House of Commons

Monday 9th December 2013 Commons Chamber

Monday 9 December 2013

The House met at half-past Two o’clock

Prayers

Monday 9th December 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker in the Chair]

Tributes to Nelson Mandela

Monday 9th December 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

The House will wish to know how we intend to proceed today. Defence questions will be postponed to next Monday. The present list of questions will be carried over; there will not be another shuffle. The Table Office will announce consequential changes shortly.

This is a special day for special tributes to a special statesman, Nelson Mandela. I hope that as many Members as possible will be able to contribute. Tributes may continue until 10 pm. There will be no end-of-day Adjournment debate.

The House will also wish to know that there will be an event to commemorate and celebrate the life and achievements of Nelson Mandela in Westminster Hall at 2 pm on Thursday 12 December.

I call the Prime Minister.

14:35

[The Prime Minister (Mr David Cameron)]

Nelson Mandela was a towering figure in our lifetime, a pivotal figure in the history of South Africa and the world, and it is right that we meet in this Parliament to pay tribute to his character, his achievements and his legacy.

The Union and South African flags flew at half mast over Downing street for the day after his death, and they will do so again on the day of his funeral. Condolence books have been organised by the South African high commission. This evening, the Deputy Prime Minister, the Leader of the Opposition and I will all fly to South Africa to attend the memorial service in Johannesburg. On Sunday, His Royal Highness the Prince of Wales will represent this country at his funeral in Qunu. Here in this House, everyone’s thoughts are with the family of Nelson Mandela, his friends and the millions in South Africa and around the world who are mourning him today.

When looking back over history, it can be easy to see victories over prejudice and hatred as somehow inevitable. As the years lengthen and events recede, it can seem as though a natural tide of progress continually bears humanity ever upwards—away from brutality and darkness, and towards something better—but it is not so. Progress is not just handed down as a gift; it is won through struggle, the struggle of men and women who believe things can be better and who refuse to accept the world as it is, but dream of what it can be.

Nelson Mandela was the embodiment of that struggle. He did not see himself as a helpless victim of history; he wrote it. We must never forget the evil of apartheid and its effect on everyday life: separate benches, separate buses, separate schools, even separate pews in church; inter-racial relationships criminalised; pass laws and banning orders; and a whole language of segregation that expressed man’s inhumanity to man.

Nelson Mandela’s struggle was made ever more vital by acts of extreme brutality —such as at Sharpeville and Soweto—on the part of the South African authorities. His was a journey that spanned six decades: from his activism in the ’40s and ’50s, through nearly three decades of incarceration, to his negotiations that led to the end of apartheid and his election to the highest office in South Africa. It was, as he said, a long walk to freedom.

As a prisoner in a cell measuring 7 feet by 8 feet, there must have been times when Nelson Mandela felt that his fists were beating against a wall that would not be moved, but he never wavered. As he famously said at his Rivonia trial, he wanted to live for and achieve

“the ideal of a democratic and free society”,

but it was also an ideal for which, as he said very clearly, he was “prepared to die.” Even after long years of imprisonment, he rejected offers for his freedom until all conditions that would have prevented his struggle for justice were removed. What sustained him throughout it all was a belief in human dignity—that no one is naturally superior over anyone else, that each person has inherent worth. As he said so powerfully when he came to speak in this Parliament:

“In the end, the cries of the infant who dies because of hunger or because a machete has slit open its stomach will penetrate the noises of the modern city and its sealed windows to say, ‘Am I not human, too?’”

Nelson Mandela’s cries for justice pierced the consciences of people around the world.

Let me pay tribute to the Members of this House, including the right hon. Member for Neath (Mr Hain), who considered it part of their life’s work not to rest until the evil of apartheid was ended. Mandela knew that there were millions across our country who said no to apartheid in ways large and small, from mass concerts to quiet shows of solidarity. There can be no doubt that he had a warmth of feeling for this country. He visited just months after his release from prison and a number of times in the following years, including the time when he spoke so memorably in Trafalgar square at that great event to make poverty history.

The character of Nelson Mandela was shown not only in the determination with which he fought, but in the grace with which he won. Nearly three decades in prison could so easily have left him bitter. On his release, he could have meted out vengeance on those who had done him so much wrong. Perhaps the most remarkable chapter of Mandela’s story is how he took the opposite path. In victory, he chose magnanimity. Indeed, with characteristic generosity, he invited his former jailer to his presidential inauguration. He employed as his private secretary a young Afrikaner woman who became his confidant and, in an image that is printed indelibly on our minds, he roused his country behind the Springboks in the most powerful gesture of reconciliation.

Nelson Mandela’s Government pursued a very deliberate policy of forgiveness. F. W. de Klerk and other National party officials were brought into his Government of national unity. The Truth and Reconciliation Commission was established to break the spiral of recrimination and violence. Those were astonishingly brave moves. His desperate hope was for an African renaissance, with South Africa at its heart.

In Mandela’s time after office, he showed no less determination in stepping up the fight against AIDS. It has been one of the great honours of my life to go to South Africa and meet Mandela. I remember discussing that issue in his office and hearing his determination to ensure that antiretroviral drugs reached all those in need. Here was a man of 88 who had been imprisoned for decades and missed a lot of the rapid social change that had taken place, but who had the vision to see through the destructive attitudes towards AIDS in South Africa. All those actions were marks of his extraordinary personal leadership.

Today, although challenges remain in South Africa, that country is on a far more hopeful path because of what Nelson Mandela did. Indeed there are signs of hope across the whole continent in its growth, in its emerging middle class and in the birth of new democracies.

Around the world, there already exist many monuments to Nelson Mandela. Just a few hundred yards from here, in Parliament square, the champion of democracy is cast in bronze, arm outstretched, mid-speech, as if beseeching those in this House to remember that democracy is a gift, and a gift to be used well. There has been a lot of debate, rightly, about how to secure his legacy. Surely one part must be to rededicate ourselves to the task of eradicating poverty and conflict in Africa, in which our historic commitment to provide 0.7% of our gross national income in aid can ensure that Britain plays her full part.

Of course, the most important monument to Mandela must be the lessons he has taught us: that there is dignity and worth in every human being; that an ounce of humility is worth more than a ton of might; that lasting, long-term change needs patience, even the patience of a life-time, but that change can come with determination and sacrifice.

It is with sadness that we meet here today to remember Nelson Mandela, but it is with gladness that we can say this: it was a long walk to freedom, but the walk is over and freedom was won. For that, Nelson Mandela has the deepest respect of this House and his enduring place in history.

14:43

[Edward Miliband (Doncaster North) (Lab)]

Today, we remember the incomparable life of Nelson Mandela.

This House traditionally gathers to pay tribute to those who have led our country; it is unusual for us to meet to honour the leader of another. Why is it so essential that we commemorate the life of President Mandela in this way? It is for simple reasons: he is an enduring and unique symbol of courage, hope and the fight against injustice; he teaches us the power of forgiveness, having showed no bitterness towards his captors, just the love of a country that could be so much better if all its people could be free; and he demonstrates, even to the most sceptical, the power of people and politics to change our world. That is why we gather here today. On behalf of my party, I send the deepest condolences to his widow, Graça Machel, the Mandela family and all the people of South Africa. We mourn with them.

Today is an opportunity to remember the extraordinary life and the extraordinary story of Nelson Mandela. He led a movement, the African National Congress, that liberated a country. He endured the suffering and sacrifice of 27 years in prison—a son unable to attend his mother’s funeral, a father unable to attend his son’s. But in the face of such oppression, his spirit never bent or broke. Offered the chance of release in 1985 after more than 20 years in jail on the condition that he give up the armed struggle, he refused.

“I cannot sell my birthright, nor am I prepared to sell the birthright of my people to be free”,

he said.

We honour him too because of the remarkable person the world found him to be after he walked out of prison in 1990 in those scenes that we all remember. As his old comrade Archbishop Desmond Tutu said:

“Suffering can embitter its victims, but equally it can ennoble the sufferer.”

There can be nothing more noble than determining not to seek revenge on your oppressors but to seek reconciliation with them. He truly was, as Archbishop Tutu said, an “icon of magnanimity”. That is why he not only became the leader of a struggle but truly can be described as the father of a nation, as we have seen in the tributes and emotion that he has inspired since his death in the black and white communities of South Africa.

We honour him too because, for him, the struggle against injustice was a story that never ended. Having been an activist who became a President, he was a President who became an activist once again, campaigning on causes from debt relief to HIV/AIDS to the war in Iraq.

We honour somebody, too, who wore his extraordinary heroism with the utmost humility. A year after he gave up the presidency, he came to the Labour party conference and described himself as

“an unemployed pensioner with a criminal record.”

He famously said to Desmond Tutu, who had teased him for his taste in gaudy shirts:

“It's pretty thick coming from a man who wears a dress in public.”

His empathy led him to seek out not the most famous person in the room but the least, and his warmth made every person he met walk taller.

So we honour a man who showed the true meaning of struggle, courage, generosity and humanity. But we gather here in our Parliament, in Britain, also to recognise that the history of our country was bound up with his struggle, in a spirit of truth and reconciliation. South Africa was, after all, once a British colony, but later Britain would become, in Nelson Mandela’s own words,

“the second headquarters of our movement in exile.”

The Prime Minister and I, and thousands of others, went to sign the condolence book at South Africa house on Friday. It is easy to forget now that South Africa house was not always such a welcoming place for the opponents of apartheid.

So we should also remember today the hundreds of thousands of people who were the Anti-Apartheid Movement in Britain: the people who stood month after month, year after year, on the steps of that embassy when the cause seemed utterly futile; the Churches, trade unions and campaigners who marched and supported the struggle financially, culturally and in so many other ways; the people who refused to buy South African produce and supported the call for sanctions—people whose names we do not know, from all over Britain, who were part of that struggle, as well as those who will be etched in history, including the leaders of the movement who found sanctuary in Britain, such as Ruth First, Joe Slovo and others. If the House will allow me, I will add that there were also those in my own party who played such an important role, such as Bob Hughes, now in the House of Lords, my right hon. Friend the Member for Neath (Mr Hain) and so many more.

It may seem odd to a younger generation that apartheid survived as long as it did, given that it now seems to have been universally reviled all the world over. But of course the truth, and the history, is very different. The cause was highly unfashionable, often considered dangerous by those in authority and opposed by those in government. The Prime Minister was right a few years ago to acknowledge the history. It is in the spirit of what Nelson Mandela taught us to acknowledge the truth about the past and, without rancour, to welcome the change that has come to pass, but also to honour his legacy by acknowledging that in every country, including our own, the battle against racial injustice still needs to be won. So we come here to honour the man, to acknowledge our history, and for one final purpose—to recognise and uphold the universal values for which Nelson Mandela stood: the dignity of every person, whatever his colour or creed, the value of tolerance and respect for all, and justice for all people wherever they may live and whatever oppression they may face.

Nelson Mandela himself said “I am not a saint. I am a sinner who keeps on trying.” His extraordinary life calls on us all to keep on trying—for nobler ideals, for higher purposes, and for a bigger, not a smaller politics. Inspired by his example and the movement that he led, we mourn his loss, we give thanks for his life, and we honour his legacy.

14:50

[The Deputy Prime Minister (Mr Nick Clegg)]

On behalf of the Liberal Democrats, let me add my voice to the many tributes to Nelson Mandela, the father of modern South Africa. Our thoughts and condolences are with his loved ones, the people of South Africa, and everyone around the world who is grieving his loss.

Nelson Mandela’s message transcended the boundaries of nations, people, colours and creeds, and his character transcended boundaries too. He was a politician, but he appeared to be free of all the pettiness of politics. He was a warm human being with a mischievous wit, yet seemed to rise above the normal human frailties of anger and hurt. He was a man who was well aware of his place in history, but he did not want to be placed on a pedestal, and was humble at all times. Given qualities like that, it is little wonder that millions of people who did not meet him in person none the less feel that they have lost a hero and a friend.

I never had the privilege of meeting Nelson Mandela myself, but, like so many other people, I almost feel as if I had. He clearly made a huge impact on all those whom he did meet. I remember Paddy Ashdown telling me, with a sigh, that his wife Jane would regularly say that Mandela was the funniest and most charming man she had ever met. As a student, I was one of the thousands of people who flooded into Wembley stadium for the “Free Nelson Mandela” concert to mark his 70th birthday. I remember wondering, as I stood there, how on earth this one man could live up to everyone’s expectations if and when he was finally released—but, as a free man, Nelson Mandela not only met those expectations; he surpassed them.

The challenge for South Africa seemed almost impossible at the time. How could people who had spent so long divided in conflict, and had either perpetrated or suffered so much abuse, find it within themselves to forgive, to move on, and to build something together? Well, Mandela could and did, and the truly remarkable example of forgiveness that he set made it possible for his country to be reborn as the “rainbow nation”.

Given the enormousness of Mandela’s achievements, we are all struggling to work out the best way in which to honour his legacy. I like to think that one of the things that he would want us to do in the House today is pay tribute to, and support, the individuals and organisations around the world that fight for human rights and do not have a global name. Right now, all over the world, millions of men, women and children are still struggling to overcome poverty, violence and discrimination. They do not have the fame or the standing of Nelson Mandela, but I am sure he would tell us that what they achieve and ensure in their pursuit of a more open, equal and just society shapes all our lives.

Mary Akrami, who works to protect and empower the women of Afghanistan, Sima Samar, the head of the Afghanistan Independent Human Rights Commission, and the Committee of Relatives of the Detained and Disappeared in Honduras, which works in the shadow of threats and intimidation, are just three examples of individuals and organisations elsewhere in the world that deserve our loyalty and support just as much as the British campaigners in the Anti-Apartheid Movement in London who showed unfailing loyalty to and support for Nelson Mandela during his bleakest days. I, too, pay tribute to the right hon. Member for Neath (Mr Hain) and all his fellow campaigners for what they did at that time. All of this will make the way we mark tomorrow’s international Human Rights Day all the more significant, and Britain can pay no greater tribute to Nelson Mandela than by standing up around the world for the values of human rights and equality for which he fought.

When Nelson Mandela took his first steps to freedom, he made no call for vengeance, only forgiveness. He understood that dismantling apartheid’s legacy was about more than just removing the most explicit signs of discrimination and segregation, and he recognised too that to build a brighter future South Africa must confront the darkness of its past. In doing so, Nelson Mandela laid down a blueprint that has made it possible for other divided communities, such as in Northern Ireland, to reject violence, overcome their differences and make a fresh beginning. That is why I hope, in communities where people are still struggling to replace violence and conflict with peace and stability, that the principles of forgiveness and reconciliation that Mandela embodied are followed by others too. Recently, for example, the House debated the alleged human rights abuses in Sri Lanka. Surely there could be no better way for that country to heal its wounds and bring peace and unity to all its people than to follow Mandela’s example and emulate South Africa’s truth and reconciliation process.

As I see it, that is Nelson Mandela’s lasting legacy to all of us—to champion the defenders of human rights today and to know that wherever there is conflict and injustice, with hope and courage peace is always possible. As the Prime Minister reminded us earlier, at his 1964 trial Mandela told the world that equality in South Africa was an ideal for which he was prepared to die. No one who has listened to those words can fail to be moved to hear a man so explicitly and courageously put his life on the line for freedom. As others have remarked, Mandela famously liked to repeat the great saying that

“the arc of the moral universe is long, but it bends towards justice.”

So on this year’s Human Rights Day and beyond, let us honour his memory by ensuring that the hope he gave lives on for all of those whose liberties and rights are still denied.

14:57

[Mr Gordon Brown (Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath) (Lab)]

Fifty-one years ago, directly across from this House in Parliament square, standing in front of the statues of Gladstone, Disraeli, Peel, Palmerston, Lincoln and General Smuts, and with his friend Oliver Tambo, Nelson Mandela asked the question when, if ever, a black man would be represented there. That day in June 1962 was an important one—his first visit to London and possibly his last. He was on the edge of being arrested, imprisoned, put on trial twice—once for his life—and then spending 27 years incarcerated.

It was, therefore, a great privilege, on behalf of the people of Britain, to unveil in 2007 a statue of the first black man to be represented on that square—Nelson Mandela himself, in the presence of Nelson Mandela and his wife. That statue of Nelson Mandela stands there now and forever. Yes, his hands are outstretched, as the Prime Minister said, but his finger points upwards—as it always did—to the heights. He was the man most responsible for the destruction of what people thought was indestructible—the apartheid system—and the man who taught us that no injustice can last for ever.

Nelson Mandela was the greatest man of his generation, yes, but across the generations he was one of the most courageous people you could ever hope to meet. Winston Churchill said that courage was the greatest human virtue of all, because everything else depended on it. Nelson Mandela had eloquence, determination, commitment, passion, wit and charm, but it was his courage that brought all those things to life. We sometimes think of courage as daring, bravado, risk-taking and recklessness, and Nelson Mandela had all those in admirable quantities, but he was the first to say that true courage depends not just on strength of willpower, but on strength of belief. What drove Mandela forward, and what made him the great architect of a free South Africa—the first great achievement of Nelson Mandela—was the burning belief that everyone, every man and woman, was equal: everyone born to be free, everyone created not with a destiny to be in poverty, but created to have dignity in life.

The intensity with which Nelson Mandela believed this and his determination that he would never be paralysed by fear is something that is recorded for ever in a battered book that was brought into—smuggled into—the prison on Robben island, “The Works of William Shakespeare”. Alongside his signature, “N Mandela”, he has marked the words from “Julius Caesar”:

“Cowards die many times before their deaths;

The valiant never taste of death but once…

It seems to me most strange that men should fear;

Seeing that death, a necessary end,

Will come when it will come.”

Remarkably, that amazing courage to stand up to evil stood with the lack of bitterness that has been described already today, forgiving his warders, his prosecutors, the would-be executioners.

The most amazing story he told me was that on the night before they left prison he called all the ANC prisoners together, saying, yes, they would be justified in acts of revenge, retaliation and retribution, but that there could never then be a strong, successful multiracial society, and that was his second great achievement: to achieve change through reconciliation.

But there was also a third achievement: in refusing to rest or relax when he gave up the presidency, he had a third great, historic, far less acknowledged, achievement to his name. He wrote that in the first part of his life he had climbed one great mountain, to end apartheid, but now in his later life he wanted to climb another great mountain: to rid the world of poverty, and especially the outrage of child poverty.

I need speak only of what I saw in the times that I worked with him: how quietly and without fanfare he went about his work. In 2005 I flew to South Africa to meet Nelson Mandela to persuade him to come to London so that he could then persuade the Finance Ministers of the need for debt relief to relieve poverty, and this he did. Then in 2006, he and his wife Graça Machel—a leader in her own right, who shared his ideals and will now carry his legacy into the future—launched the British programme for education for every child so that we could be the first generation in history where every child went to school. He warned us when we had that press conference in Mozambique that to get every child to school we would have to end child labour, child marriage and child trafficking, and that we would have to end the discrimination against girls, a campaign that he and his wife, Graça Machel, have been involved in ever since. Typically, Nelson Mandela said at the beginning of the conference that the cause was so urgent that he had now come out of retirement so that he could prosecute the cause, and at the end of the press conference he said that it was now up to the younger generation and he was returning to his retirement.

I visited him in South Africa in the week that his son died of AIDS. While in mourning and in grief and shocked by the events, he insisted on coming out to the waiting press with me. He said that AIDS was not to be treated as a moral judgment and censoriously; it was to be treated exactly like the tuberculosis he had suffered, as a disease in need of cure. His greatness as vast as the continent he loved, showing there that his greatness was a greatness of the human soul.

My good fortune was to meet Nelson Mandela not so long after he left prison, and I remember his first greeting: “Ah,” he said, “a representative of the British empire,” and then he flashed that same smile that could light up a room and then the world. Then 10 years ago, at the birth of my son John, I picked up the telephone and there was Nelson Mandela on the phone: he, too, had lost a child in infancy, and from that time on, on his birthday, the day before my second son’s, and on Graça’s birthday, the day of John’s, we exchanged telephone calls on the days of these birthdays and presents, letters and cards, the last only this October.

Raising money for children’s causes was the purpose of Nelson Mandela’s 90th birthday party in London, when President Clinton and I were proud to pay tribute to him, before an auction where he gave the original copy of his famous “Letter to a Child”. First, Oprah Winfrey bid for it, then Elton John. Both of them surpassed a £1 million. Oprah Winfrey then went beyond that million. She was then told that she would have to pay in pounds and not dollars. Nelson Mandela and I joked that it was time for another £1 million and that he should write another letter and sell it to Elton John.

Nelson Mandela’s last public event was in Hyde park, in London. Again, it was to raise funds for children. Sitting next to him, my task—something I was uniquely incapable of doing—was to explain who the celebrity acts were, what they were up to and what they were about. He was particularly intrigued by Amy Winehouse, who is sadly no longer with us. I remember him going down to meet her and her joking with him that her husband and Mandela had a great deal in common—both of them had spent a huge amount of time in prison. At that point, he wanted a drink, but Graça, his wife, had banned drink from the occasion, at least for him because of his fragile health. I can never forget this occasion: Mandela, with all these great achievements behind him, at the celebration party for his 90th birthday and surely entitled to a celebratory drink, hiding from his wife’s view the glass of champagne that I had produced for him.

Very few people know that Nelson Mandela loved not only to tell stories, but to gossip, about everybody, from the Spice Girls and celebrities in sport to political leaders—I will refrain from mentioning what he said about them, at least today. But he admired and respected Her Majesty the Queen, and he told me that he wanted the Queen to invite an African rain princess from his tribe to a reception at Buckingham palace. He had got nowhere with the diplomatic channels, so he decided to telephone her personally. The story goes of the conversation, in words that only Mandela could use—“Hello Elizabeth, how’s the Duke?” Although the official minute says that the Queen was non-committal, Mandela got his way.

Hung by Mandela on the bare walls of that bleak prison cell was a facsimile of the British painting by a famous artist, Frederic Watts. The haunting image he had in this prison cell was of a blinded girl sitting on top of a globe of the world. The painting, entitled “Hope”, is about the boldness of a girl to believe that, even when blinded and even with a broken harp and only one string, she could still play music. Her and Mandela’s belief was that even in the most difficult and bleak of times, even when things seem hopeless, there could still be hope. I believe that that explains why over these past few days we have both mourned the death of Mandela and celebrated his life with equal intensity. Who else could unite the whole world of sport unanimously, in every continent of the world, with applause? We are mourning because as long as Mandela was alive we knew that even in the worst of disasters, amidst the most terrible of tragedies and conflict, amidst the evil that existed in the world, there was someone there, standing between us and the elements, who represented goodness and nobility. And we are celebrating today because the lessons that we have learned from him will live on. He teaches us that indeed no injustice can last for ever. He teaches us that whenever good people of courage come together, there is infinite hope.

15:08

[Sir Malcolm Rifkind (Kensington) (Con)]

On the day of Mandela’s release in 1990, I was waiting with many millions of people for him to emerge from prison. I remember a particular thought at that time: although he was a global figure—the whole world knew of Nelson Mandela—no one had the faintest idea what he looked like. No photograph of him had appeared since he went into prison 27 years earlier, as a relatively young man of 46—now he was emerging as a relatively old man of 73. I met him for the first time when he came to 10 Downing street when John Major was Prime Minister, and I recall that as he entered, the whole staff of No. 10—70 or 80 people—spontaneously drew themselves up into two lines to applaud him as he walked to the Cabinet room. John Major said that that was the first time that had ever happened since he had become Prime Minister.

Nelson Mandela was not a saint, as we have heard. He was a politician to his fingertips. He actually believed in the armed struggle in the earlier part of his career and perhaps to some degree for the rest of his career, but, unlike many in the African National Congress, he eventually decided that ways of peace were more likely to deliver than the armed struggle. I recall going to South Africa four years after 1990 when he was President and having dinner with the then deputy Defence Minister of South Africa, Ronnie Kasrils. Kasrils was a white South African communist and a founding member of Umkhonto we Sizwe. He had been educated at the London School of Economics and was a strong believer in the armed struggle. I said to him, “You are a member of the South African Communist party and it was often argued at the time by the South African Government that you and your colleagues were trained in the Soviet Union. Was that true?” He said, “Yes, it was true. We were trained in Odessa, in Ukraine.” Then I asked him why he believed in the armed struggle, particularly as Nelson Mandela eventually decided on a political solution. He said, “Well we believed that the white Afrikaners, the apartheid Government, would never give up power peacefully. It would only be the armed struggle that would get them out of power.” I said to him, “Is that what they taught you in the Soviet Union?” I remember he groaned and said, “No, no, that is what they taught me at the LSE.”

I lived and worked in southern Africa, mainly in southern Rhodesia, for two years in the 1960s. I got to know South Africa well, and I must confess that, at that time, I too assumed that there would be no peaceful resolution of the problems of apartheid and that, whether one liked it or not, it would only be by revolution or by armed struggle that they would change the political system. I was wrong, and I was wrong because there was not one hero in South Africa but two, and it is worth remembering this. It was not just Nelson Mandela, who undoubtedly deserves the vast bulk of the credit, but the South African President F.W. de Klerk. Without both of them, there would not have been a peaceful resolution. In some ways, it was more difficult for de Klerk than for Mandela. [Hon. Members: “Oh!”] Let me explain what I mean; it is a serious point. Mandela was receiving power at a stage when most of the struggle had already been won, and de Klerk was having to persuade his own people to give power up before they had been defeated. The world had not seen such a situation before. To his credit, de Klerk realised that he needed the legitimacy of the electorate of South Africa, who were, quite wrongly but in practice, all white at that time. He called the referendum and, by the sheer force of his leadership, persuaded more than 60% of white South Africans to accept that the days of apartheid were over. Even then, it required Mandela—and it is to his credit—to go through long months of negotiation, not always with the support of his colleagues in the ANC, in order to deliver a transfer of power that offered the prospect of peace for all the people of South Africa. Mandela once notably said, “This is not about moving from white domination to black domination. There must be no domination of either community.” He was an extraordinary man in not only believing that but practising it with every fibre of his being.

As we look today at the lessons of Mandela’s extraordinary life and incredible achievements, at his contribution not just to South Africa, which goes without saying, but to the wider world and at why he has become such an iconic figure, two factors stand out. First, he is perhaps the best example that we have had in the past 100 years of how political leaders, by force of personality, transform themselves from politicians into statesman, and can by their sheer personal effort change the world and make what was impossible possible and then deliver it. He is not the only one who has done so. We should not think of him as unique. Gorbachev, by the force of his personality, helped to end the cold war and deliver the liberation of eastern Europe without a shot being fired, and few would have believed that possible. Lech Walesa, an obscure trade unionist at first, built up the Solidarnosc organisation and toppled the once mighty Polish Communist party. Anwar Sadat, a controversial figure in many ways, was yet another example. The extraordinary decision that he took to fly from Egypt to Jerusalem and address the Israeli Knesset as Egyptian President led to peace between Israel and Egypt. In our own day, we have Aung San Suu Kyi, and we all know what she has done and how it is transforming Burma. Being a political, charismatic figure is necessary but it is not sufficient. It must be combined with political skills, and of course Mandela was a politician to his fingertips as well as being a man with all those other talents.

The second lesson is that although of course political leadership is needed, we should also recognise, as Mandela did, the strength of diplomacy as a way of getting political change. Even after Mandela had been released, it took months and months of negotiation that could have collapsed at any stage into internal civil war. In a year when we have seen how diplomacy, which is not always fashionable, has produced agreement on Syrian chemical weapons and an interim agreement on Iran’s nuclear programme, it is worth taking comfort from that and seeing how Mandela’s example can deliver in an extraordinary way.

I conclude by simply saying that when we pay tribute to Nelson Mandela, as we rightly do, we should pay tribute to him for what he stood for and we should acknowledge what he achieved in South Africa but we should also recognise what he taught the world about the resolution of what seemed like intractable political problems through patience, personality, courage and diplomacy. Military solutions and armed struggle are sometimes unavoidable, but often they are avoidable and he demonstrated that better than anyone in our time.

15:16

[Mr Peter Hain (Neath) (Lab)]

I thank the Prime Minister, the Deputy Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition for their perhaps over-generous remarks about my role. Let me simply underline that there were many tens of thousands of activists in the Anti-Apartheid Movement who deserve to be acknowledged as well.

Thank you, Mr Speaker, for your personal leadership in ensuring that this tribute debate is such a special event, as you said, for such a special person. I note that you are wearing the South African tie on this occasion. I specifically thank you—this is very important—for proposing, along with the Lord Speaker, Thursday afternoon’s Westminster Hall event for civil society including, importantly, veteran activists of the Anti-Apartheid Movement who worked so tirelessly over many tough and bitter decades both for Nelson Mandela’s release and for the sanctions against apartheid that he wanted and that ultimately triggered his freedom.

I have never really been into heroes but Nelson Mandela was mine from when I was a young boy in Pretoria and unique among my school friends and relatives in having parents who welcomed everybody to their house regardless of colour—activists in the anti-apartheid struggle. I remember that one fellow activist, Elliot Mngadi, remarked, “This is the first time I’ve ever come through the front door of a white man’s house.” Blacks acting as servants or gardeners might be allowed in the back door occasionally.

My mother, Adelaine, was often alone in the whites-only section of the public gallery at Nelson Mandela’s 1962 trial in Pretoria and when he entered the dock, he would always acknowledge her with a clenched fist, which she would return. His beautiful wife Winnie attended the trial each day, often magnificent in tribal dress. Once, when my tiny younger sisters went with my mother during a school holiday, Winnie bent down and kissed the two little blonde girls to the evident horror of the onlooking white policemen. A black woman kissing two little white children disgusted them.

Forty years later, I was escorting Nelson Mandela to speak at the Labour party annual conference in Brighton, but before that he had an appointment with the Prime Minister that had been very carefully scheduled. We were going down in the lift in the hotel and he said, “How’s the family?” I mentioned that my mother had broken her leg and was in hospital. “Ah,” he said, “I must phone her.” The Prime Minister was kept waiting while Nelson Mandela chatted to porters and cleaners and waitresses and waiters, all lined up as the minutes ticked by. I desperately tried directory inquiries to get her phone number, eventually got the ward and was put through. I said to her, “There’s a very special person who would like to speak to you,” and I handed the phone to him. He said, “This is Mandela from South Africa. Do you know who I am?”

Having been sentenced to five years on Robben Island after the Pretoria trial that my mother attended, Mandela was then brought back more than a year later, as has been mentioned, to be Accused No. 1 in the Rivonia trial, when, facing the death penalty and against the strong advice of his lawyer, he famously said:

“During my lifetime I have dedicated myself to this struggle of the African people. I have fought against white domination, and I have fought against black domination. I have cherished the ideal of a democratic and free society in which all persons live together in harmony and with equal opportunities. It is an ideal which I hope to live for and to achieve. But if needs be it is an ideal for which I am prepared to die.”

I remember reading those powerful words aged 14, trying to take in their full significance, and aware they were a great inspiration to my parents and all those involved in the anti-apartheid struggle, as Nelson Mandela faced the death penalty. In fact, after worldwide pleas for clemency, he was sentenced to life imprisonment, and in July 1964, Mandela returned to Robben Island, not to be seen or heard in public again for nearly 26 years.

Two years later, in 1966, after my parents had been jailed, declared banned persons and deprived of earning a living, our family sailed past Robben Island and into exile here in Britain, and we will always be grateful for the welcome that we were given in this country. I remember looking out over the Cape rollers and imagining how Mandela and his comrades were surviving in that cold bleak cell. As an African, he was permitted 5 oz of meat daily, whereas coloureds were allowed 6 oz; he was permitted ½ oz of fat, and coloureds 1 oz: the evil precision of apartheid penetrated every nook and cranny of life, banning inter-racial sex as well as segregating park benches, sport, jobs, schools, hospitals, and much, much more. The apartheid state had hoped that, out of sight on the former leper colony of Robben Island, with its freezing cold waters that had devoured all escapees, Mandela would be out of mind, but the longer he was imprisoned, the bigger a global leader he became.

In July 1988, his 70th birthday became a global celebration, with a pulsating. “Free Mandela” anti-apartheid rock concert attended by 100,000 people at Wembley stadium and watched on live television by 600 million worldwide, despite—I say for the record, not out of any recrimination—some Conservative Members pressing the BBC to pull the plug on its coverage. Then, almost miraculously, something occurred that we had dreamed of, but deep down doubted would ever, ever happen—on that historic day in February 1990 Mandela walked out of prison to freedom, providing an image for ever imprinted on me and on millions, perhaps even billions, across the world. I say “almost miraculously” because history gets compressed and rewritten over time, and we take change for granted.

The reality was very different. Nelson Mandela’s struggle for freedom, and that of his African National Congress, was long and bitter, taking nearly 100 years from the days under British colonial rule when the roots of apartheid were established. Under Britain in 1900, 50 years before apartheid was formally institutionalised in South Africa, most of its features were already in place in the bustling gold-rush city of Johannesburg. By then, Africans were prevented from walking on the pavements—they had to walk on the streets—they had to carry “passes” to work in the city, they could not use buses and trains designated for whites, they were dreadfully exploited in the mines, and they had no political rights.

We all say in Britain that we were against apartheid, and doubtless we were, but some did things about it —others did not. The anti-apartheid struggle was for most of its life engaged in a big fight, here in Britain too. The executive secretaries of the Anti-Apartheid Movement—first, Ethel de Keyser, then Mike Terry—were indefatigable. Its chairman, Lord Bob Hughes, and treasurer, Richard Caborn—former Members of Parliament —were real stalwarts, along with Neil Kinnock and Glenys as well. Protests to stop whites-only Springbok tours provoked fierce anger. I remember them well: “Hain the pain”, as I recall. Some people might still feel that. Yet, as Nelson Mandela confirmed to me, the Springboks’ sporting isolation was a key factor in making whites realise that they had to change, so that today that wonderful black rugby star Bryan Habana can be a Springbok, whereas his predecessors under apartheid at the time that we were demonstrating never could.

Demands for trade and economic sanctions were also resisted, yet their partial implementation, regrettably not by London, but by Washington, eventually helped to propel the white business community in the late 1980s to demand change from the very same apartheid Government from whom they had so long benefited.

Mr Speaker, forgive me if, for a brief moment, I strike what I hope will not be seen as too discordant a note on this occasion, which sees the House at its very best, coming together to salute the great man. Were it not for interventions in the media in recent days, I would have let pass correcting the historical record. I give credit especially to you, Mr Speaker, for volunteering most graciously that you were on the wrong side of the anti- apartheid struggle as a young Conservative. I give credit to the Prime Minister for apologising for his party’s record of what I have to describe as craven indulgence towards apartheid’s rulers. And if Nelson Mandela can forgive his oppressors without forgetting their crimes, who am I not to do the same for our opponents in the long decades of the anti-apartheid struggle?

But it really does stick in the craw when Lord Tebbit, Charles Moore and others similar tried over recent days to claim that their complicity with apartheid—that is what I think it was—somehow brought about its end. To my utter incredulity, Lord Tebbit even told BBC World in a debate with me that they had brought about Mandela’s freedom. I know for a fact that Nelson Mandela did not think so. At every possible opportunity he went out of his way to thank anti-apartheid activists across the world for freeing him and his people.

It is therefore especially welcome that Nelson Mandela always retained an almost touching faith in British parliamentary democracy. Even though—I disagree with the interpretation by the right hon. and learned Member for Kensington (Sir Malcolm Rifkind)—over most of his life he was a believer in non-violent legal peaceful change. by force of circumstance—the suppression of his African National Congress’s non-violent campaign for over 60 years—he had to become a freedom fighter and to lead an underground campaign of guerrilla activity similar to the French resistance against the Nazis. Even when the majority in this Parliament, and the Government of the day, were not on his side, he still cherished our parliamentary democracy. I mention this because Mandela’s old foes became his new friends, his former adversaries his admirers. That was part, as others have said, of his greatness.

But that was Mandela the political leader. There was, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath (Mr Brown) remarked in his marvellous speech, another equally engaging side to his greatness. He had an infectious capacity for mischief. In London a few weeks after our marriage in 2003, I introduced my wife Elizabeth to him. “Is this your girlfriend?” he asked. When I replied: “No, she’s my wife”, he chuckled, “So she caught you then?” When Elizabeth, who can be somewhat feisty at times, exclaimed indignantly that she had taken a lot of persuading, he laughed, “That’s what they all say, Peter, but they trap you in the end!” By then she realised that he was teasing her and we all ended up laughing together. He had apologised earlier for not coming to our wedding, instead sending a message, which contained these impish words to us newly-weds: “But perhaps I will be able to come next time!”

It was not just his towering moral stature, his courage and capacity to inspire, that endeared Nelson Mandela to so many. Despite being one of the world’s most prominent statesmen—perhaps the most revered—he retained his extraordinary humanity. When he was with you, you had all his attention. When he greeted you, his eyes never wandered, even though you were surrounded by far more important people. Whether you were a mere child, a hotel porter, a cleaner, a waiter or a junior staff member, he was interested in you. And he never forgot a friend.

On the same occasion when Elizabeth met him in 2003, my parents were also present, enjoying a reunion. The conversation somehow turned to my ministerial driver, whom Mandela promptly summoned. “I was once a driver, too,” he told him as they shook hands, referring to the time in 1961-62 when he was on the run and went underground, dubbed the “Black Pimpernel”, often moving about the country dressed as a chauffeur, in order to invite no attention, with cap and uniform and his white “master” in the back, as was stereotypical in those days and so a good form of disguise.

An ordinariness combined with extraordinariness was not Mandela’s sole uniqueness. His capacity for forgiveness is what made him the absolutely critical figure, first during secret negotiations in the late 1980s from prison with the Afrikaner nationalist Government and then after his release, both in the transition and in healing a bitterly divided nation.

That brings me to his status. Gandhi, Kennedy and Churchill are all iconic figures, the last for his inspirational wartime leadership and the first two more for having been assassinated. Yet today ask almost anybody anywhere which global statesman they admire most, and “Nelson Mandela” will as likely as not be the answer. Other world figures are usually famous within their own professional disciplines, sections of society, interest groups or age groups. Many attract hostility, cynicism or plain indifference. Nelson Mandela’s unique achievement was to command fame, admiration and affection from virtually everyone, everywhere in the world.

So if, as I believe, he is more iconic than anybody else, why? His life story of sacrifice, courage, endurance and suffering in the great and noble cause of liberty, democracy and justice places him among a very select few: the Tolpuddle martyrs, Chartists, suffragettes, Gandhi himself, anti-colonial African leaders, Che Guevara, Lech Walesa, Solzhenitsyn and Aung San Suu Kyi, to name just some. But Mandela towers above them all in the popular imagination, perhaps in part because he was the first such figure to be projected to the world’s peoples through the powerful modern media of global television and the internet. He was quite simply far better known than any comparable figure.

Equally, however—this is the lesson I draw—he survived, and indeed prospered, even under the fierce media spotlight of 24-hour news, over-hype and spin. Uniquely, he remained untarnished and undiminished by that modern media beast’s unrivalled capacity for building up then knocking down, leaving him serenely above all its insatiable prurience and obsession for triviality and instant novelty. Where most political careers end in failure or opprobrium, Nelson Mandela’s continued to soar long after he stepped down as President.

Mandela’s greatness, his stature, derived not just from an extraordinary biography that dwarfs the rest of humankind; it came from the warm glow of humanity that he radiated, his common touch, humbleness, self-deprecation, humour and dignity. Prison could have embittered, adulation could have gone to his head and egotism could have triumphed. The clutching of the crowd and the intrusive pressures of the modern political age could have seen him retreat behind the barriers that most leaders and celebrities today erect around themselves, not necessarily through any fault of their own, but in part to retain some personal space, but the consequence of which all too often becomes either aloofness or insincerity and its companion, cynicism. But none of that happened to him. Throughout everything, Nelson Mandela remained his own man, neither seduced by the trappings of office, nor deluded by the adulation of admirers, always friendly and approachable. That is why, for me, he was the icon of icons, and perhaps always will be.

President Bill Clinton, who has such a wonderful way with words, said:

“Every time Nelson Mandela walks into a room, we all feel a little bigger, we all want to stand up, we all want to cheer, because we’d like to be him on our best day”.

Sadly, Nelson Mandela will not be walking into our rooms ever again, but we can all still strive to be like him on our best days. For, as he said in one of his many memorable proverbs:

“What counts in life is not the mere fact that we have lived. It is what difference we have made to the lives of others.”

15:34

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

It is a real privilege to follow the right hon. Member for Neath (Mr Hain), who speaks with an authenticity that few others could have in these circumstances. It must be the case that the vindication of history sits comfortably on his shoulders and on those of all in the Anti-Apartheid Movement. He is entitled to his day today, and he has spoken very well of the things that matter so much to him and to so many of us.

I remember as a small boy writing to Basil D’Oliveira when he was excluded from the test team, and I remember cheering when a test series was cancelled. My parents were convinced I had become a communist. They are now, like one or two others of my colleagues, merely uncertain.

In 2000, Nelson Mandela visited Bedford to pay tribute to Archbishop Trevor Huddleston in the town of Archbishop Huddleston’s birth—Archbishop Huddleston, who gave so much to the Anti-Apartheid Movement. It is said that a photograph taken that day was used as the model for the statue in Parliament square. Mr Mandela’s host on that day was the mayor of Bedford, Councillor Carole Ellis. Sadly, Councillor Ellis is seriously ill at present, but I know that she is so proud of her own and of Bedford’s part in Mr Mandela’s story.

Between 1986 and 1990, the right hon. Member for Bermondsey and Old Southwark (Simon Hughes), I and Peter Pike, the former Member for Burnley, made three visits to South Africa at the invitation of the followers of Christ working for a peaceful resolution of the situation there. On our return from our first visit, on 17 June, we made joint speeches in a debate here in the House of Commons, referring to each other as our hon. Friends—a point duly noted by Hansard. We had gone together—safety in numbers—at a time when the ANC was still banned, the political situation was deteriorating, violence was abroad, and the isolation of South Africa was impacting on the flow of anything but very polarised information. We were able to report back to our respective party leaders on what we found. I had half an hour with an anxious, worried and very uncertain Margaret Thatcher. We reported back on the tragic success of apartheid in separating one person from another, on the urgency of the need for change to avoid a looming catastrophe, and on how the United Kingdom’s public position also needed to change. But we also, apparently rather unusually, reported some hope. I said in the House:

“There is a large group of people in South Africa whom many have ignored. They are those of all races who are working patiently for simple fellowship and reconciliation in pure human terms by meeting each other and sharing their lives and experiences. It was largely with those people that we spent our time, and through their friends across the political spectrum that we had contact with their politics.

Some of those with whom we stayed were white opponents of apartheid and had been so for decades, but all were people who realised that the abolition of the legislative structure of apartheid is almost secondary to the struggle to change hearts and minds. They should not be ignored, for if any group epitomises hope in South Africa, it is that group.”—[Official Report, 17 June 1986; Vol. 99, c. 960.]

