he moved on to other things. On the point of all-party groups, the reality is that they might end up fronting for commercially organised events. That is why the all-party groups are not given the same exemptions.

[Geoffrey Clifton-Brown]

If the hon. Gentleman had listened to my last few remarks, he would have heard that I clearly said “bearing in mind Mr Speaker’s dictum”, after his inquiry into all-party groups, that they should not be in hock to any particular commercial organisation. That is the proper basis for registering them in future. Just this last week, I have formed an integrated transport group to ensure that all methods of transport in this country mesh together. I have been clear about where the money for our secretariat is going to come from—not from one or two commercial firms. I would much prefer it if the money came from a trade organisation, a trade union or some membership organisation with a wide base of people.

[Thomas Docherty]

It is important to clarify this point. If an all-party group is meeting in a room, there is no charge. If, however, there is a dinner for an outside body that is clearly paying for it, it should not be possible to hide behind the all-party group name to get a big discount. That is the point of what we are trying to do.

[Geoffrey Clifton-Brown]

I entirely agree with the hon. Gentleman. If an all-party group is in hock to one particular organisation, I would expect the same sort of disclosure that I have mentioned to be applied and abided by. I do not want to get too involved in the minutiae, but perhaps we could gently suggest to my right hon. Friend the Chairman of the Administration Committee that he carry out a further inquiry into the matter and come up with some distinct recommendations to deal with it. There is at least a debate to be had about who should have access to this place, on what basis and under which charging regime, hence my gentle suggestion to my right hon. Friend the Member for Saffron Walden (Sir Alan Haselhurst) as a possible way forward.

In an intervention on my hon. Friend the Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross, I made it clear, as has he, that savings should happen only provided that they do not hamper our work as Members of Parliament. I put the work of Select Committees very distinctly in that category. Since their introduction, which was agreed, as my hon. Friend the Member for Harwich and North Essex (Mr Jenkin) said, by Margaret Thatcher when she was Prime Minister, Select Committees have been an outstanding success in this Parliament, providing a model that many other Parliaments around the world are following.

I have hosted some foreign delegations that came here specifically to look at how our Select Committees work, and they are now beginning to adopt similar methods in their own countries, while the Westminster Foundation has sent out experts from the Select Committees around the world precisely to explain how they work. It would be a great pity—no, it would be more than that; it would be a serious limiting effect—if we limited the work of Select Committees by the amount of finance they receive. There clearly needs to be a budget. My suggestion would be for each Select Committee to put in its bid within an overall budget that is administered by the Chairman of the Liaison Committee. If a Select Committee has a particular problem for a good, well-made reason, it might need to incur additional expenditure through the year and should be able to go before the Chair to make its case. If the overall budget were breached, our Committee would have to look at it. That might be a way forward.

I shall next deal briefly with the restoration and renewal programme, whose budget will run into many hundreds of millions if not to £1 billion or more. We are therefore talking about a very big project indeed, and the possible savings to be made are immense. I commend the Chairman of our Committee on having guided us to ensure we have proper professional consultants to do a thorough appraisal; I say that as a chartered surveyor. I entirely agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross that work done at the beginning on proper scoping and appraisal will save us from having to do more work in the long run.

Furthermore, that will not only help us with the financial aspects of this huge project but help us decide which of the three strands my hon. Friend mentions is the most appropriate one for this House. As a chartered surveyor who has taken part in large projects—perhaps not as large as this one—it seems to me that we will probably end up doing the most efficient job and saving the most work if we adopt the more extreme option, which is to decamp this House. If we do decamp, however, we should make it clear that there is a very strict time penalty on the contractor because we should only be out of here for the minimum possible time, and Parliament should make it absolutely clear that we are coming back in here, into an improved environment.

As others Members have said, if one goes down into the basement of this place one realises how fragile the overall services are. Our heating, lighting and IT and communication services are very fragile indeed, and our works department and works contractors do a fantastic job in keeping them going, but there is only so long that that can be done before a complete renewal will be needed. As has been said, there has not been such a complete renewal, and certainly not on the entire building, although part of it burnt down during the war. Some of the services in this place are therefore very ancient indeed, and we will need to look very carefully at that in the restoration and renewal programme.

Indeed, we need to look at some of the services fairly carefully now. I have an office in Portcullis house and I was without electricity for a day and a half a week or two ago. I am told that some parts relating to the electrical copper wiring are no longer available and it was confirmed in the Committee yesterday that it is entirely possible that that building, which is only 10 years old, may need complete rewiring. We do need to get these systems right because we cannot be hampered in our jobs by being without the basics of electricity, computers, telephones and so forth. Indeed, we cannot do our jobs without them.

The education centre is a subject of some controversy. In the light of the change of culture I have been talking about—running things efficiently in this place—I have to inform Members that, when the House originally passed the idea of an education centre, the initial budget proposed was a whopping £86.3 million. The budget today for the centre in Victoria tower gardens is some £6.1 million. That seems to me to be much more acceptable. Let me make it absolutely clear that I am in favour of this idea in principle because it is right that we should get as many of our schoolchildren around this place to see how this fount of democracy works and what we actually do on a day-to-day basis, because if they saw more of what we actually do, they would appreciate why it is important to elect Members of Parliament and they would bother to vote in elections, and the whole of our democratic system would be strengthened.

[Jake Berry]

My hon. Friend mentions the £6.1 million budget for the construction of the new education centre. Can he enlighten the House as to the annual running costs that would be incurred on top of that?

[Geoffrey Clifton-Brown]

Yes, I can. Let us separate the capital cost and the running cost. I have thought about this whole thing quite carefully, and I have thought about what my hon. Friend the Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross said in his opening remarks. I was initially opposed to the idea because I felt it would be a waste of money to build a demountable building that was likely to be put out of use when we started the R and R programme in some seven to 10 years’ time, as we would have that structure in Victoria tower gardens for only a fraction of its life and then it would not be used. As a chartered surveyor, I think that there will be some resale value to this building, however, and I believe it is still worth doing even if we decamp from it when we start the R and R programme in some seven to 10 years’ time, as I suspect we will have to, as it will be in the way.

The running cost, which includes the £470,000 extra for security, will be about £1.5 million a year. That is a substantial sum, but with at least 55,000 schoolchildren coming around this place, it is an important contribution the taxpayer will be making to strengthening our democracy.

[Jake Berry]

I am sure my hon. Friend will acknowledge that in total that is £20 million over a 10-year period, so it is £2 million a year. Does he not think that a more reasonable solution could be to rent a building in the vicinity of Parliament?

[Geoffrey Clifton-Brown]

It is not too late for that. As a property person, I think we could see if there is an office we could rent somewhere along the road from which we could do the job just as well. It is not too late to do that, but a solution has been identified that will also improve the travel path, as it were, through these buildings. At the moment schoolchildren are led in from the 1 Parliament street end of the building and all the way through, causing trouble at the pinch-point of the elevator from Portcullis house. If we take them in from the other end of the building, their flow around these buildings will be much better. I can see that my hon. Friend is not entirely convinced and I was not entirely convinced when we discussed this in Committee. However, I do think it is important that we get these children around this place.

One problem with getting schoolchildren around this building is that there is a London-centric issue. Those schools nearer London tend to come to Parliament more often than those further away. Therefore, we must do everything we can in terms of grants to make sure schools further from London get every possible assistance, so we can spread this visitor attraction to schoolchildren around the country as much as possible.

[Mr Speaker]

Order. May I gently say to the hon. Gentleman, to whose speech I am listening very closely, that we are aiming to finish the debate by 2.15 and there are two Front-Bench speeches and a very brief winding-up speech by the Chairman of the Finance and Services Committee to come, so I hope very much that the hon. Gentleman is coming to his last few sentences?

[Geoffrey Clifton-Brown]

Thank you, Mr Speaker. I will try to finish my speech in the next minute or two —or, rather, I will do so. How could I possibly do otherwise as you have given me that stricture?

[Mr Speaker]

Order. It is purely an encouragement, I should say. We want to hear from the hon. Gentleman, but I know he will be as economical as he can be.

[Geoffrey Clifton-Brown]

Mr Speaker, I always wish to accept your encouragement for fear that I might not get it another time.

I just want to say a word or two about our ICT systems. The hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Andrew Miller) and others mentioned tablet computers. I am a bit of an IT dinosaur, but even I have got one, and even I can use it in Committee.

[Jake Berry]

Keep taking the tablets.

[Geoffrey Clifton-Brown]

Indeed.

This is an example of where new technology can contribute to more efficient and innovative working in this House. We are sometimes criticised in the press for issuing Members of Parliament with these tablets, but it is no different from 20 years ago when Members of Parliament were issued with computers. Mention has been made of our cutting down our paper use and carbon emissions, and if we are to keep on being efficient, we must make best use of these tablets. New Members entering this House must be issued with tablets as quickly as possible, too.

In that regard, and in the interests of finishing very soon, let me just say, too, that we must look at the whole issue of accommodation for new Members of Parliament. I say gently—I know this is in the hands of the usual channels—that it takes too long for new Members of Parliament to get an office. There should be a plan in place now estimating the likely maximum number of new Members and how to deal with allocating offices to all of them.

The situation is a lot better than it used to be. I spent my first five years in an office up on the T-block. It was a tiny little square with no windows. Our office accommodation has got a lot better than it used to be, therefore, but nevertheless new Members of Parliament coming into this place need to be able to respond to constituents’ queries very quickly and they always have a sackful of letters congratulating them on getting elected, so they need an office and staff rapidly.

This has been a very useful debate. Sometimes the work of the Public Administration Committee and the Finance and Services Committee is not seen as particularly glamorous, but unless some of us do it, this place will not run efficiently. We need to be able to take into account the views of our colleagues. Sometimes they are critical of what we do, but that is all part of the Committee system. We are here to take into account colleagues’ views, and we will keep working on behalf of the House. I think the system works quite well. We have produced an annual report, and I hope that Members will accept the estimate as it is, that the House of Commons Commission, which you admirably head, Mr Speaker, will take heed of our recommendations and that we can all move forward and run this place even more efficiently in future.

14:00

[Ms Angela Eagle (Wallasey) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to have been here to listen to the vast majority of this extremely important debate. I am glad the House of Commons Commission decided that having annual debates on this topic on the Floor of the House would be a good use of time, and I am delighted that the Backbench Business Committee agreed, because that has allowed us to have a very enlightening debate. I also want to thank the hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (John Thurso) for opening the debate and for summing up the issues that the House’s various administration Committees—particularly, in my case, the House of Commons Commission—have been wrestling with.

The savings programme that the House has been working towards since 2010 has been managed efficiently, as has been demonstrated, and I should like to add my voice to those Members who have commended the work done to find the £16.1 million of savings needed in the coming year. It is right that we have a savings programme, and that we not only play our part but are seen to play our part in the general belt-tightening that has to go on across the country. However, it is vital when finding savings and efficiencies that we are constantly mindful of the knock-on effects on Parliament and its role. These savings must not impact on the House’s ability to scrutinise the Executive—a theme of today’s contributions —or on Members’ ability to represent and serve their constituents.

While this House is cutting its budget by 17% over five years, the other place has no formal savings programme. I am told that it has achieved savings of 15%, which is wholly welcome, but its having a formal process that could be held to account, in the way we are doing here, would have been desirable. We must ensure that the standing of the House of Commons in relation to the other place is not weakened because of our savings programme, and that we maintain an appropriate balance between the two Houses.

When a large savings programme is put into effect, it often tends to be done at the expense of the lower-paid members of that organisation. That is the lazy way of conducting efficiency and savings programmes, and I am delighted that we have taken steps to avoid falling into that trap. We must ensure that we are seen not to fall into it, which is why I welcome the assurances the hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross was able to give us on zero-hours contracts and the London living wage. I welcome the lead that you have taken, Mr Speaker, on the latter, and the ambition that has been shown and set out in our discussions today. I hope that by Christmas the House will be accredited as a living wage employer for our directly employed staff, and by next April for our contractors. If we can achieve that—from what the hon. Gentleman said, it sounds as though we are on track—we will all be rightly proud, and it will demonstrate to others who have savings to make that they do not have to make them at the expense of their lowest-paid workers.

As you know, Mr Speaker, I have been explicitly and particularly exercised to ensure that we do not use zero-hours contracts as part of our employment terms. I therefore welcome the tantalising early look the hon. Gentleman gave us at the advice which will be coming to the Commission on Monday, which allows flexibility but ensures mutuality of expectations. I warmly welcome the commitments we heard from him today and I hope we will have minimum hours guaranteed, and not have to resort to the easy and unfair expedient of zero-hours contracts. I look forward to considering the advice he hinted at in his opening remarks when the Commission meets on Monday.

I also want to take this opportunity to recognise the great work and expertise of the staff in this place—a constant theme of all who have contributed to this debate, and one I warmly endorse. Often, we are the people who are seen, talked about and given credit when we achieve good things, but this House could not operate without the fantastic work of the staff who keep us going, whatever their level or grade. I always find them enormously helpful.

I also want to address the potential for further savings and efficiencies, and suggest something that could be done to deal with the important points that the Select Committee Chairs who have contributed to today’s debate have made about their own resources. It is time we explored the potential for further savings and efficiencies by merging the administration of this House and the other place. There is no reason why, in the 21st century, we should have separate administrative bodies for each House. For example, Parliamentary Information and Communications Technology, known as PICT, which has operated as a bicameral service since 2001, provides Members with an excellent service. Perhaps its advantage is that it was created in 2001 and not 1801. Moreover, security, visitor services, estate management, outreach, broadcasting and other such services are run on a joint basis. Procurement will also be run jointly.

[Mr Jenkin]

Of course we must be ready to explore anything in these times of austerity, but I honestly believe that the hon. Lady will find that some of the lessons of those joint services are not comfortable ones. Running a single organisation with dual governance is difficult. An example is running Committee staffs when there are already complicated personnel issues, such as trying to support them with flexible staffing arrangements. There is good exchange between the two Houses and Clerks Departments, and it would be absolute madness to consider merging the Clerks Departments of both Houses.

[Ms Eagle]

I think we need to look at how we can run this place, with two legislatures that are not the same but coexist in the same building, in a far more effective and efficient way. That does not mean making them completely co-operative in the way the hon. Gentleman suggests, but it does mean that we should see what efficiencies and savings we can get from running joint services. There is absolutely no reason why we cannot make large administrative savings from doing so.

[Thomas Docherty]

I fully endorse my hon. Friend’s proposal. Indeed, the first report of the Administration Committee called for a single catering service, for example. It is ludicrous that we have two separate catering services. This is an excellent idea.

[Ms Eagle]

I thank my hon. Friend for his support. Merely dismissing this without thinking much more carefully about the potential for savings is perhaps being rather more conservative than I thought the hon. Member for Harwich and North Essex (Mr Jenkin) was being when he declared himself the self-appointed shop steward of Select Committee Chairs. I was about to call him “Red Bernard”, but I decided that that might be considered unparliamentary language.

We should explore in detail the potential for releasing savings in these ways. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will agree with me more when I say that if we can release them, we should use some of them to give much more support and resources to our Select Committees, to enable them to hold the Executive to account even more effectively than they do now. I do not know whether he has talked himself and his Committee out of having some of those savings released to them. In his speech, he made a strong plea for the more effective resourcing of Select Committees.

[Geoffrey Clifton-Brown]

There are probably savings to be made by merging back-office functions such as procurement, auditing and HR, but those are very different from the governance functions that my hon. Friend the Member for Harwich and North Essex (Mr Jenkin) was talking about.

[Ms Eagle]

The hon. Gentleman is already beginning to think creatively about where savings could be released, and we should do a lot more of that. I know that this is a radical proposal, and that it will ruffle some feathers, not least because the administration structures have grown up separately and guard their independence jealously. None the less, it is about time that we had a look at that anomaly and thought about how we might address it.

We have had an interesting debate on the prospect of the House raising revenue. At one end of the proposals is the suggestion that the cost of providing for those who visit us should at least be offset. At the other end are suggestions for more proactive revenue raising. Much of this is sensible and acceptable, although I acknowledge and share some of the worries that have been expressed today about the more radical proposals to rent this place out on a completely commercial basis. I hope we can all agree that we should expect to cover the costs of welcoming visitors, but we need much more debate on the prospect of renting out the building to all and sundry on a purely commercial basis. I share the feelings of unease about those more radical proposals. We are first and foremost a democratic Parliament, not a commercial proposition.

Much work still needs to be done on the matter of restoration and renewal. The subject is going to take up a huge amount of our attention, but it is not doing so at the moment so I shall leave the matter there, given the shortness of time for this debate.

On the education centre, I am a great supporter of the plans for the extended education service, and I think we should just get on with it. There are generations of young people out there who deserve to have access to our Parliament. I welcome the ambition to double the number of young people who visit Parliament. This is part of our need to renew our connection with those people who sometimes look askance at what we do here and who perhaps think that politics has nothing to do with them.

[Jake Berry]

The hon. Lady mentions the education centre. A brand new secondary school in my constituency —the Darwen Aldridge community academy—was constructed for just over £20,000. We have heard—

[Andrew Miller]

Only £20,000?

[Jake Berry]

I am sorry; I meant £20 million. We have heard from my hon. Friend the Member for The Cotswolds (Geoffrey Clifton-Brown) that the building and running costs of the temporary educational buildings and classrooms here would be £20 million over 10 years. Does the hon. Lady think that it is better to have a brand new secondary school in a Member’s constituency or to have temporary accommodation here in Parliament?

[Ms Eagle]

With all due respect, the hon. Gentleman is positing a false choice. It is important for the strength of our democracy that young people—from constituencies as far away as mine, not just from London—should be enabled to visit our Parliament, as part of their education, to see how it works. This is not an either/or in relation to providing education in Members’ constituencies. I am a great supporter of the proposals for the education centre, and I think it will prove to be good value for money.

I welcome this annual debate. It is already throwing a welcome light on the decisions that are taken by the House’s administration Committees that meet behind the scenes, in a way that I hope Members of the House and people outside will appreciate. I commend you, Mr Speaker, for agreeing to our holding this debate, and I welcome the fact that we are now holding such debates annually. Time is short, so I shall now allow the Leader of the House to tell us what he thinks.

14:14

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

I fear that we shall not complete the debate by 2.15—[Hon. Members: “Oh, go on!”] Tempting though that is. These are House matters, and it has been important to hear from Members about them; that is probably more important than hearing from me. I very much welcome the debate, and I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (John Thurso) for introducing it and for the work that he and his Committee have done. I should like to bracket him together with my right hon. Friend the Member for Saffron Walden (Sir Alan Haselhurst), the Chair of the Administration Committee, and to thank them both for enabling the House to have such confidence in their work and for managing the difficult decisions that will continually have to be made if we are to meet our savings targets.

I join Members across the House who have rightly expressed support for the way in which the House continues to manage the provision of services. Much continues to be achieved in delivering high-quality services to Members, to enable them to provide support for their constituents and to provide the representation here that is integral to our democratic process. We can do all that only because of the tremendous service and support that we receive from the staff of the House. Integral to the way in which the savings targets have been delivered has been the way in which the House staff have participated and offered their ideas on how the plans in the various Departments could be brought together.

Just over three years ago, the House of Commons Commission committed itself to reducing the administration estimate by at least 17% by 2014-15. I am pleased to see that we are on track to meet that target. This is related to the reduction in administration costs across government as a whole, including an average reduction in departmental budgets of 19% over four years, and a reduction in the overall administration costs in many Departments of one third in real terms. Of course, this is not only about administration costs; it is also about delivering efficiencies that can be reinvested to enable services to be qualitatively improved wherever possible.

The hon. Member for Wallasey (Ms Eagle) made a point about working together with the House of Lords on administration. I must point out that we do that already. Good examples of where that can be, and should be, done are security, procurement and back-office functions. We have to be careful, however, not to treat the separate governance of the two Houses as an “anomaly”, as I think she called it. My hon. Friend the Member for Harwich and North Essex (Mr Jenkin) has made some good points in this regard. It is not an anomaly; it is a constitutional fact, and it is not going to change in the immediate future, so far as I can see. I know from my conversations with the Leader of the House of Lords that the Lords want to work together with us, but we must respect their position and the need for the two Houses to make decisions for themselves. My hon. Friend rightly drew the analogy of two local authorities working together to share support services and back-office functions. We can and should do this, but there might well be governance issues and areas in which separate decisions will continue to be made.

I want to say a few words about restoration and renewal, but I also want to flag up that, given the nature of the decisions that will have to be made, and the integral character of the programme for the two Houses, we will clearly have to think about putting in place joint governance structures for the programme, which will extend across the two Houses.

[Thomas Docherty]

On the point about joint services, will the right hon. Gentleman clarify whether, on catering and retail, we should maintain the status quo or accept the position of the Administration Committee and bring them together?

[Mr Lansley]

I will leave it to the Committees to decide whether they want to bring forward proposals. Although I am perfectly willing to commit to talking to the Leader of the House of Lords, it is in neither of our gifts to put the two Houses together for such a purpose, but I know that there is a willingness in both Houses to look at where administration and support can be managed together.

[Andrew Miller]

May I bring to the Leader of the House’s attention how well the Parliamentary Office of Science and Technology works on a bicameral basis? We brought it into the House in the early 1990s, and it has worked extremely well. It has become very strong in the recent past.

[Mr Lansley]

Yes, I am aware of that, and of the example that the shadow Leader of the House gave of PICT. None the less, when we look at PICT, we must understand that there are certain areas of activity in which having two masters makes the business of trying to manage a service much more difficult. Effectively, we need to distinguish between the two sets of governors, as it were, and see whether they have entirely complementary objectives. It might be true for many areas of human resources, administration and back-office functions, but, in some other respects, the two Houses might not necessarily have the same objectives and, because of the nature of the governance, they must be given the opportunity to manage those separately.

The hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Andrew Miller) raised the issue of pay, as did my hon. Friend the Member for The Cotswolds (Geoffrey Clifton-Brown). Pay is clearly a significant part of the overall management of cost. I know that there have been intensive discussions between management and trade unions, but too many issues remain unresolved for a deal to be done. The Management Board’s offer was a fair one, but it remains open to discussions with the trade unions. I hope that it is understood—I have had my own conversations with the staff about this—that there is no possibility of either the House or the staff winning from a court case. The net result of continuing with the court action will be a negative one overall, and it is in the interests of both sides to continue to try to reach a deal—if one can be reached.

I look forward to the Commission receiving the Finance and Services Committee’s report on what have been described as zero-hour contracts. I entirely take the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross. Strictly speaking, such contracts mean no minimum guaranteed hours and an obligation to undertake work at the request of the employee. There are no corresponding obligations from the employer in relation to the employee. That is not what we have, or what we are looking to have. We want a relationship with our staff that recognises that they and we have a legitimate reason for having flexibility and call-off contracts, but that should be on the basis of offering minimum hours if staff are looking for that and if it is consistent with the needs of the House. I am talking about areas such as visitor services and catering. We must always ensure that we meet our obligations in relation to annual leave, sick pay, training and, importantly, access to internal vacancies as and when they arise.

The House is asked to note the medium-term financial plan. I am tempted to take the position of the shadow Leader of the House and say nothing more about restoration and renewal. However, I will just say that it is a major issue. It is not simply that the expenditure is beyond the medium-term financial plan. We need to assure ourselves that the expenditure that we are undertaking on capital is not nugatory and will contribute beneficially to the overall programme. However, that does not require us to rush at defining what that overall and major programme looks like. Options should be properly explored and costed.

The involvement of the Major Projects Authority and Infrastructure UK in the review process is entirely sensible. Members in this House and in the other House will have potentially strong views on whether it is necessary to leave this place for a period. There could be a decant for a short time, or a long time, or no decant at all. No one would choose to decant; it is not something that any of us seek. None the less, we must understand that the risks and constraints on us if we do not do so may also be considerable. The independent assessment needs to give us a clear understanding of the options in terms of the practicalities, cost and potential value for money. The decision will not emerge from the options appraisal; it is a decision that we will have to make. We need to weigh the costs and complexities against how we manage our business and how the House continues to meet its obligations. Indeed, the relationship between Parliament and Government in trying to manage the business of government is a significant one, so we will only make a decision on the basis of that assessment and of Members being consulted. A decision will be made at the proper time. My hon. Friend the Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross was right to say that the decision is likely to be made not in this Parliament, but early in the next one.

We have had sensible discussions on the education centre. As a member of the House of Commons Commission, I can say that we have rightly identified how we can proceed in a way that represents the best available option. In principle, it is absolutely the right thing to do. We want as many young people as possible to have a direct experience of Parliament, which they will carry with them through their lives. We are aiming for 100,000 young people, but it is a shame that we cannot aim for 600,000. On that basis, we could say to every young person in this country that at some point during their school lives, they would have an opportunity to visit Parliament. To be as ambitious as we are is the very least that we should set out to do.

The House will have noticed in the medium-term financial plan that there is a reference to further pressures, including the Government’s agenda on public engagement, which we are keen to push forward. I will not elaborate, but I am talking about things such as the public reading stages of Bills. I am keen to work with colleagues from across the House on the further development of our petition system, including the Government e-petition system, which will make it easier for the public to engage with us. It will be readily accessible and will help the public to understand that they are petitioning Parliament and Government on their issues—not one or the other. There will be an enhanced expectation about and experience of the response, and a hope that the matter will be taken up and debated in Parliament.

On behalf of the Commission, I want to emphasise how useful this debate has been in helping us to consider the report of the Finance and Services Committee and to frame a response to it. Support for the motion today would represent an endorsement of a plan for the sustainable delivery of high-quality services to the House, while making the necessary and proportionate contribution to savings in administration expenditure in public services. I ask the House to support the motion.

14:29

[John Thurso]

By my count, some 14 or possibly 15 Members—in addition to the Front Benchers and me—have taken part in the debate. It has been constructive, not only because of the support that has been given to the motion and concepts that have been proposed but in how disagreement has been expressed. I would have liked to have acknowledged the contributions of every Member who spoke, both those who expressed differences of opinion and those who expressed support, but given that we are a little past 2.15 pm, may I do that collectively? It has been an extremely good and fulfilling debate and I will ensure that where I made the odd mistake—I have subsequently been inspired with the answers—Members receive the information in writing. My strong sense, which I hope is not misplaced, is that the House feels favourably towards the motion, so I urge Members to support it.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House notes the medium-term financial plan for the House of Commons as set out in Appendix A to the First Report from the Finance and Services Committee, HC 754; endorses the intention of the Finance and Services Committee to recommend to the House of Commons Commission a House of Commons: Administration Estimate of £200.6 million, which includes funding for the proposed Education Centre; further notes that, in line with the target for the Savings Programme, this is consistent with a reduction of 17 per cent in real terms since 2010-11; and further endorses the intention of the Finance and Services Committee to recommend to the Members Estimate Committee a House of Commons: Members Estimate of £33.3 million.

Stalking

Thursday 21st November 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

Before I call the right hon. Member for Dwyfor Meirionnydd (Mr Llwyd) to move the motion, I should advise the House that, as will shortly become clear on the Annunciator, there will be a 15-minute limit on Back-Bench speeches.

14:30

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

I beg to move,

That this House notes that 25 November 2013 will mark the first anniversary of the new laws on stalking coming into force; is concerned at the lack of progress made on training of criminal justice professionals in the new laws, particularly in the police and the Crown Prosecution Service; and recognises the impact this is having on the confidence and wellbeing of victims of stalking.

I am pleased that we are having this important debate today. It has been facilitated by the Backbench Business Committee, to which we are collectively very grateful. I also thank the House of Commons Library for preparing the splendid debate pack that we have all received.

On 25 November 2013, it will be the first anniversary of the implementation of the new stalking laws—sections 2A and 4A of the Protection from Harassment Act 1997, which came into force on 25 November 2012. The new legislation was passed as a result of the work of the independent parliamentary inquiry into stalking law reform, which I had the privilege of chairing. The inquiry drew its membership from both Houses of Parliament and from across the political parties, as well as from Cross Benchers in the other place. I think that this might have been the first example of a cross-party group that is not a Committee of the House having succeeded in bringing about a change in the law. I am certainly very glad to have played a part in that, as other Members in the Chamber today did, too.

The inquiry was assisted by Harry Fletcher, deputy general secretary of the National Association of Probation Officers, and Laura Richards, a criminal behavioural psychologist. Their help in the stalking law reform campaign was truly invaluable. Harry and Laura have since gone on to found Paladin, Britain’s first ever stalking advocacy service for high-risk victims of stalking. The service opened on 11 July 2013 and within 18 weeks had received more than 100 referrals.

We have recently launched an all-party group on stalking and harassment, one of the purposes of which is to scrutinise the implementation of the new stalking legislation. I thank members of the group for sponsoring today’s debate, principally, of course, the right hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham (Mrs Gillan) and the hon. Member for Ayr, Carrick and Cumnock (Sandra Osborne). I thank them for being lead sponsors and for their huge commitment to the subject.

Let me give a little background, although I will truncate it given that we are short of time. The terms of reference of the stalking law reform inquiry were to examine the substantive law in England and Wales, the sentencing practice surrounding that law, the availability of treatment programmes for perpetrators, parole arrangements , the need for training for police and the probation service, stalking law in the European Union, and, crucially, the experience of victims and their families. Over the course of six months, the panel took oral and written evidence from criminal justice professionals, academics and legal experts as well as victims of stalking and their families. On 7 February 2012, we published a report and recommendations based on that evidence, which were launched in the Cholmondeley Room in the other place.

Almost exactly a month later, on 8 March 2012, the Prime Minister announced that, as his main pledge on international women’s day, the Government would legislate to make stalking a named offence in law. Legislation was passed by both Houses within 11 days of that announcement, which is testament, I believe, to the force and credibility of the evidence provided to the inquiry panel. The new offences were made as amendments to the Protection from Harassment Act. As well as the new less severe section 2A offence of stalking, which is punishable by up to 51 weeks in prison or a fine, the legislation includes a section 4A offence of

“stalking involving fear of violence or serious alarm or distress”.

The latter offence is punishable by up to five years’ imprisonment or a fine and is triable by both the Crown court and magistrates court.

To prove a section 2A offence, a court must decide that a perpetrator pursued a course of conduct that amounts to harassment and that the particular harassment can be described as stalking. Although the term “stalking” is not defined, the new clauses include a non-exhaustive list of basic behaviours, including following a person; contacting, or attempting to contact, a person by any means; publishing any statement or other material relating or purporting to relate to a person, or purporting to originate from a person; monitoring the use by a person of the internet, e-mail or any other form of electronic communication; loitering in any place, whether public or private; interfering with any property in the possession of a person; or watching or spying on a person.

To prove a section 4A offence, the more serious offence, a court would need to determine that the perpetrator’s behaviour amounted to stalking involving fear of violence or serious alarm or distress. Although the terms “serious alarm” and “distress” are not defined, the perpetrator’s course of conduct can include behaviour that causes another to fear, on at least two occasions, that violence will be used against an individual, or causes an individual alarm or distress that has a substantial adverse effect on that individual’s usual day-to-day activities.

It was important to us as a panel that the new section 4A offence was included to allow for the serious psychological impact that stalking can have on a victim, particularly over a prolonged period. It was also important that the new legislation defined stalking not just in terms of the behaviour of the perpetrators but in terms of the impact the crime had on its victim and provided that if the impact on the victim was greater, the penalties should be more stringent. If a jury finds a person not guilty of a section 4A offence, the option is still open to them to find that person guilty under the lesser section 2A offence.

Previously, the term “stalking” had not been named in legislation, which many believe resulted in some criminal justice professionals not taking the offence seriously. Naming the term “stalking” in law was a highly symbolic move; indeed, few countries worldwide do so. Our research found that legislation covering the crime of stalking was found in several English speaking countries across the world as well as in 13 EU member states. At the time that we launched our report, however, none of those countries used the term “stalking” in the definition of the law, opting for more generic terms such as “harassment”, “belaging” and “persistent pursuit”.

Stalking is a crime that rips relationships apart and shatters lives. The British crime survey for 2011-12 suggested that at least 120,000 individuals are affected by stalking and harassment each year. According to figures collated by the Home Office, one in five women and one in 10 men will experience stalking in their adult life. Figures held by the national stalking helpline from 2011 show that the 80.4% of the victims contacting the service were female, while 70.5% of perpetrators were male.

Stalking is a pervasive crime and I have little doubt that all Members of Parliament will have come across it, either in their constituency surgeries or through personal experience.

[Mr Robin Walker (Worcester) (Con)]

I congratulate the right hon. Gentleman on the important speech he is making. He mentions the personal experience of Members of Parliament, but would he agree that many of the staff who work with us in our offices might have such experiences, too? It is important that we should have laws to protect them, too.

[Mr Llwyd]

The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. In fact, the all-party group is currently working on ensuring that we have a code of conduct and a means of disseminating information on identifying when those offences start and nipping them in the bud. The right hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham has said on several occasions that she wishes to see not only MPs covered, but our staff, and she is right.

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

I pay tribute to the right hon. Gentleman for his pioneering work in this area, but does he agree that the purpose of having an all-party group on stalking and harassment is to ensure that we get information right across the board to all parliamentarians in both Houses and, through them, to their staff and the people beyond, because it is true that we often experience that, or constituents who have experienced it come to see us in our surgeries? We need to be able to help our own people as well as our constituents who come to us.

[Mr Llwyd]

The right hon. Lady is absolutely correct and I agree with every word she has said. The group’s strength is the fact that it is all-party, so Politics—with a capital P—plays no part in our deliberations.

The reason that stalking is hard to delineate is that it consists of a catalogue of incidents that, when taken alone, can seem innocuous enough to begin with. It is only when they are taken together that their cumulative and sinister effect can be seen. In many stalking cases the perpetrator will never issue an overt threat, but rather plagues his or her victim with flowers, phone calls, letters and gifts. It is thought that victims tend to wait until the 100th incident of stalking before reporting the matter to the police.

The advent of the internet also provides perpetrators with far greater opportunities to attack their victims—for example, on social media websites such as Twitter and Ask.fm and on online forums. Individuals can shield their true identity by adopting pseudonyms and hiding their IP address. More and more, the phenomenon of internet trolling is becoming an issue of concern. Multiple individuals can target a victim by sending them abusive messages, sometimes hundreds at a time. The recent examples involving Caroline Criado-Perez and the hon. Member for Walthamstow (Stella Creasy) are cases in point.

[Dr Julian Huppert (Cambridge) (LD)]

I congratulate the right hon. Gentleman on raising this subject so consistently—the House will miss him greatly when he stands down in a year and a half. He is right to make the point that a huge number of victims do not always realise that they are victims, whether online or offline. There were about 120,000 victims last year, most of whom were not recorded by the police and probably were not recognised. How can we encourage people to realise when stalking behaviour is starting so that they can spot the problem early?

[Mr Llwyd]

The hon. Gentleman is right, because part of the campaign we are running is about making people aware of the cumulative nature of this insidious offence. It is important that not only the people who might suffer it, but professionals in the field, get into training as soon as possible so that we can plug the gap properly.

Research conducted by Lorraine Sheridan in 2005 found that half of stalking victims had to give up social activities as a result of stalking, while half saw their performance at work affected and 98% reported emotional affects such as distrust, appetite disturbance, insomnia, agoraphobia, self-harm and even suicidal thoughts. Research by Laura Richards in November 2011 revealed the horrendous long-term nature of stalking behaviour, as well as the effect that has on victims. One in every two victims who took part in the survey had been stalked for longer than 18 months, and 42% were stalked for more than 24 months. With protracted stalking campaigns there is a real risk of escalation. Offenders can ultimately go on to attack, rape, cause serious harm or even murder their victims.

Our inquiry panel was in little doubt that victims were not getting enough support and that the prevalence of the crime far outstripped police investigations, arrests and charges brought against perpetrators. Indeed, almost all of those who have evidence to us were persuaded that the 1997 Act was not doing an adequate job of protecting victims of the crime. The Act was passed with the best intentions—I was here at the time and played a small part in it—but the wideness of its provisions was in many respects its weakness.

In his foreword to “An evaluation of the use and effectiveness of the Protection from Harassment Act 1997”, David Moxton stated:

“The Act came into force in June 1997 and was intended to deal with the overt problem of stalking.”

But in her summary of the same report, Jessica Harris noted:

“One of the Act’s aims was to tackle the problem of stalking, but it also covered a range of behaviour which might be classed more broadly as harassment of one kind or other... The Act is being used to deal with a variety of behaviour other than stalking including domestic and inter-neighbour disputes and rarely for stalking itself.”

Those are problems we saw. Answers to parliamentary questions asked by members of the panel gave various pieces of important information. For example, we discovered that in 2009 4,365 persons were found guilty under section 2, the offence of harassment, but that the number receiving a custodial sentence was only 565—13% of those found guilty. Our research also showed that it was highly unusual for persons to be found guilty of the section 4 offence, which is putting a person in fear of violence. In 2009, 786 persons were found guilty, of whom only 170 were given a prison sentence—22% of the total. Our report states:

“The number of persons found guilty of breaching a restraining order under Section 5 of the Act was 1,463 in 2009 and the percentage of those jailed was 32%. However if the figures are taken as a percentage of all the offences recorded during 2009 then only 2% were jailed and 10% were fined or dealt with in other ways.”

What was so concerning about the fact that so few perpetrators were given custodial sentences was not simply that victims were denied justice, but that the individuals involved were not being given treatment to address their obsessive behaviour. Stalking is undoubtedly a characteristic of obsessive behaviour. The evidence we compiled for our report showed that most perpetrators of stalking commit multiple breaches of restraining orders over their criminal “careers”. Some individuals breach four or five times. Examples submitted to the inquiry showed that some individuals breached their order more than five times and still received either a fine or another form of non-custodial sentence.

We also heard evidence of numerous perpetrators being charged with offences that were less serious than stalking and focused on only one incident of abuse, rather than the whole pattern of behaviour. We were persuaded that it was essential that courses of conduct should be taken into account. If offences of this nature are not taken seriously and properly prosecuted and if the perpetrators are not treated, the underlying problems prompting that behaviour will never be properly addressed.

To be fair, the Government acted quickly on many of those recommendations and passed legislation in March 2012. However, despite the new 2A and 4A offences coming into force in November 2012, there are concerns that the new laws are not being used widely enough and that many police forces have not held training on the new offences.

[Henry Smith (Crawley) (Con)]

Almost a year ago, at the same time as the law bearing down on stalking was enacted, police and crime commissioners were introduced. Members of Parliament can get in touch with those elected officials to ensure that the offence of stalking is properly pursued in our police force areas.

[Mr Llwyd]

I am sure that that will assist in bringing pressure to bear in the right quarters.

Figures obtained via a freedom of information request, and confirmed by the Home Office, reveal that only 33 offenders were convicted by the courts in England and Wales in the first six months following enactment of the new stalking laws. In a letter to me dated 27 March 2012, the Home Secretary informed me that the Government would be consulting various stakeholders to ensure that the police and prosecution service have the necessary training and guidance to enable them to make best use of the new legislation. However, although I understand that the police have begun training, to date less than 30% of police officers have seen the e-learning packages. The number of arrests in the first six months was just 320. In Scotland, by contrast, in the 30 months since their law was introduced 1,431 detections had been recorded, and 1,046 of them had commenced prosecution. Of the 1,046, 450 had secured convictions and 315 still awaited prosecution. That suggests that the figures for England and Wales are well below expectation. In September, I found out that the CPS had developed an online e-learning course on cyber-stalking, which was launched in September 2012. Training in the new stalking legislation has barely commenced, and the Solicitor-General told me:

“The CPS is currently developing further training on the stalking offences, with emphasis on building a strong case, working closely with the police and engaging with victims throughout the legal process.”—[Official Report, 12 September 2013; Vol. 567, c. 808W.]

Surely we should be seeing more progress by now.

In answer to another written parliamentary question on the same date, in which I asked what plans the MOJ had to revise sentencing guidelines on the new stalking offences, I was informed that:

“The independent Sentencing Council is responsible for producing sentencing guidelines and it will be for the Council to consider the issue of new or revised guidelines covering these offences.”—[Official Report, 12 September 2013; Vol. 567, c. 849W.]

So stalking has yet to be included in the sentencing guidelines.

An analysis of cases dealt with by Paladin has shown that the Crown Prosecution Service frequently charges individuals with harassment and not stalking. In some cases, matters are discontinued. Offenders can choose to enter a plea bargain, so denying the victim the right to a court trial in which the full course of conduct of their perpetrator will be revealed to the court. More lenient sentences are handed down to offenders, and victims are still left feeling disappointed and unprotected.

Police information notices, often wrongly referred to as harassment warnings, are being handed out as a matter of course in stalking cases to victims and the alleged perpetrator alike, showing a failure by the police properly to investigate the complaints. There are, however, some positives. In the past year, the national stalking helpline has seen a 56% increase in calls compared to the same period the previous year, with many callers saying that they are aware that the law has changed.

Stalking is no longer a hidden crime, although online abusers can still hide behind avatars and pseudonyms. But there is a “but”. In spite of an increase in awareness among victims, the content of the calls that the helpline is receiving has not changed. Only 6.6% of the victims who contacted the helpline in the last year and who had reported the behaviour to the police were content with the response they received. The helpline has said that it frequently received calls from victims who receive inappropriate or even dangerous advice from law enforcement professionals. Victims report being told by police, “Well, you were in a relationship with him”, and, “I have to deal with murders and serious assaults, it’s not like you are black and blue”. Believe it or not, these things were said.

[Rebecca Harris (Castle Point) (Con)]

Is the hon. Gentleman aware of occasions such as I have come across, when the police have dismissed what seems to be obvious stalking—for example, a dispute over child maintenance or that kind of issue? It is difficult sometimes to recognise what is going on if one does not know the full back story and the victim is not able to explain the harassment.

[Mr Llwyd]

The hon. Lady is right. Unfortunately, her experience adds to the general experience that we have.

These failings are leaving victims vulnerable to further assault and to being secondarily victimised by the justice system—the precise complaint that victims brought to us during the inquiry.

In the past few months, the Government have taken proactive steps to improve the treatment that victims of crime receive from the criminal justice system. The government have raised the possibility, for example, of giving victims the opportunity to challenge decisions taken by the CPS not to charge suspects, or to drop prosecutions. This is essential work, and it must be followed through if we are to see any real change. As a result of the stalking law reform campaign and our inquiry here in Parliament, we now have more robust legislation to tackle the problem of stalking. But having a robust law is not enough; we must ensure that it is properly and thoroughly implemented. Thorough and complete training must be rolled out for all criminal justice professionals and monitored by relevant Departments within Whitehall. Victims must be made to feel more confident in the system. Most importantly, however, and since stalking is characteristic of obsessive behaviour, getting conviction rates up on its own will not stop these problems occurring. That is why, in the long term, we must combat the root of the problem by introducing a register of perpetrators and treatment programmes for serial stalkers.

I am grateful for the opportunity to raise these matters. We owe it to the public to get this right. I am sure that we will, but today is an opportunity to persuade the Government to bring matters forward far quicker than at present.

royal assent

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Mrs Eleanor Laing)]

I have to notify the House, in accordance with the Royal Assent Act 1967, that Her Majesty has signified her Royal Assent to the following Act:

High Speed Rail (Preparation) Act 2013.

Stalking

Thursday 21st November 2013 Commons Chamber

Debate resumed.

14:54

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

I could have done without the announcement of Royal Assent to a Bill that I think colleagues know causes a great deal of difficulty for my constituents.

I begin by apologising to the Minister and the right hon. Member for Dwyfor Meirionnydd (Mr Llwyd) that I will not be here for the wind-ups. I am afraid that logistics have defeated me this Thursday.

This is my first experience of a Backbench Business Committee debate, and I add my thanks to the Committee for granting this debate to the group of Members who asked for this topic to be covered, of which I was privileged to be part. The debate is particularly apposite because Monday is the first anniversary of the introduction of two new specific offences on stalking. Those two new laws are in no small way due to the tireless efforts of the right hon. Member for Dwyfor Meirionnydd. I am second to none in acknowledging the work that he has put in. I had the privilege of serving with him when my party was in opposition on the justice unions group. It was directly out of his work on that group that the investigation was set up, which has led to the Government’s strengthening the legislation, building on the legislation that was passed in 1997.

I also join the right hon. Gentleman in paying tribute to Harry Fletcher and Laura Richards. I have known Harry Fletcher for rather a long time. At one stage, I was seeing so much of him that I felt that he had become part of my office staff. That was in the days when I shadowed Home Office affairs. He has a formidable reputation for his work in this area, on probation and other matters, and he and Laura Richards now provide a tremendous service through Paladin, the organisation set up to provide a national stalking advocacy service. We are very fortunate that they help us in the all-party parliamentary group on stalking and harassment, and long may that continue. A lot of the work that has been done on this debate has come directly through Paladin and the work of the all-party group.

In my intervention I acknowledged that most Members of Parliament will come across cases of stalking and harassment in their constituency caseload. Indeed, colleagues have been stalked and harassed themselves. Most of us will remember the speech made in the emergency debate in October by my hon. Friend the Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tim Loughton) about the harassment, bullying, stalking and trolling of him and his immediate family and staff.

I do not know about colleagues here in the Chamber, but when I am approached by constituents and asked to take up cases I sometimes almost feel as though I am being used to continue the stalking and harassment. That is why I am pleased that the all-party group is considering issuing some guidelines and thoughts on how we can keep an eye on this as Members of Parliament to make sure that we are not being used and exacerbating the situation that suddenly arises in our constituency surgeries, where we are trying our very best to help. We do not want to become part of constituents’ problems; we always want to be part of a solution. I hope that the work we are planning to do on this will be welcomed right across the board.

For people watching this who may have a personal problem, I am going to give a small advert for the national stalking and harassment helpline: its number is 0808 802 0300. There is also the advocacy organisation, Paladin, which has on its website advice for victims and for professionals. There is assistance and help out there for people; they are not on their own. It is important for them to remember that those sources of help are available.

I want to start by looking at arrests and investigations. The new stalking laws were of course very welcome, but the figures for the number of persons arrested, charged and convicted in England and Wales under those laws have been made available only for the first six months. Those figures are disappointing and I do not think they reflect the seriousness of the crimes. We will be the first to appreciate that the figures are incomplete, and we know that it takes a tremendous amount of time to gather such information from the 42 police services. Nevertheless, I hope that in his winding-up speech, which I look forward to reading, the Minister will be able to respond to those initial figures and perhaps produce some updated figures with which to help us. I welcome him to his place on the Front Bench. He is not the Minister directly responsible for this and is standing in for another Home Office Minister, but I know that with his reputation for assiduous attention to detail he will produce a very good response to the debate.

By the end of June 2013, data from 30 of the 42 police services had been sent to the Home Office. From those data, we were able to see that there have been 320 arrests, with 189 alleged offenders having been charged. However, so far only 33 of them have been convicted of stalking. I recognise that the majority of these cases are still being processed, but the numbers of arrests do seem to be low. If the figures are representative, as they probably are, there will have been about 450 arrests under the new laws in that six-month period. However, in Scotland, where the new laws became effective at the beginning of 2011, there have been more than 1,450 detections of stalking in the first 30-month period, and I understand that so far about a third of those individuals have been convicted. During the first six months, Scotland saw about 250 arrests. A comparison of the figures suggests that those for England and Wales are quite low.

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

The right hon. Lady makes a point that very much troubles me. In the first six months of the offence being in place in Scotland there were 140 prosecutions in Strathclyde alone. Does she agree that it is very troubling that just one area in Scotland can achieve almost half the prosecutions we have achieved in England and Wales, and that that needs to be addressed?

[Mrs Gillan]

That is right, and I thank the hon. Lady for her intervention. That is the message that we need to send to the Home Office. We need to dig deeper into these figures and look at the efficacy of the laws and the ways in which they are being applied.

There seems to be widespread inconsistency between the police service areas in England and Wales. I have had a look at some of the figures. There were 133 arrests in the Metropolitan police service area, but in Gloucestershire there were none. In between those extremes, there were 36 arrests in Lancashire, 20 in my own Thames Valley police area, 14 in Suffolk, 12 in Bedfordshire, and just two in Merseyside. I think all Members would agree that there is something very challenging about those statistics. The number of people charged also varies. The Metropolitan police service is again on top with 71. My own Thames Valley police area had 12. In north Wales there were six, in Sussex eight, and in Leicestershire 10—I could go on. The number of those so far convicted is too small to be of any statistical significance whatsoever. I hope the Minister will be able to share some up-to-date figures that we have not yet been able to obtain.

I would also welcome an observation from the Minister on how we can improve the situation and on what the Government intend to do about their strategy and working with the police. Case material received by my office from Paladin seems to indicate that there are some major outstanding training needs, particularly in the understanding of the new laws. I think we need to consider all stalking behaviour when victims complain and the serious nature of such behaviour.

I hope that action will be taken with the police and crime commissioners, who are a new tool in our defence against crime. They should be specifically instructed to address the issue, produce up-to-date statistics and review the operation of the local police force within their purview, so as to enable them to improve what is happening in it. A large number of victims who expected more of the new law are still frustrated, angry and demoralised. The patchy provision across the country reflects my anxiety about the early stages of the law’s implementation and how it should be improved.

I want to talk briefly about some of the sentencing trends. Current sentencing decisions are inconsistent. Several of the jail sentences, which are rare in themselves, have been for only a few months, while suspended and community sentences appear to be commonplace. We need to revise those sentencing guidelines and reissue them pretty quickly to ensure some consistency across the board. I do not believe that the guidelines have been revised since the new laws came into place a year ago. Therefore, we have confusion at best; we certainly do not have the clarity envisaged when the legislation was introduced. There is no evidence that magistrates and judges have received adequate training on how to interpret the new laws. That is absolutely essential: our magistracy and judiciary need that training in order to understand what is, after all, a complex area of crime.

I echo the comments of the right hon. Member for Dwyfor Meirionnydd that, commonly, defendants are charged for just one incident when there has in fact been a course of unlawful behaviour over months and even years. It is all very well charging the perpetrator for the one crime that the Crown Prosecution Service can pursue, but the background of repeated behaviour—the pattern of behaviour—must be taken into consideration.

Court reports, which are commissioned by the court, tend to deal with only the most recent incident, rather than the stalker’s behaviour over a long period. I firmly believe that the court should always ask for the offender’s full social history. It is clear from the advice I have been given that that is not happening. Bail conditions and restraining orders are often not stringent enough. Exclusion zones are often too narrowly defined and bail often fails to provide for no contact. Both are frequently breached, without consequence to the perpetrator.

Paladin has provided me with a number of comments made by judges, Ministry of Justice officials and lawyers after trials have been completed. Because of the time constraint, I shall not repeat them but these quotes show real concerns which do not appear to be reflected in the sentencing outcomes. That underlines the urgent need for those revised guidelines, which should emphasise the extreme seriousness of the criminal behaviour.

I welcome the opportunity to raise these matters. They are of great concern to us and to a wider audience. The experience of victims of stalking and harassment over the past year strongly suggests that more training and guidance needs to be issued by the Sentencing Council without delay. We must ensure that sentencing is consistent and reflects the intention of the new laws and therefore of Parliament.

15:09

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

It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair. Madam Deputy Speaker.

I am at a disadvantage as I do not have the Welsh experience of the right hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham (Mrs Gillan) and I have great difficulty pronouncing the constituency of the right hon. Member for Dwyfor Meirionnydd (Mr Llwyd), but I want to add my thanks to him for the leadership he has provided on this issue in the House, and to express my sadness that he does not intend to stand at the next election. He will be greatly missed in this place.

I wish to record my thanks to Harry Fletcher and Laura Richards, who have achieved such rapid results both in legislation and in the difficult task of attracting funding for Paladin—the national stalking advocacy service which, as we know, was launched in July this year. They have, as the right hon. Lady said, also been a great support to the all-party group.

It will not surprise Members that in my contribution I shall briefly compare the situation in Scotland and in England and Wales, and look at the behaviour and treatment of perpetrators and the work and experience of the national stalking helpline, if time permits. I pay tribute to my constituent Ann Moulds, who endured years of torment from a stalker. She has been at the heart of campaigns to raise awareness of stalking at both national and local level and founded Action Scotland Against Stalking. This is a voluntary organisation which was set up to campaign for victims of stalking to be protected through the introduction of specific anti-stalking legislation and to help progress the rights of victims within the criminal justice process. It is obviously a sign of progress that we now have legislation across the UK to deal with stalking, and Ann Moulds has played an important part in helping to bring these laws about.

As we heard, in Scotland in the first 30 months of the legislation more than 1,400 charges were reported to the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service, of which 1,046 resulted in the commencement of a prosecution, with around 460 convictions. I am informed by the Crown Office that 315 cases are still in process. Given that the legislation is relatively new, I give it two cheers. The numbers are positive, as we have heard, compared with the situation in England and Wales, where the population is much bigger. It is useful to look at how the legislation is being implemented in both places to see what lessons can be learned.

As hon. Members have said, the reported detection rates for England and Wales suggest a clear lack of effective implementation of the stalking legislation. One of the biggest issues is the lack of statistical data to establish a base-line reference for a true measurement of the problem. Training completion rates for police services suggest that a higher level of detection rates could be anticipated, but police recording of the crime lacks transparency and practices are not being systematically monitored. Whatever the precise stalking rate, it is clear that it is dramatically higher than the number of persons identified by the police would suggest. In other words, the low detection rates supported by anecdotal evidence provide enough information to suggest that there is a severe lack of expertise in stalking cases throughout the police, prosecution agencies and the courts, not a lack of stalking cases.

The legislation is either not being enforced or is being deliberately ignored by the very people charged with the responsibility to enforce it. Legislation in itself is worthless if it does not lead to a change in attitude to one that does not tolerate violence against women in all its forms. The reason why stalking was introduced as a stand-alone offence is that neither the existing law nor its application was working, as hon. Members have said.

Stalking as a concept is completely different from harassment: it has a different mode, motive and perspective. An inability to recognise those intrinsic differences is one reason why stalking is not taken seriously enough. Recognising stalking as a distinct and serious crime is in the interest not only of victims but of the public, because it plainly shows that such an offence has been committed.

There is a vast difference between someone identified as a stalker and someone who has got into trouble for harassment, as harassment says very little about the persistent, obsessional nature of the crime. Should an offender come before the criminal justice system again, it will be clear that he has a conviction for stalking. That is important in detecting stalkers who are serial ones, as many are. Stalking can lead to other forms of serious acts of violence, so it is important to establish such links. Prosecution for stalking signifies that the stalking has been acknowledged and taken seriously. It sends a clear message to the victim and to the public, and it encourages other victims to seek help and to report cases to the police.

The criminal justice system is a tool that we, as a society, use to signal what is and what is not acceptable. Based on many years’ experience, I firmly believe that where legislation is brought in, hearts and minds will follow. Victims should no longer be expected to live with the constant fear and powerlessness of being stalked. A miscarriage of justice occurs not just when an innocent person is wrongly convicted, but when innocent victims are failed by the state, sometimes at the cost of their lives, including from a failure to realise that psychological harm can be every bit as serious as physical violence.

There was welcome news in Scotland yesterday. The Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service in Scotland will no longer enter into plea bargains with stalkers, following a case highlighted by the Daily Record, which has campaigned on the issue. The Crown Office chief executive wrote a letter of apology to the victim, Frances Carroll, after accepting that a plea of not guilty as part of a plea bargain should never have happened.

That plea bargain meant that the case against an obsessed bully who stalked and terrorised Frances was dropped, and that John Cabrelli faced only one charge of stalking, which was against a second woman, Ashley McCann. After the plea bargain, the charge involving Frances was dropped, while that involving Ashley was lowered from a section 39 charge of stalking under the Criminal Justice and Licensing (Scotland) Act 2010 to a section 38 charge of abusive and threatening behaviour. Both women were therefore short-changed, to say the least, by the criminal justice system.

Procurators fiscal and their deputies are now being told that all evidence in stalking trials must be heard and tested in court. That huge step forward would never have happened without the Daily Record campaign, on which it is to be congratulated.

Before this debate, I contacted Ann Moulds for her views on training issues from the Scottish context. Ann reported that although there is still much to do, substantial progress is being made. She advised me that she was told at a recent meeting with the Crown Office in Scotland that all front-line police officers in Scotland are to be trained to a basic level of understanding for the purposes of identification, which is welcome news.

Ann informed me about the work she is doing on a schools stalking project in South Ayrshire in my constituency. It involves eight secondary schools across South Ayrshire, in which year 5 and 6 pupils will develop short films about stalking. I am sure that everybody in the House will agree that it is important to educate young people about this serious issue.

The main difference between Scotland and England and Wales is that the legislation has had longer to bed in in Scotland. The overall picture in Scotland is positive. The legislation there is now up for review, which is good news. I am sure that we will see more progress in England and Wales in the near future, particularly in the important area of staff training.

Whenever we discuss stalking, we must remember that it is not just something that happens to high-profile celebrities. It happens to ordinary people, whose lives can be ruined. The survey by Leicester university and the Network for Surviving Stalking, which is the largest such project undertaken in the UK, shows that one in five women will fall victim to stalking in their lifetime. That is a horrifying statistic that underlines why legislation was needed and why we need to build on that legislation by prioritising the training of criminal justice professionals and spreading awareness across local communities.

The question of how perpetrators should be treated is controversial, as it presupposes that treatment can be effective and can afford sufficient safety to the victim. I say unequivocally that stalking is a crime first and foremost, and should be treated as such. Perpetrators should feel the full force of the law, with no suggestion of pre-court diversion, which takes away the criminal element and puts the victim at risk.

I have campaigned against violence against women for more than 30 years. I chair my local Women’s Aid group, where I started work 30 years ago. I pay tribute to that organisation, especially Karen Gardner who has devoted her life to Women’s Aid and who leads the team in East Ayrshire. I make no apology for the continual tributes, because the people who do this kind of work do not get anything like the recognition that they richly deserve.

To return to the subject of perpetrators, I was astounded to hear last month that Sir Stephen House, the chief constable of Police Scotland, suggested that some domestic violence offenders could be directed to counselling or relationship guidance, rather than be taken to court. That would take us back to the early ’90s—it failed then and it would fail now. To categorise domestic violence or stalking as some kind of relationship dysfunction, rather than a crime, sends out all the wrong messages. It is particularly worrying that that has come from a person who is running the whole police force of Scotland. I honestly thought that we had made much more progress than that. To make matters worse, he takes issue with the fact that his officers have to act in every case. It took us years to achieve that in domestic violence cases and we are still a long way from it in stalking cases. It looks to me as though victims are once again being sacrificed to save time and money.

I recognise that many women want the behaviour to change or the stalking to stop, but the bottom line is that if a crime has been committed, court is what we have. Why should domestic violence or stalking be dealt with differently from any other crime, unless we do not really accept that it is a crime? I accept that a criminal sanction is not the whole answer, but it is an important part of it.

In the summer of 2011, NAPO, the probation union, asked its members to provide case histories of individuals who had been convicted of significant stalking behaviour in the previous 12 months. By autumn 2011, it had received 80 studies. The majority of those came from probation victim liaison units.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Mrs Eleanor Laing)]

I regret having to interrupt the hon. Lady. Having put a time limit of 15 minutes on Back-Bench speeches, I note that it appears that fewer Members are in the Chamber than was the case at the beginning of the debate. If the hon. Lady would like to take a little more than 15 minutes, she is welcome to do so. The same goes for other Back Benchers.

[Sandra Osborne]

Thank you very much for informing me of that welcome news, Madam Deputy Speaker.

During NAPO’s study it became apparent that court report writers, following training, often concentrated on the immediate matter before the court and did not take into account previous histories or behaviours. In NAPO’s view that meant that significant stalking and harassment evidence was being missed by the courts on a finding of guilt—a view also shared by the leadership of the Magistrates’ Association.

Probation staff are concerned that evidence shows that sentences handed down by the courts are often too short for rehabilitation or treatment to occur, and that cumulative behaviour is not taken into account by the courts when determining outcome. For example, it is not routine for psychological or psychiatric assessments of the perpetrator to be requested by the courts; indeed, often they are turned down. In the view of NAPO and Paladin, as a consequence of that, women who are being stalked are placed at grave risk. The cases submitted by NAPO members are strikingly similar. They are disturbing and frightening for victims, and all the experiences were harrowing. The overwhelming majority of victims were in constant fear; many were physically injured and most experienced varying levels of assault. Many were the victims of criminal damage, and in extreme cases victims were either murdered or subjected to attempted murder. There is evidence that perpetrators threaten the family and friends of victims to get information, either in real life or through texts and the internet.

A number of common characteristics appear in all cases. Most victims claim that a significant number of incidents occur before they go to the police, and often their complaints are not investigated thoroughly. Stalking usually occurs over a long period—often years—and tends to be a mix of real life and cyber-stalking. There is overwhelming evidence that a perpetrator’s behaviour escalates if there is no criminal justice intervention or treatment. It appears that stalking behaviour is not properly recognised by professionals. In most cases—although not all—there is a history of domestic violence, with numerous incidents before matters are reported to the police. In a number of cases men were placed on domestic violence courses that were not appropriate, especially for those with links to mental ill health.