We met on our visits, even in 1986, South African Government figures who worried about the impact of the release of Nelson Mandela but who knew that his death in prison would be a tragedy beyond comprehension. Like many others, we knew that only a miracle could save South Africa from violent confrontation, but unlike others, perhaps, we saw some of the groundwork being patiently prepared. South Africa was a land in which Jesus Christ was the person around whom so many could meet together, especially if they were those who were allowed to meet in no other circumstances. That task became easier after the Dutch Reformed Church publicly recanted its misplaced biblical support for apartheid.

South Africa’s people were readying themselves for a different future but uncertain if the miracle of leadership would be there. In the end, of course, the miracle was Nelson Mandela, with a passion for reconciliation and forgiveness that astonished the world. It was built on a base that had been prayed for and actively worked for in South Africa for years before his release. Nelson Mandela was the pivotal figure around whom all this work became based and whose attitudes overcame the fear and negativity from people who knew intellectually what needed to be done but simply could not see how it could happen. It is impossible to predict what would have happened without such leadership.

I regret that I did so little for the struggle here in the United Kingdom, but my friend Peter Pike, with 26 years in the Anti-Apartheid Movement before he even set foot in South Africa, deserves to have his voice heard today. I asked him over the weekend what he would say if he were here, and he told me of his memories of the visits. He reminded me that one MP had believed God created reptiles, birds, animals, black people, brown people and white people and that they should all keep their places as species—and he thumped his Bible to prove it. He undermined his argument, however, by declaring that he had proof that Mrs Thatcher was “a Marxist infiltrator”.

Peter reminded us of how, on our next visit, he had asked why the security was building up as we approached the security gate at Johannesburg airport. I said it might be because of the large “Free Nelson Mandela” badge he was wearing on his lapel. He asked one of the security guards, “Is it illegal for me to wear the badge?” He was told very briskly, “It is not illegal, but it is extremely inadvisable.”

Peter wanted to say this in particular:

“I believe one thing so typical of Nelson Mandela was when he addressed the large meeting in Nelspruit. At the end he had young white youths asking him what would their future be in a black South Africa. He put his arms around their shoulders and said he was not removing the domination of South Africa by the white minority to allow it to be dominated by another race. The new South Africa would be for all South Africans and that they were the South Africans of the future. He ended by saying it was a pity that they had wasted 27 years and could not have talked like this before.”

I wanted Peter Pike’s words—the voice of a true, authentic anti-apartheid supporter—to be heard in this House today.

In conclusion, world leaders have on their plate a series of conflicts, which I know only too well from the past three and a half years. A better tribute to Nelson Mandela than all the fine words we are going to hear at the funeral would be for the leaders involved in just one of those conflicts to echo reconciliation and forgiveness, the magnanimity of power and the true service of their people and to lead their people in humility and peace rather than grandeur and war.

15:41

[Margaret Beckett (Derby South) (Lab)]

For me, as for so many of my generation, the story of Nelson Mandela and his comrades and colleagues has been inextricably interwoven with political life and campaigning. Events such as Sharpeville helped awaken and shape political awareness. Campaigns against the evils of apartheid have run throughout the years of my political and trade union life. I think it is right to recognise today that the whole trade union movement, including my own union, Unite, of which I am proud to have been a member for almost 50 years, was resolute in its support and solidarity throughout those difficult years.

As those years drew to a close, I recall, like the right hon. and learned Member for Kensington (Sir Malcolm Rifkind), a conversation with President de Klerk, who asked me, quite anxiously—I was surprised at how anxious he seemed—if I thought that reaching agreement would in fact transform South Africa’s standing in the world and end his country’s status as some kind of international pariah. He seemed relieved and almost grateful when I assured him that I thought that a free South Africa—or a South Africa with its people free—would be welcomed everywhere with open arms.

I think there is going to be much emphasis today on what we can learn from Nelson Mandela. As has been said, he was in no way a saint, as he himself acknowledged. He was, however—this point is not always mentioned, although it has already been made today—a politician, and a party politician and party leader at that. Born into a community that lacked wealth and power, he understood it was both honourable and desirable to band together with others of a like mind to fight to change things for the better. That, after all, is what every political party, in its own way, is about.

It was as the leader of the ANC that he took part in those historic negotiations. I say that in particular because the tone of some comments that have been made about him—not so much here today, but elsewhere, and for the best and most well-meaning of reasons—is such that it is almost as if he was somehow above politics. Of course, he became admired and revered, quite rightly, but he was not above politics; he was practising politics. He was engaged in politics, and it was through politics that the transformation of South Africa was secured.

Like many here, I had the opportunity to meet Nelson Mandela on a number of occasions. One I particularly recall in these days was in 1998 when I attended the commemoration of the 50th anniversary of the signing of the general agreement on tariffs and trade. Seated in the hall, I heard a tremendous commotion at the rear. The delegate from South Africa had arrived, and a kind of wave passed through the hall as delegates from every country in the world rose spontaneously to applaud him. I was both honoured and humbled when he took his place beside me.

We all honour him as a hero of the armed struggle. Unlike some others who were also honoured in that vein, particularly during my student years, he became also a hero of the peace. That is why we remember him in this way.

15:45

[Mr Charles Kennedy (Ross, Skye and Lochaber) (LD)]

I follow on exactly from the comments of the right hon. Member for Derby South (Margaret Beckett) and her reminiscence but also her mild remonstrance, which is absolutely well made, that we are talking here about a politician. Certainly in the civil encounters with President Mandela in one capacity, and with Mr Mandela post-presidency in other capacities, not only was his sense of humour telling, but so was the self-deprecating use to which he put that humour, lest there was any thought that a political halo could be bestowed upon him. He certainly did not want that, and he would not want that to be part of his legacy today.

I mention humour because my first introduction to Nelson Mandela was far from fortuitous. He was then President, and enormous numbers of parliamentarians had somehow all descended on South Africa at the same time. They had come from New Zealand, Australia, here, Ireland, France—all on fact-finding missions. It was interesting that these fact-finding missions all coincided with the rugby world cup that was taking place in South Africa. Given that there were more visiting foreign politicians in the country than even visiting foreign rugby players, the President held a great gala reception. The leader of our delegation, my friend Rupert Redesdale, Liberal Democrat hereditary peer, was introducing the British delegation to the President, and he was pretty apprehensive in the presence of the great man. It came to my turn, and he said, “Mr President, one of my colleagues from the House of Commons in London. This is Nigel Kennedy.” The President’s characteristically firm handshake and jovial welcome confirmed two things for me there and then. First of all, he had never heard of Nigel Kennedy, but far more distressingly, he sure as hell had not heard of me either.

Things got worse on that visit. The hon. Member for Glasgow South West (Mr Davidson), the then Member for Govan, who I am glad is in his place today—looking back, I was not so glad he was in his place on that occasion that evening—and I were photographed with President Mandela. What a wonderful memento to have. A few months later I was passing through Glasgow, my favourite city, and as I always do when I am there, I picked up a copy of the Glasgow Evening Times. The front page photo and lead story was that the South African Government had confirmed that the Clyde would be very much on the preferred bidders list for the latest warship that they were seeking interest in globally, and there was a photo of the hon. Gentleman and the President himself, with the caption, “Local MP, Ian Davidson, lobbying President Mandela on a recent visit to South Africa”. But the funny thing was that when I looked at the photo, I discovered that I had been airbrushed out of history. Perhaps that has been the story of my life ever since. I think, however, that President Mandela would have admired the hon. Gentleman’s guile, and the way in which he exploited that opportunity. He did not do it in a mendacious way, but it was not particularly helpful to me.

Another meeting that I recall took place when he was plain Mr Mandela again, post-presidency, when the years were beginning to show. It was the night of the concert in Trafalgar square and, as we would say at home, it was a gey dreich night. It was cold, windy and wet, with horizontal rain. Mr Mandela was tired, and he was wearing an overcoat. First, he insisted on working the room in South Africa House and speaking to everyone there. Then he went outside and enthralled the young, if rather soaked, audience who had been listening to the music. At that point, his minders were pretty keen to move him along and get him to his bed, which he clearly needed. But no—the coat came off and he came back up the stairs in South Africa House and worked the room again. We came face to face for a second time. He looked at me and said, “We talked earlier”, and I said, “Yes we did, Mr Mandela, it was an honour to meet you and we had a very nice chat.” “Oh good,” he said, “I will move on, but I did not want you to think I had been rude.” That is the difference, is it not? That was a man who, when he needed votes, could weigh them in quantities that we practising politicians can only dream of, yet when he was beyond the need for votes he still conducted himself with that extra special magic ingredient that separated him out, like the wheat from the chaff, from day-to-day jobbing politics the world over.

Today I am wearing the tie of Glasgow university, where I have the role of university rector. Glasgow gave Mandela the freedom of the city at a time when it was unfashionable to do so, and he came to celebrate that on another dreich day in the years following his release. Exactly a week ago, we were in this place paying tribute to those in Glasgow who had suffered as a result of the terrible helicopter crash. Many of the most heartfelt international tributes from outside this place came from South Africa. A week is a long time in politics. Last night, as rector of the university, I had the privilege of contributing to the beautiful annual carol service in the chapel. The format at the end was changed, so that instead of singing the university’s anthem “Gaudeamus igitur”, the choir sang a beautiful version of the rainbow nation’s wonderful national anthem. The thoughts that came to Glasgow from South Africa this time last week were returned with generosity and good will this week.

Mandela was in many ways simply the best. When President Obama said that we should not see his like again, I guess he was right on one level. But let us look at what Mandela did and at the fact that his words and deeds moved Table mountain, and let us hope that we do see his like again. Let us hope that we see his like in the middle east or in the vicinity of the Koreas, for example, where people are crying out for a generation of politicians of a quality that can move mountains and minds in the way that Mandela did. He reminds us that our trade need not be as awful as it is often depicted. He has given us something better to work for in ourselves.

15:55

[Frank Dobson (Holborn and St Pancras) (Lab)]

It is a great honour to take part in this tribute to Nelson Mandela. As far as I am concerned, it is almost as good as the magic moment when I sat with my wife in Westminster Hall as he addressed both Houses of our Parliament as the democratically elected President of all South Africans.

I know that I speak on behalf of people in my constituency, Holborn and St Pancras, because they have a very special relationship with the Anti-Apartheid Movement. The movement was founded at a meeting of about 60 people in Holborn hall in the summer of 1959. Its first leaflets were distributed a fortnight later outside Camden Town underground station. Its headquarters were always located in our area, and it always had our support.

Local people were particularly delighted when Mr Mandela came to Camden Town in July 2003 to unveil a blue plaque in memory of Ruth First, who was murdered by the South African secret police, and Joe Slovo, who was a member of President Mandela’s first Cabinet. I am delighted that his daughter Gillian Slovo is here to observe our proceedings.

Over many years, committed people in Britain campaigned against apartheid, the trials of the leaders of the African National Congress and the imprisonments that followed. They continued to campaign against the oppression of all black South Africans and of all the other people who supported them. We also campaigned for the release of the prisoners, eventually concentrating on the release of Nelson Mandela, partly as a symbol—and what a symbol he turned out to be.

The commonplace history of political leaders is hope followed by disillusionment, but not with Nelson Mandela. His example exceeded the highest hopes of the opponents of apartheid, and shattered the delusions of those who portrayed him and the African National Congress as bloodthirsty monsters. Instead of bringing disillusionment to the world, he became the most widely admired man on planet earth.

Nelson Mandela shamed and astonished the world by his forbearance and dignity in the face of all that he and his comrades had suffered at the hands of the apartheid system, including the 27 years—I stress, 27 years—that he spent in jail. The phrase “27 years” comes trippingly off the tongue, but try to imagine what that was like. Let us each imagine the last 27 years of our own lives, and then substitute for them those 27 years of pain, deprivation and indignity. His were 27 years of powerlessness to protect his people and his family, and he was even denied access to family funerals. During all that time, he and his ANC comrades sustained one another by mutual support, but those 27 years of imprisonment were unforgivable. We all know that if we came out of 27 years of unjust imprisonment, we would demand revenge, so people the world over could scarcely believe it when Mr Mandela preached not revenge, but reconciliation, and then went on to practise what he preached.

That was not easy: it was not just a case of reconciling white South Africans with majority rule; it was necessary to reconcile millions of black South Africans with not taking what they regarded as legitimate retribution against their oppressors. However, those who supported the anti-apartheid cause were not so surprised at what happened. We knew that the freedom charter drawn up by the leaders of the ANC, including Nelson Mandela, had committed them to a non-racial South Africa in which everyone would be subject to the same laws and protected by the same laws, and which would pursue a policy of social justice. Those prisoners went into jail committed to that cause, and they came out committed to that cause. They had not changed their dream of a non-racist South Africa; it was up to others to abandon their oppression, racial smears and scaremongering.

South Africa and the world were fortunate to have, in Nelson Mandela, a leader superbly fitted to bringing about the necessary change. The responses from all around the world in the past few days attest to that. He was a man with a unique combination of profound dignity and a sense of fun; a man of towering intellect and plain words; and a man of the deepest enduring commitment to the cause of liberty. He was surely the model of what every decent human being would wish to be.

Meeting Nelson Mandela was a pleasure. He put people at their ease, but behind the twinkling eyes, charm and self-deprecating humour was the tempered steel of his commitment to his principles. After meeting him, most people, including Presidents and Prime Ministers, realised that they did not measure up to his standards. Most of us at least felt inspired to try to do a bit better in future. He made racists look pathetic. In my view, his example made it possible for Barack Obama to be elected President of the United States.

Mr Mandela rightly enjoyed the worldwide recognition of his remarkable character and achievements, but he never allowed that to divert him from applying the lessons of history and his political principles to the problems of the present and the future.

In the 1960s, ’70s and ’80s, like many others, I spent a lot of time on marches and rallies, handing out leaflets, organising campaigns, helping to organise the first Wembley concert and getting people to boycott South African goods. I confess that I sometimes wondered whether it was doing any good. I even felt the same after addressing the United Nations special committee against apartheid. In one of my conversations with Nelson Mandela, I confessed to my doubts about the value of our very limited contribution to the anti-apartheid campaign. His answer was that what we had done had been invaluable; that, even in jail, the prisoners had heard about the protests in London—they had known they had not been forgotten and they had been aware of the ever-growing pressure on the South African Government.

That, of course, is why he addressed the Labour party conference. He came to thank the Labour party and the trade unions for what he called our faithful support for the African National Congress “over many decades”, which had

“helped to make those years…bearable and contributed to them not turning out to be wasted years.”

That lesson from the past should hearten all people who are involved in today’s campaigns for justice.

The worldwide response to the passing of this good old man has involved praise in equal measure from both friends and former enemies. I am sure that Nelson Mandela would have wanted us to welcome the repenting sinners. However, the test for them does not reside in the sentiments they now express. The test of their sincerity will be revealed in their response to the problems the world faces now and in the future. Will they apply his tests of what is just and right?

In his speech at the Labour party conference, Nelson Mandela said that

“the world has become the global village of which we once spoke only in wishful metaphor.”

He pointed out:

“The danger is that globalisation can come to mean only the free flow of goods and finance, the open access to markets”,

and warned:

“The concern for the common good, which characterised the international solidarity we spoke of, is in danger of being lost in the current understanding of a global world.”

It is time for leaders around the world and here at home to heed his warning. Then and only then will we know that they have really learned the lessons of Nelson Mandela’s life and work.

A few years ago, a child at a primary school in my constituency came up and asked me, “Who is the goodest person you know?” I did not correct her English—I knew what she wanted to know. I said, “Nelson Mandela.” All of us who had the honour of meeting him will go to our graves feeling privileged to be able to say, “Yes, I met Nelson Mandela.”

16:05

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

It is a great pleasure to follow the right hon. Member for Holborn and St Pancras (Frank Dobson), and I recognise the contribution that he made.

Just before the right hon. Member for Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath (Mr Brown) leaves his place, may I say that he became the first ever directly elected rector of Edinburgh university while I was a student a couple of years behind him? To break the secrets of the ballot box, I think he will know that he did not have my support. That was the time when the movement against apartheid was starting, and I pay tribute to all those who were involved. As chairman of the all-party South Africa group, I wish to record my tribute to Nelson Mandela, on behalf of all the group’s officers and members, and pay condolences to his widow, family and friends.

There are two major events in my lifetime that I believe will be remembered in history. One is the collapse of the Berlin wall and the events leading up to it. The other, of course, is the release of Nelson Mandela, leading to his eventual election as President and the introduction of true democracy in South Africa. Never has there been a time when the legacy of Nelson Mandela has been so needed as it is now. One need only see what is happening in the Central African Republic to realise how much we can learn from the history of his lifetime.

I also wish to record that the all-party South Africa group and other country groups meet under the auspices of the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association, and we must not lose sight of the great contribution that Nelson Mandela, his party and his Government made to the Commonwealth during his time as President. That was when the great diversity of the Commonwealth really came into its own.

In recording Nelson Mandela’s contribution and celebrating his life, I express great hope that his legacy will live on, and that his contribution to the great nation and people of South Africa, and to our great Commonwealth, will live on for future generations to enjoy.

16:08

[Keith Vaz (Leicester East) (Lab)]

I begin by thanking you, Mr Speaker, for clearing the Order Paper today to allow Members to pay tribute to Nelson Mandela. It shows the unique way in which the House views that great man, the great Madiba, that we should have these tributes. I am in the fortunate position of agreeing with everything that every other speaker has said, which I suppose is a feature of this important and historic debate.

I met Nelson Mandela just after I was elected to the House. He was attending a reception in Westminster, and my meeting with him echoes the stories that others who met him have recounted today. I cannot say that I had anything like the relationship with him that my right hon. Friend the Member for Neath (Mr Hain) had, but anyone who did meet him will know that he was an extraordinary and very special man.

To the black and ethnic minority communities in this country, Nelson Mandela will of course have a very special place. When my hon. Friend the Member for Streatham (Mr Umunna) was interviewed at the weekend, he talked eloquently about Madiba’s visit to Brixton and the great inspiration that he had been to the people there. Certainly if we go to any meeting at which race and racism is discussed, the example, legacy and inspiration of Nelson Mandela is mentioned. It is not just in respect of South Africa that we remember him. On one of his visits, we saw his support for the Stephen Lawrence campaign. He met Doreen and Neville Lawrence, and after the meeting he said this:

“We are deeply touched by the brutality of this murder, even though it is commonplace in our country. It seems black lives are cheap.”

Neville and Doreen Lawrence were inspired by those words, and it was the support of that global figure that enabled the campaign to be so successful.

On my arrival as the parliamentary candidate in Leicester, I walked straight into a Mandela issue: one of the controversies that unfortunately surrounded so many of the schemes to name monuments, parks and buildings after Mandela. After my selection, there was a huge controversy in Leicester because the local council—led at the time by the current mayor, Sir Peter Soulsby—was trying to rename the Welford Road recreation ground after Nelson Mandela. Many people objected, because they felt that he had no connection with Leicester, but the council persisted and named it after him.

Twenty-five streets in the towns and cities of the United Kingdom are named after Mandela, nearly a third of the world’s known total. Most date back to the 1980s. The first example was in the constituency of the hon. Member for Brent Central (Sarah Teather), where the council unveiled Mandela close in 1981. I think that if Members wish to keep the legacy of Mandela going locally, they should take account of the examples set by other cities, such as Leicester, and try to name something after this great man.

Let me end by saying just two things, because I know that many other Members want to speak. Nelson Mandela was concerned not just about South Africa, but about Africa, and what concerned him was the legacy of those who had ruined that beautiful and rich continent because of colonial rule. When he won in South Africa, he said that it was not just about South Africa and apartheid in South Africa, but about laying the foundations of democracy for the future of Africa as a whole. Although our focus will naturally be on South Africa, especially this week, many other countries deserve the support of the House, and, although Mandela’s reach was global, he was particularly concerned about his own continent.

Every time we come into the Chamber for prayers—led by your marvellous chaplain, Mr Speaker—we read the words of the Lord’s Prayer. We say, “Forgive us our trespasses, as we forgive those who trespass against us.” Those words of the Lord’s Prayer were practised by Mandela. He never preached religion, but his values in forgiving trespasses are very obvious in the life of this remarkable man. We will truly never see his like again.

16:13

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

Rather like the right hon. Member for Leicester East (Keith Vaz), I feel that everything that should have been said has been said—most notably, perhaps, by the right hon. Member for Neath (Mr Hain), whom I am glad to call my friend, albeit outside the Chamber. After all, we were once in the same party together.

It is inevitable on these occasions that we speak, as it were, through the prism of our own recollections. Of course, Nelson Mandela created many iconic images, but one in particular sticks in my mind, and it has already been mentioned. Let me put it in context. I had not really understood the absurdity of apartheid in sport until 1965, when, at the White City stadium in London, two teams from South Africa were competing in the annual athletics championships, a black team wearing black blazers and a white team wearing green blazers. They were able to compete against each other at the White City stadium in London, but they could not compete against each other in Cape Town or Johannesburg. If I had any doubts about the absurdity of apartheid in sport, they were most certainly extinguished on that occasion.

As we have heard, sport in South Africa was a deeply divisive issue. When in 1995, at the rugby world cup final, Nelson Mandela wore a South African rugby shirt to present the winner’s trophy to the South African captain, he made an extraordinary gesture. Indeed, it goes a little further than we have heard today, because Mandela wore the No. 6, which was the jersey number of the white South African captain. I shall finish now, because so many hon. Members wish to speak, but by that simple act he turned what was divisive into something that was a force for unity. Surely on that occasion there was no better way to express his ambition for his country.

16:16

[Angus Robertson (Moray) (SNP)]

On behalf of the Scottish National party, it is a tremendous honour to take part in this special tribute to the remarkable and amazing Nelson Mandela, and to follow the amazing tributes that we have heard thus far from the Front Benches, from the former Prime Minister, the right hon. Member for Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath (Mr Brown), from the right hon. Member for Neath (Mr Hain) and from many others.

I was at school and then at university in the 1980s, when apartheid as an issue, and the campaign for the release of Nelson Mandela and other African National Congress prisoners, was at its height. The Anti-Apartheid Movement in Scotland was extremely strong, with the city of Glasgow granting the imprisoned ANC leader the freedom of that great city. Everyone in Scotland remembers with tremendous affection Nelson Mandela’s visit to Glasgow after his release, when he collected the freedom of the city in person. He said:

“Whilst we were physically denied our freedom in the country of our birth, a city 6,000 miles away refused to accept the legitimacy of the apartheid system and declared us to be free. You, the people of Glasgow, pledged that you would not relax until I was free to receive this honour in person. I am deeply grateful to you and the anti-apartheid movement in Scotland for all your efforts to this end.”

What was true about Glasgow was true about many other places the length and breadth of the UK and around the world, and we today remember all of those people who campaigned for his release and the end of apartheid. We remember especially all those people in South Africa who made the ultimate sacrifice and died as part of that campaign. We also recall the support of Nelson Mandela for the Scottish justice system—which did not please all—with the compassionate release of Abdelbaset al-Megrahi.

What Nelson Mandela achieved in South Africa was literally amazing and had previously seemed unimaginable. His humanity, dignity, optimism and vision are a legacy for the whole world to share and will never be forgotten.

16:18

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

It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Moray (Angus Robertson). I too send my heartfelt condolences to Nelson Mandela’s widow and family. I will never forget the first time I met Nelson Mandela. Opposition Members have spoken of his extraordinary warmth and I certainly witnessed that.

I was lucky enough to visit South Africa on what I think was the first all-party parliamentary group visit after the 1994 elections, a delegation led by the hon. Member for Nottingham North (Mr Allen). The Conservatives on the delegation felt a degree of apprehension and unease before the meeting in Shell house in Jo’burg. We could hardly have been seen by the ANC as great historic allies, and we were not exactly on the right side of the struggle against apartheid. But I will never forget three things from that first meeting with President Mandela, as he was then. First was his extraordinary warmth. Secondly, he seemed to understand intuitively that the Conservatives on the delegation felt uneasy. He went out of his way to put us at ease, and when we went around the table introducing ourselves he said to the Conservatives, “I’m really grateful to Margaret Thatcher for what she did, and I am very grateful to your current Prime Minister, Mr Major, for all he’s done for our country.” It was as though he wanted to go out of his way to put our minds completely at ease. Thirdly, when the hon. Member for Nottingham North started the conversation he said, “Mr President, your Excellency, we are hugely honoured to be here,” and the President said, “No, no, I’m honoured to have you here.” I do not think anyone who met him ever forgot his incredible charm and his impeccable manners.

A lot of people have spoken about his magnanimity, his ability to forgive, his dignity and his desire for reconciliation, and I want to just pick up two incidents that are really quite extraordinary. First, he appointed his former jailer, Jannie Roux, who went on to become a prison commissioner, as ambassador to Austria. The other example testifies to his extraordinary ability to forgive: he organised an official lunch for Percy Yutar, who was the official prosecutor in the Rivonia trial and who was calling for his execution during that trial.

As my right hon. Friend the Member for North East Bedfordshire (Alistair Burt) mentioned, it is easy to forget the sense of pessimism in South Africa in the ’80s and very early ’90s. Indeed, 70% of South Africans believed that the situation would end in an appalling civil war and a bloodbath. I believe that Nelson Mandela was personally responsible for preventing that from happening and for preventing an utter catastrophe. Also—what an example this is to other African leaders—he never, ever went out of his way to try to better himself at the expense of his fellow countrymen. He never let power go to his head and he was never, ever corrupted. What an absolute tragedy that more leaders on that continent are not following his extraordinary example.

While we mourn a remarkable man, we must give thanks for a truly extraordinary life.

[Mr Speaker]

We are extremely grateful to the hon. Gentleman for that speech.

16:22

[Hilary Benn (Leeds Central) (Lab)]

There are rare moments in life when the death of one person brings the world together and touches many hearts, and the passing of Nelson Mandela is such a moment. In truth, the words we reach for to try and describe his achievements seem not to match the scale of the task or do justice to what he achieved, the feelings we hold for him and the memories we have of both.

In Leeds, we have our memory of that day in April 2001 when he came to our city to receive its freedom—the highest honour we were able to bestow. We cheered his arrival in a packed Millennium square as he climbed the stage and, in his characteristic way, paused to greet every person who was on it, including the children who had been singing: everyone mattered and everyone was included. He then addressed us, and he began with these immortal words: “It is wonderful to be here in Liverpool.” There are other occasions on which uttering those words in Leeds could get you into some difficulty, but did we care? No, we did not: we cheered him all the more, because it was a privilege to be there in that throng to see a man who had made history.

Whether in public or in private, Nelson Mandela was that same man: he was calm, he was dignified, he was resolute, he was unfailingly courteous. It is no wonder that he was an inspiration to so many people, because, with grace, he showed that belief makes everything possible.

However, as we have heard today, it did not always seem so, and so as we remember one man’s extraordinary life, each of us recalls—including in the contributions we have heard, many of them extremely moving—how our lives were intertwined with his. Although the House speaks with one voice today, it was not always so. As we have heard from my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition, those who marched to Trafalgar square or stood on the pavement outside South Africa house were not treated as heroes—indeed, some regarded us, them and him as dangerous extremists. My right hon. Friend the Member for Neath (Mr Hain) gave us a reminder by reading out those petty, demeaning rules on how much food the prisoners on Robben Island could get. When I visited and saw those things written on the signs, my jaw dropped, because there was represented a perpetuation of racist difference instead of what Mandela stood for, which was to embrace our common humanity. It is therefore right that we should pay tribute to all those people, including those still in this House, who showed such courage to stand up for him, for his ideals and for the ANC at a time when it was neither fashionable nor popular to do so.

Mandela’s passing also reminds us that many of the great changes we have now come to take for granted—and, oh, don’t we take them for granted—came not through the consensus we have heard expressed here today, but in and through struggle and through politics. My right hon. Friend the Member for Derby South (Margaret Beckett) was absolutely right to make the point about the power of politics to utterly transform our world and people’s lives.

Out of all the words that have been used to describe Nelson Mandela two stand out for me: magnanimity and reconciliation. After those long years of imprisonment, he showed magnanimity at the very moment when he had forced the apartheid regime to grant him his freedom by refusing to yield, and he preached reconciliation. Why? It was because he knew it was the only way he could achieve his vision of a non-racist and democratic South Africa—it was his leadership that made that possible.

I simply say that one of the best ways in which we can honour Mandela’s memory is to let his example stand—the right hon. Member for North East Bedfordshire (Alistair Burt) made this point—as a lesson to the leaders in other conflicts in the world today, because, like Nelson Mandela, they face two simple choices. The easy path is to remain a victim. The more courageous path is to say to those they lead and to the world, “This is what we must now do in the interests of peace.” Nelson Mandela once said:

“No one is born hating another person because of the colour of his skin, or his background, or his religion. People must learn to hate, and if they can learn to hate, they can be taught to love.”

May he be granted in death the peace for which he campaigned so hard in life.

16:27

[Michael Ellis (Northampton North) (Con)]

It is a privilege and honour to follow the right hon. Member for Leeds Central (Hilary Benn).

It is not easy to find the best words to describe Nelson Mandela, but his nobility, dignified nature and courage, and the inspiration he brought to countless others, have already been spoken of far more eloquently than I can speak of them. His absence of bitterness and resentment is perhaps the most extraordinary of all his attributes, and perhaps also the rarest. He was similar in one respect to Winston Churchill: in the magnanimity he showed, and spoke of showing, in victory.

Unlike many of the previous speakers, I never had the privilege of meeting Nelson Mandela, so I would like to honour him by mentioning just some of those who helped him in their small and various ways. There were millions who did so, including those who went to the concerts and those who went in their hundreds of thousands to marches. Of course the Jewish people, the people of my faith, played a crucial role in various stages of Mandela’s life, especially in his early decades. Apparently, the only white person he ever called a boss of his was Lazar Sidelsky, a Jewish lawyer from Johannesburg, who in the 1940s hired him as a legal clerk. In his 1994 autobiography, “Long Walk to Freedom”, Mr Mandela said:

“It was a Jewish firm, and in my experience I have found Jews to be more broadminded than most whites on issues of race and politics, perhaps because they themselves have historically been victims of prejudice.”

He went on:

“The fact that Lazar Sidelsky, one of the firm’s partners, would take on a young African as an articled clerk—almost unheard-of in those days—was evidence of that liberalism.”

Many years later, Mandela apparently attended the Bar Mitzvah of Sidelsky’s son, Barry. Countless other Jewish people had close relationships with Mr Mandela—people such as Isie Maisels, Harry Schwarz, Joe Slovo and Lionel Bernstein. Many others helped him in his long struggle and, in many cases, suffered for it. Arthur Goldreich helped to hide Mr Mandela and the ANC in the early 1960s. He apparently set up a fake farm to do so, but was unfortunately uncovered in 1963 by the South African apartheid security forces and later managed to escape to the country.

Benjamin Pogrund, the former deputy editor of the Rand Daily Mail, South Africa’s leading newspaper, was a pioneer in reporting politics at a time when it was not only unfashionable to report on black politics in South Africa but illegal. As has already been said, Mr Mandela was a politician, and the importance of having those political references transmitted in newsprint cannot be overstated. In 1961, Pogrund helped Mr Mandela to organise an illegal strike. In the 1980s, he was among the first non-family members to visit him in his cell on Robben Island. Of course there were others who were not supportive of Mr Mandela. Many in the small Jewish community in South Africa adopted a sort of benign neutrality.

Mr Mandela was always a strong supporter of the Palestinian people. I echo remarks made by Members on both sides of the House about how we now must look for leaders of a similar stature—I hope that that is possible—who can take the lead in other perennial conflicts around the world, and who can, like a colossus as Nelson Mandela was, bestride both sides of the argument. It will take someone of Mandela’s ilk to work towards reconciliation in those parts of the world. Nelson Mandela was always firm about Israel’s right to a peaceful existence, but he strongly supported the cause of the Palestinian people. In his work for reconciliation, he chose not to dig up the hatred and the anger, which are so justified in many cases. He famously said, “Those who wish to foster recrimination and hatred are like people who take poison expecting it to injure their enemies.”

In 1997, he agreed to receive, in South Africa, an honorary doctorate from Ben-Gurion university. He then went on to take about 30 honorary doctorates. It would be remiss of me not to mention Progressive party member Helen Suzman, the only politician in the South African Parliament between 1961 and 1974 who was opposed to apartheid.

[Mr Bellingham]

A great woman.

[Michael Ellis]

A great woman, as my hon. Friend points out.

Apparently, when Helen Suzman was questioning a Minister in the South African Parliament and asking him to justify the apartheid policies that the South African Government were inflicting on the people of that country—she was alone in her views—the Minister said to her, “Your questions are embarrassing South Africa, ” and she responded, “It’s not my questions, it’s your answers.” She was made an honorary dame by Her Majesty the Queen in 1989 and the House will no doubt agree that she richly deserved that honour.

I wanted to honour Nelson Mandela in my speech today by mentioning just a small number of those people who helped him along that path and by giving the names of some of those who honoured him in their lifetimes. I pay tribute to a great man.

16:39

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

I certainly agree with the hon. Member for Northampton North (Michael Ellis) that Nelson Mandela would have had a loathing of anti-Semitism while at the same time supporting the Palestinian cause. He would have recognised that the Palestinian cause is another injustice that must be righted at some stage—and the earlier the better.

In paying tribute to this outstanding personality today, we should remember, as he would always wish us to, all those who dedicated themselves to the liberation movement in South Africa and worked tirelessly when they were forced into exile. It should not be forgotten that when Mandela faced a possible death sentence in 1964, seven others were in the dock with him. They included Walter Sisulu, Govan Mbeki, whose son was to be the second President of South Africa after apartheid, and Denis Goldberg. They were all sentenced to prison for life and they all knew before the sentence was passed the sharp possibility that they would be executed.

Others should not be forgotten either, such as Steve Biko, who was not of the ANC but had his own black consciousness movement. He was arrested on a number of occasions and the last time he was in police custody he was murdered. He was beaten to death in November 1977. Others were murdered outside South Africa, of course, including, as my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition said, Ruth First, the wife of Joe Slovo. As Members will know, Joe Slovo was one of the leading senior military commanders in the ANC. Like Ruth First, he dedicated his life to a free South Africa. Slovo survived all and became a Minister in Mandela’s Government.

If I may stray just a little from the consensus today—only a little—I think that we should be asking ourselves in paying tribute to Nelson Mandela how it was possible for the apartheid regime to last more than 40 years. My knowledge of South Africa at 15 was very limited. I knew about the war involving Britain that my right hon. Friend the Member for Neath (Mr Hain) mentioned, obviously, and I knew that Africans in that country were not having a good time of it, to say the least. But when I read in 1948 that the National party had won the election, I knew immediately, like so many people in this country and despite my young years, that far worse was to come for the black majority.

Three years after the decisive defeat of European fascism, with Nazi Germany defeated at long last, why, when a regime came into being with a Government elected by whites that was determined to bring about the strictest form of segregation based on colour and to remove the few rights that Africans had, did western powers show such indifference? Later, it was not indifference alone. We know, as was widely reported, how every form of humiliation was put on the majority of people living in South Africa, such as the notorious pass laws, which made their lives difficult from day to day. We know the repression and the manner in which people such as Nelson Mandela and the rest were forced, against their wishes in the main, to take up armed struggle. The ANC, which was established in 1911, was anxious to avoid violence until 1960, but after Sharpeville that was not possible. Ironically, Sharpeville was not organised as a demonstration by the ANC. I remember the reaction of the Labour movement when Sharpeville occurred on 21 March 1960. It was an early Easter, and the London Labour party, for instance, cancelled its weekend meetings and joined a massive demonstration in Trafalgar square. Far from opposing the regime, there was indifference when the apartheid Government were elected. Britain, the United States and most democracies were quite willing over those 40 years, to sell all kinds of military equipment to South Africa and to train its military personnel.

We raised the issue on many occasions in the ’60s, ’70s and ’80s, before Nelson Mandela and his colleagues were released, and before the ban on the ANC was lifted, and every time we did so in the House of Commons the response from the Government of the day—certainly from Conservative Governments—was “We oppose apartheid”. I do not question that—I do not believe for one moment that Mrs Thatcher was in favour of apartheid. In fact, she would have realised that that was counter-productive. The accusation is not that those politicians were in favour of apartheid—some may have been, but the majority were not—but that they refused to take any action to undermine and isolate the system and see it destroyed. That is the accusation that I think historians will make against those in power. That does not apply only to Britain—the United States carried far more responsibility for keeping the regime in office.

I hope that the lesson has been learned: when tyranny occurs, we should take a somewhat different attitude. I hope that there is no repeat of what occurred when apartheid was able to exist for such a long time. I also have to ask why so many Members of Parliament, and future Members of Parliament, were willing to go on so-called fact-finding trips, with all expenses paid by the South African Government? It was argued that they wanted to see the position for themselves, but I noticed when they came back that they did not condemn the regime, which is an indictment of parliamentarians of the past that I hope will also not be repeated.

Nelson Mandela was one of the great people of our times. He was an outstanding personality, he gave inspired leadership to his people and in his own way—27 years’ imprisonment, apart from anything else—dedicated his whole adult life to freedom in South Africa. I wish only that we could say that Britain played a decisive part in helping to remove the apartheid regime, and in paying tribute to Mandela we should recognise our own faults and limitations.

16:43

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

It is a privilege to take part in this debate to pay tribute to Nelson Mandela and to join colleagues who have done that so wonderfully well across the House.

At the period of its greatest need in the last century, that beautiful, proud, rich and wonderfully diverse and talented country, South Africa, needed someone of Nelson Mandela’s stature to rescue it from what was, in my judgment and that of many others, inevitable civil war. There was a great probability of huge conflict and further killing to add to all the injustice, suffering and oppression that had gone before. After 40 years of pent-up repression since 1948, things could not have been held for much longer by the apartheid regime.

I, like others, became a student activist in the Young Liberals at the same time as the right hon. Member for Neath (Mr Hain). I pay tribute to him and to his parents and his family for their example, having come to this country, in making people realise that we had an international duty of solidarity to others a long way away. Even if we could not directly affect what was happening, we could indirectly affect what was happening. The stop the tour campaign and the other actions certainly added to the changes that South Africa underwent.

Many people who have been in this place and are currently in the other place and elsewhere were part of the Anti-Apartheid Movement and led it in this country. Like others, I am very clear that Mike Terry was a stalwart of the movement, and I pay tribute to Bob Hughes, now in the other place. I pay tribute to Dick Caborn, with whom I reminisced only the other day, and to Glenys and Neil Kinnock and others in the Labour party in this country. I pay tribute, too, to my colleagues—to Jo Grimond, Jeremy Thorpe, David Steel and Paddy Ashdown, who were unrelenting in pursuing the case for a change in apartheid. I am glad that the hon. Member for Northampton North (Michael Ellis) paid tribute to Helen Suzman, the sole white South African Opposition politician elected under the apartheid system, who challenged and challenged and challenged again the oppression of the apartheid regime.

As my right hon. Friend the Member for North East Bedfordshire (Alistair Burt) said in his moving speech, we were privileged first to visit South Africa together in 1986 with our friend, Peter Pike, and Anthony Cordle, who arranged for us to go. I have very rarely been in tears in my public life, but we landed on the day before the anniversary of the Crossroads massacre. We stayed in the house of John Reid, the pro vice chancellor of Cape Town university. He was breaking the law by having black students living with him and his family in his house in a comfortable suburb of Cape Town.

On the other side of the railway line was the destroyed settlement of Crossroads. When we went to the memorial service the next day South African defence force tanks circled around us—the Casspirs—where 20,000 people’s homes had been destroyed. It was more than I had ever imagined a place where liberty had been extinguished for the majority of the people, and the oppression of the military and the South African economic strength was bearing down on them. I pay tribute to those such as our friend Garth Collins, who had started building bridges, which meant that from staying in the townships, in places such as Soweto, and visiting activists there, we could in the same day go to talk privately and confidentially to people in the Government who understood that they would have to change their ways.

We met people in the Dutch Reformed Church who, even then, did not understand how evil was their interpretation of the Bible as they understood it. I remember Peter Pike and I meeting P.W. Botha. We saw him coming towards us and we had a terrible moment: do we shake the hand of somebody whom we have opposed and campaigned against all our lives—Peter as a trade unionist and anti-apartheid activist, Alistair and I—or do we not? We did so, although, I have to say, it was difficult. Nelson Mandela showed that you have to reach out, shake people by the hand and seek to persuade them that they need to change their ways.

In 1994 I was privileged to host some young South Africans, mainly black and coloured South Africans, who were here on the day of the first election—that great day in April 1994 when the election took place in South Africa. Colleagues might remember that three polling stations were set up in London, one of which was at Methodist Central hall, for the first-ever democratic election. These youngsters wanted to be the first people to vote in this first-ever free election, so they camped overnight on the steps of Methodist Central hall. There were lots of journalists outside and they went in to vote. As they came out, the journalists were asking, if I may say so, rather simplistic journalistic questions. They stopped a young girl and asked, “Didn’t you find it very complicated to choose who to vote for, given that long list of parties on the ballot paper?” There was a little pause and she said to the journalist, “I didn’t find it complicated at all. We’ve had a lot of time to think about it.” A young black guy, perhaps 18 or 19 years old, was asked, rather predictably, “What did you feel as you cast your vote?” He paused and then very wisely said, “I put a very big cross so that nobody could ignore my opinion.”

That liberation moment, when those people queued to vote in that first election, that transformational moment, was Mandela’s doing. It was no accident that he was able to deliver it, because he had worked and prepared for it during his time on Robben Island. He learnt to speak Afrikaans fluently in order to engage not only with his jailers, but with people in the Government. He went out of his way, even before his formal release, to meet people secretly.

That great moment when he walked on to the pitch at the rugby world cup final in 1995 also followed huge preparation. Mandela had met Francois Pienaar on many occasions and they had become close friends. We remember his wonderful comments when he commended Francois Pienaar and the Springbok team, which I believe had only one non-white player in the squad, while wearing the Springbok jersey. Francois Pienaar said, “We are playing this game for you, Mr President, not only for South Africa.” The crowd, which was almost entirely white, chanted “Mandela, Mandela, Mandela” from the stands as South Africa went on to win. For those Members who are interested in sport, I recommend a wonderful book by John Carlin, “Playing the Enemy: Nelson Mandela and the Game That Made a Nation”, which tracks the history of that rugby world cup tournament up to that moment. It is inspirational reading.

I had the huge privilege of being back in South Africa earlier this year. I was met by Helen Zille, Premier of the Western Cape, who kindly accommodated me in what had been the district administrator’s residence. I did not know it until I went into the house, but the room I was given to sleep in was the room in which Mandela had slept the night before his presidential inauguration—it is now called the Madiba room. I texted family members and friends back home to share my excitement. One replied, “He was a great man, and I assume somebody’s changed the sheets since then.” But as I sat at the desk from which he composed his Cabinet and looked out over Table Mountain, it was only then that the significance of the transformation he had brought about in politics in South Africa completely dawned on me.

I associate myself closely with the comments of the right hon. Member for Derby South (Margaret Beckett). Mandela was a political leader of a political party of a political movement across a continent, and it was in that role that he stood for office and was returned as the first democratically elected South African President. Hugely to his credit, he did not cling to office. He served only one term before handing over to the next generation, to Thabo Mbeki and others. A little like the father of the right hon. Member for Leeds Central (Hilary Benn), Tony Benn, who said when he left this place that he was going to do politics outside, Mandela went on to do wonderful leadership work—for example, in campaigning against HIV/AIDS.

I hope that Mandela’s legacy reminds everybody not only of the great example of people such as Trevor Huddleston and the wonderful inspiration of places such as St Martin-in-the-Fields, which campaigned against apartheid for many years and hosted all those who were not allowed into the South African embassy when they protested in Trafalgar square, but of the others in public life who always argued for the principled position. He proved that politicians can change the world, and even that lawyers who are politicians can do really important things.

I think that the courage, dignity and discipline that Mandela showed had another lasting legacy that colleagues, including the right hon. Member for Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath (Mr Brown), have alluded to: he made us realise that we all have a mutual responsibility for each other across the world. There is so much injustice, discrimination, poverty and inequality, including in South Africa, still to fight. I hope that he will inspire the people of South Africa, all its leaders and all its parties, to rise to the challenge and the rest of the world never to stand by for so long when such oppression goes on, to such disadvantage to so many. The most commonly heard phrase today has been, “We will never see his like again”, but we will do him a disservice if we do not use that inspiration in our own lives and in our politics.

16:54

[Paul Blomfield (Sheffield Central) (Lab)]

It is a privilege to speak today as one of the thousands whom my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition described as having been involved, month after month, year after year, when the Anti-Apartheid Movement was unpopular, in raising the demands of Mandela and of the African National Congress. We had no personal connection with South Africa but were drawn into the movement by the horror of apartheid, by the courage of those who stood against it, and by recognising the complicity of our own country in the apartheid regime’s longer-than-fitting survival. I was privileged to be involved for 25 years, for 16 of them as part of the elected national leadership of the movement, along with my right hon. Friend the Member for Holborn and St Pancras (Frank Dobson) and my hon. Friend the Member for York Central (Hugh Bayley).

In 1976, shortly after the Soweto uprising, the ANC asked me to go to South Africa because at that time I was co-ordinating the student campaign in the UK against apartheid. The ANC wanted me to meet those involved in the uprising to explore how we could work together to build international solidarity. I travelled widely throughout the country until I was forced to leave having drawn the attention of the South African security forces. Among many powerful memories, I recall staying illegally in an Indian district in Cape Town in a house with a distant view of Robben Island. The woman whose house it was, who was not herself involved in politics, was probably puzzled by my presence there, having done a favour for a friend in putting me up. I probably did not recognise the risk that I was putting her at by being there illegally. We were talking one morning in her kitchen, and she pointed across to Robben Island and said, “When you go back to your country, tell your Government that that’s where our leaders are—not in Pretoria.” Sadly, it took many more years before this country did recognise that that is where the leaders were and did recognise the extraordinary leadership of Nelson Mandela.

In acknowledging that leadership today, we should also remember those who stood alongside Nelson Mandela who are also no longer with us: Walter Sisulu, who recruited him to the ANC, and Walter’s exceptional wife, Albertina, who, four decades later, nominated Mandela as the first President of a free, non-racial South Africa; Mandela’s colleague in the law practice in South Africa and subsequently the person who flew the flag of the ANC in exile for so long and so well, Oliver Tambo; and those already mentioned who built the Anti-Apartheid Movement around the world and in the UK, particularly Archbishop Trevor Huddleston, who, as president, led it so wonderfully for so many years, and Mike Terry, who, as executive secretary over the longest and most critical part of its existence, provided strategic leadership and a sense of direction that made it into the organisation that it was in this country.

I am proud that my city of Sheffield played its part in that movement. Hundreds were involved in the campaign against apartheid and thousands more took up the call by refusing to buy South African goods, changing their bank accounts, challenging the trade missions that went from the city, and standing outside our theatres and other big venues when those who breached the cultural boycott of South Africa performed there.

Our city council led a network of local authorities against apartheid. One of our universities divested itself of shares in companies operating in South Africa and another named one of its major buildings after Mandela. Our churches took up the cause and our trade unions pressed the boycott of South Africa in the workplace. All were inspired by Mandela, the ANC and the values of the freedom charter agreed at the Congress of the People in Kliptown in 1955.

It is important that when we reflect, we learn the real lessons. A lot has been said today about reconciliation and rightly so. Reconciliation is built on forgiving, but not on forgetting. The starting point for the reconciliation process that Mandela put in place in South Africa was to confront the truth of those who had been involved in the apartheid regime’s oppression. Around the world, many of those who have been quick to praise Mandela now should recognise, with humility, that they were as quick to condemn him in the past.

The eulogies of the past few days have glossed over the reality of the struggle. The story has been told almost as if white South Africa had, in time, come to their senses, realised that they had got it wrong with apartheid and thought it was about time they released Mandela and negotiated a peaceful settlement. Actually, however, the Prime Minister was right to say in his opening remarks that justice in South Africa was not handed down; it was hard-fought for. The truth is that freedom was not, as the right hon. and learned Member for Kensington (Sir Malcolm Rifkind) suggested, benevolently gifted to Mandela and the ANC by the regime. They fought for it and they won it in a victory over the apartheid state. They were opposed at every step of the way—brutally—by the regime and were too often let down by western Governments who put their economic interests first, blocked sanctions, applied the veto at the UN Security Council time after time during the ’80s and condemned Mandela as a terrorist.

It was only after years of civil resistance, often at appalling personal cost to the people of South Africa, that that resistance had made South Africa ungovernable. It was only when, despite the opposition from Governments including ours in the ’80s, sanctions had made South Africa more isolated internationally that the regime recognised it had no future. It was driven to the negotiating table by the uncompromising campaign led by Nelson Mandela and the ANC, and in the negotiations before and after his release he made no concessions.

Compassion, forgiveness and generosity were the characteristics of Mandela’s post-apartheid nation building, but it was his political vision, judgment and uncompromising determination that created the opportunity to build a new nation. Of course, Mandela could, as others have said, have led a revolution that simply turned the tables. As many have pointed out, he did not. Instead of revenge, he sought reconciliation. To honour his life, we should be learning from his values, seeking to build understanding and respect between communities, challenging at every opportunity the politics of hatred and division, committing ourselves to the cause of equality and justice, applying those values in our debates on domestic policy—on immigration and on human rights and when we consider our role in the world—and not making the mistake again of being on the wrong side of justice.

Standing up for those values, even when it is uncomfortable or when it is inconvenient, would be the measure of our tribute to Mandela.

17:04

[Sir Edward Garnier (Harborough) (Con)]

Having heard the contributions of two Prime Ministers, the Leader of the Opposition and a number of other senior Members of the House, I think my contribution this evening is almost superfluous. In fact, it probably is superfluous. But having heard the contribution of the right hon. Member for Neath (Mr Hain), I think my contribution is probably impertinent. However, I want briefly to give a little illustration of Nelson Mandela, the man not in the public eye, and perhaps to illustrate—others will know of him far better than I did—how that characteristic of disarming modesty and magnanimity, which has been spoken about so much this afternoon, came across to me.

In September 1990, just a few months after Nelson Mandela had been released, I was in Johannesburg, in the offices of the Johannesburg Star, discussing as a newspaper lawyer with the editor of the newspaper issues to do with freedom of the press and wider freedom of expression, to do with censorship and self-censorship, which the media in South Africa had either had imposed upon them or had felt sensible to impose upon themselves. There came a time when our conversation came to an end and I said to the editor, “Just across the street are the offices of the ANC. Do you think if I went in there and asked to see Mr Mandela, they would let me?” Whereupon the editor said, “Of course they won’t, but you might as well have a go.” So I went across the street, pressed the button on the lift and went to the top floor of the building, and the girl behind the desk in the ANC offices said, “Hello, can I help?” and I said, “Yes, I have come to see Mr Mandela.” She said, “If you sit there, he will be with you in a moment.” So I sat there.

After a few moments, Joe Slovo came out into the hall and said, “Hello. I gather you have come to see Mr Mandela.” I said, “Yes, I have.” He said, “Well, he will be with you in a minute.” He went back, and about 10 minutes later, Mr Mandela, Mr Slovo and a note taker—so reminiscent of our modern government—came into the hall and ushered me into a boardroom, where Mr Mandela sat at the end of the table, Mr Slovo sat on his left, I sat on his right and the note taker sat opposite. Mr Mandela said to me, “Welcome to South Africa. Thank you for coming to see me.” I said, “On the contrary, thank you very much—” and he stopped me and said, “You are not Dutch.” I said, “No, I am English.” He said, “Whoever let you in should be taken out and shot.” Whereupon he roared with laughter, gripped me firmly by the hand and said, “Let’s talk. Who are you? What are you here for?” I was not a Member of Parliament; I was simply a jobbing lawyer across the road at the Johannesburg Star, who had taken an opportunity that Mr Mandela, as a former guerrilla, had thought quite witty.

I had 20 minutes with Messrs Mandela and Slovo, and during the course of those 20 minutes I learned a lot about human nature and political forgiveness, and I learned a lot about that great man himself. During the course of our conversation, he told me that he now felt as much a prisoner of the expectations of the majority population of South Africa as he had of the apartheid regime while incarcerated. It had not occurred to me until he told me what a huge effort would be required by him to ensure that the new South Africa could be a peaceful and prosperous one. But I think it is fair to say—the right hon. Member for Neath will know more about all of this than I—that the South Africa that we see today, with all its imperfections and economic difficulties, would be light years behind where it is now were it not for the example, conduct and character of that most extraordinary man.

When I left that room, Nelson Mandela asked me what I was going to do in future years—I was not quite 39, so for him a youngish man—and I said I was hoping to become a Member of Parliament in the Conservative interest, and he said, “Well, make sure you send me your maiden speech.” I am afraid that I let him down; I did not send him the speech, but I think that if I had done so, he would have read it and probably written back to me—indirectly if not directly—to remind me of our discussion.

Some years later in the mid to late 1990s, when I was a visiting fellow at St Antony’s college in Oxford, President Mandela came to open a seminar and lecture room there. I thrust myself forward from the crowd of hundreds and introduced myself to him, saying, “Of course you will not remember when we met in your offices some years ago.” He said, “You’re quite right. Of course I don’t remember you, but it is very nice to see you.” One of our sort of politicians would have lied and said that they did remember, but he did not.

I realise that I am in danger of talking about myself rather than about Mr Mandela. I am telling this story to illustrate the fact that even though he could expect nothing from me, I had nothing to give him and I was a waste of his time in that meeting room in 1990—and I certainly was not the Dutch parliamentarian he was expecting—he gave me his time and, more importantly, he gave me his hand. I shall never forget that. He shook my hand and I shall be eternally grateful for that hand of friendship that he gave to me, a stranger. That is the man that I remember.

17:11

[Dr Hywel Francis (Aberavon) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to follow the hon. and learned Member for Harborough (Sir Edward Garnier). I should like to place on record my thanks to you, Mr Speaker, for allowing me to be called early in the debate, and to apologise for my absence earlier in the day. I have not been particularly well but my doctor, Dr Grant, allowed me to come here because I insisted on doing so.

It is with great pride that I speak today not only as the hon. Member for Aberavon but as the Chair of the Joint Committee on Human Rights, whose work has been enormously influenced by the new free democratic South Africa. I have also been a member of the Wales anti-apartheid movement since its earliest days, and I want to pay tribute to my long-standing friend Hanif Bhamjee, who kept the movement going through the most difficult times. He should have been mentioned in Nelson Mandela’s speech in 1998 when Mr Mandela received the freedom of the city of Cardiff, but Hanif insisted that his name be replaced by that of someone of the same age and vintage as Nelson Mandela—namely, Bert Pearce, who was the general secretary of the Communist party in Wales.

Many tributes have been paid to Nelson Mandela, but to me the most striking was the one from his long-term adversary, F. W. de Klerk. He emphasised how important Nelson Mandela had been in convincing so many people, including himself, of the importance of the universality of human rights.

We all have particular memories of Nelson Mandela and, listening to the debate today, it has been striking to hear how diverse those memories are. My most important memory of him is my first memory, and it dates back almost to the beginning of Nelson Mandela’s journey, at the end of the Rivonia trial. I went with my father, who was the general secretary of the south Wales area of the National Union of Mineworkers, to Llandaff cathedral. Like many cathedrals and churches across the world, Llandaff had decided, under the leadership of the World Council of Churches, to hold a vigil through the night at which people would pray and show their solidarity with Nelson Mandela, Walter Sisulu and all the other African National Congress leaders who could be sentenced to death. It was our duty and privilege to be there, just as it is a privilege to recall that moment. Bishop Glyn Simon and Dean Eryl S. Thomas read from the New Testament through the night until dawn. That gathering was remarkable for its diversity of political opinion and faiths. There, in microcosm, was a kind of mirror image of the African National Congress: it was representative of the emerging Wales anti-apartheid movement, and all progressive opinion in Wales was there.

That was the beginning of the long journey that Nelson Mandela started and, we would like to think, of the journey for those in Wales and Britain who were in solidarity with him. The two most important social movements or institutions at the heart of that movement from beginning to end were the churches, led by the Welsh Council of Churches, and the trade union movement, led by the South Wales Miners Union.

My second memory is of two particular moments in Cardiff in December 1969, when Wales played the Springboks. First, when the main march came to the bottom of St Mary street, it met a separate march from the black community in Butetown, which unified with ours. It was led by the Cardiff International athletic club—the CIACs—with the banner that I understand was made specially for the occasion, and with one of its proudest members and sons, the late great Joe Erskine, the British and European boxing champion. Symbolically, the two marches unified at that point. A second, but sadder, moment was when one speaker said that it was a shame for Wales to have the people’s game played behind barbed wire. The one consolation was that there were more people on the demonstration than inside watching the match.

My third memory was of my late hon. Friend the Member for Aberdare and then for Cynon Valley, Ioan Evans, who did so much solidarity work in South Africa. He came with me to deliver a letter from the Bishop of Namibia in exile, Dr Colin Winter—he had been thrown out of Namibia for his solidarity work in support of striking miners there—urging the members of the Cwmbach male voice choir not to go to South Africa. I mention that choir’s name in tribute to them, because they eventually agreed not to go, and I salute them now, although I had never done so. I suppose that that is our little contribution to reconciliation.

Finally, I have a received memory, not a personal one. A matter of a few yards from this Chamber, the then Leader of the Opposition, Neil Kinnock—he played an enormous part in the anti-apartheid movement in Wales and Britain, and internationally—welcomed Nelson Mandela to the shadow Cabinet room in 1990. It was very striking that Nelson Mandela paused and looked at a particular Welsh miners’ banner that had been made in 1961, a year after the Sharpeville massacre. It was in the brilliant, beautiful colours of the African National Congress—black, green and gold. Importantly, the banner showed a white miner shaking hands with a black miner, with a miner’s lamp shining between them to symbolise the light of the world. I had arranged for the banner to be there, and I had insisted that the Welsh slogan, not the English one, was shown. Nelson Mandela was puzzled by the slogan, “Mewn undeb mae nerth a heddwch”—in unity there is strength and peace—and he asked about its significance and meaning. Neil Kinnock replied, “You will understand when I tell you that that is the banner from the South Wales miners. That is the Abercraf miners’ banner.” Neil said to me, with pride, that Nelson Mandela had said, “I do understand.”

I will end by telling the House that it has been arranged for that banner to return to the shadow Cabinet room. I spoke to the librarian of the South Wales Miners’ Library, Sian Williams, earlier today and she is happy for it to be returned. I suggest that it should be returned on the condition that it stays in the shadow Cabinet room in perpetuity, irrespective of who occupies that room, as a salute to Nelson Mandela, his comrades in the ANC and our comrades in the Anti-Apartheid Movement who did so much to remove apartheid in South Africa.

17:20

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

The House will want to join me in paying tribute to the hon. Member for Aberavon (Dr Francis) for his speech. If he will let me say something slightly less serious, I hope that the Labour party will go on enjoying that banner from now until kingdom come.

Today’s speeches make up a tapestry. Nelson Mandela was one of the first people I knew who argued for a non-racial South Africa—not a multiracial one, but a non-racial one. I ask this question as a challenge to us in this country: when will the colour of my skin be as important as, but no more important than, the colour of my eyes and the colour of my hair? We have not got that far yet.

By chance, I was young and in South Africa when the National party won the 1948 election. I was there at the opening of the Voortrekker monument. I had returned to this country when Smuts died.

I have a memory from 2002, during the Queen’s 50th anniversary on the throne, of going to the chapel at St James’s palace, where the tree with 54 leaves representing the Commonwealth members was unveiled. There, we saw the sight of Margaret Thatcher two places away from Nelson Mandela. It was one of those things that brings life in a full circle.

Margaret Thatcher has been wrongly quoted as saying that Nelson Mandela was a terrorist. She may have said that the ANC was a terrorist organisation. Given that it was involved in sabotage, although it tried to avoid the loss of life, that was accurate. If one reads the book by Lord Renwick or his article in The Daily Telegraph today, one will see that her instruction to her diplomats was to try to get matters resolved. She certainly would not have sent Robin Renwick to South Africa as our ambassador if she had been supporting apartheid.

My father served as our ambassador to South Africa in the early 1970s. The only doubt about his taking the appointment came when the Prime Minister asked the permanent under-secretary at the Foreign Office, “Is Jim Bottomley so much against apartheid that he will be no use as an ambassador?” Shortly after that, my mother arranged for Sam Moseneke, the principal of one of the big schools in Atteridgeville, to come and stay in our house with three of his colleagues. They said, “Do you know, where we are from, we would not be allowed to stay in your house?”

One of the groups that helped to make a difference was the churches, or at least some people in the churches. I pay tribute to Trevor Huddleston, who was a colleague of my tutor, Harry Williams, in the Community of the Resurrection. Having been picked as a novitiate to succeed his predecessor in Sophiatown, he was observed by a young man, aged about 14, lifting his hat as a mark of respect to that young man’s mother. The young man was Desmond Tutu, who went on to make his great contribution to the movement before the transition to one person, one vote, and after that to the Truth and Reconciliation Commission. Oom Bey, or Beyers Naude, of the Dutch Reformed Church said that people had a greater duty to God than to man. He refused to backtrack when the Dutch Reformed Church declared that his view of apartheid was wrong. There are others whom I could name.

We have to understand that a minority of people in this country took an active part in trying to challenge what appeared to be accepted. This year, there have been three deaths, which have not been noted by most people, two of former Members of the House of Commons and one of a former Member of the House of Lords. The former MPs were Charles Longbottom, who was the MP for York, and Barney Hayhoe, who was the MP for Isleworth. Both were trustees of the Ariel Foundation, together with Maurice Foley and Dennis Grennan, who had been a president of the National Union of Students. Some argue that it was funded by tobacco money, others by the CIA, but what is known for certain is that it funded education in this country for many potential African leaders, from Kenya through to Southern Rhodesia. Such people were prepared to stand against the prevailing wisdom.

Occasionally, South African ambassadors—I would particularly mention Dawie de Villiers, the rugby player—would invite Members of the House of Commons, including Conservatives, to come and meet visiting South African politicians. I remember Ronnie Bell saying, I think unwisely—maybe it was a joke—that South Africa should not extend the franchise as it had not proved to be a very good idea in this country.

What was more important was the ability to explain to some of the more verkrampte members of South Africa’s political elite that they could not pretend that they were protecting southern Africa from communism. Every person in Africa knew that communism meant that people could live only where the authorities said they could live, that they could take only the jobs that the authorities said that they could take and that they did not have an effective vote. Why would any African, especially a black African, want to go communist? One answer, I suppose, is that the communists in South Africa were one of the groups that were fighting with Nelson Mandela to try to overturn the apartheid system.

The third person I want to mention who died this year was a man called Robin Plunket, the 8th baron Plunket. He followed David Stirling, who created the Special Air Service in 1941 and the Capricorn Africa Society in 1949. Robin Plunket, with his wife Jennifer, went on to support the society from this country before going out to Southern Rhodesia in, I think, 1957. For 50 years he developed employment in timber growing, milling and the like. His advice was important for many of our diplomats and Ministers. Such quiet people helped to establish a basis of trust that I hope will continue.

The last point that I want to make about Nelson Mandela—leaving aside the anecdotes about how lucky we were to meet him, rather than the other way around—is about democracy within the ANC. When Mandela’s successor was voted out of the party leadership by a democratic vote of the party, the person who succeeded him then waited until the presidential election to become President. As far as I know, the ANC is probably the only African political party in which that would happen. In a way, that type of democracy should be better known and more often copied.

On Europe’s responsibility, the tragedy for Africa, if our longest-standing ally does not mind me saying so, is that if the Portuguese had let go of their colonies in the 1960s, the French, Belgians and British might have done better. Countries from central Africa down to South Africa might not all have been western-style democracies, but they would have been much more western-leaning and much more tolerant of people in their own midst, and economic development would have been greater.

I almost started by mentioning Trevor Huddleston, and I end with his “Prayer for Africa”:

“God Bless Africa;

Guard her children;

Guide her leaders

And give her peace.”

17:28

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

For an exhibition that it was planning to mount, the National Portrait Gallery asked me to nominate the three greatest figures of the 20th century and the reasons why. I nominated Winston Churchill for saving this country in the second world war, Mikhail Gorbachev for ending the cold war and Nelson Mandela for being Nelson Mandela.

The first time I met Nelson Mandela was when he visited Sweden after he had been released from prison. He said that Sweden was the country that had done most to help him be released, so he visited it first. It gave a grand state dinner, to which Neil Kinnock, as leader of the Labour party, and I as shadow Foreign Secretary were invited. The next day, Neil and I organised a private lunch for Nelson Mandela and his wife and friends.

Not long before that, during the first session of Prime Minister’s Question Time after Mandela’s release from prison—he was released on a Sunday, and in those days we had Prime Minister’s questions on Tuesdays—my right hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, Deptford (Dame Joan Ruddock) rose and started her question with the words, to Margaret Thatcher,

“If the Prime Minister had just spent 27 years in prison”.—[Official Report, 13 February 1990; Vol. 167, c. 140.]

I was sitting on the Front Bench, and I murmured to Roy Hattersley, “As she should.” The microphones caught my remark, and the entire House heard it. On the Conservative side, not surprisingly, there was extremely loud outrage. On our side, there were the best cheers I think I have ever had in the House of Commons.

At the lunch in Stockholm, when we were being introduced to our guests, Oliver Tambo’s wife came up to me and said, “You are the man who said that Margaret Thatcher should be in prison for 27 years.” At the end of the room was Winnie Mandela, and when Winnie heard that, she rushed over to me, hugged me, and said, “You are the man! You are the man!” As a result of that, Nelson Mandela very kindly gave me the following inscription:

“To Gorton Labour Party, with our comradely compliments and best wishes, Nelson Mandela”.

Apart from all his other virtues, he had the most beautiful handwriting. Added to that inscription was:

“Thank you for your solidarity.

Much love

Winnie Mandela”.

That remained on the wall of Gorton Labour club for many years, until Winnie became renowned not so much for hugging as for putting burning tyres around the necks of her opponents, and it was taken down. It is on the wall in my house now.

At the lunch, Neil Kinnock asked Nelson Mandela about the visit to South Africa by a rebel English cricket team. There was a sporting and an entertainment boycott of South Africa at the time, but a group of very well-known English cricketers went there to play. Neil asked Nelson Mandela, “What do you think of the English cricketers who are in South Africa now?” Nelson Mandela said, “I admire them.” Neil said, “What? You admire them? Why? How can you?” Nelson Mandela said, “Because they are very brave. They knew before they came that there would be demonstrations outside the cricket grounds because they were there and breaking the boycott, and they came all the same.”

Somewhat later, when I was lunching with Nelson Mandela, I asked him—among a number of other things—what he had learnt in prison. He said that one of the things that had kept him going had been reading the memoirs of Menachem Begin, who started out as a terrorist—which Mandela did not—but became Prime Minister of Israel and made peace with Egypt. He was the last Prime Minister of Israel to make peace with anyone. I asked, “What did you learn from Menachem Begin’s memoirs?” He said, “Menachem Begin was in prison for a long time, and his book said that the most important thing to do if you were in prison was to sustain your values.” I do not think that Nelson Mandela needed to be taught that lesson, but—as has been said so widely in the House this afternoon—he certainly did sustain his values. He never, never, never took revenge of any kind. That was not because he was a softie. He was a tough man—you cannot get through 27 years in prison without being a tough man. But what he knew was that you can solve a huge political problem by being generous, forthcoming and reconciling, and that is what he did.

When I was shadow Foreign Secretary, I visited South Africa, then under apartheid, as a guest of the South African Council of Churches. I met Africans and I visited the townships, and I was followed wherever I went by the South African secret police. At a lunch in Durban with leading people, including Mbeki, I said, “I hope you’re not going to pick up the worst of the apartheid regime, and that you will be better than the apartheid regime ever could be when you, as you will, eventually achieve power in South Africa. In particular, I hope that you will not keep the death penalty, and that you will have liberal judicial policies.” Under Mandela, they did that, and it is hugely to the credit of Mandela and the ANC.

Too many other countries that have gained their freedom have nevertheless imposed penalties of the worst kind on their opponents. They were not saints who took over in South Africa, but they were good, sensible politicians, who knew that the best way of winning is by reconciling. That came so much from Mandela. His autobiography, “The Long Walk to Freedom”—I reviewed it and was proud to have my name on the dust cover—was written by him, not ghosted, and his personality comes out from every page. It said that people should be realistic and sensible in their politics and, at the same time, be forgiving and reconciliatory. We shall not see his like again.

17:38

[George Freeman (Mid Norfolk) (Con)]

I am grateful for the opportunity to speak today and to follow some extraordinarily powerful tributes from across the House.

Like many of my generation, it is no exaggeration for me to say that my political consciousness was framed against the backdrop of the fight against apartheid and the collapse of the cold war and the structures that it propped up. For the previous generation, it was perhaps the second world war and for some the civil rights struggle in the 1960s. But for me and many others in the Chamber, our political consciousnesses were awakened by the struggle to free Mandela and the tsunami of freedom from an age of cold war repression for which it served as a trumpet call around the globe.

I do not want in any way to claim or suggest that I was a leading light on the barricades of the 1980s—far from it—but I remember my first mini campaign in school. Like generations of morally indignant sixth-formers before me, I was smarting against all forms of lazy privilege, and I remember blasting out “Free Nelson Mandela” at the South African cricket team visiting my school from some speakers that I had erected on the clock tower for that purpose. My teachers did not share my enthusiasm, but I was glad to have done a little for the cause. It seemed to me that sports sanctions would be a way to put pressure on the regime without harming the most vulnerable in that country. I remember well the looks on the faces of those privileged young cricketers from one of South Africa’s elite public schools—confusion, anger, resentment and a little shame. It was a heady taste for me of what politics can do.

Three years later I graduated from university and saw, as we all did, his release in 1990, and was struck, after a lifetime behind bars, by the quiet dignity of his freedom, not determined for revenge, but eager for reconciliation. I also watched, rather sadly, as the party of which I am now proud to be a member found itself on the wrong side of that history and unable fully to grasp the scale of the yearning for new freedoms that followed the cold war certainties that had so shaped it—a misjudgment that I am pleased the now Prime Minister went out of his way to correct on becoming leader.

The next year I went to see South Africa for myself, hitch-hiking from Kenya to Cape Town, a 5,000-mile trip on which I was lucky enough to see that great continent in all its beauty, simplicity—then, poverty—and to see, in many impromptu games of football with groups of young African children, the love of sport, which Mandela was later to harness to such extraordinary effect.

When I arrived in Cape Town I was lucky enough to meet the grandson of a former Prime Minister of South Africa, the young Bool Smuts. I had the extraordinary experience of being taken back to the Smuts family homestead in the Drakensberg mountains, standing with Bool and seeing the homestead and Voortrekker Bible, and visiting with his brothers the local Afrikaans rugby club, where I entered into what can only be described as ambitious banter, as a young Englishmen, with those from a culture that I did not understand. I remember well the intensity—nay, the ferocity—of their belief in their way of life, and I remember reflecting later that if only the vastly more numerous Anglo or English South African white population had had the similar moral intensity to speak for their own convictions, the drama that was the late collapse of South African apartheid might have been avoided.

I remember very clearly my last three lifts one day on my way out of South Africa as they seemed to capture the story of that land: a priest, rather early in the morning and rather the worse for wear, taking Bibles up to Zambia; a young black business man in a suit and tie wanting peace and prosperity for his family and to build a career, representing the force of an aspirational, moderate black progressive middle-class that is today having such an effect across sub-Saharan Africa; and, my last and most shocking lift, a fully paid-up member of the AWB, a farmer in a pick-up truck, who at the end of our two-hour journey lifted the bench-chair of his pick-up and showed me the guns with which he promised he would fight for what he saw as his freedom, saying, “Boy, when they come for me, they’ll take me out dead.”

I left a country on the brink of civil war, with cities poised to convulse in violence, and it was evident to me then that the triumph of Mandela was the stuff not of Hollywood and red carpet leadership, as it can sometimes seem in retrospect, but of the brutal realities of township politics, because Mandela was, above all, a politician, answering the ultimate test of leadership: how to heal a broken nation, how to avoid civil war, how to unite a deeply divided set of peoples.

I saw during my visit that South Africa did not just require symbolism, however valuable that was; it also needed statesmanship, and few other than Mandela could have fulfilled what history demanded of him at that time. Who can forget the sight of him dressed in that Springbok rugby top cheering the South African rugby world cup success, healing a nation and resetting it towards the path of a better future? Having seen for myself the intensity of the association between the Boer culture, rugby and apartheid, it was a stunning act of generous reconciliation. For me it marked a personal end-point, from demonstrating at the departing all-white schoolboy cricket team, to visiting the Afrikaans rugby club, to watching him clad in green that day, I could see the power of reconciliation work its magic through the medium of sport. Rugby, once a symbol of division, was now a symbol of unity, an iconic image for South Africa, for sport and for the world. And we can all remember his historic decision to stand down from the presidency after one term, a single action which spoke more than any words.

In an age of disillusionment with politics, when voters in this country and elsewhere all too often unite in distrust of the political process, Mandela stands out as a shining example to us all of what we can aspire to: a politics not of tit-for-tat, back-stabbing, plotting and skulduggery, but of statesmanship, empathy, hope and vision, and most of all a statesmanship and politics founded on the quality Aristotle called “ethos”, which is what we define as character, and in him was a duty to people, place and country before party.

Few figures light up an age as Mandela did. His courage, his courtesy and his character must remind us of what politics can achieve. Let us, as parliamentarians, all be inspired by his example.

17:45

[Mr David Lammy (Tottenham) (Lab)]

I am sure all hon. Members will understand the emotion of an eight-year-old or nine-year-old child growing up in what feels like a very local or parochial context, be it in a village, a town, a hamlet or a street in a constituency such as mine. Having listened to this afternoon’s debate, I want to begin by reflecting on young people during the late-1960s, 1970s and 1980s growing up in places such as Tottenham, Brixton, Handsworth in Birmingham, Chapeltown in Leeds and St Paul’s in Bristol. It is sometimes dislocating when you arrive in a country and you are the child of immigrants. Thinking back to the 1970s and 1980s, I hope that all hon. Members will recognise the difficulty felt by many young people, particularly young boys from West Indian backgrounds, the challenges we were having with the police and the huge challenges that this country was having with throwing up role models we could land on and aspire to—we still have that debate in this House today.

As one of those young people, who was also growing up in the context of not having a father in my house—broken, to some extent, by two successive recessions and some of the discrimination of that age, he left us when I was 12—I am truly grateful for the role model that was Nelson Mandela. For me and so many like me, he provided a tremendous dignity and courage, which perhaps was the reason why during the very difficult 1980s we did not pick up Molotov cocktails and cause chaos on our own streets—we chose another path. He was that role model: as an articulate lawyer; as a freedom fighter; as a prisoner—it is important to land on that period in prison, because none of us knew what he looked like and he was just that image of a boxer that we had to hold on to; as a man who walks out of prison so many years later, with grey hair and his wife; as a politician; as a leader; and as an elder statesman. Like so many others becoming aware of our own context, I could have felt very small in that context, in the face of poverty and sometimes discrimination, but he and so many others helped me to feel very large and very big.

I am truly grateful to have been born and raised in, and to represent a seat in, the London borough of Haringey. Haringey was one of the centres in London of the Anti-Apartheid Movement. We are very proud of a house on Windermere road—the house of Oliver Tambo and the house where Mbeki came and stayed. It is a house now owned by the South African Government, because it is so important to them. It was an enclave for many who surreptitiously campaigned, found money and supported what was originally an underground movement that was moving to be an overground movement.

It would be remiss of me if I did not pay tribute to my predecessor, Bernie Grant, who endlessly, and unpopularly at the time, campaigned consistently, first as a local councillor in Haringey, then as the leader of Haringey council and then in this place, for Nelson Mandela’s freedom. He was hugely proud to be with Jesse Jackson in 1990 when Mandela walked out of prison.

I am also grateful to Mike Terry, who led the Anti-Apartheid Movement from the London borough of Haringey—he was a teacher at Alexandra Park secondary school at the time—and to many others in this Chamber. As teenagers, we would all have been aware of the work of my right hon. Friends the Members for Neath (Mr Hain), for Holborn and St Pancras (Frank Dobson) and of Richard Caborn, the former Member for Sheffield Central, all of whom pushed the cause on behalf of many others.

This is not a time for rancour. It is hugely important to be inspired by the manner in which Nelson Mandela conducted himself. A word that has often been lost in the context of these times is “solidarity”. Who will stand with me even though they are different from me? I joined the Anti-Apartheid Movement long before I joined the Labour party. I joined it to stand with others who looked like me, but who were experiencing the most pernicious discrimination and nastiness across the world. I proudly boycotted Barclays bank, Cape apples, avocados and a whole stream of other things to join in that solidarity. I was incensed when Mike Gatting took a team to South Africa to play cricket because of the brutality that I saw in front of my eyes.

We have arrived now at a different place, and that is why, for me, Nelson Mandela is the seminal figure of the 20th century. If the story of the 20th century can be summed up in one word, that word must be “freedom”. I am talking about the freedom for people to be who they want to be in their own lifetime. We take it for granted that in that century, women could not be who they wanted to be and working people could not always be who they wanted to be, whatever the colour of their skin. The same goes for black people and people of colour. More recently, we have faced those battles on behalf of gay men and women. That is the legacy of Nelson Mandela. Perhaps he has that legacy because, unlike Martin Luther King, Gandhi and, before them, Abraham Lincoln, he was not shot and killed. Yes, he was in prison for 27 years, but I think that Members will recognise that in making it to 95, he was free for more years than some of us will be on this planet. That is a great thing. He was a great man whom we will remember and whom history will remember.

When we think of Mandela, it is also important that we do not forget those other young men and women from countries such as India, Nigeria, Guyana, where my parents are from, Jamaica and so many other places who were fighting against a colonial power that effectively took the view that a small minority can govern a majority. It may not have been as pernicious and nasty as what we saw on our screens in the 1970s and 1980s, but sometimes it was. Mandela sits with those other figures such as Nyerere, Kenyatta and others who fought for liberation. That is why he meant so much in my small house in Tottenham.

17:54

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

I beg the indulgence of the House, as I have not been able to be present for the entirety of the proceedings. As chair of the United Kingdom branch of the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association, I should like to put some words on the record.

I will not claim the eloquence of some of the speeches that have been made in the House today. I cannot claim the intimacy of knowledge and companionship with the late Nelson Mandela, which many in this House have been able to explain, nor can I boast that I have been at all times as resolute and as staunch an opponent of apartheid as many colleagues present in the House today.

I first went to South Africa, particularly Cape Town and Johannesburg, on company business in my first job in 1962. If I had not been aware, as an embryo politician, of the wickedness of the apartheid system, it was really brought home to me then. I saw the evil and rottenness of it all, and was able to speak thereafter with more passion about those matters.

Ten years later, in 1972, I was with a CPA delegation that was moving through South Africa from St Helena to a conference in Malawi. There had been the so-called easing of restrictions, which seemed to do no more than underline the hypocrisy of the whole system. I did not return again to South Africa until after the miracle that Nelson Mandela helped to achieve and inspired.

For many years, I gloomily thought, as my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Kensington (Sir Malcolm Rifkind) said, that the whole thing could only end in bloodshed. It is the most fundamental tribute to Nelson Mandela that the force of his personality ensured that it did not end in such a way. The whole world, not just those in South Africa, should be grateful not just for that, but for the signposting of a way forward out of conflicts, which other countries in the world still have to learn.

Nelson Mandela took the most remarkable actions. Compassion, courage and leadership are words that will be used over and again. They may be overworked in this debate, but why should they not be, given what he managed to achieve and the inspiration he gave to his fellow countrymen. We hope that that will be repeated again and again from generation to generation because there is such a long way to go in South Africa to sustain the turnaround that Nelson Mandela achieved.

I was back in South Africa a few months ago, as chair of the whole CPA, for the CPA’s 59th conference, which was hosted by the South African Parliament. It is a strong, democratic Parliament, and one of the leading players in the Commonwealth constellation. I thought how far we had come from what I had first seen in 1962. The strong parliamentary traditions that are being observed in South Africa—they are probably not perfect, but we do not think our systems are entirely perfect—are the proper bases of parliamentary democracy. Again, that is down to the inspiration of Nelson Mandela. I hope that that will be repeated again and again and will inspire generations of South Africans to respect the parliamentary institutions, which, if properly applied, can lead to the fulfilment of the wishes of the ordinary people of South Africa.

To my mind, Nelson Mandela is one of the most amazing men to have trod the planet. So many evil people in history have been seen as giants, ogres or whatever, mainly because they have been bad men. It is to be hoped that this very good man will be remembered for ever, that his shadow will be cast forward and that everyone in the future, particularly in South Africa but on a wider basis too, will bathe in that shadow and realise what it is that makes a good politician, makes a statesman and makes a humanitarian of the highest order.

[Mr Speaker]

I am extremely grateful to the right hon. Gentleman.

18:00

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

I do not wish to detain the House long, but I thought I ought to say a few words.

In the 1960s, I, like many young men, saw the events in South Africa on television and in newspapers now and again and felt, as most people did, that that country was split on racial lines—indeed, other countries were split on racial lines as well.

I did not really understand what was happening in South Africa until in 1975 I left my small mining community and went to Ruskin college in Oxford. The college had a Kitson committee, named after David Kitson, who was one of the prisoners in South Africa at the time. He had been born in South Africa and had been over here working in industry for a while. He went to Ruskin on a trade union scholarship and was in jail in South Africa. I went to the first meeting of the Kitson committee and ended up being active in it later on. One of my fellow students told us about her life and her journey. She was from South Africa and had come out of South Africa in the boot of a car. She told us what apartheid was—it was not just segregation between white and blacks, but segregation over several areas. She said that she fitted into one of what were called the “Cape Coloureds” categories. She also said that she and her brother were at different schools. They lived with their family in their house, but they were at schools that were next to each other and when they used to share their sandwiches through the school railings they were shouted at by the pupils for mixing with the students in the school next door. Her brother was her twin brother. They had been born within minutes of one another and apartheid had segregated them because that was how the system worked. I could not understand how anybody anywhere could do that to anybody and I became active in anti-apartheid for many years. I remember Mike Terry very well and Charlotte street, as we used to go up there quite a lot, and I was active in the trade union movement, too. Her name was Rita Taberner, and she said something that has stayed with me all my life: how could politicians and Governments do such things to their own people? It is extraordinary that that could happen.

I have two other reflections, and the first is about when Mandela came out of prison. It was a Sunday—I remember it well. I had just left the Leader of the Opposition’s office, but I phoned him up and he was watching it, too. We could not believe what we were seeing. It was a bit like the Berlin wall. I never thought I would ever see the Berlin wall come down or that apartheid would end. Those were the two things in my politics of the ’60s and ’70s that I thought were there for life, and to see that happening was extraordinary. Of course, that was no easy journey for Nelson Mandela. He was dealing with the tensions in the ANC between where he wanted to go and where other members of the ANC wanted to go. Some did not think that that was the way forward; I understand that peace and reconciliation was his brainchild and that he had to fight hard for it to work. Many of us thought that it would end up in a bloodbath in South Africa—after my experience of 1975, I would not have been at all surprised if that had been the case. That was the level of the man and the people around him who wanted to go that way for South Africa and its people.

My other memory is from when Mandela spoke in Westminster Hall. One of your predecessors, Mr Speaker, Baroness Boothroyd—who is in the other place now—walked down the steps with him. She remembered that she had been part of the British black sash movement who used to stand outside South Africa house wearing black sashes, just as women in South Africa used to stand in Pretoria and other places wearing black sashes to complain against the regime, and she never thought that she would see such a speech happening.

Nelson Mandela was a giant of a man and the world has much to learn from what he did. We will have to wait to see whether the world is capable of doing that, but I wanted to pay my tribute to somebody who shaped my politics even though I was thousands of miles away.

18:05

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

I cannot compete with some of the moving and absolutely amazing stories of personal interaction with Nelson Mandela that we have heard today. I met him only once, along with 5,000 other people, in Trafalgar square in November 2010. His speech was as electrifying as the shirt he was wearing. I knew that I was in the presence of an exceptional human being and I am simply one of the millions who was moved and encouraged by his story of fortitude as he attempted to change the world around him—and succeeded in that attempt—which we have heard expressed so passionately by the right hon. Member for Tottenham (Mr Lammy). I am grateful to you, Mr Speaker, and I am sure that the House is too, for interrupting our normal proceedings to pay tribute to the life of an incredible man. He stands head and shoulders above any other in shaping and influencing our modern world.

Some might say that Nelson Mandela was destined to lead. First, coming from a family with heritage and influence, he was politically motivated from an early age, studying law, opening the first black law firm in South Africa and focusing on human rights. That background, coupled with his unique style of leadership, convinced his peer group that he was worth supporting in the fight against apartheid. He displayed a rare combination of determination, humility and integrity, willing to engage with the hotel porter he met in passing with the same energy and enthusiasm as with the VIP guest he had arranged to meet. To put it simply, he had enormous personal presence, not just because of his rank or appointment but because of his infectious smile, his provoking message and his tenacity and endurance in thinking that good would triumph in the end.