One case supplied by Paladin illustrates the problems that victims face. Rachel, aged 40, has been the subject of a long-term campaign of stalking. The stalker breached a court order banning him from contacting Rachel just hours after it was made. The magistrates court heard how he turned up at her address and workplace demanding she hand over cash, and he admitted stalking involving serious alarm and distress. He was given an 18-week suspended prison sentence and ordered to stay away from Rachel, but the next day he showed up at her place of work and was re-arrested. He told police, “She better not live in that house when I get out. I mean it.” His defence team stated that he was desperate and pleading for help. They said he did not threaten her when she said no to giving him money. The judge ordered the man to serve 18 weeks for each breach of the restraining order.

I strongly believe that whether a perpetrator is given a community or custodial sentence, a treatment programme from skilled practitioners is essential if victims are to be protected. I would welcome any statement from the Home Office on progress that has been made since last November when the laws came in, and on what plans there are for the future. I do not want to try your patience, Madam Deputy Speaker, so I will finish by saying that I am pleased, and actually proud, to take part in this debate.

15:28

[Priti Patel (Witham) (Con)]

I, too, commend the opportunity to speak in this debate, and congratulate those who secured it. This is an immensely important issue, and those of us in the House this afternoon will agree that more often than not, we do not spend enough time focusing on many of the challenges associated with the horrific issue of stalking, the impact it has on victims, and the processes that victims endure on their journey through the criminal justice system. I pay tribute, as all speakers have, to the work of Harry Fletcher and Laura Richards of Paladin national stalking advocacy service, and that of many others.

I would like to consider the experience of the victim. As co-chair of the all-party group on victims and victims of crime, I have been exposed to all sorts of horrible stories relating to stalking and other crimes, which have shone a spotlight on the process that individuals must go through, in addition to the personal suffering, trauma and emotional distress. It will not surprise the Minister to hear me say that I have long believed that victims’ voices should be at the centre of the criminal justice system, and I pay tribute to the Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice, my right hon. Friend the Member for Epsom and Ewell (Chris Grayling) for supporting the work of the all-party group.

It is clear from everything we have heard today that the voices of stalking victims are not represented effectively in the criminal justice system. The issue is not just about going to court, but the entire process: engagement with the police, how cases are treated, the thoroughness of investigations and whether complaints are taken seriously. It is fair to say that the process is ad hoc. There is not enough consistency and victims are being let down. It is excellent that new stalking laws are in place, but it is clear to all of us that much more needs to be done to assist victims properly.

To focus on the level of victims’ dissatisfaction with the criminal justice system process and with the professionals in it, I shall refer to the briefing from Paladin. Laura Richards produced a study that revealed the deep dissatisfaction felt by victims of stalking and the secondary victimisation that occurs—a very important point—when reliving the trauma of horrific experiences. We hear time and again about victims’ lack of confidence in the long judicial process, which does not acknowledge their emotional distress. Stalking is life-changing for victims, and the injustice has numerous psychological and physical aspects that affect their ability to engage and function socially. Irrespective of whether there has been a physical assault, there is psychological and emotional trauma.

Offenders are treated in a totally different way from victims. We need balance and fairness, and we must focus on fairness for the victims. I think the point has already been made this afternoon that victims tend not to report to the police after one or two incidents, but after the hundredth incident. There are many experts on this subject. We know that perpetrators are serial offenders, that they are persistent and malicious, and that they inflict as much psychological damage as possible and, in the worst cases, physical damage and the ultimate harm. The offending is relentless, but the system—the police interventions, the criminal justice system, the whole process—does not know how to address these issues. Much of it is down to how an officer responds on the scene or interacts with victims in the first instance. The situation is dreadful and something has to change.

Paladin is very good at providing victims’ anecdotes and comments. As ever, it is the victims’ stories that will make us sit up and listen and understand the extent of the trauma.

[Mr Llwyd]

The hon. Lady is a real fighter for victims and has done a lot of work in this area, and I respect her for that.

We would not have got this far without the evidence of witnesses who had suffered at the hands of perpetrators. I am talking not only about the victims, but sadly about families who have suffered bereavement because victims have been offended against several times and ultimately murdered. Without their bravery and emotional guts in giving evidence, we could not have got this far, so I am very interested in the hon. Lady’s remarks.

[Priti Patel]

I welcome the right hon. Gentleman’s intervention. He is absolutely right. Undoubtedly, everyone interested in this subject will have heard the stories. It is important that those voices be heard, but we need to empower them.

[Mr Robin Walker]

My hon. Friend is making an excellent point about empowering victims to speak out. Does she welcome the fact that the university of Worcester arranged a forum to bring together different organisations in the criminal justice system to hear from victims, along with the Worcestershire forum against domestic abuse, and to raise awareness of this issue and the trauma that victims face?

[Priti Patel]

I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention. We must empower victims and victims’ families to speak out. It is important that they do, because by doing so, including through forums such as the one in his constituency, they can challenge the culture in those institutions that normally close their eyes and ears and that do not always stand up for the victims. Such forums can be powerful tools.

In my constituency and the county of Essex, we have gone a long way to change the whole process—the policing, the dialogue, the engagement, the interaction—through our police and crime commissioner, Nick Alston, who has been a breath of fresh air. Our change of approach stems from the fact that in the past Essex has not had a great track record; we have had some horrific cases of stalking, domestic abuse and violence. Again, it is about hearing victims’ voices and challenging the organisations involved. That can be a powerful tipping point and a forceful interaction for change.

[Sandra Osborne]

Does the hon. Lady agree that the media have an important role to play in presenting victims’ stories, which, if done in the wrong way, can be very injurious to the victims?

[Priti Patel]

The hon. Lady is absolutely right to mention the role of the media. From start to finish, the media must be balanced, sensitive and thoughtful in reflecting victims’ experiences, particularly when it comes to court reporting by journalists sitting in on cases, which brings me back to my comment about re-victimisation. If those journalists get it wrong, it is traumatic and dreadful for the victims. We must all work in a joined-up way with all the organisations and institutions to ensure the right parameters, so that the media know how to report cases in the right way.

I would like to reflect on some of the statements by victims about their interaction with the police after suffering the trauma of stalking and harassment, along with psychological and physical abuse. Some of their comments are quite telling about their experiences and the challenges they face, which we have to overcome to ensure that the system works for the victims. I was quite taken aback by some of their comments, which show a degree of trivialisation of the issue—I do not like using that word in this context—and, dare I say it, indifference from the police towards victims. One victim said:

“‘The police didn’t take me seriously on any occasion that I went to them to report numerous events”

of stalking and harassment. Another victim said:

“They told me to switch my phone off and ignore it. They said there that nothing can be done. I showed them dozens of texts, they were not…interested. They said nothing can be done unless he actually tries to hurt me!”

That is simply unacceptable and puts this issue into context. The system is letting victims down. It is appalling to think that, as we have heard in this debate, there are cases in which the result has been death or murder, and there are hundreds of cases up and down the country—all Members present this afternoon can testify to that.

It is pretty clear that the victims of stalking are consistently let down by the criminal justice system. Victimisation is an issue, as I have said, but although new laws have been introduced, it is pretty obvious that victims are still not at the heart of the criminal justice system. There is no doubt that many agencies display a lack of awareness of the new law, as the comments I have quoted show. My right hon. Friend the Member for Chesham and Amersham (Mrs Gillan) spoke about training. There is no doubt that we need much more training, education and awareness. Again, incidents are treated in isolation, not linked with the totality of an offender’s behaviour and thus not seen as stalking when the victim finally reports. It is relentless. We have heard examples already, but although a perpetrator might be arrested, that is not linked with their stalking behaviour and they are not charged appropriately for that or for harassment. Then there are the wider issues about such behaviour leading to domestic abuse.

I also want to touch on the courts. It is quite clear that the courts are not always aware that victims might have been stalked consistently over a long period, as they will be dealing with only the latest and most recent element of crime in a case, with the result that the offender might not receive the right sentencing, as the judge or magistrate will not be fully aware of the context or history. There is so much more that the courts and the Crown Prosecution Service could do in this area, as well as by working with the police. I feel that the CPS sometimes enters into plea bargaining with offenders and drops charges in exchange for a guilty plea for a smaller number of lesser offences. We must look at this whole area if we are to ensure that victims receive the justice they deserve.

As we have all seen, victims are simply not taken as seriously as they must be—this is not about “should”; it is about “must”. They need to be treated with respect throughout their journey and their experience. All the research shows that too often the accounts of perpetrators are given precedence over those of victims, without thorough checking for corroborative evidence. Victims are not signposted to the appropriate support or given the right kind of safety advice or risk assessment. Again, it is a matter of securing the right balance. All of us who work with organisations and institutions must do what we can to put victims first.

15:44

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

It is pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Madam Deputy Speaker, for the first time, and I hope it will not be the last.

I rise to speak about a particular issue that follows on from what the hon. Member for Witham (Priti Patel) said about the need to hear victims’ voices in this debate as we evolve the way in which we address stalking within our society. I shall speak about my personal experience of these issues. I thought long and hard about whether it was appropriate to do so and came to the conclusion that it was—even though some might accuse me of abusing my position as an MP in putting these issues to Ministers—because of the concerns I have as someone currently experiencing some of these behaviours.

Before I do that, I want to add my personal tribute to the right hon. Member for Dwyfor Meirionnydd (Mr Llwyd)—[Interruption.] The right hon. Gentleman says “10 out of 10” from a sedentary position, so I thank him for that. I am in awe of the work he has done through the independent inquiry into stalking. I add my heartfelt thanks, too, to people such as Harry Fletcher and Laura Richards for their work. In three short parliamentary years, we have seen a powerful advocacy process, with the independent inquiry and changes made to the law. That has, for me, been phenomenal. It is a test for all of us to see whether we can match that.

A year ago, when I was part of the shadow Home Affairs team, I was honoured to work on the changes to the legislation. Never in a million years did I think I would have to know the details of this legislation so thoroughly to deal with something that was happening to me. I was particularly struck at the time by the importance of bringing the victim’s voice into these issues and the need to create an offence in legislation that looked not at the particular behaviours of the offender, but at the experience of victims and the impact the offence had on them.

I was struck by what my hon. Friend the Member for Ayr, Carrick and Cumnock (Sandra Osborne)—only nine out of ten for my pronunciation this time—said about obsession, how society should regard the impact of one person fixating on another and what that might mean for the people involved. Impact matters because much of our criminal justice system nowadays is about watching and waiting. The hon. Member for Witham spoke about that, too—that we can see that someone might be at risk, yet we look for escalation. The impact on an individual changes that conversation. The individual voice needs to be heard not just in sentencing, but in the prosecution, in trying to address these issues and trying to understand the risk that someone might face. Having spoken to victims of a whole range of different types of stalking, I know just how important it is for their voice to be heard. A lot of stalking is about control; it is about silencing someone. It is crucial that we now have legislation that makes victims’ voices part of the prosecution process.

Like many other Members today, however, I am concerned that, a year on, we may not be making as much progress either in prosecuting or in changing the culture, which is what the legislation was designed to achieve, so I want to add my voice to those encouraging the Minister to look at not just what he can do with the police, but at what can be achieved by colleagues across government in dealing with some of these challenges.

Before the legislation was drafted, figures suggested we were looking at about 120,000 cases a year, but I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Ayr, Carrick and Cumnock that that understates the amount of pressure and the number of cases that need to be dealt with. I agree, too, with the comments of the right hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham (Mrs Gillan)—I am sorry she is no longer in her place—about learning the lessons from Scotland and using this legislation, now that we have it, to prosecute people effectively.

The work of Paladin is truly transformative. I encourage the Minister to go and sit with Paladin, to listen to the cases, go through them and hear about the experiences people are having, now that the legislation is enacted. It is not just the volume of cases that is important because we need to be able to address the different kinds of issues and different kinds of behaviour that come up and their impact on victims.

I would particularly encourage the Minister to sit with the independent advocates. I have worked with one of those advocates not just in supporting victims of stalking generally, but in respect of my own case after my experiences. I cannot over-emphasise how important it is to have such a person with you. However strong someone is, this kind of behaviour is distressing; it is designed to take out of people the fight and the fortitude that might help them to deal with the problem themselves. The independent advocates are vital. We have been talking about the work done by Harry and Laura and others with the legislation, but we also owe them a debt of gratitude for putting in place a support process for victims. We must ensure our police are able to work with that, and Members have highlighted the low take-up of police training on these issues. It is crucial that the police understand the new legislation and how to enforce it.

I must tell the Minister that my personal experience of this and my experience over the summer of trying to support people who were being victimised online has been very mixed. That is reflected in the conversations I have had with the police and those in the criminal justice system; there was a lack of awareness about the powers they now have and the nature of this crime, such as the concepts of escalation and control and how to respond to them. I am talking here about practices such as treating incidents in isolation, issuing lesser cautions, and minimising behaviour rather than addressing it and thereby keep victims safe. That lack of training leads to a lack of understanding of just how serious this issue can be.

I must also put on record my concern about the increasing evidence that police forces are moving away from the DASH—domestic abuse, stalking and honour based violence—risk assessment in respect of domestic violence. I am exceedingly troubled by that as a constituency MP who has used that assessment method myself in working in particular with women who are victims of domestic violence. As somebody who has been a victim of stalking in a non-domestic violence case, I am also concerned about the lack of training and understanding of what such behaviour could mean.

I have spoken previously about Caroline Criado-Perez receiving 50 rape threats an hour. We did not know whether they were coming from one person, 50 different people or several different people. Each incident would require a different level of risk being applied based on the person involved. I have to be honest with the Minister: an understanding and comprehension of that range of scenarios was not there within the police force. I believe this kind of training will help police forces understand the different levels of risk people might be facing, and help to prevent, rather than just monitor, these offences.

I also recognise that the training of the police is only 50% of the story. I am deeply distressed by the delay in the CPS picking up this issue and understanding its role in making sure this legislation is effective.

[Mr Llwyd]

The hon. Lady is making a powerful speech, and it is very interesting to hear her personal perspective.

This morning I was interviewed on a radio programme. The interviewer said, “Well, let’s be fair: it’s only been 12 months since the law’s come in, so you can’t really expect the police to be au fait with it just now.” I replied, “When I was a law student we were expected to know new laws within a month of their coming in, so that’s no possible excuse.”

[Stella Creasy]

I agree with the right hon. Gentleman and he will have heard the voices of other victims. People have said to me, “The only reason there is police interest in your case is that you are a high-profile person.” I think that is an honest assessment, and I have said that that should not be why there is interest in any case.

We heard from the family of Clare Bernal and the Clough family during the inquiry, and Sam Taylor, who was a victim of stalking, is an amazingly inspiring woman for her fortitude in dealing with this. The police need to understand the range of behaviours and identify the different types of risk people face.

I will talk about online activity shortly, but first I want to point out that victims must also be asked about what they think should happen. When people are under this sort of pressure, we should not flinch from saying that the impact on the victim is paramount. Therefore, if someone is distressed, that is reason enough for the police to act and the CPS to be involved.

We also recognise that insufficient resources are put into this. There is a fear that we might open the floodgates, but if there are floodgates to be opened, we need to address that. That is one of the challenges we face.

I feel I can add a little insight in terms of online forms of behaviour, and I am very mindful of the fact that 50% of stalking cases involve both online and offline behaviour. That is part and parcel of modern life because we now spend our lives both online and offline. Our freedoms are involved in that, too, and, as I have said, stalking and harassment is about curtailing people’s freedoms and inciting distress in them, and therefore making it impossible for them to lead their lives as before. I direct the Minister to the work of Claire Hardaker, at Lancaster university, who is trying to understand online harassment and stalking. She was recently commissioned to do such research, and it would send an incredibly powerful message if the Home Office looked at it.

In my own case, the difficulties the current legislation has in dealing with the world online became powerfully obvious. The legislation refers to a “course of conduct” or a consistent type of behaviour, and the question is whether the same metrics for that course of conduct can be applied to the online and offline environments. When the Opposition were scrutinising the legislation, we tried to get the Government to think about a list of types of behaviour that we, the CPS and the police might be looking out for, because we recognised that as life evolves and people have a life online and a life offline it is important to ensure that we are not missing particular types of behaviour.

Although the legislation refers to sending e-mails, it does not even begin to deal with the very different types of behaviour that occur in the social media that are now so much part of the modern world, such as the ways in which and ease with which people can be contacted, and the ways a victim can express concern and displeasure about the messages they are receiving and behaviour they are experiencing. My concern is that the attempt is being made to apply the “course of conduct” test to the online and offline worlds in a similar way. There is the sense that if someone is experiencing serious alarm or distress online, it is somehow less serious. Instead, we need to understand that, if that person is experiencing such pressure, and if it is coming from someone whom they have told—whether online or offline—they do not want to have contact with, we should not see it as being any different.

The course of conduct deadlines need to be updated for both the CPS and the police, so that the different ways in which the online world works are recognised. One example is the different time periods relating to a course of conduct. Offline, we might be talking about a contact period of days or even weeks; online, an hour is a long time. Both Caroline and I experienced people setting up accounts in order to send us rape and death threats, causing us harassment and severe distress. We publicly said that this was causing us severe distress, and they had their accounts suspended, although they started new ones. However, the question whether each incident is seen as a separate course of conduct, or something that took place over the course of an hour, cannot be dealt with under the current legislation. That example makes a powerful case, which my right hon. Friend the shadow Home Secretary has also made, for cyber-awareness within the police force—for understanding that these are the ways in which online behaviour works.

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

May I amplify the point? It is not just about the individuals concerned and the continuous nature of such behaviour over a limited period, but the prompting of others to participate in what almost becomes a conspiracy of attack.

[Stella Creasy]

My hon. Friend has literally taken the words out of my mouth; he is absolutely right. As I was about to say, we think of a course of conduct in terms of person-to-person contact. It is vital to understand that with social media, the ability to have an audience, to have spectators, is crucial to the level of stress that can be caused. Even if a perpetrator is not directly contacting somebody, by using that public forum they are using the way in which the internet and social media work to get a message to somebody. We need the police and the CPS to understand that, to understand just how dangerous these new forms of behaviour can be, so that they can act to protect people.

I encourage the Minister to revisit the debates we had a year ago on the importance of having a more extensive list, in order to give a flavour of the range of behaviours. Nobody is suggesting that there can be an exhaustive list of behaviours for stalking, but we need to recognise that there are sections of our society, and of our lives, that the training has not begun to touch, and that people are being abused as a result.

I am hopeful that the police and the CPS will take note of what has happened not just to me and Caroline Criado-Perez, but to a number of women in the public eye, and use it to develop guidelines. Many people have been affected by these issues. I have been contacted by people from across the country since the summer, and each of those stories shares some of the characteristics concerning how we deal with online behaviour. The fear is very real.

I am sad to see that there is no one here from the Ministry of Justice today, but I urge the Minister for Immigration, the hon. Member for Forest of Dean (Mr Harper), to work with the CPS not only to get the training in place but to get a commitment about test cases. It must be made clear that, as the world evolves, we will not falter in our determination to change the way in which the legislation is being used. We must ensure that the police, the CPS and the judiciary as a whole are what I would call cyber-sensitive. Just as we would not say to a woman, “Don’t walk down those streets at night”, we must ensure that we do not say, “Just come off Twitter and Facebook. Don’t put yourself in a position of risk. You must curtail your freedoms and rights so that we don’t need to deal with the risk that you are facing.” We need to send a strong message that these behaviours must be addressed and changed offline and online, throughout all the areas that I have described.

I am sure that we have all heard Laura Richards say that we need to change the culture so that we recognise stalkers as predators. These cases are not about a spurned loved one. I imagine that all of us who are in the public eye are fairly robust. We have all dealt with words, messages and debates that have been close to the bone, but this legislation was designed to deal with something very different—predatory behaviour. It was designed to deal with the person who will send 50 rape threats in an hour, not just on one night but over the course of two weeks. I have received another threat this week, which is terribly bad timing for this debate, as it is now months since it all happened.

Those people will not stop unless we change the culture and recognise that we are talking about predators in our society who will use a range of means to control and distress people. This is a matter for the law, and it is about how the law is applied. It is also about how we make good on the promise we made in this House a year ago that we would change this offence, that we would finally deal with this and that we would bring justice to the victims and find a form of prevention.

I hope that the Minister will listen to the genuine pleas from a range of sources about the difference that that would make. I would be happy to talk to him further about my personal experience, and the shadow Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Warrington North (Helen Jones) and I would also be happy to introduce him to other people who are dealing with these worries. We have to get this right. We cannot have another year of not getting the levels of prosecutions that we should be getting, given the number of cases that are coming forward. Our frustration is growing, not diminishing. This is not justice; it is not fair and this is not the kind of Britain that we want it to be.

16:02

[Rebecca Harris (Castle Point) (Con)]

In my experience—mercifully not my personal experience, but my experience as a Member of Parliament—the new laws whose anniversary we are celebrating today were spot on. They absolutely address the experience of many of my constituents, but it is also clear from my experience as a Member of Parliament and from what we have heard today that they have not yet had time to bed down and work their way through the police and criminal justice system.

If the legislation is to work, it is crucial for all those involved in the police and criminal justice system to understand exactly what this crime is. They need to know what to look for and listen for when victims have the courage to come forward and complain, not least because the perpetrators of this obsessive and controlling behaviour can often be very manipulative and very convincing individuals. It has also been pointed out that these stalkers can sometimes involve other individuals and agencies in their crimes. Those agencies can include social services, and I know of a case in which a benefits office was used, involving numerous false calls. MPs themselves can sometimes be drawn into this. Even the police can find themselves being used as unwitting proxies in a harassment campaign.

We need a much wider understanding of these crimes throughout all agencies, not just the police, and among the wider public. It is important that the public understand more about this, because we need to reach the victims and their families and supporters. They also need to recognise this behaviour for what it is—criminal behaviour. If they do not do so, they will not have the confidence to come forward. Confidence is often completely lacking as a direct consequence of the sustained, emotionally draining abuse that a victim is suffering.

Victims need greater knowledge. They also need the confidence that their complaint will be taken seriously and not dismissed, as they often fear it will be. I have often heard of such complaints being dismissed as what appear to be a succession of relatively trivial incidents. As we have heard, however, those apparently trivial incidents can have the cumulative effect of making people feel positively imprisoned in their own home and completely emotionally downtrodden.

Part of the answer is to incorporate this subject into relationship education in our schools. We need people to understand both the potential victim and the potential perpetrator and to recognise that we are not talking about a normal relationship, an argument or someone getting their own back. It is controlling, dominating and threatening behaviour. If we get that message across to young people and the rest of society, we might be able to ensure that such patterns of behaviour are not set in course in the first instance.

This new law—one year on—is fully capable of addressing the appalling and soul-destroying crime of stalking. For that to work in practice, we need a much wider understanding of the methods that stalkers use and the effects that the crime has. Many people do not realise quite how prevalent and damaging the crime is to the people who suffer from it, and from the sustained abuse, and how bad it is in society. By having this debate, I hope that we have contributed towards that understanding.

16:05

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

In all the justice debates over the past 10 years, I have felt the hidden hand of Harry Fletcher on us all, especially as we are probably reciting from the briefing papers that he has provided. I again thank him and Laura for the work that they have done. I keep saying to him that he should stand for election to this place, but if he cannot do that, perhaps some political party could nominate him to the other place, because he would be a valuable asset. Instead of writing the briefing papers, he might be able to make speeches about them.

Mention has been made of the justice unions group of which I am the secretary and the right hon. Member for Dwyfor Meirionnydd (Mr Llwyd) is the chair. I am also secretary of the fan club for the right hon. Gentleman, who has announced his retirement—it is not retirement but desertion—and I am trying to encourage him to stay on and stick with us.

As the right hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham (Mrs Gillan) said, the debate on the stalking law started at the justice unions group a number of years ago. We received papers from Harry Fletcher, Laura and others explaining the problem, and the right hon. Gentleman came up with the idea of setting up a separate all-party group to carry out the investigation. I apologise for attending only a couple of those sessions, but they were enlightening to say the least.

I am pleased that my hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow (Stella Creasy) took the decision to speak and to explain some element of her experience. We hear from other people who have had equally horrendous experiences. To have got the legislation in place within such a time scale from a Back-Bench initiative was a near miracle, and certainly set a precedent, but, as has been said, we are now a year on. What we have done so far is all well and good, but we must also ensure that the law is implemented properly. What we have heard across the House is that there are real issues with implementation.

A number of hon. Members quoted the arrest statistics, the comparison with Scotland, and training. May I make a number of suggestions? On training, it would be helpful if the Government brought in the police and crime commissioners, the Magistrates Association and the Crown Prosecution Service to have a joint discussion about where we go from here. There is an inconsistent approach across the country in the e-training of the police. Some police authorities and police and crime commissioners have taken the matter to heart and engaged in the process, but others have not. The job of Government is not to interfere in the local aspects of what is happening on the ground but to encourage a consistent approach. As has been said, that applies to the police in terms of training, the CPS in terms of training and possibly how it prioritises such matters, and the Magistrates Association in terms of what is happening in the courts. Producing that defined line is the role of Government. It is not about interfering, but about bringing people together to discuss how we go forward more effectively. In doing that, it would be useful if the Minister involved the justice unions group and Paladin in the discussions, so that we can develop a national strategy.

Let me turn to a couple of contentious issues. The proposed new legislation on probation will mean that there is the potential for a large number of people who have been convicted of stalking to be categorised in due course as low or medium-risk offenders and to be managed not by the probation service, as they are now, but by the private company that will take over some of that work. Apart from my opposition to the privatisation overall, that makes me anxious because we have still to learn the details of the professional qualifications and level of training and experience in the supervision of offenders that the private company’s staff will have. We await the details from the Government and a number of us will seek to insert something into the legislation to ensure that there is the required standard of service. I would welcome an assurance that part of that will involve training people on stalking and the legislation. I am worried that in the rush to get the legislation to privatise the probation service through—that is, the provisions in the Offender Rehabilitation Bill on the supervision of nought to 12-month sentences—we will lose expertise and no longer concentrate on training people on the legislation on stalking.

As well as the justice unions group, we have established a family courts unions group, which met this week. The legal aid cuts mean that there are more litigants in person, so a large number of cases now involve two individuals turning up without any legal representation whatsoever to pursue their cases in the courts themselves. We are also concerned that ex-partners who have become stalkers then use the family courts as part of the stalking process to intimidate their former partners though a dispute that is often unrelated to the future of their children. The existence of litigants in person will mean that behaviour in courts will become increasingly difficult to control. In the past such people will have received legal aid and legal representation and there would have been some control over the presentation of their cases. When they become litigants in person, it is extremely difficult to ensure that they behave in a manner that is not threatening or abusive. As part of the monitoring of the stalking legislation, we must monitor whether our family courts, in particular, are being used for abusive behaviour by past stalkers.

Court reports have also been mentioned. The cuts to the probation service and the Children and Family Court Advisory and Support Service have increased the workload of the officers and mean that although people are meeting their targets as best they can, it is becoming increasingly difficult to provide court reports or even to enable time to be spent on ensuring that sufficient information is provided to the court. It has now been reported that cuts in the court service have led to some of those staff being involved in the drafting of court directions as there are insufficient clerks within the courts. The situation in some of our family courts is almost chaotic.

The other issue brought up by the family courts unions group this week concerns contact centres. Again, many of the cases of stalking we have heard of have involved past partners who, for a variety of reasons, have continued abusive behaviour after separation. Often, they will be granted access to their children but it will be supervised access, often through contact centres. There is a report in the Law Society Gazette this week, I think, and we received a report from the National Association of Probation Officers and the Public and Commercial Services Union that states that there will be cuts to the contact centres and some are now closing. They are usually run by voluntary organisations, charities and others but because of cuts, often to local funding, contact centres are closing or curtailing their facilities. There is a concern that cuts overall might mean that contact centres cannot be properly supervised. If a contact centre is not available, we return to unsupervised contact, leaving victims of stalking and abuse vulnerable. I would like the Minister to look at that. The family courts unions group would welcome a meeting with him to discuss it and the courts issues. As I have said, the important thing now is to ensure that the system is geared up for implementation of the legislation, and central Government have a role to play in that by overseeing different aspects of the processes involved.

The briefing papers that Paladin provided show that there is an unusual inconsistency across the country. In some instances that might be down to the personal priorities of the police and crime commissioner, or the background and experience of the individual chef police officers. I think that it is the role of Government, when introducing legislation, to ensure its consistent implementation across the country, because otherwise it will become a postcode lottery whether stalkers are prosecuted, whether the police are adequately trained and whether other services are adequately resourced to tackle what at least is now accepted as a significant issue in our society.

16:16

[Helen Jones (Warrington North) (Lab)]

I congratulate all Members on both sides of the House who have spoken in this thoughtful and well-informed debate. I pay particular tribute to the right hon. Member for Dwyfor Meirionnydd (Mr Llwyd), who not only has the privilege of representing one of the most beautiful parts of north Wales, but has done sterling work with the all-party group on stalking and harassment to bring the offences into law. He gave a powerful introduction to the debate.

The right hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham (Mrs Gillan), who is no longer in her place, made some important points about the role of the courts, the sentences handed out and the need for better training. My hon. Friend the Member for Ayr, Carrick and Cumnock (Sandra Osborne) made some useful comparisons with the situation in Scotland, which I think we can all learn from. She also made a powerful plea to recognise stalking for what it often is: a version of violence against women, in particular, which we must not tolerate.

The hon. Member for Witham (Priti Patel) talked about the personal suffering of victims. My hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow (Stella Creasy) outlined clearly what she suffered as a result of what is—let us give it its proper name—online stalking. The hon. Member for Castle Point (Rebecca Harris), in a short but useful speech, pointed out the manipulative behaviour of many perpetrators and how convincing they can be. She also referred to the need for relationships education in schools to tackle the problem, a point I will return to in a moment.

My hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) made an important point about the role of the justice unions group in highlighting the issue. We often hear Government Members telling us what they think is wrong with trade unions, but we should also hear about their important work in such areas. I also congratulate those who worked hard to get the offences on the statute book: not only the all-party group, but my right hon. Friend the shadow Home Secretary and my noble Friend Baroness Royall, who campaigned for that relentlessly.

However, it is not enough just to put an offence on the statute book; it must also be enforced. We have heard clearly this afternoon that the law is not being enforced properly. The freedom of information request passed to Paladin, which was referred to earlier, showed that from 25 November 2012, when the law came into force, to the end of June this year 320 people were arrested for stalking offences. That was all. Of those, only 189 were charged. That is very worrying because unless there are lots of spurious complaints—no one is arguing that there are, least of all me— there must be a real problem with the training of the police and Crown Prosecution Service, which needs to be addressed. It is even more worrying when we look at the completed cases—I accept that there are few at the moment. In those cases completed by the end of June, six people received custodial sentences, and 27 were dealt with by means of a community disposal. I want to make it clear that, except in very exceptional cases, community sentences are not appropriate to deal with stalking. Stalking wrecks lives, it damages people psychologically, it affects their physical health, and it affects their social well-being. Stalking is not something that takes place at a distance. Stalkers enter people’s homes, they get into their workplaces, and they go to the places where they socialise, so a victim of stalking cannot feel safe in any aspect of their life.

Stalkers often issue threats. What is more, half of those threats are carried out. In that sense, stalking behaviour is a strong predictor of future violence. It is even stronger in cases of very serious violence, with 40% of domestic homicides following stalking behaviour that has gone unchecked. In dealing with stalking, therefore, we are not just helping today’s victims; we may be preventing serious violence and often homicides in the future.

[Mr Llwyd]

The hon. Lady is making a powerful and a fresh point. I should like to inform the House through her that there are many criminal psychologists in the UK who are able to treat these people. They say that roughly 95% are treatable and can be turned away from this obsessive behaviour. That adds to the point that the hon. Lady makes.

[Helen Jones]

The right hon. Gentleman makes an interesting point, which I will come to in a moment when I talk about prevention.

The appalling feature is the huge variation between the arrest and prosecution rates in police forces. Some examples have been given, but let me touch on a few more. Northumbria force arrested eight people and prosecuted seven. Powys arrested three and they were all prosecuted. The Met arrested 132 people, but only 71 were prosecuted. That is profoundly unsatisfactory. Whether victims receive justice should not depend on where they live. We cannot have a postcode lottery in law enforcement, and that, I am afraid, is what we are seeing at the moment. Part of the reason for that seems to lie in the failure to train police and Crown prosecutors adequately.

The National Policing Improvement Agency has produced a 20-minute online package of training—very little in itself—but up to the end of June only 27% of eligible officers had seen that package. The rates of training vary hugely among police forces, even neighbouring forces. In Greater Manchester, for example, 5,000 officers had seen it; on Merseyside, only 76. In my own area of Cheshire, it was 57. One can see a similar process with the CPS. Training has begun only this autumn, nearly a year after the law was put on the statute book.

I do not blame the front-line officers or the prosecutors for that. The blame actually lies squarely with the Home Office, which has to admit that if it cuts police numbers, as it has, there is less time to take officers off the front line for training or to update their skills, and that if it cuts 25% of the CPS’s budget, the CPS has to manage its caseloads differently and there is less time to develop training packages or to let people take time out for training. That is what we are seeing, and it is time that the Government started to take it seriously.

Another factor that needs to be clearly stated is that stalking is largely a crime against women. Yes, there are male victims and they suffer just as much as anyone else, but 80% of stalkers are men and 80% of victims are women. As such, it has to be seen as part of the continuum of violence against women—because stalking is violence. It is psychological violence that can spill over into physical violence, and it is part of the same perspective of harassing women and preventing them from speaking out, as we have seen online recently, and treating them as though they have no right to an opinion but are there merely to be controlled.

That is why I say to the Minister that although it is nice to see him here—he is a very good Minister—it would have been even better to see the Minister responsible for this area, who is the Minister for Crime Prevention, the hon. Member for Lewes (Norman Baker). The Minister we have here is responsible for immigration; his colleague, who is not here, is responsible for antisocial behaviour and violence against women and girls. He is fast becoming the Scarlet Pimpernel of the Home Office. We see him in Committee and he disappears halfway through the debate; today, for a debate on his own area of responsibility, he is not present. The Government have to take this issue far more seriously than that.

The root cause of this sort of behaviour is an attitude prevalent in some sections of our society that, sadly, sees women as objects to be controlled and manipulated—as people who should not have an opinion of their own and do not control their own destiny. That is why the Government must not only deal with this crime but look at how to prevent it. They must consider having a proper, and compulsory, package of sex and relationships education in schools. I am sorry that they rejected our amendment to the Children and Families Bill to make it compulsory, because without teaching young people from the start that this sort of behaviour is not the norm and is not acceptable, we will never solve the problem.

The second plank of prevention, as the right hon. Member for Dwyfor Meirionnydd suggested, is in mental health services. There is no doubt that a small minority of stalkers are psychotic, and there is evidence that some might have a personality disorder, so their first contact with the criminal justice system ought to trigger a mental health referral. Mental health treatment will not be suitable for everybody, but there ought to be an assessment to see whether it is the appropriate way forward before someone’s behaviour spirals out of control and perhaps into violence.

The third thing we would like the Government to do is to make sure that sentencing guidelines are updated, because they have not been updated since 2008, and that police officers and Crown prosecutors are trained to ensure that the law is enforced. We cannot say to the victims of this crime, “You must simply put up with it”, or, “It’s not very serious.” We can no longer keep saying that there is no action we can take. This is the 21st century, not the 19th, and nobody should be subjected to this behaviour without the right of redress.

The Government have done the right thing by putting this law on the statute book in response to the campaign but, given that most victims face 100 incidents of stalking before they even report it, it is not lack of evidence that is preventing this crime from being prosecuted; it is lack of training and lack of will, and that is what we have to address. I hope that the Minister will be able to encourage us that the Government are moving towards doing so, because, to be frank, women in this country—and it is largely women who are affected—deserve better than to be told that this is behaviour that they just have to put up with. It is not, we will not and it needs to be addressed.

16:29

[The Minister for Immigration (Mr Mark Harper)]

First, I thank the Backbench Business Committee for allowing this well-subscribed and informative debate for Members who have had an interest in this subject for a great deal of time. This is not meant as an insult to you, Mr Deputy Speaker, but I would have liked to have seen Madam Deputy Speaker in the Chair, because this would then have been the first debate in which I had spoken under her chairmanship. If you will forgive me, I will place on record that it was a great pleasure to be sat here quietly while she chaired the first part of the debate. I was enormously pleased by that and I am equally pleased to have been joined by you for the latter part of the debate.

I will not refer to what the right hon. Member for Dwyfor Meirionnydd (Mr Llwyd) will do after the next election, because when other Members did so it sounded terribly like an obituary. I am sure he has plenty of life left in him and plenty of exciting challenges waiting for him when he eventually departs this place, so I will simply pay tribute to him for his work not only as chairman of the all-party group on stalking and harassment, but as chair of the parliamentary inquiry into stalking law reform. I also pay tribute to the other members of the all-party group, including its vice-chairs my right hon. Friend the Member for Chesham and Amersham (Mrs Gillan) and the hon. Member for Ayr, Carrick and Cumnock (Sandra Osborne).

Unfortunately, my right hon. Friend is unable to be present for the end of the debate. I listened carefully to her excellent speech and she has done a great deal of work in this area. There was a strange irony when Madam Deputy Speaker read out the Royal Assent for the HS2 Bill, which my right hon. Friend has campaigned against in varying levels of publicness, including when she was a member of the Government and even more forcefully since. That was an interesting and spooky part of the debate, but I think she saw the ironic and funny side of it, as did the rest of the House.

Every Member who has participated in the debate has made the point that stalking is a serious crime and the various examples given—the hon. Member for Walthamstow (Stella Creasy) spoke from her personal experience—have illustrated that it can seriously affect people’s lives. People can be physically attacked and they can lose their homes, families, friends and jobs in a bid to escape a persistent, fixated stalker. Stalking can also take place in a relationship or after a brief relationship, or people can be stalked by a complete stranger. It varies and the response needs to take that into consideration.

The crime survey for England and Wales shows that 4% of women and 3% of men are affected by stalking in some way, so it is clearly a very important issue that affects a large number of people. The work of the parliamentary inquiry, chaired by the right hon. Member for Dwyfor Meirionnydd, demonstrated clearly that there was a gap in the law, and the Government were able—partly, I am sure, because of the excellent case that was made, but also, I suspect, because of the fortuitous timing of an appropriate piece of legislation—to introduce the new offences very shortly after the case had been so powerfully made. Legislation is, of course, not the only response and I will address some of the other issues that have been raised.

We want to work through the reforms we have already made to the policing landscape. That brings me on to police and crime commissioners, which several Members mentioned, including my hon. Friend the Member for Crawley (Henry Smith), and my hon. Friend the Member for Witham (Priti Patel), who particularly mentioned the Essex police and crime commissioner. Those who are elected, such as police and crime commissioners, will listen to the concerns of the public, so they provide a good opportunity to drive the issues home. Angus Macpherson, the police and crime commissioner for Wiltshire and Swindon, is someone I know personally as I used to live in Swindon, my home town. He attended a stalking awareness event and made it clear that he wanted to understand the issue so that he could see whether there were any provisions that he could put in place to further support victims and stop offenders.

The Hull Daily Mail reported last December that the new police and crime commissioner there, Matthew Grove, was backing calls for tougher measures to protect stalking victims. I know more about the Hull Daily Mail now, having seen yesterday its excellent supplement celebrating the award of city of culture status to Hull. Stalking is an issue that that newspaper has taken very seriously. To be cross-party on the issue, I note that the PCC for Greater Manchester, Tony Lloyd, a former Member of this House, has welcomed the fact that the police are taking stalking seriously, and has been working closely with his police force to raise awareness of the importance of dealing with that crime. There is a great opportunity for Members of Parliament to work with police and crime commissioners and to have a democratic voice in challenging police forces that may not take the issue as seriously as they should. The vast majority of police and crime commissioners have made violence against women and girls a priority in their policing plans, which is an important first step.

I do not always agree with the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) and he does not always agree with me, but on this subject I can agree with him. He said that one role of the Government was to try to bring organisations together. We have issued information to police and crime commissioners so that they are better equipped. We have also hosted an event for them, which I suspect will not be the last, bringing together police and crime commissioners and enabling them to hear from the voluntary sector, for example Paladin, an organisation that was mentioned by almost every Member who spoke in the debate. I echo the appreciation expressed for the work of Harry Fletcher and Laura Richards, who are paying close attention to this debate. They were able to be present and take part in the day. That is the start of the engagement with police and crime commissioners, and it will continue.

The College of Policing is the other new feature in the policing arena that will help, by driving consistent training across police forces in England and Wales. This month the college’s training package on stalking and harassment won the silver award for “excellence in the production of learning content” at the E-learning awards. It is based on powerful scenarios developed with the help of victims and their families, as the right hon. Member for Dwyfor Meirionnydd said. The training package is available to all police officers and staff. Since last October it has been used about 44,000 times, which represents about a third of police officers, so that is some progress but clearly, picking up the right hon. Gentleman’s point, we want all police officers to be trained. The national policing lead on stalking and harassment, Assistant Chief Constable Garry Shewan of Greater Manchester police, has written once to all chief constables and will continue to do so jointly with the Director of Public Prosecutions to ensure a consistent message to the law enforcement community for both the police and the CPS, so that the issues are taken seriously.

Much of the debate about police and crime commissioners focuses on the “police” part of their role, but the most significant benefit that they can bring is the “and crime” part. It is their role in their police areas to bring together all parts of the criminal justice system—the police, the Crown Prosecution Service and the voluntary sector—and to bang heads together so that there is a properly joined-up approach in local areas. That is one of the most significant things that police and crime commissioners can do, and it is one of the reasons we set them up. The Crown Prosecution Service has made its training mandatory this year. More than 1,000—or about 45%, I think—of its lawyers have completed the training, which is a good start, and we obviously want the rest of them to do so.

[Helen Jones]

Will the Minister tell the House whether he has any explanation for the discrepancy between the number of people arrested and the number of people actually charged?

[Mr Harper]

I will come on to the guidelines issued by the CPS, but that matter to some extent depends on the details of individual cases. Normally, decisions are based on how realistic a prosecution is and what evidence there is, as well as the public interest test. I do not know whether different prosecution rates relate to the ability of the police to put cases together, or whether some forces are more likely to make arrests than others. Without looking at the information, I simply do not know the answer to the question.

An advantage in the devolved criminal justice landscape —the hon. Member for Ayr, Carrick and Cumnock referred to the experience in Scotland—is that police forces in England and Wales could look at the Scottish example to see what lessons can be learned. The systems are of course different and not directly comparable: the criminal justice legislation is different and, for example, harassment legislation has not been put in place in Scotland. We should, however, look at whether different parts of the UK are doing things better, and if they are, we should happily learn from them. That is a benefit of devolution of which we should take advantage.

[Mr Llwyd]

As I would expect, the Minister is trying to engage constructively in the debate, which is how he always deals with these matters. I suggest that another contributor to the variation in prosecution levels is, sadly—I am a great supporter of the police, and I come from a police family—that some police officers are under-charging under the old 1997 Act, because it is far easier to do the paperwork and get rid of it.

[Mr Harper]

I defer to the right hon. Gentleman’s detailed knowledge of this area. One purpose of the College of Policing is to have consistency in training and to share best practice. To be fair, this is about ensuring that police officers, as well as the CPS, have the necessary knowledge and understand what works and is successful. The College of Policing can help share best practice, which is one advantage of having set it up. The Government will keep that under close scrutiny—the Home Secretary takes this area very seriously—and we will take steps if it does not succeed.

It is important to talk about victims and their experience of the criminal justice system. We have consulted on a revised victims code to give victims clearer entitlements. It was published at the end of October, and will be implemented next month. It includes information on the victim personal statement, which lets victims explain the impact of the crime on them. That will be of particular benefit in stalking cases, where much of the issue relates to the emotional and psychological impact of the offence on the victim.

The hon. Member for Walthamstow made that point strongly. She spoke about seeing the powerful effect on victims of advocates’ listening to them explain their cases. Enabling the voices of victims to be heard is clearly very beneficial. My hon. Friend the Member for Witham, who is in her place, made exactly that point. I know that she has worked on and published this year a report called, “Rebalancing the Scales”. She edited it, and the foreword was by the Lord Chancellor. The chapter on stalking, which was prepared by the ubiquitous Harry Fletcher and Laura Richards, highlighted the voices of victims and their experience in the criminal justice system, an area on which I know my hon. Friend has campaigned.

[Stella Creasy]

My concern, and that of other people who have experienced this problem, is that the victim’s voice has traditionally been heard when there is a prosecution, but that should happen during the investigation of the offence. The police, like the criminal justice system, need to develop a different culture in which the offence is not seen as an issue of harassment, but in relation to the impact of particular forms of behaviour on the victim, because that opens up a different investigative process. The training is so important because too often the presumption is still that a victim comes in after the offence has been determined, rather than as part of the process of determining the offence.

[Mr Harper]

The hon. Lady makes a very good point. When the impact on the victim is part of the importance of the offence, the matter is more complex. She is right that that should form part of the investigative process in terms of the work that needs to be done to provide the evidence and to ensure that the right charge is brought. I will draw her point to the attention of the College of Policing for its consideration when rolling out the training.

The hon. Lady also made an important point, sadly illustrated by her own experiences this year, about the dark side that the internet brings out, alongside all its benefits. On the internet, it is easier for people to abuse their victims. Sometimes that happens wholly online and that has a tremendous impact. Sometimes, it happens offline as well. The Government are clear that if something is illegal offline, it is illegal online. There is no difference. She said that in her experience and in the experience of other people, police forces have not always recognised that.

When online abuse constitutes stalking, it must be dealt with. The Director of Public Prosecutions has published new guidelines on social media. They make it very clear that cases of stalking online should be prosecuted robustly. Those guidelines are relatively recent and we will have to see what impact they have on the Crown Prosecution Service. I looked at them carefully in preparing for this debate and I think that they are very robust. [Interruption.] I do not know whether the hon. Lady wants to intervene again, but she is pulling a face that suggests that she is not entirely enamoured of the said guidelines.

[Stella Creasy]

I press the Minister, as I did in my remarks, to consider the course of conduct and the disparities in relation to that. The police are doing some fantastic work. I pay tribute to the police who are dealing with my case at the moment. However, they are hampered by the disconnect between what we are told at a national level about guidance and how that guidance is interpreted, especially with regard to behaviour online. There is an issue with the understanding in our criminal justice system of behaviours online and of what constitutes a course of conduct. I am sorry to tell the Minister that I do not feel, as a victim myself, that that issue has been addressed. That will have an impact on our ability to move forward unless it is addressed.

[Mr Harper]

I listened carefully to the hon. Lady’s point on that issue. The inter-ministerial group on violence against women and girls, which is chaired by the Home Secretary, draws together the Government’s efforts on this matter and on the support for victims. I will draw the hon. Lady’s point to the attention of the Home Secretary.

There are some offences for online communications that do not require a course of conduct, some of which can result in custodial sentences. I think that the DPP’s guidelines are clear and robust. The hon. Lady is right that the proof of the pudding is in the eating. Like us, she will want to see that the guidelines are taken seriously by Crown prosecutors.

As I said, police and crime commissioners should remember the “and crime” part of their job title. This matter is absolutely within their remit in their local areas. As well as looking at the police’s response to these offences, they should look at the response of the Crown Prosecution Service and the way in which it works with the police. One advantage of police and crime commissioners over the police authorities that we had previously is that they can pull those organisations together locally and get them to work more effectively together. Commissioners can draw to the attention of those organisations the guidelines that the DPP has issued and ensure that they are followed locally.

I will draw the specific concerns of the hon. Lady to the attention of the Home Secretary and the Justice Secretary. I am sure that she will monitor the matter closely and come back to us if she does not see action on the ground.

My hon. Friend the Member for Worcester (Mr Walker) cited some good work that has been done by the university of Worcester and the Worcestershire forum against domestic violence. They have done some very practical work to raise awareness of the new law and to hear from victims. From his description, it was clear that that was part of a preventive strategy, which is something that has been raised by the hon. Member for Warrington North (Helen Jones) and others.

My right hon. Friend the Member for Chesham and Amersham asked specifically about data, which we have spoken a little about. Convictions and sentencing data are collected by the Ministry of Justice and published on an annual basis. The data for 2012 were therefore published just a short period after the offences under sections 2A and 4A were inserted into the Protection from Harassment Act 1997. Headline data on court proceedings have been published, but those are at a high level. Detailed data will be published for this calendar year in May next year—that is when properly robust and assured data will be published.

On policing information, we are working on a new method of data collection specifically to call out the offences from this legislation, but again that will not be available at national level until next year. More detailed information is available at police force level, and I know that Labour Members and the right hon. Member for Dwyfor Meirionnydd have attempted to get those data from police forces under freedom of information legislation. The Home Office is working to publish those data on a consistent basis at national level, and will be able to do so next year.

My right hon. Friend the Member for Chesham and Amersham and others, including the hon. Member for Warrington North, mentioned sentencing guidelines. The Sentencing Council plans to start work on a new public order guideline in 2014, and it will consider guidance on stalking offences as part of that. Several Members, including the hon. Member for Ayr, Carrick and Cumnock, mentioned out-of-court disposals by police forces. The Justice Secretary has announced a review of those, and we will ensure that for both stalking and domestic violence, we look specifically at whether out-of-court disposals—cautioning, for example—are being used properly and appropriately for these serious issues.

I am conscious that I want to leave time for the right hon. Member for Dwyfor Meirionnydd to wind up this debate, which I have found very constructive. Members have raised a lot of serious issues, and I hope I have been able to demonstrate that the Government take the issue seriously and want to drive responses across a number of organisations.

[John McDonnell]

Will the Minister take back to his Department the request from the family courts unions parliamentary group for a meeting about the closure of family contact centres?

[Mr Harper]

I will take that request back to my colleagues at the Ministry of Justice and ensure they hear it and respond to the hon. Gentleman. On that note, Mr Deputy Speaker, we want to hear from the right hon. Member for Dwyfor Meirionnydd.

16:53

[Mr Llwyd]

The generous words to me with which the Minister began his speech actually made me shiver. I will be around for a while yet to create a nuisance, so do not think I am going to ride off into the sunset just now. To be fair, the Minister has engaged thoroughly with this debate. I am pleased with his response and I am sure we can pore over the detail in the coming days.

The debate has been characterised by its being of the highest standard, and we have had six Back-Bench speeches of the highest calibre—well researched, well thought out, thought provoking, and each with a different slant. The right hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham (Mrs Gillan), despite being a little thrown by the sudden appearance of the High Speed 2 Bill, referred to Harry Fletcher, Laura Richards and Paladin, and we all thank them for the work they have done. She also referred helpfully to the national helpline, and I pay tribute to her for her work to get us this far.

The hon. Member for Ayr, Carrick and Cumnock (Sandra Osborne) also referred to Harry Fletcher and Laura Richards, and, interestingly—and very importantly —she was able to draw comparisons between the current law in England and Wales and the law in Scotland. That showed that numerous things need to be put right, and highlighted some of the issues about which we in this Chamber—and beyond, I am sure—are concerned. She stood her ground. She was nearly blown away by Madam Deputy Speaker asking her to speak for longer than she intended—one of those unusual quirks of this place. I have to say that it has never happened to me, for obvious reasons.

The hon. Member for Witham (Priti Patel) made a wide-ranging, thought-provoking and well-researched speech. I know of the work that she has done with victims. It was important for her to take that angle, because the victims are why we are here and why the law was introduced. She referred to the empowerment of victims, the need for police and crime commissioners to get involved and the need to redress the balance. I am sure that all those issues are appreciated fully by Members on both sides of the House. I thank her for her contribution.

The hon. Member for Walthamstow (Stella Creasy) made an impassioned and well-grounded speech, some of which was based on personal experience. We are all concerned on her behalf. She also referred to the need for victims’ voices to come to the fore. Crucially, she referred to Clare Bernal and Sam Taylor, two of the cases considered in the evidence-based report produced by the Committee. Without their help, and the help of others, we would not have got this far. She raised the challenge of online behaviour, which the Joint Committee will be looking at next, and the need to deliver on a promise we made a year ago. She is absolutely right and I can put it no better than that.

The hon. Member for Castle Point (Rebecca Harris) made a short but well-thought-out speech that introduced matters not considered previously. For example, relationship education in schools is crucial.

My hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell), in a typically well-researched speech, referred to the need for a national strategy. He is absolutely right. We will need two: one for Wales and one for England. He made an important point about the speed with which the Offender Rehabilitation Bill is jetting through the House. We are reminded of the saying about legislating in haste and repenting at leisure. He also raised legal cuts and other points—all of which are different aspects to this problem.

This has been a useful debate. We have had a positive response from the Minister. He is not in his comfort zone, but no one would have thought so from the way he dealt with his brief. Twelve months ago, we brought in the law based on evidence that was presented to us by experts and people who have suffered themselves, not least those who have lost loved ones in horrible incidents. This is the time to pay them back for the bravery they have shown. We need to get our act in order. I am sure that with Members on both sides of the House working together we will succeed.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House notes that 25 November 2013 will mark the first anniversary of the new laws on stalking coming into force; is concerned at the lack of progress made on training of criminal justice professionals in the new laws, particularly in the police and the Crown Prosecution Service; and recognises the impact this is having on the confidence and wellbeing of victims of stalking.

Mental Health Homicide

Thursday 21st November 2013 Commons Chamber

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn—(Anne Milton).

16:58

[Emily Thornberry (Islington South and Finsbury) (Lab)]

I asked for this debate because my constituent, Ms Abiodun Ilumoka, was killed by her boyfriend, who was here illegally, and her family has not received justice. Their case raises a number of important issues I want to raise and to be acted on.

Ms Ilumoka and her unborn child were killed in 2008 by Benjamin Anabah. He was charged with murder and child destruction, and pleaded guilty to manslaughter by way of diminished responsibility—medical evidence was provided to prove that he was suffering from a severe mental illness. The prosecution accepted his plea and the judge made it clear that there was evidence that he suffered from mental illness and imposed a hospital order. He would otherwise have received a life sentence.

Mr Anabah was given a restricted hospital order under sections 37 and 41 of the Mental Health Act 1983, with a recommendation for deportation. The restriction means that the detention is indefinite and that he is to be released only with the consent of the Ministry of Justice. The victim’s family therefore expected that he would be confined indefinitely to a psychiatric hospital and eventually removed from the United Kingdom—and, frankly, that is what the public would have expected as well.

When I first met Miss Ilumoka’s surviving siblings, Yemi, Gbenga and Tola, they were distressed that Mr Anabah had applied to the Mental Health Tribunal. When a restricted hospital order is in place, the patient can apply every year to the tribunal for release from hospital.

17:00

Motion lapsed (Standing Order No. 9(3)).

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—(Anne Milton.)

[Emily Thornberry]

Mr Anabah’s first application was made only one year after sentencing, and each year the family face the prospect of yet another hearing. They are rightly outraged by this. They were also outraged when they learned that the purpose of the tribunal was simply to decide whether the offender was better.

The latest shocking development is that although the tribunal has so far refused to discharge Mr Anabah from hospital, he has managed to get escorted leave, allowing him out on to the streets, presumably of my constituency. It appears that he has had weekly leave between May and August, but the victim’s family were not notified. This is particularly worrying, because the victim’s mother still lives in my constituency. I am sure the Minister did not mean it, but I was misled on this point. He wrote to me on 13 June:

“In March of this year a request for permission for unescorted community leave was made by the Responsible Clinician. On behalf of the Secretary of State, officials in the Mental Health Casework Section refused permission for this leave on the grounds that Mr Anabah was not sufficiently engaged in his treatment plan and lacked insight into his illness, and that he posed a risk of abscond as a result of his immigration status and liability for deportation.”

We thought, therefore, that he was going to stay where he was. Instead, we learned that although he had not been out on unescorted leave, he had been out on escorted leave. That is wrong, and it is wrong that the family did not know it was happening.

Why should leave ever be appropriate in such a case? Surely hospital leave is intended to help patients shortly to be released. Why would a patient who has killed someone fewer than five years before be eligible for release, and how could a restricted foreign national patient with a recommendation for deportation also be eligible for release, or even be considered for release? The family do not understand that, and neither do my constituents.

Although Mr Anabah’s leave was suspended following my complaint, the Ilumoka family feel that it cannot be right that a man who killed their sister only five years ago is already permitted to be out in the community. They feel that changes should be made to how the criminal justice system works to ensure that any mentally disordered offender who kills cannot be released within only a few years of their crime.

The problem might well be the interpretation of section 45A of the Mental Health Act, which allows a judge to impose a hybrid hospital order/prison sentence, the scope of which was extended in 2008 to include all those with a mental disorder. It seems to me that this option should always be considered whenever the prosecution accepts a plea of guilty to manslaughter owing to diminished responsibility. Having read the judgment in this case, I am concerned that the judge might not have turned his mind to that section. Such an order would at least give a family some certainty that the person who killed their relative will not released in the near future if they make a speedy recovery from mental illness.

I have looked at the guidance for prosecutors of diminished responsibility manslaughter cases, and it seems that it is not as clear as it could be. The Minister knows it is the responsibility of prosecutors to give advice, if asked, to the judge about their sentencing powers. One would hope, therefore, that section 45A would have a prominent place in the guidance, but it does not. The guidance does not mention the possibility of a mixed order. Indeed, it refers to an earlier case when such an order was not an option. This must be changed. I recommend that reference be made to a more recent case, such as the Court of Appeal’s decision in the Cooper case in 2010. I simply suggest that we change the guidance to prosecutors.

However, it goes further than that, because judges also rely on guidelines from the Sentencing Council. Again, there are no sentencing guidelines specifically about this issue. No such cases are included in the Sentencing Council’s case compendium, which sets out sentencing options for manslaughter by reason of diminished responsibility with reference to older cases, but not the latest cases. Therefore, the option of the mixed sentence is not foremost in judges’ minds when making decisions. I accept that additional guidelines from the Ministry of Justice would be available, but they are not in the main guide that a judge would have when sentencing an individual.

[Priti Patel (Witham) (Con)]

I have met the hon. Lady’s constituents, Yemi and her siblings, through my all-party group on victims and witnesses of crime when I published my recent report. Their case is distressing—indeed, it is absolutely harrowing—but it is worth putting it on record that it also shows the challenge we face in supporting victims in such cases. The system needs to support them when they go through such trauma and also give them clarity and certainty about sentencing and how the judgment is reached.

[Emily Thornberry]

I thank the hon. Lady for her intervention. I know that the family greatly appreciate the support she has given them and other victims through her all-party group. While we are putting matters on the record, it is only right to say that 90% of homicides are not perpetrated by people with mental illness. Indeed, the number of homicides perpetrated by people with mental illness is going down, as are all homicides. However, for the tiny minority of cases where the perpetrator is suffering from a mental illness, we need to ensure that the sentencing guidelines and the law are tight and clear, so that families such as the Ilumoka family do not face, frankly, the injustice and uncertainty that they are currently facing.

I would like to touch briefly on the broader issues raised by this case. It is clear that if Mr Anabah had not been mentally ill, he would have been given a life sentence for killing Abiodun Ilumoka and her unborn child, and when he reached the end of his sentence he would have been detained pending deportation, alongside other foreign nationals who had committed crimes. The disparity between a life sentence and deportation and escorted leave four years after sentencing is huge. I understand that other people who have killed while mentally ill have been freed in even shorter times. I can see why victims would feel that to be fundamentally unjust. The lack of information provided to victims about applications for hospital leave, coupled with the lack of opportunity for relatives to have an input into applications for release when cases come before the Mental Health Tribunal, must cause us all concern.

I appreciate that this is my personal view, but having had experience of such cases, I believe that judges should impose a minimum detention time in all cases where there is a homicide conviction. It appears that the power to impose a prison/hospital order already exists, but it needs to be more prominent, so that mentally ill offenders can have access to treatment and bereaved relatives can be provided with some certainty. Judges and prosecutors should be considering the victim when looking at sentencing. I hope that the Minister has taken on board the points I have raised today and that the family will see the changes they are campaigning for.

17:08

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

I congratulate the hon. Member for Islington South and Finsbury (Emily Thornberry) on securing this debate and on the way she has presented the case on behalf of her constituents. As she says, she and I have corresponded about the case of Benjamin Anabah, whose victim was the sibling of her constituents, who I know are here to hear what she had to say on their behalf. I, too, want to record my deepest sympathies for them, for all that they have been through.

As the hon. Lady said, Benjamin Anabah is now subject to a restricted hospital order. It might help if I say a word or two about the broader issues she has raised about the sentencing regime in such cases. As she made clear, the management of mentally disordered offenders is a complex area, and it can be difficult for victims to understand why individuals convicted of very serious offences are not serving long prison sentences. However, as she also knows, it has been the policy of successive Governments that mentally disordered people who commit offences should receive treatment for their disorder in hospital. When presented with medical evidence that a convicted offender requires treatment in hospital under the Mental Health Act 1983, the courts have wide discretion to deal with the case as they consider appropriate under the circumstances.

As the hon. Lady says, one option is to impose a hospital order, which diverts the offender from the criminal justice system. Offenders sentenced to hospital orders are detained for as long as they require treatment in hospital; there is no minimum period to be served. In making a hospital order, the court is making a clear decision that the offender should be diverted into the hospital system for treatment and not be punished in the criminal justice system. When making a hospital order, the higher courts may also impose a restriction order, which requires evidence that additional controls are necessary for the protection of the public from serious harm. The restriction order gives my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Justice controls over the offender’s access to the community and the level of security in which the offender is held. In exercising these powers, priority is always given to the protection of the public. This, of course, was the option taken in Mr Anabah’s case.