His political activities saw him tried and imprisoned for 27 years. Who would have thought that just four years after his release apartheid would be over and Nelson Mandela would be President? As many others have, I visited Robben Island off Cape Town and peered through the bars of Nelson Mandela’s cell. It is very hard to imagine anyone emerging from such an experience without feeling embittered towards their captors, so it was with some apprehension that South Africa, and the world, waited to see what Nelson Mandela would do with his power as President and where the country would go. He continued, after all, to have strong ties with Russia and the South African Communist party. Such was his popularity that he had almost a free mandate to take South Africa in any direction he chose.

I recall Nelson Mandela’s release from prison. I was president of Loughborough student union at the time and I must confess that that was an academic establishment that was as yet unknown as a cauldron of simmering political activity. I recall that the hon. Member for Liverpool, West Derby (Stephen Twigg) was the president of the National Union of Students at the time and we conversed on many occasions. We debated a motion at Loughborough students union to change the name of the union building to the “Nelson Mandela building”—something that many other universities had already done. At Loughborough, perhaps unwisely, the motion was defeated, because although Nelson Mandela’s cause was very much supported, students were not sure where he would take South Africa, bearing in mind the fact that the ANC still had an extremist wing. It is perhaps that second significant chapter of his life, evolving from a campaigner to a statesman, that distinguishes him from many others who have liberated their country, then taken the reins of power. Perhaps the best and saddest example is Robert Mugabe, not far away in Africa, who not only failed to endorse any system of democracy but continues corrupt practices to retain power, as well as encouraging racial division and, indeed, hatred of Britain, the former colonial power.

Nelson Mandela’s ability to face down hardliners in his own party and convince a sceptical white community helped South Africa to re-engage with the world community. In government, he proved to be pragmatic and even-handed, taking time to look at and, indeed, learn from a number of models of government, and working with de Klerk, who had his own task of winning over people with extremist views if civil war was to be avoided. How different things might be, for example, had Mandela not supported the freedom of the press or an independent judiciary. Establishing the Truth and Reconciliation Commission was a stroke of genius—a concept that has been copied, but not used as successfully, in countries attempting to heal the wounds of division.

Most astonishingly, as has been said by hon. Members, Mandela stood for only one term—perhaps a lesson for us all in recognising our sell-by date. Interestingly, such was his ability to reach across divides, even in death his work continues. Attending the memorial service alongside obvious leaders such as the Prime Minister and President Obama will be President Castro of Cuba and the new Iranian President Rouhani. Who knows what diplomatic developments might result from an imaginative seating plan?

There are difficult questions for the ANC now that it has lost its iconic figurehead, and it must ensure that South Africa’s multiracial free-market democracy can flourish. Those are questions, however, for another day, and Britain’s involvement in that is for another day too. Today and this week are about saying goodbye to a man who survived and defeated apartheid, and united a country. Sadly—and this applies only to a minority—some people have questioned why in this country so much attention has been given to Nelson Mandela’s death. A small but arguably growing slice of our society takes for granted the leadership and sacrifices that he and others closer to home have made. I pondered that very point this weekend, as on television tributes to Nelson Mandela contrasted with reality TV shows on which household names are engineered.

That raises awkward questions for us in the House, as some members of the younger generation know more about James Arthur, perhaps not the best role model, than leaders who triumphed over adversity to give us the very freedoms that we could be in danger of taking for granted. Thankfully, many people of our generation have been inspired by Nelson Mandela and others to recognise how their own high profile can be used to shape a better world. AIDS awareness is a clear example of that. Rightly, they will take their seat alongside world statesmen at the funeral this week.

I am pleased that the House can pay tribute to Nelson Mandela today. We cannot match the wonderful poetry, the song and the colour that we have seen on our screens displayed by the people of South Africa as they remember the architect of their country. As we consider Nelson Mandela’s legacy I hope that we all recognise, learn and gain inspiration from one individual who became a global symbol of tolerance in standing against injustice, regardless of the odds.

18:14

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

I regret the fact that I never had the privilege and honour of meeting Nelson Mandela personally although, as with everyone else in the Chamber, his life touched my and my constituents’ lives very deeply.

I knew about the awful phenomenon of apartheid when I was at school—we all knew about it vaguely—but it was not until I went to university in 1970 that I became truly aware of the depth of disgust for it. Together with opposition to the Vietnam war, it occupied me and many others in a Welsh university known as a hotbed of Welsh nationalism. However, we had outside interests, and those were two of them. Yes, I am proud that there is a Mandela building at Aberystwyth university.

There have been many fine tributes today. It is not my job to go through them, but they are all heartfelt and sincere. Something that occurs when someone of the stature of the late President Mandela passes away is a scramble for superlatives. Sometimes that is tiresome, because superlatives do not always fit. In this case, the superlatives all fit, because his life was beyond comparison so, by definition, superlatives apply. I believe, like many people in the Chamber and throughout Britain, Europe and the world, that he was the greatest statesman of the last century. To spend 27 years in prison, many of them in solitary confinement, with no contact with the outside world, and on release not to have any rancour, still less hatred or vengeance, is truly remarkable. Like the right hon. Members for Holborn and St Pancras (Frank Dobson) and for Rother Valley (Mr Barron), I was in the audience in 1996 when the President addressed both Houses of Parliament in Westminster Hall. He made a memorable and moving speech, typically fitting for the occasion, honest and completely down to earth. In many ways, he showed humility and strength of character beyond reproach, and I will always remember that day.

We gather today to thank Nelson Mandela for the many sacrifices that he endured, for showing the way to reconciliation and peace, against massive and seemingly insurmountable odds. It has been said, and I believe it to be right—I referred to the use of superlatives—that he was a colossus of history. I believe that he will continue to inspire millions of people for many years to come, and rightly so. There have been many quotations today from many wonderful speeches that he made down the years. May I remind the Chamber that he also said that there will never be world peace without a resolution of the Palestinian conflict? Perhaps the greatest tribute that we can pay him is to redouble our efforts to achieve that in his glorious memory.

18:18

[Richard Ottaway (Croydon South) (Con)]

Like the right hon. Member for Dwyfor Meirionnydd (Mr Llwyd), I am moved to contribute because of my abiding memory of that glorious afternoon in 1996 when Nelson Mandela addressed both Houses of Parliament in Westminster Hall, and of a tremendous speech by Baroness Boothroyd. If I recall rightly, Barack Obama said that Mandela’s speech was a very hard act to follow indeed.

If you visit Robben Island, Mr Speaker, and see that tiny cell you realise how Nelson Mandela is—and I mean “is”—a shining beacon to people across the world suffering the humiliation and brutality of repressive regimes. Neither 27 long years in prison nor the shackles of an unashamedly racist political system prevented him from making not just his corner of the world but the whole world a better place. He was a great leader, an intuitive politician and one of the outstanding figures of modern time.

Owing to the hour, I make just one further point. Mandela forgave the unforgivable. His passing will serve to remind us all that fairness, logic, perseverance and forgiveness can overcome prejudice and the darkest aspects of human nature. As the Chairman of the Foreign Affairs Committee, I look at tensions in Korea, Iran, Afghanistan and Syria, and conflicts throughout Africa. That perseverance and forgiveness is a lesson that a troubled world should never forget.

18:20

[Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Lab)]

It is a privilege to speak in this debate. I will try to be brief because so many brilliant contributions have been made today by people who fought the good fight to try to rid the world of the scourge of apartheid.

I want us to recall the many people who died in South Africa fighting against apartheid, from those who were discriminated against from 1948 onwards, when the National party won the election, to the massacre at Sharpeville, the riots in Soweto, the killing of schoolchildren and the murder of Steve Biko and so many others who died, often completely ignored and forgotten. We should also recall the poverty of the black majority population in South Africa—a poverty inherited from colonialism, a poverty arising from work in the mines and so many other places, a poverty of children going to school where there was no water, no electricity, no books and very little else, and unbelievable discrimination in employment, land ownership and everything else. It was a system of dividing people on racial grounds that the Nazis would have been proud of. The idea that there would be some sort of accommodation with apartheid was something that many of us found anathema.

It was not as though the evil of apartheid extended only to the country of South Africa. It extended to the neighbouring states and greatly influenced the white supremacist regime in Rhodesia led by Ian Smith. It also included the war in Namibia—South West Africa, as it was then called—and it spread over into the problems faced by all the front-line states during the apartheid era because of their wish to impose sanctions on South Africa. It also spread over into Angola. The war in Angola was one of the turning points in the defeat of apartheid. Let us remember that it was the South African defence forces that went to the aid of another minority regime in Angola, and they were finally defeated in the battle of Cuito Cuanavale in 1988. Those were the significant changes that brought about a political reckoning in South Africa.

Those around the world who would recognise only the ANC and would not recognise the Government of South Africa are the ones we should also remember today—those people all around the world who took part in meetings, marches and demonstrations, and many Governments who bravely stood against the apartheid regime when it was in their economic interests to go in absolutely the opposite direction. There are therefore some very strong lessons for all of us to learn during our remembrance of Nelson Mandela.

The personality of Mandela was an extraordinary one. I was asked a question when I was visiting Holloway school last Friday morning and went into a history lesson. There was a discussion about the civil rights movement in the USA, the Anti-Apartheid Movement in Britain and of course the Anti-Apartheid Movement in South Africa. The students asked me whether Mandela would have been a better or worse president if he had never gone to prison. It is an impossible question to answer. All I could say was that I remember distinctly my mother telling me how evil the Rivonia treason trial and the Sharpeville massacre were, and how wrong it was that Mandela and all the others went to prison. In their suffering they obviously read and learned a great deal. In his final unconditional release from prison—it is very important to remember that it was an unconditional release from prison; he was offered all sorts of get out of jail cards many years beforehand—he displayed such amazing magnanimity.

I recall that when Mandela came here to Parliament shortly after his release—he was not President of South Africa at that time—there were Conservative MPs who wanted the meeting banned. There were people who said no MP should attend it. There were people who said that he was a terrorist. There were people who said that people like him should not be allowed into Parliament, but I remember the very good discussion that was held here. My right hon. Friend the Member for Holborn and St Pancras (Frank Dobson) was there, as were Richard Caborn, chair of the anti-apartheid group, Bob Hughes, Tony Benn and many others. We had a truly fascinating discussion with a very great man who was forming his ideas of how he would lead a post-apartheid, multiracial, rainbow nation of South Africa.

I want to conclude with some thoughts about the people who were in prison with Mandela and also suffered a great deal. My constituency, Islington North, is a place where many people have sought refuge at various times and have been welcomed. I was very proud that David Kitson, one of those imprisoned with Mandela, lived in my constituency for a long time. Denis Goldberg, who was also in prison with Mandela, lived nearby and ran a bookshop for a charity called Community HEART which still exists, collecting books to be sent to schools in South Africa. We also housed the offices of the British defence and aid fund for victims of apartheid. I was a trustee of that, with the great Ethel de Keyser and others. We were able to fund education for victims of apartheid and do our bit to try to help the next generation of African leaders who had been born in the front-line states in exile camps to get some kind of university education. Many people did incredible work in that regard.

My local authority, Islington borough council, declared itself an apartheid-free zone. This was not universally welcomed by the Evening Standard, the Conservative Government or many others. In saying that, I look at my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds Central (Hilary Benn). Many of us who were involved in local government or as Members of Parliament during the 1970 and 1980s did our bit. Okay, it might be said that it is gesture politics to name a street Mandela street or to name your student union building the Nelson Mandela building, but in that act you are showing which side you are on in the battle against apartheid. When we were being condemned by the media at that time, I always thought, “Suffer the little children to come unto me, for they know not what they do.” Now they are all agreeing with us, as unfortunately they were unable to do at that time. Many of those who stood up then were in advance of others.

We also housed in my borough the offices of the African National Congress at Penton street. That building was under the most massive surveillance from the Metropolitan police, the South African secret service and every other secret service one could imagine. Indeed, the Anti-Apartheid Movement was infiltrated. The ANC offices were infiltrated. There were some ghastly goings-on in London via the long reach of the South African secret service. Also under surveillance and questioning were the offices of the South West Africa People’s Organisation, SWAPO, which had its offices in Gillespie road in my constituency.

A number of parliamentary colleagues of mine, including the late great Tony Banks and Stuart Holland, a former Member, and I were arrested outside South Africa house. It was one of those strange moments when you are arrested by the police and you say, “On what charge am I arrested?”, assuming that one is going be told that one is creating an obstruction or some such charge. The police said no, it was under the Diplomatic Immunities Act, for behaviour that was offensive to a foreign diplomatic mission. The police officer asked me, “What do you plead? Why have you come here?”. I said, “I’ve come here to be as offensive as possible to the South African apartheid regime, but I offer no plea, so you will have to offer a plea of not guilty on my part.” The cases all went to court and we were all exonerated on the grounds of our moral outrage at apartheid and all given compensation, and all that compensation was given to the ANC and the Anti-Apartheid Movement. Some things do come full circle in the end.

Finally, in thanking so many people for all their work in the Anti-Apartheid Movement I must mention my friend the late great Bernie Grant, who went to South Africa to witness the release of Nelson Mandela. When he returned, Margaret Thatcher invited him to Downing street to discuss what he thought about it all—it must have been a pretty surreal moment for both of them. I hope that a record of the meeting was kept, but I imagine that its release is subject to the 100-year rule, or perhaps a million-year rule. I can well imagine what Bernie would have said, but I am not sure about the leaderene.

There are lessons to be learned from all that, so I will conclude with the following thoughts. After his release, Mandela of course became President of South Africa and did enormous and wonderful work, but poverty has not been conquered there. There are still children who need better schools and people who need homes, electricity and water, as Denis Goldberg reminded us at a Community HEART fundraiser. But Mandela also had things to say about other issues around the world. He was deeply concerned about the plight of the Palestinian people and sent them messages of support, not because he wanted the conflict to continue but because he wanted it to end.

Another of Mandela’s great legacies was to say, as President, that he did not wish to preside over a Government who had nuclear weapons or weapons of mass destruction. He took South Africa out of the nuclear equation, thus enabling Africa to become a nuclear weapons-free continent. There are many lessons we can learn from that. In Nelson’s memory, let us change things a bit here. That will make for a better, safer and more peaceful world.

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

[Mr Speaker]

Order. We have already heard some magnificent tributes of great power and passion. It might be helpful to the House if I tell colleagues that approximately 40 right hon. and hon. Member are still seeking to catch my eye. I am keen for everyone who wants to speak to have the chance to do so, but as things stand the Chair was anticipating the Front Bench winding-up speeches starting a little after half-past 9. That might serve to concentrate the minds of colleagues, who I know will be considerate to each other. I do not want to impose a formal time limit, because I think that this is an occasion when self-restraint is a better guide, on which theme I look in the direction of the hon. Member for Cheltenham (Martin Horwood).

18:31

[Martin Horwood (Cheltenham) (LD)]

I hesitate to rise and echo the tributes of so many eloquent speakers. I think that the one contribution Mandela made that has not yet been mentioned was his founding, in retirement, of the global group The Elders, along with his wife Graça Machel, Jimmy Carter, Mary Robinson, Kofi Annan and others, at a time when surely he had earned the right to put his feet up and spend more time with his family. He was a truly extraordinary man.

I am also slightly daunted, because I think that this is the first time in a parliamentary debate that I have followed three leaders of my party. Honourable mention should also be made of one of their predecessors in particular, David Steel, who was president of the Anti-Apartheid Movement before becoming leader of the Liberal party. I am not sure whether he would ever admit to having been inspired by the example of the right hon. Member for Neath (Mr Hain) when he was in the National League of Young Liberals—it is a shame that he is no longer in his place, because I mean this as a compliment—but the flame that burnt brightly in the movement in his era was still pretty bright a generation later, when I was very proud, as chair of the Union of Liberal Students, to invite Donald Woods to be that year’s keynote conference speaker.

Donald Woods was an anti-apartheid activist and a banned journalist who helped, along with Helen Zille of the Rand Daily Mail, to expose to the world the murder of Steve Biko, which of course denied South Africa another potential great leader. That is a salutary lesson about how many people lost their lives in the struggle and how, when Mandela said at the Rivonia trial that his ideals were ones for which he was prepared to die, that was no rhetoric, because he faced the imminent possibility of the death sentence. How different history might have been if that had been the outcome.

It was one thing to be a liberal and an opponent of apartheid in this country, but it was quite another to be that in South Africa. Alan Paton and the Liberal Party of South Africa were increasingly militant opponents of apartheid there. It was a Liberal party activist, Eddie Daniels, who was the first person Helen Suzman met on her first visit to Robben Island. He famously told her, “Don’t waste time talking to us. Go and talk to Mandela at the end of the row. He’s our leader.” It was an early indication of the extraordinary way in which Mandela reached out to people beyond his own natural constituency and to those from different political backgrounds and traditions in South Africa. Daniels was sentenced to 15 years at Robben Island for violent sabotage, and he served every day of it because he refused to renounce the armed struggle. Sometimes we have to be prepared to fight for freedom.

The Liberal Party of South Africa faced being banned in 1968 for the appalling crime of having party members who were from different races. It chose to disband, rather than accept that outcome. For decades it looked as though moderate voices were likely to be drowned out in South Africa. We had the likes of Eugene Terreblanche on the extreme right and some extreme voices on the other side making it look as though the only possible outcome was a bloodbath. It is an extraordinary testament to Nelson Mandela and the others who led the ANC and other political parties at the time that they managed to achieve a peaceful transition not only to a multiracial South Africa, but to a multi-party democracy.

A few weeks ago I was honoured to meet three inspiring young people—I would like to read their names into the record, because they represent the future of South Africa—Mondli Zondo, Lidia Rauch and Rishigen Virenna. They are members of the young leaders programme of the Democratic Alliance, the party now led by the former Rand Daily Mail journalist Helen Zille. They are too young to remember watching Mandela walking free from prison or that extraordinary moment—I remember being glued to the television—when he stood to be sworn in as President, listening not only to “Nkosi Sikelel’ iAfrika” but to “Die Stem”. What a picture of reconciliation that was. I remember fighting back tears while watching it. Those three young people were certainly too young to have bought The Special A.K.A.’s “Free Nelson Mandela” the first time around. I showed my age by telling them about it.

In the 1960s, those three young people would have been called a black, a white and an Indian. It is thanks to Nelson Mandela and the struggle he led that today they are simply called South Africans. It is thanks to Nelson Mandela and the struggle he led that they are free to post pictures of themselves embracing each other on Facebook regardless of race. They are free to take up political causes. They are free, if they so choose, to oppose the ANC Government. I hope that young people like them and the new generation of South Africans remember, and that we never forget, that it was Nelson Mandela and the others who led that struggle who helped to make that possible. Thanks to Nelson Mandela and those who supported him in the struggle, those young people today are simply free.

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

Order. I know that Mr Speaker mentioned the number of Members who wish to speak. We will not impose a time limit, but I suggest that Members should limit their speeches to five minutes, because I do not want to see anyone miss out.

18:37

[Mr Jim Murphy (East Renfrewshire) (Lab)]

This is one of those occasions when everyone starts by saying that they are speaking on behalf of their constituents. It is something we often claim, but it is undoubtedly true on both sides of the House today. Many Members have begun their remarks by suggesting that everything has already been said, but each and every Member has found something genuinely new to share with the House. I hope that I can follow in that sprit.

I remember the first day I arrived in South Africa. I was 12 years old and had rarely been outside Glasgow, let alone travelled abroad. Unemployment at home had led my family to emigrate, to swap our Glasgow housing estate for the sunshine of Cape Town. The truth is that I had not properly prepared, or been properly prepared, for what would confront me in the shape of apartheid. Back then, to the extent that Nelson Mandela could be said to have mainland neighbours, I was one of them, because my family lived in what was probably the third closest building to Robben Island.

I remember the little things that would give me and others a sense of the bigger picture of apartheid. In the first week after we arrived, our family tried to form a friendship with the taxi driver who picked us up from Jan Smuts airport and his family. We suggested what was natural in a city surrounded by two oceans: a game of football on the beach. But for all the dramatic sandy beaches along the city’s two coastlines, we ended up on a dangerous, rocky, uneven pebble beach—all because, of course, the family with whom we were trying to forge a friendship were designated Cape coloureds. Apartheid granted to the black majority only the minority of beaches that were deemed too dangerous for white people to swim off.

As I stood on those mornings at my whites-only bus stop in my whites-only housing area to travel to a whites-only school, I could see Robben Island each and every day. Of course, Nelson Mandela was banned; people could not utter his name and it was a criminal offence to carry his picture. But there it was—his island prison, in full and clear view in Table bay for the city and the whole world to see and to know what was going on.

Occasionally we would see the violence ourselves in the city streets, and the protests and the actions of the authorities, but we would never hear about it on the South African Broadcasting Corporation’s TV or radio news; we would need to listen to the BBC World Service on a small wireless in our house before we knew what was actually happening almost on our own doorstep. I was entitled to South African citizenship but I did not take it up, nor did I serve in the South African army. I left the country, and left my family there, when South Africa invited me, as it did every white teenage boy at the age of 17, to be conscripted into the apartheid army.

Ours was an ANC-supporting family. There are lovely pictures of my mother and the rest of the family standing in the long queue on election day with their ANC flags, in what was meant to be a secret ballot. It was not as though the ANC had not on occasion tested our family’s patience or loyalty, including way back in 1982 when it blew up the power station that my father had gone to build when we went there as immigrants.

[Chris Ruane (Vale of Clwyd) (Lab)]

More work!

[Mr Murphy]

Okay—more work.

Of course, Umkhonto we Sizwe took care to make sure that it happened on a Saturday when no one was working on the building site, and no one was injured.

What was striking was the demonisation of Nelson Mandela, which was every bit as passionate as today’s speeches in this House in praise of him. We were told he was the reason there could not be a democracy, because he would take charge and turn the country to bloodshed. To understand Mandela’s achievement, we have fully to grasp the enormity of the fear that the white minority were encouraged to feel.

The state was structured to sustain apartheid in every possible way. Among many things, I was taught at school that apartheid was the natural order and was encouraged by the established Church to believe that it was the will of God—I remember being told that by a church minister. It was compulsory to learn Afrikaans. It would have been entirely understandable—regrettable, of course, but understandable—if the majority had sought revenge, because, after all, many of the black South Africans were treated worse than dogs by the white minority.

The Mandela of the state’s fabrication and the supremacists’ imagination was the rallying point against majority rule. When the time came for Mandela to cast his first vote at the age of 75, he was the bridge that most South Africans tentatively—initially—stepped across into liberation and, for them, the enormous perceived uncertainty of that democracy.

I say gently, in keeping with the tone of today’s contributions, that I do not believe that the British Government’s record on South Africa in that era will be judged with any sense of generosity. Apartheid South Africa was a cancer on a continent, but it was dealt with through the prism of the power politics of strategic cold war interests. It was allowed to destabilise not only its own country but Mozambique, Angola, Namibia, South-West Africa, as it was called, and many others besides. That is why I am so proud that my home city of Glasgow was the first city in the world to grant its freedom to the man imprisoned off the shore of my then adopted city.

Like others, I want to thank the many people involved in the Anti-Apartheid Movement. Long before the rock concerts and the well-intentioned celebrity endorsements, they stood unglamorously on street corners asking people to sign a petition in honour of someone they had probably never heard of. That movement taught us that the simple act of not buying South African apples is a statement in itself, and that, in the right circumstances, politics and sport could and should mix. Anyone who says that sport and politics should never mix does not fully understand what happened in South Africa.

Many have spoken about the engaging nature of President Mandela. I can only turn to a story from my own mother. My right hon. Friend the Member for Neath (Mr Hain) spoke about his mother’s fantastic relationship and friendship with Nelson Mandela. I cannot boast anything of that order. However, my mother never tires of telling me the story of one day when she was in Cape Town; I was not living there at the time. She was, as many people do, walking with her head down through the city streets during her lunch break, and she bumped into someone she only knew was a tall man. She looked up, and it was not just a tall man—it was Nelson Mandela. They spoke, and he inquired as to who she was, what she did, what she believed in, and what she thought. She said, “I apologise, Mr Mandela”—I do not know what was going on his mind; perhaps he was thinking, “She’s not going to vote for me”, which of course she did—“I do hope you don’t mind, but I have to get back to work, so we have to stop our conversation.” I do not know whether my mother is the only person who has done this.

When Mandela came to the UK and went to the grand receptions, the truth is that I, like others, was probably a little intimidated by him. I did not seek a photograph with him, because I had the sense, looking at his life, that one of the things that was not missing from it was the need to have a photograph taken with me.

We sometimes think of Mandela in different phases. We remember Mandela the freedom fighter of Umkhonto we Sizwe, and the old black and white photographs. We refer to Mandela the global statesman in this, the internet age. But in my opinion not enough is made of Mandela the President. He introduced radical social reforms, including free health care, and gave many children the chance to go to school. As others have said, the Truth and Reconciliation Commission did so much for the country.

One of Mandela’s greatest achievements was to defeat the phenomenon of our granting hero status only to those who die young, when those who are lost are missed not because of their achievements but for their unfulfilled and uncompromised promise. It is so rare for anyone to enjoy simultaneously a long life and near-universal love and respect, but Mandela captured and kept the sense of Camelot usually gifted only to those who are denied a life beyond middle age. A man born before the end of the first world war was to become the premier global cause of a digital age.

Even after Mandela left prison, the transition was painful—we have not focused on this enough today, understandably—with the provocation by state forces trying to create a civil war and the involvement of organisations such as Afrikaner Weerstandsbeweging trying to incite tribal division.

This is ultimately a story of how the most powerful military force on a continent was defeated by an idea, and defeated by a group of undernourished prisoners on a barren rock in an Atlantic bay. The reconciliation after apartheid was a man-made miracle where millions of women and men played their part, but Mandela was undoubtedly the chemistry. In a troubled world, observers anguish that if only we had more Mandelas, so many of the problems facing us could be resolved. That is a pessimist’s view. I look at it in a different way, which is that at least we had one Mandela, and for that we should all be eternally grateful.

18:48

[Sir Tony Baldry (Banbury) (Con)]

I am conscious that a large number of colleagues want to contribute to this debate, so I want to make just one single point that I do not think has yet been made.

Mandela exemplified the dignity of hope. We all have to learn from his humility and from his preparedness to forgive those who persecuted him. The inheritance of Mandela’s hope should be for the people of Africa. It was particularly striking that he served only one term as President of South Africa, on a continent where far too often political leaders cling on to power for as long as possible.

As a country we are now the most generous donor of development aid of all the G8 nations. We can give development assistance to South Africa and provide it and South Africans with education. The right hon. Members for Neath (Mr Hain) and for Leeds Central (Hilary Benn) and I are all graduates of the university of Sussex, which has produced more Members of the South African Parliament than of this Parliament as a result of the support the university gave to those from the ANC during the ’60s and ’70s.

Africa must form its own destiny and decide whether it follows the path exemplified by Mandela of transparency, democracy, accountability and justice, or whether it pursues a course of corruption, cronyism and conflict. That is a choice for Africa to make; we cannot impose it on Africa.

Let us today hope that the people of Africa can see the example that Mandela has left them, and let us give them all the support we possibly can. Let us hope that in 10 or 20 years’ time, when the fantastic continent of Africa, so rich in human and natural resources, looks back, it will be able to say that it is free, democratic and just, because of the example that Mandela set it.

18:51

[Chi Onwurah (Newcastle upon Tyne Central) (Lab)]

It is a real honour to follow so many passionate and eloquent speeches.

This morning I went to South Africa house to sign the book of condolence. It is still a really strange experience for me to enter South Africa house, having spent so much time on the pavement outside. Indeed, at one time I was convinced that the pavement there was particularly hard and cold, especially around midnight. I have since entered it in very different circumstances and in triumphant celebration of a free South Africa. The fact that the lobby of South Africa house has so many photographs of so many activists, including myself, makes it all the more welcoming.

This morning was different. It was sad—so very, very sad. As I signed the book in the name of Newcastle and anti-apartheid activists everywhere, I thought about how personal his death was for so many who had never met him personally. That was due to Mr Mandela’s towering personality, but it was also because apartheid was personal to so many of us who had never set foot in South Africa.

As my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition has said, it is easy now to forget how widespread the support was for South Africa and how much British racists took comfort and, indeed, solace from white rule. At the heart of apartheid was injustice, discrimination and separation. Do hon. Members remember the Bantustans? The justification of apartheid was for separate development, with blacks being given their own so-called homeland.

The belief that the races could not live together was obviously taken very personally by a young child in Newcastle with a black father and a white mother. It was also taken personally by so many people throughout Newcastle, the north-east and across the country. I want to pay tribute to the international working-class solidarity that supported the Anti-Apartheid Movement. The idea that what someone was and what they could achieve should be defined by the colour of their skin was taken as a personal attack by black people, by white people, by all people.

The Anti-Apartheid Movement is the most successful mass-movement this country has ever seen. It was the focus of my own activism for many years, spent in its headquarters on what is now called Mandela street, and I eventually joined its executive. Indeed, the first time I entered the parliamentary estate was for executive meetings organised by my right hon. Friend the Member for Neath (Mr Hain), Richard Caborn and Bob Hughes. I also want to pay tribute to Mike Terry who, tragically, died so young a few years ago, and to ACTSA—Action for Southern Africa—which is what the Anti-Apartheid Movement became.

Although the movement was successful, it was not simple. There were intense debates, concerns over tactics and alliances, and, of course, dirty tricks from the South African secret service and others. The evil of apartheid not only gave rise to the most terrible oppression in South Africa; it also corrupted its neighbours in southern Africa. Nelson Mandela was our strength, inspiration and source of unity. The minor debates and divisions within the movement were as nothing in comparison with the huge divisions within South Africa that were deliberately fostered over decades. Mr Mandela’s achievement in putting aside 27 years of imprisonment—much of it with hard labour—and in forgiving though not forgetting and in unifying his country is, therefore, all the greater. He did it not by playing to the fears in all of us, but by magnifying the goodness in all of us.

At a time when there are many debates about what it means to be the United Kingdom and a united Europe and about who we should let in, and at a time when asylum seekers are vilified and those on benefits are mistrusted, I believe that one of Nelson Mandela’s many lessons for us is that, if we do not live in the harmony that he sought, it is not because our differences are so very great, but perhaps because our politicians are not great enough.

18:57

[Mr Robin Walker (Worcester) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne Central (Chi Onwurah), who made it very clear that apartheid was a personal attack on many people. I cannot claim her level of personal involvement in the anti-apartheid campaign, but I want to speak in this debate for two reasons: the first a constituency reason and the second a family one.

The battle to overcome apartheid had some unlikely heroes and we have heard a great deal today about the most inspirational of all. Another inspirational figure to whom this House recently paid tribute was the Capetonian, England and Worcestershire cricketer, Basil D’Oliveira, who lived in my constituency for many years. His role in showing the cricketing world the unreasonable nature of apartheid and South Africa’s colour bar and in helping to strengthen the sporting embargo against apartheid has been well documented. He was no active political campaigner, but in many ways his quiet dignity was a greater challenge to the regime at that time than a more outspoken approach would have been.

It is typical of the great Madiba’s generosity of spirit that he personally invited D’Oliveira to have lunch with him in 1996 during a coaching trip to South Africa. At the end of their time together he rose from his chair, hugged Basil D’Oliveira and said:

“Thanks for coming, Basil…You must go home now. You’ve done your bit.”

While some in the Anti-Apartheid Movement were critical of Basil D’Oliveira for not being more outspoken and not publicly backing boycotts of South Africa, Mandela—ever one to recognise the bravery and dignity of others—gave him the full credit for doing his bit.

Basil himself described their meeting as

“one of the greatest days of my life”,

adding:

“He’s just a marvellous man and I’ve always thought a lot of him, read a lot about him and now I’ve actually met him—brilliant, absolutely brilliant, and to come back to the new South Africa has been absolutely marvellous.”

It was one of my greatest honours as Worcester’s MP to be at last January’s memorial service for Basil D’Oliveira and to be able to offer my condolences to his family, who live to this day in Worcester. I am sure that they, along with thousands of my other constituents, will be mourning the loss of Nelson Mandela.

As I said, the second reason I wanted to speak today was due to a family connection. My wife Charlotte was born in South Africa and spent the early years of her life there. Her father, Professor Jeremy Keenan, was a university lecturer at Witwatersrand, and to an outsider it might have appeared that they were among the comfortable white beneficiaries of the apartheid system. In fact, he spent years working with the ANC, travelling into the townships and homelands and using his privileged access as an anthropologist to document the appalling treatment of black people under apartheid, the pass laws and the use of control mechanisms, then passing on the information to his contacts in the ANC. While in South Africa, he wanted to dedicate a book that he had written about the Tuareg to Mandela, but under the laws of the day he could not have it published with a mention of that man’s name. He gave his dedication indirectly by speaking about the fact that his son was

“born in a land where drought is also not unheard of and where elders also live on islands”.

My father-in-law and his family had to leave South Africa in a hurry in 1987 when the Government of P. W. Botha cracked down hard on those suspected of supporting Mandela and his allies. The information he had gathered was to be compiled in a book that would have been called “Dying for Change”, but at the time the South African authorities were able to suppress such publications, and only now are the full details emerging. Other people engaged in shining a light on the regime or passing information to the ANC were murdered, and both he and his family suffered threats and intimidation from the security services, including multiple break-ins, and having their pets poisoned and the brakes on their cars tampered with.

Last year, I was able to travel to South Africa and join my father-in-law on his first visit to that beautiful country since the end of apartheid. We saw a country that still faces great challenges, in which there are still vast inequalities, but most of all we saw a country at peace with itself and a country in which young people of all colours and backgrounds can live with hope for the future. That is the legacy of Mandela. As Rabbi Sacks said of him,

“He permanently enlarged the horizon of human hope.”

There can be no more fitting epitaph than that.

19:01

[Mr Dave Watts (St Helens North) (Lab)]

I am grateful to be able to pay my tribute to Nelson Mandela. He was a great leader and statesman and a wonderful loving human being. Despite having to endure 27 years in jail he remained committed to his cause, forgave his past enemies, and led his country from the dark times of apartheid to freedom, democracy and equality under law. As I look back on his life, I cannot but believe that that 27 years was wasted in prison. Imagine Nelson Mandela as President as a young or middle-aged man. Imagine the difference that he would have made to South Africa. Imagine the inspiration that he would have been to the whole of Africa and the world. We can all learn lessons from Nelson Mandela. My sympathy goes out to the people of South Africa, especially to his family and friends, who have lost not just a great leader, but a husband, a father, a grandfather and a loyal friend.

It was Desmond Tutu who said that Nelson Mandela had one big fault, which was that he was sometimes loyal to his friends who let him down badly. I do not think that is a bad fault. For anyone who had Nelson Mandela as a friend, he was there on the good days and the bad days. He was a real friend at all times, and I do not think that that is a bad quality in a man. Desmond Tutu also said that he was a gift to South Africa. Certainly he was a gift to South Africa, but he was probably a gift to the whole world. He made us aware that despite any atrocities that we might face in our lives, it is possible for people to forgive, to reconcile and to move on and build a better world.

Nelson Mandela was a modern politician, although he was in his 90s. He was always smart and people noticed when he was in the room. He was great on the soundbites, and knew how to get his message across to the public and the media. He was a man of principle, a great leader and a statesman, and, as I said, a wonderful human being.

In case people believe that he will be forgotten, I finish with a more light-hearted view. My six-year-old grandson went to school on Friday and made a speech on the impact that Nelson Mandela had had on the world. However, he did not get all the facts right, because he said that he had been in a dungeon and not fed for 27 years. But overall he made the point that Nelson Mandela was a great man. It is nice to think that a six-year-old going to school remembers the great qualities of this individual, and that he will not be forgotten in the future.

19:04

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

I pay tribute to Mr Speaker for enabling today’s proceedings to take place, and to all the previous speakers. Their words speak for us all and we should let them stand and not be repeated. I simply wish to add one brief perspective. It is from one who never met Nelson Mandela personally, but was deeply inspired by him.

My perspective is a point of coincidence, which I modestly share with the right hon. Member for Neath (Mr Hain), whose speech today will resonate movingly down the years. That point of coincidence is not because, like him, I moved from one party to another, from the SDP to the Conservatives; he moved the other way. It is not because I boycotted all South African goods, at least until 1990. I never went to South Africa until the 2000s. It is not because as a young man I marched in London against apartheid, or because I signed numerous petitions or as a member of Amnesty International stayed in a cage trying to write letters and be active on behalf of political prisoners. It was because of what Nelson Mandela was doing that so many of our thoughts, particularly as young people, were shaped by him and what he stood for. The right hon. Member for Tottenham (Mr Lammy) spoke exceptionally movingly, not just about solidarity and freedom but about Nelson Mandela’s great life and his influence transcending generations—political generations—and, deeply within us, our families, from generation to generation.

For me, the point of coincidence with the right hon. Member for Neath is that I was born in Africa. I was partly brought up and educated there. In my case, it was in a country then called Tanganyika. It has been proudly independent as the United Republic of Tanzania for the last 50 years, and was host for many years to the ANC, not least for its training at Morogoro and elsewhere. For people such as us, we never quite shake the red dust of Africa from our feet. It is interesting that for my parents not only is Julius Nyerere a great hero, but so is Trevor Huddleston and so is Nelson Mandela. For them and for my constituents, and for those few of us who are proud enough to have even a minuscule part of Africa in us, I want to make one point. Although I did not have the chance to meet Nelson Mandela personally, I have through my work on malaria and development met Graça Machel—his third wife, now his widow, but who when she met him was already the widow of one President —who has shown such commitment to the improvement of lives in her native Mozambique and to the improvement of all lives in South Africa. She worked with Nelson Mandela right through to the end, and through her strength, dedication and devotion to him she showed deep commitment and care. But above all she is now an advocate of his legacy, and our deep condolences go to her and to all Nelson Mandela’s extensive family.

As the right hon. Member for Leeds Central (Hilary Benn) and my right hon. Friends the Members for North East Bedfordshire (Alistair Burt) and for North West Norfolk (Mr Bellingham) and others have said, Nelson Mandela was a giant of values and practice—a man of great standards, leadership, vision and inspiration, who has transcended politics today. The legacy that Graça Machel and others will want to carry forward is his championing of seeking peace and reconciliation, for which I and so many others will continue to battle. It includes his determination to bring down poverty, to build the capacities of good government, and to fight for jobs and justice for all, in all countries, and particularly in South Africa and the other nations of Africa. His dedication to the fight against AIDS and other tropical diseases that are totally treatable and avoidable was another feature of his leadership. He said that ultimately his birthright was South Africa and the African continent. He was an inspirational leader, a man who set standards for us all to which we can only aspire, as it will be impossible for us to reach them, but none the less they are worth aiming for. He did in the end say that he belonged to South Africa, but he embraced all of Africa and all the peoples in it. As we politicians reflect today on his extraordinary life and on the electoral mandate that has enabled us all to come to this place, I hope that his legacy—and the leadership of Graça Machel as she takes it forward—will mean that all the peoples, the leaders and the Governments of the 54 countries of Africa will embrace Nelson Mandela and what he meant for their future. His legacy and, above all, his courageous heart will guide them and help them to build the freedom and opportunity that the 1 billion and more Africans deserve. That is the greatest legacy that he can give, and I am absolutely sure that he will then be beaming down from above with his inimitable smile.

19:10

[Dame Tessa Jowell (Dulwich and West Norwood) (Lab)]

First, I should like to speak on behalf of my constituents in Brixton who celebrated and still remember Mandela’s visit in 1996. On Friday, when the book of condolence was opened by the leader of the council and the mayor, I spoke to a lady who had been at the Brixton Rec for that visit. She told me that she remembered the day well, saying, “I could not believe that a man like Nelson Mandela would want to visit a place like Brixton and people like us.” The inspiration that he created in those short hours lives on in so many hearts and memories.

I should now like to turn to the irreplaceable role that Nelson Mandela played in winning the bid for the Olympics for London 2012. Sport and its power have been a persistent theme of South Africa’s journey from apartheid to democracy, first as a lightning rod for the global anti-apartheid movement and then, at Nelson Mandela’s behest, as a means of healing that nation’s deep divisions. We will for ever remember his taking to the pitch wearing a Springbok shirt and cap to inspire the South African rugby team in 1995.

Let us fast-forward 10 years to the Olympic bid, when my friend Richard Caborn—then the right hon. Member for Sheffield, Central—and others negotiated Nelson Mandela’s support for London's bid. Mr Mandela spoke as though he were a Londoner when he said:

“There’s no city like London. It is a wonderfully diverse and open city, providing a home to hundreds of nationalities from across the world. I can’t think of a better place than London to hold an event that unites the world. The Games in London will inspire athletes as well as young people around the world and ensure that the Olympic Games remain the dream for future generations.”

His words about sport captured the essence of the London 2012 dream when he said that

“sport has the power to change the world, the power to unite people as little else does. It speaks to youth, in a language they understand. Sport creates hope where once there was only despair.”

Now, with his passing, public figures and private citizens across the world will find their own way of giving personal expression to Nelson Mandela’s legacy, through countless acts of courage, leadership and humility, and an unfailing belief in the generosity of the human spirit. As these tributes today have shown, our lives and the life of this nation were enriched by that great man. We now have to carry the challenge of his legacy forward.

19:14

[Sir Malcolm Bruce (Gordon) (LD)]

I apologise for having missed part of the debate; I had engagements that I could not change with people from outside the House. I am glad that the Speaker has allowed these tributes to be paid, as they give us the opportunity to place on record our views and experiences.

I had the great privilege of meeting Nelson Mandela shortly after he had been elected President. I have Richard Caborn to thank for that opportunity, as he was then the Chair of the Trade and Industry Select Committee, of which I was a member. The Committee visited South Africa to see how the ending of apartheid could change the business relationship between the United Kingdom and South Africa—as indeed it has done. Mr Mandela gave us a considerable amount of his time, as he always did; he was very generous and engaging. People often talk about his humility, and I was astonished when, on shaking hands with me, he told me that it was a great honour for him to meet me. I think I replied, “It is entirely the reverse, Mr President.” That was typical of his understatement and his charm.

On that visit, I also remember attending a reception at a hotel in a rather nondescript place called Midrand, which, as the name implies, is halfway between Johannesburg and Pretoria. I was talking to an Afrikaner lady, who expressed her concern about what would happen to South Africa now that it was in the hands of the majority. Obviously, I found that conversation rather uncomfortable. I pointed out that they were indeed the majority and that, as it had been an agreed transition, I hoped that she would welcome it.

Just before the reception ended, the president of the chamber of commerce announced that two of the young girls from the typing pool wanted to sing for us. Two very small girls stood on the podium, put their arms round each other and sang, a cappella, “Nkosi Sikelel’ iAfrika”. As they sang, tears started to run down the cheek of the Afrikaner woman. When they had finished singing, she turned to me and said, “This is still my country. It’s time I learned the words.” That encapsulated the impact of what Nelson Mandela was able to do. He made people understand that they had to move on, and that they had to do so without recrimination and without looking back.