As the hon. Lady also says, another option open to the court is the hospital direction under section 45A of the Mental Health Act 1983. This disposal was introduced in 1997, but at that time, as she said, could be imposed only on offenders with a diagnosis of psychopathic disorder. This, of course, is not the case now, because the Mental Health Act 2007 abolished the separate categories of mental disorder. Accordingly, since the 2007 Act was commenced, offenders with any form of mental disorder can be dealt with by means of the hospital direction. That option was therefore available to the court sentencing Mr Anabah—but not one that the sentencing judge decided to take.

[Emily Thornberry]

The advantage of an order under section 45A is that someone who is mentally ill can go into hospital and his condition can be managed there; indeed, he could come out the other side and be cured. He would then have to face the punishment that the public and victim’s family certainly expect someone to suffer.

[Jeremy Wright]

Yes, I agree. That is exactly the effect of a section 45A direction. I can entirely understand why that is, of course, a preferable option from a victim’s point of view. I would repeat, however, that it is for the individual sentencing judge, who must be cognisant of those options—I shall come back to the hon. Lady’s point about guidelines—to decide what the most appropriate sentencing choice should be in each circumstance. It is difficult for all of us to second-guess the decision that the sentencing judge made, so long as he or she was fully cognisant of the options before him or her. As the hon. Lady says, it is quite right that, if the offender recovers to the extent that treatment is no longer required under a section 45A direction, the individual will be returned to prison until the sentence is concluded.

Guidance issued to the courts—the hon. Lady made reference to it—that has been endorsed by the appeal courts is clear that a hospital direction will be indicated if the offender presents a risk to the public for reasons above and beyond the mental disorder. None the less, courts must look, as I say, at the full circumstances of the case and form their own view of the most appropriate sentence.

[Emily Thornberry]

I would like to put another point on the record. I have perhaps had the advantage over the Minister of reading the sentencing remarks. My concern, which I shared with the family, is that the judge did not seem specifically to have directed his mind to the possibility of a section 45A order. That is one reason why we are so concerned about the lack of prominence given to it in the guidance.

[Jeremy Wright]

I understand the hon. Lady’s point about the guidance. I hear what she says about guidance to prosecutors—and I will, of course, see whether we can improve it. On this case, however, it is difficult for either the hon. Lady or me entirely to second-guess the judgment of the sentencing judge, but I would have thought that the judgment that really needs to be made in such cases is whether the offence is a direct result of the mental illness, in which case a hospital order might be appropriate, or whether the defendant is culpable for the criminal act but also has a mental disorder that could be subject to treatment, in which case a hospital direction might be more appropriate. I understand her point about the guidance. As she says, some guidance is already in existence, but we will look at whether we can improve the guidance, particularly to prosecutors, who are there to advise the sentencing judge on his or her sentencing options.

I should say that offenders subject to hospital directions receive the same type of treatment as those detained under hospital orders. This will usually include medication and psychological therapies as well as interventions to address other risk factors such as substance use. The difference is that the offender can be sent to prison should they recover to the extent that treatment in hospital is no longer required. In 2012, courts made 290 restricted hospital orders and 14 hospital directions.

I understand that victims of all offences, and in particular those that involve the loss of life, may find it difficult to accept that an offender is not being punished for the offence committed. I also acknowledge that uncertainty about the time that will be spent in hospital for treatment can cause anxiety and concern, but when the courts have made a clear decision to divert the offender to a psychiatric hospital for compulsory treatment, it follows that the offender may be detained only for as long as treatment is needed. It would be quite wrong to detain people in psychiatric hospital for any longer than their mental health requires.

The independent Mental Health Tribunal is, therefore, an important safeguard against arbitrary detention. In establishing the tribunal, Parliament imposed on it a statutory duty to discharge a patient if it is not satisfied that the criteria for detention in the Mental Health Act 1983 are met. I understand the point the hon. Lady makes about repeated referrals back to the victim when tribunal hearings become necessary, but I am sure she will understand that it is important that the tribunal keeps a watch on detention to make sure it does not take any longer than it should. While, tragically, risk can never be entirely eliminated, either in relation to offenders released from a prison sentence or offenders discharged from a secure hospital, the system of diversion generally works well in protecting the public, including victims, from further harm, but I again acknowledge that uncertainty about the length of time an offender will be detained can cause anxiety and distress to victims. Victims of serious sexual and violent offences who choose to opt in to the victim contact scheme have a statutory right to make representations about any conditions of discharge that should be imposed for their protection, and will be told once discharge has taken place.

In addition to the provisions of the victim contact scheme, much work has been done to improve the support that those bereaved by homicide can access. Despite current financial restraints, as part of our commitment to supporting the most vulnerable victims and witnesses of crime, the Government are spending £2.75 million on individuals bereaved by murder and manslaughter in 2013-14. The national homicide service, which was set up in 2010, provides families bereaved through homicide with tailored and intensive one-to-one support for as long as they need it. Over 4,000 people have been supported since the homicide service began operating in April 2010, with many of those still being supported.

More generally, the new victims code published on 29 October sets out the information, support and services victims of crime can expect to receive from criminal justice agencies in England and Wales at every stage of the process. Victims who opt in to the victim contact scheme for victims of serious sexual and violent offences will be told if a mentally disordered offender is being considered for discharge, and have a statutory right to make representations about any conditions that they wish to be imposed on the discharge for their protection, such as exclusion zones or “no contact” conditions.

I understand that the hon. Lady has concerns about the community leave part of those orders, and I want to say a few words about that.

[Emily Thornberry]

There are two points on which I would be very interested to hear the Minister’s comments. First, how can we stop there being community leave without the family knowing about that? Secondly, what is the purpose of community leave? Its purpose is to help an offender get back into the community, but the fact is that this man has a recommendation for deportation. We do not want him back in the community; we want him on the next plane out of the country as soon as he has finished his treatment.

[Jeremy Wright]

I will certainly try to pick up both those points in the comments I want to make about community leave. Community leave is an important part of the treatment and rehabilitation of mentally disordered offenders. For restricted patients, community leave may be taken only with the consent of the Justice Secretary, and permission will be given only after a thorough risk assessment of the evidence. Permission for escorted leave, during which the offender remains in the custody of escorting staff, may be given some considerable time before that patient is ready for discharge. However, I should make it clear, with particular relevance to Mr Anabah’s case, that the risk of absconding for those subject to a recommendation for deportation will be a relevant factor in determining whether escorted or unescorted leave is appropriate.

[Emily Thornberry]

On hearing that, the family will want to know the answer to this question. If that is right and the recommendation for deportation was an important factor in deciding whether this person should get escorted leave, why did he get escorted leave for so many months, until we found out about it and got it stopped?

[Jeremy Wright]

If the hon. Lady will be a little patient, I will come to that. First I want to deal with her point about victims having no statutory right to be told about community leave, because that is the first question she asked me and it is a fair one.

As I have said, community leave is part of treatment. The hon. Lady will recognise that there is a duty to respect the confidentiality of medical treatment. None the less, in certain cases this information can already be disclosed to victims on a discretionary basis. Considerations such as the impact on victims of a chance encounter with an offender or, in cases that attract media interest, hearing about community leave in this way, will be taken into account. However, not least as a result of what has happened in this case—and as a result of the work of my hon. Friend the Member for Witham (Priti Patel), which has been mentioned—I have considered whether the current position goes far enough for the benefit of victims. I have asked my officials to look into making the necessary changes to ensure that there is a presumption that, unless there are exceptional circumstances, victims should be told when community leave is planned, as this is a key development in an offender’s case and sentence.

In Mr Anabah’s case, the decision to give permission for escorted leave was taken after very careful consideration of the clinical evidence provided by the responsible clinician. The decision took into account any known or possible risks to the public and victims, as well as the risk of abscond. As the hon. Lady knows, Mr Anabah’s escorted leave passed off without incident. However, due to the representations made by the Ilumoka family, the responsible clinician has suspended the leave at this time.

As we have discussed in correspondence, there appears to have been confusion about when the hon. Lady’s constituents opted in to the victim contact scheme, and therefore the disclosure to them about any information on community leave. I repeat my apology for the distress this has caused. I understand that a victim liaison officer is now in regular contact with the Ilumoka family.

It is, I am afraid, in the nature of a restricted hospital order that I cannot give any assurances about how long Benjamin Anabah will be detained in hospital, or how his treatment will progress. I can however assure the hon. Lady that the concerns expressed by the Ilumoka family will be taken into account in his future management.

The hon. Lady perfectly fairly raised the immigration aspects of this case, including foreign nationals who are mentally disordered offenders. These individuals do not fall to be automatically deported from the UK under the UK Borders Act 2007. Rather, deportation is considered under the Immigration Act 1971 and is aligned with the offender’s discharge date. All such cases are considered carefully in close liaison with the Ministry of Justice and the hospital authorities. In this case, that means there should not be a gap or hiatus between Mr Anabah’s release from hospital and his removal from this country. I spoke today to those who represent the immigration authorities and they have assured me that they will be in close contact with those administering the hospital order to make every effort to ensure that that is the case.

I hope that is at least to some extent reassuring to the hon. Lady and her constituents, and I am grateful to her for the points she has raised. We will look again at the point about guidance, as I said, and I hope that she understands the seriousness with which we take this case and recognises the changes I have outlined to the notification for victims, which I hope will prevent some of the distress that her constituents have had to endure in relation to this case.

Question put and agreed to.

17:24

House adjourned.

Petitions

Thursday 21st November 2013 Petitions

Thursday 21 November 2013

Beecroft Road Car Park Redevelopment

Thursday 21st November 2013 Petitions

The Petition of residents of Cannock Chase,

Declares that the Petitioners do not support Cannock Chase District Council’s proposal to redevelop Beecroft Road Car Park for shopping and leisure; further that the Petitioners believe that the existing town centre needs support and the District Council should focus on this instead with a more creative approach to existing empty units; further that any proposals which risk the demolition of Allport Road homes are unfair to residents and should not be pursued; and that the present car parking space is necessary for visitors to the town centre and Cannock Hospital, and it should not be reduced.

The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urge the Government to intervene in Cannock Chase Council’s planning for this redevelopment.

And the Petitioners remain, etc.—[Presented by Mr Aidan Burley, Official Report, 11 September 2013; Vol. 567, c. 1130.]

[P001222]

Observations from the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government:

The Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government is aware of Cannock Chase District Council’s proposals to redevelop the Beecroft Road Car Park and the Council’s recent public consultation regarding their proposals.

Good strategic asset management enables local authorities to align their limited resources with local priorities, to improve the delivery of public services, make effective use of capital investment as well as providing land for local housing needs and drive local economic growth. Planning policy and practice guidance also encourages councils to seek to improve the quality of parking in town centres.

It is for local authorities to decide how to make best use of their assets, including the relative benefits and costs of holding, selling and redeveloping assets. This is because they are best placed to know what works and is most appropriate for their local area in a way that central Government cannot. We encourage local authorities to engage with their communities when considering options for managing their assets.

In recent years, DCLG has worked with key partners, including HM Treasury, the Chartered Institute of Public Finance and Accounting (CIPFA), and the Royal Institute of Chartered Surveyors (RICS), on raising the profile and quality of asset management in local government.

In determining a planning application, the local planning authority who will have full knowledge of the local circumstances, are required to have regard to all material considerations including the development plan, national policies and views expressed by third parties.

The Secretary of State might decide to call in the application for his own determination if he considers that it raises matters of more than local importance, but his policy is to be very selective about this. As it is possible that this proposal may, at some future date, come within his jurisdiction, it would be inappropriate to comment on the issues raised in the petition.

The Right to Silence (DWP)

Thursday 21st November 2013 Petitions

The Petition of Mr Martin Burke of Elizabeth Regina Love,

Declares that the Petitioner made a petition to the House of Commons on 4 December 2012 entitled “The Right to Silence” and the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions replied on 7 January 2013 and that the reply is misleading. (Further declares that this petition is in effect a continuation of the original petition, a public response to that 7 January 2013 reply.)

In the petition on 4 December 2012 the petitioner noted that voters have their benefits stopped for not telling civil servants details about meetings with their Member of Parliament and that as punishment benefits are stopped with no regard to the means to buy food.

Noted that Civil Servants are fully aware of the health consequences and that it threatens people’s lives and are acting to cause harm. Noted that they understand the consequences and it is done with the intent to cause harm, injury that may kill. Notes that the petition listed the names of participant members of the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP).

Noted that questioning by Civil Servants in job centres is conducted under conditions of deliberate stress; the use of shouting, with members of the public unknown to the interviewee sat just behind; numerous interviews at irregular intervals over a long period of time; prolongation of the duration of meetings (“as long as it takes”).

Noted that other small stresses are designed to have a cumulative effect: staff entering personal space; uncomfortable chairs; unable to sit under the desk fully; sitting with the back to a busy room looking either at the interviewer directly or the wall; conversation interruptions; the use of two interviewers and different interviewers; forced to sit close next to and face to face opposite strangers in the waiting areas; deliberately keeping people waiting; disclosure of personal information in public; the giving of wrong and misleading information; unreasonableness (“I ask the questions”); telephone calls to “Decision Makers”; deliberate delay in replying to correspondence. Notes in addition background noise (white); the use of weekly and daily signings, creating distractions in peripheral vision.

Noted that these stresses are under the general threat of loss of benefit when there is little money for food, nor money for heating in winter, and that these actions are designed to condition a person into signing one-sided contracts.

Noted that the life-threatening health consequences of stress are known.

Noted that interviewees do not consent to this treatment.

Noted that civil servants who do this are skilled and experienced, trained and managed, enthusiastic, enjoy what they do and work as a team.

Noted that the restriction of access to and the denial of food was a tactic used in the Malayan counterinsurgency.

Noted that for adults to use starvation as a weapon against children is a criminal offence.

Noted that the petitioner is fortunate that he can read and write.

Noted that the House of Commons asks that requests made in a petition to the House be addressed to the “government”, however a distinction has to be drawn between elected Members of the House of Commons and civil servants.

Declares that the reply from the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions and member for Chingford, Rt. Hon. Iain Duncan Smith, is misleading.

Declares that the “legislation” by which civil servants in the DWP are “bound”(sic) referred to in the reply arc mostly regulations drawn up by the civil servants in the DWP department, as well as policies about how the Act is to be interpreted and what is acceptable.

Further declares that the Secretary of State’s reply gives the impression that DWP can do nothing about injuring people and repeats that “no money for food” and stress are used as weapons, life-threatening actions.

Further declares that the Secretary of State’s reply evades the issue and implicitly admits that when JSA is refused some people will not get hardship payments (applied for after the fact and requiring “guilt” to be disproved). Notes from the Secretary of State’s response that often only one instance is needed for a noticeable effect.

Further declares that there is a DWP document that admits that there may be health consequences. Further declares that these are physical punishments no less than the use of asphyxiation or drugs (inflicting bodily harm).

Further declares that the reply gives the impression that Jobcentre civil servants are immune from the consequences of these actions or have no choice, and that this is what the Department wants them to do (and play a game of chance with someone who has an undiagnosed medical condition).

Further declares that an impression of independence is given (impartial DWP decision makers) whereas these decision makers, in loco Secretary of State, are DWP employees sat usually in other DWI offices, removing weeks of benefits.

Further declares that following the petition on 4 December 2012 and the reply on 7 January 2013 there was correspondence with Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, and notes also that the Permanent Secretary of the DWP is Mr Robert Devereux.

Further declares again that those listed in Early Day Motion 454 Fatalities in Afghanistan (No. 11) (EDM 454) (whose names are not listed here), (in the order listed in the EDM 454), soldiers from the 2nd Battalion The Duke of Lancaster’s Regiment, 6th Battalion The Rifles, 1st Battalion Grenadier Guards, 1st Battalion Coldstream Guards, 36 Engineer Regiment, The Royal Scots Borderers, 1st Battalion The Royal Regiment of Scotland, 3rd Battalion The Yorkshire Regiment, 3rd Battalion The Rifles, 4th Battalion The Rifles, 11 Explosive Ordnance Disposal Regiment, Royal Logistics Corps, 1st Battalion The Royal Anglian Regiment, 33 Engineer Regiment (Explosive Ordnance Disposal), and countless others who gave their lives in previous conflicts including the Second World War and the First World War; gave their lives so that people would not be treated this way.

Declares that what is being done to people in the job centres is also being done to these who gave their lives.

Further declares that even the most errant soldier put in the Scots Guards’ guardroom would not be treated this way.

Declares again that this officer is asking that it be stopped.

Declares that the petitioner asks if the Secretary of State discussed the petition with the department civil servants and if he signed the response.

Notes that the Secretary of State appears to hold the lives of voters in job centres cheaply, and doesn’t mind a few people dying.

Notes again that the people who are being mistreated, with skill by people who know what they are doing, are voters.

The petitioner therefore asks again the House of Commons to make a law so that when a constituent has any business with their elected Member of Parliament they are given explicitly the right to silence without punishment when questioned by civil servants.

The petitioner asks again that this mistreatment voters are being subjected to by civil servants described in this and the preceding petition, be stopped.

Further asks again that members of the House of Commons ensure that the people, who include their constituents, are always fed properly, with dignity.

The petitioner therefore repeats the requests of the petition on 4 December 2012 that the House of Commons consider the matter of the Right to Silence and that were the questions put the House consent to what is asked in this petition first posted to the House on 28 June 2013, and formalised on 29 August 2013.

And the Petitioner remains, etc.—[Presented by Sir Gerald Kaufman, Official Report, 16 October 2013; Vol. 568, c. 7P.]

[P001231]

Observations from the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions:

The allegation that Jobcentre Plus is acting deliberately to damage the lives of claimants is completely untrue. Jobcentre Plus staff are there to help claimants, to identify areas where they need additional support and training and to help improve their lives by supporting them into work.

Claimants have responsibilities they must meet in order to receive Jobseeker’s Allowance (JSA). All JSA claimants are required, as a condition of entitlement, to be available for, and actively seeking, employment. The action they will undertake each week to improve their employability and look for work is discussed and agreed with their adviser and then set out within their Jobseeker’s Agreement (JSAg) or Claimant Commitment (CC). We work to ensure that all such mandatory requirements are reasonable given the claimant’s capability and circumstances and they should be personalised to their specific situation, taking into account any restrictions such as health conditions or caring responsibilities etc.

We do not want to sanction claimants nor is it our intention to make their lives unnecessarily difficult. They should be clearly informed of the consequences of failing to comply and the vast majority of claimants do not receive a sanction. However, where they do fail to meet reasonable requirements designed to move them towards work, it is right that there are consequences. This helps ensure the rules are adhered to.

We only impose sanctions where, without good reason, claimants have not taken reasonable action to give themselves the best possible prospects of getting a job. Where they do fail to comply they have the opportunity to explain why. Each case is reviewed on its own merits and all evidence is considered by a trained decision maker. Where the claimant had “good reason” no sanction will be applied and their benefit will not be stopped. Even where a sanction is applied claimants can ask for the decision to be reconsidered, and can appeal to an independent tribunal. Hardship payments are also available to guard against destitution and sanctioned claimants can apply for such payments which are equivalent to at least 60% of normal JSA payments.

We also deploy a comprehensive monitoring regime to check that sanctions are applied appropriately across our network. Where any site is making significantly more or fewer referrals than we would typically expect, an independent team reviews their activity to ensure sanctions are being applied appropriately.

Over recent years a number of changes have been made in Jobcentres to improve claimant comfort and service. Claimant seating provided in all Jobcentres in Manchester is the same as that provided within Jobcentre Plus as a whole, but will vary in terms of layout and proximity to advisers. We endeavour to make the best use of the available space but appreciate that sometimes people will inevitably need more privacy, particularly if discussing things of a personal or sensitive nature. This is why we offer private interview facilities upon request.

As Jobcentres develop and we introduce more technology, claimant safety, privacy and comfort are all factors we take into consideration. This is evident in Rusholme which has recently been transformed into a Digital Jobcentre. Here we have opened up unused space to provide greater internet access for jobseekers to access DWP services digitally. However, attending periodic adviser interviews is still a necessary requirement and an integral part of benefit conditionality.

Westminster Hall

Thursday 21st November 2013 Westminster Hall

Thursday 21 November 2013

[Mark Pritchard in the Chair]

Arms Exports and Arms Control

Thursday 21st November 2013 Westminster Hall

[Relevant documents: Scrutiny of Arms Exports and Arms Control (2013): First Joint Report from the Committees on Arms Export Controls, HC 205, and the Government response, Cm 8707.]

Motion made, and Question proposed, That the sitting be now adjourned .—(John Penrose.)

13:30

[Sir John Stanley (Tonbridge and Malling) (Con)]

The 2013 report by the Committees on Arms Export Controls is the most extensive that we have ever produced. The report, plus its evidence, encompasses nearly 900 pages in three volumes, all of which are available on the internet, although in the interests of economy, only the first volume has been printed. It is entirely for the House and those who are outside it to decide whether the length of the report has been accompanied by additional merit.

In the report, we have broken new ground in two ways that I highlight at the outset, the first of which relates to arms control. Sadly, globalisation extends as much to arms transfers as to pretty much any other activity in which we engage, and the electronic age is accelerating that process. As a result, the ability to procure devices that kill or maim, either individually or on a horrendous scale, has never been more widespread. The consequence is that effective international arms control agreements—whether nuclear, chemical, biological or conventional—have never been more important and imperative. That is why the Committees have substantially extended their scrutiny of the Government’s policies over the entire international arms control agreement area.

The second area in which we have broken new ground is that, for the first time, we have taken the list of 27 countries highlighted in the Foreign and Commonwealth Office’s annual human rights report and asked the Government what existing arms export licences they have approved to each of those 27 countries. The Government’s answer took me and many others greatly by surprise: the total number of extant arms export licences approved by the Government to the 27 countries of top human rights concern was just over 3,000. The value of those licences is equally astonishing, at £12 billion. Even that figure is an understatement, as the Government, reasonably, can provide value information only for standard individual licences, not for open individual licences, where they do not know precisely what quantities will be exported. The details of those 3,000 licences, country by country, can be found in volume 2 of our report, annexe 13. For those who are interested in the subject, it makes concerning reading.

We carried out the same exercise in relation to five additional countries not currently on the Foreign Office’s list, of which four are still of human rights concern: Bahrain, Egypt, Madagascar and Tunisia. The additional fifth country is Argentina, which is of concern due to its posture in relation to the Falklands. Again, the details of extant licences to those five countries are available in our report.

A key point to make is that the Committees’ report would not have been possible on the scale on which we have produced the information for the House without the Government’s co-operation. With one conspicuous and important exception, to which I will come in a moment, the Government have broadly co-operated in providing us with the information that we have sought. As a matter of course, I maintain contact with parliamentarians in the major arms-exporting countries in Europe and north America. I am in contact with those who are interested in the field in the Italian Parliament, the Bundestag, the National Assembly of France, the Swedish and Canadian Parliaments and the Capitol in Washington.

Our Committees will continue to strive to improve our performance as far as the House is concerned, but I think that I can fairly say that at this moment, as far as I am aware, no Parliament and no Government in Europe or north America have the same timely access to detailed information as we do. That is a considerable credit to the British Parliament and to successive British Governments. I say “successive” deliberately because I want to put it on record once again that, had it not been for the initiative of the late Robin Cook in being the first Foreign Secretary to publish an annual arms export report, the Committees on Arms Export Controls might never have been constituted as they have.

[Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Con)]

Given my right hon. Friend’s expertise and diligence in the matter, will he say which arms export concerns him most? Can he identify one thing, or perhaps two or three? We should highlight those things, perhaps in the press, as concerns for us as the Committees on Arms Export Controls.

[Sir John Stanley]

My hon. Friend will be glad to know that he has anticipated what I will come to a little later in my remarks.

I come to our difference with the Government over one critical piece of information. Members from throughout the House were utterly appalled by the sarin attack that took place in Damascus on 21 August. Sarin is a ghastly chemical weapon. It is one of the most painful and grim ways in which anyone can die, and as we know, hundreds of men, women and children died in that attack. However, the uncomfortable reality that we in this Parliament must face is that between 2004 and 2012, a total of seven export licences were approved by the present and previous Governments for the export to Syria of the dual-use chemicals sodium fluoride and potassium fluoride, which are precursor chemicals in the manufacture of sarin. Those seven export licences have been under detailed scrutiny by the Committees, and that scrutiny commenced well before the sarin attack to which I have referred.

The one crucial piece of information that the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills has so far not been willing to provide to the Committees is the names of the companies to which the Government provided export licence approval to export the precursor chemicals from the UK. That is crucial information for the Committees, without which the Committees are unable to take either oral or written evidence from the companies concerned. In his latest letter to the Committees, dated 25 October, the Business Secretary once again advanced arguments about why he should not disclose the names of the companies to the Committees. I shall take the arguments one by one.

First, the Business Secretary said that, in deciding not to provide the names of the companies, he had done so in the framework of the Freedom of Information Act 2000, to which I reply: that Act does not circumscribe inquiries carried out by House of Commons Select Committees.

Secondly, the Business Secretary said that companies deal with his Department on the basis of confidentiality. However, he has been willing to provide every other important piece of information that the Committees have sought. He has provided the Committees with the names of the chemicals involved; the quantities of chemicals approved; the financial value of the approved chemicals; the dates of the licence approvals; and, most significantly, the names of the concerns in Syria to which the chemicals were to be exported. On that basis, I fail to see how the names of the companies applying for the licences can be considered confidential.

Lastly, the Business Secretary said that he does not want to disclose the names of the companies because of the reputational risk that the companies would face. He also advanced the argument that there could be physical danger—imagined, in my view—to the companies’ employees. To that argument, I say that if Select Committees were to be debarred from taking evidence from witnesses on the grounds of the risk of reputational damage, that would effectively destroy most of the inquiries carried out by Select Committees. That would clearly be unacceptable.

In the Business Secretary’s latest letter to me, he has offered an alternative proposal. He said that he would be willing to give the Committees the companies’ names in confidence and on the basis that they took evidence in a closed session. However, that would defeat the central purpose of Select Committees, which is to carry out open and transparent inquiries and to make full reports to the House on the basis of the evidence received.

The Committees will of course respond to the Business Secretary’s letter. I hope that he will consider the issue further, achieve the change of policy that the Committees are seeking and disclose the names of the companies to the Committees, so that the Committees can take evidence from them.

I am glad to say that, over a substantial area of the Committees’ work, the Committees are broadly on the same ground as the Government. However, I owe it to the House to highlight two important areas where the Committees differ from the Government’s position. The first is the key area of UK arms exports and their possible use for internal repression. There is no difference between the Committees and the Government on the wording of the policy; the difference comes in its implementation.

The policy wording goes back 13 years to a written answer provided by the then Minister of State at the Foreign Office, the right hon. Member for Neath (Mr Hain), on 26 October 2000. That wording was fully reflected in the wording provided by the Foreign Secretary to the Committees when he gave oral evidence in February 2012. The wording is:

“We will not issue licences where we judge there is a clear risk that the proposed export might provoke or prolong regional or internal conflicts, or which might be used to facilitate internal repression.”

When asked whether that still represented the Government’s policy, the Foreign Secretary replied:

“That is still the policy. The ‘or’, as you have pointed out on other occasions, is important.”

The “or” is indeed of crucial importance. The House will see from that statement that there are effectively two tests for the policy in deciding whether an arms export application should be approved in circumstances where internal repression could arise.

The first test is what I call the “clear risk” test, which is a relatively loose test. I can hear the arguments going on around Whitehall regularly, with officials and Ministers saying, “There is a risk, but it isn’t clear, so we can approve the export.” The much more stringent test is in the second half of the sentence—after the “or”—the test of whether an export might facilitate internal repression. That is why both halves of the Foreign Secretary’s policy statement are crucial.

Our deep concern is that the Government repeatedly only refer to the relatively loose “clear risk” test, but fail to refer to the “might facilitate internal repression” test, which is much more stringent. I will provide the House with just two examples. First, paragraph 46 of Command Paper Cm 8707, the Government’s response to our latest report, states:

“The Government will not grant an export licence if there is a clear risk that the proposed export might be used for internal repression.”

The Government’s answer is wholly silent on the second half of the policy—the “might facilitate internal repression” test.

My second illustration of precisely the same point comes from the Business Secretary’s letter to me on 11 October regarding dual-use chemical exports to Syria. He said:

“Specifically with regard to exports that might be used for internal repression, the Government continues to assess applications against Criterion 2 in full, which states that: ‘[The Government will] not issue an export licence if there is a clear risk [my emphasis] that the proposed export might be used for internal repression.’”

Once again, the key words—

“or which might be used to facilitate internal repression”—

were omitted.

Worse still, in that letter, the Business Secretary claimed—without any foundation—that the Committees were over-interpreting the Foreign Secretary’s policy statement to the Committees on 7 February 2012, which I have read out. Let me put the Business Secretary’s mind at rest: the Committees have not made any interpretation of the Foreign Secretary’s statement. The wording of the statement is perfectly clear; it requires no interpretation. The Committees look to the Government to implement that policy statement not selectively, but in its entirety.

Equally, we look to Ministers, in their future public statements on arms exports and internal repression, to state the policy in its entirety, not selectively, and to use the complete wording as endorsed by the Foreign Secretary to the Committees on 7 February 2012.

I now turn to the Government’s implementation of their policy, as stated by the Foreign Secretary to the Committees. In our latest report, we specifically named a total of 32 countries of human rights concern and asked the Government whether they were satisfied that each of the existing Government-approved export licences to those countries conformed with their policy on arms exports and internal repression. I am disappointed with and concerned about the Government’s reply to that key series of questions, because in each case they state that they are compliant with their policy, as set out in paragraph 46 of the Command Paper, from which I just quoted, which only refers to the clear risk test and ignores entirely the phrase,

“or which might be used to facilitate internal repression”.

That is an unsatisfactory feature of the Government’s Command Paper response, to which I am sure that the Committees will return.

I shall now highlight just three instances where the Government’s adherence to their own stated policy appears to be highly questionable: first, Sri Lanka. I read with some amusement a headline on the front page of Saturday’s Independent newspaper. Mr Sutharshan Uthayaswriyan, who is a Tamil refugee and has been since the age of seven, was reported as saying,

“We believe in David Cameron. He is God!”

If I may be presumptuous and bring God down to earth for a moment, I ask the Prime Minister and his fellow Ministers to address arms exports and internal repression in Sri Lanka. I do not need to recite the appalling human rights abuses that have taken place in Sri Lanka. I strongly support the Prime Minister in his calls for an international independent inquiry. However, against that human rights background, the House will wish to consider the British Government’s arms export licence approvals in just nine months of last year. They included 100 pistols, 130 rifles, 210 combat shotguns, 600 assault rifles, unknown quantities of small arms ammunition and unknown quantities of machine guns. I hope that the Minister will not say that these were all for counter-piracy, because I do not find that a credible answer, particularly when combined with the complete list of the 49 extant arms export approved licences to Sri Lanka that we detailed in our report.

I return to the Committees’ original question. How can the Government’s approval of these arms export licences to Sri Lanka be compatible with their arms exports and internal repression policy, as stated to the Committees by the Foreign Secretary?

I do not need to recite the serious human rights abuses that took place in Bahrain in the wake of the Arab spring. They have been well documented and were all too observable by any and all of us on television, where we saw police vehicles being driven towards and into those demonstrating peacefully in Bahrain. Against that same human rights background, it is extraordinary that the Government’s existing approved arms export licences to Bahrain include licences for small arms ammunition, pistols, gun silencers, assault rifles and machine guns, to cite just a few of 105 extant Government-approved arms export licences to Bahrain.

The third area is a group of arms exports by category. The category is cryptographic equipment, which encrypts clear speech and text and is intended to make that impenetrable to others. It is, of course, dual-use equipment —I entirely accept and understand that—with a perfectly legitimate civil use to protect confidentiality, but it is also key equipment for security services, not least in countries noted for internal repression and human rights violations.

The Committees’ report has exposed the fact that, of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office’s 27 countries of top human rights concern, as detailed in the FCO’s latest human rights report, no less than 23 of them have received UK Government approval for licences for the export of cryptographic equipment, cryptographic technology, cryptographic software and cryptographic components. Those countries include Belarus, Iran, Russia, Saudi Arabia, Sri Lanka—once again—and Zimbabwe.

The two biggest recipients of approval for cryptographic exports among those 27 countries of top human rights concern are of most concern. First, China has the largest number of extant cryptographic licences of any country among the 27: a total of nearly 200, with a value of £600 million. China is a one-party state, where there is no clear boundary between the Communist party and the private sector. It would seem highly likely that there is a real risk that some cryptographic exports that may be going into the private sector initially end up being utilised by security services in China.

The second largest recipient of approval for cryptographic exports, with more than 100 extant cryptographic licences, but with far and away the largest value, is Israel. The value of those cryptographic export licences is staggering, at nearly £8 billion. Hon. Members might think that I have misspoken, but I repeat: £8 billion. Again, it seems highly likely that some of that massive cryptographic export to Israel will be used, sooner or later, to the advantage of the Israeli security services in operations against Palestinians. For all those reasons, the Committees’ scrutiny of the Government’s extant licences, particularly in countries where there is significant internal repression, will continue intensively.

A second area where we have a significant policy difference with the Government is in relation to authoritarian regimes. The policy followed by the present Government, and indeed by the previous Government, could be described most charitably as benign. Others might describe it as reckless and possibly even irresponsible. The policy that the two successive Governments have followed is one of broadly supporting most types of exports to authoritarian regimes, providing that the regime appeared stable and there was no blood on the streets. Hence the flow of British arms export approvals from the present Government and the previous Government to Gaddafi’s Libya, Mubarak’s Egypt and to Assad’s Syria—I have previously referred to the dual-use chemical exports.

In fairness to both Governments, they recognised that there was something of a safety net if their policy approvals turned out badly. They recognised that they could revoke licences after they had been granted. The previous Government, for example, revoked a handful of licences to Israel after the last major Israeli attack on Gaza. The present Government have now revoked—this is a massive number—more than 200 licences to north African and middle eastern countries following the Arab spring and to Argentina following the fairly bellicose statements by the Argentine leadership towards the Falklands. Those revocations are detailed in annex 12 of our report.

With much trumpeting, the present Government have introduced a further safety net if things turn nasty in authoritarian regimes—namely, the power to suspend licence applications, in addition to the power to revoke them. The problem with both revocation and suspension is that they are of only limited practical effect for the simple reason that, once military and dual-use exports have been exported out of the UK, there is effectively no means to stop their use. As I have said previously, the bullets have bolted.

I hope that the Minister will not trot out the familiar ministerial response that there is no evidence that British arms exports are being used for internal repression. In case my right hon. Friend is tempted to do that, I say to him that that line simply does not stand scrutiny for anyone who takes the trouble to look at the approved arms exports to the countries with the worst human rights records, as set out in annex 13 of our report.

Annex 13 shows at a glance that the overwhelming majority of exports will not be visible once they have been exported from this country. Those exports are made up of components, software, technology, communications equipment, cryptographic equipment, ammunition, small arms, automatic weapons and sniper rifles, which will not be identifiable as having come from the UK once they have left our shores, even assuming—it is most unlikely—that we have anyone on the ground to see what those items actually are. We are dealing with exports that, by and large, are invisible once they have left this country.

The crux of the Government’s policy decision and the Committees’ scrutiny is the nature of the original decision to grant the export licence. The Government have a simple choice: do they follow a relatively risky policy that has been the policy hitherto, or do they adopt a more cautious policy when approving export licences to authoritarian regimes? For the Committees, the fact that the present Government have now had to revoke more than 200 arms export licences to countries predominantly in the middle east and north Africa is the clearest possible indication of the extent to which both this Government and the previous Government misjudged the risks that they were running in approving those arms exports in the first place.

I stress very clearly that the Committees do not criticise the Government for being unable to predict the future. None of us can reliably predict the future, and it is precisely because neither the Government nor any of us can do so that we believe that the more cautious policy should be adopted. That is why, for two years in succession, the report of our four Committees unanimously urges the Government to adopt a more cautious policy on arms exports to authoritarian regimes, particularly on those items that may be used for internal repression.

I am only too aware that I could have raised a great many other issues, but I have tried to focus on what I consider to be the two most important policy areas before the Committees and, indeed, before the Government. I look forward to hearing the contributions of right hon. and hon. Members to this debate.

14:06

[Ann McKechin (Glasgow North) (Lab)]

I am grateful for the opportunity to contribute to this debate as a member of the Committees.

This year’s report is the most extensive and authoritative parliamentary analysis ever conducted from Westminster on our country’s policy and decisions on arms exports. The report reveals in significant detail what has been sold, its value and the countries to which goods are exported. It has rightly gained significant media attention, and I hope that it helps to inform the necessary parliamentary and public debate on how we develop our policies in future.

I acknowledge the skill and considerable efforts of our Chair, the right hon. Member for Tonbridge and Malling (Sir John Stanley), and our Clerk in obtaining such a wealth of information and in ensuring that it has been made available in the public domain. Parliament owes them its gratitude.

I will focus on several issues addressed by the report. First, on a positive note, our Committees have rightly commended both the current Government and the previous Government for their work on the arms trade treaty. The UK Government should be proud of their leading contribution to achieving the first ever international arms treaty on conventional weapons, but it is important to ensure that work on adopting and enforcing the treaty is just as ambitious and comprehensive.

I hope that over the coming year, in anticipation of the treaty’s coming into force by the end of 2014, the UK Government will show their commitment by making a strong interpretive statement on the treaty’s text and incorporate the treaty’s principles as an integral part of our future decisions on arms exports. We should also be offering practical assistance to other countries, particularly those that receive UK aid, so that they can sign, ratify and properly implement the treaty. The UK should also show that in future we expect that only signatories to the treaty should be provided any access to arms fairs here in the United Kingdom or be permitted to enter co-partnership agreements with UK-based defence companies.

The Chair spoke about the export of chemicals to Syria. I share and endorse his concerns about the manner in which the decision was made last year to grant a licence for the export of chemicals at a time when there must have been an ongoing debate within the EU on an export ban. In fact, such an export ban was subsequently announced a couple of months after the original decision to grant the export licence.

Thankfully, the Committees have been advised by the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills that no goods were exported under the licence, but the manner in which the decision was made, and the allegations about the nature of the end user’s relationship with the Assad regime, is a legitimate matter of public concern. Our Committees have rightly insisted on much more detailed information and on an opportunity to take evidence in public from those concerned.

Although there is no evidence to suggest that the applicant companies did not act in good faith, it cannot be satisfactory, given the nature of the ongoing Syrian conflict, which commenced before the export licence was granted, to believe that exports capable of dual use should continue as normal between the two countries. Parliament needs to have the ability properly to scrutinise such applications, to hold Ministers and officials to account and to put forward any necessary recommendations on future practice.

I trust that the Minister will assure us that full answers will be provided and open access to witnesses will be secured. If, as we have been advised, the chemicals provided were for completely innocent, civilian use, I fail to see why a company’s reputation would be seriously damaged. The argument made about the Freedom of Information Act was totally ridiculous and insulting to the work of the Committees. This is nothing to do with the Freedom of Information Act; this is about the ability to scrutinise what the Government, funded by taxpayers, do on our behalf.

Our report also touches on the decision in May to alter the European Union embargo on the export of arms to the Syrian opposition. I am not convinced that, given the fragmented, chaotic and fast-changing situation in Syria, any arms exports could safely meet the criteria on end use. There is a real risk of weapons falling into the hands of the Syrian Government or extremist opposition groups.

To date, it would appear that the Government have, with the exception of a gift of non-military equipment in July, not granted any export licences. Given the prospect of talks to address the conflict, it would be helpful if the Minister indicated the Government’s thinking on that issue. Will he also confirm whether, to his knowledge, Croatia has carried on supplying arms to rebel forces, as was widely reported earlier this year, since their accession into the European Union in July? If so, what discussions have been held at European Union level about the consequences of such continued supply in the run up to possible negotiations to resolve this ghastly conflict?

There are continued concerns regarding our policy on arms exports to Egypt. Our Committees have again sought reassurance that such exports will not be permitted when there is a clear risk that proposed exports might provoke or prolong regional or internal conflicts or be used to facilitate internal repression. We noted the Government’s response to our report last month, but why was there a gap of over a month between the initial decision to suspend five licences and the suspension of a further 47 licences, with the second decision only being taken after agreement at European Union level? Given the obvious and ongoing risks of further internal conflict, it is difficult to find good reason for such a delay. Is it now the Government’s intention to review the UK’s policy, which currently considers Egypt to be an appropriate destination for arms exports? Given the delicate state of affairs in Egypt, it is important that the UK should have a clear, transparent policy.

I now turn to the challenge presented by the fast-changing nature of the arms sector and the increased reliance on surveillance systems. As the right hon. Member for Tonbridge and Malling said, when we analyse the nature of the exports to many countries, we see that many relate to cryptography.

The Minister will have read the report in The Guardian on Monday about the sale of mass-surveillance technologies by private firms, including many based here in the United Kingdom. Piracy International has the details of more than 338 companies, including 77 based in the UK, offering a total of 97 different technologies, covering a vast spectrum. There are disturbing stories about the hacking of dissidents not only in their own country, but in the UK, where some are currently taking refuge. Some fairly small, relatively unknown companies are now involved in the sector, and given that the equipment is exceptionally portable and that technical specifications can change rapidly, the detection of illegal exports is bound to be difficult.

The power and reach of such equipment is considerable. A Dubai-based company markets a product called Cerebro, a DIY system similar to the Tempora programme run by GCHQ, that has the ability to tap information from fibre-optic cables carrying internet traffic and to analyse texts, mobile calls, billing data, e-mails and social networks in real time. I welcome the announcement this week by the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills to introduce new rules in this area. Will the Minister provide us with information today on how his Department intends to tackle the issue and what discussions have been held at European Union and international level about combating illegal use? It is unacceptable that this growing market currently lacks either effective oversight or accountability. I hope, given the serious potential for harm, that the United Kingdom will, as promised, take a leading role in providing effective regulation and enforcement.

Finally, given the scale of the challenge of scrutinising this fast-changing sector—I refer to the comments of the right hon. Member for Tonbridge and Malling—I am concerned and severely disappointed at the decision taken by the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills in July to roll back on the requirement that exporters report on the volume or value of transactions under open-general and open-individual licences.

Just a year ago, the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills publicly committed to providing a significant increase in the amount and quality of the information made available to the public. The opening paragraph of his Department’s 2012 paper, entitled “Transparency in Export Licensing: Government Response”, states:

“Transparency is a key theme of the Coalition Government and plays a vital role in enabling the public to hold the Government to account. It is particularly important in a high profile area such as export control—confidence in the workings of the export licensing system needs to be shared by Parliament and by the public. The system should not just be working properly, it should also be seen to do so.”

I completely agree with that statement, and I am astonished that the Government have preferred to take direct steps at short notice to close down debate and scrutiny based on the flimsy claim that it is too burdensome to industry, for which there is no evidence from the industry.

Given that most records are electronic and that the companies involved are relatively sophisticated, such transparency should not present any great problem. Such an excuse just will not wash, given the level of public debate and the need for greater, not less, transparency. I hope that the Minister will take the opportunity today urgently to reconsider that thoroughly bad decision and will commit to providing adequate information. In that way, our Committees can continue properly to do what the public expect, which is to hold Ministers to account. The public have the right to know.

14:18

[Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Con)]

It is a great pleasure to serve under your chairmanship today, Mr Pritchard. May I start by congratulating this Government, and indeed the previous Labour Government—in particular the late Robin Cook—on being hugely instrumental in setting up the first international arms control treaty that applies to conventional arms? It is a huge achievement and one that we in the Committees on Arms Export Controls should celebrate. In my short speech, I intend to concentrate on some aspects of the Government’s response to the Committees and hope to touch on aspects that have not yet been mentioned.

Let me start by saying that the British system of arms control—the Government’s system—is one of the best in the world, and it is absolutely excellent that both Ministers and senior officials are made so readily available to our Committees to explain policies and answer our questions.

I now want to be more specific about matters of concern to the Committees on Arms Export Controls, starting with so-called brass plate companies. It is absolutely right for the Committees to emphasise that the Government should do all in their power to take action against UK-registered companies that carry out arms-export and arms-brokering operations overseas.

I accept that the gathering of evidence of illegal activities may be difficult, but the Government should direct their investigators and officials to that end. I fully accept, however, that it is extremely difficult for the Government to supervise subsidiaries of UK-registered companies that are under the jurisdiction of a foreign country. Such companies are outside the UK’s legal jurisdiction, so I accept the Government’s comment that they have no plans to legislate on the matter. To be honest, I cannot see how they can introduce meaningful legislation that would be effective.

There are still obvious problems in the regulation of arms brokers. It seems clear that sometimes previously licensed and, shall I say, clean arms brokers can turn to crime, perhaps many years after they have been licensed. Before I became an MP, I sometimes came into contact with some of them, when I was abroad—a few were pretty despicable characters. Personally, I think that we would be right to establish a register of arms brokers and to get it published.

I am very pleased that the UK Government have set their mind completely against the use of cluster munitions. To me, they are appalling weapons, which often persist in an operational state well after the cessation of hostilities. I have personal experience of such foul weapons, as one of my soldiers in Bosnia was severely wounded in the head by a ball bearing in 1992. It had come from a cluster bomb. The bomb was totally undetected until a child picked it up. My soldier was badly wounded when he tried to tell the child to put it down gently. The boy threw it on the ground; he was lucky to avoid being injured, but my soldier got a ball bearing through the head.

As an ex-infantry soldier, I am less against anti-personnel mines than cluster munitions—in fact, I am less against anti-personnel mines than most of the Committees, for reasons that I hope I can explain. When infantry soldiers place anti-personnel mines, they do so to protect themselves—that is the primary purpose of the mines, which are normally in sight and covered by fire. I myself have not used them operationally, but not using them on the battlefield normally implies that more soldiers are required. For a small army, anti-personnel mines often make up for lack of personnel, because they are used to provide intimate protection, perhaps in a defensive position where the enemy might creep up. Anti-personnel mines could stop the enemy, or give warning.

The lasting problem of anti-personnel mines, however, is that they go on for a very long time. In 1992 to 1993, I was the British UN commander in Bosnia. When I was looking for a base for one of my companies, I went to northern Bosnia and came across a former Yugoslav air base at Tuzla. It was a huge place, and I decided to position one of my rifle companies there—lots of space, lots of cover and lots of hard standing. The whole place, however, was surrounded by anti-personnel mines—vast numbers of them. There were so many that we made no attempt to try to clear or neutralise them. Visiting the place 20 years later, I saw that the mines were still there.

Eighteen years ago, my wife was a delegate of the International Committee of the Red Cross in Lebanon, and she actually lost her driver to an anti-personnel mine. The minefield was old and unmarked, and the man did not realise that he was walking in a minefield. Just think of that—if an adult does not realise that a minefield is there, what chance does a child have? My point is that once anti-personnel mines are laid, they can be there for years and years. Anything that we can do as a country to stop their deployment would be a very good thing. We are doing our best.

To conclude, I endorse the tribute already paid to our Chairman, my right hon. Friend the Member for Tonbridge and Malling (Sir John Stanley)—I hope I pronounced “Malling” correctly. He puts enormous effort—dare I say, in a softer voice, unpaid effort—into his role, often with little support from the rest of us; I do not include the Opposition Members present in that, but rather accuse myself. The effort put by our Chairman, or Chair, into the report and into his chairmanship of our Committees all year long is outstanding. He is an exemplar of proper, detailed chairmanship of a Committee and a beacon of how it should be done.

I will not leave my tribute there; I will also refer to our Clerk, Keith Neary. He does at least the same amount of work—although he, of course, gets paid. These two gentlemen have put a huge effort into the report, which is so long and detailed that we could not even contemplate publishing it widely—we would have broken the Bank of England. The fact of the matter is, however, that it is there for the record, and it is a damn good report. I am privileged to be a member of the Committees. I thank the Chair and the Clerk and pay tribute to them both.

14:28

[Nia Griffith (Llanelli) (Lab)]

I rise to speak in this extremely important debate. I thank the Committees on Arms Export Controls for their excellent work in producing the report. In particular, I thank the right hon. Member for Tonbridge and Malling (Sir John Stanley), the Chair of the Committees, not only for the work that he has done, but for his explanation of the report today.

In many respects, the response of the Government answers a fair number of the Committees’ queries, problems, questions and recommendations. Today, therefore, I will speak about the areas in which I feel that the Government did not answer the concerns expressed, or did not answer adequately. That does not detract from the areas in which there has been a helpful response from the Government.

It is extremely worrying that in spite of the good work done to date we still have a situation in which there are some 3,000 extant licences and some £12 billion of goods—and that is only the countables, not the uncountables—going to countries with a poor track record on human rights. There is a mismatch between the Foreign Office’s list of such countries and what is happening with arms exports on the ground. The situation is concerning, so we should continue to look at the issue and not simply let it die a death.

I pay tribute to all those on both sides of the House who have helped to bring the arms trade treaty into being this year. That was a tremendous achievement. Although that is extremely good news and the UK can be extremely proud of its work to date on the treaty, we now need to work proactively to ensure that it is ratified. It does not come into force until 90 days after the 50th country has ratified it, and to date only eight countries have done so. We know that there are certain issues with regard to the EU that are shortly to be resolved, which will enable a lot more countries to ratify the treaty, but I would stress that the UK needs to use every opportunity to push ratification with other countries. We might also need to offer financial and legal help to those countries that need that sort of support to ratify the treaty, so that we can see the treaty fully up and running in a year’s time. Perhaps the Minister could take that message back to colleagues in the Foreign Office.

Here in the UK we need a strong, clear explanation of how the UK intends to apply the criteria in articles 6 and 7 of the treaty. It is most important that we state that the UK will deny any export licences where there is a significant risk that the goods in question will contribute to breaches of international humanitarian and human rights law. Now we have the instrument of the arms trade treaty it is important that we have the strongest possible interpretive statement and description of what it means to the UK, so that it can be as effective as possible. It is important not only that we do that but, as it is a treaty, that we encourage other countries to do likewise, to make the most of the opportunity the treaty brings.

I turn now to the issue of brass-plate companies. The Committees say in their report that the Government have not taken any action against brass-plate companies involved in arms exporting and arms brokering. Those companies have the benefit of UK company registration but export arms and carry out arms-brokering activities overseas in contravention of UK Government policies. I feel that the Government’s response is a little vague and that this area needs significantly more attention. The Government speak of using existing export control legislation in certain circumstances and of using other legislation to discontinue the UK registration of such companies, but stress that they need to have the necessary evidence. I believe that we need a concerted strategy. Will the Minister tell us what measures he could take to develop a strategy to pursue those companies more rigorously? It is quite clear that they are used as an avoidance mechanism. Such companies want the brass plate along with the good name that it brings, but have ways of avoiding UK legislation.

[Bob Stewart]

I have some sympathy for the Government on that point. If these brass-plate companies want to do bad, they use their subsidiary company in another jurisdiction. That means they are cut off from our oversight of what UK companies are doing. I think this issue will be extremely difficult to crack.

[Nia Griffith]

The hon. Gentleman puts the matter very well. The problem is the devious nature of such arrangements. That is why I am suggesting that the Minister could look into ways of developing a strategy, closing loopholes and collecting evidence—possibly in conjunction with other countries—in order to get the necessary detail and put the measures that are needed in place to enable us to discontinue the UK registration of such companies. I am not saying that the problem is easy to solve, by any manner of means—I accept the point being made—but it is something that we need to be looking at, to try to work out how we could bring more pressure to bear.

I want to discuss Syria briefly. Many of my constituents contacted me about Syria over the summer. They had a particular concern: if we were to go into Syria and support the opposition there, who exactly would we be supporting? It is worrying that a gate has been opened that basically allows EU countries to export arms to the opposition in Syria. As my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow North (Ann McKechin) pointed out, Croatia has taken advantage of that situation.

It seems to me that people in this country really want the Government to crack down on that loophole, because they do not want to see arms going to rebel forces when we do not know who they are or which groups they consist of. Given that we are very concerned about what both the Government parties and some of the opposition groups in Syria are doing, the position seems quite straightforward to me: we should close the loophole and reinstate the full EU arms embargo on Syria that existed prior to May 2013. That would not mean that we were turning our backs on the people there—there is a huge amount to be done for the refugees and we also need to see a lot of negotiation—but the embargo needs to be reinstated as soon as possible.

I turn now to Egypt, which of course has had a tumultuous time over the past couple of years, swinging one way and then the other. Many of us have been contacted by Christians in Egypt, who also fear for their safety. The situation, again, is that we need to re-examine exactly which arms are being transferred to Egypt, who the end users are, to what use those arms are being put and what licences there are for Egypt. I ask the Minister to re-examine those matters, and to look again at trying to set out a clear strategy to ensure that those items are not misused or diverted. We want to know exactly what the UK policy is for arms exports to Egypt, because the situation there is extremely volatile.

I will briefly mention the situation in Colombia. There are still £20 million of extant UK licences there. Members will be aware of well-documented violations of the human rights of trade union activists in Colombia. There are worrying reports—I have heard accounts of this myself from Colombian lawyers—about the army’s track record towards indigenous peoples. There are serious concerns not only about how the Colombian Government treat activists who speak up for indigenous peoples but about the behaviour of the armed forces, particularly in areas where indigenous people are being moved off the land, often to enable mining activities. Moreover, concerning evidence is now emerging that multinational companies are contributing to the funding of those armed forces. Once more, I would ask the Government to look again at what we are doing about arms exports to Colombia.

In conclusion, I wish simply to say that this issue will not go away. I ask the Committees to continue their excellent work and continue to be vigilant. The issue is one that every single one of us needs to know about, and the report is extremely valuable.

14:39

[Ian Murray (Edinburgh South) (Lab)]

This is the first time that you have been in the Chair, Mr Pritchard, during my shadow ministerial career, and I am grateful for your chairmanship. I thank the Committees on Arms Export Controls for producing what is the most comprehensive report that I have seen from any Select Committee. I asked the Vote Office for all three volumes, but I was told that it would be difficult to provide them. I am glad that they were not provided, because of the depth of the issue, which is incredibly important and complicated, and often incredibly controversial. The Committees should be commended for the way in which they deal with the issues.

I have the utmost respect for the Chair of the Committees, the right hon. Member for Tonbridge and Malling (Sir John Stanley), and his work. The hon. Member for Beckenham (Bob Stewart) was right to suggest that the sole voice that does so much on this issue is that of the Chair of the Committees, and that we should all thank him, not just for chairing the Committees and producing reports, but for holding Governments of all shades to account on this important and often controversial issue.

UK Governments, whatever their colour, have had in place a robust system of export controls that has led the world. It dates back to the first arms export controls in 1939 and was consolidated at the start of the century with the Export Control Act 2002. Since 2004, we have had quarterly reporting to provide greater scrutiny. The success of the system is highlighted by the way in which it operates and the fact that the Committees can look at an issue in great detail. We do not want export licences to be revoked, but the fact that they are shows that the system is robust. It is not perfect and unimprovable, but it is robust.

I was struck by the opening comments from the Committees’ Chair when he referred to globalisation of the arms trade and the widespread consequences of that, which requires greater controls and countries working together. The international scale of the arms trade treaty and the extension of scrutiny are welcome.

The right hon. Gentleman talked about the increased number of revocations of arms export licences applied for, and that is not entirely surprising, given the continued instability in north Africa, the middle east and many other countries mentioned in the report. It is worth reflecting for a few moments on the risk profile of authoritarian regimes and how the UK Government and other Governments who issue export licences do so when we do not know what will happen.

The hon. Member for Beckenham has great experience, which we are lucky to have in this place, of what can happen when licences are granted because operational matters require the use of the goods on the battlefield or for defence. There may be consequences many years later in more peaceful times or when regimes change, and we are seeing that in Libya and Egypt. The risk profile must be examined, and it will be interesting to hear the Minister’s response to risk profiling, not only in countries that we are concerned about now, but in those that we have been concerned about in the past.

We should note that since our last debate, which I believe was at the end of 2011, the first international arms trade treaty has been adopted. It is right to congratulate the Government, particularly the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills, on ensuring that it came to fruition. It dates back to the previous Government and it is right that there is cross-party consensus. Hundreds of my constituents wrote to me about this, and they and I never thought that that treaty would come to fruition. We are all delighted that it has.

My hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow North (Ann McKechin) was right to highlight the treaty’s implementation. The signatures may be dry, but that does not mean that the job is done. In fact, it has just started. I was struck by her comments about ensuring that there is implementation in other countries and that the UK can support other regimes to ensure that the treaty is implemented. It would be useful to know the Minister’s thoughts about how that can be supported in other countries.

I shall make only one slightly partisan point, because there is generally cross-party consensus. Concern was raised by the Committees’ Chair about how some of the good work may be undermined by the Government’s role and how it operates in other countries. We have seen that in Sri Lanka, and the right hon. Gentleman mentioned Libya and other parts of north Africa. It is all about perception. When the Prime Minister takes trade missions to areas that have just had the significant upheaval of regime change and so on, the perception may be that arms sales are at the top of the agenda. I am not sure that the Government should operate in that way. It may be only perception, but the Government should work hard to ensure that that perception is not carried through in practice. The Sri Lankans called the Prime Minister “God”, and that should probably debar any exports.

There has been a lot of discussion about Syria and the controversial decision in January to grant two export licences. My hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow North was right to highlight the fact that the goods were never delivered, but two licences were granted to a regime that, at that time, was collapsing in a region that was in turmoil following the Arab spring. The decision-making process that led to that conclusion must be highlighted in detail.

The Committees highlight such issues—they did so on Syria in their report—and the Government have had to respond. The Syrian issue highlights something that I said earlier about the risk profile. If there were a different risk profile for some of these regimes, perhaps the granting of those two licences would have been justified. In the black and white of the legislation—the black and white of the process, as the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills said—it was probably, on balance, the right decision, but a question remains about whether that right decision should have been achieved, given the risk profile.

I share the Committees’ disappointment at the Government’s response to dual uses. There must be greater transparency. Just calling something “dual use” is not enough, and that goes back to perception. We should be completely transparent about what an export licence is being granted for, and that there may be different uses depending on who is operating the equipment. In Syria, that was chemicals.

A licence may be granted in good faith for chemicals to be transferred to a regime under the export licensing criteria, but they could fall into the wrong hands, and that feeds right back to the risk profile and how we deal with dual use. I would like further clarity from the Minister on the Government’s thoughts about dual use. The Joint Intelligence Committee concluded in a letter that the Syrians had used chemical weapons and that it was clear that the Assad Government had used them. There are still issues about whether those export licences should have been granted and whether an error might have been made.

There has been a lot of talk this afternoon about other countries, including Bahrain. I was pleased that the Committees looked at the 27 countries of concern and reached conclusions. I was staggered to see the £12 billion figure. I thought that I had read it incorrectly and that there should have been a decimal point somewhere, so that it was £12 million with a few pence on the end. It is a staggering amount in export licences to countries with human rights issues. The Committees were right to highlight that and to challenge the Government on their criteria for ensuring that that does not happen again.

My hon. Friend the Member for Llanelli (Nia Griffith) and the hon. Member for Beckenham mentioned brass plating. Although brass plating in a UK context works well, this is about brass plating across international communities, where companies that have brass plating in this country operate against the rules that would apply here when operating overseas. That must be looked at clearly, but it again highlights the globalisation of the issue. International co-operation is required to deal with some of the bigger issues on brass plating, and the Chair of the Committees is absolutely right to highlight that issues relating to the globalisation of the agenda are greater than ever.

I briefly turn to the points made on systems for spying and other such technology. I say flippantly that I notice that we have not sold anything to the Americans—they seem to be able to do quite well themselves—but a significant problem would not have passed the Committees by. In particular, there was £8 billion of such spending under export licences to Israel and £600 million to China; I think that was the figure given by the Chair of the Committees. We have to deal with that kind of issue and see whether the export goods are being used for the purpose that they should be used for. I would like the Minister to dig down further into that and address whether there is widespread use of mass surveillance technologies against populations when perhaps there should not be and whether we should look at tightening up such licensing.

Egypt and export licensing was discussed by my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow North. Export licensing to Egypt seems to be a bit of a hokey-cokey, and that highlights the problem of not knowing what is happening in the future and with the risk profile. Licences are granted, then have to be revoked, then some are re-granted and others revoked. There seems to be a problem about whether we should be licensing any exports to Egypt while it is experiencing its current operational and regime difficulties. At the risk of repeating myself, it looks as though, again, that all feeds back into risk, and that was rightly highlighted by the Committees as being part of the problem.

On top of the issues that I have raised, I shall finish by asking the Minister two specific questions, the first of which is on paragraph 46, which has been referred to a lot, and the Chair of the Committees highlighted the ambiguity in relation to that paragraph. The Foreign Secretary was pretty categorical in what he said to the Committees. However, it seems that the common position that is referred to can be used by omitting certain phrases from terminology. Many countries are highlighted by the report, including Iran, Argentina, China and various others, but if we refer back to paragraph 46, that is where the ambiguity lies. We need clarity on that issue. I realise that the Government’s action on the consolidated criteria in paragraph 46 was to wait until the European common position had been developed in 2012 and until the arms trade treaty had come into force and been implemented. However, it would be useful to get some time scales from the Minister on whether that position will be resolved.

[Sir John Stanley]

The hon. Gentleman has raised, as I did in my opening remarks, an absolutely key point. It may help hon. Members if I set out exactly why we say that the Government are quoting selectively. The key document, in annex 8 of volume 2 of the report, is the consolidated criteria written answer given by the then Minister of State at the Foreign Office, the right hon. Member for Neath (Mr Hain). In the written answer, two references are made to policy in relation to arms exports and internal repression. The one that the Government keep referring to is stated in criterion two—the so-called “clear risk” test—but the Government continue to ignore the crucial paragraph that immediately precedes the list of criteria in the right hon. Gentleman’s written answer.

If I give the sentence in full, the hon. Gentleman will see the point that I am making:

“An export licence will not be issued if the arguments for doing so are outweighed by the need to comply with the UK’s international obligations and commitments, by concern that the goods might be used for internal repression or international aggression, by the risks to regional stability or by other considerations as described in these criteria.”—[Official Report, 26 October 0200; Vol. 355, c. 199-203W.]

There it is in black and white. That is the policy statement, and that is why there are two parts of the statement that the Foreign Secretary made. Sadly, the Government—in particular, the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills—insist on only referring to the criterion two statement. I hope that is helpful.

[Ian Murray]

The clarity provided by that intervention is useful, and it would help to get the Minister’s full response. The Government should be commended on the way in which they have responded to the report, the clear direction that they have given on many aspects of it and on the support that they have given to the Committees over many years. However, on this issue, significant clarity is needed on what is meant by “clear risks” and “internal repression”, particularly in the current climate. If we look at that climate in north Africa and some other countries, there is clear risk of internal repression in any of the countries listed in the report—32 in all. Until there is a categorical clarification of exactly what is meant by the issues raised by the Chair of the Committees, there will be some confusion over whether the licences apply and which countries we should be concerned about. A clear policy statement from the Minister would be welcome to clarify the exact issues examined by the Chair of the Committees.

To conclude, I reiterate my thanks to the Committees and to the Government for assisting them as they did. I also reiterate the fact that the Committees and the report have cross-party support. The in-depth analysis concluding the report clearly shows that some key issues should be looked at by the Government—on risks and on the clarity around the concern expressed by the Chair of the Committees. We look forward to the Committees’ next report because these issues will develop; given their international and globalised nature, the job of the Committees on Arms Export Controls—with no extra pay for the Chair—will become more difficult. The Committees have to be hugely commended by the House for their work and for their report. I look forward to the Minister’s response to some of the key questions asked.

14:58

[The Minister of State, Department for Business, Innovation and Skills (Michael Fallon)]

It is a pleasure to respond to this important debate. I, too, thank all those who have contributed this afternoon. I also thank the Committees for their hard work in scrutinising our actions in the area of export control.

I first reassure the Chamber that the Government are committed to managing all transfers of strategic goods responsibly. That involves, as the Committees recognised, a delicate and continual balancing act. On the one hand, there are valid concerns, articulated on many occasions by right hon. and hon. Members, that strategic goods should not fall into the wrong hands. That is why all export licence applications are carefully assessed, case by case, against the consolidated European Union and national arms export licensing criteria, taking into account all relevant factors—including the prevailing circumstances in the recipient country, the nature of the goods, the identity of the end user and the stated end use.

A licence will not be issued if to do so would be inconsistent with any provision of the criteria, including if there is a clear risk that the proposed export might be used for internal repression. On the other hand, the Government support responsible defence exports and we remain committed to a strong defence industry. Our defence exports rose by 62% in 2012, and totalled £8.8 billion in that year. Defence exports are only a proportion of what we license; defence and security exports, taken together, rose to £11.5 billion in 2012. The importance of those exports to our economy is self-evident from those figures, so we need to operate a fast and efficient export licensing system that facilitates responsible exports while imposing the minimum regulatory burden on legitimate business.

[Philip Davies in the Chair]

The approach of case-by-case assessment that I have set out remains, I believe, the most effective way of balancing those concerns. There are often difficult decisions to make, but we follow a well established procedure for each application and make the best possible assessment based on the available evidence at the time. We have a robust, efficient and transparent system that produces rational decisions, but I recognise of course that the world is not static and, when circumstances change in any country, we can and do act.

However, such action—there was one reference to this in the debate—including revoking or suspending licences, is not an admission of failure. On the contrary, the fact that our export licensing system allows us to respond effectively to changing circumstances is, I suggest to the House, a further sign that our system works.

Let me turn to some of the countries mentioned in the debate and then some of the more specific cross-country issues. May I begin with Egypt? Egypt provides an example of our responsiveness and our determination to ensure that our exports do not contribute to internal repression or human rights violations. Following the worsening events in Egypt this year, we conducted a review of extant export licences. As a result, on 19 July, five licences were revoked, as they were assessed to be no longer consistent with the consolidated criteria.

On 21 August—I think this answers the query from the hon. Member for Glasgow North (Ann McKechin) about the month—in response to increasing levels of violence in Egypt, the Foreign Affairs Council of the European Union agreed to suspend all export licensing to Egypt for equipment that might be used for internal repression. That is a lower threshold than the consolidated criteria that we applied, whereby the test is whether there is a clear risk that goods might be used for internal repression. The UK fully supported the Foreign Affairs Council decision and, as a precautionary measure, we applied that suspension to all licences to the Egyptian army, air force and internal security forces. That resulted in 47 extant licences being suspended and a hold placed on new applications for those entities.

As the situation in Egypt has become clearer, we have been able to revert to a case-by-case assessment. As a result, following a further review, on 25 October we decided permanently to revoke seven of the suspended licences, because we then judged that there was a clear risk that the goods might be used for internal repression. A further 24 licences were removed from suspension, because we no longer judged that the goods might be used for internal repression. The remaining 16 licences will remain suspended until we are in a position to determine whether they should be revoked or restored.

I am pleased that we took firm action to revoke licences in July and that our precautionary action in the light of the Foreign Affairs Council decision, at a time when we were considering further unilateral action, allowed time for a proper assessment of conditions on the ground, which in turn means that we can now consider each case properly on its own merits.

I suggest to the House that that is a good example of how a responsive and rational export licensing system operates in a very difficult situation, but I assure hon. Members that the Government will continue to monitor conditions in Egypt and we will keep the terms of the licensing suspension under review. We will continue to assess the situation against the European Union consolidated criteria, taking particular care to consider the nature of the goods and the identity and track record of the end user.

Let me turn now to Syria. The Committees have rightly been very concerned about licences for the export of chemicals to that country. I would like to take this opportunity to state categorically that the Government have done nothing to assist Syria’s chemical weapons programme. Doing so would, of course, be illegal under the Chemical Weapons Act 1996, and there is no evidence that exports from the UK have contributed to Syria’s chemical weapons programme.

As the Committees know, two licences were issued by BIS in January 2012 authorising the export of sodium fluoride and potassium fluoride for commercial metallurgical processes—the treatment of aluminium fittings. Those licences were revoked in July 2012 under strengthened European Union sanctions that the United Kingdom was instrumental in bringing about. The exporter has confirmed that shipments were not made prior to those sanctions coming into force, so no goods were actually exported under those licences.

[Sir John Stanley]

The Minister has come back with the “There is no evidence” response. Will he at least acknowledge that the British Government cannot possibly have any idea at all of what subsequently happened in Syria to the potassium fluoride and sodium fluoride that have been exported there since 2004? That being the case, the Government surely cannot just take refuge behind “There is no evidence”, because they have no ability to track what happens to those chemicals once they have left this country and gone to Syria.

[Michael Fallon]

I was referring to the two licences issued in January 2012 and, as my right hon. Friend will know, no shipments were actually made under those licences.

Let me now turn to the licences that my right hon. Friend is concerned about—the five licences granted under the previous Government, between 2004 and 2010, before the current conflict in Syria began, for the export of sodium fluoride for the manufacture of toothpaste. Those licences were no longer extant at the time of the revised sanctions, but I do have to say to my right hon. Friend that we have no evidence of any diversion to any different end use.

[Ann McKechin]

The Minister will be aware that his Department has disclosed the end-user recipient in Syria and that a number of years ago there were press reports, in The Scotsman and other papers, that that company was a front company for the Assad regime; it is well known that a number of companies that have operated for a considerable time in Syria are front companies for the Government.

On the specific issue of the end user, given that there were those press reports and that I anticipate the Government would have intelligence about that company, why were the export licences granted?

[Michael Fallon]

The export licences granted between 2004 and 2010 are not something that I can explain or account for and those are the licences that were followed through; that is when the fluoride was actually exported. I cannot now explain why the previous Government took those decisions. What I can say is that the exporters concerned behaved responsibly by applying for the licences. All the licences were rigorously assessed against the criteria to determine that the end users intended to use the products for legitimate civilian commercial activity. We had no grounds to refuse the applications for our two licences, based on the information available and the circumstances prevailing at the time.

Let me turn now to disclosure. I fully understand the Committee’s desire for public disclosure of the exporters’ names, but that raises important questions, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Tonbridge and Malling (Sir John Stanley) made clear. Export licence applications are submitted to my Department in confidence, and it is important that we maintain the integrity of the licensing system by respecting that confidence. In this case, the exporters have made it clear that disclosure could pose significant potential harm to their broader commercial interests—not in Syria, but in other parts of the world—as well as potential risks to their staff. I share those concerns, and we should not take them lightly.

My right hon. Friend has offered to provide the exporters’ names to the Committees on a confidential basis, and I hope that represents a suitable compromise.

[Ian Murray]

I am grateful to the Minister for that explanation, but could he address the attitude of the companies? Are they happy to have their names disclosed? I understand why confidentiality is important for these purposes, and the companies may end up in front of the Committees in a private capacity, but would they be willing to disclose their names voluntarily?

[Michael Fallon]

That is a perfectly reasonable question, and we are, indeed, exploring with the companies concerned whether they would be prepared to give evidence on a confidential basis. I will let the hon. Gentleman have an answer on that when we have one.

I was asked one other question about Syria, by the hon. Member for Glasgow North. She asked about the position of Croatia, but I am not able to answer her straight away. If I may, I will write to her on that—and, indeed, on any other points that I have not been able to answer.

Let me now turn to Bahrain, another country that has been mentioned in the debate. Since the events of the Arab spring, the Government continue to monitor the situation in Bahrain closely. We assess all export licence applications case by case against the consolidated and the national criteria. The assessment considers all those factors, including the risk of the proposed exports being used for internal repression and in any developing internal tensions.

Since February 2011, we have approved a number of licences for the Bahrain air force, navy and defence force where we have been satisfied that there is no clear risk of items being used in human rights abuses or internal repression. We have refused licences for the Bahrain internal security forces where we have not been satisfied about the risk in respect of internal repression.

We reacted quickly to the events of the Arab spring in 2011, reviewing all licences to Bahrain and revoking those no longer in line with the criteria. In total, 23 single licences and seven open licences were revoked.

Let me turn now to Sri Lanka. The hon. Member for Edinburgh South (Ian Murray) made the rather unfortunate suggestion, in what was otherwise a really good speech, that the Prime Minister was somehow prioritising the selling of arms in his recent visit to Sri Lanka. Let me be very clear: during the recent Commonwealth Heads of Government meeting, he was the first foreign leader since independence in 1948 to give the local population the chance to be heard by an international audience. He shone a light on some of the human rights concerns in the aftermath of the recent prolonged civil conflict and demonstrated our commitment to reconciliation and accountability in Sri Lanka.

Again, we assess all export licence applications to Sri Lanka case by case, in accordance with the consolidated and the national criteria. Decisions on Sri Lanka, of course, take into account alleged violations of international humanitarian and human rights law during the military conflict that ended in 2009, as well as the nature of the equipment—in other words, would it be used in a manner inconsistent with the criteria?

Arms exports to Sri Lanka have increased recently, as we have issued a number of licences for weapons and other equipment that will be used by maritime security companies undertaking commercial anti-piracy work. Those ongoing efforts to fight piracy are important for international trade and security. Our assessment of those applications has taken into account the fact that the weapons will be held in secure storage while in Sri Lanka and that the companies are fully signed up to the international code of conduct for private security service providers. The licences that have been mentioned were all for anti-piracy, and they were not supplies to the Sri Lankan Government.

[Sir John Stanley]

Before my right hon. Friend leaves the issue of Sri Lanka, is he really telling us that 600 assault rifles will be deployed by private security companies operating out of Sri Lanka to deal with piracy? There are also a number of machine guns, but what use are they for anti-piracy measures?

[Michael Fallon]

I am happy to write to my right hon. Friend on that, but it is my understanding that the licences are being used for anti-piracy measures, in which we all have an interest. However, if I am wrong about that, and if I can give him further particulars about the use of machine guns in anti-piracy work, I will of course do so.

Finally, on the countries that have been mentioned, let me turn to Israel. A number of Members have asked about the single licence that accounted for nearly £8 billion of cryptographic equipment. The licence was for “equipment employing cryptography” and

“software for equipment employing cryptography”

with a value of £7.7 billion.

The licence was granted in the first quarter of 2013, and it permits the export of equipment and software for building public mobile phone networks in residential areas and for small businesses. Those items are subject to export control because of their encryption—information security—capability. That capability, it must be said, is a standard feature of the mobile phone network. The goods are for purely commercial end use.

Again, we assessed the application against the consolidated and the national criteria. A licence would not have been issued where there was a clear risk that the proposed exports might be used for internal repression or to provoke or prolong internal conflict, or where they could be used aggressively against another state.

I appreciate that the value of the licence appears extremely high and may not represent a realistic goal on the part of the exporter. The exporter has confirmed to us that the value of the licence was based on an expectation of a large number of orders over the two-year validity period of the licence. Given the nature of the goods and the end use, that was not considered to be a particular concern.

Let me turn now to the arms trade treaty, which is a notable achievement; I am grateful to those Members who referred to it as such. It is not an achievement simply of the past year; it has required long and challenging effort, involving work by two successive Governments over seven years. It was a significant achievement for not simply the United Nations, but the United Kingdom—it was an effort that the United Kingdom led.

The treaty will introduce robust, effective and legally binding controls, which will begin to constrict flows of unregulated or illegal weapons. It will require Governments to block transfers of weapons that pose unacceptable risks and to take strong steps to prevent weapons from being diverted into the illegal market. Authorisations of exports will be reported and arms brokering will be regulated. At the same time, the legitimate trade in arms, vital for national defence and security, will be upheld.

For the United Kingdom, the treaty will be relatively straightforward to ratify because we already have a highly developed export control system. The Government hope to complete the ratification in the next few months. We also hope that the treaty will soon achieve the 50 ratifications that it needs to be brought into force. We and our partners are actively lobbying other Governments to encourage them to sign and ratify it as soon as possible. We are providing funding to support states that need to introduce new legislation or regulations to bring their export controls up to the higher standard required by the treaty.

The performance of the Export Control Organisation in the past year is also— albeit on a more local scale—an important achievement to note. Until recently, the ECO worked to two main targets for processing export licence applications: a primary target to turn around 70% of standard licence applications within 20 working days, and a secondary target of completing 95% of those applications within 60 working days.

Year-to-date performance to the end of October on the primary target is 80.2%, which is a further improvement on the 71% achieved in 2012. However, we listened to industry concerns that, although the old secondary target of completing 95% of licence applications within 60 days was being met, that still left a sizeable number—about 850 a year—taking longer than three months to get a decision. In March I therefore announced a new, more ambitious, secondary target of completing 99% of cases within 60 working days, with the aim of further improving the efficiency of the system. Those additional cases, of course, tend to be more difficult and often require additional scrutiny because of their destination, but the performance since July, when the new target came into effect, stands at a very encouraging 98.4%.

Several Members, including the hon. Member for Glasgow North, mentioned transparency. We remain committed to greater openness and transparency in licensing as that provides the means for Committees, the House and the public to hold us to account. At the same time, in generating more information for disclosure, we should not create unnecessary red tape for businesses.

In the most recent initiative, we have sought to increase transparency by requiring exporters to provide us with information about their export and trade activity under certain open licences. While the final preparations were being made for that, it became clear that we had not struck the right balance between the twin objectives of increasing transparency and avoiding unnecessary bureaucratic burdens.

In particular, the Government became concerned that the proposed reporting of each export would put our exporters at a disadvantage in relation to exporters from other countries, notably the United States. Clear evidence emerged that the proposed rules might lead to some of our companies relocating some operations overseas, with negative consequences for British jobs.

[Ann McKechin]

I refer the Minister to the Government’s feedback of July 2012:

“Exporters generally accept the rationale for this initiative and are generally supportive provided that the administrative burden is kept to a minimum and that what they consider to be truly sensitive information is protected.”

The point is the quality, not the volume, of the information, so that people can know accurately what has been sold. Where is the evidence that exporters in the United Kingdom have said at any point that they will take their business elsewhere?

[Michael Fallon]

I am happy to write to the hon. Lady with more evidence to back up what I have said about the fear that some operations might be relocated overseas. She has challenged me on that, and I am happy to write to her in detail.

The Government announced in Parliament on 18 July that we had decided to dispense with some proposals relating to quarterly reporting. As a result, users of open-general and open-individual licences will be required to make reports on their use of those licences annually, rather than quarterly as originally envisaged. They will still have to provide information on the destination country, the type of end user and the number of times the licence has been used for that country and end user type.

Those revised reporting requirements will apply from 1 January 2014, with the first year’s data being published in 2015. All that information is additional to the existing quarterly and annual reports. We are not reducing the overall level of reporting—quite the opposite. We will be publishing considerably more information about the use of open licences than is currently the case.

I think it was my hon. Friend the Member for Beckenham (Bob Stewart) who raised the matter of the register of arms brokers. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills has decided that now is an appropriate time to look again at the issue of a pre-licensing register of arms brokers. We will therefore be launching a public consultation to help in gathering the necessary evidence to allow the Government to decide whether to introduce such a register. There will, of course, be an emphasis on the relative costs and benefits, alongside the likely effectiveness of such a register. The public consultation is now planned for early next year.

My hon. Friend the Member for Beckenham and, I think, the hon. Member for Llanelli (Nia Griffith), asked about brass-plate companies. The existing legislation would, in certain circumstances, allow enforcement action to be taken against those and their officers, but sufficient evidence is necessary to justify such action. We continue to pursue with other relevant agencies the possibility of using other legislation to discontinue the UK registration of such companies on public interest grounds. I hope that that is helpful. It is a complex issue, which raises difficult questions about the nature of any evidence that may be disclosed in any proceedings. We shall, of course, update the Committees when firm conclusions have been reached.

I was asked by the hon. Member for Edinburgh South about risk profiling. I reassure him that licence applications are reviewed by officials in a number of Departments and agencies. We take account of all the available relevant information. As I have said, we look at the goods, the end user and the risk of diversion. We will of course not grant a licence if that would breach the consolidated criteria. Risk is integral to everything that we do on export licensing.

I was asked about the paragraph 46 ambiguity, and I am anxious not to add to it. I am assured that if there is any confusion, criterion 2 is the policy, but I am happy to write more formally to my right hon. Friend the Member for Tonbridge and Malling on that issue.

[Sir John Stanley]

Before the Minister sits down, will he give way?

[Philip Davies (in the Chair)]

Order. Has the Minister already sat down?

[Michael Fallon]

I have sat down.

[Philip Davies (in the Chair)]

Order. The Minister has sat down, but I can give you the opportunity briefly to close the debate, Sir John.

15:29

[Sir John Stanley]

I regret that the Minister has chosen not to give way to me before he sat down. I think that that is a less than courteous way to treat the members of the Committees. He does not need to write to me on the key point that I was going to raise with him, because I was asking whether he would confirm that he and his Department accept that the Government’s policy on arms export and internal repression is that stated by the Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary in his oral evidence to the Committees on 7 February 2012.

I am grateful to all colleagues who have contributed to the debate. The hon. Member for Glasgow North (Ann McKechin) has been a most diligent and valuable member of our Committees. I entirely support what she has said about the need for a rapid and effective implementation of the arms trade treaty, and I agree with what she said about the importance of scrutiny of arms export policies towards both Syria and Egypt. I can certainly assure her that we will be continuing our scrutiny of the export of surveillance services and equipment, which we embarked on in our report last year.

My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Beckenham (Bob Stewart) somewhat undersold himself towards the end of his speech. He is a diligent and important member of our Committees, and he contributes unique expertise and experience. On the points that he raised, I assure him that we will continue our inquiries into brass-plate companies. We will be paying close attention to the welcome and long-awaited change of policy on a pre-licence register of arms brokers that the Minister has just announced. We hope that the Government will conclude their consultation and reach a policy decision on that well before the end of the Parliament.

I am grateful to my hon. and gallant Friend for his remarks about cluster munitions. He gave a graphic account of his personal experience in Bosnia, in which one of his soldiers was seriously wounded as a result of those unacceptable weapons. We also noted what he said about anti-personnel weapons. May I say how much I appreciate his generous personal comments towards the end of his remarks? I would like to endorse absolutely what he and the hon. Member for Glasgow North said about the invaluable contribution that our Clerk, Keith Neary, has made to the production of our most recent report.

I am grateful to the hon. Member for Llanelli (Nia Griffith) for her contribution, and I firmly support what she said about the need for early and effective implementation of the arms trade treaty. She also made important points about brass-plate companies, and we will follow up what the Minister has said in reply. She made an important point about whether the EU arms embargo towards Syria should be resumed. It has always been somewhat mystifying to me that the British Government took steps to end the EU arms embargo on Syria, but they have yet to come up with any suggestion about how Britain would renew arms exports to Syria and ensure that the arms got into the right hands. There is a lot of force in what the hon. Lady has said, and we need a similar clarification on policy towards Egypt. I am glad that she raised Colombia, which is an important issue given the human rights situation in the country. She rightly drew the attention of the House to the fact that we have a total of 53 extant licences to Colombia, which are valued at £20 million.

Finally, I am grateful to the hon. Member for Edinburgh South (Ian Murray) for his opening personal comments. With regard to volumes 2 and 3 being available only on the internet, I will let him into a little secret. I have managed to obtain a limited number of hard copies of volumes 2 and 3, and I will be delighted to make a personal presentation of them to him if he has a carrier bag big enough to take them. I am grateful to him for his support on the Committees’ position on more disclosure from the Government on the export of chemicals to Syria. I am also grateful for his support of the Committees’ decision to bring together the 27 countries of top human rights concern and to establish exactly what are the extant arms export licences going to each of them.

I am grateful for the opportunity to make a brief response, and I am grateful to all those who have made a contribution to the debate.

Question put and agreed to.

15:35

Sitting adjourned.

Written Statements

Thursday 21st November 2013 Written Statements

Thursday 21 November 2013

Big Lottery Fund (Triennial Review)

Thursday 21st November 2013 Written Statements

[The Minister of State, Cabinet Office (Mr Nick Hurd)]

I am today announcing the start of the triennial review of the Big Lottery Fund.

All Government Departments are required to review their non-departmental public bodies at least once every three years. The review will be conducted in two stages. The first stage will examine whether there is a continuing need for the functions performed by the Big Lottery Fund, and whether the organisation should continue to operate in its current form. If it is determined that there is a continuing need for the organisation in its current form, the second stage will assess whether the body’s control and governance arrangements continue to meet the recognised principles of good corporate governance and whether the fund operates in an effective and efficient way.

The findings of both stages of the review will be examined by a challenge group. Copies of the report will be placed in the Libraries of both Houses.

Police and Guarding Agency

Thursday 21st November 2013 Written Statements

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence (Anna Soubry)]

On 27 March 2012, Official Report, columns 116-19WS, following a thorough and wide ranging review of the Ministry of Defence’s (MOD) civil policing and guarding policy, the then Minister responsible for defence personnel, welfare and veterans my right hon. Friend the Member for South Leicestershire (Mr Robathan) announced some broad measures to adjust the number of policing and guarding posts at certain defence establishments, in order to maintain effective and proportionate protection, against the main security and crime risks faced by the Department.

Following that announcement, formal proposals for change were developed for consultation with the staff association and the trade unions representing the MOD police and the MOD guard service (MGS). Formal consultation commenced in October 2012, and concluded in June 2013.

This was a complex consultation. I should like to place on record my thanks to the trade union and staff association officials for the professional and constructive approach they have taken throughout the process. I know that my predecessor, my right hon. Friend the Member for Rayleigh and Wickford (Mr Francois) met them during the consultation to hear the views and concerns they wanted to express on behalf of their members.

Following the consultation, we have decided to implement the measures set out by my hon. Friend the Member for South Leicestershire, though in some cases with changes arising from the consultation process. For security reasons I cannot give details of our new arrangements, but I can say that while there will be prudent reductions in security personnel at some sites (reflecting the latest assessment of risk), many establishments will now have strengthened overall protection, particularly against the terrorist threat.

I very much regret that, as part of these changes, significant numbers of civilian posts in the MGS have been removed, with their duties passing to military personnel, who can be armed when necessary to counter the terrorist threat.

I would like, however, to take this opportunity to pay tribute to the MGS for the excellent contribution it has made over many years to security across the MOD, and will continue to make at the large number of defence sites where it will still operate.

I would stress that everything possible is being done to support those individuals in the MGS who have been adversely affected by these changes, including those potentially facing redundancy because their circumstances mean they are unable to move to a different location where work is available.

I should also like to place on record my thanks to members of the MDP and the military provost guard service (MPGS) for the very important roles they too perform in support of security across the defence estate.

Overall, these changes represent an improvement in security risk management in the MOD, and they have allowed significant recruitment campaigns to begin in the MDP, the MGS and also in the MPGS who will now play a more prominent role in guarding military establishments.

The House can be assured that the MOD attaches the very highest importance to security, and will continue to ensure that risks are kept under review and that effective protection is maintained at all our establishments.

Public Financing of Coal Plants Overseas

Thursday 21st November 2013 Written Statements

[The Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change (Mr Edward Davey)]

Today, along with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for International Development, I am announcing that the Government of the UK is joining the United States in agreeing to end support for public financing of new coal-fired power plants overseas, except in rare circumstances. We will work together to secure the support of other countries and multilateral development banks (MDBs) to adopt similar policies.

The UK Government recognise that energy infrastructure investment is critical to economic growth and poverty reduction in many developing countries, and that MDBs have an important role in financing energy investment. However, investments in new coal-fired energy production risk locking countries in to higher levels of carbon emissions over the coming decades. In order to avoid dangerous climate change, it is estimated that global coal demand will need to fall by 45% from 2009 levels by 2050¹. Globally we need to rapidly move away from unabated coal power generation. That is why we are calling for an end to supporting public financing of new coal-fired power plants overseas, except in rare circumstances.

Our position brings the UK in line with the significant international actions already taken by others including:

The US: in June 2013, President Obama called for an end to US support for public financing of new coal plants overseas except for the most efficient coal technology available in the world’s poorest countries in cases where no other economically feasible alternative exists or facilities deploying carbon capture and sequestration technologies.

The World Bank: in July 2013, the World Bank’s board agreed to a new energy strategy to limit the financing of coal-fired power plants to rare circumstances.

The European Investment Bank: in July 2013, the European Investment Bank announced an end to funding coal power plants unless they can meet a new emissions performance standard.

Denmark, Sweden. Norway, Finland and Iceland: in September 2013, the leaders of these countries issued a joint announcement with the US that included a commitment to end public finance for new coal-fired power plants overseas, except in rare circumstances.

The UK Government will only consider MDB proposals for financing coal-fired power plants in the world’s poorest countries where no other economically feasible alternative exists. We will consider these on a case-by-case basis, and only when all of the following conditions are met:

The country is an IDA-only eligible country, where gross national income per capita is below $1,945.

There is a compelling poverty reduction case.

Full consideration has been given to the economic feasibility of low-carbon alternatives.

It is part of a credible low-carbon development pathway, and meets environmental and social standards.

There is a risk assessment of long-term financial viability.

The investment will use best available technology.

An assessment has been carried out of the technical, economic and financial feasibility of building the coal-fired power plant as CCS ready.

We would also be prepared to support MDB proposals for financing the additional costs of facilities fully deploying carbon capture and storage technologies.

These conditions will be used to guide UK assessment of coal-fired power projects developed by the MDBs. They will therefore inform UK views on board-level decision making at the MDBs, including where we are part of a constituency with other countries. They will guide the UK Government’s future interactions with MDB staff on project development. We will also promote these criteria with other countries, as the basis for decision making.

This statement applies to all UK official development assistance. CDC will also not finance any unabated coal plants overseas.

UK Export Finance (UKEF) is not presently legally able to discriminate between classes or types of exports, but as announced by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills on 17 July 2012, UKEF will normally refuse support for projects that do not meet international environmental standards, principally those of the World Bank Group (International Finance Corporation “performance standards”). UKEF has not supported a coal-fired power station overseas since 2002.

¹ EA, Energy Technology Perspectives 2012.

Marine Conservation Zones

Thursday 21st November 2013 Written Statements

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (George Eustice)]

Today I am pleased to announce the designation of 27 marine conservation zones (MCZs) in the waters off the English coast. A 28th MCZ at Hythe bay in Kent, will be further investigated by the Kent and Essex Inshore Fisheries and Conservation Authority and Natural England before I make a final decision on this site early in the new year.

These new MCZs will protect nationally important habitats and species around the English coast and help improve our marine environment. The designations are the culmination of a great deal of hard work by a wide range of stakeholders in co-operation with Government and their agencies. This has been a huge undertaking and I would like to thank all who have contributed.

I am also pleased to announce that the process for designating further MCZs will now start in earnest with the aim of designating a second tranche in 2015-16 and a third in 2016-17. We anticipate that these tranches will combine with other marine protected areas to complete our contribution to an ecologically coherent network including the waters around our islands. To support this process we have been working with the devolved Administrations in the UK, the Joint Nature Conservation Committee and national conservation agencies to take stock of the habitats and species protected in existing and planned marine protected areas so that we can identify areas to be protected by future designations.

We will continue to make full use of the work of the earlier regional MCZ projects including considering whether some of the sites recommended by those projects are more suitable to be assessed as potential inter-tidal sites of special scientific interest. A review of reference areas as recommended by Natural England and the Joint Nature Conservation Committee is planned to start in early 2014.

The new MCZs will complement the protection given to the existing 113 English sites of special scientific interest with marine components, 44 English marine special areas of conservation (SACs) established under the EU habitats directive and 44 English marine special protection areas (SPAs) established under the EU wild birds directives. These marine protected areas taken together cover over 30,000 sq km in English inshore and offshore waters, an area broadly the size of Belgium. Since 2010 the area of inshore marine sites around England has increased substantially and with the MCZs designated today, just under 25% of English inshore waters are now within marine protected areas.

All of our marine SACs have now been adopted by the European Commission as sites of community interest which means that they will formally become part of the EU’s Natura 2000 network. Work is continuing to identify the remaining marine SPAs. We will shortly be consulting on two further SPAs for the protection of seabirds at Flamborough and Filey coast and at Falmouth bay to St Austell bay.

Successful management of marine protected areas requires stakeholders to work in partnership and co-operate with each other, with conservation advisers and with regulators. I want to see well managed sites which conserve and protect our important habitats and features and I strongly urge all those with an interest to work together, in partnership, to achieve this. Successful management of these areas also requires a good evidence base to inform the measures that need to be taken to protect their habitats and species. In the last three years DEFRA has spent over £8 million gathering evidence to support designation and management. I am pleased to announce that we have allocated a further £2 million this year and will continue to support this work going forward.

Building our network of marine protected areas is one strand of our ambitious programme to protect and enhance the marine environment while supporting sustainable use of its resources. We are working to implement the reforms we secured to the common fisheries policy to manage fish stocks more sustainably and eliminate the waste of discarding dead fish into the sea. We are pressing ahead with measures to protect cetaceans, sharks, skates and rays. We are also for the first time establishing marine plans around our coast to help achieve efficient management of competing uses of our seas while safeguarding the environment. These initiatives will all contribute to achieving good environmental status in our seas by 2020 as required under the EU marine strategy framework directive and move us towards achieving our vision of clean, healthy, safe, productive and biologically diverse oceans and seas that everyone can enjoy for years to come.

National Forest Company (Triennial Review)

Thursday 21st November 2013 Written Statements

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Dan Rogerson)]

Today I am publishing the report of the triennial review of the National Forest Company (NFC) which was launched on 12 July 2013, Official Report, column 53WS. Triennial reviews of non-departmental public bodies (NDPBs) are part of the Government’s commitment to ensuring accountability in public life.

The National Forest Company was set up in 1995 to oversee the creation of the National Forest—a multi-purpose forest across 200 square miles of the midlands. The NFC’s work plays an important part in realising the objectives of the Government’s forestry and woodlands policy statement (2013)—“protecting, improving and expanding” woodland assets, with its emphasis on economic growth and creating a woodland culture.

The review concludes that the NFC is the most appropriate body to continue to lead the creation, management and evolution of the National Forest and that it should remain as an NDPB.

In the longer run, the Government and NFC share the aim of a staged progression towards independence of the NFC from Government. This would see a viable and sustainable organisation passed from Government into the third sector and enable innovation and enterprise to be pursued with greater freedom. The NFC’s new 10-year strategy (2014-24), due to be published in summer 2014, should set out how the company will move towards independence.

To support the move toward independence, the NFC should set out how it will increase the use of wider funding sources. As part of this, the review has concluded that the NFC should undertake further work on the potential for further integration with the National Forest Charitable Trust (NFCT), including a possible merger, and taking on charitable status. The NFC and DEFRA should agree a decision on possible integration with the NFCT and charitable status once this further work has been carried out and a decision should be announced next year, ahead of publication of the NFC’s new 10-year strategy.

The review also concluded that the NFC should ensure that there is sufficient local representation in the NFC’s governance processes and that its future governance structures are as effective as possible.

The report of this review will be published online, and copies will be placed in the Libraries of both Houses.

Deportation with Assurances Policy

Thursday 21st November 2013 Written Statements

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

Deportation with assurances (DWA) enables us to deport foreign nationals suspected of terrorism in compliance with our obligations under the European Convention on Human Rights, the UN Convention on Torture and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.

The independent reviewer of terrorism legislation, Mr David Anderson QC, has accepted my invitation to undertake a review of our DWA policy. He will review the framework of the UK’s DWA policy and make recommendations on how the policy might be strengthened or improved, with particular emphasis on its legal aspects. The principle of DWA has been upheld by the European Court of Human Rights. To avoid duplicating or prejudicing the work of the courts, the review will not consider the merits of individual cases. Copies of the terms of reference for the review are available in the Vote Office.

When completed Mr David Anderson’s report will be laid before the House and copies will be available in the Vote Office. Following consultation with other relevant Departments and agencies, I will publish the Government’s response as a Command Paper in due course and this will be made available in the Vote Office.

Expert Evidence in Criminal Proceedings

Thursday 21st November 2013 Written Statements

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

Today, I have placed in the Libraries of both Houses a copy of the Government response to the Law Commission’s report “Expert Evidence in Criminal Proceedings”. The Law Commission’s investigation followed concerns expressed by the House of Commons Science and Technology Committee in 2005. The report was extremely thorough, and concluded that legislation was needed to bring existing common law provisions into statute, to provide judges with additional powers to exclude expert evidence, and to create a new “reliability test”. However, administration of this test would require additional pre-trial hearings, which have cost implications to which the Government cannot, at this time, commit.

Rather than seek to bring in new legislation, I intend to ask the Criminal Procedure Rule Committee to make changes to the rules relating to the timing and content of experts’ reports. Although this will not provide judges with additional powers—as proposed by the Law Commission—it will put them in a position to use their existing powers more effectively, by ensuring that they have more information at an earlier stage about any expert evidence which it is proposed to adduce.

Youth Justice Board for England and Wales

Thursday 21st November 2013 Written Statements

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

Today, I have published the report of the triennial review of the Youth Justice Board for England and Wales (YJB). I have placed a copy in the Libraries of both Houses. Copies are also available from the Vote Office and the Printed Paper Office.

In line with the process and methodology established by the Cabinet Office, stage 1 of the review assessed the continuing need for the YJB to carry out each of its functions in their current form.

Stage 1 concludes that all of the functions remain necessary and makes 14 key recommendations relating to the delivery of these functions. It further concludes that it is appropriate for the majority of these functions to be delivered together as a critical mass of expertise. This decision recognises that the Government have repeatedly and recently stated their commitment to maintain a distinct youth justice system. Finally, stage 1 concludes that the appropriate delivery model for the delivery of these functions is, at this time, as a non-departmental public body.

Stage 2 assesses whether the YJB complies with the 11 principles of good governance. The review concluded that the YJB complied with the majority of the requirements which are placed on them and made several recommendations to improve governance, including increasing ministerial accountability, clarifying the role of the board and delegated authorities, making more effective use of public money by reducing duplication with the Ministry of Justice and clarifying the role of the sponsor Department.

I am very grateful to all those who took the time to respond to the call for evidence. Their contributions and varying perspectives were extremely valuable.

Airport Security Scanners

Thursday 21st November 2013 Written Statements

[The Secretary of State for Transport (Mr Patrick McLoughlin)]

Security scanners are currently in operation at 10 of the UK’s largest airports. They were deployed in response to the threat to aviation posed by non-metallic improvised explosive devices, such as the device used in the attack on Northwest Flight 253 from Amsterdam Schiphol to Detroit on Christmas day 2009, and the device recovered in Yemen in spring 2012. These devices were designed to make detection by existing screening methods extremely difficult. More broadly, the UK threat level remains at substantial: an attack is a strong possibility.

It is for these reasons that, after careful consideration, I have decided that a further 11 airports will be required to deploy security scanners, and I will be issuing directions to that effect to the following airports:

House of Lords

Thursday 21st November 2013 Lords Chamber

Thursday, 21 November 2013.

11:00

Prayers—read by the Lord Bishop of Birmingham.

Royal Assent

Thursday 21st November 2013 Lords Chamber

11:06

The following Act was given Royal Assent:

High Speed Rail (Preparation) Act

Internet: Copycat Websites

Thursday 21st November 2013 Lords Chamber

Question

11:06

Asked by

[Lord Brabazon of Tara]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what steps they are taking to discourage customers from using copycat websites that charge for services, such as European Health Insurance Cards, that are provided free of charge by government departments.

[Lord Wallace of Saltaire (LD)]

My Lords, most users access digital government services via the major search engines. This user behaviour has been used to inform the design of gov.uk so that government services consistently come at the top of search results. Easy access to and education about the official source of digital government services is the main way the Government protect users from inadvertently using non-official sites. The Government will continue to take action against websites that misrepresent their relationship with government and misuse government logos.

[Lord Brabazon of Tara (Con)]

I thank my noble friend for that reply, but is he aware that if he googles “European Health Insurance Card”, the first two or three sites that he will come to will charge him something more than £20 for the card, whereas if he goes down to the National Health Service official site, he can get one for free? There are other examples of this, most notably passport applications where one can pay well over £40 for something that one can do oneself for nothing or go through the Post Office and pay just over £8 for help with filling in the form. Does my noble friend agree that some of these sites, to a non-legal eye anyway, come very close to passing themselves off as the official site? Would not the solution be for the Government to make sure that their site, even if it costs money with Google, always comes first on the list?

[Lord Wallace of Saltaire]

My Lords, I spent some time on Tuesday afternoon looking at some of these sites. I confirm I had not realised—no doubt a number of noble Lords have not realised—that the first two or three sites to come up on the list are sponsored ads, which is indicated in very, very small print. In all cases, the top site of the non-sponsored ads was the gov.uk website. I also checked a number of the sponsored ads, which are extremely well designed. They all say that they are not an official website, but it is quite easy if you are in a hurry to miss that paragraph. Perhaps I should add that Transport for London also suffers from this if you are paying your congestion charge. I suspect that one or two noble Lords have paid more than they should for their congestion charge on one or two occasions.

[Lord Campbell-Savours (Lab)]

My Lords, if that be the case, what can the Government do about it?

[Lord Wallace of Saltaire]

My Lords, the Government could pay, as the noble Lord, Lord Brabazon, suggested, which perhaps would drive up the cost of sponsored ads—or perhaps they could intervene and forbid search engines from carrying sponsored ads in that place. I think that we would be hesitant to do that. The Government are in constant dialogue with Google. We look at these sites and check on the number of complaints—and after agreement with Google a number of these sites have been removed. The subtle design of them clearly is improving.

[Lord Tyler (LD)]

My Lords, I share the concern about copycat websites, but is my noble friend aware that there are occasions when the Government make money out of services that should be free? Surely, what is right for the private goose should be right for the government gander. For example, for many years now, government departments and agencies have been using 0870 high-rate telephone numbers. This has resulted in a change, but I understand from a news item this month that some £56 million is already being made by government out of services that ought to be free to the citizen and taxpayer. It is outrageous that this continues. Will my noble friend give an assurance that it will be dealt with?

[Lord Wallace of Saltaire]

My Lords, I do not want to be tempted down the road of what the Government should charge for and what we should provide free. The Government do, after all, charge for renewing a passport—one of the most frequent areas in which other services then charge on top of the government fee if you answer a sponsored ad by mistake.

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab)]

My Lords, should the Government not now call time on the people who operate these sites? I suggest that the Government speak to the internet providers and tell them not to accept these sponsored ads. Secondly, can the Government and TfL not refuse to accept the payment? That would solve the problem.

[Lord Wallace of Saltaire]

My Lords, I am not entirely sure that I am familiar with the legal subtleties of this. A number of government agencies and authorities have looked in detail at this and we are in constant dialogue with the search engines about these sites. As I said, they are extremely well designed and all of them claim to offer additional services, but there are occasional complaints that the additional services are not fully provided.

[The Earl of Shrewsbury (Con)]

My Lords, is my noble friend aware that I became a victim of a TfL scam on congestion charging some three weeks ago? When I phoned my bank to stop the payment, I was told that it could not be stopped because the money was taken at point of sale. It is quite disgraceful that these people are able to do this. Will my noble friend do all that he can to marginalise the perpetrators of these scams?

[Lord Wallace of Saltaire]

My Lords, the Government Digital Service, by whom I was fully briefed for this Question, is actively working with other departments of government to see how far it can control this. Of course, not all of these sites are hosted within the UK. We are familiar with many overseas agencies that get into the ether and do this.

[Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town (Lab)]

My Lords, in the dash to digital by default, will the Government remember that in addition to some people not even being connected to the internet, others are very unfamiliar with using it for business? They are vulnerable to these people taking advantage of them. Will the Government, therefore, in addition to monitoring this, ensure that there are easy routes to redress and compensation when such a service has been mis-sold?

[Lord Wallace of Saltaire]

My Lords, these scams are concentrated on the sort of services that people access only occasionally—to renew driving licences, passports, the European Health Insurance Card and those sorts of things. There are also phishing efforts in which sites that claim to be HMRC say that you are offered a refund—I do not know whether the noble Lord, Lord Beecham, has fallen for that; he looks as though he might have done—and ask for your bank details. They then manage to gain access to your account.

[Lord Mawhinney (Con)]

My Lords, as another person who has inadvertently been involved, although not with congestion charging, the question that came to my mind was not how much the Government are discussing the matter with Google, but why the Government do not simply make it clear that they will not authorise other groups to provide services that the Government are statutorily required to provide to the taxpayer.

[Lord Wallace of Saltaire]

My Lords, quite a few of us have used private agencies to speed up getting passports or visas for other countries. Indeed, you can obtain visas through the House of Lords travel office. The question of how far private agencies should be enabled to assist in speeding up the process is difficult. The Government Digital Service and a number of other government agencies are actively engaged in following this. Of course, the internet evolves as quickly as the Government chase those who are abusing their services, but I assure the House that the Government are actively engaged in looking to do everything we can to limit such activities.

Health: Tuberculosis

Thursday 21st November 2013 Lords Chamber

Question

11:15

Asked by

[Baroness Masham of Ilton]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government when Public Health England will publish its strategy for tuberculosis.

[Baroness Masham of Ilton (CB)]

My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper, and declare an interest as a member of the All-Party Group on Tuberculosis.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health (Earl Howe) (Con)]

Public Health England has made TB one of its main priorities, and is leading a coalition of key stakeholders to inform its development of a strategy for tuberculosis. This aims to bring together best practice in clinical care, social support and public health to strengthen TB control, leading to a year on year decrease in incidence and a reduction in health inequalities associated with TB. The strategy will be published by March 2014.

[Baroness Masham of Ilton]

My Lords, I thank the noble Earl for his Answer, but is he aware that London is now known as the TB capital of Europe? It has some good facilities for prevention and treatment, but are those the same throughout the country? That is why the strategy is so important. There is plenty of tuberculosis—and drug-resistant tuberculosis, which is the big concern—in Birmingham, Bradford, Leicester and many other cities. Will he ensure that the strategy is pushed out as soon as possible? That is vital.

[Earl Howe]

The noble Baroness is absolutely right about the seriousness of the position, especially in some of our big cities. I can tell her that a TB control board has been set up in London, where about 40% of TB cases occur in the UK. The board is developing a dedicated London TB plan to strengthen measures to prevent, diagnose and treat TB in London. There are similar initiatives in Manchester and Birmingham. However, she is also right to say that we need to focus on the rest of the country, not least some rural areas, and the strategy there will be different to identify cases, diagnose them quickly and intervene early. Work is going on to roll out the plans for that.

[Lord Walton of Detchant (CB)]

My Lords, does the noble Earl accept that some years ago there was an increased incidence of drug-resistant tuberculosis in the UK, and it was discovered that that was, at least in part, the result of the disease being detected in an increased proportion of immigrants? When I went to the United States in 1953 as a visiting fellow, I had to take an X-ray with me to show that I did not have TB. What is now government policy on the medical screening of potential immigrants?

[Earl Howe]

My Lords, the policy now is that migrants to the UK from outside the European Union who apply for a visa for more than six months need to be screened in the country of origin. That work is proceeding, although I have to say that implementation has proved patchy, so we cannot be complacent. That is why it is vital to have services in this country capable of identifying people, particularly with multidrug-resistant TB, who may pose a threat to the community in that sense.

[Lord Turnberg (Lab)]

My Lords, is the Minister aware that the cost of treating multi-drug-resistant TB is £100,000 a year, compared with the cost of £5,000 a year to treat non-resistant TB? We now have a new category of extensively resistant TB, which is even scarier. I hope that Public Health England will treat as a matter of urgency getting a national strategy that brings standards up to those of Homerton Hospital, which is completing treatment of most patients whereas the rest of the country lags behind.

[Earl Howe]

The noble Lord is absolutely right. That is one reason why we are placing a particular focus on research into multidrug-resistant TB and diagnostics in that area. We fund UNITAID, which aims to triple access to rapid testing for MDRTB and to reduce drug prices for treating the condition. We have made a 20-year commitment to UNITAID of €60 million a year, subject to performance.

[Baroness Gardner of Parkes (Con)]

Following the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Walton, is the Minister aware that point of entry is very important? When I was involved in a health issue as a local councillor, we had a case of someone detected at Heathrow. It took two weeks to track him down, by which time he had infected 40 other people because he had moved into very limited accommodation where many people were all living in one room. This situation is developing again. What facilities are available at the airport now to pick up these cases?

[Earl Howe]

My Lords, there are regulations covering ports and airports which provide a contingency for when a passenger on a ship or a plane enters the UK, is suspected of having a notifiable disease and perhaps refuses to seek medical attention. The regulations include provisions for notification of such a case to the destination port health authority and for the detention of that person for the purposes of a medical examination. There are also quite flexible powers for local authorities to deal with incidents or emergencies where infection or contamination presents or could present a significant risk to public health.

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)]

My Lords, I refer noble Lords to my health interests. The Minister referred to a number of strategies in London, Manchester and Birmingham. Will he confirm that the implementation, particularly of some preventive strategies, will depend on the work of TB specialist nurses? Is he aware that some budgets are under pressure and there is a risk that we will not have enough nurses to do the job? Will he guarantee that we will see an increase in the number of TB nurses?

[Earl Howe]

My Lords, as the noble Lord is aware, NHS England allocates funding to clinical commissioning groups which commission health services on behalf of their local populations. It is for CCGs to decide how best to use the funding that is allocated to them, underpinned by clinical insight and knowledge of local healthcare needs. We expect health and well-being boards to have a major say in those areas where TB is commonplace.

[Baroness Brinton (LD)]

One of the key strands of the directly observed therapy recommended by the World Health Organisation for TB is standard treatment with supervision and patient support. What steps are being taken to empower patients with TB so that they can support DOT? Is there an expert patients scheme, as there is with many other chronic illnesses?

[Earl Howe]

My Lords, we do not regard directly observed treatment as necessary in the majority of cases. It is, however, helpful for certain hard-to-reach groups in society, for example, the homeless, and there are pharmacies which are equipped to do that.

Nepal: Elections

Thursday 21st November 2013 Lords Chamber

Question

11:23

Asked by

[The Earl of Sandwich]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what is their assessment of the impact of the result of the elections to the Constituent Assembly in Nepal on 19 November.

[The Senior Minister of State, Department for Communities and Local Government & Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Baroness Warsi) (Con)]

My Lords, the elections took place on Tuesday and the results are still coming in. The UK agrees with the provisional findings of the official observer missions that the election process in Nepal has been broadly credible. The announcement of the final results may take several weeks. These elections are necessary for Nepal to reach a durable, democratic and inclusive constitutional settlement. That is why the UK has been working to support them politically, technically and financially.

[The Earl of Sandwich (CB)]

My Lords, Britain and Nepal are approaching 200 years of friendship. I know that the Government have been generous in assisting in the elections and in international development. However, there are some urgent tasks coming up. Nepal needs a new constitution, a new independent human rights commission to address human rights violations going back to the civil war, and to move forward on many other fronts. How is the UK going to help to move Nepal through a peaceful transition to constitutional democracy?

[Baroness Warsi]

The noble Earl has asked some important questions. The Government’s view is that achieving a credible election is the first step towards moving to a much bigger peacebuilding exercise. The Government have committed £14 million to these elections—for election preparation, for holding the elections and to create the right environment for free and credible elections. That has been done alongside a significant contribution to peacebuilding both through DfID programmes and FCO-funded projects. We will continue to provide that support, and to support the drafting of a constitution which will underpin that peacebuilding. We will work alongside other development partners to continue to provide support once the new assembly has been formed.

[Lord Avebury (LD)]

My Lords, should not the people of Nepal be warmly congratulated on achieving a turnout of 70% in this very largely peaceful set of elections? However, can my noble friend say why we should think there is any better chance of reaching an agreement on the new constitution with the newly elected constituent assembly than there was with the old one? What steps can the Government take to further that process?

[Baroness Warsi]

As my noble friend is aware, Nepal has had an unstable history, at least over the past two decades, which has resulted in a number of elections taking place but without progress being made. Of course we congratulate the people of Nepal on this election. Preliminary findings showed that violence was lower and there was a higher use of voter ID cards and a higher level of enthusiasm for the process. Although there were armed police around polling stations, they were not inside them. However, initial concerns have been raised about unaccredited, unidentified people within polling stations and some scuffles and confusion. It is important that we wait for the final results and then hope to build on that to support the people of Nepal to achieve the stability that they so deserve.

[Lord McConnell of Glenscorrodale (Lab)]

My Lords, these credible elections are no doubt a welcome sign, but can the Government give any indication of what might be possible in moving towards the agreement of a new national constitution in Nepal? These negotiations have been failing now for several years inside Nepal despite lots of encouragement from us and many other international donors and agencies, and there has been no progress whatever. These elections may herald an opportunity, but what steps will we encourage to try to ensure that there is progress in the very near future?

[Baroness Warsi]

The constituent elections are being held to create a constituent assembly, which is all about having a remit to set about creating a constitution that is agreeable to all the people of Nepal. In the light of Nepal’s history it would be difficult for me to predict exactly when and how that will happen, but we are optimistic. As I said, we have been engaged in the process—not just the election process but the broader one—for a number of years, and my right honourable friend Alan Duncan has visited regularly. We are therefore heavily engaged in this; DfID is heavily engaged, as is the FCO with its conflict work.

[Lord Singh of Wimbledon (CB)]

My Lords, will the Government consider the establishment of a truth and reconciliation commission to address many outstanding instances of human rights violations?

[Baroness Warsi]

Of course we would support that, and indeed that is one of the issues that were at the forefront during the elections. It is the only way that we can really see justice done, and in which the whole of Nepal can move forward.

[Lord Tebbit (Con)]

My Lords, when did Her Majesty’s Government conclude that they have all events in this country so well under control to the public benefit that they can afford to spend so much time, not least in this House, on discussing the affairs of other countries which are not within Her Majesty’s jurisdiction? Can we spend a little more time on our affairs and a little less time following the example of Prime Minister Blair, whose Government had such disastrous results when they interfered in the affairs of other countries?

[Baroness Warsi]

My noble friend always makes interesting points. However much I thoroughly enjoy coming to the Dispatch Box almost on a daily basis, I do so in response to the questions of your Lordships’ House, and I will continue to do that as long as there is interest.

[The Earl of Sandwich]

My Lords, going back to the Question itself, can the noble Baroness do anything to discourage the Government of Nepal from contemplating new electoral boundaries which may be along ethnic lines and would certainly be a diversion from the other priorities?

[Baroness Warsi]

This is, of course, a live debate in Nepal, but I think that we can take some comfort from the fact that voting purely along ethnic lines was not in the forefront of people’s minds when they were polled. People were concerned with everyday issues such as unemployment and electricity. That was the indication of the public and we hope that that is how their leaders will respond.

Defence: Procurement

Thursday 21st November 2013 Lords Chamber

Question

11:30

Asked by

[Lord Lee of Trafford]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government, in the light of the withdrawal of a private-sector bidder from plans to manage defence procurement through a government-owned, contractor-operated organisation, whether they have any plans to close off that option.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Defence (Lord Astor of Hever) (Con)]

My Lords, a review is under way to assess two options—a government-owned, contractor-operated entity and a transformed DE&S+, remaining in the public sector. We remain convinced that we absolutely must change our process to deliver the best value for money for the taxpayer and enable the right equipment and support to be delivered on time for our Armed Forces. The status quo is simply not acceptable.

[Lord Lee of Trafford (LD)]

My Lords, is the reality not that the GOCO competition concept is now totally dead in the water? It is quite impossible to run a competition with just one bidder. The very fact that this one bidder, the Bechtel consortium, has a bid in of 1,200 pages surely draws attention to the manifest absurdity and complexity of the bid process.

This concept has been driven through by Bernard Gray with very little support in MoD and the services; should not he now, in the circumstances, given that it has collapsed, consider his own position and consider resigning? But is not the real culprit the Treasury, whose bone-headed attitude over the years has restricted the MoD in employing the quality of people from the private sector, bringing in private sector disciplines, to handle and manage our £14 billion procurement budget properly? So is not DE&S+ the answer, as supported by many noble Lords, including the noble Lords, Lord Levene and Lord West, who sadly cannot be here today?

[Lord Astor of Hever]

My Lords, on my noble friend’s first point, the very fact that one commercial bid team has submitted a bid shows that it believes that there is a potential deal and it can deliver against requirement. We have always known that running a defence acquisition would be challenging, which is one reason for testing through the assessment phase whether it can be done. As for my noble friend’s second point, he is right to recognise the specific needs of defence acquisition and support personnel to match the professionally motivated defence industry. That is why we are very clear that, whatever option we choose, we will need to work with colleagues across relevant departments to put in place the necessary freedoms of operation to provide our Armed Forces with the right kit at the right time and deliver the best value for money for the taxpayer.

[Lord Touhig (Lab)]

The only outside bidder left in this process is a consortium led by Bechtel, a company with a litany of mismanagement of public service contracts, from Iraq to Romania to the United States. In Boston, for instance, it was responsible for the Big Dig, a tunnel construction project that went $1 billion over budget—and two-thirds of the problem was down to its mistakes. Given its mismanagement of the Big Dig, if Bechtel gains control of our defence procurement, will not Britain’s defences end up in a big hole?

[Lord Astor of Hever]

My Lords, the answer is no. The materiel acquisition partner’s team comprises Bechtel, as the noble Lord says, PricewaterhouseCoopers and PA Consulting, a consortium of world-class private sector businesses. The team has extensive experience of complex programme management; between them, they have delivered programmes to the United Kingdom, the United States and to 140 other countries around the world. Bechtel has ranked as the largest programme-managing engineering and construction company in the United States for the past 14 years. Specifically, MAP members have been involved in the Crossrail and High Speed 1 rail projects, as well as the Jubilee line, and in transforming major businesses in both public and private sectors.

[Lord Stirrup (CB)]

My Lords, it has been suggested that the consortium that withdrew did so because it did not trust the MoD’s numbers and there was far too great a risk of it being held to account on meeting targets based on erroneous assumptions. Could the Minister comment on that criticism and its accuracy?

[Lord Astor of Hever]

My Lords, I cannot comment on the Ministry of Defence’s accounting procedures, but I have full confidence in them.

[Lord King of Bridgwater (Con)]

My Lords, my noble friend the Minister said that the status quo is not an option, and certainly there needs to be a massive improvement in the procurement capabilities and efficiency of the Ministry of Defence; it is a long-standing problem. However, when my noble friend Lord Lee says that you cannot have a competition with only one entrant, is it not true that the competition now is between an outside contractor—Bechtel and its consortium—and an in-house resolution? If we do that, will he ensure, because it is essential, that there is more continuity and expertise, as has been referred to, in the procurement section of the MoD?

[Lord Astor of Hever]

My Lords, I can give my noble friend that assurance. Two processes are happening—one as a result of the single GOCO bidder and, as yesterday’s Written Ministerial Statement made clear, that requires a further review across government of the validity of the competition. Secondly, the MoD will be assessing the bid that we have on the table for a GOCO, along with a DE&S-plus proposal, when we have it, to see which will provide the best solution.

[Lord Tunnicliffe (Lab)]

My Lords, on 19 November, a Written Ministerial Statement on the GOCO competition included a vague reference to a review by the Cabinet Office and the Ministry of Defence. This review, which I could not find on the MoD website, expressed grave reservations about a competition with two private sector bidders. A copy of the review is available only from the Library. Given the importance of this issue, and the Prime Minister’s commitment to have the most open and transparent Government ever, will the Minister commit to publishing the review in full on the MoD website? Further, if the Government are minded—it seems that the Minister is implying this—to continue the GOCO competition with only one private sector bidder, will he commit to a further joint review by the MoD and Cabinet Office on how such a competition is viable, and publish that review on the MoD website?

[Lord Astor of Hever]

My Lords, as a Government we want to be open. I am sure that the review will be put on the website. Clearly, the contract is commercially confidential, so we would not put that on the website—certainly until the position is very much clearer. As far as a further review is concerned, we hope to make a decision on the validity of the competition very soon, and a final decision on the whole process by the Summer Recess. I am sure that the whole House will agree that it is important that we take a considered view before making any decision.

Defence Reform Bill

Thursday 21st November 2013 Lords Chamber

First Reading

11:37

The Bill was brought from the Commons, read a first time and ordered to be printed.

Business of the House

Thursday 21st November 2013 Lords Chamber

Timing of Debates

11:37

Moved by

[Lord Hill of Oareford]

That the debate on the Motion in the name of Lord Alton of Liverpool set down for today shall be limited to three hours and that in the name of the Lord Bishop of Leicester to two hours.

Motion agreed.

Human Rights

Thursday 21st November 2013 Lords Chamber

Motion to Take Note

11:37

Moved by

[Lord Alton of Liverpool]

That this House takes note of Her Majesty’s Government’s policy towards countries responsible for violations of human rights.

[Lord Alton of Liverpool (CB)]

My Lords, in just under three weeks’ time, we will mark the 65th anniversary of the adoption of a declaration which asserted that,

“disregard and contempt for human rights have resulted in barbarous acts which have outraged the conscience of mankind, and the advent of a world in which human beings shall enjoy freedom of speech and belief and freedom from fear and want”.

It is as much a declaration of human dignity as a declaration of human rights. I hope that those words and the declaration’s 30 articles will serve as the architecture for today’s debate. These rights are universal and not available for selective enforcement according to culture, tradition or convenience.

Every year, the Foreign Office publishes a comprehensive report on human rights violations. It clearly should be followed by an annual debate in both Houses, the appetite for which is underlined by the distinguished list of speakers who will contribute today, albeit in speeches far too constrained by time limits. We eagerly await four maiden speeches: those of the noble Baroness, Lady Suttie, the noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy of Cradley, the noble Lord, Lord Mendelsohn, and the noble Lord, Lord Finkelstein, whose grandfather, Dr Alfred Wiener, dedicated much of his life to documenting anti-Semitism and racism in Germany, and whose first wife, Margarethe, died shortly after being released from Bergen-Belsen.

It was in the aftermath of those horrific events that the 1948 declaration was promulgated, the United Nations established, and the Nuremberg trials commenced. During today’s debate, I hope that we will reflect on whether the Security Council, the General Assembly, the United Nations Human Rights Council, which replaced the discredited Commission on Human Rights in 2006, and the International Criminal Court, established by the Rome statute in 2002, have been effective guarantors of the high ideals of that declaration.

It is just 10 days since China, Russia, Saudi Arabia, Algeria, Cuba and Vietnam were all elected to the Human Rights Council despite concerns about their own human rights records and their decision to exclude United Nations monitors from their jurisdictions. Ban Ki-Moon, the United Nations Secretary-General, has said:

“All victims of human rights abuses should be able to look to the Human Rights Council as a forum and a springboard for action”.