I have the privilege of being the Chair of the International Development Committee and in that capacity I have travelled all over Africa in the past few years. Let us be clear: Mandela’s dream has by no means been fulfilled across Africa, which is riddled with conflict. Sadly, more often than not, those conflicts are between black and black, rather than the civil war between the races that many people feared. I am certain that Mandela’s wisdom and advice are still relevant. People have to be able to move forward, to work together, to embrace their enemies and to start to think about a different set of values.

After President de Klerk had given his undertaking that he would move forward to create majority rule in South Africa, he came to London to speak at the South African embassy. Members of the House were invited to attend. Very few did, but I chose to do so. The demonstration outside the embassy was still going on at the time, and I was heckled and harassed for having the audacity to go to listen to that speech. All I wanted to do was hear from the man himself just how genuinely committed he was to the promises and pledges he had made. I make no apology for going, and I have no regrets, because the results now speak for themselves.

At the end of that Select Committee visit to South Africa, we were about to leave Johannesburg to come back to the United Kingdom when we happened to bump into Joe Slovo in the airport lounge. He was terminally ill with cancer, but he was still working as a housing Minister. I told him that we had met Nelson Mandela and that I had seen and heard many things that had impressed me. I said I was impressed by how the country was determined to move forward as a rainbow nation of people who wanted to work together to put the past behind them and to go forward together as one nation. Joe Slovo said to me, “We won’t forgive, we can never forget, but you won’t build a new nation on bitterness and revenge.” That seemed to me fundamentally to sum up what Nelson Mandela had achieved: only when people can move forward, embrace the future and turn their back on the divisions of the past, can they face the world and claim that they have delivered freedom. There is a long way to go—it is still a long walk—but, without Nelson Mandela, perhaps the first step would not have been taken.

19:20

[Hugh Bayley (York Central) (Lab)]

I have my South African godmother, Mary Grice, to thank for a lifelong interest in Africa. When I was a child, she used to send me books about Africa and African artefacts. She stood in line with other members of the Black Sash in Durban, where she lived, to protest against apartheid. Her daughter, Jenny, worked her whole life—she recently retired—for the multiracial National Union of Metalworkers of South Africa trade union.

I do not think that hon. Members have said enough this afternoon about the role played by Africans in South Africa in securing their freedom. That freedom did not happen because of the global solidarity movement, important though it was, but because South Africans themselves demanded the rights that they now have. Mandela’s genius was not simply to win the argument and the political struggle, but to win over his opponents and to persuade them that he and the ANC had been right all along.

There has been huge consensus across the Chamber today among hon. Members, many of whom have shown that they learned their politics in the South African solidarity movement, but there has not always been such consensus. I published a poster—I think it was the first in the UK—demanding freedom for Mandela in 1973, when he had just been made vice-president of the National Union of Students. I named a bar after him at my student union in Bristol at about the same time. Members of the ANC came along to the opening, but were a bit sniffy about our naming a bar after their great leader. I was hugely relieved to find, after his release, that he drank.

Ten years later, when the Anti-Apartheid Movement moved its headquarters from Charlotte street to Selous street, as it then was, in Camden Town, I ran a campaign to get the name changed to Mandela street, which is the one it enjoys today. Such minor acts of solidarity were roundly condemned at the time. I still have a cutting from The Rhodesia Herald, as it was then, and from a prominent British national Sunday newspaper expressing incredulity that anybody wished to honour and show respect for the name of this political prisoner.

I served for quite a few years on the executive or national committee of the Anti-Apartheid Movement under the chairmanships of both the noble Lord Hughes in the other place and John Ennals, who was the brother of David Ennals, the Health Minister under Harold Wilson. I led campaigns to persuade local authorities and trade unions to sell their investments in South Africa.

When I was first elected to the House in 1992, I wanted to become involved with anti-apartheid work, but I found that we had apartheid among our all-party groups, which in those days could be set up without needing to have members from all parties. There were two South African groups—the all-party group on South Africa, which argued against disinvestment and for white rights, order and no change in South Africa; and the all-party group on Southern Africa, led by Peter Pike, the former Member for Burnley, who was mentioned by the right hon. Member for North East Bedfordshire (Alistair Burt). I joined the Southern Africa group, because it was closely aligned to the Anti-Apartheid Movement. The two groups merged a few years later, and it was because of the experience of reconciliation in South Africa that we felt we should join together into a single group.

One of the greatest privileges I have had as a Member of this House was to be selected to observe the first genuine democratic, all-race elections in South Africa in 1994. The practice was to put an African politician with one from further afield, so that there was a multiracial observer team, and I had the great good fortune to be twinned with Mose Tjitendero, who was the Speaker of the Namibian Parliament. Just five years before, Namibia had gone through a similar transition—nobody has mentioned it this afternoon—managing to move to democracy and majority rule without destroying the state and without that leading to civil war and chaos. I learned a lot from him during our three days of observing the election.

On the first day, in one of those long lines of voters that many of us will remember from our television screens—the right hon. Member for Bermondsey and Old Southwark (Simon Hughes) described them in his speech—I saw an old African women with snow-white hair, and I asked her how long she had been waiting to vote, because I was trying to find out whether it was taking people two, five or 10 hours, and she simply said, “All my life.”

After the election, I went to the Alexandra health centre, a progressive centre that had fought to extend health care to people of all races during the time of apartheid. I met a midwife who first qualified in what was then called Northern Transvaal—the Northern Province—who said that when she qualified, she was given her equipment, which consisted of a kettle to boil water to sterilise whatever instruments she might use and a candle so that she could do deliveries in the dark. We started talking about the sort of support that South Africa would need to build a health care system that provided for all its citizens, and she said that the challenge was not one of resources—after all, in South Africa the doctor Christiaan Barnard had carried out the first heart transplant operation many years before—but of how those resources were distributed.

Mandela was a revolutionary. Many refused to support him when he was in prison, because he refused to repudiate the armed struggle. Amnesty International would not make him a prisoner of conscience because of that refusal. We should not forget, however, that while the victims were citizens, the violence of apartheid came overwhelmingly from the security forces of the state—as in Sharpeville, the Soweto student uprising in 1976 and the Durban strikes in the early 1970s.

Mandela’s first goal was to achieve democracy and universal suffrage, and that goal has been achieved, but his vision went far wider. He wanted to achieve equality and full human rights and justice for all citizens in his country and the wider world, and those goals remain to be achieved. If we want to honour his reputation, we need to work to do our part, as political leaders in our country, to ensure that those goals are achieved.

We therefore need to concentrate on making the argument to the public in our country that we should spend 0.7% of our gross national income on international development. We need to retain the focus of our development programme on the elimination of poverty, and recognise that that requires us to challenge inequality globally, in our own country and in the developing countries that we are seeking to help.

I believe it was a mistake when, earlier this year, the United Kingdom decided to close its aid relationship with South Africa, which is a middle-income country. It does not need our money, but we have a lot to gain from continuing to work with South Africa and its Government in examining how they are tackling inequality there and in transferring the lessons we can learn from them back to the United Kingdom and other developing countries where we have programmes, because unless we deal with the problem of inequality, we will never end the global scourge of poverty.

19:29

[Mr Nigel Evans (Ribble Valley) (Ind)]

On Mandela Monday in Parliament, I think it can be said that we are all South Africans today. There have been many touching and moving speeches. I hope that Mr Speaker will send a bound copy of Hansard to the South African Parliament to demonstrate the love and warmth that British MPs have, on behalf of their constituents, for Nelson Mandela.

Nelson Mandela’s legacy can be seen by those who go to South Africa in the growth that there has been. People have said that it is not perfect. Clearly, it is not, but nor is the United Kingdom perfect. The advances that were made under Nelson Mandela’s stewardship were tremendous. Indeed, what South Africa is not is also tremendous—it is not Zimbabwe. We have heard today that Nelson Mandela was in prison for 27 years. Next year will see the 27th year of the presidency of Robert Mugabe. There is a rich irony in that.

Some of the words that we have heard spoken in relation to Nelson Mandela today have been reconciliation, freedom, dignity, love and hope. Of all those, one would usually say that love was the strongest emotion. However, today I believe that hope is the strongest.

I was introduced to a young opera singer called Siphiwo Ntshebe by a friend of mine who is the representative of South Africa in the north-west. He was going to sing the “Hope” anthem at the opening of the 2010 World cup in South Africa. Sadly, he died just before he was able to do so. Some of the words in the anthem were spoken by Nelson Mandela:

“The generosity of the human spirit can overcome all adversity.

Through compassion and caring, we can create hope.”

That is hope for all those who have faced discrimination and apartheid, hope for those who face discrimination and apartheid today, hope for those who face dejection, and hope for those who face being unheard, in whatever country they happen to live and whatever kind of evil they face.

I have stood in the shadow of the huge statue in Nelson Mandela square in Sandton in Johannesburg. I am sure that many Members here have done so. That statue is massive, yet when future generations learn of the achievements of Nelson Mandela, they will realise that it is not big enough. It could have been much bigger.

Many Members have said at the end of their moving and touching contributions that we will not see his like again. I hope that we do, because we need more Nelson Mandelas and we need them now. On the one occasion I heard Nelson Mandela speak in South Africa house, he finished his speech by saying that some leaders ought to learn when it is time to go. He did not mention Mugabe, but we all knew who he was talking about. I was privileged enough to shake hands with Nelson Mandela. It took him ages to leave South Africa house that day because such was his humanity that he wanted to shake hands with as many people as he could.

We will all remember where we were when we heard the news that Nelson Mandela had sadly died. More importantly, we will also remember that we were all privileged enough to stand on the earth at the same time as that great man was alive.

19:33

[Albert Owen (Ynys Môn) (Lab)]

There have been some great and passionate speeches tonight. Like many of the Members who have spoken, my politics and my life have been shaped by Nelson Mandela and by apartheid.

I left school not to go to university but to go to sea. The first deep sea trip that I made was to South Africa and around the Cape of Good Hope. On that ship was a bosun who was Jamaican, a fireman who was Maltese and a mainly British crew. In the international community that is seafaring, we shared many things. However, when we went ashore in South Africa, we could not do so together. I remember the tears of many people in that mess room when they reflected on that experience. They had experienced the same thing in America before the civil rights movement. They could not go to bars in America at that time because of the hatred that race brought in various communities. It is emotional to think that those people did not live to see apartheid lifted, but many people fought the good fight to ensure that it was.

As I have said, those experiences shaped my politics and my life. Those human experiences are the things that count because politics is about people. We are here today to pay tribute to one of the greatest people who has ever lived. That is a strong statement to make. I had the privilege of being in his company, as did many others. However, I remember reading about the history of apartheid on that ship as a 16-year-old with my colleagues.

I also remember being at university in my 30s during the 1990s when Nelson Mandela became President. My hon. Friend the Member for York Central (Hugh Bayley) and other Members have talked about the queues of people who waited to vote on that day. I think that will stick in the memory of most people in the world. When we complain about the apathy and low turnout in our country, we should think about what those people endured for many years. Nelson Mandela made it possible them to vote.

Nelson Mandela was a man who was prepared to die to free people. He was, in many ways, a modern-day prophet. He wanted to free a whole nation and a whole continent, and he achieved that. That is why we hold him in such high esteem. He was a person who was prepared to forgive and forget the hatred that had been shown to him.

I am a passionate rugby fan, as are many Members here. Nothing gives me greater satisfaction than watching Wales beat England, whether it be in the Millennium stadium or at Twickenham. However, the greatest rugby moment that I can remember was when Nelson Mandela wore that Springboks shirt with the No. 6 on the back and gave that smile. That was the greatest sporting moment and the greatest political moment in one.

The capital city of my country, Cardiff, gave the freedom of the city to Nelson Mandela. My party had the privilege of being addressed by Nelson Mandela. I went to the Mandela Rhodes Foundation event in Westminster Hall in 2003. I am not sure whether I should say this because I am not a Rhodes scholar. As I have said, I left school rather early. My hon. Friend the Member for Great Grimsby (Austin Mitchell) also pushed in beside me with his camera, as he always does on such splendid occasions. The warm-up act on that day was made up of Tony Blair, Bob Hawke and Bill Clinton, and the concluding remarks were made by Nelson Mandela. What an act to see!

It was with great fondness that I heard the great man speak. I only wish that the bosun and the other seafarers I sailed with had had the opportunity to see what that man achieved in their name.

19:38

[John Hemming (Birmingham, Yardley) (LD)]

Today we have heard from some of the generals of the Anti-Apartheid Movement. I must admit that I was only a foot soldier. I was never even arrested. I was once asked to put down a glass that I was using to lubricate my shouting, which was directed at the South African ambassador. I have three children who are mixed race. That would not have been allowed had I been in South Africa. I therefore had a personal beef with the ambassador, which I put to him in a rather loud tone of voice.

Nelson Mandela’s love and devotion were not reserved only for his family, but extended to his country, his people and all those who have ever stood up to tyranny. His philosophy of reconciliation and of a search for forgiveness; his political endeavour for a peaceful, democratic transition from the dark night of apartheid; and his relentless courage in the face of adversity allow him to stand tall in comparison with those who sought to keep power through the sword and without the consent of the people.

Few manage to make a mark as bold and as long-lasting as Mandela’s. His time on this earth may be done, but his legacy will burn bright through the ages. As long as one person is dominated by another, as long as one person keeps another in slavery and bondage, and as long as freedom of thought and freedom of conscience cannot be tamed, he will stand as an example to those seeking the bright day of freedom, democracy, tolerance and mutual respect.

The key message, however, is that of forgiveness. After his release, Nelson Mandela called not for revenge but instead for the Truth and Reconciliation Commission. When we look around the world at acts of vengeance, such as the difficulties in Bangladesh, Kashmir or, as was mentioned earlier, Sri Lanka, we see that the problem is that those acts of vengeance give rise to other acts of vengeance, and things go off the rails. To that extent, we have a massive amount for which to thank Nelson Mandela. We thank him for showing people that the way forward is not through acts of vengeance.

19:40

[Mark Durkan (Foyle) (SDLP)]

I bring another accent to the debate and to our tribute to Nelson Mandela. Obviously, people in Ireland—north and south—supported the Anti-Apartheid Movement, inspired by men like Kader Asmal, who helped to found the movement here in London and then founded it in Ireland when he moved there. I spoke about him in my maiden speech in this House in 2005, which was in an Africa debate.

Unfortunately, not everyone in Ireland had the same view. In Northern Ireland, people tended to pick and choose their views according to party lines and whose side they were on at home. If we rose above such squabbles, we found that people in the Anti-Apartheid Movement, who were inspirational themselves, were inspired by Nelson Mandela and by the many people who were leading the struggle for democracy in South Africa, whether they were in jail or body-swerving the system, avoiding jail and organising in many different ways.

All sorts of arguments and debates were raging here in the 1980s. I worked for my predecessor, John Hume, as a researcher in Westminster, and I also spent time working in Teddy Kennedy’s office in the States. I know exactly what all the arguments were about why sanctions would not work or should not be put in place, and the argument that the geopolitical order required us to tolerate the apartheid regime. Even while the Government here were officially condemning it, they were not interfering with it in any way.

I also recall that there was a threatened split in the Anti-Apartheid Movement in Ireland in the mid-’80s. Sinn Fein had started contesting elections and so on, and it joined the Anti-Apartheid Movement on a corporate basis. Several significant people then left, such as Garret FitzGerald. John Hume addressed a rally in Dublin, and it was one of the few times he publicly disagreed with Garret FitzGerald. He said that no differences to do with Irish politics should in any way detract from combined and united solidarity in repudiating the iniquity that was apartheid. Both at that rally and in debates in the House, John Hume made the point that we needed sanctions not just as a badge of moral indignation, and not just to put an economic bite on a regime that needed its collar felt, but in solidarity with the struggle for democracy in South Africa. After John Hume made that speech, Kader Asmal, who subsequently told Nelson Mandela that I helped to write it, made a point of getting it sent to South Africa and taken to Nelson Mandela in prison. Kader Asmal said that he thought it was the first time that a parliamentarian had put it that way.

As a member of the Anti-Apartheid Movement—I represented the Union of Students in Ireland and then my party—I found myself in the unusual position of importing something into pre-democratic South Africa in the early 1990s. It was two collapsible aluminium polling booths that were made in my constituency, to be used as part of a training exercise by the National Democratic Institute for International Affairs. I was one of an international faculty helping in that exercise, in which regional and local ANC activists were being prepared for what may be involved in elections, so that they could organise themselves. They were obviously seething during the transition, because there were talks about talks, and there was a question of whether there would be all-party talks or a constituent assembly, and other difficulties of process followed. Nelson Mandela and his fellow leaders had to keep people together through all those troubles, difficulties and frustrations, and that was one exercise to help achieve that. As well as the polling booths, which were used when we split into two groups and toured the country, at the request of the Americans I also brought unused books of ballot papers from Ireland, north and south.

During those mock arrangements, I witnessed many people who had had lifelong involvement in the struggle for democracy going through their first act of queuing up at a polling station and voting, on an Irish ballot paper. Even though it was a mock election, they were crying. Like the hon. Member for York Central (Hugh Bayley), who was so struck when the actual election came and he saw the queues of people lining up for the real vote, I saw how important it was.

I met Nelson Mandela and, as I said, Kader Asmal, who became the Minister of Water Affairs and Forestry in the Government of national unity and then Minister of Education in the first ANC Government. Nelson Mandela came to speak to all the political parties from Northern Ireland, which were in South Africa to learn lessons and get an insight from the South African process. It was not the first time we had done that—there had been previous trips—but it was the first time that all the parties were on one trip. We could not all share the same transport, because at that stage Unionist parties still said that they would not be in the same room or on the same transport as Sinn Fein. Even when we were taken on a visit to a local beach, at Africa’s most southerly point, apartheid South Africa’s laws unfortunately had to be reinstated and there was separation. I was at the event with Kader Asmal, who was seething at the idea that we were separated and imposing limits on ourselves, but he told me that Nelson Mandela had said to him, “It is not up to us to impose our standards on them. We can give them our example, and they will find their way.” I thought that was particularly rich.

The initial idea was that Nelson Mandela would speak to certain parties in one room, or one session, and then to other parties including Sinn Fein, or to Sinn Fein on its own, in another room or another session. A splendid solution was reached when people realised the architecture of the centre meant that they could remove two glass sliding walls so that some of us were under the roof while Nelson Mandela addressed us and others were outside—not under the same roof. That is how Unionist blushes were spared, but at least Nelson Mandela, as the elected President of South Africa, was allowed the dignity of saying the same thing to all of us at the same time.

Nelson Mandela gave us many key messages and lessons at that event. There were the familiar ones, such as the fact that we had to negotiate peace with our enemies, not our friends, but there were also points about not only needing to be sure about the integrity of our choice but needing to allow space for the integrity of other choices. He said that it was not enough just to get into talks—mutual engagement was not the target; mutual adjustment was the real, hard test. He also made it clear that, when finding new ground, it is much easier to make common ground than when we fight over the old ground and the old issues, identities and labels.

Many Members have paid tribute to people in England who stood against apartheid, but I want to make particular reference to the Dunnes Stores workers whose strike in 1984 did so much to galvanise opposition to apartheid in Ireland and beyond. I particularly wish to name Mary Manning, Karen Gearon, Alma Russell and Liz Deasy. In recent days, there has been popular demand in Ireland that whatever national delegation goes to South Africa for Nelson Mandela’s funeral and the other ceremonies, those Dunnes Stores workers should be part of it. They represent the real spirit of the struggle against apartheid.

Nelson Mandela’s famous opening words at his trial were:

“I am the First Accused.”

Today we remember him as the “first admired”. We hope that we can look forward to his being the “first emulated” in other areas where people are suffering from injustice and conflict, and from the violations that result from unaccountable power, but it is not only in those areas that he should be emulated. We need to remember that as well as indicting the iniquity and inequity of the apartheid system, he indicted the world order as we know it, a world order in which power and wealth are vested in the hands of a privileged minority. If we want to take part in the emulation of Nelson Mandela, we should not just expect things of other people who live in difficult circumstances; we should rise to the challenge, and deal with the apartheid nature of the world economic order that still exists.

19:50

[Mr Frank Doran (Aberdeen North) (Lab)]

We have heard many wonderful speeches, which have been both humorous and thoughtful. I entered the House of Commons in 1987, and I cannot imagine that a debate of this kind would have taken place then. I think that the debate we are having today demonstrates that things have moved on, not just in world politics because of someone like Nelson Mandela, but in the House. Of course, we would have such a debate only about someone who was very special, and, as we have heard from all who have spoken, Nelson Mandela was a very, very special man. We all live in his shadow, in a way that is difficult to describe.

Unlike some of my colleagues, I cannot boast of the relationship that I had with Nelson Mandela, but I can boast that I was in the same room as him twice, and I am very grateful for that. On the second occasion, when he came to Parliament soon after becoming President of South Africa, I was one of 2,000 people who sat and listened to his superb speech. What was probably most gratifying was the fact that, although she had called him a terrorist in previous years, the former Prime Minister was sitting in the front row paying obeisance like everyone else. I appreciated that very much.

I want to make one rather narrow point. Many of my colleagues have mentioned the Anti-Apartheid Movement, which I supported, and many have mentioned Bob Hughes. Bob, who was one of my predecessors as Member of Parliament for Aberdeen North, is now in the House of Lords. For many years, from the mid-1970s until the mid-1990s, he was a very energetic chair of the Anti-Apartheid Movement, which was disbanded after the first South African election. Having spent some of his childhood in South Africa, he knew exactly what was going on there, and most of the great events happened on his watch. He was heavily involved in the planning of the “Free Nelson Mandela” concert to which so many Members have referred. He was also very influential in politics in Scotland, as would be expected from a Scottish Member of Parliament.

Glasgow was the first city to grant Nelson Mandela the freedom of the city—in 1984, when he was still being called a terrorist and locked up in prison—and I am proud to say that the city that I now represent, Aberdeen, was the second to grant him that award, in the same year. That was all due to the work of Bob Hughes. It is an indication of the way in which Bob was regarded in South Africa that, after Nelson Mandela became President, he was awarded the Order of the Companions of O. R. Tambo. Oliver Tambo, then deceased, had been the leader of the African National Congress. That special award had been created for foreign citizens who had supported South Africa and the ANC through all the hard times. The award had three levels, and Bob was given the silver award, which was for

“those who have actively promoted the interests and aspirations of South Africa through outstanding co-operation, solidarity and support.”

I think it important to put that on the record, because that award is the second highest that can be made to a foreign citizen.

I also want to pay a small tribute to Mr Speaker Martin, who has now retired. When I was Chair of the Administration Committee, he was anxious for us to mark the fact that Nelson Mandela had paid us a visit when he was President of South Africa. Many Members—but not enough of them—will know that in Westminster Hall there is a plaque which was placed there some four years ago to commemorate the fact that Mandela had made a great speech to the collected Houses of Parliament when he visited as President. If any of my colleagues are looking for a place to which to make a pilgrimage, I can tell them that it is quite close.

19:49

[Ms Diane Abbott (Hackney North and Stoke Newington) (Lab)]

The fact that the House of Commons has spent the whole day paying tribute to Nelson Mandela is, of course, a tribute to the man himself, but it is also a tribute to the thousands of Africans who struggled for their freedom. It is a tribute to activists such as Steve Biko, it is a tribute to the ANC and to the ANC in exile, but it is also a tribute to the thousands of ordinary people in, I believe, all our constituencies who stood on street corners and campaigned over the decades to make the release of Nelson Mandela possible.

I will always remember where I was when I saw Nelson Mandela being released from prison, hand in hand with Winnie Mandela. I also remember the BBC newscaster who was doing the bulletin. It was a friend of mine and one of the most loved newscasters, Moira Stuart. I shall never forget that, because the struggle against apartheid and the struggle to free Nelson Mandela were part of the warp and weft of my life as a young activist in the late 1970s and 1980s. There were the meetings, there were the pickets, there was the examination of the oranges to make sure they were—[Laughter]—I think that a lot of us have been there—and there were the donations. For a certain generation, that was the iconic international struggle. There were times when we thought that it was no more than a struggle and Nelson Mandela could not be released, so seeing those television pictures of him hand in hand with Winnie was an extraordinary experience for me.

We have heard some brilliant speeches today. The former leader of my party, my right hon. Friend the Member for Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath (Mr Brown) made one of the best speeches that I have ever heard him make, and I have heard him make some brilliant speeches since I was first a Member of Parliament in the 1980s. My right hon. Friend the Member for Derby South (Margaret Beckett) made a very impressive speech, reminding us that Mandela was a politician first and last, and reminding us also of the importance of the practice of politics. My right hon. Friend the Member for Neath (Mr Hain), who was one of the heroes of the anti-apartheid struggle—it might be said that that was his finest hour—told us about his childhood and his family, and presented a touching vignette of Winnie Mandela leaning down to kiss two white children.

Let me say a little about Winnie Mandela. She did terrible things and terrible things were done in her name, but no one who was active in the anti-apartheid movement in the 1980s will forget her courage and beauty when she was at the height of her powers. She endured long years in internal exile; she endured 18 months of solitary confinement, parted from her children; she endured beatings, and the blowing up and killing of her friends and comrades around her. As I have said, she did terrible things, but we cannot take away the fact that at the height of the anti-apartheid struggle, she was a transcendent figure.

We have heard about Nelson Mandela and his achievements today. I remember seeing him on his first visit to the United Kingdom. The extraordinary thing about him was not just his presence and charisma, but the fact that there was no sense of the bitterness that he was entitled to feel after spending 28 years in prison and seeing what had happened to his friends and family. As we have heard, it was that nobility of purpose that enabled him—it was his signal contribution—to drive through a peaceful transition to majority rule without the bloodshed that so many people prophesied. He also stood down after one term. If only more leaders in countries around the world were prepared to do as he did and let go of power.

We live in an era that despises politicians, in which the word “political” is practically a term of abuse. We live in an era when too many young people believe that voting changes nothing, but I was privileged to be an election observer for those very first elections in which black people could vote. I remember leaving the centre of Johannesburg and driving all the way up to Soweto, on the edge of the city. We got there for 6 o’clock, but people had been queuing for hours. When the polling station opened, I saw figure after figure go into the polling station, mark the very long and complicated ballot paper and then step to the ballot box. Many of them looked around as they did so, as if even then someone would say, “Not you, you’re not allowed to vote.” It was being an observer at those elections that taught me the value of the ballot—that people can struggle and die for the right to vote.

Nelson Mandela and anti-apartheid resonated with me as a young black woman just getting active in politics. The anti-apartheid struggle taught me that I was part of something international, and that politics was in the end about moral purpose. It taught me that if you believe in something, you should push on, because evil cannot stand. There is no more respected politician among young people in the UK than Nelson Mandela. It is a privilege to be allowed to speak today, and if people would only believe what Nelson Mandela and the anti-apartheid struggle believed—that you can alter your reality and it is worth getting involved in the struggle and understanding the issues—our politics would be enriched so much.

20:02

[Mr Tom Clarke (Coatbridge, Chryston and Bellshill) (Lab)]

One of the joys and privileges of being a Member of this House—apart from speaking for constituents, which I hope to do this evening—is that we have a front seat as history unfolds. I shall respond to your request for brevity, Mr Speaker, not least because one of my recollections of Nelson Mandela was of the day he was released from prison. Like most people, I was overjoyed. Then I suddenly remembered that I had the first question for Mrs Thatcher at Prime Minister’s questions that Tuesday. I thought a lot about that question and I delivered it as best I could. At one point, the formidable Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman, sitting on the second row of Benches on the Government side, called out, “Too long.” The then Speaker, Mr Bernard Weatherill, was forced to intervene, saying, “I remind the hon. Gentleman that this is a question, not a speech.”

In that spirit, I hope to be brief in giving my recollections of a great life that will be remembered for a very long time—that of Nelson Mandela. Shortly after his release, he came to Glasgow. As hon. Members have said, he had been given the freedom of the city of Glasgow—the first city to do so—after the work of people such as Janey Buchan, the Rev. Ian White, who was a minister in a church in my constituency in Coatbridge, and my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow South West (Mr Davidson), who was a member of the Glasgow city council that agreed the bestowing of the freedom of the city, to the chagrin of the Glasgow Herald, which said that it could not see any link between that man and Glasgow except perhaps in the minds of a few Labour councillors. Now we know better.

Nelson Mandela charmed the people of Glasgow and reminded us that he was a person of principle and a man with deep values and a great vision for the future. When he was elected President in 1994, I had the privilege of being one of the observers at that election. I was in the company of David Steel, my right hon. Friend the Member for Cynon Valley (Ann Clwyd) and Bob Hughes—I am delighted that my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen North (Mr Doran) recognised Bob Hughes and his role in the campaign to end apartheid and bring freedom in South Africa and elsewhere. The president was duly elected and the world waited to see what would follow. He had defeated what most people thought could not be defeated, and I remember his slogan in that election, “Jobs, Freedom, Peace”. Even today in this Parliament that remains our call for Britain and the rest of the world.

On that election day, I recall the remarkable reaction to the fact that people had the right to vote. I remember speaking with people—I am delighted to have photographs of some of them on the wall of my bedroom—including one woman who walked for seven hours and waited three hours in the hot sunshine to exercise that right to vote. One man—a small business person—said to me, “I am 58. If I die today, I will die a happy man because I have cast a vote.”

My right hon. Friend the Member for Cynon Valley and I recall that one of the things we were asked to do was to visit a prison. I do not wish to be controversial, but prisoners there had votes. Ironically, after they had voted they came to us and said, “We’re free, we’re free.” Perhaps there is a message there for all of us.

Time went on and in due course, as right hon. and hon. Members have said, the President of South Africa came to this Parliament. That was a wonderful event, with—rightly—much pomp and circumstance, as we would have expected and which the President of South Africa deserved. One thing stands out in my mind, and it coincides with the references that have been made throughout today to Nelson Mandela’s humility. After he had delivered a wonderful speech in the Palace of Westminster, he made his way down the aisle accompanied by the then Speaker, Baroness Boothroyd. He stopped at the fourth or fifth row where a frail, elderly little man was sitting and embraced him, expressing his gratitude. It was Jeremy Thorpe. Mandela was non-judgmental, a man of vision, compassion, forgiveness and understanding.

On the eve of the Third Reading of the Bill that became the International Development (Reporting and Transparency) Act 2006, which I had the privilege of sponsoring, the then Chancellor of the Exchequer, my right hon. Friend the Member for Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath (Mr Brown), said at a reception that he had been speaking to Nelson Mandela that day, and Nelson Mandela sent his very best wishes for the success of the Bill. For me, that was very humbling and makes me very proud.

Remembering his commitment to the millennium development goals and the progress that can follow—to human equality, to human rights, to gender recognition, to the need for everybody to enjoy an equality that gives them the very best of the health service in every part of the world—Nelson Mandela can never be forgotten.

In Scotland, very often when we run out of superlatives we look at the words of Robert Burns. I do not know whether during his prison reading Nelson Mandela read anything of Robert Burns, but I suspect that he did, and before I sit down I would like to put on record Burns’s words in writing to a friend in recognition of his father’s life:

“A friend of man, the friend of truth,

The friend of age and guide of youth;

Few hearts like his-with virtue warm’d,

Few heads with knowledge so informed:

If there’s another world, he lives in bliss;

If there is none, he made the best of this.”

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

[Mr Speaker]

Order. Over 20 colleagues still want to speak, and I am keen to accommodate everybody. It will not happen if there are long speeches, but if there are short speeches, it can.

20:12

[Valerie Vaz (Walsall South) (Lab)]

May I start by thanking all Members for their contributions and you, Mr Speaker, for allowing this tribute to the first black South African President, who came to speak to this House on 11 July 1996? I am a new Member, so I was not here then to witness that, but on Thursday 5 December 2013 I was in Walsall, welcoming the Rev. Jesse Jackson to Walsall college. The Rev. Jesse Jackson played his part in the struggle for equality in America, and for the first black President of the United States, Barack Obama. Later in that evening we heard that Nelson Mandela, a true hero of our times, had died.

The struggle against the apartheid regime in South Africa became our struggle. We honour Nelson Mandela today, who was No. 1 on the Rivonia trial list along with Jewish people, Indians and people of dual parentage, because they were the heroes who lost their liberty by opposing the brutality of a system that said the majority black population should not have equal rights or opportunities because of the colour of their skin.

So many of us were part of the anti-apartheid movement in this country and around the world—people of different parties: the Labour party, the then Liberal party, the Communist party, those of no party. There were also people of the Churches, and many Members have paid tribute to Archbishop Trevor Huddleston, and I would add Canon Collins, trade unions, and citizens, all of them united against the apartheid regime. Many of us share the abiding memory of my right hon. Friend the Member for Neath (Mr Hain), who made a stunning speech, of running—always running. He, too, has paid a personal price for his activism.

I reviewed “The Anti-Apartheid Handbook” many years ago, and one thing that struck me was how people were classified in South Africa. One way in which they were classified was by seeing how long it took to drag a comb through their hair. Nelson Mandela, the ANC and the international community could not stand by and watch while innocent men, women and children were gunned down in Soweto or Sharpeville for opposing that brutal regime. The boycott and sanctions were right; it was not a question of sticks and carrots, but, as Archbishop Tutu said at the time of the boycott, people were suffering anyway and the boycott could not hurt them more. Music, prose, demonstrations and speeches— all those forms of action—set the spark to free Nelson Mandela.

Not many of us would have his courage not to compromise our principles, and many of us today are still judged by the colour of our skin, rather than on our attributes. The main reason he is such a hero to us, however, is that his story is like a fairytale come true: our hero, imprisoned for his beliefs, had 27 years of his life taken away, but collectively people came together—in collective action, as he wanted—and he was free.

As he said, he was not bitter, because if he had been so, he would still have been in prison. We can only honour his legacy if each of us is the spark for change. We can only honour his legacy if we continue the fight for social and economic justice. We can only honour his legacy if we together work for his values of forgiveness, perseverance, peace and hope. We give thanks for his life, and may he rest in peace.

20:16

[Stephen Twigg (Liverpool, West Derby) (Lab/Co-op)]

One of my earliest political memories is of being taken as a child by my parents to march against apartheid here in London. For my generation who came to politics in the ’70s and ’80s, this was the great progressive cause, as my hon. Friend the Member for Hackney North and Stoke Newington (Ms Abbott) said. I remember my mum coming back from the greengrocers in our very conservative part of suburban London having had a big argument about why she would not buy the Outspan oranges, which were from apartheid South Africa. It was the great cause.

The period in which I was most involved was when I was a student and when I was in the National Union of Students. Student politics often has a very bad name and can even be a term of abuse, but Nelson Mandela said education is the most powerful weapon we can use to change the world, and the United Kingdom student movement played a central role in the campaign to release Nelson Mandela and to bring an end to apartheid. Archbishop Trevor Huddleston said the student movement was the backbone of anti-apartheid, and Nelson Mandela served as honorary president of the NUS from 1969 until his death last week. Students were absolutely central to the success of the boycott Barclays campaign to get the bank out of South Africa, to putting pressure on universities and colleges to disinvest and to the boycott of South African goods. It was very striking that the various parts of the student movement, which disagreed with each other about just about everything else, could come together in unity and determination in the common cause to fight apartheid.

A number of Members on both sides of the House have mentioned Mike Terry. He was the first NUS executive member to have responsibility, more than 40 years ago, for work on southern Africa. He went on to be secretary of the Anti-Apartheid Movement and only once apartheid was brought down did he follow the career for which he had trained and become a physics teacher. It was my pleasure to get to know him when he was a physics teacher at Alexandra park school in Haringey in north London and I was an Education Minister. As others have said, there is enormous cynicism about politics in this country and in other countries at the moment, but anti-apartheid and the struggle to release Nelson Mandela are surely politics at its very, very best.

Let me mention briefly two other issues. Several Members have spoken about what Nelson Mandela did and said about HIV and AIDS. I think it is fair to say that while he was in office, tackling HIV and AIDS was not a priority and, of course, his successor, President Mbeki, questioned the link between HIV and AIDS. It was only after he left office that Mandela’s role changed and was absolutely crucial. In 2000 he said:

“Our country is facing a disaster of immeasurable proportions from HIV/AIDS.”

He sought to break the taboo, and lives were undoubtedly saved as a direct consequence. As the Prime Minister said earlier, Nelson Mandela announced that his own son, Makgatho, had died of AIDS. At that time, about 600 South Africans were dying every day of AIDS-related illnesses, but often there was denial that AIDS was the cause of the deaths. Out of office, Nelson Mandela confronted that culture of denial.

Rightly, there has been a focus today on the commitment in the South African constitution to tackle racism and other forms of discrimination. The South African constitution was the first in the world to outlaw discrimination based on sexual orientation. I wish to finish with the following story, which I found when preparing for what I would say today. It is a beautiful story about a black lesbian couple who got married—this was before marriage had been legalised, but a church was prepared to marry them. One of the families was not very happy, so they went round and started to beat the other family up. The fight ended up being taken to the police station in Soweto. The police station commander sat the two families down and pointed to a poster on the wall—a poster of Nelson Mandela. She said, “Listen. That man, the father of our freedom, says it’s okay for these women to be together. And if he says that, who are you to argue?” That sorted things out. That little story says it all: Nelson Mandela was a force for good, for decent values, for justice and, as all contributors today have said, someone from whom we can all learn.

20:21

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

Three brief stories, of Kilburn, Kingstanding and Luanda, are linked together by the enduring icon who is Nelson Mandela.

I was born in Kilburn, of Irish immigrant parents. Twenty-five years later, the Jamaicans arrived. Both groups met waves of prejudice. My father, seeking lodgings, was told, “No Irish. No dogs.” Twenty-five years later, the Jamaicans were told, “No blacks. No dogs.” Both communities became the bedrock in north-west London of a vibrant, diverse, thriving multicultural society. People from both communities were present in 1962 at Nelson Mandela’s final meeting in this country before he went back to South Africa and ultimately stood trial for his life. He addressed the Willesden Friendship League in Kilburn high road, but hundreds of yards from where I was born. He enraptured the audience that night, and I will never forget old Tom Durkin, the president of Brent Trades Council, saying, “I have never met a man so optimistic in all my life.”

Both communities then became the bedrock of the Anti-Apartheid Movement. We look back now at that era and see that it was tough. It was tough for black people, including in the world of work, above all in South Africa, but also in this country. All too often, workplaces were scarred by racism, which was compounded and encouraged by the naked oppression of black people in South Africa. I recall one black Transport and General Workers Union shop steward, George, in an Irish pub in Kilburn high road, telling me the story of how grievously he felt having been racially abused in his workplace. But, he said, “I will stand up against it.” Who was his hero? It was Nelson Mandela.

Throughout those bitter years of the Anti-Apartheid Movement, many of us often stood on freezing pavements outside South Africa house or outside supermarkets trying to encourage people not to buy South African produce. During that time, a second battle was being fought against colonialism and racism in the Portuguese colonial empire—Mozambique, Angola, Guinea-Bissau and the Cape Verde Islands. I was deeply involved in that campaign. When Franco died and then Salazar the year after, after 20 years of a liberation struggle the Portuguese colonial empire collapsed. There was a process of rapid decolonisation. In Angola, oil and diamond-rich, the South Africans invaded from the south and the Zairians invaded from the north, and it was only the Cubans coming in to fight with the MPLA that prevented South Africa from taking over Angola.

Stephen Sedley, who retired but two years ago as a Lord Justice of Appeal, and I were invited out there as friends of the liberation movement to serve on the commission that observed the mercenary trials— 13 mercenaries were captured at the end of the Angolan war. I will tell but one story from that experience. I recall one night walking with Stephen and some of the other commission members down the bay of Luanda. On the beach, the black soldiers from FAPLA, the armed wing of the MPLA, and the black Cuban soldiers were boogying around a camp fire. We got to talk, and one Cuban, who spoke very good English, said, “For us, it is back to Africa. For us, it is about the memory of Lumumba, Mondlane and the great figures of the liberation movement who were killed by apartheid and racism.” But he also said, “It is Angola today, it is South Africa tomorrow. One day Nelson Mandela will be free.”

My third, more recent story is from two months ago. I opened the new North Birmingham academy in Kingstanding. That community was once scarred by racism. I spoke to two young black pupils, one from a West Indian background and one from an African background, who were discussing the experiences that one of them and some members of their family had had. They called those who had abused them on one occasion “little people”. One of the guys said, “I am proud to be black.” We then got into a discussion, and I found out that his hero was Nelson Mandela. Worldwide polls were conducted on five continents at the beginning of the millennium asking who was the greatest statesman of the 20th century. It is little wonder that every one of them said it was Nelson Mandela.

I wish to say two things in conclusion. First, I wish to pay tribute to all the veterans from the bitter wilderness years, above all in South Africa: Neil and Glenys Kinnock; Bob Hughes; Richard Caborn; my right hon. Friend the Member for Neath (Mr Hain); and a man I knew very well, a good personal friend who tragically died young, Mike Terry, the secretary of the Anti-Apartheid Movement.

Secondly, what is so remarkable about Nelson Mandela is the sheer triumph of the human spirit. This is a man who endured the unendurable, who saw some of his comrades taken out and hung. This is a man who was oppressed but ultimately broke the will of his oppressors. This is a man who was jailed for three decades and then came out and forgave his jailers, in the most remarkable act of national reconciliation, avoiding what could otherwise have been the most immense conflagration in southern Africa. He was truly the global giant of his century. We mourn his loss. Our world is a better world for Nelson Mandela. But we not only mourn; we remember that infectious smile, infectious optimism and infectious enthusiasm, and we smile at the memory of Nelson Mandela.

20:28

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

I do not stand here as a religious man, but I think that the whole House would agree that Rose Hudson-Wilkin got it exactly right on Thursday evening when, along with my right hon. Friend the Member for Tottenham (Mr Lammy), she appeared on the BBC. I think the mood of the nation was very much on her mind. It got me thinking about some of my early involvement in the anti-apartheid struggle, which was trivial in the scale of things compared with the suffering that many people faced. At the very trivial end was disrupting trade by boycotting tinned fruit—we could not afford the fresh—but I am also talking about causing major blockages of supply lines, boycotting sporting links, protesting in Trafalgar square and elsewhere, and persuading one major, very successful pension fund, which continues to be successful, to disinvest from southern Africa. Those were the roles that I undertook as a trade unionist activist at that time. They were a part of my political life that were frowned on by many of those who today join me in saying what a great man we have lost.

Let me turn now to the period that formed my thinking. As a child, I heard Macmillan’s “wind of change” speech in 1960—I only just remember it. Less than a month later, we saw the Sharpeville massacre. Then came the 27-year jailing of Nelson Mandela. What he went through and how he came out with such dignity is beyond comprehension.

The 1970s were dominated by the death of Steve Biko. In the 1980s, I was involved with the Congress of South African Trade Unions. I remember having visitors from COSATU in my house. We were obviously being trailed by South African secret service officials, even though BOSS was supposed to have been abolished by that time. It is a shame that the British state was a party to that. Then change started to occur. When it was announced late on 10 February 1990 that Mandela was likely to be released, my great friend Ifor Edwards, who is a general practitioner—he is also known to my right hon. Friend the Member for Delyn (Mr Hanson)—and I decided to get in a car to be part of the great party in Trafalgar square where Nelson’s column was quite rightly renamed Mandela’s column.