But will they be able to do so with any certainty in the future? I shall be interested to hear whether the noble Baroness believes that international bodies charged with upholding human rights should be wholly independent of national governments who violate them.

China, in particular, has huge diplomatic, political, economic and military influence, and its attitude will determine the shape of global attitudes to human rights. Through the Opium Wars to the Rape of Nanking and the horrors of Mao Tse-Tung, China has itself suffered gross human rights violations. The protection and promotion of human rights should not only be seen as a moral cause, but it can never be in a nation’s self-interest to see universal freedoms and values trampled upon.

In today’s debate, we will hear about the situation in many countries and we will hear many themes, from female genital mutilation and the use of rape as a weapon of war to the killing of human rights monitors—in Colombia 37 have been murdered already this year—from human trafficking and repression arising from sexual orientation to the caste system, which inflicts such misery on Dalit people. Sometimes the Universal Declaration of Human Rights is seen as an à la carte menu from which we may pick and choose. But these rights stand together. None should be emasculated; they are there for a reason.

Let me give one example. In a report by Members of your Lordships’ House, Article 18 was dubbed an “orphaned right”. Sidelining a right which upholds the right to belief, or indeed the right not to believe, is a serious error and the failure to uphold this orphaned right is leading to appalling consequences. As the noble Baroness the Minister rightly warned at Georgetown University last week, there is a need to “build political will” and to actively uphold the Human Rights Council resolutions on the treatment of minorities and tolerance towards other faiths. She said that in large parts of the world Christians “face extinction” and that senior politicians in countries like Pakistan have a “duty” to denounce persecution and to set a standard for tolerance. The noble Baroness is right and she is to be commended for leading by her own formidable example.

There are growing restrictions on freedom of conscience that range from the suffering of the Ahmadiyya Muslim communities in Pakistan and Indonesia to the plight of the Baha’is in Iran and Egypt; from the Rohingyas and other Muslims in Burma to Falun Gong, Tibetan Buddhists and Uighur Muslims in China, and of course Christians in these countries as well as in countries as diverse as Egypt, Syria, Nigeria, Sudan, India, Eritrea and Cuba. But I stress that it is not only people of religion who suffer from violations of Article 18. In Indonesia a young man, Alexander Aan, has been jailed because he declared himself an atheist. For that, he is serving a two and a half year sentence in a remote prison in west Sumatra. Whatever our beliefs, the defence of Article 18 is therefore something which all of us should champion.

Among the organisations mandated to defend human rights that needs urgently to be strengthened is the International Criminal Court. It is mandated to prosecute individuals for genocide, war crimes and crimes against humanity, but it has been wholly inadequate in its mechanisms of enforcement. Let us take the situation in sub-Saharan Africa. Last week I met Dr Kasereka Jo Lusi, a remarkable surgeon who works in Goma in eastern Congo. He told me that an average of 48 women are raped every single hour in the DRC. Twenty different militias carry out these horrors with impunity. Why is no one brought to justice and what can we do to promote a paradigm shift in attitudes and beliefs towards women and girls? In confronting impunity, why is it that Joseph Kony, who created the LRA killing machine responsible for terrible atrocities and indicted by the ICC, has not been brought to justice? Why does the indicted Sudanese president, Omar al-Bashir, remain at large? Bashir has been hosted by signatories of the Rome statute, which stipulates that they have a duty to co-operate with arrest warrants. What have we done to seek compliance?

Within the past month, I have made speeches in this House about Egypt and Sudan. Can the Minister give us her latest assessment of the continued aerial bombardment of civilian populations in Darfur and the Nuba mountains? There is also the plight of Copts. We saw the murder of two little girls at a recent Coptic wedding and the orgy of violence which I have described as Egypt’s Kristallnacht.

In May, I raised human rights abuses in Pakistan. If the assassination of Shahbaz Bhatti, the Cabinet Minister, who was well known to the Minister and who was charged with upholding the rights of minorities, remains unsolved, what faith can ordinary citizens have in the justice system? Why should potential attackers fear the law? What progress is being made in bringing his murderers to justice?

Last week, the Minister replied to my Written Question about the discovery of two mass graves in Sadad, in Syria. Yesterday, Human Rights Watch issued a new report on the 45 people killed there by the Islamist militias of al-Nusra Front and Daash. Are we any closer to verifying those accounts or to bringing to justice those who have used chemical weapons and those responsible for the daily violations of human rights using conventional weapons?

On Tuesday, I visited the protesters who, for 10 weeks, have been on hunger strike outside the American embassy in London, protesting about the massacre of Iranian democracy activists shot at close range at Camp Liberty in Iraq in September and who are highlighting the execution of 120,000 political prisoners, including women, in Iran since 1979. I hope the Minister will respond to the account of Tahar Boumedra, the former head of UNAMI, about the massacre in Camp Liberty, which my noble friend Lady Boothroyd, the noble Lords, Lord Carlile and Lord Waddington, I and others sent to William Hague, the Foreign Secretary, yesterday. Can she tell us when we last raised these issues with Nouri al-Maliki, the Prime Minister of Iraq? How did human rights violations figure in this month’s decision to upgrade our diplomatic relations with Iran?

As the Prime Minister discovered last week at CHOGM in Colombo, the judgments we make about when and how to engage on human rights questions can derail delicate relationships and even threaten the cohesion of admirable organisations such as the Commonwealth. What balance do we strike as we consider the complex questions of engagement?

I will conclude with the example of North Korea, which, with 200,000 people in its gulags and egregious violation of human rights, is sui generis—in a class of its own. Almost all of the rights set out in the Universal Declaration are denied. Only yesterday, the United Nations General Assembly’s human rights committee unanimously adopted a resolution citing the “systematic, widespread and grave” human rights violations in North Korea, including torture, the death penalty for political and religious reasons, and the network of political prison camps.

I chair the All-Party Parliamentary Group on North Korea, which, at evidence-gathering sessions, has regularly heard from escapees. Earlier this year, I published some of those accounts and, last month, I gave evidence to the United Nations Commission of Inquiry on Human Rights in the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea. I have advocated the need for such an investigation for many years and pay tribute to Her Majesty’s Government and other Governments for working to secure its establishment. The inquiry has heard accounts of arbitrary imprisonment, torture, slave labour, rape, summary execution, forced abortion and medical experimentation. It has heard how three generations of a family can be dispatched to North Korea’s vast gulag system for such “crimes” as criticising the political leadership. It heard of a mother forced to drown her own baby in a bucket, of prisoners scavenging through excrement for morsels of food, of inmates forced to live on rodents, grasshoppers, lizards and grass, and of an inmate watching the public execution of his mother and brother. Mr Justice Kirby, the Supreme Court judge from Australia who chairs the commission of inquiry, said he wept on hearing many of these accounts.

I have visited North Korea four times, three times with my noble friend Lady Cox. On each occasion we have confronted the North Korean regime with its appalling human rights record. Precisely because of its isolation, I have long proposed a policy of constructive, but critical, engagement with North Korea, what I have termed, “Helsinki with a Korean face”, following the model of our approach to the Soviet Union at the height of the Cold War in the Helsinki process—a robust stand on security and a critical stand on human rights but a willingness to put those issues on the table and talk face-to-face with the regime.

Only a week ago, the Times reported that the regime carried out 80 public executions in seven cities on one day—3 November—for alleged crimes of watching South Korean television dramas or owning Bibles. The Times said that they were allegedly tied to stakes, hooded and killed by machine gun. In the 1990s, 2 million people died of starvation in a country which puts its resources into a nuclear capability and one of the world’s largest standing armies. In January the Sunday Times reported that in two provinces, North Hwanghae and South Hwanghae, as many as 10,000 people had died of starvation and that the starving had resorted to cannibalism. I hope that the Minister will tell us whether we have raised these reports with the regime through our ambassador in Pyongyang, and describe our engagement with the United Nations commission of inquiry.

In March I had the opportunity to meet Daw Aung Sang Suu Kyi in Burma. She famously said:

“Please use your liberty to promote ours”.

Perhaps that is the purpose of a debate such as this and of our being Members of your Lordships’ House. She told me that the BBC’s Burmese Service made a major contribution to the process of opening up Burma. There is much that can be learnt from this and applied to North Korea. Burma is an example of a country where the right combination of international pressure, the flow of information and critical engagement has led to progress.

More than 12%—one report says it is as high as 27%—of those who have escaped from North Korea say that they have heard broadcasts from outside the country. The BBC World Service should make broadcasts to the Korean peninsula a priority. This would help to break the information blockade in the north and promote democracy, human rights and the English language. A popular campaign has been launched by young South Koreans calling for this. To facilitate BBC broadcasts from Korean soil, changes to South Korean law would be necessary. Was that discussed with President Park during her recent state visit? The Government have expressed sympathy for the proposal. Are we taking the idea forward?

In confronting each of the challenges that I have described, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights provides us with a map and with a compass. I think that today’s debate will mirror the FCO’s six human rights priorities: women’s rights; torture prevention; abolition of the death penalty; freedom of religious belief; business and human rights; and freedom of expression on the internet. Many will doubtless concur with the Foreign Secretary’s view that human rights must be “at the heart” of British foreign policy.

We need to do far more to ensure that the Universal Declaration of Human Rights is less honoured in its breach, and I hope that today’s debate will demonstrate the determination of this free Parliament to insist on the centrality of the declaration to our approach to foreign affairs while also providing a voice for voiceless people. I beg to move.

11:52

[Lord Selkirk of Douglas (Con)]

My Lords, I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Alton, on a wide-ranging and comprehensive speech, as well as on raising this debate at a very relevant time. Abuse of human rights takes a great many different forms, but it is on the often savage hostility currently being shown towards religious minorities in many countries that I wish to concentrate.

It was alarming to hear from the Minister only last week that, given the available evidence, Christianity is now in danger of extinction in some nations of the Middle East, which were the very birthplace of the Christian faith. She said:

“There are huge advantages to having pluralistic societies”,

and went on,

“we all have an interest in making sure that Christian communities do continue to feel that they belong and are not persecuted in the places where this religion was born”.

Indeed, the loss of religious freedom has a profound effect on not just the political arrangements in a country but the cultural, social and economic situation that exists there. The right to religious freedom is one of the fundamental promises about human rights made to people in some of the great declarations and finest speeches proclaimed down the years.

On 5 March 1946, while visiting Westminster College in the small Missouri town of Fulton, Sir Winston Churchill famously observed that an iron curtain had descended across Europe. It was less than a year since the war had ended and, with President Truman at his side, Sir Winston said:

“We must never cease to proclaim in fearless tones the great principles of freedom and the rights of man”.

Five years previously, in his State of the Union address, the United States President, Franklin Roosevelt, had spoken eloquently of the four great freedoms which must be fought for and upheld. He listed them as freedom of speech, freedom of worship, the freedom from want and the freedom from fear. While composing the speech, the President let three of his advisers into the secret of the imperishable soundbite that he was about to deliver. The famous “four freedoms” paragraphs were not included until they had been dictated by the President one night in his White House study and taken down in longhand by his aides to be added to the fourth draft. He ended his speech by saying:

“Freedom means the supremacy of human rights everywhere. Our support goes to those who struggle to gain those rights or keep them”.

These four freedoms were later enshrined in the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights adopted by the new world authority in 1948.

As the noble Lord, Lord Alton, said, Article 18 promises freedom of religious worship, and among those who voted in favour were Iran, Egypt and Syria. It is clear that when this freedom of worship is abused, the other freedoms singled out by President Roosevelt are in jeopardy, too. This is because fear grips communities where extremism and violence rule, and want stalks the lives of refugees fleeing from persecution.

Democratic Governments who believe in human rights upheld by the rule of law must have the presence of mind and the will to raise such matters wherever religious minorities are being hounded and abused, whether by Governments or by other religious groupings. I must ask the Minister to give an assurance that the Government will have the continuing will and boldness to raise such sensitive issues in the countries under criticism. After all, if the Prime Minister could give a lead in relentlessly pursuing such matters in Sri Lanka last week, surely it is not too much to ask that other Ministers continue to speak out whenever they are dealing with those Governments who commit intolerable abuses of human rights.

A deliberate attempt is being made to engage in religious cleansing in certain communities which are seeking to force into extinction Christianity and a number of other minority religions. If rational discussion fails to produce results, we should seriously consider withholding overseas aid or other forms of economic assistance to those countries until such time as they are prepared to conform to civilised norms. I can see great merit in the suggestion made in another place by my right honourable friend Tony Baldry that the Government should consider appointing a special envoy for freedom of religion and belief who, working with other UN and US emissaries, could co-ordinate the United Kingdom’s diplomatic efforts in this field and shine a relentless spotlight on abuses.

I end with the words of the former Chief Rabbi, the noble Lord, Lord Sacks, quoting the eminent historian, Lord Acton. He said:

“The most certain test by which we judge whether a country is really free is the amount of security enjoyed by minorities”.

11:58

[Lord Parekh (Lab)]

My Lords, I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Alton of Liverpool, on securing this debate and thank him for introducing it with such passion and wisdom. We are right to concentrate on the promotion of human rights rather than on the promotion of democracy, which has been in the air for quite some time. The rights are easy to identify and monitor, and there is greater international agreement on what rights are worth preserving and what rights are human rights. There is also greater international pressure for implementing those rights as opposed to the promotion of democracy, because democracy can mean many different things in many different contexts. Therefore, I particularly welcome our discussion of violation of human rights rather than violation of democratic norms.

It is also right to point out that we cannot deal with violations of human rights in the whole world; we have to be selective. In that context, it is important for us to concentrate on those countries with which we have close ties, and where we can make an impact. In that context I particularly thank the Prime Minister for the stand he took at CHOGM in Sri Lanka. He was right to go. I think that the Prime Minister of India was not right not to go. Our Prime Minister was right to visit Jaffna, commiserate with the Tamils, condemn the army operations which killed thousands of Tamils, demand an investigation into what actually happened during the war and afterwards, and meet the representatives of the Tamil group.

An equally sensible attitude is increasingly being taken with reference to Gujarat, the Indian state from which I come, where genocide took place in February 2002, when a large number of Muslims were killed with the complicity of the state. The American Government denied a visa to the Chief Minister but the British Government took a very sensible view and said nothing. Increasingly, the British Government began to recognise that we had no conclusive evidence that the Chief Minister had been directly and actively involved in what had gone on; after all, he had been in power for only four months. Nor did we ignore the fact that this sort of thing had happened in other parts of India, and therefore we could not single out one state alone. About 18 months ago, or perhaps a little less, the British Government asked the British high commissioner to India, Sir James Bevan, to visit Mr Modi, the Chief Minister of Gujarat. More recently, the Foreign Office Minister, Mr Hugo Swire, visited the place. In Kolkata recently, the Prime Minister said that he would be more than happy to meet any elected leader. This is not to exonerate the leader of his responsibility but simply to indicate that not talking to people is not the answer.

I wish to make three general points. First, as we cannot promote all kinds of human rights we obviously have to prioritise. Of the six priorities listed by the Government there is not much reference to the rights of trade unions, which in my view have played, and continue to play, an extremely important role. Business rights are fine but they are not supposed to include trade union rights. During the Arab spring, trade unions were the vehicle through which important radical change was achieved. Minority rights are also important. Generally, the standard definition of human rights concentrates on individual rights and tends to ignore minority rights.

Secondly, while we are right to condemn violations of human rights, we sometimes tend to ignore our own complicity in these violations. Large corporations based in our country sometimes engage in practices abroad that violate human rights or lead indirectly to violations of human rights. We ought to tighten up the monitoring of our corporations. Many violations take place during civil wars. We are sometimes complicit in instigating or tolerating civil wars in other countries, which can result in gross violations of human rights.

Thirdly, we tend to be selective about where we condemn violations of human rights and where we do not. Violations of human rights in Pakistan or Saudi Arabia are by and large ignored, whereas we tend to concentrate on them in countries such as China. This sometimes gives the impression that we are unprincipled and that we are using human rights discourse or issues to promote a particular political agenda. We need to ensure that we are principled when we condemn violations of human rights.

[Baroness Northover (LD)]

My Lords, I gently remind noble Lords that this is a time-limited debate. When the Clock hits five, speakers have had their five minutes. We want to ensure that we have enough time for our maiden speeches, the Minister’s winding-up speech and for the noble Lord, Lord Alton, to respond at the end.

12:04

[Baroness Hollins (CB)]

My Lords, I congratulate my noble friend Lord Alton on securing and introducing this important debate. It has been said that wartime rape is as old as war itself. Women’s lives and bodies have been unacknowledged casualties of war for too long, but now greater media awareness and reporting, probably in part because of the exceptional women journalists covering conflict, have brought wider knowledge of the extent to which rape is occurring. The consequences of rape are also better understood. Five years ago, a United Nations resolution described rape as a tactic of war and a threat to international security.

Rape is used as a punishment for men as well as women, by forcing men to watch as their wives, sisters, mothers and daughters are raped. Victims of rape are left emotionally traumatised, physically damaged and at risk of potentially fatal sexually transmitted diseases. Rape humiliates, dominates, instils fear and disperses communities. The after-effects of rape are felt for generations, as women bear their rapists’ children, and face shame and revulsion. Surely it is time to draw a line, and time for the international community to take rape as seriously as it does the use of other weapons. As my noble friend mentioned, hundreds of thousands of women have been raped in the Congo. Reports of rape have also emerged from the current conflict in Syria. When will women’s human rights be recognised and acted upon?

Rape is always an abuse of power. In the case of rape, it is an abuse of physical power. When communities are under threat, it is the weak and vulnerable who suffer the most. People with disabilities are subjected to more violence in any country, but more so in a country in turmoil, where people are concerned for their own lives and livelihoods and may not have the resources to look after the most vulnerable people in their communities. It may be as obvious as someone with physical disabilities being unable to flee rebel attacks, or as insidious as someone with a disability being last in the queue for food and water. Disabled women and girls are also raped.

The Human Rights Watch report of an investigation in Uganda in April and May 2010, which looked at the treatment of people with disabilities during conflict, was called As if We Weren’t Human. It was sobering reading indeed. Over one-third of the 64 women and girls with disabilities interviewed by Human Rights Watch had experienced sexual violence. Charity, a Ugandan woman with a physical disability, described how, in the camp,

“people told me: ‘You are useless. You are a waste of food.’ People told me I should just die so others can eat the food”.

Women reported being abused by aggressors because of their disabilities. A partially blind woman had her eyes removed because she had not seen where her husband kept his gun. A girl with learning disabilities was beaten and raped because she did not understand the questions she was being asked.

It is unusual for victims of rape and sexual violence in times of conflict to seek help, but when they do, those with disabilities are at a further disadvantage. Health centres and police stations are far away and victims rely on others to take them there, leaving them at greater risk of the untreated physical complications of rape. Police stations and courts do not have the resources to facilitate communication with those who have difficulties, such as the deaf and people with learning disabilities. Many girls and women with disabilities are illiterate and rely on their families for communication. Families will often not support a woman or girl in reporting a rape because of the additional stigma that rape brings to a family already stigmatised by disability.

The Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities recognises the specific vulnerabilities of those with disabilities and requires its signatories to take appropriate measures to protect such persons from exploitation, violence and abuse. We signed the CRPD in 2008, but what is our policy on those countries that do not comply with it? What is our policy on those that allow such human rights abuses to be carried out on women and girls? The G8 this year declared rape to be a war crime. Will the Minister explain to the House what the British Government are doing about it?

12:09

[The Lord Bishop of Derby]

My Lords, I, too, congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Alton, on securing this debate, and I also associate myself with the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Selkirk.

Many of the pictures painted are dramatic and challenging, and I invite the House to think a little about the context that we are in and how we might approach some of these huge issues. The Government have identified six key priority areas, including women and freedom of religion, and those are the two things that I will look at in particular. We are in a world where we have ideals and fall short of them, and need to negotiate between the two.

In my own language, I start by inviting us all to look at the motes in our own eyes. I am embarrassed that my church has legislation in place to discriminate against women, as much religion still does. We are moving towards tackling these things, and the prime movers have been women themselves. One point that the noble Lord, Lord Alton, made is that the victims need to be listened to so that they can help us understand what changes are required. It is not legislation but the stories of the victims that need to come first.

We as a church have been criticised, rightly, for the long and tortuous path of giving women full access to leadership in our institution. It is very easy for society to think that we have already done that: we have sex equality legislation and human rights legislation. Noble Lords will know that next Monday is White Ribbon Day, when in this country we remember the increasing levels of violence against women in our society. That is part of the context.

Just yesterday I was involved in a debate for Parliament Week—where the theme, as we know, is “Women in Democracy: Women in Society”—about lads’ mags and the fact that companies such as Tesco sell these magazines along with cheese and cornflakes. They objectify women and normalise the offensive attitude of making women commodities. We give large companies such as Tesco the freedom to degrade the women in our midst. That is the context in which we come to this debate: the motes in our own eyes.

I will suggest a way in which we might move forward. I think that the Government already have some line on this: the Foreign Secretary talks about engaging with complexity and the Minister talks about being pragmatic. We need to be pragmatic in negotiating between ideals and reality. As a trustee of Christian Aid, I know that women are key to development, with new voices and new perspectives, but I also know through my work with Christian Aid that the human trafficking of women and girls is increasing exponentially. Therefore, the ideals and the practice are in enormous tension.

I turn briefly to my specific point. The 2012 list of countries about which we have particular concern does not include India. My diocese works with churches in north India and is especially involved with Christian Dalit peoples—the lowest caste. In the past week, I have been in touch with a colleague in Delhi who worked with Christian Dalit women. She told me about Lakshmi, who works on a construction site from six in the morning till six at night and has to sign a register saying that she is getting the minimum daily wage, although in fact she is paid less than half of it. She also told me about a girl called Anjum, who was put into a brothel at the age of 15 and, last week, was rescued by the churches. She had found herself in that position because she was a Dalit woman in that culture.

The Prime Minister has just visited India and is talking about a special business relationship with that country. We need that: it will be good. However, what can we put into that relationship that will lead these issues to be taken seriously? In your Lordships’ House earlier this year, we made a decisive intervention during the passage of the Enterprise and Regulatory Reform Bill about Dalits in our own country. First, how can we take that learning and that experience into our work with business in India to help people aim for a similar result?

Secondly, how can we maintain concern for women and girls caught up in the ever-expanding criminal work of human trafficking? Thirdly, how can we look at the motes in our own eyes and challenge the right of large companies such as Tesco to degrade women in the midst of selling cheese and cornflakes and make it normative? As has already been asked, how can we better play a role in the UN? Finally, I guess that I and my colleagues on these Benches need to go back to our own institution and ask how women can play a more constructive and creative role among us so that we have more integrity in contributing to this debate.

12:14

[Lord Finkelstein (Con)]

My Lords, at the moment I took the oath in the House I was filled with wonder and gratitude. There was gratitude to be given the privilege to sit among your Lordships and to contribute to your deliberations. There was gratitude to my supporting Peers, the noble Lords, Lord Owen and Lord Coe, the latter having forgiven me for defeating him in an egg and spoon race. What can I say? He can run but he dropped the egg. There also was gratitude to all the officials of the House. They have helped me to overcome every practical issue related to having a peerage, save the one that still vexes me; namely, how, in a suburban house containing three children and six guitars, do my wife and I fit a two-foot, red leather box with a large wax seal? I now understand the strategy of barons since the time of King John, which is to get a castle first and only then acquire a peerage.

Finally, there was gratitude that as the son of refugees I live in peace in this extraordinary country with its respect for human rights. It is therefore fitting that human rights should be the subject of my maiden speech. My mother is a survivor of Belsen concentration camp and my father was an exile in a Siberian prison village. Pinner is nicer. People often bemoan the absence of big ideas in British politics. I always reply that big ideas drove my family from their home and their country, murdered my grandmother, starved my mother, imprisoned my father and stole our property. So I like pragmatic, small British ideas, our quiet suburbs and our stable institutions. My politics were never better summarised than by my paternal grandmother saying, “While the Queen is safe in Buckingham Palace, I am safe in Hendon Central”.

My necessarily brief contribution to this debate is that we in this country have a special understanding of the value of allowing people to live their life in peace as they see fit, to enjoy their privacy and never having to fear what they are because they fear their neighbours or the state. For that reason, because of the respect for that fundamental human right, we have become a leader in extending to gay people the freedom, equality and respect that should rightfully be theirs.

However, with that leadership comes a responsibility. Last year, the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights identified 76 countries which criminalise private, consensual same-sex relationships. Even where homosexuality is not illegal, all over the world lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people are subject to arbitrary arrest, violence and torture. When they are the victims of crime, they cannot turn to the police or the authorities because it is they who will be arrested. They are left defenceless. In Iran, there are secret executions; in Cameroon, there is torture and imprisonment; and, in Belarus, there is police intimidation and confiscated passports.

The only complaint that these countries can make is: why pick on them? The disrespect that they show to fundamental human rights, and the way in which they defy international law, is not theirs alone. It is common. I recognise—we all do—that there are limits to what we can do and I know that much of what we can do we are doing. It is right to pursue a policy of active diplomacy; right to link aid to the Commonwealth to the question of gay rights; and right to use bilateral diplomacy to, for instance, raise Russia's discrimination against gay people. Perhaps, as the Foreign Office reviews its priorities in its human rights policies, which I am sure it does from time to time, it might consider whether the rights of LGBT people should be among them. After all, internationally, if it is not us, who is it?

12:18

[Baroness Falkner of Margravine (LD)]

My Lords, first, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Alton, for that extraordinary tour de force that describes the parlous state of human rights in the world today. We are grateful to him because he is dogged in his determination to continue to raise these issues and to make our consciences awake. I am delighted to be speaking here today but I cannot continue without congratulating the noble Lord, Lord Finkelstein, on his extraordinarily witty and elegant speech, which was serious too in subject matter. We wholeheartedly support his views on LGBT rights.

The noble Lord, Lord Finkelstein, and I have two things in common. We are both alumni of the London School of Economics, that hotbed of political radicalism. We both started political life as members of the Social Democratic Party—less of a hotbed of political radicalism. But it is well known that the noble Lord could not really contemplate a future with the Liberals or indeed the Lib Dems when the merger between the SDP and the Liberals happened and he made his way to the Conservative Party. But as with all things in life, what goes around comes around and we are both now happily united under the wonderful umbrella of coalition government. I am sure that I echo the sentiments of the whole House when I say how delighted we are to have such a distinguished journalist among our ranks and we look forward to his witty, elegant and thoughtful contributions.

I also want to mention how much we are looking forward to the maiden speech of my noble friend Lady Suttie. She will bring a formidable knowledge of foreign affairs and the European Union to our deliberations, as I am sure we will hear before too long in this debate. For myself, given the limited time that we have today, I want to talk of just one situation—the most egregious human rights violation currently under way, namely; the civil war in Syria and the failure of the international community to do anything to end those atrocities.

In the two and a half years of this war, we have had talk of arming the opposition to change the balance of power in the early stages. Then there was talk of a no-fly zone to enable a humanitarian corridor to be established. Finally, there was the failed resolution of 29 August this year, which was an attempt on the part of some United Nations Security Council members to live up to their promises on responsibility to protect—namely, to act collectively to prevent genocide, crimes against humanity, war crimes and ethnic cleansing.

During all this time, the cost of the tragedy in Syria has risen. We have 150,000 dead, 7 million people displaced—2 million in neighbouring countries. Moreover, we have seen the hopelessness of getting even basic medical assistance to the victims of violence. It is estimated that of the original fleet of 500 ambulances in Syria, only 40 or so are still operating. More than 16,000 doctors have fled and at least 36 paramedics in uniform have been killed.

Let me turn to the record of the United Kingdom Government. Yes, we have been generous—some half a billion pounds in humanitarian assistance and countless visits to refugee camps by luminaries to publicise the state of those camps. But when genocide is under way, with jihadi groups singling out not just Alawite but all Shia as infidels, and ethnic cleansing through killing or displacement is rife, it is legitimate to ask when the international community will act.

So let me turn to the concrete question asked by the noble Baroness, Lady Boothroyd, only last Tuesday regarding the creation of a humanitarian corridor. My noble friend Lady Northover, who I am delighted to see is in her place today, explained how difficult it would be to get all sides to the conflict to sign up to a ceasefire at the same time. While I can see the difficulties on the ground, it is also evident that when there is a will on the part of the Russians—the main obstruction in this case—a solution can be found. The chemical weapons inspectors were given safe passage only a few weeks ago.

What discussions has my noble friend been having with Russia and Iran regarding their leverage with the regime to gain the co-operation of the Syrian military and with Saudi Arabia and Qatar on the compliance of the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria—a rather neutral-sounding name for the al-Nusra Front and all its barbarism? What discussions have the United Kingdom had with the leaders of the Free Syrian Army?

While we accept that there are several hundred groups fighting on the ground, we can all agree that most have external powers whose support keeps them going. So let me turn briefly to the United Nations Security Council. The current composition provides an opportunity. If Russia co-operates with permanent members, as it did over chemical weapons, then we also have a further three Commonwealth member states plus an EU state. With the impending replacement of Saudi Arabia by Jordan, the necessary majority for a fresh United Nations resolution should surely be attainable. I hope that my noble friend will be able to tell the House what efforts the Government are making to secure the United Nations Security Council resolution to provide some sort of humanitarian corridor in Syria.

Human rights protections derive from the inalienable and pre-political rights of individuals. It is a collective responsibility of all to uphold them.

12:24

[Baroness Scotland of Asthal (Lab)]

My Lords, first, I, too, commend the noble Lord, Lord Alton, for introducing this debate. When I saw that each of us had about four minutes to make our contribution, I was concerned whether we would be able to have a debate in depth and breadth which would touch on many of the issues about which I feel passionately. I should have had greater confidence in your Lordships’ House, because each speech before mine has ticked off a number of the issues that I wanted to touch on, whether religion or human rights for gay people and women. To the fine maiden speech made by the noble Lord, Lord Finkelstein, I feel able to say “amen”.

I would like to take my few minutes to concentrate on issues relating to women. The recent discourse within the Commonwealth has shown us the importance of human rights and the way in which they impact on all our people, but the rights of women is a matter which the Foreign Office has rightly highlighted as a key issue which we as a global community should communicate. I absolutely agree with the comments made by the noble Baroness, Lady Hollins, about the impact of rape. According to the World Health Organisation, domestic violence affects one in three women across the world. It is now of pandemic proportions. It is the greatest cause of morbidity in women and girls worldwide. If it was any other form of disease, there would be a global outcry that so many women and girls are dying and being seriously injured by such a vicious and pernicious form of assault on their human rights, their dignity and their right to live.

The report demonstrates that 35% of women worldwide have experienced either physical or sexual intimate partner violence or non-partner sexual violence. It goes on to make it clear that, globally, as many as 38% of all murders of women are committed by intimate partners. Globally, 7% of women had been sexually assaulted by someone other than their partner. The scale and enormity of the abuse of women must be seen to be believed. Ban Ki-Moon was right when he said:

“There is one universal truth, applicable to all countries, cultures and communities: violence against women is never acceptable, never excusable, never tolerable”.

I commend the Minister, in particular, and Her Majesty’s Government for what they have sought in policy in relation to women and girls, but does she think that it is right that Foreign Office policy should restrict its purview to violence against women in areas of conflict, bearing in mind that violence against women in and out of conflict is a fundamental breach of their human rights which needs to be addressed? Will the Foreign Office consider expanding that role?

I commend the Government on signing the Istanbul convention last year, but when are they likely to ratify it, so that we can become one of the first 10 nations to enable that convention to come into operation? If we are to continue to have our position of prominence in raising the issue of human rights for women and girls, it is incumbent on our Government to use their best endeavours to make sure that we are among those 10. I have to tell the Minister that if the previous Government were still in being, I very much hope that we would be the first to sign and ratify and would not risk coming not even in the first 10.

This is something that we can choose to address. If we wish to make violence against women something of the past, it will take all of us to raise our voice. Will the Minister tell us a little bit about the strategy that the Government intend to operate and deliver in order to make that a reality?

12:30

[Lord Singh of Wimbledon (CB)]

My Lords, I am grateful to my friend, the noble Lord, Lord Alton, for securing this important debate. Manipulation of religious sentiment to persecute those of other faiths is a sad feature of human rights abuse in much of the world. I would like to take this opportunity to give a Sikh perspective on possible ways to a fairer and more tolerant society.

When we talk of human rights abuse, we immediately think of countries such as Syria, North Korea and Iran. We rightly condemn their abuses of human rights, but we look more benignly at countries with which we have close political alliances or trade links—as the noble Lord, Lord Parekh, perceptively observed. As the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Derby reminded us, we should look to the mote in our own eye. If we were consistent, the UN report of a government massacre of some 40,000 men, women and children from Sri Lanka’s Tamil minority and evidence of continuing human rights abuses would have led to that country’s immediate suspension from the Commonwealth pending an investigation.

I will give another example of this less than even-handed approach to human rights. Next year sees the 30th anniversary of the Indian army attack on the Sikh Golden Temple in Amritsar and the subsequent massacre of tens of thousands of Sikhs throughout India. An independent inquiry headed by a former Chief Justice of India found overwhelming evidence of top Congress Party involvement. Yet our Government’s response to this attack on a minority faith was total silence. When I raised the matter with a then Cabinet Minister, I received the reply, “Indarjit, we know exactly what’s going on, but we are walking on a tightrope. We have already lost one important contract”. He was referring to the Westland helicopter contract.

We rightly condemn the use of sarin gas in Syria but were silent over America’s use of Agent Orange in Vietnam—which, even today, is causing horrendous birth defects half a century after its use. The same country’s use of drones to fly over sovereign territory to kill and maim those it does not like and, in the process, kill many innocent civilians sets a dangerous precedent.

I have spoken about our country’s selective approach to human rights only as an example. Other world powers, including India, China, the USA and Russia, behave in exactly the same way, making any co-ordinated approach on human rights virtually impossible. It was the great human rights activist Andrei Sakharov who said that there will be little progress in our universal yearning for peace and justice unless we are even-handed in our approach to human rights.

My hope is that Her Majesty’s Government will take the lead in working for a world in which principle always transcends the interests of trade and power-bloc politics. I firmly believe that our country is best placed to give a lead in this wider view of human rights.

12:30

[Baroness Kennedy of Cradley (Lab)]

My Lords, I am very proud and honoured to stand here today as a Member of this House and make my maiden speech. I begin by thanking noble Lords on all sides of the House for the warm welcome that I have received. They will know that I am preceded here by my husband, my noble friend Lord Kennedy, but I also know that noble Lords will be familiar with the quote that begins, “Behind every great man …”.

I also thank all the staff for the help they have given me. One day when I was looking particularly confused, one staff member asked, “Would it help, my Lady, if I pointed out which way Lord Kennedy went?”. I was impressed by how skilfully he gave me the option of going in the opposite direction. I need to give particular thanks to the doorkeepers. Some noble Lords may have noted that when I and my noble friend Lord Kennedy were introduced, the galleries were rather packed. I would like to thank the doorkeepers and assure them that there are currently no other Kennedys working for the Labour Party on the way to this noble House.

I also thank my supporters, my noble friends Lady McDonagh and Lord Collins, and my mentor, my noble friend Lady Gould, for all their advice and support. My final thank you is to my friend Margaret Bradley, a local Cradley historian whose research helped me with this speech.

I was delighted when it was agreed that I could use Cradley as my territorial title. It is a town rich in history. For hundreds of years, ironwork—nail-making and chain-making—was the staple industry of Cradley and its surrounding towns. Right up until I went to university, I lived in Cradley, in the same house and in the same street—and it is where my father still lives today. Since at least 1830, my ancestors’ livelihoods relied on the nail and chain industries in Cradley and the surrounding towns.

Noble Lords may be wondering why the history of my home town is relevant to today’s debate on human rights. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Alton of Liverpool, for initiating this crucial debate. It is relevant because it reminds us of the evils of child labour. In Cradley, children were born, reared, worked and died in the chain shops. It was not unusual to see baby baskets swinging from iron poles so that women could hammer iron and rock their baby at the same time. By the age of eight, children were experienced chain makers.

Thankfully, the dominance of child labour in Cradley is a distant memory. However, this is not the case in many other parts of the world, where child labour exists on a colossal scale. Millions of children younger than the basic minimum working age are deprived of their childhood and work in appalling conditions that damage their physical and mental well-being. The ILO estimates that across the world, instead of going to school, 168 million children aged five to 17 are child labourers. Every child has the right to a childhood, and every child has the right to an education. Child labour is a violation of a child’s human rights.

Today, I want to highlight two areas of child labour that particularly affect girls: mining and domestic work. Across the world there are more than 85 million children engaged in hazardous work, the most menacing of which is the plight of child miners. Children as young as six and seven are handling explosives, exposed to toxic air and carrying heavy loads. The physical and psychological effects are traumatic for both boys and girls. However, girls bear a double burden as they also have to carry out domestic chores at home for the family. There is no time for rest, and no time for school.

Another area where girls are particularly vulnerable is when they work behind closed doors as domestic workers. Some 11.5 million children, mainly girls, work dawn to dusk taking care of domestic chores in other people’s homes. They live with their employer. They are under the control of their employer. They are isolated and trapped. Many suffer verbal abuse or, even worse, physical abuse. Girls are suffering in silence. It is slavery by anyone’s definition.

We must work with each other and everyone involved in our civil society to alleviate global poverty, achieve universal primary education and eliminate child labour. We know we can all do more. There are many charities in the UK that work to alleviate poverty. I declare an interest as I am a trustee of one such charity, APT—Action on Poverty. APT fights poverty by giving people the means to feed their families all year round and forever. It works with local partners on the ground in sub-Saharan Africa and south-east Asia to build lasting livelihoods for the most vulnerable.

We know that child labour is directly linked to poverty, which is why charities like APT are vital. When a person knows that they can feed their family not just today but every day in the future, they can fully embrace education, not employment, for their child. If children fail to get an education, they fail to get the skills needed for their own growth as well as their country’s economic growth. The poor of today remain the poor of tomorrow. Sadly, child labour is not just an issue for developing countries. Studies have shown that children here in the UK have been found in forced labour. That is why I very much welcome the Government’s commitment to bring forward a modern Slavery Bill, which I hope is still due in December. I hope that it will pay particular attention to child labour here and across the world.

Government must do more to work with international businesses to encourage them to address the issue of child labour in their operations and supply chains. Businesses should not just demand that child labour stops but should help influence national Governments and employers in countries around the world, encourage better working conditions, mobilise communities around education, support social protection programmes, and invest more in education and in modernising agricultural production in poor rural communities where child labour is rife.

I will make one final plea. The next World Day Against Child Labour is on Thursday 12 June 2014. Let us all commit now to join together on that day and encourage other organisations to join with us. Children need to be learners, not labourers. Children should no longer be denied a childhood, an education or the most basic of human rights: a future.

12:49

[Lord Harries of Pentregarth (CB)]

My Lords, I, too, thank the noble Lord, Lord Alton, for initiating this very important debate, and I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy of Cradley, for her very clear and powerful speech. It is particularly important that she mentioned something that has not been mentioned so far in this debate, namely the way that children are still exploited in so many parts of the world. We look forward to hearing her clear and powerful voice on subsequent occasions.

When future historians look back on the immediate post-World War II period, they will judge that one of the greatest achievements of that time was the UN declaration of human rights and the ensuing conventions. Those affirmed in law the unique worth of every single individual. They are, in the words of the late Ronald Dworkin, “trumps”, which cannot be overridden by any raison d’état. Of course the trouble, as we know, is that it is so easy to be deeply depressed at the massive way in which human rights are violated in so many countries in the world. The noble Lord, Lord Alton, gave us a long list at the beginning, although he did not mention some of them. It is very easy to get depressed by that, and it is difficult to know what to focus on in this debate. As the noble Lord, Lord Parekh, reminded us, it is important that we should not be selective. However, when we get depressed, we need to go back to the fact that we still have a benchmark in the UN declaration. It is a question of being as persistent in the pursuit of that as the noble Lord, Lord Alton, has been in setting us a very good example in his wide-ranging and persistent concern for human rights.

I hope that noble Lords will excuse me if, as chairman of the All-Party Group on Dalits, I focus very briefly on them. I do so first because of the sheer scale of the problem that affects them: there are something like 260 million Dalits in the world, mainly in India and other south-east Asian countries. Secondly, although all human rights violations are appalling—torture, religious persecution and so on—there is something particularly humiliating and degrading about the way in which Dalits are totally rejected by the surrounding culture in which so many of them live and every area of their lives is affected. If anyone doubts the sheer horror of this I would recommend the novel A Fine Balance by Rohinton Mistry. The “fine balance” of the title is the balance between hope and despair. I have huge admiration for the poor of India, for their sheer resilience, hope and even joy, despite everything. However, the problems are huge. In almost every area of exploitation the Dalits will be found at the bottom, more exploited than anybody else.

I am glad to say that we will hear more over the next months about different forms of trafficking. Noble Lords will not be surprised to know that because the Dalits are the most vulnerable of all groups, they are found in all forms of trafficking and at a much higher percentage than other groups. Trafficking takes the form of bonded labour. It also takes the form of the Sumangali system for the payment of dowries. Although that system has been officially abolished in India since 1961, it still goes on. However, the sex trade is perhaps the most shocking of all. As Dalit Solidarity Network UK puts it,

“Most girls and women in India’s urban brothels come from Dalit, lower-caste, tribal, or minority communities”.

Much of that has its origin in religiously sanctioned prostitution. It has been reckoned that some 250,000 women in India fall into this category, many of them enslaved unknowingly when they were still young children. Dalit Freedom Network has said that almost all women trapped in ritualised prostitution are Dalits.

When the concept of human rights was first formulated after World War II, the particular concern was the way in which individuals need to be protected against their states. There is a particular complication, of course, with the kind of discrimination the Dalits experience, because it is so deeply embedded in cultures. Therefore, I very much hope that the Government, when they raise their general concerns about human rights in India and other south-east Asian countries, will continue to bring this issue before those Governments.

12:46

[Lord Patten (Con)]

My Lords, like the words “location, location, location” in a very different context, “consistency, consistency, consistency” should be the key to our Government’s attitude to countries that violate human rights. Our foreign policy must be realistic—of course I recognise that. I am in favour of our trading nation having the commercial foreign policy that we are developing. However, I am also in favour of the motif once used so effectively by the late Robin Cook: the need for an ethical foreign policy. The two are not at odds and indeed both trade and aid can be used as powerful levers to bring about change over the years in delinquent countries. To illustrate this I will compare and contrast our attitude in this context, particularly in relation to religious freedoms, on Iran and on Turkey, where there are dominant Governments.

I turn first to Iran. While all are hopeful that Mr Rouhani, the new President, may make things better for persecuted minorities, we should all recall that instant warm words of welcome in the media for apparent, new liberal change around the world often have to be eaten pretty quickly, as the plight of the poor Copts in Egypt, highlighted by the noble Lord, Lord Alton, shows us at the moment. They are clearly the most up-to-date victims of religious clearances in Africa. In Iran, all religious groups other than orthodox Muslims are now in the religious cleansing firing line under Mr Rouhani’s new presidency. There is no or little freedom and much persecution of all those who are not Muslims, from Sufi dervishes to evangelical Christians, from the poor Baha’is, who are so persecuted, to those Armenian and Assyrian churches who happen to conduct their services in Farsi, which is thought not to be acceptable. Some of those churches are still being closed down under the new liberal presidency of Mr Rouhani.

There has been little visible change and a bit of hope, and the Government have been very robust in trying to do what they can to help and to condemn such persecution in Iran. Good. Strangely, however, the Government seem—although perhaps I am misguided—to pull their punches a bit on Turkey, a country which is always described as “mildly Islamist” in polite diplomatic discourse. Bad. Is it mildly Islamist for Turkey to suppress the ancient Greek monastery on Halki island, or to restrict the freedoms of worship of the Alevis in Turkey? Is it “mildly Islamist” to make it impossible for Christians to have public places of worship established in the seaside holiday-making areas of coastal Turkey? One Anglican clergyman has told me that they have to flit from house to house underground to have underground services, as if they were living in some kind of penal times—and actually they are living in some kind of penal times.

I am very glad that some of our leading western Christian leaders have got off their knees at long last to say that this anti-Christian trend must be resisted. I hasten to add that I recognise that being on their knees is part of the day job of right reverend Prelates, and others, as they pray for us in need of their prayers. But I am glad that they have shown this leadership. A few years ago, I took part in a debate in this place with the noble Lord, Lord Alton, which highlighted the apparent onset of Christian clearances in Iraq. It is a bit late now, as those clearances are more or less complete. Turkey next? I do not know—I hope not—but I do know that it is not “mildly Islamist” to disperse with such terrifying violence peaceful demonstrations in Gezi Park in central Istanbul, where I have walked, rightly condemned by Amnesty International for its “large-scale human rights violations”. Is it indeed respectful of freedom of expression for so-called “mildly Islamist” Turkey to have in its prisons more journalists than any other country on earth, including China? Only three days ago, on Monday, it was reported that the Deputy Prime Minister of Turkey, Mr Bulent Arinc, is calling for the former Christian basilica of Hagia Sophia, presently a secular museum, to be opened up for prayer—I guess Muslim prayer.

In my noble friend’s wind-up, could she find a moment or two just to explain to your Lordships what exactly is meant by the phrase “mildly Islamist”, or do we turn a blind eye to what is going on in Turkey?

12:51

[Baroness Suttie (LD)]

My Lords, I, too, congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Alton, on securing this timely and important debate. I congratulate my noble friend Lord Finkelstein on his excellent and deeply amusing maiden speech. In the month since my introduction, I am grateful to noble Lords from all sides of this House for having made me feel so welcome. I am hugely grateful, too, for the helpful advice from ever-patient members of staff who have dealt with my numerous questions with good humour and tolerance. In particular, I would like to thank Black Rod and his department for their excellent induction course.

I also thank my two supporters. My noble friend Lady Scott of Needham Market and I have been friends since getting to know each other in Brussels, when she was serving on the Committee of the Regions and I was working in the European Parliament. My noble friend Lord Kirkwood of Kirkhope is in some ways responsible for getting me involved in politics in the first place. As my excellent constituency MP in Hawick in the Scottish borders, I used to write to him on a regular basis from Hawick High School with a variety of obscure and occasionally precocious inquiries. We subsequently worked together on two separate occasions over several years in the other place. As a very dear friend and colleague, he has also been a constant source of sunny optimism.

Exactly 25 years ago, I was studying in Voronezh State University in southern Russia in the Soviet Union. I was there as part of a three-month Russian language exchange programme from Heriot-Watt University in Edinburgh. It was there that I not only learnt the beautiful Russian language but learnt to appreciate Russian art and culture as well as the very generous and at times overflowing Russian hospitality. It was the era of Glasnost and Perestroika which by then, in 1988, had even reached the provincial city of Voronezh. It was a time when culture flourished, banned novels were published, and, as British students, we were able to discuss issues such as politics and humans rights, which in the darker days under Brezhnev would have been unimaginable.

After graduation, I returned to work in St Petersburg, or Leningrad as it still was then, from December 1990 to spring 1991, as an English teacher. By this stage, the Soviet Union was in a state of evident collapse. I survived thanks to the kindness of my Russian friends, as food was rationed and the shelves were completely bare. The August putsch took place later that year and, by the end of December, the Soviet Union was dissolved.

During my regular visits to Russia in the 1990s, I saw the gradual transfer to a free market Russian style of capitalism but, sadly, this has not been matched by a move towards parliamentary democracy, independent institutions, the rule of law and respect for human rights. Indeed, since the parliamentary elections at the end of 2011, which many observers regarded as fraudulent, and the presidential elections to re-elect Vladimir Putin in the spring of 2012, we have witnessed a considerable backwards step in terms of parliamentary democracy and human rights. Journalists and businesspeople, in particular, have faced threats and serious intimidation, or worse, when they have challenged the Kremlin’s line.

I am relieved, as I am sure are all noble Lords, that the British freelance journalist Kieron Bryan was granted bail yesterday, but the case of the Greenpeace 30 more than ever illustrates the need for thorough judicial reform in Russia. I hope that the Government will continue to press the Kremlin for a speedy, transparent, proportionate and fair conclusion.

In March this year, I did some political training work in Chisinau, in the Republic of Moldova. The politicians I spoke to told me of their fears of having such a heavy dependency on Russian energy supplies. In the run up to the Vilnius summit next week, as they prepare to sign association agreements with the EU, they are understandably worried. Russian Deputy Premier Dmitry Rogozin’s chilling remarks to Moldova that he hoped that they, “Wouldn’t freeze this winter”, are perhaps sadly typical of the current neo-colonial state of mind in the Kremlin.

In the run up to the Sochi Olympic Games, when Russia is very much in the public eye, we must use every opportunity to continue to push for real institutional reform in Russia, as well as an independent judiciary and for the creation of genuine parliamentary democracy.

12:56

[The Earl of Sandwich (CB)]

My Lords, it is a considerable honour to congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Suttie. She is a proud daughter of Hawick, a historic town, which I know. She has told us of her experience of international development and human rights, especially in Russia and eastern Europe. I know that she has spent many years in Westminster and has gathered that kind of political experience, not least in managing two senior Liberal Democrat politicians, including the Deputy Prime Minister. That must be a test of endurance. We look forward to hearing her many times in future.

I also have the exhortation of the new noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy, ringing in my ears—that we know we can all do more. That will take a lot of living up to, because human rights is an essential issue in foreign affairs. My noble friend Lord Alton has raised it with a skill nurtured over many years in Westminster, and he has given me and others a lot of encouragement. I have joined him often in debates, especially on Sudan, where human rights violations continue daily. He mentioned the Nuba mountains and the bombing there, and I agree with him about strengthening the ICC. But today I shall be in Asia, for a change.

The Commonwealth summit, or CHOGM, has again tested the nerves of diplomats all over the world in the past week, which is largely down to our own Prime Minister and the initiative that he has taken. I have seen the Channel 4 documentary; there can be little doubt of the shelling and abuses of human rights against fleeing Tamils in the last stages of the civil war. President Rajapaksa has a hard shell but, with India and Canada keeping away, he has received a strong message of disapproval. I am sure that the UK was correct to stay with the Commonwealth meeting and influence it from within. At the same time, we must not forget the atrocities of the Tamil Tigers during the war; nor can we ignore the strength of feeling on both sides.

There comes a point where outsiders without such recent experience cannot really fathom the depth of prejudice and discrimination that continues beneath the surface, long after the world has turned away. I am thinking of the EU candidate countries mentioned by the noble Baroness, Lady Suttie, in the Balkans, where the European External Action Service is still pushing through its hardest tests of good government, not always with success, against the relatively recent background of ethnic genocide. Politicians cannot behave like leaders of human rights NGOs, whose stamina we all applaud. Political parties have to be selective; picking from what my noble friend called an à la carte menu, they turn continually to other subjects, and for this reason are always open to charges of hypocrisy.

We can learn a lot from our recent debate on China—another Conservative initiative, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Dobbs. His understandable concern was with our business and trade with China, and whether our relationship would be affected by too much emphasis on human rights, such as our preoccupation with Tibet and China’s attitude to the Uighurs in Xinjiang province, where the conflict has been no less violent. The noble Lord, Lord Goodlad, said in that debate that,

“it is perfectly possible … to exert quiet and helpful influence, to encourage moves towards greater openness while avoiding explicit criticism or confrontation … not through lecturing or preaching but through the sharing of best practice with partners representing a very ancient civilisation”.—[Official Report, 7/11/13; col. 349.]

That seems to sum things up very well.

The Dalai Lama told a journalist recently that trust develops gradually, even with an animal,

“if you show genuine affection”,

but that if you are,

“always showing bad face and beating, how can you develop friendship?”.

The same might be said of many other situations in which we have to do business with tyrants or bring humanitarian aid to victims of brutality.

In Nepal there are unresolved human rights cases left over from the 10-year civil war—more than half of them at the hands of the army or the state. According to the agency INSEC, more than 3,500 violations took place in one year alone, 2012, including much violence against women, but there has been no single prosecution in the seven years since the end of the conflict, owing to the political turmoil. This is why I am particularly asking the Minister if she will make every effort to encourage Nepal to re-establish the independent human rights commission, which has never been quite independent and needs more support from outside. This is where I fundamentally disagree with the noble Lord, Lord Tebbit, who seems to think that every country can fend for itself. We must reassert the international solidarity that is so important in these situations.

Human rights in the Commonwealth and elsewhere will elude us as long as governance, the rule of law and other principles of democracy remain unaddressed. We have to keep banging the drum and not get too frustrated when no one listens.

13:03

[The Lord Bishop of Wakefield]

My Lords, I, too, am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Alton, for securing this debate. It follows on very helpfully from a short debate that I secured two weeks ago on the situation with regard to religious freedom following the events of the Arab spring.

The all-party parliamentary group’s recent report on international religious freedom, Article 18: An Orphaned Right, to which a number of us in this Chamber contributed, accurately shows that over the past decade every region in the world has seen marked declines with regard to religious freedom. Christians in Egypt and Syria, Baha’is in Iran, Shi’ite Muslims in Indonesia, and Sunni Muslims in Thailand and Burma face serious threats to their viability and even survival. We have heard other examples today, including comments by the noble Lord, Lord Patten, on the situation in Turkey.

If freedom of religion and belief is a primary barometer of the social health of a nation, the palpable decline in recent years in respect of this most fundamental right suggests a worrying state of affairs regarding the health of the global common good. Despite this trend, Governments the world over—ours included, I fear—still assign it too low a priority than the scale of the crisis at present requires.

Part of this reluctance, I imagine, is that Governments and opinion-makers are hesitant, perhaps even reluctant, to acknowledge the connection between levels of religious freedom and the basic health and well-being of societies. This is not about protecting the rights of one religious community over another but about providing for the human flourishing of all, irrespective of whether they have a religious belief—as was hinted at by the noble Lord, Lord Alton. It is about being confident of one’s core values in our society, so that a variety of different communities may prosper.

Like other noble Lords, I applaud the Minister, the noble Baroness, Lady Warsi, for the careful attention she has devoted to this issue. I noted in an earlier debate that she is a near neighbour to me in Wakefield; there is solidarity in West Yorkshire. Her speech last week to the Council of Foreign Relations in Washington DC was but the latest example of the forthright engagement that we have come to expect from her.

It is of course true that a great deal of work is being done in relation to freedom of religion and belief. However, this work is not necessarily focused on ensuring that everyone is able to exercise that right in peace and security. So the question, it seems to me, is how we move on from the essentially negative strategies that have been rooted in combating discrimination, intolerance, hate speech and incitement. Of course these things are important, but they work only once there is a clear commitment to the underlying value of the freedom of religion or belief. Core values need to be supported by proactive policies. Other noble Lords have hinted at such policies; indeed, the noble Earl, Lord Sandwich, talked about the independent human rights commission. Is it not now time for the Government to shift their attention to a more positive approach to religious freedom and to recognise the wider societal benefits that it brings?

How might this be achieved? Some suggestions have already been put forward during this debate. Certainly the appointment of an ambassador at large or a special representative for religious freedom would help enhance the voice of the UK as the champion of an inclusive approach to freedom of religion or belief. A number of us have been pressing for this recently.

The head of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office’s human rights and democracy department is indeed an impressive figure. However, the incumbent of that post on her own is unable to give this matter the attention it rightly deserves because of competing priorities and pressures on her department’s time. We need to look again at strengthening the machinery of government in this area. It is to be hoped that when the Foreign Affairs Select Committee looks at its work programme for the next year, it will take upon itself the task of examining this issue with its usual forensic attention. I have been assured in a letter by the committee’s chair that this will be taken into account.

In concluding, I note only that unless we are prepared to give this issue the urgent attention it requires, we cannot be surprised if respect for religious freedom continues to decline markedly. The existing strategy across our world is not working, and it is time to think again.

13:08

[Baroness Berridge (Con)]

My Lords, I, too, am grateful to the noble Lord for securing today’s debate, particularly as I chair the All-Party Parliamentary Group on International Religious Freedom or Belief. We specifically added “or Belief” when the British Humanist Association became one of the stakeholders. The issue has for too long been viewed as global identity politics. Christians seemingly speak up only when Christians are persecuted, Sikhs for Sikhs, and Baha’is for Baha’is, and this has contributed to Article 18 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights not being treated as a universal human right. The issue needs careful nuance and although some commentators, especially some on the centre right, want neat analyses, the following cursory around-the-world tour reveals that to be too simplistic.

On 28 August 2013 in the southern Iranian city of Bandar Abbas, Mr Ataollah Rezvani, a well known Baha’i, was murdered. He had come under pressure from agents of the ministry of intelligence who were intimidating him. On 17 November at around 9.30 in the morning, Pastor Zhang Xiaojie, who leads the Nanle county Christian church, a Three-Self state sanctioned church in China, was detained. Currently the pastor and 20 other members of the church are still being detained without arrest or charge. As has already been mentioned, Alexander Aan, an atheist, is in prison in Indonesia. Interestingly, Papua New Guinea has recently launched a consultation to prohibit non-Christian worship. If you are a Hindu in Pakistan, the law does not allow you to marry. Also, in November 2012, Ummad Farooq, whose father is president of the Ahmadiyya Muslims in his local community, was shot in head. Ummad is being treated in Birmingham and I am proud to say that he is claiming asylum here in the United Kingdom.

In Colombia, two pastors were killed in 2012 and about 300 indigenous Christians were displaced from their homes. Pagan indigenous populations receive material support from paramilitary organisations to organise the persecution of local Christians. The Rohingya Muslims in Burma, Shia Muslims in Saudi Arabia, the Coptic Christians in Egypt and, of course, all followers of whatever religion or belief in North Korea are being persecuted. However, not all persecution is far from our shores as anti-Semitism and attacks on Jews and Jewish places of worship have re-emerged in Europe, particularly in Hungary and Greece.

All the studies point to a simple fact: the persecution of people of faith or no faith on the basis of their belief is rapidly increasing. I warmly congratulate the Government on the fact that this is a human rights priority for them, but given the trend I have just outlined, does it not merit its own sub-group of the Human Rights Advisory Group? Most if not all of the other priorities do so. Moreover, does it not justify more than a part-time, unpaid special rapporteur as its main resource at the international level? The Prime Minister is to visit China next month, so will Her Majesty’s Government raise the case I have outlined, as well as the plight of Falun Gong followers who are tortured and imprisoned for their belief?

I was heartened to read in the Minister’s recent speech delivered at Georgetown University in America the assertion of the freedom to change one’s religion. This is the reason the APPG’s first report focused on Article 18 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights in 1948 as it is the international instrument that states this unambiguously. Globalisation and the internet on smartphones means increasing exposure to different beliefs around the world. While traditionally where you were born and the community you were from perhaps dictated what you believed, individuals are increasingly able to make such decisions for themselves. There is a global trend of religious conversion and the emergence of new religious movements. This positive empowerment is, however, often met by harsh responses from many Governments around the world. For instance, as other noble Lords have mentioned, while diplomatic developments with Iran are promising, dozens of Muslims who have become Christians, along with Baha’is who are seen as apostates, remain in prison because of their faith. Can my noble friend please comment on our policy towards religious freedom in Iran?

A truly worrying example in this context are the recent reports that the Arab League is developing a regional blasphemy law that will criminalise any expression of opinion that is deemed a blasphemy, even when such opinions are expressed outside the jurisdiction of a particular country. If such a proposal ultimately is put into law by Arab League states, it will be in full breach of international human rights standards. Have Her Majesty’s Government made representations to the United Nations and the Arab league on this proposed blasphemy law?

I hope that protecting the freedom to convert will be on the agenda of the January summit on Article 18 that my noble friend is planning. The United Kingdom should be at the forefront of preserving the freedoms that have been opened up to this Twitter generation.

13:13

[Lord Mendelsohn (Lab)]

My Lords, I congratulate and pay tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Alton of Liverpool, for securing this debate. The noble Lord is well known for his commitment to these issues and I can recall listening, in the late 1980s, to a passionate defence of the rights of Jews being persecuted in the Soviet Union that was made by the noble Lord. Today, I possess a great sense of gratitude for the warm welcome that I have received from all sides of the House. I have been truly struck by the sincerity and good will of all. I would also like to thank the staff of the House for their unfailing courtesy and useful advice. Their help is hugely appreciated. I am also grateful to my noble friends Lord Levy and Lord Janner of Braunstone, who supported me at my Introduction. Together with my mentor, my noble friend Lord Mitchell, they embody the best of this Chamber. I am sure that I will learn more from them and, indeed, from the whole House than I will ever be able to contribute. This is also a very special debate as I find myself in the company of good friends and colleagues who have made really outstanding maiden speeches.

I grew up with friends and family scarred by and in the shadow of the Holocaust. I appreciated the universal lessons that were drawn from those terrible events. Also around that time we saw the rise of the Khmer Rouge and the establishment and operation of the murderous and brutal regime known as Democratic Kampuchea. As a young school pupil, I remember participating in the work of a TV appeal to bring relief to the Cambodian people. These events have had a lasting impact on me, and in many ways they have guided my life. The events of the Holocaust and the end of the Second World War gave rise, of course, to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

International systems, conventions, treaties and courts may not be perfect, but it is essential that they exist rather than not. I congratulate the Government on their successful election to the Human Rights Council. This reminds us how broad the role is that Government can play, and in this regard I would like to make a few suggestions and offer some thoughts on what the Government can consider. First, we need to remind ourselves that our work defending, protecting and advocating human rights protects not only those who face the denial of those rights, but also our own way of life. This is a dangerous period and the erosion of human rights can be an early sign of a broader attack on liberty. If our role in the world is to stand for anything, it is not just about adhering to the universal declaration, it is surely to protect our liberal values and way of life and extending the same rights and freedoms to others. We should do this by making the world more stable, increasing economic inclusion, making government outcomes more fair, less corrupt and more effective, and giving more people a stake in successful democracies. We should cement all of that in place through stable, equitable free trade and a growing economic interdependence that binds us together.

Secondly, this is a vast task with many actors. Human rights and democracy are frequently challenged. They are still very young in most countries and under pressure, particularly where education and the checks on elected Governments and corruption are weak, as well as where there is little appreciation that violence and discrimination against women is perhaps the greatest bar to a nation’s progress. Human rights must be part of a long-term strategy across a range of government departments, international institutions, parliamentary initiatives and an active, thriving international NGO and civil society sector.

The Government are well placed to achieve a lot and their influence depends on the level of international engagement. I am encouraged by the work of this and many previous Governments to extend our reach, and I add my support to these efforts. But I would encourage the Government to look more closely at whether we are using all the tools we have as effectively as possible. Surely it is worth considering whether development aid can do more to support a strategy of long-term political development as part of a wider strategy across government departments.

My final point is this. We need to address the economic dimensions that influence the attainment of human rights. There is a need to understand that the factors which curb human rights go beyond the traditional notions of corrupt regimes—rather, it is the fact that terribly uneven societies endure and the extractive capabilities of nations continue to be plundered while the prosperity and well-being of their citizens are ignored that causes great forms of repression. Creating the right market conditions, promoting growth, values and responsibility in the private sector is certainly part of it, but there is some merit in the argument that we should be vigilant. We must try to ensure that we do not allow societies to reach the tipping point where a population feels that the diminution of their and their children’s long-term economic prospects and a fundamental lack of hope adds to instability and conflict and a further erosion of their human rights.

I thank all noble Lords once again for the warmest of welcomes.

13:18

[Baroness Howells of St Davids (Lab)]

My Lords, I feel privileged to follow my noble friend Lord Mendelsohn. I read that when he was introduced into the House, he said, “If, over my service, I can make even a fraction of the contribution to public life of my introducers, I will achieve a great deal”. My noble friend has a long history of working towards justice, both in the UK and in the Middle East. He is deeply involved in, and dedicated to, his work in the north London Jewish community. After today’s excellent, enlightened and thought-provoking maiden speech, I am sure that his presence in this House will be greatly appreciated. The presence of my noble friend Lord Mendelsohn on our Benches along with my noble friend Lord Bach will be music to the ears of all sides of the House. I am sure they will bring great harmony.

I, too, congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Alton, on giving us the opportunity to speak on this issue, which has been so pertinent to our values and is the foundation on which the principles of our Commonwealth are built. Following the Prime Minister’s visit to Sri Lanka, there cannot be a more appropriate time for this House to deliberate on how these values and principles translate into action beyond our immediate environment, into the Commonwealth and extending into the international domain.

As has been said, during the UK’s successful bid to join the UN Human Rights Council, a point of collaboration was made. We all agree that collaboration and international unity are paramount to how the Government are able to respond to violations of human rights. The point committed our Government to working more effectively with international partners and emphasised constructive association with both Commonwealth and EU partners to share best practice and expertise. With this newly acquired position, we furthered our ability. I need not point out to this House that with ability comes obligation.

The Government have made reference to the steps they have taken to promote human rights in Sri Lanka, through bilateral and supranational funding and through sharing experiences and expertise. My concerns are twofold and I would like to hear the Minister’s response on the following points. What efforts are being extended to other Commonwealth countries, and how do the Government intend to utilise the merits of the Commonwealth charter to promote human rights internationally? Further to that, as the Government are keen to replace the Human Rights Act 1998, what assessment, if any, have they made of their proposed British Bill of Rights and how it would compromise our own ambitions to work internationally?

I will not delay the House any longer, as most of the questions that I want to raise will come up later.

13:23

[Lord Hastings of Scarisbrick (CB)]

My Lords, we are all immensely grateful to my noble friend Lord Alton not only for introducing this debate but for his long persistence and faithfulness on these issues over, one dares to say, a generation. I am very grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Mendelsohn, for introducing in his excellent maiden speech the responsibilities of business and the corporate sector. I want to focus on that in some of my remarks.

We are all conscious of the UN human rights responsibilities as they were laid out in the 1940s, but they were updated in 2011 by the guiding principles on the responsibilities of business. The new principles and burdens which fall on business, in essence, oblige businesses to sign up to the Human Rights Council guiding principles. They require organisations such as my own, KPMG, to:

“Avoid causing or contributing to adverse human rights impacts through their own activities, and address such impacts when they occur”—

and—

“Seek to prevent or mitigate adverse human rights impacts that are directly linked to their operations, products or services”.

This is a golden opportunity to bring the corporate sector into line with the responsibilities of public authorities. It is a chance for corporations, which have long held in private their own concerns about whether they have witnessed, for example, trafficking of individuals, unfair discrimination or employment procedures in other companies that were unacceptable, to take a stand alongside public duties.

On 16 October, there was an interesting report in the Guardian on a new assessment survey rating called “Tomorrow’s Value Rating”, set up by an organisation that seeks to assess the way in which companies are living up to the guiding principles on business and human rights. It found some interesting points of note. For example, although a vast majority of companies, such as my own, are signatories to the UN Global Compact, only a third of those that said they were devoted to human rights had a policy in place or a mechanism for measurement. It also found that in the oil and gas sector only three of the 10 companies covered had a stand-alone human rights policy and that management of human rights often appears to be reactive rather than proactive.

One does not want unduly to punish companies that are in the early stages of assessing their human rights responsibilities, but this is a chance not just for a debate in this House but to look at the way in which the Government think about future legislation for the UK alongside our partner countries, to set a tone of expectation in the corporate world as well as in the political sphere. In 2013, a long list of obligations relating to the principles of human rights for companies was set out by the Institute for Business and Human Rights in the UK. Point 6 of its 10 points of emphasis is titled:

“Renewing efforts to protect lives in the work-place”.

I want to draw attention to a specific example with a positive outcome, and I hope that we will see companies acting in this way in future.

None of us will forget the events in April surrounding the collapse of a building in Rana Plaza in Bangladesh. We will all recall the loss of life—1,200 individuals—the maiming, in particular, of many women and the loss of livelihoods. However, I am immensely grateful to be able to report to this House and for the benefit of public understanding that many of the companies involved, including ABF—Associated British Foods—the owner of Primark, decided that they would take their responsibilities immensely seriously. They would not only pay out for those who had lost livelihoods but stand together to take a responsible position on building requirements, regulations and standards for the future. Not only was this a dreadful affair that saw the unjust loss of multitudes of lives but it has been a golden opportunity for corporations to take their duties seriously. I am very grateful for the leadership of George Weston, the chief executive of ABF, and for his stand in its annual report, published on 5 November.

In conclusion, we have an opportunity in the corporate sector as new markets increasingly emerge where many of the pressure points that my noble friend Lord Alton and others have mentioned are brought to bear. If we can bring about a process for better common working practices between corporations and public authorities, we could see companies taking a greater lead in preventing human rights abuses.

13:27

[Lord Anderson of Swansea (Lab)]

My Lords, I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Alton, who I much admire, on his commitment and his courage, often in joint harness with the noble Baroness, Lady Cox. I will make three brief points.

First, I recall in the early 1980s going to a south Asian country and saying to our ambassador, “What are you doing about human rights?”. His answer was, “Oh, that’s a job for my first secretary”. That would no longer be allowed. Indeed, there has been an immeasurable improvement in the overseas department’s links and attitude to human rights. I think, for example, of changes in the structure of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, with the human rights and democracy department; the human rights report, which, happily, came from a recommendation of the Foreign Affairs Select Committee, which I chaired at that time, which has certainly been refined and improved; the human rights and democracy programme; and also the much improved links with non-governmental organisations.

My second point is about the interlink between the domestic and the foreign. I recall the former Foreign Minister of Australia, Senator Gareth Evans, saying, “How can we Australians be taken seriously on human rights representations abroad if we maltreat our Aborigines”—being Australian, he actually said “Abos”—“at home”. That shows that there is a linkage between what we do at home and the strength of our representations abroad. That obviously relates to our immigration policy, our counterterrorism policy and our attitudes to Islamophobia and anti-Semitism.

Looking at our international organisations, I am delighted that we are now on the Human Rights Council, which is an enormous improvement on its predecessor, the United Nations Commission on Human Rights, which could reach agreement only on attacks on Israel. I look forward to reports during our two-year tenure, starting in January. I think also of the Commonwealth and the Council of Europe, included in the second priority in the 2012 human rights report.

On the Commonwealth, of course we think of CHOGM and whether or not the Prime Minister should have attended the Sri Lankan summit. Yes, there is a time for engagement but I am troubled by the question of cui bono—who actually benefited most from the Prime Minister’s attendance? I fear that the answer may well be the President of Sri Lanka. The Commonwealth charter is a magnificent document but in practice, if one looks at the 60% of Commonwealth countries that still have capital punishment and attitudes towards the criminalisation of homosexuality, there is much work for our Government to do in persuading our Commonwealth colleagues of the importance of human rights.

On the Council of Europe, there is a danger of the Government making a major error in defying the European Court of Human Rights in respect of prisoners’ rights. I do not talk about the subject of the question but the danger of defiance. The Prime Minister unwisely said that,

“no one should be in any doubt: prisoners are not getting the vote under this Government”.—[Official Report, Commons, 24/10/12; col. 923.]

I saw the embarrassment of the Attorney-General when he appeared before the Joint Committee earlier this month. It would be a disastrous precedent in respect of Russia, Turkey and other defaulters, if we—pioneers of the system in the Council of Europe—were to defy it. There is a way out. Clearly the court will grant a wide margin of appreciation. It is insisting only that there is no blanket ban.

Finally, there has to be a balance in any matter of human rights. Sometimes it is best to do things in a low voice and behind the scenes. I was a member of the human rights mission to China that was led extremely ably by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Howe of Aberavon, in which we were effective because we made quiet representations to the Chinese authorities. I concede also that there is a temptation to be strong on the weak and weak on the strong.

Of the six FCO priorities, freedom of religion is key. This has been the leitmotif of so many speeches in this debate. It is very important indeed that the Government consider seriously the recommendation of the excellent report of the noble Baroness, Lady Berridge, and others, Article 18: An Orphaned Right, which includes the right to change one’s religion, which was omitted from the final communiqué of CHOGM—I wonder why. The Government should look carefully at the case for a special envoy or ambassador and I hope that they will come back with a positive response to that.

13:32

[Baroness Cox (CB)]

My Lords, I warmly congratulate my noble friend Lord Alton on his tenacious commitment to justice and the protection of human rights. From a vast array of concerns, I will focus today on Burma and Nigeria.

The widely celebrated reforms in Burma are welcome but while western political leaders, investors and aid agencies flock to Rangoon, many ethnic national peoples suffer military offensives, gross violations of human rights by the Burmese army and exploitation of their natural resources by the Burmese Government.

The Muslim Rohingya people suffer systematic oppression, with 140,000 forced to live in dire conditions in camps in Rakhine state and thousands more forced to flee to Bangladesh or in precarious boats to other countries. Human Rights Watch describes the situation as “ethnic cleansing”. Will Her Majesty’s Government support calls for an independent international inquiry into war crimes and crimes against humanity?

My small NGO, HART, works with partners in Shan, Kachin, Karen and Karenni states. We have visited them to witness the plight of their people, which has not been reported by the media. In Kachin and Shan states, the Burmese army continues military offensives, driving hundreds of thousands of civilians to camps for the displaced. We have seen their destitution and heard heartbreaking stories of atrocities perpetrated by the army, including the recent rape of girls aged eight and 15.

Land confiscation and environmental degradation from investment projects are increasing, as in northern Shan state, with China’s oil and gas pipelines. Indeed, people in Shan state are asking what sort of peace this is, when they are losing more and more of their lands and livelihoods.

In Karen state, the cessation of fighting is welcome, but the ceasefire allows the Burmese army to build more, larger camps along the Salween river and the Burmese Government to exploit, destroy or confiscate natural resources, with no compensation. Human rights violations by the Burmese army, including sexual violence against women, continue with impunity.

Burma’s ethnic national peoples share many concerns; for example, that the 2008 constitution, which does not recognise the rights of ethnic national peoples or allow for the development of a federal union, will become the accepted political road map for Burma, and that ethnic national people, who retain their armies for protection from Burmese military aggression, will be seen as rebel groups with rebel armies.

Their situation is best expressed in the words of their own local leaders. I quote a leader of the Shan people:

“The Burmese Government has conceded just enough credibility to achieve everything it wants from the international community: investment, aid and hosting international events”.

A senior officer in the Shan state army said:

“When the lights went on in Rangoon, everyone rushed there—and nobody stopped to visit us in the darkness”.

A healthcare worker helping displaced people in the jungles of Karen and Karenni states said:

“They are playing a game like Chess: take one piece at a time. While they sign a ceasefire with the Karen, they launch major offensives in Kachin State. They wear a beautiful mask, but the original face, which is brutal, is hidden”.

Will Her Majesty’s Government make much stronger representations to the Burmese Government to desist immediately from military offensives against civilians in Kachin and Shan states; to increase humanitarian assistance to displaced people in Kachin, Shan and Rakhine states and allow unhindered access for international aid and human rights organisations; to call the Burmese army to account for violations of human rights, including murder, torture and rape; to ensure that concessions granted to the Burmese Government in recognition of recent reforms do not promote exploitative investment; and to allow ethnic national people to participate in discussions and agreements concerning the extraction of resources from their own lands—and the future of Burma?

I turn very briefly to the disturbing situation in Nigeria’s northern and central belt regions. The escalation of violence in the past two years by the Islamist Boko Haram movement follows two decades of violence in which thousands of Christians have been killed and hundreds of churches destroyed. Although Christian communities may have resorted to self-defence, the instigation of violence has been consistently asymmetrical, and now Boko Haram has stated its commitment to drive all Christians out of northern Nigeria.

We work with partners in Plateau, Kano and Bauchi states. These states are generally not visited, for security reasons—which is why we have gone there—and we have seen the suffering of local communities, as well as initiatives by local leaders, such as the Anglican Archbishop of Jos, Benjamin Kwashi, and the Anglican Bishop of Bauchi, to promote reconciliation between the different faith communities. Given Boko Haram’s escalating violence against Christians and its equally brutal killings of Muslims who do not support it, will Her Majesty’s Government do more to support these initiatives, in addition to the already well supported programmes in Kaduna state?

I conclude by expressing gratitude for the opportunity to highlight situations that we encounter working with victims of oppression, who are often trapped behind closed borders or off the radar screen for security reasons. I hope that the Minister will be able to give some reassurance to some of these hidden victims of violations of human rights in our world today.

13:38

[Lord Clarke of Hampstead (Lab)]

My Lords, I join other noble Lords in thanking the noble Lord, Lord Alton, for giving us the opportunity to have this timely and important debate. I also thank him for his tireless efforts, in this House and outside, to expose the persecution and ill treatment of people. My comments could apply equally to the noble Baroness, Lady Cox. They are an example of why this House exists and why we have to take an interest in other people’s affairs.

This debate is timely because there are currently seven people on a hunger strike here in London. A group of very brave people are calling for the release of seven hostages taken by Iraqi forces at the behest of the mullahs in Tehran. Many Members of this House will be aware of the hostage situation in Iraq. The tragedy of the hostage-taking is quite easily traced back to the evil regime in Tehran. This House is indebted to the persistence and determination our colleague, the noble Lord, Lord Maginnis, who cannot be with us today but who keeps members aware of what is happening to those seven hostages. His efforts are in stark contrast to those of our own Government, who appear to be quite laid back about latest outrage and abuse of human rights in Iran.

Earlier this month, I had the privilege of attending a meeting in this House on the human rights situation in North Korea—another meeting arranged by the noble Lord, Lord Alton. We heard from Mr Michael Kirby, the chairman of the United Nations Commission on Human Rights. We heard a report on the situation in North Korea. My remarks today will concentrate on the dreadful situation in Iran, but at the meeting on North Korea I heard a quote from a Mr Dietrich Bonhoeffer. Many of you will know of Dietrich Bonheoffer; I did not—I put that down to my obvious lack of education. The quote stuck in my mind; I wrote it down straightaway. Mr Bonheoffer said:

“Silence in the face of evil is itself evil”.

I must confess that I did not know anything about him, but now I know much more. He was hung by the Nazis just 23 days before the German surrender. I am confident that that brave Lutheran pastor, who opposed the Nazis, would be with us in this debate today, not being silent but speaking out about what is going on.

While we remain silent, the evil regime in Tehran and the hearts of those wicked people grow stronger. It is almost 30 years since I first became involved in protests about human rights abuses in Iran. Over the three decades, I have seen evidence of the torture wrought upon innocent people: gouging of eyes, lashings and stoning of women. Many other things have gone on that are too evil to talk about, but in my locker in this House I have the video evidence of how those wicked people have treated their own people.

I think of those poor people of Ashraf camp, where they put loudspeakers right the way round, bombarding them 24 hours a day and driving them mad with the incessant noise. In recent years, we have seen unprovoked attacks on the residents of Ashraf. On 1 December, 52 people were killed—52 lives extinguished by these wicked people. Those victims had been promised protected person status when the Americans and British left Iraq. Our Government promised that we would look after those people in Ashraf, but they quickly abandoned all attempts to give them some guarantee of freedom. All they get is ever more pressure, ever more torture and ever more violence against them.

I also recall with great sadness the murder of Faezeh Rajabi. Faezeh was a 19 year-old girl who communicated with us by a telephone link, and I had the pleasure of talking to her. She died among her friends in the massacre of 8 April 2011. I also think about the 16 year-old girl who appeared in court having been raped and assaulted by a man. The judge said to her, “You’re responsible for this immorality”. She had the temerity to argue with the judge and he ordered, “Take her out” and she was hung. She was a 16 year-old girl. When people talk about the “moderate” Mr Rouhani, I would suggest that if you are going to parley with him, you should take a very long spoon. There is not time to tell this House about his pedigree, but I recommend that all those who want to know what this so-called moderate is all about should read about him. I deplore him and the people he represents. Maybe we should remember those voices that are silent now, of Lord Corbett, of Lord Slynn, of Lord King of West Bromwich and Lord Archer of Sandwell. They called over the years for our Government to do something stronger about what is going on Iran and I echo their sentiments today.

00:00

[Lord Cormack (Con)]

My Lords, it is always a pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Clarke of Hampstead. I pay my tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Alton, who has been an indefatigable campaigner. He gave a very fine keynote speech today and it is a privilege to take part in this debate. It is a privilege also to follow four very distinguished, and I might say distinguishable, maiden speakers, each one of whom brought a particular quality to our deliberations.

In a brief debate, I want to highlight one or two things. First, we must always be persistent—the noble Lord, Lord Clarke, did right to quote the great Dietrich Bonhoeffer. I think back to those in our own country who struggled for what we now take for granted but what, as the noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy, pointed out, is certainly not taken for granted in many parts of the world. I think of Wilberforce and his campaign against slavery, and Shaftesbury, who rescued children. We have a great deal to be proud of—which does not mean that we have great deal to be complacent about. We must also remember that persistence pays off.

I want to relate two, very brief stories to the House from my own experience. I do it in the light of the comments of the noble Baroness, Lady Suttie, who talked about Russia as it is today—and certainly there is a great deal of imperfection. When I came into Parliament some 43 years ago, I immediately became a great friend of the noble Lord, Lord Janner. We decided to form a campaign for the release of Soviet Jewry. He thought that it was right that I should chair it, as a Christian, and he was a very tireless secretary. I am sorry that he is not in his place at the moment, because I pay tribute to him. At that time, it was impossible to get a visa to go to Moscow to argue our case. It was impossible to get religious books accepted in the Soviet Union. I remember we sent one, signed by all the party leaders, to a dissident called Slepak’s son for his bar mitzvah. It was sent back. Twenty years later, as a member of an international commission on human rights, I took part in an epiphany service in the Kremlin in a place where the leaders of the Soviet bloc countries had gone in the past and Christian worship would never have been permitted. At that service, handed to Mr Gorbachev’s special representative and chef de cabinet, Andrei Grachev, was a volume of the Scriptures which was symbolic of a million Bibles being accepted into the Soviet Union. That was true progress.

I relate just one other incident. Two years later, in 1972-73, we were in Vienna receiving some who had come out and been given visas. There was one young lady who spoke the most perfect English. I joked with her and said, “You must have been top of all your classes” and she said, “Well, actually, I was, until the day after my parents were granted the visa, when I was summoned to the vice-chancellor’s office and told that I had been the victim of a mistake and I had failed everything”. Thirty-one years later, I stood in that vice-chancellor’s or chancellor’s office in the University of Tartu in Estonia, a country by then a member of the European Community and of NATO, and rejoiced at the freedoms that had come.

I tell these two very brief stories merely to illustrate that persistence can and does pay off. It is important that we maintain dialogue—the noble Lord, Lord Alton, referred to the Helsinki accords. It is important that we keep contact with those countries whose regimes we deplore, and it is important that we deplore them publicly so that there is pressure on the leaders of those countries to make them realise that they are not acting in isolation but are being looked at, and that their words and deeds are being monitored. Let us remember that in almost every country of which we are talking, be it Pakistan, Nigeria or Iran, a vast majority of ordinary, decent people are desperate to have the freedoms which we enjoy and which my noble friend Lord Finkelstein spoke so movingly about earlier in this debate. If we are going to be able to ensure that human rights really are universal, we must keep up both the public and the private pressure.

13:49

[Lord Hannay of Chiswick (CB)]

My Lords, the debate we are having today on human rights violations and the Government’s response to them is of critical importance to our relations with a whole range of countries where those abuses have taken, or are taking, place. These are not simple judgments to make and the noble Lord, Lord Alton, who has done much to shine a spotlight of publicity on so many such countries, most particularly North Korea, deserves credit for insisting that we examine the dilemmas posed to our foreign policy.

It is easy enough to caricature the two extremes: a foreign policy based solely on realpolitik, aimed at securing the national interest as narrowly defined; and, on the other hand, what has been called an ethical foreign policy where human rights considerations override all others. However, it is also easy to dismiss either of those extremes. The real dilemmas are to be found in the foreign policy choices that lie between those two extremes, and they have to take account of the separate circumstances of individual countries. There is no single template for policy which can be applied worldwide.

This week the spotlight is very much on Sri Lanka, where the Commonwealth Heads of Government have been meeting, where massive abuses of human rights by both sides took place during the final phases of the civil war, and where the UN’s High Commissioner for Human Rights recently discerned a drift towards authoritarian rule, with pressure on an independent judiciary and free press. I trust that the Minister will give the House some idea of how the President of Sri Lanka responded to the Prime Minister’s representations. Will she also assure us that the Government will not slacken in their advocacy of an independent inquiry into the events at the end of the war? An inquiry is surely going to have to be international if it is to be truly independent. Will we also keep up the pressure on the need for reconciliation and genuinely even-handed treatment of all ethnic and religious groups in that country if the present very welcome peace there is to be consolidated and sustained?

In considering how Britain should respond to human rights abuses, I suggest that one mistake we need to avoid is looking at the issue principally, or even solely, in the context of our bilateral relationship with the country in question. However, Britain’s influence and leverage are unlikely to be decisive nowadays. All too often we have seen how easy it is for the country in question to punish us for our temerity and play us off against other countries which have been less assertive. We saw that over the Chinese reactions to the Prime Minister receiving the Dalai Lama, and the Russians are past masters at that game. A multilateral approach is not just a soft option and makes it more difficult for the country on the receiving end of the pressure or the sanctions to divide and rule. I give a few examples of where it has been very successful: the Commonwealth sporting boycott of apartheid South Africa; the wide-ranging international sanctions on the military regime in Burma; and the pressure the European Union is bringing to bear on Ukraine in the run-up to the Eastern Partnership summit later this month. This surely points to our making maximum use of the multilateral instruments and forums that exist for handling human rights. How effective are those instruments and what sort of shape are they in? As many other speakers have said, the UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights must surely remain the cornerstone of our activity, whether multilateral or bilateral. However, it contains no enforcement machinery and the UN Human Rights Council, established in 2006, has yet to prove itself fully, although its universal periodic review of every member state’s human rights record is an instrument of real value. We need to do what we can to strengthen the hand of the admirable High Commissioner for Human Rights, Ms Pillay, who visited London recently. In that context, I hope that the Minister will say what response the Government gave to Ms Pillay’s plea for an increase in our voluntary contribution to her office’s work to help reverse the recent reduction in resources at her disposal.

Then there is the Council of Europe, the convention and the court of human rights, which is so often intemperately denounced for excessive interference in our affairs. Do those critics ever stop to consider the work the council’s machinery does in a whole range of countries whose human rights record is well short of perfection? Any action we might take which weakens that machinery would inevitably reduce its effectiveness.

I conclude with a simple thought. The 20th century saw probably the most widespread, dramatic and repugnant abuses of human rights in recorded history. The challenge to us is to ensure that in the 21st century the world turns away decisively from that appalling inheritance and that Britain plays a prominent part in bringing that about.

13:55

[Lord Triesman (Lab)]

My Lords, I echo the congratulations given to the noble Lord, Lord Finkelstein, and the noble Baroness, Lady Suttie, and to my noble friends Lady Kennedy of Cradley and Lord Mendelsohn on their outstanding speeches and look forward to their future contributions. I was intrigued to hear that the noble Lord, Lord Finkelstein, has five guitars at home, as do I. It sounds to me as if we have a basis for at least some sort of discussion.

I thank the noble Lord, Lord Alton, for initiating this debate, which centres on human tragedy and the stance that we should take to it, and for providing the architecture for it: that is, the 1948 universal declaration, and the need to construct foreign policy with Article 18 in mind. Indeed, that was enlarged on by my noble friend Lord Parekh. Her Majesty’s Government—in my view, rightly—have set out their six priorities and their decision to serve on the human rights global machinery. I support these priorities unreservedly, not least because they flow from the voices of victims. These priorities orientate us. However, I hope that we will also explore the contradictions which result from them, as did the noble Lord, Lord Cormack, a few moments ago.

I have a similar objective to that expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Hannay, which includes his point about multilateralism. I will focus on capital punishment as an example of a priority. Our strategy is to oppose the use of the death penalty because we promote human rights and democracy and because there are no circumstances in which we believe that it is appropriate or ethically justified. We want to influence people and dissuade them from using capital punishment, including those with whom we enjoy normal, peaceful diplomatic and trade relations, such as our traditional friends the United States, but also countries such as China or Iran. We are also clear about the imperative of developing relationships with those countries.

Iran, with whom we seek a renewed relationship, not least because we wish to reach an accord on nuclear enrichment and end conflict in Syria, has killed at least 120,000 people judicially and non-judicially since the overthrow of the Shah. It routinely executes minors, and nearly half of those suffering the death penalty are under 30. I congratulate my noble friend Lady Kennedy on her important intervention about children generally; the execution of children is part of that. There have been 59 United Nations General Assembly resolutions and countless reports by the human rights commission but they have had more or less no impact.

I support all that the noble Lord, Lord Alton, said about the murders at Camp Liberty, North Korea, Joseph Kony, and much else. I also support what the noble Baroness, Lady Cox, said about Burma, the analysis of Syria of the noble Baroness, Lady Falkner, and the remarks made by the noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Harries, about the suppression of people because of their caste. The United Kingdom’s priority is clear and right, yet “no relationship with Iran” is a position that it would be difficult to advocate or sustain in the world of real politics. We lobby at a high level, fund human rights and pro-democracy projects and take trenchant positions on all these issues. However, we cease diplomatic relations only exceptionally and unwillingly. That seems sensible and necessary in most circumstances.

The FCO has a priority to prevent torture and, a few moments ago, my noble friend Lord Clarke illustrated what this means in Iran. Again, the ethical priority cannot somehow mean that we cease to deal with states that employ torture, much as it is repugnant to us. That is not out of indifference or cynicism but because we need relationships to address a wide variety of global and regional problems. The noble Earl, Lord Sandwich, spoke of the problem of dealing with tyrants. I can personally say that you may end up talking for days, as I did in Doha, with people whom you would rather see hauled before the International Criminal Court in The Hague, if only you could achieve that outcome.

The FCO also has a priority, which was rightly emphasised by my noble and learned friend Lady Scotland, to end violence against women and girls—a problem which is now frequently a weapon of war, as the noble Baroness, Lady Hollins, so rightly said. We have a detailed policy that repays reading, as will study of what the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Derby has said today. Equally, the noble Lord, Lord Finkelstein, talked about gay people’s rights. We should prioritise all these issues, just as we prioritise the renewal of the push towards democracy. In this case, we apply few tests of whom we will or will not deal with. There is no adequate litmus test available, and even when we hold our noses, we frequently have to prefer to talk.

Like the late Robin Cook, to whom the noble Lord, Lord Patten, also referred today, I ask myself what might guide us in these difficult times and give us a chance to set out a strategy that is neither naive nor bombastic about human rights. What guides the post-Cold War world, a world of multipolarity? There is a great instinct in general to hold nations directly or indirectly accountable for their actions. It is our current trajectory that I want to look at. Do we balance properly the ethical foreign policy that we should adopt, if we can, with the United Kingdom’s national interest and its commitment to human rights? There must be a new disposition between all these.

I conclude that there will never be an unbending standard to judge every circumstance and, equally, that no foreign policy can be humanity blind because it might happen to suit us on a particular day because of a particular commercial interest. If we were to do so it would give full scope to dictators, war criminals, illegal arms dealers and others. It would demand of us only that we looked after our own security and financial profitability. We would have intervened in Libya because it had armed the IRA and not because it was slaughtering its own people. These are the issues that we have to face. We would have turned our backs, in those circumstances, on the 1948 convention.

Does the Minister agree that the core guidelines, which we may need to behave more appropriately now, are perhaps these? First, our foreign policy in these areas should obviously protect our security and that of our allies, while promoting conditions in which we are least likely to be attacked at home or have our people attacked in other parts of the world—and we should do so with our allies in a multilateral way. Secondly, while our choice of means in such circumstances would almost always lead to peaceful means, we must acknowledge circumstances where, for the right and wholly disclosed reasons and with parliamentary consent, wherever possible, we should intervene as a last resort with proportionate steps and reasonable prospects of success. I labour this point because, aside from our own security—the paramount reason—we also have obligations to protect. They are part of our international obligations and often imply preventing, reacting and rebuilding after conflict. I find it hard to conceive of retaining a permanent seat on the United Nations Security Council, as I wish this country to do, if only the United Kingdom’s interests ever determined the judgments that we made.

My noble friend Lady Howells made the point that human rights must be matched by a responsibility to protect; she is absolutely right. I commend my noble friend Lord Mendelsohn and the noble Lord, Lord Hastings, on their comments in this regard. In my final few moments I will commend also the work of the Canadian Government, who have captured this thought. Their international commission on intervention judges the evidence of serious harm, including mass murder and starvation, and whether the state involved is unwilling, unable or opposed to averting such harm. If these conditions hold, the principle of non-intervention yields to the responsibility to protect—something that we should take very seriously. It was close to Robin Cook’s thinking, and I believe that it was close to Tony Blair’s in his speech to the Chicago press club.

In all these cases, what we may need is a realistic checklist that gets us through how we are to deal with despotic, murderous and antidemocratic regimes—regimes for whom war crimes are just a tool that they use from their toolkit—and at the same time oppose the behaviour that they espouse. I commend the Canadian approach as being among perhaps the best architecture that has been designed. It was somewhat lost in the aftermath of 9/11 and it is hardly known or studied in many circles, but it should be. It should also be fully debated and I hope that on some occasion, we may have the opportunity to do so in your Lordships’ House. Let us try to make sure that we are debating the fundamentals of how we proceed alongside the examples of egregious harm.

14:06

[The Senior Minister of State, Department for Communities and Local Government & Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Baroness Warsi) (Con)]

My Lords, first, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Alton, for his tireless efforts to shine a light on the darker corners of humanity. He brings to our attention the plight of those suffering human rights abuses throughout the world, not just today but on a regular basis in your Lordships’ House. Secondly, I take this opportunity to congratulate my noble friend Lady Suttie, the noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy, the noble Lord, Lord Mendelsohn, and my noble friend Lord Finkelstein on their maiden speeches. The noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy of Cradley, mentioned the phrase “Behind every man” but did not complete it. I have a phrase of my own: behind every powerful woman there is usually a man who wakes up in the morning and says, “Darling, where are my socks?”. Given the in-depth knowledge of the area of human rights among the noble Lords who made their maiden speeches today, I very much look forward to hearing more from them on these issues.

This has been a wide-ranging debate and it is almost impossible for me to respond fully in 20 minutes, so I apologise if I do not address all concerns. As always, the interventions were thought-provoking and wide-ranging. It was incredibly interesting to hear from noble Lords such as my noble friend Lord Cormack, who can through his own experience recall changing situations around the world. I am also grateful for the incredibly thoughtful speech of the noble Lord, Lord Triesman, who eloquently detailed the challenges, conflicts, considerations, principles and pragmatisms that all play into our foreign policy—and, of course, human rights as a part of that.

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights underpins what we do but, sadly, it is too often disregarded. We take our place in the international human rights community incredibly seriously. That is why we campaigned most recently for a seat on the UN Human Rights Council. I am delighted to say that we were elected with 171 votes, and I thank the noble Lord, Lord Mendelsohn, for his kind congratulations. As noble Lords know, the Human Rights Council was set up in 2006 and has addressed numerous rights-related situations in countries such as Burma, North Korea, Belarus, Syria, Libya, Sudan, Iran and Sri Lanka, to name a few. The United Nations Human Rights Council also addresses important thematic human rights issues such as freedom of expression, freedom of religion or belief, women’s rights, LGBT rights, and business and human rights.

A number of Human Rights Council resolutions, such as those on Libya, have led to vital action at the UN Security Council. When our term begins in January, we will bring this commitment and ambition, as well as our resources, to support and strengthen the council, and to uphold the independence and effectiveness of the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights—something that we believe is of paramount importance. Of course, we will be working alongside countries whose records on human rights give us cause for concern, too. But with membership comes responsibility and we will not shirk from reminding other states on the Human Rights Council of their responsibilities.

The universal periodic review process has played a critical role in facilitating the wider acceptance of international human rights scrutiny. The success of UPR is a priority for the UK; it is often the first time that a state has had the opportunity to carry out an open, self-critical review of its human rights commitments. The majority of states have engaged constructively, and the UPR looks likely to help facilitate wider acceptance of international human rights standards. It is therefore a crucial tool for implementing our human rights priorities. The UK works hard to ensure that other countries approach the UPR process in a transparent and constructive manner, and it is therefore important to us that we are able to demonstrate having taken the process seriously ourselves. The UK’s own UPR was successfully presented in 2012 by the Ministry of Justice, under the direction of my noble friend Lord McNally.

We have pledged to use the membership of the Human Rights Council to work for the protection of the most vulnerable in our societies, responding actively to global challenges and looking ahead to the future of universal human dignity, and to keep human rights at the core of the UN’s work. We will particularly press forward on the six global thematic priorities that the Government have set. Before I go through them, though, I acknowledge the suggestion from the noble Lord, Lord Finkelstein, of considering LGBT issues as a thematic priority. I will certainly consider that at the time of our review.

We continue to work on our first priority, which is the abolition of the death penalty. We work with the all-party parliamentary group, chaired by the noble Baroness, Lady Stern, to push forward the debate towards abolition in countries that retain the death penalty. We fund practical initiatives, such as training judges and lawyers and modernising penal codes, to reduce the use of the death penalty. We work for an increase in countries voting in favour of the UN’s biennial resolution against the death penalty, which will be run next in 2014. This demonstrates how, over time, the tide of global opinion is turning against the use of the death penalty.

Another priority is on initiatives to prevent torture. We are running a global campaign to encourage states to ratify the UN convention against torture and the optional protocol. The protocol compels states to establish intrusive mechanisms of inspection of places of detection, to shine a light on the treatment of people held by the state. We share the UK’s own experience of implementing the optional protocol through Her Majesty’s Inspectorate of Prisons, and run projects to help states to set up their own systems to end the scourge of torture.

We use our membership of the HRC to push for more states to take action to implement the UN guiding principles on business and human rights—another thematic priority. This specifically references the principle of the effective abolition of child labour, which was referred to by the noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy. The UK has done this through its own action plan, launched in September by the Foreign Office and the Business Secretary. The plan responds to the call for British business to help the principles flourish in every market, in a way that respects human rights and ensures proper remedy for those whose human rights are harmed by business activity. I hope that this is seen as the start of the Government setting the tone on expectations and standards, as outlined by the noble Lord, Lord Hastings.

On the specific issue of child labour, which was raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy, at the Human Rights Council in March this year the UK co-sponsored the resolution on the rights of children, which further calls upon all states to translate into concrete action their commitment to the progressive and effective elimination of child labour, which interferes with a child’s education and is harmful to a child’s health, both physical and mental, and to their moral and social development. The noble Lord, Lord Mendelsohn, was right to reference in his maiden speech that market forces too must work for the benefit of the populations of countries that are rich in resources.

Another priority for the Foreign Office is working to ensure freedom of expression, both online and offline. Freedom of expression underpins democracy and is the gateway to many other rights and freedoms. In a networked world we need to ensure that people everywhere, including those not yet connected to the internet, can enjoy the economic and social benefits of a free, open internet, and can do so safely and securely. This is the vision that the Foreign Secretary set out at the London conference on cyberspace in 2011, which has since been taken forward by conferences in Budapest and Seoul, and which we will further pursue at the conference in 2015 in The Hague.

The noble Baroness, Lady Hollins, detailed harrowing examples of the abuse of women. Women’s rights are another priority—tackling one of the greatest challenges of the century, to ensure that the full social, economic and political participation of women becomes commonplace. We work to end impunity for the use of rape as a weapon of war and for wider violence against women and girls. We share our own experiences in tackling problems that the UK faces, along with many other countries, from how to get women on boards to ensuring that no girl has to endure the trauma of FGM or forced marriage.

I take on board what the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Scotland, said about violence in a domestic situation. The Foreign Secretary, however, has focused his efforts on preventing sexual violence in conflict because he feels that accountability and justice is an area where there is the most glaring lack of political will, and where Governments can make the most difference. The PSVI initiative supports existing and extensive cross-government work on conflict prevention and violence against women and girls. The initiative has made excellent progress in securing great international commitment to tackling sexual violence in conflict. G8 Ministers agreed a historic declaration in April, and in June we secured the first Security Council resolution on this issue in years.

In September at the UN General Assembly, the Foreign Secretary launched the Declaration of Commitment to End Sexual Violence in Conflict, which has so far been endorsed by 135 countries. The political campaigning has been underpinned by practical action that is already starting to take place in Bosnia-Herzegovina, the DRC, Kosovo, Libya and Mali and on the Syrian borders. I commend the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Derby for referring to the White Ribbon project, to which I was able to lend support only yesterday; it is an incredibly important initiative for men to speak out against violence directed at women.

The noble and learned Baroness, Lady Scotland, also spoke about the Istanbul convention. The UK is supportive of the principles underpinning that convention but there remain a number of areas that need further consideration before a final decision can be made on whether to sign—particularly the criminalisation of forced marriage and the extension of extraterritorial jurisdiction to the wide range of offences in scope of the convention. As part of this further consideration, the UK Government launched a consultation in December 2011 on whether to create, for example, a new offence of forced marriage. The Government are considering how these and other issues might be resolved, and will make a statement in due course. Should the final decision be that the UK signs the convention, primary legislation will need to be introduced to make sure that the UK law is compliant.

The noble Baroness, Lady Hollins, raised the issue of the abuse of human rights of disabled members of our society. In 2012 we used our role as host nation of the Paralympic Games to highlight the power of sport to deliver the vision of the UN convention. The UK is proud to have welcomed the highest ever number of participating Paralympic teams at the Games, and disability rights were a core element of our joint communiqué on human rights.

The sixth thematic priority, and a personal priority of mine, is one that was raised by my noble friends Lord Selkirk and Lord Patten and the noble Lord, Lord Singh: the freedom of religion and belief. I shall explain what religious freedom means to me. It means the freedom to have a religion, to believe what one chooses to believe, to manifest those beliefs, to show them outwardly, to share them with others, to change your faith or to not have a faith, and to do so without fear of discrimination, attack or persecution. I echo the words of my noble friend Lady Berridge that we place emphasis on both religion and belief. We work in this area in many ways, including in multilateral organisations—which, as the noble Lord, Lord Hannay, said, is sometimes the most effective way.

Within that, we are committed to working with the United Nations Human Rights Council to implement Resolution 1618. This resolution lays the foundations for combating discrimination against people based on their religion throughout the world. Political consensus is crucial to achieving that. Therefore, in January this year I brought together in London Ministers and senior officials, from the Foreign Minister of Canada to the Foreign Minister of Indonesia and the OIC, to try to take forward a political track to the Istanbul process. A further meeting was held in New York during the UN General Assembly week.

We also engage on this issue through bilateral engagement. I have made freedom of religion a priority in the areas that I have responsibility for, but I also believe that every Minister at the Foreign and Commonwealth Office is and should be an ambassador for religious freedom. We saw that with the Prime Minister in Sri Lanka only days ago. Each and every one of us raises and promotes these issues in the countries for which we have responsibility.

Thirdly, we engage in project work with human rights and faith-based organisations around the world, particularly those that bridge sectarian divides and promote dialogue between religions.

Fourthly, given the key role that faith plays in our global politics today, we are equipping our diplomats with the understanding of the crucial role that religion plays in the world today. We are ensuring that experts on freedom of religion and belief sit on the Foreign Secretary’s Advisory Group on Human Rights. I am planning to hold a conference on freedom of religion and belief next year to bring the many strands of this work together.

The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Wakefield and others suggested the appointment of an ambassador for religious freedom. We keep this constantly under review, but we have also been looking at the experiences of other countries that have done this and we have seen that, disturbingly, these ambassadors are sometimes not given access to the countries, or indeed to individuals at the highest level in those countries, to raise these challenges. Therefore, it is important that we make sure that we work in the most effective way in this area.

I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Anderson of Swansea, that we have greater credibility overseas if our record at home is good—a point made eloquently by the noble Lord, Lord Hannay. The noble Lord, Lord Hannay, asked me specifically about meeting Navi Pillay. I do not have an answer to that but I will certainly write to him with an update.

The noble Earl, Lord Sandwich, and the noble Lords, Lord Parekh, Lord Anderson and Lord Hannay, spoke of CHOGM. There has of course been much debate about the Prime Minister’s decision to go to last week’s Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting in Sri Lanka. I believe that the Prime Minister was right to go. As the noble Lord, Lord Parekh, said, not talking to people is never the answer. By going, the Prime Minister shone a spotlight on the situation there, and he was the first foreign leader to visit the north of the country since 1948. Because of his decision, journalists were granted access that would otherwise have been impossible to gain, and the local people—the families of the missing—were given an international voice.

The PM was bold and blunt in his views. He had a frank and tough meeting with the President, in which he clearly set out the need for Sri Lanka to make further progress in a number of areas, including a credible and transparent independent investigation into allegations of war crimes. If the Sri Lankan Government fail to do this, the UK will fully back an international investigation. The talks also covered a meaningful political settlement with the north, including demilitarisation, and proper implementation of the range of Lessons Learnt and Reconciliation Commission recommendations. However, I accept that more needs to be done, not just in Sri Lanka but to ensure that the principles of the Commonwealth charter are applied by the countries of the Commonwealth.

My noble friend Lady Falkner asked about Syria. We are deeply concerned about recent media reports of mass graves being discovered in Sadad. We have consistently made it clear that those who have committed these and other crimes during the conflict will be held to account. We have trained more than 60 Syrian activists to document human rights violations and abuses to assist in any future accountability process. We have consistently made it clear that those responsible for the most serious international crimes in Syria should be held to account, and we believe that the situation in Syria should be referred to the International Criminal Court. We will continue, publicly and privately, to make the case for ICC referral. We are pushing for a strong resolution on human rights and accountability to be adopted by the UN.

The noble Lord, Lord Alton, and others raised the issue of Camp Liberty. We remain of the view that the Government of Iraq, as a sovereign Government, are responsible for the situation at the camp. We have called on the Government to take all necessary measures to locate missing residents and ensure the safety of the remaining residents at Camp Liberty.

The noble Lord, Lord Alton, also raised the issue of Sudan. We continue to make the case to the Government of Sudan and the international community that we expect compliance with arrest warrants for ICC indictees. We regularly lobby Governments and make public statements to this effect—for example, when President al-Bashir recently travelled to Nigeria.

The noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Harries of Pentregarth, raised concerns relating to discrimination against the Dalit community. DfID has supported the Indian Government’s Education for All scheme, which has helped to bring the number of Dalit children in school proportionately in line with the general population. We have also supported measures in India’s 120 poorest districts to promote empowerment and access to benefits and services for excluded groups. Dalits have been a large part of that.

The noble Baroness, Lady Suttie, gave an incredibly interesting account of her experience in Russia. The promotion and protection of human rights continues to be a key priority in our bilateral relationship with Russia. The UK is unique among EU member states in holding annual bilateral meetings to allow formal discussions about human rights. In addition, we regularly meet human rights defenders and NGOs in Russia, and we fund projects run by Russian NGOs to promote progress in human rights.

The noble Baroness, Lady Howells of St Davids, asked about the European Convention on Human Rights. We have agreed, in the context of the coalition agreement, that the obligations under the European Convention on Human Rights will continue to be enshrined in British law.

The noble Baroness, Lady Cox, asked about Burma. We are lobbying the Burmese Government for further action to address the humanitarian situation. We are providing £4.4 million in humanitarian aid—the largest amount of bilateral aid—for Rakhine state, and we are continuing to support Kachin state. In July, the Secretary of State for International Development announced a further £13.5 million of UK funding. Unfortunately, I shall not be able to address further questions on Burma and Nigeria.

The noble Lord, Lord Clarke of Hampstead, spoke about Iran. The UK will continue to hold Iran to account for human rights abuses. To date, we have designated, under EU sanctions, more than 80 Iranians responsible for human rights violations, and have helped to establish a UN special rapporteur. Last autumn, we lobbied for the support of a UN General Assembly resolution on Iran’s human rights, which was supported by an overwhelming majority. As the Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary said, increasing our bilateral engagement with Iran will enable the UK to have more detailed, regular and direct discussions on human rights.

I end by thanking the noble Lord, Lord Alton, for allowing us to discuss these important issues. Without respect for human rights, security cannot be guaranteed. Without peace and stability, economies will not grow, poverty will endure, the rule of law will crumble and the cycle of poverty, abuse and instability will perpetuate. Preventing this, breaking this cycle and upholding the fundamental rights to which every human is entitled are at the very core of every aspect of our diplomatic engagement, just as I know it is at the core of the work of this House. Once again, I am grateful for the contribution of all noble Lords to this cause.

14:27

[Lord Alton of Liverpool]

My Lords, it was suggested during Question Time today that your Lordships have no business spending time on non-domestic issues. Twenty-six powerful speeches, including the Front-Bench speeches of the noble Baroness, Lady Warsi, and the noble Lord, Lord Triesman, illustrate why this House should spend time on these issues, why it should bring its insightful, intelligent, well informed and wise contributions to these questions, why we have a duty to use the hard-won freedoms gained over 800 years since the promulgation of Magna Carta, and why we should use our liberties and freedoms to speak for the women in the Congo, the dissidents in Iran, the 300,000 in the gulags in North Korea or the 44 young people who were murdered by Boko Haram while sleeping in a dormitory in northern Nigeria.

Anyone who doubts the relevance or purpose of your Lordships’ House should read today’s Hansard. During my time here, I have felt deeply privileged to be able to work with many of your Lordships who have spoken in today’s debate. In four remarkable maiden speeches, we have heard about the oppression of gay people, about Putin’s Russia, about the need for an overarching strategy on human rights and about child labour.

The noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy of Cradley, reminded us that the welcome modern slavery Bill will appear later this year. More than 200 years ago, William Wilberforce and his friends believed that they had abolished slavery. Interestingly, he said, “Now we must turn our attention to the Dalits and the caste system”. These old evils still need to be combated, even as new giants emerge. Perhaps in our generation we might make caste history. Wilberforce, whose biographer is our Foreign Secretary, William Hague, once remarked that, having seen the evidence, “we cannot turn away”. Today, there has been no shortage of evidence and, like Wilberforce, we cannot turn away.

During our debate, we heard mention of the assault on the right to belief. It was mentioned in many speeches, including those of the two right reverend Prelates. I agree with Timothy Shah, who said:

“When people lose their religious freedom, they lose more than their freedom to be religious. They lose their freedom to be human”.

Lest anyone doubts the evidence, let them read the 160-page report that the Foreign and Commonwealth Office publishes every year on human rights violations. If a Select Committee produced that report, there would be a mechanism to debate it. It should be a given that every year we should have a full-scale debate on that annual report in both Houses. It should not be left to the vagaries of a ballot. Given the vast experience in your Lordships’ House on all our Benches, it is patently absurd that there is not an international affairs Select Committee, a foreign affairs Select Committee, where issues such those that we have been debating can be examined in detail.

The Foreign Secretary rightly said:

“While human rights are not the only consideration in forming a nation’s foreign policy, if we allow human rights to suffer while we pursue our legitimate national interest, we will in the long term have failed”.

We have seen remarkable change in our lifetime—the fall of the Berlin Wall, the end of apartheid in South Africa and the beginnings of a peace process in Northern Ireland. Since coming to your Lordships’ House, I have been able to go to Burma on four occasions, three of them illegally. Eighteen months ago, I would not have believed that I would be able to address an open- air meeting of the National League for Democracy in Yangon. It is a small beginning, a small start and a welcome change.

It was said by Benjamin Franklin that the price of freedom is eternal vigilance. We have been vigilant today but, as so many have said, we must persist, persist and persist. We must use our freedoms on behalf of those whose freedoms are cruelly denied.

Motion agreed.

Church of England: Holistic Missions

Thursday 21st November 2013 Lords Chamber

Motion to Take Note

14:31

Moved by

[The Lord Bishop of Leicester]

That this House takes note of the July 2013 report by ResPublica, Holistic Missions: Social Action and the Church of England.

[The Lord Bishop of Leicester]

My Lords, the Church of England is on the verge of extinction, or so you would believe if you accept this week’s tabloid headlines. The report of the think tank ResPublica, entitled Holistic Missions: Social Action and the Church of England, presents us with a different picture. It presents a picture of a church which is present in every community, town, village and city and embedded in its localities. It is a church which baptises, marries and buries a significant proportion of the population, educates some 1 million children in church schools and serves the poor, the homeless, the lonely, the hungry and the distressed in often unnoticed but crucial ways.

The report’s central argument is that a nation cannot thrive and progress purely as a result of the success or otherwise of the market or the Government. These have both in different ways failed us. The NHS has been implicated in massive scandals of appalling care and resultant cover-ups. Our banking system has been the province of vested and bonus-seeking self-interest. In the United Kingdom, social mobility is stagnating and inequalities are rising and embedding. This debate arises from the conviction that we need to renew, recover and restore the transformative institutions which can make a vital difference. The institution primarily placed to do that is the Church of England.

I am delighted, as I am sure we all are, that this debate has attracted two maiden speeches. The noble Baroness, Lady Lawrence of Clarendon, brings to our debate an unrivalled track record of courage and resilience in challenging and shaping civil society, not least through the work of the Stephen Lawrence Charitable Trust. The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Carlisle benefits us with his understanding of the challenges and opportunities of the rural churches and communities in Cumbria, as well as his particular portfolio among the Bishops in relation to the NHS. As one of those from this Bench who has the longest train journey to London, he usually comes exceptionally well-acquainted with the agendas of our meetings.

If we are to grasp the unique role of the church in social action, we must recognise that faith plays a vital part in motivating and energising voluntary action at every level. Some 79% of church members who responded to ResPublica’s survey have been involved in social action in the past 12 months, compared with the national average of 45%. According to the Sunday Telegraph, members of the Church of England give some 22.3 million hours each month in voluntary service.

I see that daily in my diocese. The street pastors in Leicester and the county towns have a transforming impact on street crime and vulnerable young people, especially on weekend nights. Our diocesan centre provides a base for the City of Sanctuary projects, reaching the most desperate asylum seekers. Our work with the Prince’s Trust transforms self-confidence and life chances for unemployed young people. Apprenticeships in churches and church schools are beginning to develop high quality training and work experience. Outreach youth work in the diocese now exceeds all the resource from the other agencies put together. This pattern is replicated up and down the country where the social mission of the church is indivisible from its spiritual mission—a reflection of God’s concern for all people, especially the poorest and most vulnerable.

Further, much of this work is done in partnership with other Christian denominations and other faiths. Indeed, co-operation with the faith communities around, for example, food banks and other forms of social provision, is becoming a hallmark of the Church of England’s work in many of our major cities. Not only is this work widespread but it depends on an institution which is exceptional in its reach and essentially focused on the local. Churches, especially the Church of England, act both as a bridge across communities but also essentially as a gateway into communities. Quite frankly, it is the established church which is uniquely placed to achieve almost universal access through its networks of staff and buildings, and its particular place in the story of every locality.

Speaking to the General Synod this week, the most reverend Primate the Archbishop of York emphasised that point. He said:

“Parishes up and down the country are striving hard to tackle the consequences of poverty … Indeed for a parish not to be doing something about it is becoming the exception rather than the rule. Take Middlesbrough … for instance, where churches of all denominations are currently running 276 activities designed to help the vulnerable. It has been calculated that these … amount to 800 hours of love-in-action each week”.

Many of those themes have been taken up recently in a major conference in Liverpool under the title “Together for the Common Good”, building on the social action tradition of Bishop David Sheppard and Archbishop Derek Worlock on Merseyside in the 1980s. This morning DCLG has launched its programme, Together in Service, to support faith-based social action across the country. The Near Neighbours scheme funds community cohesion by directly recognising the presence and effectiveness of the Church of England in every neighbourhood.

Across the country, much of the support for this work comes from the Church Urban Fund establishing joint ventures in places as diverse as Birmingham, Cornwall, Lancashire, Liverpool, Middlesbrough, Newcastle and Nottingham. These local hubs bring churches together in common action and outreach. They build capacity and confidence, and act as a source of experience and stories through which policy and leadership can be shaped for the future. All that activity contributes to a much-needed debate about the common good and the kind of society in which we all want to live and in which the fruits of all our labours are available for the flourishing of all parts of our society.

There are one or two points that I want to put specifically to the Minister, but first I want to establish a general point. We do not from these Benches advocate the co-option of the Church into the wholesale delivery of welfare programmes on behalf of the state. Experience suggests that there is a danger here of the faith and voluntary sector being systematically undercut by the big corporations, which can drive down costs and perhaps quality of service to below that which the churches could countenance.

The report does, however, issue a major challenge that the churches and government need to take profoundly seriously. It is a challenge to rethink and rebalance the relationship between state and community provision through the churches. In particular, the report calls for what it calls “a new settlement”. This suggests a model of social action that focuses on service with the community rather than for the community. This model involves all parties in seeking solutions. As the report puts it:

“If we want to see powerful, resilient and faithful communities with the capacity to address their own problems, then people need the power to act for themselves rather than being dependent on services”.

That requires a devolution of power both from government and the private sector and a readiness to break up monopolistic power that leaves the churches and the voluntary sector sometimes out of the equation. It also requires government to think more holistically in terms of partnering with the churches in health, education, work and training programmes and so forth.

We on these Benches recognise that there is more that the churches themselves can do in this area. Much of this work needs to be done at local level, harnessing the networks and experience already in place. For example, efforts are being made to bring together the different levels of church social action. In 2012, a project was launched by the most reverend Primate the Archbishop of York, under the title Resourcing Christian Community Action, which aims to be a catalyst to bring together current best practice in providing Christian care in local communities with the resources and knowledge needed to multiply this work across the country. The challenge in the report to the mission and public affairs department of the Church of England to set up a social action unit is a powerful one, but it suggests a top-down approach which may not be the most effective way of achieving necessary change in the dioceses and parishes of England.

Yet there is a great deal in the report to support. We support the All-Party Parliamentary Group for Faith and Society’s faith and localism charter to ensure trust and transparency between commissioners and faith-based organisations when preparing to commission services from them with a view to making contracts clearer and more open.

Secondly, we would advocate that more attention needs to be given by government to capacity-building the churches as long-term, sustainable and trusted partners. There is much in the report in that area that would repay study. Will the Minister respond, in particular, to the proposal that Big Society Capital should encourage a social investment platform with good links to church-based social ventures to act as an intermediary on lending to such groups? Here especially is an opportunity to replicate and scale up established and proven initiatives and to move on from the endless construction of new schemes sometimes devoid of a track record in order to exploit contracting opportunities.

Thirdly, will the Government's new commissioning academy include advice for commissioners on how to partner effectively with church groups and how faith-based social action is of huge benefit to public services?

The report rightly reminds us that we stand at a moment of exceptional opportunity. Far from extinction, the church is ready to play its part. Its great strength is in the creation of local networks of neighbourliness and civility which allow informal bonds to develop and reduce the demands for many aspects of state welfare. This is a vital part of the ecology of welfare provision because it embodies Beveridge’s conviction that strong state provision works only if there is a well-resourced informal network of voluntary action to support community resilience. The time has come to value that network more, to understand it better, to resource it more effectively and to enable it to play its vital and proper role in creating the common good that we all wish to see.

14:44

[Lord Phillips of Sudbury (LD)]

My Lords, I do not know whether one should declare an interest in a debate of this kind, but I am a lifelong if doubting Anglican and an occasional Quaker attender. I thank the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Leicester for inaugurating this debate. It is a useful one to have. One must thank ResPublica for its report because it is stimulating and useful. I welcome to today’s debate the two maiden speakers, the noble Baroness, Lady Lawrence of Clarendon, and the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Carlisle.

I want to concentrate on the central recommendation of the ResPublica report. It diagnoses what it calls the failings of state departmental silos and private sector cherry picking, trapped between individualism and collectivism. I have a lot of time for that analysis: it is broadly right. It also talks of the potential institutional role of the Church of England as the “hyper-local” hub or gateway to compensate for the failings that I have just referred to. It says:

“Communities exhausted by the break-up of traditional structures of both families and communities are simply unable to access the all-inclusive and bespoke provision that alone can transform their lives. Unless we tackle this institutional deficit we will not save the poor from poverty or secure the middle classes against a similar fate”.

Again, I find myself in broad agreement, particularly with the reference to the breakdown of communities about which I will say a little in a moment.

It is sometimes useful when confronted by large themes such as this to go back to local particular example. I come from a town in Suffolk that is, I suspect, typical of many towns in our nation. There are more than 300 market towns such as Sudbury. Today, it has more than 12 places of worship. There are 20,000 people, three Anglican churches, one Catholic, one Baptist church, a Methodist church, URC, Strict and Particular Baptists, Quakers, unattached Protestants, Jehovah’s Witnesses, the Vineyard and others besides.

That does not give the impression of a community that is falling out of contact with Christianity. I should go on to say that there is a thriving Muslim community now, mainly made up of the local restaurateurs and their families. They carry on their services in the Quaker meeting house, which is a delightful and appropriate thing for them to be doing. There is in the town a strong Churches Together set-up, which is typical of most towns. That does a huge amount, quietly and effectively, to co-ordinate activities between the different churches and faiths, and provides a flexible and organic utility for that community.

I sometimes think that of all the aspects of our national life that we do not pay enough attention to, it is the decline of community life, which over my span has been continuous and now has now reached a critical position all round the country. The consequences of the breakdown of community are incalculable because it is through community that we learn our humanity, learn to tolerate and be tolerated, and imbibe so much of the collective wisdom that otherwise escapes us as mere individuals in our families. The ResPublica report proposes this hub role for the Church of England largely as a means of shoring up the community life of the country. The report refers to the decline of the tradition of communitarian civic conservatism. I think that that is with a small “c”. Again, it is right. In my home town, for example, in the 1950s, the leaders of the community were its natural leaders, in that they were the leading business people, the leading professional people, leaders from trade unionism and so on. Sadly, that is less and less the case. I repeat that that is a national tendency. Not having those in the community who are most naturally looked up to—the natural examplars, you might say, of civic and citizenship identity—is a massive setback from which we are all suffering today.

One of my gripes with the ResPublica report is that it concentrates far too much on the Church of England. All churches have that vital, practical, exemplary role. The phrase keeps coming back to me of walking the talk. If the churches do not walk the talk, what the heck are they for and who are they following?

The report suggests that the Church of England is given the key role of being the institutional hub in the process of reviving communitarianism, countering the rabid individualism, consumerism, materialism—call it what you like—that is, I think, deforming our society today. It wants the Church of England to celebrate its values and purpose rather than celebrating celebrity itself, as we spend so much time doing, I fear.

My problem with all of that is that I do not think that the Church of England, although I love it dearly, is fit for that purpose. It is in a state of extreme inequality within itself. In some parts of the country, some churches and cathedrals are vibrant and thriving, but many are not. They are very much on the back foot and struggling. I believe that, in any event, a state church, such as the Church of England is supposed to be, is better off being less connected with the state than more. I think that it infringes on the independence of a church to be too establishmentarianist. I think that that saps the independence of the church and its congregations; it makes it more subject to the vicissitudes of Governments—sometimes the same Government, let alone changing Governments; it reduces its freedom of collective or congregational criticism; it also places a downward pressure on the potential for civic and congregational innovation.