Last year, it was a great privilege to be with a South African Minister talking about the next generation telescope in South Africa. I was able to say to her that it was a pleasure to see that room from the inside rather than from the outside.

I want to correct the record. My hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen North (Mr Doran) got his dates wrong when he referred to the plaque in Westminster Hall, which you played a great part in securing, Mr Speaker. Having started my contribution by praising a member of the support mechanism in the House, I will put in another challenge to you, Mr Speaker. On 8 September, as set out at column 562 of Hansard, I had an exchange with the then Leader of the House, now the Government Chief Whip, in which he effectively said that the wheels of this place turn mighty slowly. It had taken 10 years from the tabling of the early-day motion that I put down the day after Mandela came for that plaque to arrive in this House.

We need to reinforce the great work of that fantastic statesman. My hon. Friend the Member for Aberavon (Dr Francis) has come up with one idea, which is to place a great banner in the shadow Cabinet room. We need to go further and update the plaque, reflecting the dates of Mandela’s birth and death. Finally, we must remember that Mandela is the most revered statesman of the 20th century. He is a man who has touched us all, and who has set standards to which every politician should aspire, but only few will reach.

20:33

[Lilian Greenwood (Nottingham South) (Lab)]

There have been many powerful, personal and moving tributes this afternoon and this evening, and it has been a great privilege and a humbling experience to listen to them. I want to add a brief tribute to Nelson Mandela on behalf of my own constituents. Many people in Nottingham have already written in the book of condolence in our city’s Council House to set down what Nelson Mandela meant to them, to mourn his loss and to celebrate his life and legacy.

Nelson Mandela was an inspiration to so many of us. He was an outstanding politician who achieved what, for so many years, seemed utterly impossible—overturning the evil of apartheid and leading South Africa’s new rainbow nation with exceptional grace, humour and humility.

I happened to be visiting a number of local primary schools on Friday so I was able to join their assemblies paying tribute to Nelson Mandela. The children I stood in front of were all born long after his release from prison; for them, the 27 years he spent in captivity is an unimaginable length of time, but in each school they knew the story of Nelson Mandela’s life. They knew what he had achieved for the people of South Africa and why his fight for a free, equal and democratic society was important not just for his country but for all of us, too.

Those children, who reflected the wonderful diversity of the city of Nottingham, understood, as we do, that Nelson Mandela was an absolute giant of our time, demonstrating not only dignity, courage, tolerance and forgiveness but the need to hope when all hope seems lost, to stand up for what is right even when it requires the greatest of sacrifices and to fight injustice, even when success seems impossible. Nelson Mandela’s struggle, his victory and the way he exercised power are an inspiration to us all. The greatest tribute we can pay is to try to apply the lessons he taught us about how to do politics and how to make a real difference.

20:36

[Clive Efford (Eltham) (Lab)]

I do not feel that I have anything unique to add to the debate, but as a Member of Parliament who has been offered the opportunity to pay tribute to Nelson Mandela, I do not want to miss out on the chance to put my views on the record. I want also to reflect the outpouring of grief and celebration of this man’s life that I have witnessed in my constituency. Whether at religious ceremonies, in schools or community groups or at sports events, people have taken time to reflect and the community has come together to recognise the passing of this extraordinary man.

When we look back through history, we see that it is littered with people who are considered to be outstanding individuals. All too often, their start in life has given them a leg up or an opportunity that others do not get. When we read about Nelson Mandela’s childhood, however, and listen to interviews about when he was growing up, we hear that he grew up in a country that did not put any value on educating its black population. He relied on charities and religious organisations with missionaries who set up, built and furnished schools to provide him with a start in his education. He then left his community and went to Johannesburg, where he witnessed some of the worst poverty he had ever seen in his life. I like to think that somebody who comes from such a humble background is armed with something that other people do not have when it comes to challenging authority and making a real change on behalf of the people they represent. When he was confronted with a Government who refused to budge, he knew that each concession he might give in those negotiations was another injustice for the people he grew up with and knew so well.

The thing about him that touched my community and all of us so much was that having been through all that, having joined the freedom struggle in his country, and having suffered the indignity and injustice of 27 years of incarceration just for having the temerity to ask for freedom, when he was freed he put his country first above any personal consideration of retribution. He realised that only through peace and reconciliation could he prevent his country from being destroyed for generations on the back of the hatred and recrimination that would follow if he were to allow things to descend into any kind of internal conflict. The integrity and intellect he applied to his politics gave the leaders of the white minority population of that country the confidence that this was a man to lead their country through that process of reconciliation.

When we talk about the apartheid regime, we often overlook the fact that Nelson Mandela became an icon for people who were challenging racism. He met the family of Stephen Lawrence in 1993, and he said that

“the threat of fascism and racism is threatening the whole world”.

We should not forget those words.

The day after Nelson Mandela died, we put a message from him in the window of our Eltham constituency office:

“No one is born hating another person because of the colour of his skin, or his background, or his religion. People must learn to hate, and if they can learn to hate, they can be taught to love, for love comes more naturally to the human heart than its opposite.”

I can think of no greater tribute for us as Members of Parliament than to bear those words in mind when we make decisions, not just on international issues confronting us but in our communities and our society, and by having the courage of our experience that tells us what is the right thing to do on behalf of our community, taking forward Nelson Mandela’s legacy and the example that he gave to us all.

20:40

[Mr David Hanson (Delyn) (Lab)]

It is a great mystery to my children that it was not until I was 33 that I saw the face of Nelson Mandela in 1990. While I enjoyed a good life, going to primary school, secondary school and university, getting a job and developing my life, getting married and having children, Nelson Mandela spent 27 years in prison for his belief in a non-racist society in which everyone had an equal vote and could contribute, and in which people felt valued for who they were, not what they were seen to be by others.

I first felt the ripples of Nelson Mandela’s influence when I went to Hull university in 1975. I knew nothing of him before then, but to meet South Africans in exile, both white and black, bishops and students, who had come to the city with a message against South African oppression and about the work of Nelson Mandela in prison, calling on people on the other side of the world to join them in their struggle to help to relieve the pressure on lives in South Africa, was an immense privilege. Like many speakers today, I did not buy Cape apples or Stellenbosch wine, and I did not support the purchase of such goods from supermarkets. I, too, did not allow my university to profit from companies such as Barclays and Reckitt and Colman that invested in South Africa at that time.

Those were big challenges, but to people who ask whether it was worth it and whether anything changed, I believe that the ripples of Nelson Mandela came to us, and we put one pebble on the roof of the apartheid regime, and pebbles across the world were put on that roof until it fell in and Nelson Mandela was free. Those were difficult times. Steve Biko was murdered in a police cell. People routinely fell out of windows, or fell downstairs; they drowned in the bath; they were shot with a shotgun in the back of a vehicle for demanding the right to vote. We meet today to celebrate that life and to say to the people we represent, “Thank you for your small pebble on the roof of the apartheid regime—thank you for your contribution.” We stand here to celebrate the life of someone who stood for equality of opportunity¸ for fairness and justice, and who believed in the right to vote.

When I take school parties round the House of Commons I stop at two spots: first, the statue of Viscount Falkland, to which women chained themselves to get votes for women, to ensure that they voted in this community. I will now stop, for ever and a day, as long as I can serve in the House, at the plaque in Westminster Hall, and say to schoolchildren that I was privileged to stand in the Hall as a Member of Parliament and hear a man who had given 27 years of his life in the struggle for freedom speak to us as a free man. I will reinforce for those young people the fact that he did so, not just for freedom and for justice but for the right for all people to vote as equals.

That is a lesson for democracy for the future, and it is a lesson for us now. I am privileged that, although I never shook hands with Nelson Mandela—he walked just past me on that great day on 11 July 1996; I was three rows in—I saw him speak, I learned of his struggles, and I put one small pebble on that roof and helped in a small way, with many other people, to make South Africa the place that it is today, and I hope to encompass the values of Mandela for future generations.

20:44

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

I am grateful for the opportunity to speak on behalf of my constituents in this incredibly special tribute debate.

I could scarcely believe the breaking news on Thursday night. It was a moment when the world stopped. South Africa had lost the father of its nation. The world had lost a very special leader and friend. But the debate and discussions over the past few days have brought him into our lives again in the most special of ways—so many people across the world sharing their memories and thoughts at the passing of a man who, in his own incredible way, had touched the hearts of so many millions in every corner of the globe. One of my constituents, Dave Howell, wrote to me on Friday and said he hoped there would be an annual international memorial day for Nelson Mandela, something I hope can become a reality and help to keep his memory alive for future generations.

Nelson Mandela was a leader who touched everyone. Everyone has a memory of meeting him or seeing him, of the way he inspired them or just the way he made them feel. I, too, was a child of the apartheid era. It helped shape my political consciousness. It was a time of political awakening for a generation of activists who were drawn together under the umbrella of the Anti-Apartheid Movement. This was one of my first experiences of campaigning, even before I joined the Labour party. It was unbelievable to me as a school pupil in a diverse place like Hounslow that there was a country in the modern world that practised and sanctioned segregation and such fundamental race inequality. I remember his release, the footage of him walking to freedom—quite an unbelievable moment to witness, so captivating through the television screen that you felt you were there. Such dignity, such humility, such magnanimity.

I would like to share with the House the words of Elizabeth Hughes from Feltham. Writing to others in an e-mail this weekend, she said:

“You will also I am sure be mourning the sad loss and remembering the achievements of Nelson Mandela. Nelson Mandela has been a symbol of hope and reconciliation, not just in South Africa but also throughout the world. I was very fortunate to meet him in 1996 when he visited London that summer. It was an overwhelming and inspirational experience to speak to him and then to hear him talk to the gathered crowd in Regents Park about his personal debt to the people of London and the wider British community who supported him on that Long Road to Freedom.”

He was not only the father of his nation, but a father figure to all who struggle for justice across the world. For my generation, the struggle against apartheid is a defining one. The boycott of Barclays, Cape and other South African companies and products was citizen action in pursuit of a just cause, proof that individuals anywhere can make a difference.

It is significant that the Anti-Apartheid Movement was founded in 1959 in London as the Boycott Movement. In February 1960, a month before the Sharpeville massacre, the leader of the Labour party, Hugh Gaitskell, was one of the key speakers who addressed a rally in Trafalgar square to launch the Boycott Movement. The Labour leader said that the boycott was a passionate protest against a repulsive doctrine that a man’s legal status, political rights, economic opportunities and social position shall be determined solely by the colour of his skin. There were those who opposed the boycotts, but history has proved them wrong.

When Nelson Mandela visited London in 1996 after his release, reports showed that the scenes in Brixton and everywhere he visited were akin to Beatlemania. His address to the Labour party conference in 2000 was a time I will never forget. It was such a privilege to be there—a time when he thanked those in the Anti-Apartheid Movement and the men and women in the Labour party who had given his struggle political expression and fought so unceasingly for an end to apartheid.

It is entirely fitting that a statue of Nelson Mandela should stand in Parliament square, alongside Winston Churchill, Abraham Lincoln and Lloyd George. The floral tributes I saw there today, and the queues and books of condolence set up across the country, are proof of the deep affection of the British people towards Mandela. Long after we are all gone, the statue of Nelson Mandela in Parliament square, the statue at the Royal Festival hall, and the many buildings and spaces named after him will be a reminder of a great man’s life and struggle and his impact on Britain. There is also the remembrance of others who fought apartheid, such as Steve Biko, after whom Steve Biko way in Hounslow is named.

The lessons of Mandela’s extraordinary political career are simple enough: that no system of repression and dictatorship can stand resolute in the face of mass resistance and opposition; that politics is the best answer to injustice; and that when the battle has been won, the right course for sustainable peace and progress is to seek truth and reconciliation. To move from a system of apartheid to one of non-racial government in the space of a few months, and without reprisals or revenge, is a testament not only to one South African, but to all South Africans. It is a peace that has lasted.

Today we stand in solidarity with the people of South Africa. We join them in mourning the passing of a great man and joyfully celebrating a great life. South Africa is a better place because of Nelson Mandela. The world is a better place because of Nelson Mandela. This House, and the whole world, extends its love and thoughts to the family of Nelson Mandela at this time.

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

[Mr Speaker]

Order. If colleagues can confine themselves to three-minute speeches, it should be possible to get everybody in, which is my only ambition for the rest of this evening.

20:50

[Alison McGovern (Wirral South) (Lab)]

It is a great honour to speak in this debate and to follow some truly brilliant speeches, not least the one we have just heard from my hon. Friend the Member for Feltham and Heston (Seema Malhotra). I want to make a brief contribution on behalf of my constituents as a tribute to Madiba and, in doing so, to pay tribute to a political idea: the idea of solidarity, a belief in togetherness and a belief that all we need to end injustice are open eyes and political will.

It has been said that Nelson Mandela was a politician, and he was. In fact, he was perhaps the best politician there has ever been. He wrote in 1969:

“A new world will be won not by those who stand at a distance with their arms folded, but by those who are in the arena, whose garments are torn by storms and whose bodies are maimed in the course of the contest. Honour belongs to those who never forsake the truth even when things seem dark and grim, who try over and over again”.

I read those words, which were written in prison, and know that however rough the path we travel, we must keep going.

I want to speak briefly about the contribution made to Mandela’s struggle, and that of South Africa, by a constituent of mine, but first let me pay tribute to the South Africans, to their will to see change in their country and to the thousands of anti-apartheid campaigners across the world and in the UK, including many in this House from whom we have heard today. That activism shaped my childhood. I want to say to each of those who took part in that struggle that for my generation they were an example. They set a standard of solidarity that we try to meet. At the time when apartheid reigned, certain alliances and geopolitical interests prevented some who could have acted from doing so. We must constantly challenge ourselves not to repeat that mistake.

My reason for speaking is not least to talk about the contribution of a constituent of mine from Heswall. He happens to have been my history teacher at Wirral grammar school many years ago. He was my teacher from my first year at school, and he also taught my sister. Bill McCaig’s hallmark as a teacher was his friendliness and enthusiasm. We all knew that about him, but what we never knew at the time, which we found out only recently, was his role in supporting the ANC in its fight against the vicious apartheid regime.

Today we are rightly telling Nelson Mandela’s story, and that of the whole movement. Bill was politically involved and, like many from Liverpool, he was also a seaman. It was through those political and professional links that he became part of a secret network of people linked to the ANC who, during some of the darkest years, when ANC leaders were all locked away, chose to keep the struggle alive. The ANC needed people who would not be suspected to go to South Africa to distribute leaflets and give hope that the ANC would not be crushed.

Bill is a scouser, but when asked to carry out dangerous work for South Africa, for people he barely knew and in a continent far from home, he answered the call. He used his position as a seaman to get to South Africa to distribute materials, pass information from the ANC in London, and take part in other operations. Along with many, many others, he put his freedom in jeopardy for the greater good. When I asked him why he did this, he said, “Well, I wouldn’t have done it if I didn’t think that in the end we would win.” The idea that history was on their side sustained him and his comrades. To me, this is what Madiba taught us. When we stand in solidarity across national borders, we make progress in human dignity. When we refuse to accept that our moral empathy ends at our country’s border post, we all gain in human happiness.

When talking to my old history teacher in recent days, Bill also said to me that attempts to deify Mandela should be resisted. Mandela was an acutely aware politician, and he knew that a successful country must be united. We are all the same, and given the right principles we all have the capacity to show love and care for one another. White people’s talents and skills were also needed in South Africa.

In 2005 Mandela came to London to teach us once again. I stood in the crowds, one face among thousands, staring up at our very great hero. When the music played at the end of his speech, I remember him dancing. He came on that occasion with an important message for us all—that the tyranny and oppression of poverty must end. The lesson I take from this is that people are the same the world over. I recently read a note Mandela wrote in 1993 in which he describes his priority before he became President. He said about his people:

“Specifically we must get them houses and put to an end informal settlements; end unemployment, school crisis, lack of medical facilities.”

Jobs, health, education: what we all want for each other. Let that be Mandela’s legacy.

20:56

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

I feel supremely unqualified to speak in this debate having followed people of such great knowledge and campaigning experience in the Anti-Apartheid Movement. I think especially of my right hon. Friend the Member for Neath (Mr Hain), that great South African Welsh—if I may call him that—internationalist.

The main reason I am speaking is that I promised primary school pupils—my constituents—at Ysgol Bro Dyfrdwy in Cynwyd that I would do so. On Friday I was privileged to take part in their school assembly and to hear their tributes to Nelson Mandela. The thought came to me that many tributes will be televised and many people—the great and the good—will be speaking at them, but there are tributes and memorials all over our nation and all over our world that will not be recorded in the history books but will be equally heartfelt, sincere and well made.

It is fitting to remember those in the Anti-Apartheid Movement across the villages and small towns of England, Wales and the rest of the United Kingdom. We have heard the great stories of struggle in London and our large cities, but we also need to remember that through the great grassroots organisations across our country—the trade unions and the churches—petitions were signed outside small branches of banks and people walked from door to door urging a boycott. Like my hon. Friend the Member for Aberavon (Dr Francis), I pay great tribute to those people and to the Welsh Anti-Apartheid Movement and its work in the campaigning struggle across Wales.

I would like to offer a short reflection on the Truth and Reconciliation Commission. There has been a great deal of talk about forgiveness and reconciliation as though they are natural phenomena, but I do not believe they are. One thing that the great struggle of Nelson Mandela proved was that forgiveness and reconciliation are not just moral or spiritual truths, and certainly not just abstract concepts; they were viewed as an absolute necessity for the change that needed to happen.

I pay great tribute to you, Mr Speaker, for the honesty you have shown in saying that you got it wrong on the apartheid issue. I have to confess that once upon a time I stood waving a placard outside the university of Bristol union against someone who was viewed as a very right-wing member of the Federation of Conservative Students. I could not possibly name that person; suffice it to say that I think he looks rather better sat in a green chair and wearing a tie with the flag of South Africa on it.

[Mr Speaker]

Yes, I fear it was on 23 October 1986; I remember it only too well. I am grateful to the hon. Lady, I am sure, for reminding me.

20:59

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

I am glad to have a chance to say a few words in tribute to Nelson Mandela. Edinburgh was one of the many UK cities that paid homage to Nelson Mandela by offering him the freedom of the city, which he gave us the honour of accepting. That award from Edinburgh came fairly late in the day—much later, I am afraid, than that from our friends in Glasgow—because Edinburgh city council required a two-thirds majority to grant someone freedom of the city and at the time the award was first suggested in the 1980s, as an act of solidarity, the council chamber did not, to put it tactfully, share the same political consensus on Nelson Mandela’s virtues as that shared by this Chamber today.

I am glad to say that when the freedom of the city was proposed some years later, shortly before the 1997 Commonwealth Heads of Government meeting in Edinburgh, the council agreed unanimously that it should be offered to Nelson Mandela, and President Mandela, as he then was, found the time to accept the award in person when he attended that Commonwealth meeting.

Although that freedom of the city came late, I can say with pride that we did not have to wait as long for the support given by many of the people of Edinburgh to the Anti-Apartheid Movement. Like many communities up and down the country, many people in Edinburgh gave their support in many ways to the campaign against apartheid.

I want to mention three groups in particular. First, the Scottish trade unions, particularly the National Union of Mineworkers, headquartered in Edinburgh, played a leading role—similar to that played by the union in Wales, as mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Aberavon (Dr Francis)—in the Anti-Apartheid Movement in Scotland. As in Wales, the Scottish churches played a leading role in the movement. I should also mention the Scottish academics and students, not least those of Edinburgh university, who were at the forefront of the disinvestment campaign, in which my right hon. Friend the Member for Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath (Mr Brown) also played an important part.

Edinburgh also became home to many exiles from South Africa during the apartheid years, no doubt because of those historic links and solidarity. In many cases, they were political activists who would, of course, have faced heavy penalties if they had conducted that activity in South Africa. They took part in, and inspired others to join, anti-apartheid campaigns in Edinburgh and elsewhere. Some of those South African exiles still live in Edinburgh. Although they will no doubt be in mourning, they will also be immensely proud of what Nelson Mandela did in his life for the country and for the world. As one of Edinburgh’s representatives in this Chamber, it is a great privilege and honour to have been able to offer my tribute to him today.

21:02

[Debbie Abrahams (Oldham East and Saddleworth) (Lab)]

Thank you for calling me to speak, Mr Speaker. I reiterate what other Members have said: this has been an exceptional debate and I am really grateful to be able to take part in it.

My husband John was born in Cape Town, South Africa in 1952, during the apartheid era. He is a man of mixed-race and under the apartheid racial classification system he was defined as a Cape coloured. The daily indignities that he, his family and countless millions of other South Africans had to face had a profound effect on him: where he lived, the school he went to—not only were schools segregated; he was not allowed to start until he was seven years old—and the buses and trains on which he was allowed to travel all had a tremendous impact on him. He talked very movingly recently at an Oldham school that he visited with me. He recounted the time when a young black man was involved in a road traffic accident. An ambulance came, but it was a white-only ambulance. They refused to treat him, went away and the young man died.

Relationships were, of course, monitored. People were not allowed to marry outside their racial group. We were not able to go back to South Africa until after the elections when Mandela came to power.

The great love of my husband’s life was cricket. Obviously, he had not met me at that time, although I think he would probably still say that cricket is the great love of his life! Sport was used to undermine people. John and his family, including his mum and dad, played in the street with sticks. There were no cricket clubs; they were segregated. In spite of that, John’s dad, Cec, along with Basil D’Oliveira, was selected to play for South Africa, but for a non-white South Africa. These dehumanising experiences had a profound effect on John and millions of others.

John felt much guilt at escaping from the horrors of apartheid when he came to live in this country in 1962, leaving others, including family members, to continue the struggle. His cousin was imprisoned during the regime, and that bore heavily on her life and that of the family.

For John and countless others Nelson Mandela stood as a beacon of hope. His drive for democracy and equality for all races was unrelenting, but what made him one of the most exceptional human beings of all time was that, in spite of all that he had been deprived of, the physical and emotional trauma that he was put through, he embraced that without bitterness or recrimination. It would have been so easy and understandable to have responded to that in a different way. I have no doubt that the relatively smooth transition from white minority rule to democratic South Africa was down to him.

Many people have said that Mandela made them want to do better and be better, and that is absolutely right. As much as he saw the goodness in others, we recognised the goodness in him. He was an archetypal leader, living the values he espoused with dignity, humility and honour, trying to make South Africa, and in turn the world, a better place.

The world is a better place as a result of Nelson Mandela. We have much to be grateful to him for and to learn from him. But it is far from perfect. Britain is still a very unequal country. Hon. Members on both sides of the House have been sincere in recognising his strengths and values, but words ring hollow if they are not followed up by action. I urge all hon. Members to consider that. It is unacceptable in this country in this day and age that one in four young black men is unemployed, and one in 14 young white men is unemployed. We must do something about such inequalities. They persist even across groups with the same educational attainment levels. We must redouble our efforts to build a fairer, more just society. It would be an insult to Mandela’s memory not to do so. Madiba, with love and gratitude, rest well.

21:07

[Barry Gardiner (Brent North) (Lab)]

How fitting that this day of all days in Parliament should have begun with prayers led by the Rev. Rose Hudson-Wilkin, the first black woman to become Speaker’s Chaplain. I am grateful to you, Mr Speaker, for allowing me to speak in this debate, but I am grateful even more to colleagues on both sides of the House for the privilege of listening to their reflections on Nelson Mandela and the inspiration that they have drawn from his life.

At the time of the South African Barbarians rugby tour of 1979, my wife Caroline and I were young newlyweds, and I remember that we made the journey only a few weeks into our marriage to protest against the tour. We were not politically sophisticated—my colleagues will no doubt attest to the fact that not much has changed—but we recognised the simple injustice of apartheid and we had to express our revulsion to it.

I was privileged in 2006 to be shown into Mandela’s cell on Robben Island by Ahmed Kathrada, the youngest of the defendants in the Rivonia trial. He allowed me a few quiet moments to reflect on the 27 years of my life that had passed since going on that first demonstration—the same period that Mandela had spent in that cell. It was profoundly humbling.

I am here today not to express my personal reminiscences, but to express the respect of my constituents who feel that their lives are enlarged by the knowledge that they have lived at the same time as Mandela. My borough of Brent is perhaps the most diverse place in Europe, and perhaps it is for that reason that it was the first to honour Mandela by naming a street after him. Brent understands his essential message that people of different race and different belief can and must live alongside one another.

It is said that power corrupts, but the truth is that power reveals. It allows the powerful to show their true nature. The reason that power seems to corrupt is that too often it reveals the corrupt nature of those who gain power. The glory of Nelson Mandela is that power revealed in him not rancour and bitterness but the extraordinary noble nature, the great soul of one who had suffered and not forgotten the purpose to which he had dedicated his life—the dignity of all human beings and their right to justice.

21:10

[Chris Ruane (Vale of Clwyd) (Lab)]

I want to thank you, Mr Speaker, for clearing the parliamentary decks today to allow us to pay tribute to Nelson Mandela. I offer condolences to his family and to the people of South Africa from the people of the Vale of Clwyd, whom I represent. I did not meet Nelson Mandela. I have no photograph of Nelson Mandela. I have not even been in the same room as Nelson Mandela. The one connection I have with him is that we shared the same birthday—18 July—although I was born a lot later than he was. That birthday is also shared by Fiona Owen, the daughter of my hon. Friend the Member for Ynys Môn (Albert Owen).

Tributes have been paid across all the nations and regions of the United Kingdom. I want to emphasise the role that Wales, and particularly my area of Wales, played in the struggle against apartheid. The Welsh trade unions and the mining and steel communities played a great role, linking up with COSATU—the Congress of South African Trade Unions. Glenys and Neil Kinnock also played a big part, as did that adopted son of Wales, my right hon. Friend the Member for Neath (Mr Hain), along with Hanif Bhamjee, the organiser of the Anti-Apartheid Movement in Wales, and the Welsh Churches.

My hon. Friend the Member for Clwyd South (Susan Elan Jones) has pointed out that it was not only in the great cities of Cardiff, Glasgow and London that the struggle took place. It took place in the small towns of my constituency, including the market town of Denbigh. The Anti-Apartheid Movement there was set up by Pat Bowker, Barbara Manley, Norman and Lynda Roberts, Dai Cuba and Dai Jones. In 1986, the Anti-Apartheid Movement in Rhyl was set up by a dynamic, principled and dedicated young woman called Gill Roberts. She did such a good job that I married her seven years later.

There were others, including Jeff Blythin, a local folk singer who helped to raise funds for the Anti-Apartheid Movement, his wife, Janet Blythin, who was our banner maker, Jane Thomas and many others. We were involved in activities such as trolley bashes and boycotts, we invited ANC speakers down and we organised petitions and leaflets and press releases, as well as raising much-needed funds for the ANC.

Nelson Mandela has taught us many lessons, and the principal one is that of reconciliation. I believe that, if enough attention were paid to the matter, what he did for blacks and whites in South Africa could also be done for Shi’as and Sunnis, for Christians and Muslims, for Jews and Palestinians and, in our own country, for Protestants and Catholics.

Nelson Mandela has also taught us excellent lessons in leadership. Many of us in this House have inflated egos—[Hon. Members: “Never”!] I do not count myself among them, of course. We can all learn from his self-deprecation, his accessibility, his humour and his capacity for forgiveness. He combated bigotry not only in fighting apartheid but in standing up for gay rights and for people with AIDS.

Nelson Mandela was also a role model as a father. Tributes have been paid to his roles as a freedom fighter, a statesman and a politician, but he also played a great role as a father, a grandfather and a great-grandfather. He was also a father to his nation and to many of us around the world. He said:

“Our deepest fear is not that we are inadequate. Our deepest fear is that we are powerful beyond measure. It is our light, not our darkness that most frightens us. We ask ourselves, Who am I to be brilliant, gorgeous, talented, fabulous? Actually, who are you not to be? You are a child of God. Your playing small does not serve the world. There is nothing enlightened about shrinking so that other people won’t feel insecure around you. We are all meant to shine, as children do. We were born to make manifest the glory of God that is within us. It’s not just in some of us; it’s in everyone. And as we let our own light shine, we unconsciously give other people permission to do the same. As we are liberated from our own fear, our presence automatically liberates others.”

I was a teacher for 15 years before becoming an MP, and I think that if his political philosophy of peace, reconciliation, forgiveness and equality can be matched with his educational and parenting philosophy of the uniqueness, individuality and brilliance of each and every one of us, there is a much greater chance of our providing the future Nelson Mandelas that this world so desperately needs.

21:14

[Toby Perkins (Chesterfield) (Lab)]

I am tremendously privileged to pay my own tribute. What I have to say feels inadequate in the light of the gargantuan contributions of some of my right hon. Friends, but it is important to me, on behalf of the people of Chesterfield, to have a few moments to reflect on our admiration for Nelson Mandela, as shown by the books of condolence that have been signed in Chesterfield town hall while we have been speaking. I congratulate my right hon. Friends the Members for Doncaster North (Edward Miliband), for Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath (Mr Brown) and for Neath (Mr Hain) on their speeches, which I found deeply moving and incredibly powerful.

Mandela’s massive contribution to the world was not just, as the Prime Minister acknowledged, as

“a pivotal figure in the history of South Africa”,

but as someone who gave a wider example to humankind of forgiveness, bravery, tolerance and self-sacrifice in pursuit of higher ideals. Other hon. Members have spoken about the role played by this country in the best and the worst of South Africa’s history.

I know how many from Chesterfield were involved in their own way in the British arm of the struggle against apartheid. I remember my mother moving her bank account from Barclays, as many opponents of apartheid did, and the numerous tiny gestures made by so many people, which all maintained the pressure of the world against the idea that South Africa’s way of operating was normal or acceptable. We remember the huge message sent around the world by the 70th birthday concert at Wembley, and we know how important the sporting boycotts, from the D’Oliveira affair to the bans for cricketers who played in South Africa, were for a proud sporting nation such as South Africa. It was therefore so uplifting that Mandela should have recognised the huge role of the Springboks in the psyche of white South Africa. By extending the arm of friendship to, and supporting, the 1995 Springbok team that famously won the rugby world cup, he showed the tremendous gift of forgiveness, which will be his enduring legacy. Long after all those who remember apartheid have gone, his example will shine through the pages of history.

As I reflect on Britain’s role in the history of South Africa, I recall from my childhood my parents’ friends Mike and Jeanette Murphy, who fled from house arrest in apartheid South Africa, where Mike worked as a trade union secretary for the black Transport and General Workers Union, as well as their tales of life under the regime. I well remember Jeanette’s pride in and sorrow for the beautiful country that they had been forced to leave, and that was very powerful for me in my formative years. I also remember the sense of frustration that while so many British people opposed apartheid, our Government provided the regime with a cover of authenticity and defence.

More than anything else, my reflections are on Mandela the icon—the generous hero, whose memory we are so proud to recall today, and whose example will inspire us for many decades to come.

21:17

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

After so many brilliant speeches, I have the humble task of presenting the thanks of the constituents of Ogmore for, frankly, a towering figure of the 20th century, who faced the most extreme adversity and was prepared to live and, as we have heard, to die in fighting the evil oppression of apartheid, while also being outspoken in the defence of many other oppressed people throughout the world. Nelson Mandela was very human—flawed in the way that we are both blessed and cursed to be, and open to doubts, despair and errors, as we all are—but he never wavered from his central mission to remove the stain of apartheid from South Africa. In doing so, he went further and reminded all of us flawed individuals that we can strive to be our better selves, the people we want to be and the embodiment of the society we want to create.

We have to learn and re-learn those lessons anew each time we face oppression and cruelty or attacks on freedom and equality. The continued oppression of so many people in so many countries and regions around the world is a continuing reminder that such battles for freedom, equality and tolerance will continue, and that we should never turn away and never be silent.

Yet Nelson Mandela showed time and again that victory and success are found not just in how people battle their oppressors, but in how they seek the peace and rebuilding of a nation. After 27 years of captivity and isolation, after his release and his subsequent electoral success, and at every moment at which he might understandably have sought vengeance, he sought only truth and reconciliation. In place of hubris, there was humility. In the early days after apartheid, when he and the ANC could have turned against their former oppressors, he urged them to turn towards them and to work together for a better collective future. The magnitude of that magnanimity is incredible, even today. It is compelling evidence of the tactical and visionary leadership of Nelson Mandela.

I had the privilege, like many Labour MPs, of seeing Nelson Mandela speak at the Labour conference. He carried the expectations of a nation on his back. No matter how strong the frame, that is a weight that could break lesser men. What is not often remarked upon is his humour—a bright and infectious easy-going humour. Despite having had the most grotesque and extreme of life’s Kafkaesque travails visited upon him and his fellow men, women and children in South Africa—or perhaps because of that—he came through it all with an optimism that people are capable of the greatness, compassion, kindness and collective good will that will ultimately defeat the terror of the darkest night.

Flawed as we are, we are capable of far better than we imagine. We can be better than we think we are. That is perhaps the greatest and the most enduring global legacy of Nelson Mandela.

21:21

[Mr David Anderson (Blaydon) (Lab)]

My right hon. Friend the Member for Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath (Mr Brown) said that Mandela hated to be classed as a saint. What he wanted to be was a sinner who was helping others. I will talk about some of the people he tried to help in his country while he was in prison and about some of the people around the world who helped him.

On 16 September 1986, 177 miners were killed at the Kinross gold mine in the Eastern Transvaal when a welder’s spark ignited plastic foam lining the wall of a tunnel. That foam was banned in other mines around the world, but such was the contempt that the owners of the gold mines in South Africa had for their workers that those 177 miners were just the latest figure. The number would reach 96,000 people between 1900 and 1993. A British miner who worked at the mine said:

“They didn't stand a chance—they were trapped by the smoke.”

They were killed “where they stood”. The leader of the union at that time, Cyril Ramaphosa, said:

“We are horrified that this type of accident can take place in this day and age in the mining industry. In our view we are obviously back to the dark ages of mining—and there doesn’t seem to be much improvement in safety standards”.

What compounded the disaster was that the owners of the mine delayed the announcement that it had happened. They then refused to name the 177 individuals and instead announced them by ethnic group. They were Zulu or Bantu. Such was the contempt that people were not even named when they died. That contempt was further compounded when the union asked to hold a memorial service. It was banned from doing so in South Africa. I am proud that, even though we should not have had to do it, the National Union of Mineworkers, of which I was a member at the time, smuggled Cyril Ramaphosa out of South Africa and held a memorial service in Sheffield cathedral. The great role that that city played was mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield Central (Paul Blomfield). That should not have been necessary, but it is a tribute to ordinary working people around the world that they did such things.

I will talk briefly about some of the people in this country who worked for South Africa. The leader of my party said earlier that there are millions of names that we do not know. I want to mention four names: John McFadden, a Glaswegian, Rita Donaghy, now Baroness Donaghy, and Ralph Gayton, who are three former presidents of my union, Unison, and its predecessor, the National and Local Government Officers Association, and Jan Stockwell, who was an international officer of the same union. They spent weeks in 1984 going to Johannesburg, Durban and Cape Town. They took travellers cheques to that country, cashed them and put the money in the hands of ordinary men and women so that they could build and organise trade unions.

That trade union movement was there all the time to support the struggle against apartheid and it was there when Mandela came out of jail. That provided a network that he could build on. That is where he got his strength from when he came out of jail. It was on that group of people that he built the democratic society that we know today. The TUC in this country gave Nelson Mandela a gold medal in absentia and launched a major campaign, working with the boycott campaign. Rodney Bickerstaffe, who was the general secretary of Unison and the National Union of Public Employees, visited Mandela in jail and brought back a smuggled tape, which was played at the TUC conference. When millions of people do the right thing, it is the epitome of what trade unions and ordinary working people can do when they come together. Nelson Mandela was hugely proud of and grateful to trade unionists across the world, and he identified himself clearly as one of them.

In closing, I wish to refer to a quotation that has been mentioned at least twice today, most recently by my hon. Friend the Member for Eltham (Clive Efford). Nelson Mandela said that people can be taught to love in the same way that they can learn to hate. Showing international trade union solidarity, that quote is on the US Labour Against the War website. Ordinary people are coming together to support a great man who really made a change in the lives of other ordinary people.

21:25

[Nia Griffith (Llanelli) (Lab)]

Today in the Chamber, and over the past few days, we have heard many moving tributes to Nelson Mandela from across the world. We have heard about his amazing humanity in spite of his 27-year imprisonment, his humility in spite of his extraordinary leadership qualities and worldwide stature, and his forgiveness for and reconciliation with those who prosecuted and imprisoned him. Those are the qualities that we remember and revere.

Those of us of my generation who were at university in the ’70s first heard of Nelson Mandela through the Anti-Apartheid Movement. That is in contrast with the fact that in 2005, my niece became a member of a class and a house named after Mandela at her school. In my day, in the ’70s, the movement was still quite frowned upon. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Holborn and St Pancras (Frank Dobson) said, we often wondered whether we would ever make any difference through the various demonstrations and rallies in which we were involved, through calling for trade sanctions and disinvestment in South African, through trying to persuade fellow students to boycott Barclays bank or through looking at where oranges came from before buying them, not to mention through the higher-profile sporting campaigns.

Of course, most of us who have not visited South Africa could scarcely comprehend the second and third-hand accounts that we heard of the day-to-day reality of apartheid—the indignity, the harassment, the oppression, the denial of opportunity, the entrenched inequality, the violence and the struggle.

The most extraordinary thing about Nelson Mandela was his ability and capacity to drive forgiveness and reconciliation. If some Members have found it difficult today to listen to those who they feel condoned the apartheid regime, actively or tacitly, they should think about how much more difficult it was for him not just to show personal forgiveness for all the suffering that he had endured but to inspire others to come together and work together to overcome deeply entrenched attitudes of hatred, violence and the temptation to seek revenge.

The way in which Nelson Mandela went on to lead his country, and then to change attitudes towards HIV and AIDS and work on the world stage, was amazing. He was able to come from oppression to lead constructive reconciliation. The most important way in which we can pay tribute to him is to continue to challenge injustice wherever we see it, both in our own country and across the world, particularly, as many Members have mentioned, in the middle east. We should seek to reach out and speak to those on both sides of conflict, even if that seems an impossible task. The message of Nelson Mandela’s very, very long walk to freedom and his remarkable optimism in the face of tremendous adversity is that change is possible.

21:29

[Geraint Davies (Swansea West) (Lab/Co-op)]

The people of Swansea Bay city region and Neath have been supporting this cause for more than 50 years. In 100 years’ time, the story of Nelson Mandela will be known and repeated by schoolchildren around the world when many other people are forgotten. It is a story of religious proportions. It is the story of a man who resisted the injustice of people not having rights or votes on the basis of their skin colour, who was imprisoned simply for his principles rather than for a crime, and who emerged from incarceration 27 years later not embittered but enlightened, offering the hand of friendship and partnership to his captors and oppressors—an act of forgiveness that avoided a future bathed in blood. We have already heard this quotation today, but I think that in 100 years people will still be reading and saying:

“No one is born hating another person because of the colour of his skin, his background, or his religion. People must learn to hate, and if they can learn to hate, they can be taught to love, for love comes more naturally to the human heart than its opposite.”

Mandela was born on 18 July 1918, which happened to be six days before the birth of my father, whose own father died when he was 12, as did Mandela’s. Other global events were taking place at the time. John F. Kennedy was born in the preceding year, and in 1960, when he stood for the presidency, he did so largely on a platform of racial integration. That was the year in which I was born, and it was the tragic year in which 67 people were massacred in Sharpeville. They were innocent black protesters, and many were shot in the back. That was the point at which Mandela moved away from protest that involved no direct action and towards violent protest and sabotage, and the point at which the ANC was criminalised. Mandela took that action to focus the world’s attention on South Africa and the need for democracy and human rights, and some 200 acts took place during that period.

Meanwhile, in the State of the Union address, JFK was calling for the right of black people in America to vote, and the mood of the world was beginning to change. In 1962, when Nelson Mandela was arrested, the great majority of people thought that he would be executed. Nine out of 10 white people thought that he was just a terrorist, and very few knew that he was an attorney. It took the judge some three weeks to reach his conclusion, partly—as was pointed out by my right hon. Friend the Member for Neath—because of the demands for clemency, and partly because of the calculation that his execution would trigger an awful bloodbath.

As we heard from my hon. Friend the Member for Walsall North (Mr Winnick), it took 25 years—until Mandela’s 70th birthday—for us to witness a crescendo in the calls for his release. At the age of 18, I was singing along to “Free Nelson Mandela” at that famous concert and supporting the cause. It was not until 1990 that Mandela was released, and famously said in response to the impending civil war between the ANC and other black groups:

“Take your guns, your knives…and throw them into the sea.”

It must be remembered that his principles were applied to black and white alike, some of whom would have wanted to see a violent end to what was a very long-lasting conflict.

As we all know, in 1994 Mandela was elected President. I find it very interesting that a person’s opinions can change and mature over 27 years, and that such a change can actually change the future of the world.

This was a man who kept going day after day, year after year, in incarceration, driven by ideals, not thinking of himself and with no fear for himself. This was a man who said:

“Do not judge me by my successes, judge me by how many times I fell down and got back up again.”

He was a true global hero of his time. This is my favourite quotation:

“Like slavery and apartheid, poverty is…man-made and can be…eradicated by the actions of human beings.”

He also said:

“For to be free is not merely to cast off one’s chains, but to live in a way that respects and enhances the freedom of others.”

The spirit of Mandela lives on. Let us live our lives true to that spirit.

21:34

[Ms Angela Eagle (Wallasey) (Lab)]

So far, 68 right hon. and hon. Members have spoken in this day of tributes to Nelson Mandela, and there will be two more, taking us up to 70. I thank you, Mr Speaker, for allowing this to happen: it was an entirely fitting tribute after the death of the pre-eminent statesman of our age. I also look forward to the event that you have allowed to be organised in Westminster Hall, where members of the public who have contributed so much to the battles that we have heard about today will have their chance to remember the struggles against the apartheid regime and to remember the life of Nelson Mandela.

We have heard many heartfelt speeches and observations in today’s tributes to the life and achievements of Nelson Mandela. He was clearly the pre-eminent politician and freedom fighter of his generation and of the many generations that followed in his long life of service and sacrifice. He was a worthy hero of our age whose life spanned great and profound changes in Africa as it moved from colonial domination to self-determination. In an era when notoriety and celebrity rest on trivial foundations, Mandela’s worldwide fame and popularity were of a wholly different and much more profound order.

We have heard today from those who met him and were able to work with him through the tough and desperate times as well as in the times of triumph, constitutional shaping and reconciliation after he was released from prison. We had three heartfelt and extremely good initial contributions to our tributes today from the Prime Minister, his deputy and my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition, who pointed out the transforming power of politics that Mandela exemplified by his life and conduct. We have heard of the leading role of students, trade unions and churches in the movement to end the stain of apartheid in South Africa, many of which have been highlighted in the tributes today.

We heard from the right hon. and learned Member for Kensington (Sir Malcolm Rifkind), who told us of his experience as Foreign Secretary at the time that change was beginning to happen. We heard a particularly great speech from the right hon. Member for North East Bedfordshire (Alistair Burt), who was gracious enough to ensure that the words of Peter Pike, the ex-Labour MP for Burnley and stalwart of the Anti-Apartheid Movement, were heard in this House on this day.

We had the self-effacing contribution from the right hon. Member for Ross, Skye and Lochaber (Mr Kennedy), who let us know that he had been mistaken for Nigel Kennedy and subsequently airbrushed out of photographs of meetings with the great man. We heard from the hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton (Miss McIntosh) who talked about the release of Mandela from jail being one of those pivotal moments in history. We heard from the right hon. and learned Member for North East Fife (Sir Menzies Campbell) about the importance of the sports boycott, and from the hon. Member for Moray (Angus Robertson) about the importance of Glasgow’s anti-apartheid campaigning. The hon. Member for North West Norfolk (Mr Bellingham) admitted that the Conservatives were not exactly on the right side of the struggle against apartheid.

We heard from the hon. Member for Northampton North (Michael Ellis), who noted the extraordinary absence of resentment and bitterness in Mandela’s response. We heard also from the right hon. Member for Bermondsey and Old Southwark (Simon Hughes) who talked about his experiences visiting the destroyed Crossroads settlement, and also from the hon. Member for Worthing West (Sir Peter Bottomley). The hon. Member for Mid Norfolk (George Freeman) said that Mandela was a politician who answered the test of political leadership and was a shining example of what we can all aspire to.

We heard, too, from the right hon. Member for Saffron Walden (Sir Alan Haselhurst), the hon. Member for Bournemouth East (Mr Ellwood), the right hon. Member for Croydon South (Richard Ottaway) and the hon. Members for Cheltenham (Martin Horwood) and for Banbury (Sir Tony Baldry), and the hon. Member for Worcester (Mr Walker) who talked about the important role played by Basil D’Oliveira, who was a constituent of his, and what happened to him. We heard from the right hon. Member for Eddisbury (Mr O'Brien) about his personal contributions to the anti-apartheid struggle, and we heard from the right hon. Member for Gordon (Sir Malcolm Bruce) and the hon. Members for Ribble Valley (Mr Evans) and for Birmingham, Yardley (John Hemming).

We have also had some magnificent tributes from those on the Opposition Benches, in particular from my right hon. Friend the Member for Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath (Mr Brown), who made a magnificent speech at the beginning of our tributes, whose references ranged from Shakespeare to Amy Winehouse and who emphasised the belief that no injustice can last for ever, and from my right hon. Friend the Member for Neath (Mr Hain), who brought his unique perspective, outlining in all its banality the evil precision of apartheid, and the connection between his family and the battle to end it.

My right hon. Friend the Member for Derby South (Margaret Beckett) reminded us that Mandela was a politician and party leader who was engaged in politics. This theme was taken up by other Members, who mentioned that in an era when politics is a dirty word we must remember the transforming potential of political change to make a difference in a good way to how societies develop and to bring about change.

My right hon. Friend the Member for Holborn and St Pancras (Frank Dobson), who represents the constituency in which the Anti-Apartheid Movement was founded in 1959, was very involved in the many campaigns against the injustice of apartheid and made a profound observation when he said Mandela made racists look pathetic.

My right hon. Friend the Member for Leicester East (Keith Vaz) reminded us of what an inspiration Mandela was for many in this world. My right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds Central (Hilary Benn) said it was hard to find words to do justice to what Mandela had achieved in his extraordinary life, with his calm, dignified and resolute approach. He was followed by my hon. Friend the Member for Walsall North (Mr Winnick) who reminded us of Steve Biko, who was murdered in police custody, as were many other fighters for freedom involved in the battle to end apartheid.

My hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield Central (Paul Blomfield), 25 years a member of the Anti-Apartheid Movement, said it took too long for this country to recognise the fact that the South African leadership was actually on Robben Island and to engage with it. He also said reconciliation is built on forgiving, not forgetting, and truth has to come before reconciliation. He pointed out that justice was hard fought for and freedom was hard won.

My hon. Friend the Member for Aberavon (Dr Francis) talked about the influence the South African constitution, which is one of the most progressive ever, still has on the battle for human rights. My right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Gorton (Sir Gerald Kaufman) talked about how Mandela had said to him that you have to sustain your values in prison.

My right hon. Friend the Member for Tottenham (Mr Lammy) gave a passionate speech about the effect of Mandela’s example in the communities he represents and among the black and minority ethnic communities struggling for equality in our country. My right hon. Friend the Member for Rother Valley (Mr Barron) talked about the Kitson committee at Ruskin, which opened his eyes to the real situation in South Africa. Indeed, a theme of today’s tributes has been how many people had their eyes opened by the community in exile and how through their campaigning, often when they talked to students, the reality of what was going on in South Africa came to be known.

My hon. Friend the Member for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn) paid tribute to those who fought apartheid and died doing so. He talked particularly about the evil of apartheid, and he also mentioned Bernie Grant and Tony Banks. We have also heard in detail about the contributions of Bob Hughes, Dick Caborn and the Kinnocks, who were absolute stalwarts of the battle. My right hon. Friend the Member for East Renfrewshire (Mr Murphy) made a speech about living close to Robben Island and brought us his unique insight into what was happening there, after his family had emigrated to South Africa.

My hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle upon Tyne Central (Chi Onwurah) made a particularly important point when she said that many took apartheid personally because it was so personal, and that the effect it had on the self-esteem of people of colour was so profound that it had to be fought. My hon. Friend the Member for St Helens North (Mr Watts) said that Mandela was a gift to the whole world. My right hon. Friend the Member for Dulwich and West Norwood (Dame Tessa Jowell) recalled Mandela’s visit to Brixton, which is still remembered so profoundly. My hon. Friend the Member for York Central (Hugh Bayley) made the important point that the role that Africans played in South Africa in their own liberation was the crucial one, and that a lot of the work done in solidarity outside this place and in this country was helpful but not central to the battle for liberation which was won.

My hon. Friend the Member for Ynys Môn (Albert Owen) said that the segregation and race hatred experienced by his black friends when he went to see them taught him the realities of apartheid. The hon. Member for Foyle (Mark Durkan) brought us an important Irish perspective on the struggle. My hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen North (Mr Doran) also talked about Bob Hughes, rightly putting on the record the great work that he did, and praised his own city of Glasgow for granting the freedom of that great city to Mandela before anybody else.

My hon. Friend the Member for Hackney North and Stoke Newington (Ms Abbott) talked with passion about the reality of a fight for equality and justice for those in the black community here. My right hon. Friend the Member for Coatbridge, Chryston and Bellshill (Mr Clarke) once more recalled Glasgow’s solidarity and the work that went on in fighting apartheid then. My hon. Friend the Member for Walsall South (Valerie Vaz) remembered Mandela for being so successful in his fight against apartheid. My hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, West Derby (Stephen Twigg) spoke for many of us when he said that this battle against apartheid was the great progressive cause for those of us who were getting active in the 1970s and 1980s—I can identify with that.

My hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Erdington (Jack Dromey) talked about his connection to the struggles that were going on to strengthen the Anti-Apartheid Movement in north London. My hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham South (Lilian Greenwood) said that Mandela achieved what many thought impossible, demonstrating that you have to carry on hoping when there is little hope left. My hon. Friend the Member for Eltham (Clive Efford), my right hon. Friend the Member for Delyn (Mr Hanson), and my hon. Friends the Members for Feltham and Heston (Seema Malhotra), for Wirral South (Alison McGovern), for Clwyd South (Susan Elan Jones), for Edinburgh North and Leith (Mark Lazarowicz), for Oldham East and Saddleworth (Debbie Abrahams), for Brent North (Barry Gardiner), for Vale of Clwyd (Chris Ruane), for Chesterfield (Toby Perkins), for Ogmore (Huw Irranca-Davies), for Blaydon (Mr Anderson), for Llanelli (Nia Griffith) and for Swansea West (Geraint Davies) all brought their own examples, in their profound speeches, of the battle for freedom and helping South Africa in solidarity with the people there.

I remember watching Nelson Mandela when he came to make that great speech to both Houses of Parliament, and my abiding memory is of him walking down the stairs of Westminster Hall hand in hand with one of your predecessors, Mr Speaker, the then Speaker Betty Boothroyd in July 1996. I also remember his address to the Labour party conference in 2000 at which he congratulated us on the first centenary of our party and looked forward to the next. He said:

“Britain was in so many respects the second headquarters of our movement in exile.”

He went on to say:

“Your solidarity helped to make those years in exile bearable and contributed to them not turning out to be wasted years.”

He congratulated us on our 100 years of history, and he said:

“To have sustained over a century such an organisation is a tribute not only to the Labour party, its leadership and members. It is testimony to the resilience of the spirit that continues to believe that the world can be made a better place for all. It defies and gives the lie to the pervasive cynicism and loss of hope that characterised so much of political life in the latter part of the last century.”

Finally, Nelson Mandela always appealed to the best rather than the basest of political instincts. I believe that is an example to which we should all aspire.

21:50

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

I am grateful to the shadow Leader of the House who wonderfully reflected the debate and recalled the many moving, thoughtful and evocative speeches that we heard during the course of this remarkable tribute to Nelson Mandela.

May I join the shadow Leader of the House in thanking you, Mr Speaker, for enabling us to have this tribute to Nelson Mandela? I also look forward to Thursday afternoon and the opportunity for civil society and the wider public to come here to the Great Hall at Westminster to share the opportunity not only to commemorate the life of Nelson Mandela and dedicate themselves to his memory, but to celebrate his life. There will be organisations that, for decades, have supported his struggle and the people of South Africa. There will be South Africans in this country who will want to come and show their love and respect for Nelson Mandela, and it is a good and welcome opportunity for them to do it here at their Parliament.

We have heard many memorable speeches. Today has been an unprecedented opportunity for us to express our views, and we have met on the same day as the South African Parliament. Helen Zille, who was referred to by a number of Members, said that Nelson Mandela’s death

“united the world in grief but it has also united us in hope.”

That was evident in many of the speeches that we heard today.

Many speeches were prompted by personal memories. Most memorably, the right hon. Member for Neath (Mr Hain) talked about a lifetime of memories of Nelson Mandela and the struggle against apartheid, from which many of us learned. The hon. Member for Sheffield Central (Paul Blomfield) referred to the character of the struggle over decades against the evil of apartheid. Many Members talked very movingly and importantly about the nature of that struggle, which I know will also be reflected in the ceremony on Thursday.

The shadow Leader of the House referred to the remarkable speech of the right hon. Member for Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath (Mr Brown). There was mention of shared ambitions and the further ambition that Nelson Mandela showed after he had left office as President of the Republic of South Africa in wanting to achieve great things, not least in the eradication of child poverty across the world.

The right hon. Member for East Renfrewshire (Mr Murphy) and a number of Members talked about personal memories of living in South Africa. All of them told of a man whose courage, constancy of moral purpose, as the hon. Member for Hackney North and Stoke Newington (Ms Abbott) said, and power of forgiveness, as the Leader of the Opposition said, have been a world-changing feature of our age. As the right hon. Member for Derby South (Margaret Beckett) and the shadow Leader of the House said, it is sometimes said that he somehow transcended politics, but that is wrong as he used political means to achieve political objectives and in doing so was the epitome of a politician. He recognised that it is the nature of politics for there to be a conflict of interest, but the very best politician is somebody who enables those competing interests not to lead to conflict but to be reconciled. His pursuit of forgiveness and reconciliation is an inspiration for us all.

I visited South Africa in 1995 on behalf of the Westminster Foundation for Democracy, and even in the space of those few years and the year after that first election it was remarkable how parliamentary democracy and the assumption of parliamentary democracy for the future had been adopted in South Africa. That has persisted and for us, in this Parliament, that is something with which we can feel a strong fellow feeling.

The speeches have of course captured the character of a remarkable man, recalling his deeds, his achievements, his words, his unfailing courtesy, his personal courage, his values and, of course, his often mischievous sense of humour. A number of Members talked of him as a great man and the right hon. Member for Tottenham (Mr Lammy) rightly talked of how he had inspired him, and what a great man he was. The right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Sir Gerald Kaufman) talked about when he was asked by the National Portrait Gallery to nominate great figures of the 20th century, and Nelson Mandela was one of three whom he nominated. The hon. Member for Ogmore (Huw Irranca-Davies) talked about him as a towering figure of the 20th century.

I am reminded that when Nelson Mandela retired as President, Tony Leon, whom I met in South Africa back in 1995, spoke of the fact that one can think of leaders who are great and good but that there is a special category beyond that. He described them as those who are great and good but have

“a special kind of grace”.

He could only think of two people who fitted such a category: Mahatma Gandhi and Nelson Mandela.

We are talking about somebody who is close to unique, but we can also think of him as unique. Not only was he clearly a towering figure of the 20th century, but he will also be regarded as a towering figure in the 21st century, not just because of the ambitions he enunciated after he left the presidency but because of his character, the nature of his approach to truth and reconciliation, the power of forgiveness, and his ambition and how he expressed it. As the right hon. Member for Neath and others recalled, at the Rivonia trial he articulated his determination that he had fought against white domination but would also fight against black domination —he was committed, and if necessary would give his life, to upholding justice and freedom. Those things will endure and we have as much need of them in this century as we did in the last.

In the South African Parliament today, Deputy President Motlanthe called on South Africa and the world to consider how Nelson Mandela’s legacy might be carried forward. In today’s debate, we have heard speeches on exactly that. The right hon. Member for Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath talked about the eradication of child poverty and other Members spoke about the necessity of promoting justice and freedom in the world, of reducing poverty, discrimination and inequality and of using those principles of reconciliation and forgiveness around the world in areas as far apart as Korea and Syria and in the Israel-Palestine conflict.

Members such as the right hon. Member for Gordon (Sir Malcolm Bruce) and my right hon. Friend the Member for Eddisbury (Mr O'Brien) talked about how Nelson Mandela’s ambitions and approach in South Africa are entirely relevant and needed in the continent of Africa in this century and in the future. In that sense, many of today’s speeches would be regarded across the world as showing how we in this House and this country believe that Nelson Mandela’s legacy might be carried further.

Mr Speaker, my hon. Friend the Member for Ribble Valley (Mr Evans) suggested that you might bind a copy of the speeches in today’s debate and send it to the South African Parliament. I hope that you will and that when you do, the South African Parliament will recognise that on the same day as they paid tribute to Nelson Mandela, we did so in like fashion. Like them, for us the dream has not ended.

[Mr Speaker]

Thank you. I will.

Adjournment

Resolved, That this House do now adjourn.—(Amber Rudd.)

21:59

House adjourned.

Petitions

Monday 9th December 2013 Petitions

Monday 9 December 2013

UK Hunger and the Use of Food Banks

Monday 9th December 2013 Petitions

The Petition of residents of the UK,

Declares that there is an online Petition requesting that Parliament has a debate on UK hunger and the rise in food bank use, which has received over 130,000 signatures.

The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Government to hold a debate on UK hunger and the rise in food bank use as soon as possible.

And the Petitioners remain, etc.—[Presented by Rachel Reeves.]

[P001310]

The Petition of residents of the UK,

Declares that there is an online Petition requesting that Parliament has a debate on UK hunger and the rise in food bank use, which has received over 130,000 signatures.

The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Government to hold a debate on UK hunger and the rise in food bank use as soon as possible.

And the Petitioners remain, etc.—[Presented by Maria Eagle.]

[P001311]

Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting, Sri Lanka

Monday 9th December 2013 Petitions

The Humble Petition of residents of the Ealing North Constituency,

Sheweth,

That the island of Sri Lanka is still experiencing the after effects of the recent war.

Wherefore your Petitioners pray that your Honourable House formally state their opinion that this country should not be represented at the Commonwealth Heads of Government meeting while so many issues are unresolved and so many people are still displaced as a result of this conflict.

And your Petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray, &c.—[Presented by Stephen Pound, Official Report, 12 November 2013; Vol. 570, c. 925.]

[P001284]

Observations from the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Office:

I thank the petitioners for raising this important issue in the House of Commons.

The Prime Minister and I attended the Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting (CHOGM) due to the importance we attach to the Commonwealth. In attending CHOGM, we also took advantage of a key opportunity to turn a global spotlight on Sri Lanka, and to deliver a clear message to the Sri Lankan Government: that we expect them to make progress on human rights, accountability, reconciliation and political settlement. By remaining in London, we would have missed the opportunity to ensure intense international focus on these vital issues over the week of CHOGM, and to raise our concerns at the highest levels.

The petitioners are right that Sri Lanka is still experiencing the after effects of the military conflict. Since the end of the conflict in 2009, the Sri Lankan Government have taken some positive steps re-building infrastructure. As part of our support for the reconstruction effort, from 2010-13, the UK funded £3 million of de-mining work in Sri Lanka. On 16 November 2013, the Prime Minister announced a new £2.1 million UK Government funded programme to clear landmines and explosive remnants of war from areas of Northern Sri Lanka devastated by conflict. This programme will allow heavily contaminated land to be returned to local communities and used for building livelihoods, schools and roads.

But in addition to physical reconstruction, it is also important that there is meaningful reconciliation through the full implementation of the Lessons Learnt and Reconciliation Commission (LLRC) recommendations and a political settlement, and a credible, transparent and independent inquiry into alleged war crimes. We share concerns of UN High Commissioner for Human Rights that there have been no credible efforts to independently investigate these allegations. If credible investigations have not begun properly by March 2014, we will use our position on the United Nations Human Rights Council to work with the UN Human Rights Commissioner and call for an international investigation.

During his visit to Sri Lanka, the Prime Minister raised our concerns directly with President Rajapaksa. The Prime Minister called for a credible and transparent independent investigation into allegations of violations of humanitarian and human rights law during the military conflict, a meaningful political settlement with the North, including demilitarisation, and full implementation of Lessons Learnt and Reconciliation Commission (LLRC) recommendations.

The Prime Minister was also able to undertake an historic visit to the North of Sri Lanka—the first visit of any Head of Government to the Northern Province since Sri Lanka’s Independence in 1948. During the visit, the Prime Minister visited a welfare camp for Internally Displaced Persons (IDPs) and talked to residents about the problems they face. We welcome the progress made so far by the Government of Sri Lanka on the resettlement of Internally Displaced Persons (IDPs). However, we remain concerned by the lack of livelihood opportunities for those who have been returned and land ownership disputes persist, especially in relation to land currently used for military purposes. We hope that the remaining Internally Displaced Persons (IDPs) will be resettled soon, and that land disputes will be resolved for all communities through a fair and accountable process.

To highlight, and to press for progress on our continued concerns, the UK co-sponsored the UN Human Rights Council resolution on Sri Lanka in March 2013. We look to the Sri Lankan Government to implement the recommendations contained in the resolution and comply with their obligations under international human rights law and international humanitarian law. At the UN Human Rights Council in March 2014, an assessment will be made of Sri Lankan progress to date.

Together with international partners, we will continue to work to support the Sri Lankan people in their pursuit of enduring peace and reconciliation.

Written Statements

Monday 9th December 2013 Written Statements

Monday 9 December 2013

Central African Republic

Monday 9th December 2013 Written Statements

[The Secretary of State for Defence (Mr Philip Hammond)]

The Government are increasingly concerned about the deteriorating security situation and growing humanitarian crisis in the Central African Republic. We are working with international partners, and through international organisations, to end the violence, deliver humanitarian support, and re-establish stability and security. As the Central African Republic is surrounded by countries that are still recovering or suffering from recent conflicts, engagement by the international community is vital to prevent a repetition of previous crises in the region. The scale of this challenge means that we must use all means at our disposal: our diplomatic networks, aid and trade, our political relations, and our military and security co-operation.

The Government have worked closely with France and other Security Council partners to agree a United Nations Security Council resolution on the Central African Republic; resolution 2127 was adopted on 5 December. UNSCR 2127 marks a critical step in restoring security and authorises the deployment of the African-led international support mission to the Central African Republic (MISCA). MISCA will contribute to: the protection of civilians; the vital restoration of security and public order; the stabilisation of the country; the restoration of state authority over the whole country; and the creation of conditions to enable the provision of humanitarian assistance. It also authorises French forces to take all necessary measures to support MISCA in the discharge of its mandate and, recognising the severity of the situation, imposes an arms embargo and encourages progress on the transitional arrangements initiated in Libreville on 11 January 2013.

Shortly after UNSCR 2127 was adopted, President Hollande announced that France would be launching operation Sangaris immediately, in conjunction with Africans and with the support of European partners. On 6 December, following this announcement and in response to a request from the Government of France to provide logistical support to their operation, the United Kingdom deployed a RAF C-17 transport aircraft to move French equipment to the Central African Republic. In the spirit of our strong bilateral relationship with France and in line with the undertakings of the Lancaster House treaty of 2010, the United Kingdom will provide a further two RAF C-17 flights between now and mid-December to help the rapid deployment of equipment for French forces in support of MISCA. The Government have no intention to deploy UK troops in a combat role and have therefore clearly defined the level of support that we will provide to France.

Our military support follows the announcement of a £10 million UK aid package, having already contributed £5 million in July. We are now one of the largest donors of humanitarian assistance to the people of the Central African Republic and will operate alongside the International Red Cross and UN agencies to help thousands of people gain access to food, water, shelter, sanitation and healthcare. We will continue to work closely with France and other partners to improve the security situation in the Central African Republic and relieve the suffering of its people.

Clean Energy Infrastructure

Monday 9th December 2013 Written Statements

[The Minister of State, Department of Energy and Climate Change (Michael Fallon)]

Preferred bidders in the Government’s £1 billion carbon capture and storage (CCS) commercialisation programme were announced in March 2013. Since then, my Department has taken forward detailed negotiations with these bidders to draw up and agree specifications and contracts for front-end engineering and design (FEED) studies of their projects. Developing CCS infrastructure forms part of the Government’s national infrastructure plan, published last week.

I am pleased to inform Parliament that I intend to award a multi-million pound contract for detailed design and planning, known as a FEED study, to Capture Power Ltd for the White Rose CCS project, which includes the Yorkshire-Humber CCS Trunkline, a carbon dioxide (CO₂) transportation and storage solution to be undertaken by National Grid Carbon Ltd.

The White Rose proposal is to build a new state-of-the-art 426MWe (gross) clean coal power plant with full carbon capture and storage, bringing clean electricity to over 630,000 homes and capturing approximately 2 million tonnes of CO₂ per year. This will link into the planned development of a CO₂ transportation and storage infrastructure which would have capacity for additional CCS projects in the area.

FEED is an important stage in the development of major infrastructure projects. It is a comprehensive programme of engineering, planning and financial work to thoroughly develop the proposal ahead of taking final investment decisions. It represents a significant investment in the project by both the Government and the bidder.

In addition to informing investment decisions, these studies will provide valuable new practical research into this area. We will share the information gathered by these studies with industry, academics and the public through our knowledge transfer programme to help drive forward this important industry.

Negotiations on the FEED study for the other preferred bidder project are still under way. They are progressing positively and we hope to make an announcement on the outcome shortly.

Judges and Advocate-General (Appointments)

Monday 9th December 2013 Written Statements

[The Minister for Europe (Mr David Lidington)]

I would like to update the House on recent appointments and renewals of mandates to the General Court and the Court of Justice of the European Union, and the appointment of an Advocate-General of the Court of Justice.

The following judges have had their mandates to the General Court renewed until 31 August 2019: Nicholas James Forwood (United Kingdom); Alfred Dittrich (Germany); Ingrida Labucka (Latvia); Miro Prek (Slovenia); Mariyana Kancheva (Bulgaria); Guido Berardis (Italy); Eugène Buttigieg (Malta); Carl Wetter (Sweden) and Irena Pelikanova (Czech Republic).

Additionally, the following judges have been appointed: Stéphane Gervasoni (France); Egidijus Bieliunas (Lithuania); Ignacio Ulloa Rubio (Spain) and Lauri Madise (Estonia).

In the Court of Justice, the Estonian judge Uno Lõhmus has been replaced by Küllike Jürimäe, and the Luxembourg judge Jean-Jacques Kasel has been replaced by François Biltgen. Their mandates expire in October 2015.

As a result of Croatian accession, Vesna Tomljenovic and Sinisa Rodin have been appointed as judges to the General Court and Court of Justice respectively.

Finally, Maciej Szpunar (Poland) has been appointed as Advocate-General of the Court of Justice.

Ministerial Oral Question (Correction)

Monday 9th December 2013 Written Statements

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

On 29 October 2013, Official Report, column 752, during oral questions to the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, the right hon. Member for Leicester East (Keith Vaz) asked me about the number of British businesspeople of Chinese origin who joined the Chancellor, the Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change and the Secretary of State for Transport on recent visits to China.

I replied that

“I do not have that information at my fingertips, but I imagine that quite a few of them were. I will write to the right hon. Gentleman with the details”—[Official Report, 29 October 2013; Vol. 569, c.752].

I have written to the right hon. Member with the details, and would like to inform the House that neither the Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change nor the Secretary of State for Transport were accompanied by any British business people on their trips. The Chancellor was accompanied by 25 representatives of the technology sector, none of whom were of Chinese origin.

Westminster Foundation for Democracy

Monday 9th December 2013 Written Statements

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

I would like to inform the House that the framework agreement between the Westminster Foundation for Democracy (WFD) and the Foreign and Commonwealth Office (FCO) has been updated, in line with Cabinet Office and HM Treasury guidelines for non-departmental public bodies (NDPBs).

The framework agreement combines a management statement, which sets out the basis for the FCO’s relationship with WFD, and a financial memorandum, which sets out in greater detail the financial framework within which the WFD is required to operate.

I have placed copies of the agreement in the Libraries of both Houses. The agreement is also available on the Westminster Foundation for Democracy website.

Changes in Immigration Rules

Monday 9th December 2013 Written Statements

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

The Government keep visa regimes under constant review to ensure that the UK has the right visa requirements set in the right places, aligned to risk. Today I am laying changes to the immigration rules to provide a new, straightforward and free alternative to a visa for short-term visitors from Oman, Qatar and the United Arab Emirates (UAE). We intend to extend similar arrangements to Kuwait later in 2014. Britain is open for business and genuine visitors and tourists coming here to enjoy our world-class attractions, study or do business are always welcome.

Passport holders of Oman, Qatar and the UAE will, from 1 January 2014, be able to travel to the UK visa-free if they have obtained an electronic visa waiver (EVW) document online at least 48 hours in advance of travel to the United Kingdom, and present the document to an immigration officer upon request on arrival.

This simple online form means there is no fee, there will be no requirement to give biometrics or attend a visa application centre. Guidance will be published on the Home Office website. Some visitors may still prefer a long-term multi-entry visit visa and the facility to obtain these visas will remain.

I am also laying a change relating to the Vatican City. Holders of non-national travel documents require a visa before travel to the United Kingdom. This rule includes holders of service, temporary service and diplomatic passports issued by the Holy See. The Government have assessed the procedures for issuance of these documents and consider that they are robust enough to merit an exemption from the visit visa requirement. Nationals and citizens of the Vatican City are already exempt from the visa requirement.

The changes also include minor amendments to the rules for armed forces and for graduate entrepreneurs.

Alongside these changes, UK visas and immigration continues to be focused on delivering excellent customer service to business and leisure visitors and ensuring that the UK maintains a competitive visa system that can innovate in order to serve the ever-changing needs of business and ensure Britain succeeds in the global race.

Benefits Uprating

Monday 9th December 2013 Written Statements

[The Minister of State, Department for Work and Pensions (Steve Webb)]

I am pleased to announce the proposed social security benefits rates for 2014, which are set out in the table below. The annual uprating of benefits will take place for state pensions and most other benefits in the first full week of the tax year. In 2014, this will be the week beginning 7 April. A corresponding provision will be made in Northern Ireland.

Grand Committee

Monday 9th December 2013 Grand Committee

Monday, 9 December 2013.

Arrangement of Business

Monday 9th December 2013 Grand Committee

Announcement

15:30

[The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Bichard)]

My Lords, welcome to the Grand Committee. If there is a Division in the House, the Committee will adjourn for 10 minutes.

Electoral Registration and Administration Act 2013 (Transitional Provisions) Order 2013

Monday 9th December 2013 Grand Committee

Motion to Consider

15:30

Moved by

[Lord Wallace of Saltaire]

That the Grand Committee do report to the House that it has considered the Electoral Registration and Administration Act 2013 (Transitional Provisions) Order 2013.

Relevant document: 9th Report from the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments

[Lord Wallace of Saltaire (LD)]

My Lords, the statutory instruments before us today provide the detail of the transition to and operation of individual electoral registration, which replaces the current household registration system. The description of electoral registers and amendment regulations also make changes relating to the edited versions of the electoral register and to elements of the conduct of elections.

I welcome the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy of Southwark, to this long-running saga. We considered first what became the Electoral Registration and Administration Act, and then the numerous statutory instruments that followed. The Bill team assures me that there are no more than 29 to come. The good news that we have today is that the data-matching exercise has turned up around 78% of voters being matched through the system. The query attached to that is that the data matching is much higher in areas that have a static population than in areas that have either a mobile population or a large number of second homes. That is why Argyll and Bute comes 20th in the list of lowest matching areas but urban areas and areas with a high number of students are also among those where the percentage of data matching comes out much lower than in other areas.

To ensure that as many existing electors as possible remain on the register during the transition, the Government announced in their official response to pre-legislative scrutiny on IER that part of the transition would involve a data-matching stage where all electoral registers in Britain would be matched against trusted public data sets. Where a positive match is made between an entry on the register and information in the data set, that person may be confirmed. The dry run, as I have already said, found that about 78% on average of those submitted to the Department for Work and Pensions could be confirmed by data matching. The results were better than we originally anticipated.

Furthermore, using a combination of national and local data could lead to an even greater overall average match rate of as much as 85%. This high rate means that fewer electors will need to make IER applications during the transition. EROs will then be able to focus their resources on unconfirmed electors and those eligible citizens who were not on the register already. As we have discussed before, we already have an existing problem in that the number of voters who are not on the existing register has steadily grown over the past 10 years.

Cabinet Office officials have recently written to each local authority, giving them their indicative funding for implementing IER next year. Each allocation is based in part on the results of the confirmation dry run to ensure that sufficient funding is provided for the work required of each ERO to produce as complete and accurate an electoral register as possible as we move to the new system. The Government expect the allocation to cover all the costs in the majority of authorities but will consider funding additional costs in individual cases if they are precisely and strongly supported by evidence and have not already been recognised.

Each of the instruments before us today relates wholly or partly to IER. The transitional provisions order sets out the activities unique to the transition—due to begin in June 2014 in England and Wales and after the referendum of September 2014 in Scotland. Many of the regulations in the description of electoral registers and amendment regulations set out the operation of IER from that date, through transition and into the period of business as usual. Under these regulations, each ERO will still be required each year to carry out a full annual canvass of households, sending out a canvass form to every residential property.

Unlike the process under the household registration system, completing this form will not get a new elector on to the register. A household inquiry form will be used to find out who is resident. If people have not moved, they will be retained without further action being required beyond returning the form or informing the ERO that there has been no change, just as under the current system. However, if the residents recorded on the returned form have changed, any new electors will need to apply individually to register.

As is currently the case, there will be a duty on EROs to follow up where they get no response to these canvass forms: the household inquiry forms. If no information is forthcoming, a further form will be sent. If necessary, a third form will be sent and a canvasser must visit the property. The occupier or the person responsible for the property will have a duty to respond. The existing criminal offence for not responding will continue to apply. Where an ERO finds out about a person who appears to be eligible, whether through the household inquiry form or through other information, they must invite that person to register. As with the household inquiry form, the ERO must also follow up any non-response to an individual invitation to register and may require the person to make an application. In addition to the criminal offence of failing to respond to a household inquiry form, the ERO has the option to impose a civil penalty on an individual who fails to apply if required to do so.

The application to register is a key part of IER. It is central to the individual nature of the new system as it means that each elector who is added to the register will have made their own application to register. It is also vital that it is convenient for applicants both in the information required and in its design. The Electoral Commission is currently working on the forms for IER, which include the new household inquiry form, the letter inviting a person to register and the IER application. Officials in the Cabinet Office are working closely with the EC on the development of these forms, which are being user-tested to ensure that they are convenient for electors and minimise inadvertent errors in applications.

For the first time, online registration will be enabled, thus modernising the registration process and making it more accessible, especially for those registering from outside the UK, such as service personnel and other overseas electors. Paper forms will be retained for those who prefer that method of registration. As part of the commitment to tackle fraud, a central feature of the new application forms and of the online application portal also enabled by these regulations is that applicants must provide personal identifiers—namely, their date of birth and national insurance number. These will be used to verify their identity through data matching against records held by the Department for Work and Pensions. Electoral Commission research shows that 95% of people would be able to provide their NINo if required. If they cannot, applicants will be advised where they can locate it.

However, it may be that someone cannot provide their date of birth or NINo, that they are in the minority of applicants whose details do not match DWP records, or that the ERO considers for some other reason that additional evidence is necessary to verify the applicant’s identity. For these situations, the regulations set out a robust but accessible exceptions process using prescribed documentary evidence or attestation by another elector in the same area who is of good standing in the community.

This has been a very brief description of how the new system will work. Where households have not moved or changed in composition, they will need simply to complete a household form or inform the ERO, just as they do currently. For new applicants, this new, separate application will be needed. Making the transition from the current system to IER is a significant change, and we have included steps in the transitional provisions order to ensure that it is as convenient as possible for voters.

I have already described how we will use data matching to confirm a large majority of existing electors on the register at the start of transition. Following this data matching, every elector will receive a letter. Most electors will be informed that no further action is required but a minority will be invited to register. They will then have until December 2015—more than a year, in most cases—to apply under IER.

In houses where electors registered during the postponed 2013 canvass, the letters to individuals will, for this canvass only, replace the requirement to send a household inquiry form. Where electors have not been heard from since 2012 and were carried forward during the postponed canvass, or there is no one registered at a property, the ERO will send a household form. It also has the flexibility to send these forms where it thinks that this is the best way to find out about new electors—for example, in areas with high population turnover.

Electors who returned forms in the 2013 postponed household canvass will remain on the register throughout the transition. People who have not yet registered through an IER application or been confirmed by data matching will be able to cast a vote in the 2015 general election on the basis of their pre-IER registration. However, as the fraud risk is most acute around postal voting, only those who are individually registered will be able to cast an absent vote once the revised register is published in December 2014 in England and Wales, and on 28 February 2015 in Scotland. Voters who are absent, with postal or proxy votes, will be informed of the need to make a new application if they have not been confirmed or have not made a successful IER application.

The Representation of the People (Provision of Information Regarding Proxies) Regulations 2013, which are UK-wide, allow EROs to check that someone resident in another area is or will be a registered elector and therefore eligible to act as a proxy when appointed to do so by an elector in the ERO’s area. In other words, someone who casts a proxy vote for someone else has herself or himself to be on the UK electoral register. In the 2015 canvass period, EROs will send a household enquiry form to every residential property as usual. They are also required to send out another invitation to those remaining electors who were not confirmed by data matching in 2014 and who have not yet made a successful IER application.

As the then Minister for Political and Constitutional Reform told the House of Commons, and as set out in our implementation plan, the Government’s aim is to conclude the transition to IER after the 2015 canvass period. We are confident that those non-IER entries remaining on the register at that point will be out of date or inaccurate. The Minister of the day will have to lay, and Parliament approve, an order in the summer of 2015 to enable the end of the transition in that year; otherwise it will continue until the end of the 2016 canvass. The decision will be for the Minister and the Parliament of the day after the 2015 general election, but I am confident that they will be content with the progress of the transition and will bring it to an end in 2015, which will mean that the register published in December that year will be made up of individually registered electors only.

The Representation of the People (England and Wales) (Description of Electoral Registers and Amendment) Regulations 2013 introduce a number of measures designed to make sure that electors can make a fully informed choice about whether their details appear in the edited register. Among other changes, electors’ edited register preferences will be carried forward indefinitely, so electors will no longer be asked to opt out each year. The changes provide for improved descriptions of the two registers that will ensure that the information for electors is as clear and user-friendly as possible, and a new, more transparent name: the open register.

The same regulations make a number of improvements to the running of elections that are designed to help voters participate effectively in elections and reinforce further the integrity of the voting process. The proposed changes implement electoral administration and conduct provisions in the Electoral Registration and Administration Act 2013. The changes will enable postal votes to be despatched further in advance of polling day, which will be of particular help to those in remote locations, such as persons overseas, including service voters, as more time will be given for them to receive, complete and return their postal vote to be counted. We are also making improvements to the design and layout of voting forms that are intended to make the voting process more accessible and easier to understand.

Provisions on these matters were included in amendments previously made to the European Parliamentary Elections (Amendment) Regulations 2013 in order to apply the provisions to the European Parliamentary elections in 2014. These amendments have recently been debated by Parliament, which has thus had an opportunity to consider the changes. I do not therefore need or intend to go into detail on them today, although I will, of course, be happy to answer any questions on them. I beg to move.

15:44

[Lord Lipsey (Lab)]

My Lords, the whole Committee will be grateful to the Minister for that explanation of what these orders contain. He gave it, understandably, in a pretty low-key way. I think it is worth the Committee reminding itself just how much is at stake on the path we are going down. We must do so because this is a milestone today, along a path that has had many milestones; but it is right that Parliament should check that we are still on the right road before approving the orders.

Perhaps I could illustrate that importance by saying this: let us suppose that the exercise comes up with 80% of eligible voters registering to vote, which is below what we would hope for, but not implausible. Let us suppose at the same time that we get another dullish election where the turnout is only 60%. It would follow from those figures that fewer than half of those eligible to vote had participated in the election. When you start getting to a figure like that, there is no question but that this reflects on the legitimacy of the return.

It is terribly important that we get the maximum turnout at the election, but, in the mean time, that we have a register that is as near complete as possible. Of course, we understand and support the move to individual electoral registration: that is also terribly important to our democracy in order to prevent forged votes being cast. We must make sure, however, that this is being done thoroughly, as well as it possibly can, and that it is not impeded by an insufficiency of resources or rushed through for whatever reason.

It might seem strange to mention my next point straight after warning against “rushing through”, but just last week, one expected deadline for electoral registration was missed. The Commons Library note, dated only a couple of months ago, said that the Government expected to make a firm decision by the end of November on whether to proceed with individual registration for the 2015 election. When Greg Clark was answering a Question on 26 November in another place, he did not say that the Government had decided to proceed; he said simply that they were on track for individual electoral registration to come in in 2014. I do not think there has been a critical slippage yet; but the more the Minister can say to persuade the Committee that they will be giving the go-ahead and that there is still time to have registration fully in place by the summer of 2014—even if it falls short of an absolute pledge; I will come back to that in a minute—the more helpful it would be.

When we say it is “on track”, it is worth reviewing one or two issues that have come up on that track. One about which all Members of the House should be very pleased is the decision to retain the civic penalty. I have no doubt whatever that it was the threat of a civic penalty—even though it is not much used—that prevented a serious slump in registration, particularly among younger people, which would have been damaging. I give the Government absolute credit for that: they listened, they thought about it and they decided to retain the civic penalty. That is greatly to be welcomed.

Another matter that has been resolved, but where I personally regret the resolution—as indeed does the Electoral Commission—is the question of the open register. Here, there is a straight conflict. This should be a register for voting purposes only; that is to say, it should not be sent out to anybody who wants to use it for marketing or any other purposes. Frankly, the ability of a voter to contract out is not a sufficient protection, because most of them have better things to do than to think about whether they want to contract out of the electoral register.

We understand that the marketing industry has brought huge pressure on the Government to continue to make the register available for its purposes. We hear that some local authorities that were going to give priority to putting in a box that could be ticked to say, “I want to contract out”—the tick could then be removed—have been threatened with judicial review by the marketing industry. I must say that in my guts I find it very distasteful when our electoral process is taking second place to the lowest commercial considerations, but I am sure that the marketers have their case; it just has not persuaded me. I ask the Minister to agree, though, that after the first use of IER the Government will review this provision and any evidence there may be as to whether it has damaged the integrity of the register so that, if we have made a mistake this time around—and we all make mistakes—it can be resolved next time.

Another issue that has been largely resolved, I think, is that EROs themselves were very worried about the resources that were being devoted to this. We have had progress in two regards here. The Government have told them what resources they are going to get, and have also said that they are prepared to consider a request for more resources in cases where there are particular difficulties in given areas. Nobody is dancing on the rooftops about this, but it is clearly good progress, and EROs are less unhappy than they were.

However, there is a particular problem, which we need to go on worrying about, with the universities. I will cite one case. There is a ward in Lancaster, I am told, which is nearly always all student-inhabited and where registration is around the 10% mark at the moment. In Sheffield, which has several universities, the universities themselves are putting resources into campaigning to get a fuller register. That is not really what university money is for: it should come from the budget provided for IER. I would welcome any reassurances that are forthcoming on those issues—particularly the university point, which is a chilling worry. Whether the Lib Dems worry about it in quite the way they used to, I do not know. They used to rely considerably on the student vote, but of course that may not be so certain at the next election. The Minister, is, of course, perfectly placed to give both a party as well as a ministerial opinion.

The one thing that is not resolved is an IT issue. The Government are quite frank about this in the memoranda: we do not yet know whether the IT to do the verification matching will work. We do not expect to know that until February or March, when it has been properly trialled. If it does not work, it will cause serious difficulties at least for the scheme—and maybe more than that. The probability is that it will work, by the way, but we ought to think about contingency planning if it does not. There is a particular problem—which came out in the Minister’s remark—about postal voters, because unless they are individually registered, they cannot vote at all. There is no way around that, so postal voters could lose their vote if this does not work—and even those moving shortly before the election might find it difficult, if this does not work, to exercise their vote. This is of concern to the Electoral Commission, as I am sure it is to the Government.

I do not want or expect the Government to delay making the announcement that they intend to go ahead until they are certain that these things work. If you do not take any risks in life, you tend not to make much progress. However, my father used to say to me when I was a young man, “David, always leave room for the big back-out”. I think he had girls in mind, rather than electoral registration at the time—but I think that, on this, Ministers ought to leave room for the big back-out. That is to say, if it turns out that this IT simply does not work—and my expectation is that it will—they will have to be in a position where they can find the words that they have used to show that they were concerned about this issue. If that means that fundamental decisions have to be reviewed, and I do not expect that to happen, they should stand ready to do that.