I see the Church of England—indeed, all churches—not as great, hub institutions embraced with and by the state but as seed beds of individual civic activism, hotbeds even. Often, thank goodness, churches and chapels are. I see them more as fertilisers of community vitality rather than some sort of grand master of the same. For those reasons, I am sceptical of what I take to be a central proposition of the ResPublica report, although I thank the organisation for addressing the issues and challenging me.

Lastly, lest I sit down on what may sound too complacent a note, I think that the Church of England has a huge amount to do—we have a huge amount to do. The failure of the Church of England to engage young people is, I fear, is central to its challenges. In my congregation, I suppose that the average age must be about 70. We do not have a Sunday school, but we are thought to be a successful church. We are not. You cannot say that you are in those circumstances. We are still far too middle class and far too disinclined to get our hands dirty. I do not oppose the central proposition of the report or by any means suggest that all is right in the state of the Church of England. It comes down to action: walking the talk, as I said earlier. We have a great deal to do in that direction. My word, does not the country and do not our communities need the Church of England, all churches and humanists? For goodness’ sake, do not let us, in our religiosity, get trapped in some bubble that does not allow others who do not share our beliefs the same dignity, respect and potential power.

I close by quoting good old Chaucer, who often got it spot on. Vis à vis what the Church of England should be doing today, he wrote the wonderful sentence,

“if gold rust, what shall iron do?”.

14:55

[The Lord Bishop of Carlisle]

My Lords, as I take the place of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Liverpool, perhaps I may say how very grateful I am for the warm welcome, kindness and assistance that has been afforded to me by both the staff and your Lordships.

I have the great privilege of living in the beautiful county of Cumbria, which is also the diocese of Carlisle. People naturally associate it with the magnificent scenery of the Lake District, which makes it one of the most popular holiday destinations in England, but it has its share of deprivation, especially on the west coast. In recent years, it has experienced particular difficulties, among them the devastation of foot and mouth disease, severe floods in places such as Cockermouth and Workington and, of course, the terrible shootings, which attracted worldwide publicity.

The people of Cumbria have shown extraordinary resilience throughout all that, prompting one local man to describe them as being as tough as teak but gentle as lambs. Cumbrians are also very warm and appreciative. As one of my 20th century predecessors, Bishop Herbert Williams, observed:

“A true Cumbrian does not express his amazing affection for those who live in his vicinity until he is quite certain that they are safely dead”.

The diocese of Carlisle is not the oldest diocese in the country, dating from only 1133, but it is geographically one of the largest and one of the most colourful in its history. Early Bishops of Carlisle acted as the King’s agents in the north. Together with the Bishops of Durham, they were responsible for keeping the Scots out of the so-called disputed lands surrounding Hadrian’s Wall and, to that end, they employed a small private army, which was housed in their official residence, Rose Castle. According to a local chronicler, at least one bishop was noted more for his prowess in the saddle than in the pulpit and Rose, together with the medieval cathedral in Carlisle was frequently attacked and pillaged by Robert the Bruce, among others, with the direct consequence that both the castle and cathedral are half their original size—rather, it must be said, to the relief of those who have to maintain them. Subsequent bishops have included Thomas Merck, who features in Shakespeare's play “Richard II”, currently being performed by the Royal Shakespeare Company in Stratford, and Owen Oglethorpe, who crowned Queen Elizabeth I because there was then no Archbishop of Canterbury and the Archbishop of York claimed that he was too old to make the long journey down to London.

Today, the diocese is generally flourishing, although rather mixed, with Church of England congregations beginning to grow after a long period of decline. Tourism is one of the county’s main industries, and we are developing church trails and other means of welcoming some of the 16 million visitors to Cumbria each year and introducing them to our rich cultural and religious history. With Sellafield in the diocese, we are involved in continuing discussions about nuclear power, the disposal of nuclear waste and future possibilities for energy generated by wind and water. We continue to make submarines in Barrow, and although only 4% of the inhabitants of Cumbria now work on the land, farming remains a tremendously important part of the county’s life.

As we saw during the shootings, the church remains at the heart of our rural communities, creating local networks of care and enabling a great deal of informal support, as we heard from the noble Lord, Lord Phillips. This is not just the Church of England. We are beginning to work so closely with other Christian denominations—I think the noble Lord, Lord Phillips, will be glad to hear this—that Cumbria has become the first so-called ecumenical county.

One current project that has already generated a great deal of interest is a plan to turn Rose Castle into an international Christian centre for reconciliation. We hope that very soon it will become a global hub for scriptural reasoning between Christians, Muslims and Jews, for training journalists, politicians and others in religious literacy, for conflict resolution at various levels and for environmental sustainability.

That brings me to the subject under debate: holistic mission. It seems to me that the imaginative proposal for Rose Castle, the former residence of the Bishops of Carlisle, is a very good example of the way in which the church is already involved in a number of activities contributing significantly to the public good. Reconciliation between people of different faiths, including not just the great world faiths but, of course, humanism and atheism, is an obvious priority in today’s society.

Like my friend the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Leicester, I am grateful to ResPublica for highlighting some of the extensive and excellent church work that is currently taking place. This week, as we heard, the General Synod of the Church of England has been meeting here in London. Several of the topics under discussion related directly to how the church can and does create social capital and add value in our society. For instance, in a debate on church schools, we were reminded not only of their high educational standards and increasingly inclusive approach to admission but of the fact that our clergy give hundreds of thousands of hours each year to the million or so children who attend such schools in their parishes. There was a meeting on credit unions, something with which many individual Christians and whole congregations have become involved in recent years and a very hopeful way forward in these times of mounting personal debt.

As mentioned by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Leicester, we also heard a presidential address on poverty and talked about the way in which churches have been instrumental in establishing food banks around the country. I have some first-hand experience of them. There are several in Cumbria. At the recent launch of a new report on poverty and deprivation in Furness, the local MP singled out the churches for particular mention in this regard. In many ways, initiatives of this sort are building on the sustained work of the Church Urban Fund which, as we heard from the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Leicester, has sponsored a huge number of social projects over the past few years.

In my role as lead bishop on healthcare, I am very conscious of the holistic, patient-centred care that is offered by the church to many individuals with mental health problems, recognising that mental health underpins a wide range of social challenges. We are also exploring and trying to develop schemes such as parish nurses, health centre community chaplains and parishioners acting as local carers for the elderly and housebound in their own homes. These all approach the issue of health from a holistic angle and have the potential to save huge amounts of money as well as offering a lifeline to some of the most vulnerable people in our society.

As the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Leicester indicated, we do not envisage the church taking over all the provision of health and social care in this country or delivering major welfare programmes on behalf of the state. That is not how it works best, nor would that be appropriate, but we are glad that ResPublica highlights so much valuable work that is already going on and applaud the potential for closer working together and partnership to which this interesting report draws our attention.

15:06

[Lord Griffiths of Burry Port (Lab)]

My Lords, I rise with great pleasure to follow the maiden speech of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Carlisle. It is not a good week to be a Methodist Minister, so I am hoping very much that the right reverend Prelate will recognise the sincerity of what I am about to say. The pair of us go back quite a long way. When I was on the management committee of an ecumenical project that he was running at Bar Hill, just outside Cambridge, I used to have to keep an eye on him to make sure that he was doing the right things. That is the right relationship of the Methodist Church to the Church of England. Subsequent to that, in Grasmere, when he was the Bishop of Penrith, we had a marvellous, county-wide effort and we met up again there. What he does in Cumbria for the cause of ecumenism is almost proverbial and is certainly trend-setting. I hope that since there are two other right reverend Prelates sitting there, they will learn from his example and follow the same route.

It is lovely to hear that extra dimension being drawn into the right reverend Prelate’s remarks. We must remember, as we concentrate on a debate that so specifically picks out the Church of England, that that is only one player in the field—of course, I want to draw attention to that. However, we look forward to many useful, helpful, edifying contributions from the right reverend Prelate. If they are not forthcoming, I will tell him so. Of course, I feel as if I am in the middle of a sandwich here, because I look forward with great interest to the maiden speech of the noble Baroness, Lady Lawrence, who has set a tone for British civil society and indeed for the national consciousness that we must all learn from. It is not for me to thank her for what she has not yet delivered, but I stand in great anticipation of what she will deliver.

On this debate, I have to say that my greatest anxiety is that it can delude us into thinking that the Church of England is where it all is. What does it mean to be a Methodist? It is often thought that John Wesley, when he started off, was a pietistic preacher, full of spiritual energy and indefatigable zeal. However, perhaps less is known about the fact that intrinsic to his ministry from the beginning were actions of social commitment that were totally convincing. He had a kind of mini health service, free at the point of need, which he ran from the place in City Road where I now work. He had a ministry to people on death row in Newgate Prison, a microfinance project with a commitment to helping the poor with their financial needs, and a ragged school, which attracted boys and girls from the Moorfield slums, clothing and feeding them if necessary. I can say only that the vital religion of a Methodist like John Wesley is coupled inevitably with a commitment to the transformation of society, so we do not have to think of it as an add-on at all. We think that we are not doing our job if we are not doing such things, and that is the end of the matter.

I have been the superintendent of the West London Mission for a number of years and was the boss of the late Lord Soper of Kingsway—although if anybody says that they were his boss, they need their head read—who initiated extraordinary work across the capital city that still exists to a large extent. That included a bail hostel with a day centre for over 25 year-olds—it is easy to get money for the needs of children and young people, but getting money for the needs of older homeless people is immensely difficult. There was total commitment, and it was open 365 days a year. He also initiated work with young offenders, a walk-in centre for people with addictions or substance abuse of one kind or another, which is multifaceted and free, again, for all who cross the threshold. That was a remarkable piece of work, with 80 employees and hundreds of volunteers who helped to keep it running. That, therefore, is of the essence; I have often said from the pulpit, “What’s the point of you having religion if you don’t bring a smile to someone’s face and make their lives a little easier?”. There does not seem to be much point otherwise.

I want simply to draw the circle outwards a little—no, I do not want even to do that. I do not like the compass having its fixed point in the Church of England, with ever larger circles drawn outside it. We are partners in this, and this whole thing must be seen in that sense. Why finish there? Why think that that is the range we are thinking of? My colleague, a very redoubtable Yorkshirewoman, is at this very minute standing up—if the programme that I have here is running to plan—to introduce someone from the Amida London Buddhist Centre. Ten minutes ago she introduced Mohammed Kozbar from the Finsbury Park Mosque as part of Inter Faith Week. Our work with the faiths is considerable.

John Wesley’s sermon on bigotry said that if someone else is doing a good piece of work, and it is recognised as being good, those of us who are Christian have no right to think that we cannot collaborate with them. You hold hands together and do the good, and that is the end of it. The work in the field of interfaith work has to be recognised at this point; there is so much of it around. I will give some figures: there are 289 social projects run by Islington faith-based organisations—that is 289 in one London borough. There are 536 volunteers, 68 full-time staff and 52 part-time staff. Some 74% of faith-based organisations work in partnerships across faiths and within faiths, and 65% are done in collaboration with people of good will who have no faith at all. At the end of the day, social need is social need, and you work together. If people who have faith feel that that is what motivates them, that is fine—but you do it with everybody else. Phrases such as the “unique place” of the Church of England, and self-aggrandising phrases like that, set my teeth on edge when I read this particular report.

I go back to Islington, as all good people do in the end. Of the social projects run by faith-based organisations in Islington, 32 are in the area of education, 20 in housing and homelessness, 25 in art and music, 19 to do with drug abuse, 20 in the field of health, 14 in the area of business and enterprise, and 13 in the area of employment. That is absolutely fantastic. Just two days ago, in the Cholmondeley Room—I hope one day that someone will tell me why it is pronounced “Chumley”; I am sure that there is a reason—we had a reception for Action for Children, which is a charity that I have supported all my life. It used to be the National Children’s Home, a good Methodist charity. There were 92 volunteers receiving their annual Stephenson awards. As was said in one of the speeches, the monetary value of the voluntary work being done there amounts to £500,000. It would cost the organisation that amount to buy in those services.

We recognise all the good that is done and have no reason to boast about it, because if we were not doing it we would not be the people of faith that we claim to be. There is no need to make a song and dance about it; it is the essence of our very being that we translate what we believe into action of the kinds that we have been talking about.

I am a little bit dubious, too, about the proposals and recommendations that have been made in the ResPublica document. Who wants an office in the Cabinet Office to centre all of this stuff? The Department for Communities and Local Government already has a base there, and it has accomplished a great deal in bringing faith groups together as one means of helping to build an integrated society in Britain. In 2008 the Department for Communities and Local Government produced a report called Face to Face, Side by Side, offering a framework for partnership in our multifaith society. Those are the notes that we need to hear because, at the end of the day, people of good will, whether of faith or not, and those of us who are of faith, know that we must make allegiances and common cause against deprivation and need of every kind.

I offer these remarks not to sink anybody’s ship or rattle anybody’s skeleton cupboard but rather to honour the Church of England as the state church for all the work that it does and recognise that it has a historic role in British society to do just this. But I plead with its representatives to see, in an instinctual way, the existence of others out there not as people for whom to broker involvement in the provision of answers to social need but as partners ready and willing to do our bit as best we can.

I am very grateful to the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Leicester for bringing this subject to the Floor of the House. I know that our concentrated thinking on this will raise the profile of the work being done but, perhaps, also challenge us to go on doing it in a more imaginative and colourful way.

15:17

[Baroness Lawrence of Clarendon (Lab)]

My Lords, I rise to give my maiden speech with some anxiety and, I must admit, emotion, surrounded as I am by so many experienced Members of your Lordships’ House and reminded, as I am, of the role of this establishment in my life’s story.

Before I embark on the substance of my speech, which will be concerned with the importance and value of voluntary and community sector organisations, I must express the honour that I feel in joining this House. My journey has been a difficult one, and there are Members here who have walked part of that journey with me in solidarity. Their integrity, conviction and calibre assures me that I am among good company.

I have never taken for granted my public platform as someone who should be out there speaking. I do it because I think that there is something important that needs to be conveyed, and this is what drives me. I therefore pledge myself to contribute the knowledge and understanding that I have to offer, building on many years of experience in issues relevant to the decisions of this House and the nation as a whole.

In my short time here, I have been impressed by the commitment to causes in this Chamber. I should like to thank most sincerely Members on all sides of the House for their friendly and supportive welcome. It has been a warm, joyful, if slightly bewildering, experience. The staff and officials, too, have been most helpful. I should like to extend my thanks to my two supporters, the noble Lord, Lord Boateng, and the noble Baroness, Lady Benjamin, to my mentor, the noble Baroness, Lady Crawley, and to the noble Baroness, Lady Royall, the Leader of the Opposition.

I welcome today’s debate in the name of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Leicester on the ResPublica report but wish to focus my contribution on the value of community-based organisations in the broadest sense—mainstream, grassroots, youth-led, women’s, BME and faith-based. My parents, like many of their generation, came here from the Caribbean in search of a better life for their family. Never would they have imagined the nightmare that was to engulf my family—my son Stephen’s life was taken so brutally and so senselessly by racists—and the 20-year battle for justice which followed. The experience has taught me that power is often resistant to the claims of justice and basic human dignity. Those who demand these rights must be prepared to fight every single day for them, as they will come up against an establishment more interested in maintaining the status quo than it is in helping to foster a society where everyone has an equal claim to justice, no matter who they are or what they look like. I have to believe that in overcoming the hardships, we have contributed to a collective effort in making this country a more fair and inclusive place to live.

The local church played a large role in my life growing up in south London. It was very much a social hub for community members to congregate. During some of my difficult times I sought solace from my friend the Reverend David Cruise who baptised my daughter and led the memorial for Stephen. My one belief that has remained firm despite being challenged time and time again is that of justice and fairness. That is my credo. Ensuring that every person in British society, particularly our young people, have access to the same opportunities to learn, work and succeed is the bedrock of a progressive democracy.

Following the death of my son I was touched and deeply moved by the number of people who reached out to me and my family. I was impressed by the number of people in this country who were moved to show the love and care they have for strangers who have suffered terrible pain and injustice. Some of the people who reached out to me were religious, but many were not. They were appalled by Stephen’s murder and the injustices our family were made to suffer by the police and institutions. It was only because of the support of so many kind people that I was able to maintain any hope and affection for this country.

Over the past 20 years I have become increasingly aware of how many different groups, organisations and charities do great work within our society. I have had the privilege both of being helped by them and working alongside them with my own charity, the Stephen Lawrence Charitable Trust, which enables children from disadvantaged backgrounds to have the opportunity to have a career in architecture and the built environment, the career Stephen always wanted to pursue.

Faith-based organisations are an important resource for many communities, providing volunteers, buildings and a stable network for those in need. But it is important to note that more than two-thirds of charities and voluntary organisations working in the UK today have no connection with a religion. An example of one of these charities is Stop Hate UK, of which I am a patron; it works with victims of hate crimes and encourages those who have been victims of or witnesses to hate crimes to report them.

Amazing work is being done on the ground by young people at the grassroots level, self-organising in their communities around the issues that they are affected by. It is important that we do not think just of those who want to volunteer—we must also think of those who are actually in need of help from the voluntary sector. A holistic approach must take these people into account.

Profit-driven privatisation has left what should be public services serving shareholders rather than citizens. Yet only by transferring power back into the hands of the people and away from private interests seeking profits under the veil of “efficiency” can the British Government regain the support and trust of the public. Voluntary organisations representing every section of our rich and diverse society deserve to be listened to and supported in order to bolster their contribution to making Britain a safer, healthier and more prosperous country to live in. Only by remaining committed to these fundamental principles can we strive towards a future that is genuinely equal and fairer for all.

15:25

[Baroness Berridge (Con)]

My Lords, it is a great honour to welcome the noble Baroness, Lady Lawrence, to your Lordships’ House after such a moving and considered speech. I can confidently say that all in your Lordships’ House wish that the noble Baroness had not had to go through what she did after the murder of her son, Stephen. The tenacity, courage and boldness to stand up to such institutional injustice are inspirational. But the noble Baroness has not exhibited bitterness or the brittle anger that is often seen in today’s media when responding to injustice. She has been gracious but righteously angry when, sadly, that was needed. Speaking truth to power has too often been required of her.

Few people know that the noble Baroness even had to sacrifice her career to give her time to the Stephen Lawrence Charitable Trust, which now offers architectural scholarships in his memory. I am sure that many noble Lords on all Benches will wish to help the noble Baroness use her voice, place and seat here to bring this charitable work to a whole new level. I applaud the Benches opposite for her appointment.

All of your Lordships, I am sure, long with the noble Baroness for a final resolution to the judicial proceedings that will bring some sense of peace to her family. I look forward to her contributions to your Lordships’ House. Life is different today for the British black community and our Metropolitan Police is radically improved due to the noble Baroness’s contribution to our nation’s life. Thank you so much Baroness Lawrence.

When it comes to the leadership of our great religious communities, we are living in a time of change. In Rome, Pope Francis has sent shockwaves through his own global community by choosing simple living over the alternatives. Closer to home, we have welcomed a new Chief Rabbi to succeed the noble Lord, Lord Sacks, who has done so much to inspire our diverse nation to live face to face and side by side. Just recently, the most reverend Primate the Archbishop of Canterbury has set a fresh tone for my own church’s role in the public realm through his notable contribution to the banking reform Bill, his commitment to “compete out of existence” Wonga, and his forthcoming visits to all the Primates of the Anglican communion in their home provinces. All these actions are laudable. I welcome the opportunity that this report gives to highlight the social action work of Christians in the UK and how best the Government can engage with the church. The latter relates to my previous work as the executive director of the Conservative Christian Fellowship.

One of the biggest changes we have seen in English Christianity is that it has come to reflect the wider world beyond our shores. We have witnessed the rise of new and energetic churches and denominations with a passionate commitment to serve across the localities. In urban areas many, although not all, of these game changers are rooted in diaspora communities, bringing to their mission a striking awareness of the pressing social needs of their members living in Britain today. Forward-thinking leaders such as the Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police, Bernard Hogan-Howe—who needs to increase the diversity of his force—have been guests at the Festival of Life event where 35,000 Britons from a black-led denomination, the Redeemed Christian Church of God, gathered for an all-night prayer event.

I also had cause to reflect on the truth of the idea of the “dragon mother” when visiting the Chinese Church in London and seeing the many young people being so competent at playing their musical instruments. The Coptic Church’s cathedral in Stevenage is part-worship sanctuary and part-sports hall. Indeed, in many parts of the country, it is the Church of God of Prophecy, the Chinese Church, the New Testament Church of God and others like them which are saving the buildings of much older denominations that have become not significant community assets but distracting neighbourhood fundraising burdens.

This report, funded by an Anglican charity, analyses how the Anglican Church could restructure its social action work by creating social action teams in each diocese and having a social action unit in Church House. It is very laudable but the report’s gem is the tension at its heart, which has been outlined by other noble Lords. It emphasises repeatedly the uniqueness of the Anglican Church in terms of buildings, geographical spread of staff and connection to the state. The most reverend Primate the Archbishop of Canterbury said at the launch of a cross-denominational social action initiative, HOPE 2014, that he imagined looking back at 2013 and seeing that, “the churches put aside their differences and they chose to pray and work together”. Again and again, the initiatives relied on in the report are those of the churches working together. HOPE 2014 connects with more than 25,000 churches in the country. Sometimes it will be the Anglican priest who is the facilitator, but the Rutland Foodbank, of which I am patron, is run by churches together, and the local council first approached the Baptists. Sometimes the Anglican church is the best building but often it is not and purpose-built worship centres, such as the Birmingham Christian Centre, an Elim Pentecostal church, might be best.

However, this does not matter. Some of the best social action projects are done not by the churches but by para-church organisations and charities such as Trussell Trust Foodbanks, Christians Against Poverty debt counselling, the Lighthouse Group’s alternative educational provision, the Message Trust and Eden projects, which run youth work on difficult estates, Street Pastors, whose members do the long night shifts with the police in dozens of towns and cities, parish nurses, and the Messy Church, which is actually run by a little-known organisation called the Bible Reading Fellowship. However important the interfaith agenda—I note the comments of the noble Lord on the Benches opposite—is in multicultural Britain, I think it has masked the Christian diversity that needs to be recognised.

The Anglican Church is a unique presence in every community, but perhaps not necessarily in the form of a building. It is people that should be resourced rather than excessive bricks and mortar—and I speak as a former member of an Anglican church in Manchester that used the little-known building material terracotta. Even Giles Fraser was lamenting in the Guardian recently how distracting from his core purpose the likely cost of repairs to his church was becoming. I dare say there is not a Bishop in your Lordships’ House who cannot identify with him.

The report also focuses on geography, as it must do for a primarily parish-based system. However, for me, the report fails to address the fact that my generation and the generations below live networked lives more often than not rather than lives tied to a locality. Their neighbours are their friends on Facebook not the person living in the flat next door. That is a challenge that the Church of England is beginning to realise exists.

The report scopes a wonderful vision and I believe it can be delivered, just as I believe that Wonga can be out-competed. If the church—with a small “c”—wanted to marginalise the worst payday lenders, is it not possible that a coalition of the CCLA, the Salvation Army’s Reliance Bank, the National Catholic Mutual, Stewardship, Epworth Investment Management, the larger religious orders, the pension funds of Anglican universities and the family trusts of high net-worth Christian families could start a social venture that might subvert current market patterns? I know that the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, on the Benches opposite, is a fan of credit unions but I think that he would ask us to give this one a go.

Earlier this year, I was delighted to launch the Cathedral Innovation Centre in Portsmouth. It not only develops socially responsible managers, as the report suggests, but also facilitates the creation of new ventures across the social, private and public sectors. To date, it has spun out a new disability charity, now based in Cambridge, and a management consultancy working in London and the north-west, and given businesses from the Isle of Wight their first space on the mainland, alongside 10 others creating jobs and apprenticeships locally. It will soon open its second centre in Southampton and is already supporting an innovative asset transfer initiative there. February will see the launch of a sister centre at St Peter’s in the City in Derby, with others to follow.

This initiative is underpinned by a community share offer but it is the Treasury that helped to get things started from central government, and a widespread coalition of a social entrepreneur, the cathedral chapter, the Royal Society of Arts, the Roman Catholic diocese, the Rotary Club, Portsmouth Business School, Northampton University and tens of volunteers is making this happen. As I saw at the launch, the church had to have the confidence to be a partner and colleague rather than the social force that had to take all the credit, and the alchemy of change that it is supporting is commendable.

I hope that the Anglicans look at whether the proposals in the report will work but I wonder whether perhaps the Government do not adequately grasp the potential stored up in the Christian church as a whole. Of course, I have yet to mention that the Salvation Army is the largest provider of social services outside of the state. The report, due to this tension, slips between Church with a capital “C” and church with a small “c”. If the Government set up a unit in the Cabinet Office, it is important that it engages with the church with a small “c”. It was beyond the remit of this report to find out the views of the rest of the church in England but a Government must consult widely.

A recent presentation by Professor Linda Woodhead to parliamentarians focused on church attendance, which is only one measure. In England, of those who attend church, 28% are in the Anglican Church, 28% in the Catholic Church and 44% in others. So 72% of churchgoers in England are not Anglicans. Of course, the Government would also need to think about the engagement of the church in Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland. The Church House social action unit would have one space at the Cabinet Office table, and the Catholics have a clear structure to engage with government.

This brings me back to my work at the Conservative Christian Fellowship. How can the Government engage with that 44% of others? Perhaps the challenge is to put a structure in place on a par with that of the Catholics and Anglicans. It will take time and thought to do so but it will also bring more women to the table. The Baptist Union has its first ever woman general secretary and I hope that someone in Her Majesty’s Government has already had the pleasure of meeting her. Can the Government please outline how they are intending to—or do—engage with that 44% of others?

In an age of austerity, when Ministers long for fresh models and new approaches to making a little go further, we will break through only if powerful parts of all denominations and government are content to step back and bring on the innovators, the inspirers and those able to recombine a wide variety of skills, talent and assets in fresh forms. This means new relationships and serious time being invested in the task and, for the church, it means the confidence to give without asking anything in return.

15:38

[Lord Elton (Con)]

My Lords, it is my pleasant duty to start by congratulating the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Carlisle on speaking to us from the depths of history as well as the depths of theology to prove that the Anglican Church is well founded and likely to survive many storms, as it has survived many before.

I also warmly welcome the noble Baroness, Lady Lawrence, and congratulate her on a most moving speech, which revealed the new and valuable dimension that she brings to our collective knowledge. I welcome her commitment to sharing that experience with us whenever it is appropriate. If anything is valuable in a democratic Chamber, it is direct experience of the realities of life, however harsh, in which Parliament can take a hand. She is very welcome here.

This debate is principally about the welfare state, which is not what it was. I have two personal memories about what it was, or that are relevant to it. The first was at the age of 12, sitting with some 300 other of my schoolfellows in the school assembly hall listening to a very enthusiastic young man with horn-rimmed glasses and wild hair talking to us about something called the Beveridge report. I recall him telling us that, when it was implemented, the world, and particularly this country, would be a better place, that a new era would dawn and that everything would be lovely. There was no examination on the subject, so I apologise to your Lordships for not recollecting more of the talk than that.

Some six years after that, I was walking with my father one evening in the fields near our house and he said to me, “I joined the Labour Party in order to achieve various things. With the passage on to the statute book of the National Health Act and the National Insurance Act, all those objectives have been achieved”. I see the contented smiles on the Front Bench opposite, so I regret to say that he then said, “That being so, I see no purpose whatever in remaining in any political party and I’m going to sit on the Cross Benches”. Those are my two memories; they are the sort of marker buoys for the start of a sailing race which brings us to where we are, and it is somewhere very different indeed.

I find it very difficult to unthread the tangled collection of ideas raised during this short debate and in the report. The report I welcome warmly, because it has triggered this very badly needed discussion. It has some shortcomings. If I can be really petulant and elderly, I would say that the principal ones are the very small type, the use of white print on blue and the use of semi-colons instead of full stops practically throughout, which means that you never have a capital letter to go back to when you are sitting in an ill-lit passenger seat in a car trying to read the thing going up the M4. On a purely practical point, I ask ResPublica to revise its publishing criteria.

However, its research criteria are excellent. The research base for the report is pretty narrow. Nineteen parishes out of 43 dioceses do not amount to a great deal. It is not enough to come to conclusions on, but it is plenty to start the discussion. I think that we can all endorse, and everybody has endorsed, the extraordinary variety of the existing interventions of the Anglican community into social efforts to improve the life of all.

The noble Lord, Lord Roberts of Burry Port, hit the nail on its head when he pointed out that, actually, the Church of England is not the only church. That chimes in with one paragraph on page 8 of the report, on the social and spiritual mission of the church, where it was thought necessary to start with a little apologia about the necessity of the church taking social action at all. That rather took my breath away, because surely the duty of the church is not to run churches like a chain of theatres around the country trying to fill the house with suitable programmes; it is to be the body of Christ in the community. You cannot be the whole body of Christ if you are only one church when there are many churches. We must have a broad co-operation in this.

What puts the Church of England at centre field in this country is the existence of its organisation and its resources in the form of buildings. The report refers to the church in many communities being the only landmark at the moment. It seems to say that there were other landmarks—there were pubs and schools, which were of course the social landmarks. More and more villages and towns have lost most of their pubs and schools, and some have lost all of them. The church is the last visible central link; its spire puts it ahead of the chapel, which does not make it any better than the chapel, just more visible. It is also apt to be bigger and can house more people. However, the church is ultimately conservative with a small c, which means that it is full of pews. If churches are to diversify their activities, they need to make a clean sweep. I think I see agonised expressions on the faces of the right reverend Prelates to my left because if there is anything more divisive and difficult to do to a medieval church than remove the pews, I do not know what it is. But the fact is that it is done very successfully. The church ought to publish a brochure showing that, extolling the fact that the atmosphere of the place can still be spiritual, and explaining that far more members of the community can make use of the church. Incidentally, members of the existing congregation, which may possibly grow, will also find that they are able to do new and inventive things. That is another spin-off of the report.

Like my noble friend Lady Berridge, who made a very good speech, I attended a meeting recently in the Jerusalem Chamber, where the final version of the authorised version of the Bible was agreed, to hear Professor Linda Woodhead of Lancaster University give a PowerPoint presentation. She gave a most illuminating account of the position, outlook and membership of the Church of England. I strongly recommend that account to my episcopal friends and ask them to distribute it as it was a suitable forerunner to the great declamation by the noble and right Revd Lord, Lord Carey, in Shropshire, which nobody has yet had the bad manners to mention, which warned of the end of the church unless something changed. We now have to look at whether what is being proposed is the right change. A good deal of reservation has been expressed about that, not merely because it puts everything in the hands of one church but because of its rather obscurely articulated union with government. The union of government and church is a very dangerous institution, indeed. If the church is seen to co-operate with the Government, de facto it is not co-operating with the Opposition and it is likely to get all the flak that the Government get for things that go wrong which are not the fault of either of them.

I turn to the practical difficulties of what is proposed. The subject of how the two organisations can co-operate and make use of their respective resources is a very fruitful one, and the Cabinet Office is possibly the right body to engage in it. However, what really matters is what happens at the bottom end in the parish. Parishes vary very much, as do churches. I lead a fragmented life which means that I worship in three churches regularly and in a fourth from time to time. One of the churches, in which I was for some years a licensed lay minister, and in which I now have the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Oxford’s permission to serve, is a tiny chamber about four times the size of the Bishops’ Bar. It has a thriving life but no room to expand. Apart from arousing great hostility, taking the pews out would not increase the congregation. I also worship fairly regularly in a church in south London, which I suppose is rather bigger than the Peers’ Guest Room. I fear that this speech is going to read very badly in Hansard. That church’s congregation is rather more black and ethnic minority in origin than it is white. It is a very harmonious congregation. Then we go to a very big church in west London, which is humming with activity and full of people, and which has a completely different ability to help. We do not want to think that one size fits all but we want to realise that it is not only the Anglican parishes that are there when there are all the denominations which your Lordships have just heard recapitulated. I will not run through them.

So what is it that the Church of England has to offer? Because it is becoming increasingly ecumenically minded, it has the ability to focus the activities and interests of all the Christian family—the Kingdom of God on earth, as it strives to be—and to arrange the interlocution between the churches and the Government, not to be the only voice but to orchestrate it. I am warming to my theme and have just thought of all the clear principles that I should adduce, but the time stands at 12 minutes and I am grateful to your Lordships for your indulgence.

[Lord Griffiths of Burry Port]

Perhaps I might suggest, as the Lord Griffiths of Burry Port, that the Lord Roberts of Burry Port is a hybrid creature who is not yet a Member of your Lordships’ House.

15:51

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab)]

My Lords, first, I join other noble Lords who have spoken in this debate and put on record my thanks to the right reverend prelate the Bishop of Leicester for putting his Motion down for debate today. I congratulate and pay tribute to the right reverend prelate the Bishop of Carlisle and my noble friend Lady Lawrence of Clarendon for making their excellent maiden speeches in this debate.

My noble friend Lady Lawrence is widely respected as a woman of great courage, a tireless campaigner for justice, race equality and better policing who works successfully at every level from Government and Parliament to town halls, communities and local schools. She is an extraordinary woman who will be a huge asset to your Lordships’ House and will speak with profound authority on a range of issues on which she has quietly and with great determination become an expert, as she demonstrated here today. She will be a voice for many who feel that they have no stake in British society, and it is a privilege to serve in this noble House with her.

I also thank all noble Lords who have spoken in this debate, which has been excellent and shows the House at its best. The report produced by ResPublica is an interesting, well thought-out and well argued contribution to the debate, and we should warmly welcome it. That is not to say that I or these Benches agree with every word of it, but it is a timely contribution and we on this side of the House are grateful for the work of James Noyes, Phillip Blond and the other contributors who are too numerous to mention.

I should say that I was brought up in an Irish Catholic family, but was born here in London, and that I have always had huge respect for the Church of England and its ability to raise the right issues, speak up for those who do not have a voice and provide a progressive leadership, which has never been needed more than it is today. I am looking forward to the response to the debate from the noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Saltaire. I wonder if he will mention the big society. I accept that it was not in his party’s manifesto at the last general election but it featured prominently in the first few months of the life of this Government. In recent years, however, it has been brushed aside, covered up and forgotten about.

The key findings of the report on the role that the church plays in communities up and down the country are that the Church of England has a dynamic presence reaching deep into neighbourhoods and transforming lives, along with being a well-established social service provider. The Church of England, as the established church, has a unique role to play that provides added value to communities up and down the country, and, as others have said, its parishes and congregations are at the heart of all it does. The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Carlisle gave an excellent example with the plans for Rose Castle, where the church can provide that added value.

Much of what I will say could, as the noble Lord, Lord Phillips of Sudbury, pointed out, be said of other faith groups who in their own communities provide direction, leadership, moral guidance, protection and caring services. My noble friend Lord Griffiths of Burry Port made an excellent point about interfaith work and how important it is to do that, because it is right and the essence of our very being.

The noble Baroness, Lady Berridge, highlighted the wide range of faith groups and interfaith groups and the excellent work that they do. I should perhaps also point out to my noble friend Lord Griffiths that I stand here as a Labour and Co-operative Member of your Lordships’ House.

It is true that we always need to look at the institutions around us that deliver the services that we need as a country. It is also true that the solutions that were relevant and delivered at a particular time can become less relevant and undeliverable for the future, so we must always be open to new ways of delivering services and providing new opportunities, underpinned by clear priorities and principles. With innovations and developments in technology, we can deliver services in a much more individual way, tailored to people’s specific needs rather than a one-size-fits-all approach. We have seen this with NHS personal care plans and other developments at a local authority level, but it needs to go much further.

The report argues that the church has the potential, the experience and the capacity to become one of the foundational enabling and mediating institutions that the country needs. Whatever role it plays, its mission, its job, is not to become the social services department or any other department of the local authority or central government. I would go further and contend that if it took on those formal roles, we would lose what we are celebrating and cherishing in this debate today. I believe that the church has a unique role to play in our society.

As the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Leicester said, the report found that 79% of the congregations are involved in some sort of voluntary activity and 90% in some sort of informal voluntary activity, as opposed to 40% and 54% of the general population respectively. Two-thirds of those doing voluntary action state that it is through the church, and one-fifth of those doing such work support those with disabilities.

The church certainly has a wealth of experience in a variety of fields. That can cover issues such as prisoner rehabilitation, helping people recover from drug addiction and dealing with homelessness and mental health issues. In addition to this, the report found that the church had a high level of education and managerial ability in its attendees and, as the report points out, there is a will and a genuine intention to do good from the congregations with their voluntary action.

I was delighted that the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Carlisle mentioned credit unions in his speech. I am very excited by the work that the church is beginning to do around credit unions and financial inclusion. As the noble Baroness, Lady Berridge, mentioned, I have championed this cause since I joined this House over three years ago because it is an unfortunate fact that in our country, if you are poor or struggling financially, you will pay the most for access to credit of any sort. Championing the cause of those who are less well off—and shining some light on those who, often through sharp practice, are making a lot of money—can bring about much needed change.

The noble Lord, Lord Phillips of Sudbury, spoke about the breakdown of community, and I agree with those comments very much. I have seen the Church of England at its very best, doing its best in the community that I grew up in. I grew up in Walworth in the London Borough of Southwark, and I was lucky enough to meet the new vicar of St Paul’s Church, in Lorrimore Square, towards the end of 1979—or was it early 1980? I can assure noble Lords that I was a very young man then and my hair was a bright red colour; things have changed a bit since then. Until his retirement in April this year, Canon Graham Shaw was a central part of the community in Walworth for 34 years. My two brothers and my sister, along with many young people in the area, attended the Crossed Swords Youth Centre that he founded in the basement of the church.

As part of the Faith in the City initiative, following the publication of that report in autumn 1985, Canon Shaw set up a mental health drop-in centre at St Paul’s Church. He did that because of his experience and work in the parish and the problems, stresses and strains that he saw every day. People with long-term mental health problems are one of the most excluded groups in society, and social exclusion and discrimination in turn sustains poor mental health. He understood that the role of a good mental health service was to ensure social inclusion. For many of the people who used the service, it represented their first step towards recovery, helping them to regain a sense of belonging to a community and to gain stability, safety and acceptance. For some people, this can then lead to an emerging sense of possibility about their future, hope and personal confidence in their ability to take the next step on the road to recovery.

The centre closed in 2008 after 23 years of service to the local community when the services were transferred to a larger charity, Certitude, following a negotiated shift in services with more opportunities for co-dependence between staff and members, and growing links with the wider community. The Lorrimore drop-in centre did fantastic work in a deprived part of the borough that I grew up in.

St Paul’s in Lorrimore Square was also for many years the home of the London Ecumenical Aids Trust, which worked with communities right across London. When it initially started its work as the London Churches HIV/AIDS Unit, the reaction of many in society was not as enlightened as it is today, with talk of gay plagues and other equally ill informed opinions. In each of those three examples, the church never sought to become, replicate or replace the services provided by the NHS or the local authority. However, what it did do in each case was provide essential, cost-effective support for the community, without which there would have been further cost to individuals and to the community, more prejudice, and more costs and additional problems for the institutions of the state to deal with. For me, that is the strength of the church and it is what needs to be built upon.

So when the report talks about the church having to make itself fit for purpose, I disagree. I think that the church is fit for purpose in the important work that it does and that it is an example to civil society of what can be achieved and what is possible. As I said earlier, I do not believe that it is for the church or any faith group to replace the local authority or any government department in delivering services, but they have an essential role to play in the communities in which they are active.

In my opening remarks, I referred to the big society and how it very quickly seems to have gone out of fashion within government circles. Many in the Church of England were initially very receptive to the notion of the big society, and I think that at one level we, on all sides of the House, can support it. However, like many other parts of civil society, we have all been disappointed and have begun to worry about the political motive behind this agenda.

It was reported in the Observer that the former Archbishop of Canterbury, the noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Williams of Oystermouth, said:

“Big society rhetoric is all too often heard by many … as aspirational waffle designed to conceal a deeply damaging withdrawal of the state from its responsibilities to the most vulnerable ... if the big society is anything better than a slogan looking increasingly threadbare as we look at our society reeling under the impact of public spending cuts, then discussion on this subject has got to take on board some of those issues about what it is to be a citizen and where it is that we most deeply and helpfully acquire the resources of civic identity and dignity”.

In particular, I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Wallace, will be able to update your Lordships on the government response to the recommendations in this report that have been specifically directed towards the Government—I think they are Recommendations 1, 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7 and part of Recommendation 10. If he is not able to respond fully today, I hope that he will assure the House that he will write in detail to all Members who have spoken in this debate addressing those points and that he will place a copy of his letter in the Library of the House.

In concluding my remarks, I again congratulate the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Carlisle and my noble friend Lady Lawrence on their excellent maiden speeches. I place on record my thanks to the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Leicester for initiating this debate and to the Church of England and other faith groups for all they do to provide leadership, guidance, protection and services to some of the most vulnerable people in our society, as well as the work they do with the agencies of the state and wider civil society in delivering that.

16:02

[Lord Wallace of Saltaire (LD)]

My Lords, this has been an excellent debate. I particularly enjoyed the two maiden speeches, with the noble Baroness, Lady Lawrence, talking in particular about the role of churches in the inner city and the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Carlisle talking about the role of churches in distant and sometimes very remote communities, around some of which I have walked with great pleasure over the years.

Perhaps I may start not by talking on behalf of the Government but by being a little personal. I grew up in the middle of the Church of England and part of my mixed response to this report comes from my personal experience. My mother was part of that great volunteer army of middle-class women who held civil society together. They had enormous energy, they were not allowed to have jobs and they threw themselves into working to support their locality.

The church that we went to when I was a boy had pews which, if I remember correctly, were allocated in a sort of hierarchical fashion. The bank manager’s pew—my father was the local bank manager in this small town—was third from the front on the right. I was slightly relieved when I went back into that church in north Northamptonshire with my sisters a few years ago and discovered that they had removed all the pews and put in a really good new floor. It is now very much a social and community centre. Once one got over the shock of seeing this medieval church with its very beautiful floor, one realised that it was real progress.

In the 1950s, the Church of England was a little too close to the idea that it was there to enforce morality and social order, and was not enough about the social message. It is a problem that the Roman Catholic Church has retained for a rather longer time than the Church of England. I partly escaped by becoming a chorister at Westminster Abbey where I therefore had to listen to two sermons every Sunday. Since one of our canons held very firmly to the view that the church had a clear social message, which is probably why he never became a bishop, I certainly picked up the idea that the church had a strong social mission. I married into a nonconformist family. Indeed, the Wyke Gospel Temperance Mission tea urn still has a place in our dining room. Like many other things in our cities, the mission was demolished 30 or 40 years ago, as most of the Wyke community was demolished. That is part of why our communities have been getting weaker. Much of the physical environment which held things together has gone, and great new estates have been put in place.

The role of Methodism in evangelising the working class and providing working class communities with a clear sense of where they belonged was enormously important. Part of the historical tragedy of the Church of England has been the split of Methodism, which I firmly hope will be resolved by reunification of the churches in the not too distant future. I live in the village of Saltaire. At one point it was suggested that it might be demolished because it had lots of old-fashioned terraced houses and was dominated by a Congregational church—one of only two churches in England that I know has a full peal of bells. The Congregationalist mill owner who built the entire village clearly had some tendencies towards respectability, which meant Anglicanism. The full peal of bells in the Congregational church was his gesture in that direction.

I am very conscious that everyone is talking about rebuilding communities—not just the Church of England by any means but a whole range of other faith networks. On occasion, they can create an enormous difference. I once spent a long morning in east London with a Baptist minister from Bradford who showed me what he had achieved, starting with a semi-derelict Baptist church. I am referring to the noble Lord, Lord Mawson. We have to work together in everything we do. I am also a Liberal. The Liberal Party, as a nonconformist party, has always been doubtful about established churches, particularly state churches. The long battle over who controlled the schools is part of what defined the Liberal Party against the Conservative Party all those years ago.

I remember the Church of England publishing Faith in the City as a major step forward. I also remember the very hesitant acceptance of Faith in the City by many of the rural parishes in the diocese of Bradford and elsewhere, because they were not quite sure that they wanted to be too concerned with the inner city. It was a hard battle in the church to get that through, but it was part of the turn towards social action.

All of us who have lived through the past 60 to 70 years are conscious that the decline of communities, above all in our cities, has followed from a range of other activities. It was partly due to the slum clearance and demolition of those old, tightly knit communities. As the noble Lord, Lord Phillips, remarked, market towns retain the built environment and the sense of tradition and community which in some of our big cities we sadly have entirely lost. The decline of communities was also due partly to cars, TV and middle-class housing developments—those dreadful suburban places without any centre—as well as children moving away to college, and the internet. Let us face it, the downside of the liberation of women has been the loss of that great volunteer army who used to hold local communities together. It has been partly replaced by the emergence of fit, retired people of both sexes who now do some of that job—but in some areas there is a bit of a gap.

The question really is: can faith communities help rebuild the sense of community? After all, churches and families build communities. People with children are most concerned about local schools and streets and how safe they are. Binding the young, and particularly teenagers, into their local communities is so important for us in rebuilding a strong society.

The wider issue raised in the ResPublica report about the relationship between state, society and the market is one that we all have to address. None of our parties has the complete answer at the present time. The noble Lord, Lord Elton, remarked on our learning bitterly that the welfare state cannot provide everything. We are now up against rising life expectancy, rising spending on health and pensions, and the need to spend more on education and training, with a population that nevertheless wants tax cuts—or certainly does not want to have a much higher rate of tax imposed.

So the model of public provision and services by the state is under deep challenge. The model of provision of public services entirely by paid professionals to passive recipients—the model of the 1990s and early 2000s—is neither affordable nor desirable. We have seen the dangers of producer capture in too many of these public services—whether from doctors, bus drivers or others.

We have also lost, in the reorganisation of local government, the sense of really local democracy. In our big cities, we have wards with 10,000 to 15,000 voters where it is almost impossible for even a good local councillor to know most of the people in most of the communities. That is a real problem. I therefore strongly believe, as does my party, in recreating what we have to call urban parish councils, because the parish is the sense of the local. That is very much part of the way that we will reinvolve people in communities.

Going round some of the large housing estates in Bradford and Leeds, I am struck by the extent to which many people there feel totally alienated from public institutions, and regard the local authority as part of the public institutions from which they are alienated. They do not vote. They want to take their benefits, but they certainly do not think that it is part of their job actively to contribute to them. Incidentally, I say to the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy of Southwark, that that is part of what the big society initiative is trying to resolve.

So what is the role of the church in this? I strongly agree with the noble Lord, Lord Phillips of Sudbury, that the church should not be too close to the state. The church should be in healthy and dynamic tension with the state. We have an established church. It is not a state church. It is a church that I am happy to say now works very closely with other churches and across faiths. It has, as the Church of England rightly says, physical bases in the sense of churches within most of our local communities, from which one can provide public services—be they food banks, the basis for credit unions or all sorts of other community initiatives.

The noble Baroness, Lady Lawrence, and others talked about the role of some of the newer churches, particularly the black churches, in the inner cities, in galvanising people to recognise what we can all do for others. Going around a large housing association in Bradford in the early summer, I was struck by the importance of the faith of two or three of the senior executives in making sure that they were committed to regenerating a very troubled city.

I am happy that the Church of England has transformed itself from the rather exclusive church that I remember as a choirboy. At the Coronation in 1953, the only ordained priest who took part in the service who was not from the Church of England was the Moderator of the Church of Scotland. I attended the 50th anniversary service for the Coronation, when the Cardinal Archbishop read the first lesson, with officers of the Salvation Army visible behind him as he spoke. Down in the lantern were representatives of Britain’s other faiths—Jewish, Muslim, Hindu, Buddhist, Jain, Zoroastrian, Baha’i, and probably one or two others—demonstrating that we are part of a national church that stands for all of Britain's national faiths in all sorts of ways.

We obviously have to answer the question raised by the report: what contribution should the state make and how can the state develop alongside society to help to strengthen it? I say to the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, that I am one of the greatest enthusiasts in the Government for the big society. Those of us who work in the Cabinet Office and therefore go out to see what is happening on the ground can see how much difference some of the Government’s initiatives are making.

A number of graduates came to talk to the Cabinet this week about what difference going through the National Citizen Service scheme had made to them. I started out as a great sceptic of the scheme until I went to see one of them in Bradford and was made to work with the teenagers. In my instance, I was teaching them how to make a public speech. I saw how teenagers who did not think that they could do anything were slowly learning what they were capable of and what they could do within their communities. That was an extremely invigorating experience. Community organisers, also within the big society programme, are trained precisely to work within big estates in big cities and to help people understand how they can help themselves and work within their communities—where, often, there are no churches or chapels to provide such leadership.

The big society programme, although now a little out of the public eye, continues and, I think, makes considerable progress. Through the social action fund, we have supported church-based initiatives such as the Cathedral Archer project, and have given more than £1 million to Tearfund’s Cinnamon network to deliver social action projects.

The Community Organisers programme has helped organisations such as Southwater Community Methodist Church to act as hosts for the organisers, as they seek to make changes in their local community. The Community First programme has examples where government, the church and local communities have worked together. In Swindon, for example, the Gorse Hill and Pinehurst Community First panel funded the Pinehurst initiative forum for a project to support local residents in piloting a set of activities to engage children and young people in creating music. Few local children have access to musical instruments at home and the school provision was poor. This project got in-kind match-funding from the Church of England in the form of staffing support, which was invaluable to its success. We continue to support faith-based organisations through new funds that we have made available, such as the Centre for Social Action Innovation Fund, which will work with the Youth Social Action Fund—so a range of activities are well under way.

To answer the questions of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Leicester at the end of his speech, Big Society Capital was launched in April 2012 with up to £600 million to build the social investment market. In its first year, it committed a total of £56 million across 20 investments. In 2013, it intends to commit another £75 million to £100 million of investment. It works with all sorts of organisations at a lower than market rate.

The right reverend Prelate asked about advice to commissioners on how to commission the church in faith-based action. We launched the academy to train public service commissioners, local and central, in development and best emerging practice. We work with all others outside, not just faith-based organisations.

This has been an excellent debate. Speaking on behalf of the Government, we welcome all churches as partners in building a stronger society in Britain and in rebuilding our weakened communities. We see the Church of England as an important partner, but not as a privileged partner. We see it as a major element in rebuilding a strong society and as a necessary balance to a limited state and an open but regulated market.

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark]

Before the Minister sits down, he has not addressed a number of points noble Lords made—nor the points in the report to which I drew his attention. Do I take it that he will be writing to me and other noble Lords and will place a copy in the Library?

[Lord Wallace of Saltaire]

I have read the report and I noted the noble Lord’s questions about how we will respond to its recommendations. I think it is much better that I write on that since they are, as he well knows, rather complex recommendations, and rattling off my answers in two minutes would probably be less valuable than the letter that I promise to send to all noble Lords who have taken part in this debate.

[The Lord Bishop of Leicester]

My Lords, yesterday at a question and answer session in the Jubilee Room, the most reverend Primate the Archbishop of Canterbury made the bold claim that there was probably more faith-based social action going on in this country than at any time since the Second World War. Whether or not it is possible to measure the accuracy of that claim, it is very clear from this debate that there is a high level of interest in this subject and a high level of support for faith-based social action—the social action of the churches in general and of the Church of England in particular.

I am very grateful to all noble Lords who contributed to this discussion. I shall not rehearse the points made by noble Lords, but will take firmly to heart a point that many made: the Church of England is but one player on this field. We heard so powerfully about the Methodist tradition of Lord Soper and John Wesley. It is impossible to be the Bishop of Leicester without being only too aware of the enormous variety of faiths and the enormous proportion of the population of the city who on a Friday, Saturday or Sunday are in places of worship and who are giving expression to their beliefs and their motives during the rest of the week in a variety of ways—without which, quite frankly, our common life in the city would be quite impossible.

As other noble Lords have done, I will pay particular tribute to the noble Baroness, Lady Lawrence, for her moving and telling speech and for the way in which her life is indeed a speech in itself about the need for constant attention to justice. She knows she has friends, support and enormous respect on all sides of this House. I want to pay tribute to the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Carlisle for opening our eyes to what is now possible in Rose Castle. Some of us looked with envy on successive Bishops of Carlisle for living there, but those days are now over and the Church of England is putting not only that building but so many of its buildings to new uses in practical ways for the contemporary needs of our contemporary society. That is why the noble Lord, Lord Elton, will be pleased to know that there is much more support from here for the removal of the pews than he might suspect. I invite the churches in my diocese to invite me to pew-burning parties on a regular basis.

I think we have had a really useful debate. I am sure that the Minister will take note of what has been raised—as, indeed, will colleagues in ResPublica and elsewhere, who will continue to stimulate and challenge us on these matters. It is now some 43 years, I think, since I was a civil servant in Whitehall, working as a Second Secretary in the Foreign Office. I used to walk up Whitehall to Trafalgar Square and St Martin in the Fields. The experience of seeing one church attending to the needs of the homeless and destitute while also ministering to the occupants of Buckingham Palace, engaging in the campaign for the ending of apartheid in South Africa and involving itself heavily in the Covent Garden community projects and a whole range of other things inspired me to think that this was a way of life that really could transform life at the heart of one of the world’s great cities, and set me on the path to ordination. That vision has shaped so much of my work and is why I care passionately about the matters we have raised today. I am very grateful to all those who have contributed to this debate, and I commend this report to the further attention of the House.

Motion agreed.

EU Report: Effectiveness of EU Research and Innovation Proposals

Thursday 21st November 2013 Lords Chamber

Motion to Take Note

16:25

Moved by

[Lord Kakkar]

That this House takes note of the Report of the European Union Committee on the Effectiveness of EU Research and Innovation Proposals (15th Report, Session 2012–13, HL Paper 162).

[Lord Kakkar (CB)]

My Lords, I beg leave to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper. It is a great privilege to do so in place of the noble Baroness, Lady O’Cathain, chairman of your Lordships’ European Union Sub-Committee B on the internal market. She was responsible for chairing this important inquiry but sends her apologies as she is unable to be here today.

At the outset I take the opportunity to thank the clerks to our committee, and Nicole Mason and Paul Dowling for their marvellous contribution and hard work in having steered this very short inquiry over a three-month period in the previous Session to a successful conclusion. I also take this opportunity to thank members of the then-EU Sub-Committee B, the noble Lord, Lord Elton, and the noble Baronesses, Lady Scott of Needham Market and Lady Buscombe, for their important contributions to the deliberations in the committee at that time.

The committee decided to undertake a short inquiry during a period in which the question of the next multi-annual financial framework of the European Union was being discussed—that is, the Union’s budget. We did that because, as your Lordships will be aware, EU Sub-Committee B has responsibility for scrutiny of matters dealing with the internal market. During the previous Session we began to receive a large number of proposals for scrutiny, which were eventually attributed to funding in that new multi-annual financial framework in a programme known as Horizon 2020, which was dedicated towards research and innovation in the European Union.

It was of course welcome to see so many proposals coming forward from the Commission that related to the question of research and innovation. However, there was some anxiety among noble Lords on the committee that with so many proposals coming forward, it was not entirely clear what the Commission regarded as research and innovation with regard to such a broad range of proposals that would ultimately be dependent on a single pot of funding. It was also not entirely clear how so many proposals could be accommodated in what would ultimately be a limited budget. The period of the inquiry was a mere three months, and we are grateful to all those who took the trouble to make submissions, both written and oral, for consideration by the committee. I must express deep gratitude on behalf of the chairman of the committee to all members of the committee for having worked so hard in that very compressed period of time to conclude this important report.

The report has so far enjoyed a very detailed response from Her Majesty’s Government. I must express the deepest gratitude to Her Majesty’s Government for having dealt with it in such a timely fashion and for having provided a detailed response to many of the recommendations that the committee made. It is regrettable that we have so far yet to hear from the European Commission on the important conclusions that were raised in the report, which was designed to be available to the Commission as it started to consider in more detail the framework for research, innovation and funding over the next cycle of the European Union budget. We understand that that response will be forthcoming very shortly and we look forward to receiving it. However, regrettably, your Lordships will not have the benefit of the Commission’s view on the work of your Lordships’ committee as part of this debate.

Before proceeding further, I remind your Lordships of my own entry in the Register of Lords’ Interests as Professor of Surgery at University College London, chairman-elect of University College London Partners academic health science centre, and a recently appointed UK business ambassador for healthcare and life sciences. I am therefore eligible to apply for much of the funding for research and innovation available in the European Union and would like to make sure that noble Lords are aware of that.

The reason why the committee decided to undertake this important inquiry was that research and innovation is at the heart of what Europe requires to drive economic growth. It is well recognised that research and innovation is at the heart of any successful, vibrant economy. The World Economic Forum recently suggested that we should move away from talking about developed and developing economies and talk instead about innovation-rich and innovation-poor economies. In that context, there has been some concern that, in the economic crisis that continues to face many parts of the European Union and many member states, there might be a temptation for the Commission to decide that a clear and determined focus on funding research and innovation should be sacrificed to use those funds for other purposes. We wanted to assure ourselves that that would not be the case.

As part of our inquiry, we were reminded that the European Union’s principal competitors are deeply committed to research and innovation. One such example is China—an important competitor, which, by 2015, has determined that 2.2% of its GDP will be focused on research and innovation expenditure, some €180 billion a year. The agreed 2014-2020 multiannual financial framework commitment for research and innovation expenditure under the Horizon 2020 programme of the European Union is some €70 billion. We need to put in context the fact that our competitors have recognised and are determined to drive forward innovation in their own economies. Of course, that can be done in part at European level, but it needs also to remain a deeply committed area of activity for each member state as part of the use and setting of its own budgets.

I mentioned a concern about the drift in describing certain programmes and projects as relating to research and innovation as their primary purpose in the hope that they might avail themselves of funding from the Horizon 2020 envelope—the €70 billion currently agreed as part of the proposed budget. Here we need to be clear that there are mechanisms in place, as the new budget goes forward, to secure true research and innovation focus for funding that is attributed to research and innovation activity. In 2009, a declaration made by the Commission, member states, stakeholders and others in the research and innovation community—the Lund declaration—made it clear that, in going forward in the European Union, the focus in research and innovation funding should be to meet the grand challenges facing member states. The big issues such as health, well-being, and so on, should be addressed by big programmes of imaginative research and innovation rather than by defining rigid themes of activity that are somewhat ossified before the funding becomes available and prevent the true purpose of innovation.

The Lund declaration also recognised as a set of principles on which to take forward research and innovation funding in the European Union that the prime, underlying principle on which funds are made available across Europe for competing projects is one of supporting excellence and the highest quality, not compromising those funds in any way for other purposes or any form of political expediency. In that context, your Lordships’ committee came to the clear conclusion that, despite the economic crisis, the European Union should redouble its efforts on research and innovation expenditure. Although the funds finally agreed in the current budget round were not as high as one might have hoped, they are an increase on the funding available for research and innovation in the previous budget, and that should be welcomed.

In terms of practical issues, the first is participation. Here I look much more at the position of participants from the United Kingdom wishing to avail themselves of the important funds available in the Union for research and innovation funding. Our higher education institutions and many of our larger commercial enterprises are well organised and able to develop the partnerships and create proposals that are highly attractive in order to enjoy substantial European funding. In particular, our universities have become adept at developing relationships across Europe to make their proposals of relevance not only to academic communities and society more broadly in the United Kingdom but applicable, and therefore of interest, to similar academic entities and society more broadly among European member states.

However, the large body of small and medium-sized enterprises, some 98% of companies in our country, have found it less easy to interact and develop the successful pan-European alliances necessary to attract substantial research and innovation funding. Yet when we look at the issue in economic terms, there is no doubt that the success of these SMEs is going to be vital to drive economic growth across Europe and help achieve the kind of increase in employment that we all expect these types of businesses to deliver for the broader economy. In this regard, I ask the Minister where Her Majesty’s Government are on ensuring that the mechanisms available within our own support structures for businesses in terms of their application for European funding currently stand. Contact points within the structure of the technology strategy boards seem an appropriate opportunity for a greater focus on helping small and medium-sized enterprises interact more successfully in the future. This can be done first by influencing the calls for proposals that are put out under the banner of research and innovation funding in the European Union—the Horizon 2020 programme; by ensuring that our SMEs are better able to develop European alliances to make their funding proposals attractive as pan-European projects; and by ensuring that they are able to deliver those applications and, if those applications are successful, programmes that have meaningful impact for the European economies. I wonder whether the Minister can comment further on where Her Majesty’s Government are with regard to developing those support structures.

The second practical issue is the basis for the allocation of these funds. We have heard that although the budget will be substantial—some €70 billion over this financial framework—those funds still represent only a fraction of the global expenditure on research and innovation available among our principal competitors. It is therefore essential that a single principle remains at the heart of the allocation of these funds—that is, allocation based on the excellence and quality of the proposals and independent peer review, with no other influence on how those funds are allocated. It is that basis of allocation which has ensured that our own universities and other participants from the United Kingdom have done so well in this funding, and it is the basis on which we can be certain that much of what has been done in previous programmes of research and innovation expenditure in Europe continues to develop strong outputs for the benefit of all citizens across Europe. It was reassuring to learn that the Commission now has appointed a chief scientific adviser with a scientific advisory council. Can the Minister confirm that the Government continue to emphasise among their European partners in the Council of Ministers and in their discussions with the Commission the vital importance of the transparent, objective allocation of funds based on the excellence and quality of applications? They should not stray into using these funds potentially to build capacity in parts of Europe where the science base is not currently strong, which is an important objective that should be achieved through regional development funds, rather than this funding for research and innovation.

We heard some disturbing statistics about the time to grant. This is the time it takes from the end of a call for proposals to grants being made. It averages some 340 days. We found this unbelievable. In the fast-moving area of innovation and research where discoveries are being made every day, a proposal to seek funding for a particular project can remain fresh only for a certain period of time, after which by definition something else must be discovered and that should take precedence. If the bureaucratic process actually to get the funds out is taking so long, that can be a major disincentive to smaller organisations, particularly the SMEs, and to university departments where committing funds to keep staff in place to be able to work on an ultimate research project can be exceedingly difficult. I would be grateful if the Minister could confirm that Her Majesty’s Government will continue to push for a reduction in the red tape. Of course there must be processes in place securely to protect the funding, but we must make sure that they are not so bureaucratic that in the end the purpose of the exercise, which is innovation, is inadvertently destroyed.

Finally, there is an important ongoing need to continue to review the success with which these funds have been applied. It needs to be clearly and objectively demonstrated to the citizens of all European countries that this money, coming ultimately from the taxpayer, is being used to good purpose through a careful assessment, first, of the needs of the projects being supported, and then that what was promised as part of the application process by successfully awarded programmes is being delivered, and that the deliverables which were the focus of so much hope as part of the application process are translated into meaningful impacts and benefits for the people of Europe.

Many other noble Lords who contributed to the development of the report have points to make about other elements in it. I beg to move.

16:41

[Lord Haskel (Lab)]

My Lords, at the recent Lord Mayor’s banquet, the Prime Minister said that we were in a global race, and I am sure that he meant a race to the top. Most of us agree that we cannot leave our success or failure to chance or to simple market forces. We need a strategy, one to get us to the top and, of course, a central part of that strategy is research and innovation.

The European Union agrees with that and supports this work, as it has done for many years, through the framework programme currently in its seventh phase which finishes at the end of this year. From 2014 we will have Horizon 2020, which will support research and innovation. The framework has been especially important to us. As the noble Lord, Lord Kakkar, has just told us, our higher education institutions are among the top participating institutions, and this participation has provided an additional 15% on top of the UK Government’s own budget. It is growing and it compensates in cash terms for the freeze in our domestic science budget.

Unfortunately, the successful participation of our higher education institutions in the framework is not reflected in the participation of our private commercial businesses. They comprise only a quarter of the total number of UK participants, and there are very few small and medium-sized enterprises among them. So the purpose of our inquiry was to see how this could be improved: how small private businesses could achieve the same high participation rate as our higher education institutions. The inquiry is seeking to identify the right structures for us to achieve this increased participation.

Basically, what we have said in our report is that we want less complexity in the structure. We want shorter and simpler intermediation, more focus on monitoring outcomes and less on auditing expenditure, and more consultation.

Many of our recommendations are, yes, directed towards the European Commission, and I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Kakkar, that it is disappointing that we have not had a response from them in time for this debate. However, its actions, along with informal observation, seem to indicate that it agrees with our direction of travel.

The response from the Government to our report is encouraging. They agree that the participation of companies and small to medium-sized enterprises in Horizon 2020 has to be supported, facilitated and encouraged by a greater presence in Brussels for those organisations that support them and help them to participate, such as the Technology Strategy Board, the national contact points, trade organisations and chambers of commerce. Many are already represented there, which makes consultation and information transfer with the participating companies shorter, simpler and quicker.

That is especially important because many small enterprises look to this EU money to help compensate for the failures in bank lending. I agree with the Government’s observation that Horizon 2020 needs a “pro-innovation regulatory framework”—indeed, many of our recommendations are directed towards that end. However, my one request is that innovation should be regarded in the broadest possible terms: not just new products and services through science and technology but all the other aspects of innovation that are important to business and in which it invests. These include writing new software, modernising and speeding up the supply chain, design, branding, and developing new business processes and new ways of serving customers. I suggest to the Minister that perhaps one reason why private industry, particularly SMEs, participates far less than higher education institutes in the framework is that, to them, research and innovation is far wider than science and technology. If the Government want business to participate more in Horizon 2020, they must seek to broaden the interpretation of innovation. If the Minister will not take it from me, he may be persuaded by the recent McKinsey report which confirms that.

This does not, of course, detract from the importance of science—it is in addition to it. Indeed, I had the opportunity to briefly discuss our report with the noble Lord, Lord Rees. He is sorry that he is unable to speak in this debate, but he was disappointed that the European Research Council did not feature in our report. He considers that the European Research Council is probably the most cost-effective EU institution supporting research and innovation. Certainly, it mainly supports academic research in universities, but business eventually benefits from that. It has been going for six years and now has a budget of €2 billion. He wanted us to be aware of the excellence of its work and is anxious for us to benefit from it. He said it is as excellent as our own research councils.

I note in the Government’s response that they plan to create much greater awareness of Horizon 2020 through a range of events at all levels. We all say amen to that. However, if you are trying to capture the interest and attention of companies, you must include innovation in the less tangible aspects of their businesses.

I said at the start that we are in a global race and Horizon 2020 has to be part of our strategy to get to the top. That strategy must include all areas covered by the Commission. In our report, we again spoke of our concern about the quality of impact assessments. All parts of our Government and all parts of the Commission rely on these for making informed decisions. So it is essential that these impact assessments should indicate how the issue being assessed impacts on this strategy—how it contributes to our getting to the top. This must be applied consistently across all policy areas. It should also be part of the assessment of costs and benefits. I understand that the Commission is reviewing how to quantify these benefits in an impact assessment. Is there any news on this work? It is important to us. Members of the European Parliament must be taking this seriously because they have set up their own impact assessment unit. We, too, should be making use of this resource.

I have a couple of other points to make. In our paper we speak of public procurement as a means of encouraging demand-side innovation, to use the economists’ jargon. Thanks to the imaginative schemes run by the Technology Strategy Board here in Britain, we have developed a fair way of encouraging companies, large and small, to participate in this. It includes interim grants for small and medium-sized companies. Most small and medium-sized companies are aware of these schemes and many participate. The Commission has its own schemes, which are less successful and more bureaucratic. Can we not try to persuade the Commission to use our schemes, on the simple grounds that they are more effective and, combined, would be more beneficial?

Whenever research and innovation are discussed, intellectual property rights are always a concern. The problem for smaller companies is that protecting their intellectual property rights slows down outcomes: it delays the practical and actual introduction of their innovative services or products. The world of business moves very fast, as the noble Lord, Lord Kakkar, told us. In a perfect world, these companies would protect their intellectual property before it is made public. It is for this reason that our report calls for a more cautious approach to open access, which the Government reject. I hope the Minister understands that in doing so they are slowing down the rate at which innovative products and services are introduced by some firms in this country.

In closing, I thank my chairman and colleagues for their companionship in this inquiry. I give my particular thanks to our staff. I give my thanks also to all who came and gave evidence or sent in written evidence. It has been absolutely fascinating and illuminating—and, I think, worth while.

16:52

[Lord Jenkin of Roding (Con)]

My Lords, I am the first speaker in this debate who was not a member of the committee. Indeed, I have never served on any of the European committees, but I was persuaded to take part by the chair of the committee, my noble friend Lady O’Cathain. I very much share the regret of the noble Lord, Lord Kakkar, that she is unable to be here today.

To pick up a point made by the noble Lord, Lord Haskel, figures that I have seen recently about what is called, in the jargon of the business department, BERD—business enterprise research and development—show that it is a smaller proportion of the total because research and development in other fields has grown very rapidly, but BERD has continued to grow in recent years. This should not be ignored. Indeed, in 2011 it increased in real terms by 6%. As that normally happens only during periods of economic growth, this is quite encouraging and we should not be too pessimistic about it.

When I put my name down to speak, I was a bit apprehensive that I would very quickly find myself out of my depth and perhaps addressing issues that were outwith the main thrust of the report. I need not have worried. The noble Lords, Lord Kakkar and Lord Haskel, have both raised issues to which I will wish to return.

I am doing this because, when I read the committee’s report and the Government’s response, they threw some fresh light on how institutions within the European Union deal with this hugely important area of research and innovation. It led me to compare the way in which this is done in the Community with what happens in this country, always remembering, of course—as the noble Lord, Lord Haskel, reminded us—that much of the money spent in this country that counts as UK research and development or research and innovation is funded through the Community programme.

First, there is obviously common ground. The procedures for assessing the impact of any proposal for research have developed in recent years often in different ways and at different paces, but the purpose of impact assessments has become increasingly clear both to EU institutions and UK bodies such as universities and the research councils. Simply stated, it is this: they are to help those whose task it is to decide how to spend research and innovation money to make choices that will give the best value for money.

But immediately one comes to a question: what is meant by value? At this point, I should perhaps state my interest. I attended a recent seminar held by the Foundation for Science and Technology, of which I was chairman for nine years and am now the president. The subject of the seminar was:

“Maximising the value of the UK strengths in research, innovation and higher education”.

I thought that this might throw some light on the comparison between this country and the EU. Indeed, the words might have been paraphrased as “the effectiveness of research and innovation proposals”, which appears in the title of this report, but that case relates to the European activities.

Whether it is value that you are talking about or effectiveness, I am inclined to believe that they aim at the same thing. Here, the noble Lord, Lord Kakkar, gave us an interesting point on what he thought might be part of value or effectiveness. That was echoed by one of the speakers in our seminar, who asked the question, “What is the value?”. He answered it by asking more questions: “Is it employment, or productivity, or human capital and skills, or human contentment and health—or is it all these things?”. Some of the participants in the discussion started at the other end and suggested that the purpose of research is the advancement of knowledge and understanding, and that this should in turn lead to the innovation which we all seek.

One feature of our discussion on that occasion was that, although the UK stands very high in the world rankings for research or universities or whatever it is—I shall cite in a moment some figures on that which we were given—when it comes to innovation, we are not so successful, as the noble Lord, Lord Haskel, indicated. I shall come to one or two of the reasons.

However, I turn first to universities. Three or four of our top universities regularly figure in the top 10 of virtually every world ranking of universities. When one looks at a longer list of, let us say, the top 50 universities, one sees that there are very few, if any, in other parts of the European Union. In Europe, we absolutely dominate the university field. It has been suggested to me that this may be because far less research is done in EU universities than is done in universities this country and, therefore, they do not rank as high. I can understand that but it is interesting to note that almost none of them is in the top 50. That may to some extent colour the attitude of some of our partners in the European Union.

Turning to research, the UK has 1% of the world population and produces nearly 8% of research papers, almost 12% of world citations and 14.5% of the world’s most highly cited papers. This is a remarkable record of which this country can be very proud. However, as I said a few moments ago, we are not as good at innovating—not nearly as good as this volume and quality of research would suggest that we ought to be. We discussed the trends that may be giving rise to this. The noble Lords, Lord Haskel and Lord Kakkar, have already mentioned one or two of them, but it comes down to knowledge transfer—that is the key phrase—and the difficulty of transferring knowledge from the research field to the industrial field. The noble Lord, Lord Haskel, was absolutely right to put his finger—as does the report—on the fact that this is even more difficult as regards SMEs. Why should this be? Several reasons have been given. One is the inherent institutional, cultural and financial barriers between universities and business. Another is the great reluctance of businesses in this country, but perhaps also in Europe, to take risks and to realise that introducing the products of new research does involve taking risks. There is a reluctance to do that. I was told that if a firm announces that it is going to undertake a major research programme, its shares immediately fall on the market, whereas one might think that this would be a plus. However, in the eyes of the market it is not; it is a minus. The other tendency, of which we are all very well aware, is that of thinking short term rather than long term. However, some of the results of research and innovation may be a long time coming.

I come to my main point. Many of the speakers at the seminar emphasised the huge importance of impact assessments. These have grown over the years in many different ways. In this country it is virtually universal practice to require researchers to make the best assessment they can of the impact which they believe their research could have. The Pro-Vice-Chancellor for Research at Brunel University said that in the experience of that university the very process of having to support a research application for funding with a carefully composed impact assessment was making applicants look at how their research might be transferred to other fields. He went on:

“If the ‘impact agenda’ was to be effective in ensuring that researchers embedded knowledge transfer at the start of projects, they must understand how business might be able to use their research”.

Those seem to me wise words which should apply universally. However, when I turned to the report—here I pick up the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Kakkar—I noted that paragraph 133 states:

“We … urge the Commission to ensure that analysis of R&I policy and proposals is based on scientific evidence, rather than political considerations”.

I find it quite astonishing that that has to be said. Then we had the Government’s response:

“Funding based on excellence is fundamental to the Government’s national research strategy and we also encourage this approach at EU level, as it is the most cost-effective use of public money”.

Can my noble friend on the Front Bench say what the Government are doing within the institutions of the EU to make that happen, if this still has to be said? After all, this is the second report that the committee has produced; there was a 2010 report where it made these selfsame points. Yet here they are three years later, having to repeat them yet again.

[Lord Hunt of Chesterton (Lab)]

This is now the second or third time that this point has been made about peer review. Nature has shown that the whole process of peer review and so-called excellence of research tends to be highly biased towards the English language and the American literature. Some of the most important discoveries were hardly referenced at all in the English language. The EU takes a very broad view of science across Europe, while the rather mechanical view of some of our British colleagues about the nature of choosing by excellence is too narrow. The EC, quite rightly, takes a political and social view of the breadth of science across Europe.

[Lord Jenkin of Roding]

I do not know enough about that aspect of the European attitude on this but I totally support what the committee and the Government have said about the huge importance of basing their decisions on, as they put it in their response, “scientific evidence”. It went on:

“Moreover, it is important to stress that this evidence must be robust, peer-reviewed and replicated. Policy decisions should not be made on the basis of a single report which happens to support a political objective”.

I have no doubt that we will hear from the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, a little later, but I would be interested to know whether my noble friend on the Front Bench supports completely what was said in the Government’s response to this report.

I will not go on quoting; I have taken enough time. Again, I come back to my reaction to this. I found it surprising and depressing that these things still have to be said and are not accepted as part of the overall process of assessing research and development projects. We have been brought up against the background of the Haldane principle. Why do we not have something like the Haldane principle operating within the European Union? We may have our problems in this country—I have outlined the problems of knowledge transfer—but I shall finish on this note. I am left with an uncomfortable feeling that the EU’s approach to the effective use of impact assessments in helping decision makers to secure the best value for money appears to leave a great deal to be desired.

17:08

[Lord Brooke of Alverthorpe (Lab)]

My Lords, I am also a member of Sub-Committee B so I declare an interest there. I join the noble Lord, Lord Kakkar, in expressing our gratitude to the noble Baroness, Lady O’Cathain, for leading us through this exercise, which was not easy. I express our grateful thanks, too, to our clerk, Nicole Mason, and our policy analyst, Paul Dowling. Additionally, I express my gratitude to the Minister, David Willetts, since I have taken evidence from a number of Ministers over the years and I think that we found his approach very refreshing. He was open in endeavouring to respond to the points that we put to him, and it is worth putting on record that he seems to be doing his best there. However, he is not doing it with the easiest of hands.

I say that in the light of having recently been in Brussels. I had not been there for quite some time and those I met ranged from representatives of the Parliament through to the Council. It did not surprise me that we had not had a speedy response to our document because the people I was meeting seemed to be saying, “Well, we want you to stay in Europe and we’re keen to have you there, but if you don’t want to stay then you will go”. This was a new response, different from any that I had heard before.

One felt also that there were some feelings that we have been withdrawing in a number of areas. The following statistic links indirectly to this question: the UK is entitled to 12% of the officials in the European Union but we are now down to only 4.5% of the people working in Brussels and in related organisations of the EU. If we are trying to get business in there, bidding for research and so on, it helps if we have officials working within the EU and particularly working in Brussels. That was given to us in evidence by some people who have made very successful applications in the past for money. We heard from a representative from Cambridge who has now moved to Brussels and says that having a base there has made a world of difference to what they could get when bidding compared with what was happening to them previously. I say to the Minister that, in the broadest sense, we need to have a look at what is happening with our representation there at official level. What chance do our people stand when going in from a distance, or indeed on the spot, if they do not have British officials who know the ropes, so to speak, and can guide them through the labyrinth that has evolved when it comes to submitting bids?

As others have said, many witnesses have explained that R&I is increasingly a global undertaking. While we might have some misgivings about some of the operations of the EU, its performance generally in this area has been identified by most of the people who gave evidence to us as being a worthwhile venture, to be supported and indeed expanded—subject, of course, to trying to ensure that we are getting value for money and that the infrastructure through which people have to apply for the money operates properly and is properly accountable. It is therefore good to see that the EU R&I budget for Horizon 2020 was agreed and publicly announced this week, at €79 billion. This is one of the areas where our committee can claim some success: we said in one of our recommendations, after the Council meeting in February, that the figure of €70 billion that was on offer was not enough and we thought it should be more. The good news was announced yesterday that it has gone up to €79 billion. We were one of the drops of water that went on to the pebble that has made the change.

I am sorry that we have not yet had a response from the Commission to the other points. I will therefore have to speak primarily to the issues where we have some influence and control, and that relates to the recommendations that impact on the areas where the Government can influence the course of events.

In their reply to us at the end of June to our report that was written in April, they seemed to be accepting that they were content with the €70 billion that had been allocated at that stage. We have ended up now with €79 billion. Reading the letter again, I find that it gives some feeling of complacency—a lack of ambition on our part in trying to maximise the returns that we could get for our people then to compete for research and innovation. I am wondering where the Government stood in that negotiation, and I would like to know if today they could give us some insight into how the figure moved up by nearly €10 billion—a phenomenal increase, really, given the background to the budget negotiations. I would welcome some insight there. I suspect that to a degree it might be related to the way in which, since Lisbon was introduced, the Parliament has been able to take unto itself far greater powers than was ever envisaged in the Lisbon agreements.

It is important for government and for all of us to take note of what is taking place in Europe, with the shift in power and relative strength between the Council and the Commission and between the Parliaments. Indeed, if we are to maximise the returns from our involvement in Europe, it is very important that we review the nature of the relationship that we have with some of our representatives there and that we spend more time with our MEPs. That is a side political issue but it knocks back into the question of how we approach research and innovation.

It is interesting, too, to look at how some of the other countries have responded immediately to the announcement about the budget decision having been reached. I see that the Irish have already set out their stall and are seeking to get at least €1 billion for Ireland. It is a far bigger amount than technically they are entitled to but that is the ambition that they have publicly announced. A number of other countries have already said what they plan to do. We have been waiting for quite some time in working with these processes, so can the Minister give us an indication of our ambition in the claims we will be making? How much money do we anticipate we will be trying to get back in terms of research and innovation? We do not have any clarity on this, whereas others have. Similarly, in looking at the shift in the budget figure, our approach may be somewhat complacent and not as ambitious as some of the other countries, which will be in there pitching very vigorously indeed to get the maximum amount returned to them.

We are of course in an international competitive scene and, in certain respects, as others have said, Europe is starting to fall behind some of the major world competitors such as China, Brazil and India. We have seen that, increasingly, they are maintaining high levels of investment in research relating to business and that in many areas they have a much clearer link with businesses than we have.

I am pleased to see that noble Lords associated with the academic world will be speaking later in this debate. We do extraordinarily well, in relative terms, in finding funding for our universities and our higher educational research areas, and long may that continue. The amount that Europe spends in the academic field of research compared with that spent on research in industry has been declining in recent years, whereas the element that our competitors devote to industry and manufacturing has been going up. However, the UK is even worse than it was some years ago in the division between the money going into research for academia and that going into industry. This is a cause of concern for all of us. If the Government are serious about trying to effect a shift in the basis of our economy, moving away from finance and more towards manufacturing and industry, this is something that needs to be given serious attention.

We questioned the Minister about that and about trying to establish closer working contacts, particularly with SMEs. As the noble Lord, Lord Kakkar, mentioned, SMEs are producing 98% of the business in Europe generally and they also feature very highly in the UK. One point of concern to us was the failure to make contacts with SMEs. In turn, that led some of us to have a look at the nature of the structure in the UK for reflecting SMEs’ views and for trying to link SMEs into government machines and, in turn, into applications for research funding and assistance.

Compared with the Germans and two or three of the other major successes in Europe, we find that we are very far behind. We have a disparate approach, ranging from the CBI to the chambers of commerce and even the Federation of Small Businesses. When I read some of the FSB’s submissions, it almost appeared that it was more interested in attacking Europe and its red tape than in trying to offer assistance to its members in submitting applications for research and improving their performance. The Government have to spend more time looking at the contact points. I think that the Minister, the right honourable David Willetts, was not entirely happy with what was there. Previously, they were underfunded and there were not sufficient of them. Have we made changes and do we have plans to put in further resources to provide that assistance?

I come from a trade union background and the Government are ever anxious to do inquiries into unions whenever they seem to be doing things that are not quite acceptable. I do not accept or support unacceptable behaviour. But in general terms of what the country needs, it is time that this Government, or some Government, look at the basis on which we seek to represent the major drivers of growth and jobs in this country—the SMEs. Can we not find a better way to bring them into a collective arrangement whereby they are given the necessary assistance and support to go forward and try to get—to use the rather foul term—their snouts in the trough of the very substantial amounts of money which should come to this country but which go to some others on a scale that is disproportionate to their entitlement?

17:20

[Lord Maclennan of Rogart (LD)]

My Lords, I did not serve on the sub-committee which produced the valuable report but I served on the Select Committee which approved it. It is one of the most telling and focused reports produced in the past year. The Government’s reply is also remarkably satisfactory, although some issues need to be expanded on and explained a little more. Although the European Commission has not directly responded to the report as yet—I understand that part of the reason for that may have been the uncertainty about the multiannual financial agreement—it has now issued a press release, which seems to cover in general terms most of the points made in the recommendations of the report. At least, the press release addresses many of the issues that have been highlighted in the report.

First, the press release, which was issued on 19 November following the European Parliament’s decision on the multiannual financial framework, indicated that,

“EU-funded research and innovation will do more to improve Europeans’ quality of life and enhance the EU’s global competitiveness”.

It also confirmed that, as regards the money, which I believe still is subject to the imprint of the Council, the Parliament has agreed that some €79 billion should be devoted to this, as the noble Lord, Lord Brooke, has indicated. That is an indication that the Commission has been listening to the committee which produced this report. It is also indicative of the strength of Britain in influencing the direction of European policy.

Central to the report, the second point made by the Commission in its press release is:

“Horizon 2020 is … a centre-piece of the EU’s drive to create new growth and jobs in Europe. Researchers and businesses across Europe can count on strongly increased and simplified EU support”.

That is a very important commitment. We have seen over recent years that, although higher education in the United Kingdom is obtaining support from the innovation and research programme to the extent of 61%, private commercial organisations have received only 24% of that assistance, which is not as satisfactory as we would wish.

The third point that is made in the Commission’s statement is that it will seek to strengthen industrial leadership and innovation, including through investment in key technologies and greater access to capital and support for SMEs. It goes on to indicate by way of example some of the most pressing requirements, including the need to address climate change, develop sustainable transport mobility and make renewable energy affordable. Those are sensible priorities. I declare an interest in that I am chairman of a company that promotes marine energy. It is certainly my hope that that form of alternative energy will be recognised as one that has not only great possibilities for this country but more widely.

The final point that is made on the industrial side of research and innovation is also important in the Commission’s statement. It says that it will help to bridge the gap between research and the market by, for example, helping innovative enterprises to develop their technological breakthroughs into viable products with real commercial potential. That has already been trailed to some extent by the connection between Sainsbury’s and the European innovation project in respect of solar power. Pure research is not the entire target that should be focused on under Horizon 2020. We should focus on how it can be deployed to commercial and economic advantage.

I recognise that there are areas of research in which it would be highly appropriate for pure research to be done. To my mind, that is a necessary part of the message that we are sending out. The need to address health issues is clearly one that we ought to focus on. I cite, for example, motor neurone disease, which as yet has no cure and which widely concerns the medical profession—and not only in our own country. We could, for example, hope that the European Union will watch with great interest the convention that is taking place in Milan in December for motor neurone neurologists from across the world. I believe that 700 will be there. They might, by introducing themselves to find some lines of inquiry worth supporting.

That raises another issue, which is whether the money should go only to the European Union. A number of other countries have participated in programmes of research and innovation, and that is highly sensible. I recognise the competitiveness element, which is important in focusing and directing research energy, but other countries could come in on collective research projects and, by so doing, reduce the overall costs.

We would be happy to hear from the Minister answers to some of the questions asked by the chairman of the Sub-Committee in her letter to the Government following their helpful reply. For example, there is an issue about how the NCPs can be operated more effectively. There is another issue about Brussels representation. That is mentioned, but it is not stated how that will be brought about effectively.

Finally, I very much agree with what the noble Lord, Lord Brooke, said about the need to represent SMEs’ interests and possibilities in deciding what projects should be backed. That is a matter for this country to concern itself with: how to get across with clarity and authority the concerns and demands of small enterprises, which are key to our growth.

17:32

[Baroness Warwick of Undercliffe (Lab)]

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Kakkar, for securing this timely debate and congratulate him and the EU Committee on a trenchant and thorough report. I certainly look forward to debating in this House any reports that he makes to us in his new role as an ambassador for healthcare and life sciences.

There are others to congratulate as well, notably the Minister, Universities UK and the UK Higher Education International Unit, as well as other bodies which have been involved in the long-running lobbying campaign to secure a good outcome for research, innovation and higher education in the EU budget negotiations, which were concluded on Tuesday. Although the final figure is less than the €80 billion originally proposed by the Commission, about which the EU Committee is rightly disappointed, it is none the less excellent news for the UK that the budget for research and innovation has been protected in the context of the first overall reduction in the EU budget. However, I have a caveat to that praise in relation to the arts and humanities, to which I will return, as I will be urging the Minister to take further action.

The quality, breadth and depth of research in the UK enable it to secure a disproportionately large quantity of EU research funding, as others have said. Research and innovation is one of the areas where UK interests are most closely aligned with opportunities offered by the EU. The more that the EU invests in research and innovation, the more the UK benefits from EU membership. However, the decision to protect the innovation and research budget in a climate of cuts is also excellent news for Europe. Evidence suggests that each extra 1% invested in public R&D in Europe generates an extra 0.17% in productivity growth. The European Commission has estimated that the current framework programme for research and innovation will create 900,000 additional jobs, and growth in GDP of nearly 1%—growth which equals the total expenditure of all other EU budget lines combined.

In short, the European Union has made the right choice to protect investment for growth. We in the UK will benefit enormously from that decision. So far, under FP7, the UK has received more than 15% of all funding. Only Germany has received more. We are certainly the most successful country by far in applications for European Research Council and Marie Curie research funding. I want to quote one exemplar: UCL. I declare an interest as a council member. UCL is a lead player in EU-funded research and is consistently ranked in the top four HEIs in Europe. It has more than 600 FP7 projects with a total cumulative budget in excess of €300 million. ERC research funding, arguably the most prestigious in Europe, represents half UCL’s research income, which clearly demonstrates excellence across all areas of activity. UCL is the lead HEI in Europe in health-funded research.

The report that we are debating today rightly points out the importance of prioritising excellence. There has been substantial pressure to distribute research funding on other criteria. In my view, it would have been wrong to distribute research funding merely on the basis of geographical factors. Not only would it be unfair, but it would have diluted the economic impact of this investment. The fact that the funding for excellence pillar of the Horizon 2020 budget has been increased is also good news. Further, EU-funded research and innovation enables stakeholders to engage in international collaboration on a global scale. This has positive impacts in Europe and the UK by building a critical mass of knowledge and adds significant value given the global nature of the research environment and the common global societal changes we are all facing.

I now come to my caveat: the arts and humanities. Only last week, the foreign secretary of the British Academy and the president of the All European Academies wrote to the Commissioner for Research, Innovation and Science expressing deep concern that the social sciences and humanities were being marginalised in the development of the Horizon 2020 programme. The amount proposed for SSH research provides considerably less funding than has been available under FP7. The draft work programme foresees bids of between €1.5 million and €2.5 million, which means, on average, roughly four to five successful projects per call across the entire European Union. This is nonsensical. It is bound to have an impact on those bidding, when the chances of success are so small. The presidents are concerned, as well, that there are no structures which embed interdisciplinary work, and I know that the vice-chancellor of Cambridge is raising these issues as we speak with DG Research in Brussels. Will the Minister undertake urgently to talk to the British Academy to understand its concerns so that his department can intervene with the European Commission, should it prove necessary, in order to reassure the social sciences and humanities research community that it will, indeed, be able to contribute to a successful Horizon 2020?

Meanwhile, a new element of the research budget will be targeted at widening participation in research programmes and spreading excellence. It will receive about 1% of funding from the Horizon 2020 budget and will encourage partnerships between strong research institutions and those in new member states through new twinning and teaming initiatives. This will be complemented by much larger structural funds, the receipt of which is now linked to a national innovation strategy being in place.

Although the outcome of the budget negotiations in general is, in my view, good news for the UK and Europe, we cannot afford to be complacent. As the EU Committee points out, if we are to compete with emerging economies, we will have to spend a still higher proportion of GDP on research and innovation. Europe has failed to make significant progress towards meeting the Lisbon goal of investing 3% of GDP in research and development. The EU average is just 2%, while the OECD average is higher at about 2.6%. The UK lags behind, spending less than 1.8% of GDP on R&D. The previous Government had a target to increase this to 2%, but we have made frustratingly slow progress towards that figure.

Meanwhile, as other noble Lords have emphasised, emerging economies such as China and South Korea are increasing investment rapidly and seeing results in improving performance in patent and citation indices. What has happened to that target? What plans do the Government have to raise our game? Does the Minister accept that it would be dangerously complacent for us to assume that we can continue to outperform faster-developing economies when we have much lower levels of investment? As the noble Lord, Lord Hannay, has pointed out elsewhere, the UK has a fantastically efficient research system, more so than the US, as measured by the number of citations for each unit spent. However, it is not at all clear that we can continue to maintain that advantage in the long term.

Finally, the committee is right to identify private sector involvement in R&D as a priority. The UK has an inglorious history of decline on this score. Universities do much to stimulate investment through partnerships with industry, but if we are to maintain our position as a leading economy we need a long-term strategy to address this issue, including by encouraging private firms to participate in European funding projects.

I conclude by asking the Minister to tell the House what plans the Government have to support business, particularly SMEs, to help them take advantage of the opportunities that Europe so clearly presents.

17:41

[The Earl of Liverpool (Con)]

My Lords, I should also like to express my gratitude to the noble Lord, Lord Kakkar, for giving us the opportunity to consider this report today. I congratulate him on giving an excellent tour d’horizon of its contents, which means that I can make a much shorter speech than I had originally planned. I have no interests to declare, other than that I am a member of the EU sub-committee that compiled this report. I take this opportunity to associate myself with remarks that were made earlier. I thank our parliamentary clerk, our policy analyst, the secretariat and others for all the diligent work and help that they gave us during the whole process. We received wise counsels and guidance from many quarters, not least from our chairman, my noble friend Lady O’Cathain. I am sorry that she cannot be with us today.

The very nature of research and innovation means that it seeks to break new frontiers in technology. This inevitably means that it is a keenly fought battleground for new ideas, and as noble lords will be aware, we live in a very competitive world. We have heard that the Horizon 2020 budget, which is to be rolled out next year and which will run until 2020, will be €71 billion—although as the noble Lord, Lord Brooke, mentioned, another €8 billion may be added, which would make it €79. That sounds like a lot of money until—as the noble Lord, Lord Kakkar, said—you look at countries such as China, which are set to increase their spending on R&I to €181 billion by 2015.

If we in Europe are to try to compete with the likes of China on a much smaller grant base, it is essential that we give as much encouragement as we can to involve small and medium-sized businesses in the process. They employ some 70% of our entire workforce, but up to now they have applied for only less than a quarter of all available funding.

Therefore the main point of the report that I will focus on this afternoon is the perceived urgent need to make it easier and more attractive for our SMEs to apply for R&I grants from the EU. One of the reasons for their reluctance to apply for funds in the past is that they see the whole application process as labyrinthine and too bureaucratic. Add to that the fact that they may have to wait up to 499 days—as a worst-case scenario—for their application to be accepted, and then factor in the possibility of late payment, which further exacerbates the time to receiving the grant, and you can see the problem all too clearly. Indeed, my right honourable friend David Willetts, during a very helpful session with the committee, cited a company that was advised that it had been awarded a grant and was so excited and enthused at being told this that it recruited extra staff, but the money was so slow in arriving that it went bust. Paragraphs 100 and 101 on page 35 of the report draw particular attention to that problem.

The committee was also concerned at the lack of flexibility in funding at the end of a given project. By its very nature, innovation is not an exact science and there can often be a time overrun in bringing new ideas to fruition. When that happens, it will inevitably incur extra costs, but there is currently no provision for this in the Horizon 2020 funding package. We believe that the process should be more flexible and that follow-on funding should be made available to help to ensure that projects are completed and achieve full commercial benefit.

The only other point on which I would briefly like to comment concerns the duplication of impact assessments. While they are very important, as noble Lords have said, having them carried out by the European Commission and the European Parliament separately is one level too many. Surely, time and money can be saved by having just one impact assessment board.

I very much look forward to hearing what my noble friend the Minister has to say. Of course, we keenly await hearing from the EU Commission when it responds to the report that we have submitted. I end by expressing the hope that, by 2020, our horizons will be broader, and we will all have benefited from this exciting funding initiative.

17:46

[Lord Hunt of Chesterton]

My Lords, I welcome this constructive debate, introduced by the noble Lord, Lord Kakkar, on the vital issues of research and innovation for the future prosperity of the UK. This is in the case of the UK working inside and with the EU. I regret, as do many commentators, from the Economist to the CBI, and the noble Lord, Lord Brooke, and as insiders have commented in the EEC, that the debate about the UK’s future membership of the EU reduces significantly the UK’s influence on improving the effectiveness of EU programmes for promotion of research and innovation.

Despite the constructive tone of the report, I am sure that UK SMEs will be pleased that Minister Willetts in the Government’s response highlighted the importance to the UK of the Horizon 2020 future programme, and the public-private dimension of that programme. However, it is surprising that I have now heard one or two speeches by Minister Willetts, and he has never mentioned Europe. There was a big meeting of the Royal Society on the future of science and technology in universities, but Europe was not mentioned. There was mention of the Conservative Party programme on science and technology, but Europe was not mentioned. So I am very pleased at the constructive tone of the Government’s reply in this correspondence.

Everyone, including EC officials whom I have contacted—there may not have been an official response, but I e-mailed some EC officials this week and asked them what they thought about this—agree that the delivery of these programmes could be more efficient and easier for SMEs. I declare an interest as a scientist, working on EC programmes for the last 20 or 30 years, and as a director of a small high-tech company that has received funds from the EC as well as from the UK Government.

The European Commission and European institutions have, of course, transformed many aspects of European science and technology, particularly through their practical and commercial applications. Europe leads the world in practical meteorology. You go to the United States now and turn on a weather channel and they say, “The European weather forecast is the following and the American forecast is this”. You can listen the next day and find out which is correct; for example, the Europeans get the hurricanes right. Europe is remarkably advanced in environmental science. In Beijing, the pollution forecasting for the Olympics was done by a public-private team from Europe. Similarly, in aviation, we know which aeroplanes are the best, and it is the same with advances in nuclear fusion.

I hope that the Minister will take the message from this debate to the Prime Minister that, when he goes to China in two weeks’ time, he should travel on a European aeroplane, Airbus, and make sure that he chooses an airline that has an Airbus with Rolls-Royce engines. That may take a bit of trickery but I can assure noble Lords that there are airlines that do have them. I hope that when he goes to Beijing he will talk about the European prowess in innovation and research and not just leave it to Monsieur Hollande. Time and time again we hear no mention at all by British Ministers of European projects in which the UK is involved, whereas when Monsieur Hollande goes there, one might think that all these European projects were French—but they are not; they are British. We build the wings of Airbus. Enough said, but I hope that the Minister and our colleagues in the Box will take this message away.

This report emphasises how the European Commission has been particularly effective—much more so than the United States in many ways—in identifying new areas of technical research and setting up networks across the EU. One of Boeing’s top aerodynamicists came to a conference this summer in Lyon and was amazed by the new concepts and applications for turbulence over wings developed by European programmes. No academic in the United States has any idea about Boeing’s future plans, but in Europe hundreds of research groups are participating in the Airbus programme. It is a remarkable general programme. However, I received a very mealy-mouthed response to a PQ in which I asked what the effect on our Airbus programme would be of Britain leaving Europe. To my astonishment, the reply was that there would be no difference except, perhaps, to one or two tiny research projects. Leaving Europe would have an enormous impact, and this is something that we should be clear about.

The regional networks are rightly emphasised in this report, despite the Government’s destruction of some of the regional economic programmes which existed before they came to power. The networks that I helped to set up with colleagues across Europe to bring researchers together with industry have been going successfully since 1988. One of the points made in the report is that programmes are funded by the European Commission and then stop. What happens to the people involved? If the various industries and researchers have their own networks then although the EC projects may come and go, the bottom-up network will continue. Some EC officials were reluctant about having these independent networks but now realise that they are actually a good way to fit the pieces together.

The other feature of the EC system is that it is inevitably bureaucratic because it is trying to do things that have not been done before. It is trying to bring people from all across Europe together and introduce interdisciplinary projects. I accept that there will not be much correspondence if you have one project in Swindon that is working on one topic in one lab. But if you are trying to do something across Europe and break new ground, you will have a lot of meetings and letters—because it is worth it and you will get the most remarkable results. There was an effective project on system dynamics in policymaking involving all sorts of disciplines which, noble Lords will be pleased to hear, ended up considering even the fashionable question of defining happiness. We also had interesting discussions about what is wrong with economics, and we had meetings here in Parliament. That is outreach and broadness and it takes a lot of organisation. However, through the extraordinary European office of University College London, all this was handled smoothly and no one complained about bureaucracy. None of these kinds of projects occurs in the United States or any other advanced country.

I asked the CEO of a high-tech SME who was previously a director of a university science park about this issue in order to get an objective view. He agreed about the benefits of EC support for networks but said that there were definitely problems for many individual SMEs. The difficulties included understanding what the grants were and how to apply for them. He said that there were certainly problems about payment and it was important to understand the rules on payments when applying for a grant.

The tenor of this report implies that the big companies can move through it all smoothly and it is just the SMEs which are having difficulties. One of the reasons the SMEs find it difficult is that the big companies delay delivering their share of the contribution. No one gets paid if the big boys do not do their job in time. It is not quite as simple as has been implied, and I have seen that problem for myself.

There is a major gap in this report. While listening to speaker after speaker, I thought that surely someone would mention it, but astonishingly no one mentioned the really surprising thing. The Government and the European Commission have to promote the technology of Europe. They do a pretty bad job of it. If you go to Beijing, as I do quite often—and I came back from Kuala Lumpur last night—you will have 25 trade missions, including the European trade mission, all giving little bits of this and that. Then you have the American trade mission with extraordinarily specialised offices from all the federal agencies. Who will you buy your product from when you have it all explained to you by the United States? The co-ordination behind pushing out European projects is absolutely hopeless, and this needs to be discussed.

We have the UKTI and I am pleased to see that the present Government are promoting exports and supporting UKTI’s budget. However, the department should be working with other European countries. The noble Lord, Lord Oxburgh, and I went to a trade fair in Singapore. If I may say so, there was a pathetic little sideshow by the Brits. It should have been much broader and more European in order to compete with Japan and the rest of them. I hope that that might be something that could be considered. Where we do have European projects, of which the Airbus is a brilliant example, they are promoted because they need to be. Monsieur Hollande does a good job, and let us hope that our Prime Minister will take that point on board.

Another feature of this debate is that our Government should themselves be able to promote these European projects. The United States Department of Commerce has an office not only for promoting US products, but for looking at products for promotion from all around the rest of the world. I do not believe that our Government in Whitehall are even looking at the European projects we are funding, some of which are Brit in origin and some in other countries, to see how we can use them. That is a really important point. Our money is being used to fund technological projects in other countries in Europe, but are we making use of them for our industry? Probably not. This is a broader aspect of the process that needs to be considered.

An interesting aspect of the report is the recommendation to support the Chief Scientific Adviser. I interrupted the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, earlier in the debate on the question of objective science. I get slightly complicated about objective science because I have been to France, Japan and China where you can see that the nature of peer review is terribly Anglo-US dominated. There is a lot of very important science that is never referenced or seen by these things. The IPCC is perhaps another example. That is particularly true of the humanities where you have all sorts of literature in many different languages. It should be part of the Chief Scientific Adviser’s remit to take a broad view of what the standard of science is across Europe, and the office should also be involved in identifying flagship projects.

Finally, what Europe needs to do is build on the brilliance and originality of its design innovation. The great thing about the UK is that we have a rather anarchic form of originality that does not fit easily into the more Napoleonic systems of administration in the European Commission. It is good that we have a Chief Scientific Adviser from Scotland who understands anarchy, so hopefully she will understand how the Brits can make better use of the EC.

17:59

[Lord Young of Norwood Green (Lab)]

My Lords, I felt inhibited participating in this debate even before that tour de force, delivered by my noble friend Lord Hunt. Like all other participants, I congratulate the committee on its comprehensive report, which has initiated a debate that is definitely one for the connoisseurs but is fascinating and wide-ranging. Everyone who participated in the debate recognised the challenge facing the UK in an increasingly competitive global marketplace. As my noble friend Lord Haskel said, we need a strategy—a coherent strategy—that enables us to succeed by harnessing the undoubted talents that exist in both higher education and public and private enterprise. Importantly, the committee report focuses on the question of SMEs.

As was said a number of times during the debate, higher education managed to get a 61% share of the budget, putting us among the top participating nation states. We need to replicate that success with private commercial organisations. Are we ready to take advantage of the new framework programme, Horizon 2020, which starts in 2014?

In preparing for the debate, I looked at the joint statement, Fuelling Growth: Research and Innovation as Drivers of UK Growth and Competitiveness, published by the Academy of Medical Sciences, the British Academy, the Royal Academy of Engineering and the Royal Society. It says that although we are world leaders in research, that cannot be taken for granted, as international competitors are catching up. It recommends that the Government,

“enhance its support for research and innovation with a long-term vision for the UK’s knowledge economy”,

and build a 10-year investment programme for R&I,

“at the heart of its emerging industrial strategy and plans for growth”.

A couple of other areas are well worth quoting from. One area the statement focuses on is the question of developing skills if we are going to achieve the kind of objectives we want to see in research and innovation. It says:

“Global competition for excellence makes it essential that the UK remains an attractive place for the most talented individuals and teams to work, whether they are from home or from elsewhere in the world. Excellent people will in turn attract commercial investment. With over one million new science, engineering and technology professionals and technicians required by 2020, the supply of high quality STEM skills in the UK will be even more important than it is today. The UK’s ability to nurture domestic talent and attract the best international researchers will be an important component of the response to this shortfall”.

I would welcome the Minister’s response on that particular issue. The statement ends with a plea:

“We advise the Government to develop a stable ten year investment framework for research, innovation and skills in consultation with the research communities in academia, industry and charities. This framework should sit at the heart of its emerging industrial strategy and plans for growth”.

Does the Minister agree with those two key aspects of the joint statement? Do the Government support the views in the report?

I am very interested in the Government’s response on assisting SMEs with what are defined as the national contact points. The committee welcomed the reform of these national contact points. The Minister writes that the national contact points will, collectively, be better resourced and a majority accessible on a full-time basis. Following up on the committee’s concern about engaging businesses and SMEs specifically, the Minister states that national contact points will offer:

“A stronger central support … especially to businesses”.

What exactly does the Minister mean by that? Outcome rather than intention is of paramount importance and it is hoped that this will contribute to increasing the share of participants coming from business and industry.

Many universities have associated business parks and science parks, and provide facilities for SMEs and start-up businesses; I have visited a few of these myself. Surely these business hubs should be the ideal place to encourage participation of SMEs. Unless I missed it, I did not see any reference in the committee report or the Government’s response to the role of local enterprise partnerships, which, after all, are the Government’s replacement for RDAs—something that we did not agree with but they are with us. What is the role of local enterprise partnerships in achieving the Horizon 2020 objectives? Surely they should be a key part of the jobs and growth strategy for encouraging SMEs to participate. The point made by my noble friend Lord Brooke about the role of the Federation of Small Businesses and chambers of commerce in assisting this process is also very important.

My noble friend Lord Haskel made the point that this funding is vital because in part it compensates for the failures in bank lending. Another important point was made by the noble Lord, Lord Kakkar, in his introduction, when he pointed out that innovation is at the heart of what Europe requires, and I liked his suggested new definition of countries as either innovation-rich or innovation-poor. It is an interesting viewpoint.

Throughout this debate we have seen the importance of funding. Although everybody has welcomed the increase, the point has been made a couple of times that if you compare the European contribution of something like €79 billion with the Chinese one, it is a cause for concern. When it comes to how long it takes for money to be received through this project—whether you take the 340-day average or the worst-case scenario that the noble Earl, Lord Liverpool, pointed to—surely that is a concern, even if one accepts the complexity of some of these projects. My noble friend Lady Warwick pointed out the importance of the funding and that we are nowhere near to meeting the Lisbon goal of 2% of GDP.

Another interesting point was made by my noble friend Lord Brooke when he talked about the UK attitude to Europe and whether we like it or not—and many of us do not—the fact that we now seem to have such a sceptical or ambivalent attitude towards Europe is being reflected in the European attitude towards us. He quoted the worrying statistic that now only 4.5% of EU officials are British.

The questions that the Minister has to address, apart from the specific ones that have been put to him by noble Lords, are: do we have a coherent strategy? Do we have a long-term vision for research and innovation? Do we have the policies that will encourage SMEs to become more active? Can we ensure that the policies we have will enable us to make the maximum use of the Horizon programme? I look forward to the Minister’s response.

18:09

[Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)]

My Lords, it has been a stimulating debate. We have travelled far and wide—to Kuala Lumpur, Singapore and China—and I will cover most if not all of the questions in my response. Before I go further, it would be remiss of me if I did not pay tribute to the excellent introduction to this debate provided by the noble Lord, Lord Kakkar, and congratulate him on his recent appointment as UK business ambassador for health and life sciences—which, again, underlines and illustrates what we hope is the continuing promotion of British and European interests abroad. It is also appropriate for me to pay tribute to the chairmanship of my noble friend Lady O’Cathain. What I am sure would have been her forthright and robust contributions to today’s debate have been missed. I am also always mindful of the fact that while our debates on Europe may take place under various watchful eyes, they are under the watchful eye, too, of the chairman of the EU Committee, the noble Lord, Lord Boswell, who remains my noble friend. I join other noble Lords in thanking the members of the committee for their excellent report and the comprehensive way in which they have dealt with a variety of issues which I shall seek to address.

The report examined in great detail the issues surrounding the EU’s major funding programmes for research, development and innovation and made a number of important recommendations. As several noble Lords have pointed out, the Government have responded and we have had various exchanges in this regard.

The report is aimed at ensuring that these programmes, which will be responsible for spending some €70 billion over the next seven years, from 2014 to 2020, are as effective as they can be. Many of the recommendations were addressed to the European Commission and, like all noble Lords who have spoken today, the Government look forward to seeing its response in the near future.

On the UK’s track record of participation in EU research programmes, one point which emerged clearly from the report was the major opportunity that the EU’s existing and future funding programmes have offered, and will continue to offer, to UK researchers and research institutions. The UK is already a very strong player in the EU’s current framework programme, FP7. It receives, as several noble Lords, including the noble Lord, Lord Haskel, pointed out, 15.4% of the total funding available, which puts us second only to Germany among our European partners. The UK also participates in more successful projects than any other country: 41.2 % of all grant agreements in FP7 to date include at least one UK partner. Research-intensive UK universities have been particularly successful in this regard and are actively engaged in Europe. Several universities—Birmingham, for instance—have Brussels offices and now derive a substantial proportion of their external research income from EU sources. The value of presence on the ground was a point made by several noble Lords and our universities are certainly taking this forward.

The noble Lord, Lord Kakkar, in his excellent contribution, stressed the importance of the assessment of programmes and their delivery. In this regard, I want to highlight to your Lordships’ House several notable success stories. For example, the Nobel prize-winning work undertaken at Manchester on graphene, an ultra-thin, ultra-light and superconductive material with potential uses ranging from energy storage and high-speed computing to improved tennis racquets, was partly EU-funded. Jaguar and Rolls-Royce are collaborating with Queen Mary College and innovative UK SMEs in a project aimed at turning waste heat from engine exhaust gases into electricity, meaning reduced carbon dioxide emissions and better fuel consumption. ARM Ltd has successfully participated in a series of EU research projects which have helped underpin its global leadership in providing microchip designs for a broad range of digital technologies. I say to my noble friend Lord Maclennan that the Jaguar and Rolls-Royce example underlines issues and challenges that we are looking at in terms of environment.

On the quality of the UK research base, the UK does well because of the excellence of the research conducted here. An indicator of this strength is provided by the distribution of grants by the European Research Council, which funds groundbreaking research on the basis of Europe-wide peer review. Among all the ERC grant-holders, the UK ranks well ahead of both Germany and France. This quality provides a firm basis on which to build even stronger engagement in the future. I agree wholeheartedly with the praise of the noble Lord, Lord Haskel, for the European Research Council, which plays an important role in all these EU research programmes, and from which, as I have already illustrated, the UK has done well.

The noble Lord, Lord Kakkar, and others referred to Horizon 2020. The process of negotiating the new seven-year Horizon 2020 programme has been long and complex but the political agreement that was reached between the Council and the European Parliament represents, in the Government’s view, a good deal for Britain. It retains the primacy of excellence as the factor for deciding who receives funding. I know that we have discussed this issue but I assure my noble friend Lord Jenkin that excellence is the key determining factor in this regard. The programme is structured round a limited number of key societal challenges such as health, climate change and energy security. It also provides a range of support right along the innovation chain, from blue sky research through to large-scale demonstrators of new technologies. It seeks to embed and mainstream the insights from research in the social sciences and the arts and humanities—I know that was a concern of the noble Baroness, Lady Warwick—another area of UK strength across the programme, as she rightly pointed out. It will allocate increased levels of dedicated funding to innovative small and medium-sized enterprises. I agree with the important point that the noble Lord, Lord Haskel, raised about applying a much broader interpretation of research and innovation. Horizon 2020 will make provision for other areas of support and for new business models.

The noble Lord, Lord Kakkar, and others referred to red tape. One of the key challenges and issues for the implementation of the programme remains that of reducing red tape and administrative overheads. We should not look at this just in a European context. As someone who spent many years in the private sector before joining your Lordships’ House—indeed, during my time on the Conservative Back Benches I continued in business—I know that red tape is not just an issue that government must tackle but one with which many businesses across the board have to grapple. The rules that set the conditions for participation in the Horizon 2020 programme contain welcome simplifications, which is something for which we have pushed. The Government will monitor in particular the European Commission’s performance in delivering on its commitment to reduce the time taken over funding decisions by 100 days. My noble friend Lord Liverpool pointed out that it is all very well securing the funding but asked what is the point of bidding for it if, by the time it arrives, the business has closed. That is a very important point on which to reflect.

As regards Horizon 2020 funding, within a smaller overall multiannual financial framework for 2014-20, spending on research and innovation is one of the few areas to increase. This is in recognition of the potential for spending in this area to contribute to sustainable growth and jobs and add real value to the investments made at national level: a point underlined at the European Council meeting last month.

I turn to business participation. As several noble Lords have pointed out, in looking at UK participation in EU funding programmes, I have thus far focused on the performance of our UK universities. I am aware that UK business participation in the framework programme has not always been as strong as we would have liked. There are several reasons for this. I have already referred to the levels of bureaucracy and red tape associated with EU funding. I assure all noble Lords that we shall work with the Commission to address this in Horizon 2020. Indeed, the committee’s report specifically highlighted this as a major concern.

The Government also need to enhance their support to potential participants. The Department for Business, Innovation and Skills and the Technology Strategy Board have therefore been working on the implementation of new national support services for Horizon 2020. A new TSB-hosted website and helpline service will be ready in time for the launch of the first competitions for grants in December. I turn to some specific questions in this regard. The noble Lord, Lord Kakkar, referred to the key role of SMEs. The Technology Strategy Board has a key role to play through the national contact points system in prompting opportunities for SMEs. It is welcome that funding will be allocated on the basis of excellence, as I have already mentioned. For the first time, individual SMEs will be able to receive funding, so they will no longer be required to find out about partner organisations. This, we feel, should help participation and make it easier for SMEs to participate themselves.

The noble Lord, Lord Young, also raised the issue of the national contact points. Full-time employees of the Technology Strategy Board will be better integrated with the technology innovation structures, the knowledge transfer network and the Enterprise Europe Network to provide a better co-ordinated service. He also raised the important point about the role of local enterprise partnerships. The TSB is in the process of developing relationships with the LEPs, including a focus on their innovation agenda. This includes drawing attention to the opportunities available for EU funding, notably via the structural funds.

The TSB’s recruitment of the new Horizon 2020 national contact points is under way. The TSB is also actively looking to establish a presence in Brussels early in 2014 that will further help to improve the support it provides in increasing business access to Horizon 2020 programmes. Furthermore, we are working to strengthen communications strategies to ensure that information about Horizon 2020 and the opportunities which it offers is available to all those who might have an interest in participating. I fully take on board the important point made by several noble Lords about having presence on the ground. Again, I underline the Government’s commitment to encouraging that. When I was discussing this debate with officials, I raised the obvious point that while it is all very well having the funding, if you do not know about it then it is a difficult chore. Therefore, the communication strategy that the Government are seeking to put behind this will, we hope, also encourage wider and greater participation, especially at the SME level.

Several noble Lords also mentioned the barriers to innovation. It is essential that European funding programmes for research and innovation foster the emergence of new industry sectors and jobs. The committee’s excellent report rightly drew attention to issues that affect the exploitation of the outputs and outcomes of the projects funded. One such was the EU regulatory environment. For instance, there is little point in working on disruptive technologies if the regulatory framework or regime favours existing technologies. More generally, there are concerns about EU regulations or differences of approach between EU countries which make it excessively difficult, at times, for business to bring innovative products to the market. The noble Lord, Lord Haskel, spoke about the importance of the demand side in innovation, particularly in public procurement. I am glad to report that Horizon 2020 will in fact introduce a new SME instrument aimed at pulling innovations through into the market place.

I turn to promoting innovation-friendly regulation. My right honourable friend the Minister for Universities and Science has been actively promoting a more innovation-friendly regulatory environment in Europe, working with key partner countries. We are now seeking to build on this momentum and to provide and promote a greater role and higher profile for scientific advice in policy and decision-making, drawing on the expertise of the chief scientific adviser to the EU and the Commission’s in-house joint research centre.

We have heard a lot about what some noble Lords suggested was the diminishing influence of Britain in Europe. I do not agree with that point. As the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, pointed out, it is notable that the Commission’s chief scientific adviser, Professor Anne Glover, is indeed British. I use that word deliberately. She may be Scottish but she is British as well, and long may that be the case.

The noble Lords, Lord Brooke and Lord Hunt, raised the issue of representation on the ground in the EU. I must point out that in this policy area, notwithstanding how many British representatives we have at the moment, one of the important things to realise about Europe is that while officials there are of course promoting national interests, there are also the wider interests of Europe. We certainly take the view that we must establish good working relationships with all Commission officials. The only thing I would point out in support of this point, which was also well made by my noble friend Lord Maclennan, is that the success of our relationship is perhaps underlined by the fact that Her Majesty’s Government have secured many of our key negotiating objectives within Horizon 2020.

I shall deal with a small point as an aside. The noble Lord, Lord Brooke, and my noble friend Lord Liverpool raised the issue of the actual funding amount. Because this was preset, the actual funding remains and is then adjusted, so the figure of €79 billion that we are hearing being quoted has been adjusted for inflation. It is important to point out that distinction.

I turn to the launch of Horizon 2020. The package is now largely agreed and waiting for formal adoption at the end of this year. Officials are working closely on this point. Indeed, in a “hot off the press” moment, I was informed as I was coming in to the debate that only this morning the European Parliament agreed in its plenary session in favour of the Horizon 2020 package. This will now pass to the Council of Ministers and we are currently awaiting the date of that meeting. We will continue to work with all UK stakeholders and our partner countries in preparing the ground for the formal launch of the programme, drawing up work programmes, for instance, and engaging with potential participants to ensure that they are fully aware of the opportunities on offer. A series of promotional events is planned, with BIS holding a formal high-level launch event for Horizon 2020 on 31 January next year. I am of course happy to share the details of the programme as it is agreed.

I shall touch on a few other questions that were raised. The issue of impact assessments was mentioned. As I said, excellence will remain a key part of this. My noble friend Lord Liverpool raised a concern over duplication of the European Parliament’s role as well as the role of the European Commission. That is something that we have taken up and we are assured that, rather than duplicate this, the role will be perceived as being complementary in nature.

I have great respect for my noble friend Lord Jenkin and 99% of the time I find myself agreeing with him on the matters that he raises. He referred to the political criteria currently being used and asked why certain issues have to be raised again. One of the things that I grew up with in personal, business and indeed political life was that if you believe in a particular point, if you believe in something such as the importance of excellence and the importance of reiterating a point, and you wish to provide some constructive input to your friends, you keep reminding them of it. However, for many years applications have been assessed on the basis of an independent peer review. The principle is now fully accepted and written into the Horizon 2020 legislation. As I have already said, the principle of excellence is manifest in the European Research Council, which is widely acknowledged and which supports world-class research.

My noble friend Lord Maclennan raised an important point about the EU research and innovation programme and the importance of participating and perhaps broadening it more internationally—I agree with him on this point—where there is mutual benefit to be had. Again, this will be an important feature of Horizon 2020. My noble friend also asked various questions about the committee’s reply to my right honourable friend David Willetts’s letter of 19 July. The TSB is actively looking to establish a Brussels presence, as I have already said. The issue of British nationals in the DG was raised. Up to 59 currently work in the research directorate-general. The noble Baroness, Lady Warwick, raised concerns about humanities, which I hope I have addressed and reassured her about. There were a couple of other small questions which, if I may in the interests of time, I shall write to noble Lords about.

[Baroness Warwick of Undercliffe]

Before the noble Lord reaches his peroration, I wonder whether he could address a specific point. Because of the urgency of the position with regard to the arts and humanities, will he undertake to talk to the British Academy about its concerns?

[Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon]

I assure the noble Baroness that that is already happening: officials are talking on the exact point that she has raised. I do not think that it is happening in real time but I assure her that an ongoing conversation is taking place.

The noble Lord, Lord Hunt, raised various issues concerning China and the representations made there. My right honourable friend the Prime Minister is visiting China. Through UKTI, we have an established presence in China—in both Beijing and Shanghai—and we continue to promote not only UK interests but European interests as well.

The noble Lord, Lord Hunt, also suggested that I could perhaps use my influences in relation to the Prime Minister’s travel plans. I can only share my experience as someone whose in-laws are in Australia. When I go there, I try to book the A380 simply because it is an easier way to travel, and I shall certainly seek to share my experiences on that front.

Both the noble Lords, Lord Brooke and Lord Hunt, asked whether the Government are committed to research and innovation and whether we believe in it. I can do no better than pay tribute to my right honourable friend David Willetts, the Minister for Universities and Science. The noble Lord, Lord Hunt, said that he has not been mentioning the EU much, but perhaps I may give a direct quotation. He said:

“Driving research and innovation in the EU is central to putting our economies back on the road to a sustainable and competitive future … This is one of the areas where we can benefit the most from constructive engagement with our European counterparts. Some of the most exciting and innovative research projects have been the fruits of greater cross-boundary cooperation and mobility”.

[Lord Hunt of Chesterton]

Where did he say that? Was it in the letter?

[Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon]

He said it in the letter.

[Lord Hunt of Chesterton]

Exactly, but not in a public speech.

[Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon]

I can assure the noble Lord of one thing. My right honourable friend is well known to him. I represent his interests and his department, and that is a view that he shares quite publicly. I shall certainly review his speeches and get back to the noble Lord, but perhaps I may also say that that particular sentiment is confirmed within the committee’s report.

It is vital that this opportunity is seized across the board both by the well established participants in the EU’s recent programmes and by newcomers. The UK has been a major player to date in EU research funding programmes, and the Government are totally committed to ensuring that participation is further strengthened in the years ahead.

18:32

[Lord Kakkar]

My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have taken the trouble to contribute to this very thorough and thoughtful debate, in which important issues have been raised. I think that it has demonstrated the deep commitment of your Lordships’ House not only to pursuing questions with regard to research and innovation, which are vital for the future of our nation and, indeed, for the future of all European nations, but to continuing to scrutinise and encourage the further development of programmes within the European Union. Those programmes can be brought to bear not only for the benefit of the people of our own country but for the benefit of the citizens of Europe more broadly.

Motion agreed.

House adjourned at 6.33 pm.