The Government have taken a pragmatic approach to electoral registration—with the full support of my party and, indeed, politicians of all parties—because individual electoral registration is clearly something that we should have in this country, as most other countries with genuine democratic systems have it. These questions are in no way designed to show any opposition to it, but simply to say that we must double bank and make sure that we have every step along the way working, so that it will go smoothly, with a high number of people on the register.

[Lord Roberts of Llandudno (LD)]

My Lords, I am sorry that those who usually lead on these issues for the Liberal Democrats—my noble friends Lord Tyler and Lord Rennard—are not with us this afternoon. I will step in where angels fear to tread.

First, as Liberal Democrats, we are glad that registration is now compulsory, not voluntary, as was suggested in the beginning. That would have led to very different registration levels in various constituencies. Secondly, we have waited a long time for this: the Electoral Commission recommended the change to individual registration in 2003. A decade later, we are bringing this regulation into being.

Thirdly, we need to look again at the format of the registration forms. I declare an interest as president of Bite the Ballot, the youth movement to encourage young people to take part in the electoral process and influence manifesto commitments. Perhaps the Government will look at the form. We are replacing the 400 different forms that were used in various constituencies and electoral areas with one form. It will be a national form, which is used in every constituency. Of course, in Wales it will be bilingual. Even in Scotland we will have the element of the language up there.

The civil penalty for not registering comes in an accompanying letter. I get lots of correspondence—we all do—and we might look at the report we are sent, but we put the accompanying letter to one side. Can we not have the penalty note on the form itself, saying that if people do not register there is the possibility of a penalty? In addition, can the second and third forms be distinguishable, so that they look different—perhaps printed in a different colour—so that people know that this is not the original form but the second or third form?

On postal voting, what do the Government believe is the ideal moment to send out postal votes in the UK? Over the years, with the late Lord Garden, who of course was a distinguished military person, I tried to ensure that those who were on military service in places such as Afghanistan—this has been mentioned already—were able to receive their postal vote forms in sufficient time to enable those votes to be completed, returned and included in the count. It is difficult. I remember we had quite a debate on it when the Labour Government were in post. Is there some way we can ensure that those who are ready to sacrifice their lives for us will at least have the opportunity of casting a vote, wherever they are? That is very important.

The regulations are acceptable, I am sure, but other initiatives are not here—of course, we would say that—such as engaging young people to register and take part in political debate. I go back to the Bite the Ballot proposals for a national registration day—5 February 2014—in every area; I think the superstores and the large shops are going to have tables where people can register, and young people in particular will be able to register. Will the Government support this Bite the Ballot initiative? What steps are being taken at a local, constituency level to ensure that every support possible is provided to make National Voter Registration Day a success? We dream of half a million new, young voters on that day. Support will be essential to ensure that that happens.

16:00

Bite the Ballot’s proposed voter mobilisation Bill would encourage all branches of government to include a voter registration form whenever they get in touch with people, especially young people. If a letter comes from a university, a civic organisation or a council, it should include the opportunity for young people to register. If they go on the register while they are at school, aged 16, they will be able to vote by the time the next election comes—probably; it will depend on various dates. Let us get the schools and the young people involved, and let us co-operate to ensure that at every opportunity young people are encouraged to register, and then, when the time comes, to cast their votes.

There is a lot more that can be said. Usually I do say it but I am not going to this afternoon. We must give young people the opportunity to register to vote. The different-coloured registration forms and postal vote applications should be provided. A very important aspect of this is that our military personnel, wherever they are, are given the opportunity—fairly—to cast their vote. I agree with so much of what the noble Lord, Lord Lipsey, said, but there is more to be discussed here.

[Lord Wills (Lab)]

My Lords, I, too, thank the Minister for the careful way in which he set out the basis of these regulations. I want to associate myself with the great sweep of the comments made by my noble friend Lord Lipsey and the noble Lord, Lord Roberts. I do not think the Minister will be surprised to hear that I still have concerns about this legislation, but he will, I hope, be pleased that I do not intend to rehearse all those concerns today. This is not the appropriate place to discuss the Government’s approach to introducing individual electoral registration. My noble friend Lord Lipsey has already set out for the Committee the importance of that, so I will not go over it.

There appears to be very little that is exceptionable in these regulations. I welcome much that is in them. However, your Lordships’ House is being asked to approve them without the benefit of crucial information, which is available to the Government but not to your Lordships. This cannot be an acceptable way to proceed in a healthy democracy, where there is proper scrutiny of the Executive by the legislature.

As far as I am aware, every independent body has warned of the potential damage to levels of registration by the Government’s approach to this legislation. All experience and evidence suggest that there are specific groups at particular risk of seeing their registration levels fall as a result of government policy: young people; students, as we have already heard; people with learning disabilities; people with disabilities generally; people living in areas of high social and economic deprivation; and ethnic minorities. These concerns were extensively rehearsed during the passage of the Bill and were brushed aside by the Government, who have still not produced any evidence to justify their insouciance. Their responses have brimmed with hope and aspiration, but they have not really put forward anything to justify their confidence.

It is not credible to argue, as the Government often do—we have heard a trace of it again today from the Minister—that there are significant problems with current levels of registration. It is no justification at all to make a bad situation worse. We are not in a position to assess the arguments put forward for the efficacy of the measures that the Government have outlined today and elsewhere, because we do not have the information to judge whether they are sufficient. It is impossible to assess whether these measures are adequate without knowing the assessment of risk that the Government have made.

The Minister suggested in the past that the Government had indeed considered these concerns. If your Lordships’ House is to approve these regulations, surely it should have access to the same evidence as the Government about the risks to electoral registration of their policy. Yet, we do not. I have been trying for nearly a year to secure it under the provisions of the Freedom of Information Act. I have been fobbed off with what I regard as inadequate excuses for not giving it. These excuses have consistently been delivered late—well outside the provisions of the Act. I last wrote to Cabinet Office officials on 6 November. I am still waiting for a response. The Minister, I am sure, can work out that the response is out of time.

Will the Minister today at least spare me—and, more importantly perhaps, his long-suffering officials—further grief? Will he tell your Lordships what assessment the Government have made of the risks this legislation poses to levels of registration among young people; among students; among people with learning disabilities; among people with disabilities generally; among people living in areas of high social and economic deprivation; and among ethnic minorities? If he will not, please will he explain why he will not?

There can be only two possible explanations for the Government’s persistent refusal to share this information with your Lordships’ House. The first is that all the concerns that I have referred to are groundless, but the Government are not revealing this because of their worries about extending transparency in government. Will the Minister say whether this is indeed the reason for the Government’s refusal to reveal the detail of their assessments of the risks to electoral registration of this legislation?

The only other possible explanation for the Government’s lack of transparency is that their assessment indeed confirms all other independent assessments of the risks that so concern everybody else and that they are embarrassed to reveal it, because that would throw a harsh light on the profound flaws in the legislation.

I would be grateful if the Minister could say today which of these two arguments applies to the Government’s lack of transparency in this area. If he will not respond to that—and I fear that probably he will not—will he at least make a guarantee? It is only a small request, but it would save everybody a lot of grief and place the Government in a much better light than they currently are in. Will he guarantee that I will receive replies to my freedom of information requests—which, I must give due warning, are unlikely to stop now—within the statutory limits provided for under the Act? I hope that the Government recognise that the sort of inexcusable tardiness I have experienced until now undermines their frequent claims to the promotion of transparency in government.

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab)]

My Lords, first, I draw Members’ attention to my interest as a member of the Electoral Commission. I am also the chair of the All-Party Parliamentary Group on Voter Registration.

The order and regulations we are considering in Grand Committee today are important as part of the process of bringing into effect individual electoral registration. I very much agree with my noble friend Lord Lipsey, who described to the Grand Committee just what is at stake and how important the regulations—and all that we are discussing here today—are. I look forward to many more discussions and debates on this over the coming weeks and months.

National Voter Registration Day, which the noble Lord, Lord Roberts, mentioned, is something that I very much support. We discussed it many times at the all-party group meetings. It is very important that we get young people registered to vote. They are a real risk group, as other colleagues mentioned. There is, as my noble friend Lord Wills said, much that we agree with here, but there are real risks. I agree with him very much. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Wallace, will be able to address the points my noble friend has made; in particular, I hope that when my noble friend puts in FOI requests, he will get proper and adequate responses and that this will be addressed.

Members will be aware that the previous Labour Government put on to the statute book individual electoral registration and a process for bringing it into effect. With the new Government coming into office, the process was accelerated and other changes were made with the passing of the Electoral Registration and Administration Act 2013. As many noble Lords said, IER is supported by all parties and we all welcome its introduction. It is another safeguard to ensure that our democracy is both protected and enhanced. It is important for the governance of our country at all levels, for society in general, for our citizens, for political parties and for our reputation around the world that we can all have confidence in our electoral process. It is largely built on trust, but it needs safeguards for protection.

I have a number of questions for the noble Lord. I am sure he will answer as many as he can today, but I do not expect him to be able to answer them all—or all the questions posed by other noble Lords. Where that proves to be the case, I assume that he will write to me and other noble Lords who have asked questions and place a copy in the Library of the House

I turn first to the order that requires electoral registration officers throughout England, Wales and Scotland to undertake specific activities in relation to the transition to IER. As my noble friend Lord Lipsey said, there are real concerns with the IT needed to deliver this. Fundamental decisions have to be made and some may have to be reviewed. Will the noble Lord, Lord Wallace, tell the Grand Committee what safeguards are in place? About 70% of electors were confirmed through the tests in the data-matching exercise—the noble Lord said it was 78%. However, as he will be fully aware, we do not have an overregistration problem in this country but an underregistration problem. Will he tell the Grand Committee what else is proposed to get electors on to the register, other than the online proposals?

Noble Lords are all aware of the Northern Ireland experience. I accept that this is being done in a different way, but it would be good to hear what other plans the Government will put in place to ensure that we do not have a similar problem. It has to be a bit more than the ERO being able to concentrate on the other 30% who are not identified through this process. Will he also tell the Grand Committee what the status is of other databases and matching exercises? Are these not going to be looked at further? Will they be able to give us what we want? Might we look at any others in the future? What is the review process for looking at databases as we move forward?

I am sure that the noble Lord will understand that the completeness and the accuracy of the register are not the same thing. I note the baseline measurements of 86% complete and 85% accurate for our electoral register. However, to put it another way, our electoral register baseline measurements are 14% incomplete and 15% inaccurate. Is that acceptable to him—and, if not, what will the Government do to improve the situation?

My worry is that, as other noble Lords mentioned, it will be students, people living in private rented accommodation, service men and women and their families, and other groups that have the potential to move around who will be at the greatest risk of being lost to the system. I am sure that the noble Lord is well aware of the importance of the register that will be published in December 2015, as it relates to the next parliamentary redistribution of seats. I think that I am right in saying this will be the base figure that the Boundary Commission will take. If there is a drop in the number of people registered to vote, that will have very serious consequences for how seats are redrawn and could create a gross injustice and unfairness. How will the noble Lord ensure that that will not happen? What contingency plans do the Government have in place?

I turn to the other regulations before the Grand Committee. Changing the name of the edited register to the open register is a very sensible move and I fully support it. The Government are a bit obsessed with the retention of data and I have some concerns about losing the ability to detect fraud that their keenness to destroy records could create. Where someone has failed to be matched and cannot produce documents that satisfy the ERO, they will need to have their application attested by an elector who is registered in the same local authority—someone of good standing. Can the noble Lord tell the Grand Committee who is a person of “good standing” and how many applications they will be able to sign per year: one, two, 10 or 100? When do alarm bells start to be rung?

Does the noble Lord think that one visit and two follow-up invitations will be enough? Does he not accept that in many places EROs will have to go much further than this? What advice would he give to EROs about using the requirement-to-register power: is it something he would expect EROs to do only in exceptional circumstances, or is it something he would encourage them to do much more frequently than that to improve the completeness and accuracy of the register in their locality?

On postal vote identifiers, will he give a commitment to look at the date of birth identifier in particular? As I see it, the most common problem is that people will give their signature and date of birth when applying for a postal vote, but, when casting their postal vote, they will sign the document and put that day’s date on the form. That would be an understandable mistake, but it would mean that their vote was not counted. I am sure that the noble Lord would regret that most sincerely, as would I.

As I said at the start of my remarks, I fully support IER, as do all parties—and, I am sure, all noble Lords. However, I and other noble Lords have raised a number of concerns at which the Government will have to look seriously as these changes move forward.

16:15

[Lord Wallace of Saltaire]

My Lords, I am grateful for almost everything that has been said in this debate. We all agree, as the noble Lord, Lord Lipsey, said, that it is extremely important, first, to get maximum registration, and then to get maximum turnout. We also accept that both of these are difficult and have become more difficult; and that the question of the legitimacy of government is, of course, caught up in this. We are all well aware that we might possibly elect a Labour Government at the next election with 35% of the votes cast on a very low turnout. I can imagine what the Daily Mail would say about the legitimacy of that Government.

We have a shared interest across all parties, first, to make sure that we maximise registration and then—this is something on which we need to have some active cross-party conversations—persuade our deeply alienated electorate, let alone our deeply hostile media, that politics is an honourable profession; that voting is important; and that maximising the turnout at the next election has to be seen as a civic duty and not as something that, as some newspaper columnists tend to suggest, will only encourage the bastards.

[Lord Wills]

I am very grateful for what the Minister has just said and want to associate myself with those remarks profoundly. I would like to “mark his card” with a particular potential problem on which I hope the parties could collaborate. That is the problem about funding for electoral registration in this context. As the Minister will know, it is not ring-fenced—although I personally believe that it should be. However, because it is not ring-fenced, local authorities under a lot of pressure might well be tempted to skimp, shall we say, on some of the efforts made. The problem could arise, therefore—and it is only a potential problem at the moment—that local authorities with a particular political complexion will not necessarily see it as in their interests to canvass areas that support the other parties. I am sure that the Minister can imagine the sort of scenarios that could occur.

At the moment, there is no protection against that happening. I am not saying that it will happen. Most local authorities in my experience as a Minister were extremely diligent and took their democratic duties extremely seriously. I would be very surprised if it was a widespread problem, but it could be a problem. I welcome the comments just made by the Minister and his reassurance that he will at least explore what might be done to protect against that sort of eventuality.

[Lord Wallace of Saltaire]

My Lords, I hesitate to get into a discussion on ring-fencing, which the noble Lord and I have debated several times before. The good news is that the data matching so far has come up with a much higher proportion than we originally anticipated. That will enable us to focus funding on those vulnerable groups and particular areas that we now know to be the most difficult. We all understand which those groups are. They are young men above all—young men who tend not to open letters and who move around very rapidly—students, young black voters, and other challenging groups of one sort or another. That is the area on which we are currently concentrating. I say to the noble Lord, Lord Roberts, and others that the Government are co-operating actively with Bite the Ballot, Operation Black Vote and other organisations that are working to increase the intention and willingness to register within their own communities. We are also working with universities and students to ensure that they, too, are able to raise interest and maximise the registration of those groups in their areas. We are well aware of this and we are doing everything we can.

The noble Lord, Lord Lipsey, asked whether we were going ahead for 2015. So far, things are going better than anticipated. We have not completely gone snap on it, but the IT has demonstrated more resilience than we feared might be the case, so it is on track. I am grateful for the noble Lord’s comments on the open register. There are some wider considerations here, as we all understand, such as the questions of credit references and identity verification for mortgages, and other such things. There is also an issue about overseas voters, since they will be asked to demonstrate that they have been, within the past 15 years, resident somewhere in a particular constituency. All of these things fit in with maintaining an accurate register, let alone the question of longer historical research, which relates to the future of the census—another complicated area on which I will not go into more detail here.

Yes, of course we will review the situation after 2015, and we will be absolutely concerned to do whatever we can about service registration. The question of service voting and registration is becoming a little less difficult than it has been, because as troops return from Afghanistan and from Germany, the proportion of our serviceman living outside this country is going through a relatively rapid decline. Of course they will continue to move around, but arrangements for Armed Forces voters and their spouses will be maintained in as strong a form as we possibly can.

We are absolutely concerned to get good young people’s registration forms. I have already mentioned our work with universities and other groups. The noble Lord, Lord Wills, talked about access to the Government’s risk register. Again, we have discussed this before and I have reiterated that the Government work through a risk register as a matter of course but do not publish it. We have just all agreed where we know the risks are in this shift in registration, but I have to reiterate that we knew where many of these risks were already. It is relevant that we have already had increasing problems with young men, people living in rented accommodation and ethnic minority voters. Those existed already; we simply have to work harder to get through to all of them; that is why we are targeting our efforts.

[Lord Wills]

Very briefly, everyone knew where the risks were with the current system of registration. The question I have been trying to get the Government to address is: does the way in which they are proceeding to introduce individual registration increase those risks, maintain the same level of risk or decrease the risks? Which is it?

[Lord Wallace of Saltaire]

My Lords, our efforts are intended to mitigate a risk that was already increasing and is likely to increase further. We will continue to need to look at a range of issues. I am well aware that a Labour Private Member’s Bill, which has been presented two or three times in the House of Commons, suggests, for example, that benefit seekers should not be able to receive their benefits unless they are on the electoral register. This provision is not included in the Bill. It is something that the noble Lord may wish to pursue further. There is a range of questions that we still need to consider, but he and I know how difficult this is: first, getting these people on the register and then persuading many of them to vote.

The noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, asked how aware we were of the importance of the register for December 2015, because it is likely to be the basis on which the redistribution of seats next time around will be drawn. Again, this is not a new problem. We are already aware that there has been underregistration in a number of cities—a number of safe Labour seats, one has to say. To the extent to which we have managed to raise the level of registration, we will raise it on a much fairer basis for the next redistribution of seats. Again, we all recognise, on a cross-party basis, that these things go together, and that we share an interest in making sure that as many of these vulnerable groups as possible are persuaded to register.

The last question from the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, was: who is a person of good standing? I am tempted to say that it is clearly a university professor. However, I take the question as he put it and I promise to write, particularly on the question of how many times the same person can sign a form on behalf of someone else before the ERO begins to question whether they are an appropriate person to sign the form. I am aware of where he is going with that question and I will do my best to answer it. I hope that I have answered all the questions that noble Lords raised, and I beg to move.

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for his responses, which I am happy with. I did ask some other questions, but I take it that he will respond to them in writing.

[Lord Wallace of Saltaire]

Of course.

Motion agreed.

Representation of the People (England and Wales) (Description of Electoral Registers and Amendment) Regulations 2013

Monday 9th December 2013 Grand Committee

Motion to Consider

16:25

Moved by

[Lord Wallace of Saltaire]

That the Grand Committee do consider the Representation of the People (England and Wales) (Description of Electoral Registers and Amendment) Regulations 2013.

Relevant document: 11th Report from the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments.

Motion agreed.

Representation of the People (Scotland) (Description of Electoral Registers and Amendment) Regulations 2013

Monday 9th December 2013 Grand Committee

Motion to Consider

16:25

Moved by

[Lord Wallace of Saltaire]

That the Grand Committee do consider the Representation of the People (Scotland) (Description of Electoral Registers and Amendment) Regulations 2013

Relevant document: 12th Report from the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments

Motion agreed.

Representation of the People (Provision of Information Regarding Proxies) Regulations 2013

Monday 9th December 2013 Grand Committee

Motion to Consider

16:25

Moved by

[Lord Wallace of Saltaire]

That the Grand Committee do consider the Representation of the People (Provision of Information Regarding Proxies) Regulations 2013.

Relevant document: 11th Report from the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments

Motion agreed.

Violence Against Women

Monday 9th December 2013 Grand Committee

Question

16:26

[Baroness Gould of Potternewton]

Asked by

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what steps they are taking to address violence against women in countries experiencing conflict.

[Baroness Gould of Potternewton (Lab)]

My Lords, it is a tragedy but a reality that violence against women and girls, be it sexual assault, domestic violence, FGM or forced marriage, is seen by far too many women as part of normal existence. In discussing the question of rape as a weapon of war, I want to concentrate on sexual violence in conflict, although the other issues around violence against women are extremely important.

The United Nations Security Council has declared that the use of rape and sexual violence as a weapon of warfare is a threat to international peace and security and it has passed several resolutions mandating states to take specific measures to end impunity for war rape and to address gender inequality. The question that must be discussed today is what the result of these initiatives is. At this point, I must declare an interest as co-chair of the UK branch of the Global Justice Center.

Rape as a particularly serious form of sexual violence qualifies in international law as a form of torture designed to destroy communities through terror and humiliation. As a weapon it is used more than any other prohibited weapon of war, including starvation, herbicides or dum-dum bullets, yet somehow the degradation and sexual assault of women are not seen as such a significant crime and worthy of prosecution. It can be extremely violent and dangerous. It is psychological warfare designed to humiliate and it is used systematically as a tactic of war.

Girls and women are now at a high risk of physical, sexual and emotional violence from regular soldiers, non-regular army groups and militia, and non-combatants. This risk is compounded by the breakdown of structures of authority, displacement, and the rupture of communities and their coping strategies. Women and girls are often the most vulnerable when humanitarian emergencies occur, but they are often not accorded enough priority by donors at the onset of a humanitarian crisis. It must also be understood that women are not a homogeneous group. Attention has to be given to the fate of the large number of widows, for instance, and their children, as well as all women at risk.

Sexual violence has wide-ranging negative consequences: physical trauma, disease, HIV/AIDS, psychological trauma, unwanted pregnancy, maternal mortality and the risks of resorting to non-sterile or unsafe methods of abortion, thus perpetuating the physical and psychological effects of the injury. The horror of rape can lead to severe health implications or death. In many societies, the shame of rape is a burden for the survivor, causing the woman to become a social outcast and frequently obliging her to leave her family and community, which may lead to poverty and often to prostitution.

Whether it is in the iconic square in Cairo, or during the 100 days of the Rwandan genocide, when it is alleged that 400,000 women were raped, or in Bosnia, where it is estimated that 200,000 to 250,000 women were raped—with only perhaps 50 prosecutions, I should add—or in the Central African Republic, where campaigning militia and government forces alike continue to rain terror over the population by the systematic use of rape, even though a hearing is being conducted against a military commander, the war rape continues, and women and girls made pregnant by such rape are denied access to abortion due, directly or indirectly, to the US abortion ban on humanitarian aid. There is evidence that in Libya, in 2011, Gaddafi deliberately used rape as a punishment. Today, in Colombia, sexual violence is perpetrated by armed actors, both state and non-state, but it is the state security forces’ involvement in sexual violence that has a particularly devastating effect since those forces are mandated to protect the Colombian population. A woman from Colombia said to me, “Their uniforms should symbolise security, discipline and public service, but instead they symbolise the fear of rape”. Amnesty International reported the terrible situation of women in Syria in fear of sexually based violence fleeing to camps where they cannot go out at night because of that continuing fear of sexual violence, when they thought that they were going to safety.

Girls and women raped in situations of armed conflict are considered the wounded and sick. That means that they have absolute rights to non-discriminatory medical care and attention under Common Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions, which states that no adverse distinction should be made on any grounds other than medical ones. However, because of the restrictions placed on the use of aid for the purpose of abortion, non-discrimination might signify that the outcome for each gender must be the same, but the treatment is not and should not be identical. Consequences—most notably pregnancy—necessitate distinct medical care, including the option of abortion. Denying abortion to female victims of war rape who are forced to bear the children of their rapists violates Common Article 3, the prohibition against torture and cruel treatment.

The UK’s partner of choice for humanitarian aid to persons wounded or sick in armed conflict is the International Committee of the Red Cross. Despite the UK’s explicit policies on safe abortion and gender equality, the ICRC, which receives more than 20% of its annual budget from the United States, operates under the US abortion ban, stating in its internal operational guidelines that,

“the ICRC’s general position … is that its medical staff do not perform abortions”.

The ICRC further advises that such medical care is governed by domestic abortion laws, not the medical needs of the patient as required by the Geneva Convention. Nearly all of the UK’s humanitarian aid for victims of armed conflict is given to humanitarian aid entities that discriminate against female rape victims by denying them medically needed abortions.

This is in no way to diminish the important role that the Government have played in highlighting this crucial issue. It was encouraging to hear this statement in the Queen’s Speech:

“My government will work to prevent sexual violence in conflict worldwide”.

They have increased efforts to tackle this issue through the Foreign Secretary’s preventing sexual violence initiative, which aims to increase the number of perpetrators brought to justice and is signed by 120 member states. Perhaps the Minister can update us on what progress has been made on that initiative. Importantly, it was supported by the G8 Declaration on Preventing Sexual Violence in Conflict this year and I am sure that we all look forward to the outcome of the proposed global summit.

Resolution 2122, which supports abortion access for survivors of rape in war, noting the need for,

“access to the full range of sexual and reproductive health services, including regarding pregnancies resulting from rape, without discrimination”,

is in line with the Government’s announcement on 9 January this year that the option of abortion is a necessary component of medical care for women and girls impregnated by war rape. This resolution represents a step forward in recognising the rights of female victims of war, so my question to the Minister has to be whether this policy has now been incorporated into relevant DfID policies. Has there been a revision of the safe and unsafe abortion practice paper that limits the provision of DfID support for abortion services strictly to situations where abortion is legal under national laws? Those actions are vital if we are to make change happen.

Further initiatives that might be followed by the Government are to remove any barriers to the implementation of the important Security Council Resolution 2106 by the UK making a bilateral request for the US to remove its abortion ban on humanitarian aid and publicly to support access to safe abortions for female war victims. How do the Government intend to follow through the recommendation of the House of Commons Select Committee on International Development that all UK aid partners should inform girls and women raped and impregnated in armed conflict of their rights under international humanitarian law, including their right to abortion as a component of non-discriminatory medical care? The UK has the power to ensure that its aid complies with the Geneva Conventions and the Security Council resolutions.

Effective responses to sexual and gender-based violence have to ensure medical, psychological and material support, as well as access to justice for survivors. This requires strong political commitment and leadership at both national and global levels. If we are to look forward to the future, we really have to see a reduction, if not the elimination, of these terrible atrocities against women and girls.

16:37

[Baroness Hodgson of Abinger (Con)]

I congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Gould, on raising this subject for debate today, because the situation of women in conflict is so often overlooked. For most people in the UK, war is viewed through the media with images of young men—soldiers, rebels, fundamentalist groups, freedom fighters. What is hardly ever shown are the pictures of the women in these countries who die as civilians, or those who are raped violently and repeatedly as a strategy of modern warfare. Over the past century, wars have shifted from battlefields to communities, and today it is estimated that 90% of casualties are civilians, mostly women and children. In terror, women often flee, trying to take their families to a safer place, sometimes making themselves even more vulnerable.

Of the 42 million refugees and internally displaced people today, 80% are women and children. These stark figures do not reveal the suffering that lies behind them. What happens to families when a mother is killed? What about the heartbreak of leaving your home with nothing, to ensure your family’s survival? This anguish was very much brought home to me when I met Syrian refugees in Lebanon in May. Being the poorest in these countries makes women especially vulnerable in conflict, not only because they are less physically able to defend themselves but because their cultural norms and status in society often put them at particular risk. The destruction of services and infrastructure during conflict means that there is no support to turn to, and it is not just by the enemy that women will be attacked. When a conflict starts, levels of domestic violence spiral out of control.

As the noble Baroness has highlighted, women frequently become prime targets. Too often today, rape is used as a weapon of war; raping a woman in front of her family effectively disarms the men. UN special representative Zainab Bangura describes it as “History’s greatest silence”. Accurate data from conflict countries are hard to obtain but the estimates are truly terrible: 50,000 women systematically raped in the camps in Bosnia; around 400,000 women raped in Rwanda; 400,000 women raped in the DRC in the years 2006 and 2007 alone; 500,000 women raped in Colombia. One could go on—Sudan, Liberia, Sierra Leone, Cambodia, Haiti, Nicaragua, Mexico, women being gang-raped in Tahrir Square in Cairo, and it is happening right now in Syria today. In spite of this, the conviction rates up to now have been pitifully small: none after World War II, 29 in Bosnia, 11 in Rwanda and six in Sierra Leone.

I pay enormous tribute to the Foreign Secretary for his initiative to prevent sexual violence in conflict and post-conflict countries, which was launched in May 2012, and I am enormously proud to be on the steering board. There has been outstanding progress, and I am sure we will hear more on this from the Minister: 137 countries have endorsed the declaration—that is 70% of all the members of the United Nations. In the words of the Foreign Secretary:

“We want to bring the world to a point of no return, creating irreversible momentum towards ending warzone rape and sexual violence worldwide”.

In time, this will change the lives of millions across the world.

As the noble Baroness said, women are not a homogeneous group. No data exist on the millions of widows and wives of the disappeared, who are particularly vulnerable and may be targeted within their families and the wider community. According to Widows for Peace through Democracy, it is suggested that there are over 2 million widows in Iraq; more than 50% of all women in eastern Congo are widows, and there are 2.5 million in Afghanistan, with around 80,000 in Kabul alone, often having to resort to begging on the streets to support their families.

“Wherever there is conflict, women must be part of the solution”,

said Michelle Bachelet, the former head of UN Women. Women are hit hardest by war, yet it is an irony that they are excluded from national peace talks and plans. Over the past 25 years, only one in 40 peace treaty signatories have been women, and between 1990 and 2010 only 12 out of 585 peace accords referred to women’s needs in rehabilitation or reconstruction.

Failing to recognise the different experiences of women and men threatens to erode women’s rights and puts them at increased risk. For women, violence continues after the fighting stops, when there will be many armed men and usually fragile or non-existent transitional justice systems. In post-conflict countries, a culture of normalised sexual violence can continue. When I visited Liberia, we were told that girls had to engage in “transactional” sex to survive, with even the girls in the university having to exchange sex for grades.

There has been little real progress on including women at the peace table in spite of seven UN resolutions, starting with 1325 and ending with 2122, to address this, through lack of global implementation. Over the past few years, one only has to look at the way in which Afghan women have been excluded from the London Conference, the Bonn II Conference—where a woman from civil society was allowed to speak for three minutes—and the Chicago NATO summit.

You cannot have real and lasting peace without considering and including women, who are half the population, and it is certainly not peace for the women if domestic and sexual violence is raging unabated and there are no institutions to deal with this. Surely it is just as much a right for women to help to decide the future of their country and that their diverse experiences are integrated into all peacebuilding, peacemaking and reconstruction processes. When that happens, peace is more likely to last. I particularly ask the Minister to ensure that, where the UK is involved in peace negotiations, women in civil society are included.

16:43

[Baroness Kinnock of Holyhead (Lab)]

My Lords, I endorse and support what my noble friend Lady Gould said about the right of women raped and impregnated in conflict to abortion under the Geneva convention, and indeed international humanitarian law.

Last year, as rebels captured the main towns in Mali, we heard that girls as young as 12 had been forcibly taken to military camps, gang-raped for days and then abandoned. Earlier this year Ban Ki-moon visited Congo, where he met women who had a condition called traumatic fistula. I have also met women who, to put it in plain language, had had their insides torn out, were unable to control their bladder or bowels and were in constant pain. In Darfur I met a 16 year-old girl who, after being raped, was rejected by her family and fiancé, and endured additional abuse at the hands of police. Her child was then two years old and she was left isolated and alone. It is usual for these women and girls to be ostracised and rejected by their families.

Just imagine an orphanage where 300 children conceived when their mothers were raped had been abandoned. Imagine a town where in the past year 11 infants between the age of six months and one year had been raped. Of the thousands of reported rapes in Congo, up to 50% of all survivors were under the age of 17, and 10% were under 10.

Sexual violence in conflict is a security, development and human rights challenge. It is indeed an extremely effective weapon of war that creates enduring ethnic, religious, family and community divides. Violence against women is increasingly used as a way to humiliate, attack and undermine enemy male combatants. Women are raped and impregnated or infected with HIV as a part of efforts to destabilise their communities. It is also important to recognise that, as the excellent NGO, Womankind, points out, attention to the impact of war on women has failed to address domestic violence in fragile and conflict-affected countries, and that in such conditions it is often the case that women suffer violence from partners and family members.

How, in policies, programmes and funding, do the Government seek to address domestic violence in fragile and conflict-affected states? Is it not clear that, whether in the form of beatings, bullying, forced marriage or female infanticide, violence is used as a tool to subordinate women? The tragedy is that too often violence against women is tolerated, justified and overlooked, and there is an unwillingness to acknowledge that social norms and the widespread prevalence of patriarchal attitudes and beliefs determine the status of women.

The UN Security Council has said that it,

“remains seized of the matter”,

so why are gender perspectives not mainstreamed through all the UN work on conflict-affected and fragile states? The NGO, Saferworld, which has real expertise on peace and security matters, has pointed out that while we have a large number of international agreements on addressing sexual and gender-based violence, little progress has been made on implementing them, so I do not expect to hear from the Minister that everything is fine and going well.

We have the Beijing Platform for Action and United Nations Security Council Resolutions 1325, 1820, 1888, 1960, 2106 and 2122. Surely we have enough information to act on. It is good to have these progressive policies, of course, but if they are not translated into action, we will not see real change for hundreds of thousands of women, men, girls and boys whose life chances are so threatened by sexual and gender-based violence. Furthermore, even with that solid framework of UN resolutions already in place, we see that Mary Robinson is the first and only lead mediator in the peace process, when over half the world’s population are women. Plainly, we need to see many more women who are civil society leaders, with decades of experience on peace and security issues, holding key positions in peacekeeping operations.

It occurs to me that as the number of resolutions increases, and while the focus on protecting women from sexual violence is welcome, it seems that little is being done to plan for more women’s participation in decision-making. Resolution 2122, agreed in October, represents some progress but there is still a long way to go. Surely it is time to recognise that there is an urgent need to support women’s efforts to address their own security needs, and that they should have a central role in efforts to respond to conflict—and indeed to help with the prevention of conflict.

On the preventing sexual violence initiative, the priority has to be preventing violence in the first place. Focusing simply on prosecution fails to acknowledge the daunting barriers to justice that women face. Indeed, a World Bank report found that apart from lack of education and a limited awareness of their rights, the main reason that women do not seek help is the perception that violence is normal and somehow justified, and that it remains the case that women are too embarrassed and stigmatised to seek redress. We identify the fact that there are grave problems with impunity in conflict-affected states. This reinforces and reflects the widespread social convention that serves to marginalise women. Is it not time to shift the balance of shame from the survivors to the perpetrators? Will the Minister confirm that the planned PSVI conference will include a focus on primary prevention and survival services as well as on increasing prosecutions?

Violence against women is increasingly recognised as a threat to democracy, a barrier to lasting peace, a burden on national economies and a truly appalling violation of human rights. Protection and prevention are within the grasp of our generation. We should ensure that both are applied with rigour.

16:50

[Lord Hussain (LD)]

I also thank the noble Baroness, Lady Gould, for raising this important issue. We often hear about violence and rape against women from many parts of the world, and we all stand united in condemning those acts. However, we very rarely discuss such issues taking place in many countries that are more friendly to the United Kingdom, such as India. Recently some cases in the capital and other areas have been reported widely in the press, but the case of gang rape in the Indian capital has remained the focus for almost all the print and electronic media in the country. This has been followed by violent and angry protests at India Gate in the heart of New Delhi. Not only the residents of Delhi but also the whole of India has condemned these crimes. Living their own life of peace, far from turbulent Kashmir, the young generation of the city have rarely witnessed such protests, yet they arose in anger to protest against this brutal incident. People all over India have condemned the brutality of the crime and demanded a harsh punishment for the culprits. Cries of justice for the victim have echoed in many quarters.

However, this has also exposed the duality of attitude of the majority of Indians. If an incident of gang rape against a medical student on a moving bus in the capital is a matter of grief and sorrow for India, provoking it to demand justice, what about Kashmir, where many such cases of rape against innocent girls involving forces have come to the fore? These have been overlooked by the majority of Indians and the rest of the world. Why has not the rest of India demanded justice for these girls? The residents of Kashmir, which is claimed by India as an integral part and is still considered the most militarised part of the world, where the Armed Forces (Special Powers) Act gives extraordinary powers to the military forces and where protests against alleged human rights violations take place on a daily basis, have cried themselves hoarse demanding justice in a number of rape cases against innocent daughters of the state.

The major rape case in the history of Kashmir and indeed the whole of India is the Kunan Poshpora mass rape incident. On 23 February 1991, Kunan Poshpora, a village in the Kupwara district of north Kashmir, witnessed incidents of the alleged mass rape of 20 women by army troops in one night. The incident drew the attention of national and international media. However, this was soon forgotten and the womenfolk of the village landed in unending troubles. Women who deserved the respect and honour of society were not secure any more from the cruel face of the armed forces. A number of other cases of rape and enforced disappearances have come to the fore in the past three decades. Another case that shook the region was the 2009 Shopian rape and murder case, which resulted in protests that rocked the whole valley, with several families losing their loved ones in the agitation.

Shutdowns, curfews and protests, unimaginable for Indians, are not new to Kashmiris. Importantly, womenfolk have become the victims of sexual abuse in the state. Several decades have passed but Kashmir is still fighting to restore its internal peace by achieving justice for its loved ones, who have been subjected to enforced disappearances, and its womenfolk, who have been subjected to senseless violations of their dignity.

The root of the problem, as pointed out by many, is the existence of the Armed Forces (Special Powers) Act, which grants special powers to the armed forces deployed in Kashmir. According to the law, the forces have the power to,

“enter and search without warrant any premises to make any such arrest as aforesaid or to recover any person believed to be wrongfully restrained … or any arms, ammunition or explosive substances”,

and seize it. Does this imply that in a crackdown, the forces can take away all the male members of a community and do whatever they wish with the womenfolk left behind? Kashmir has witnessed too many such incidents.

On 31 March 2012, a UN official asked India to revoke AFSPA, saying it had no place in a democracy such as India. Christof Heyns, the UN special rapporteur on extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions, visited the region and said:

“During my visit to Kashmir, AFSPA was described to me as ‘hated’ and ‘draconian’. It clearly violates international law. A number of UN treaty bodies have pronounced it to be in violation of international law as well”.

I will cut short my speech because I can see that my time is nearly up. A Kashmiri newspaper recently reported that the British Prime Minister, David Cameron, asked the Sri Lankan Prime Minister to ensure a “credible, transparent and independent” inquiry into alleged war crimes. Will the Foreign Secretary ask the Indian Government to ensure a credible, transparent and independent inquiry into the alleged gang rapes in Kashmir at the hands of the security forces, and to bring those responsible to justice?

16:57

[Baroness Coussins (CB)]

My Lords, I am grateful for the opportunity to contribute to this debate, and will focus my remarks on Colombia and Peru. I declare my interests as president of the Peru Support Group and as a volunteer with VSO’s parliamentary volunteering programme in Peru two years ago, where I worked with various NGOs concerned with sexual violence and held meetings with members of the then new Government, as well as the police, judiciary and British companies operating in Peru. I am also associated with the ABColombia Group in the UK and a few days ago chaired its conference on Women, Conflict-Related Violence and the Peace Process in Colombia, which was attended by the representatives of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, the acting Colombian ambassador and some brave victims of sexual violence, who flew over especially, and about 100 activists, academics and others.

It is important to understand the social and cultural context of sexual violence in conflict zones. Women face historical, ingrained attitudes of gender discrimination and economic, social and political marginalisation, as we have already heard. This creates a permissive context for violence against women, which is exacerbated by conflict. We see this today in Colombia, and it was a major issue in the Peruvian conflict between 1980 and 2000. Both conflicts have made widespread and systematic use of women’s bodies as a weapon of war, particularly affecting poor, indigenous and Afro-descendent women.

In Colombia, sexual violence is perpetrated by all armed actors in the conflict, both state and non-state forces. The Constitutional Court of Colombia and the International Criminal Court have expressed grave concerns about the high levels of conflict-related sexual violence, describing it as,

“habitual, extensive, systematic and invisible”.

There is almost total impunity for this type of violence. One survey covering a nine-year period from 2000 estimated that nearly 13,000 women were victims of conflict rape; more than 1,500 were forced into prostitution; and there were more than 4,000 forced pregnancies and nearly 2,000 forced abortions. Yet only 18% of Colombian women actually report this crime, and there is very little hope of that improving, given the dangers that they face, the social stigma and the involvement of the security forces.

As we know, UN Security Council Resolution 1325 states that conflict-related sexual violence should be on the peace process agenda from day one; yet it is still not on the Colombian agenda, despite peace talks having started there in November 2012. In Peru, we have also seen the systematic nature of sexual violence committed by both state forces and Shining Path rebels during the internal conflict. The perpetrators could have been tried for crimes against humanity, but instead the judicial system has chosen to treat it as a common crime. Although the Truth and Reconciliation Commission concluded that military commanders were responsible for the majority of conflict-related sexual violence, these crimes remain unpunished.

None of the 538 cases documented by the Truth and Reconciliation Commission has reached trial. The military refuses to release information that could be used as evidence, while the police and judiciary are inefficient and underresourced. Impunity for conflict crimes contributes to the sustained high levels of violence against women today. Most of the victims were members of marginalised indigenous communities, indicating the links between violence, poverty and racial discrimination. These same groups were also the main victims of a mass programme of sterilisation without consent during the 1990s. As yet, there has been no redress for that to the estimated 200,000 victims.

At least one case awaits trial at the Inter-American Court of Human Rights concerning the arbitrary arrest, rape and torture by state agents of Gladys Carol Espinoza in 1993. This case was referred after the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights ruled that the Peruvian state had failed to meet its obligations to prevent and punish torture. Would it be possible for Her Majesty’s Government to do more to press Peru to comply with the rulings of the Inter-American court?

I welcome the Government's PSVI programme, but ask that a special effort be made not to overlook Colombia and Peru and elsewhere in Latin America. I was disappointed that Colombia was not designated as a priority country when the PSVI was first announced. I would appreciate it if the Minister could say something about how the UK could support the survivors of conflict-related sexual violence in these countries, including support for the human rights defenders who try to help them on the ground but who themselves are so often also in jeopardy.

At the conference here last week, we were pleased to hear the Foreign Office representatives announce a government conference for next June on this whole subject. I congratulate the Government on that initiative, but could they commit to ensuring that there will be speakers from civil society women’s organisations and guarantee that Colombia and Peru will be explicitly covered on the agenda?

I want to make a brief point about how the issue of sexual violence relates to the recent free trade agreement between the EU, Colombia and Peru, which was debated in this Room only last week. In the light of today’s debate, would the Minister undertake to press for a gender perspective to be adopted in the monitoring and implementation of the human rights and labour standards elements of the trade agreement, given the levels of discrimination arising from sexual violence in these countries?

17:03

[Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)]

My Lords, I also thank my noble friend Lady Gould for initiating this important debate. I, too, welcome the Government’s Preventing Sexual Violence Initiative and the Foreign Secretary’s work in raising the profile of this issue on the international stage. However, as we have heard in this debate, not only must we be tough on the crime; we have to be tough on its causes. We must tackle the underlying problem of a lack of empowerment, education and inclusion. The FCO, DfID and the MoD are jointly responsible for the implementation of UN Security Council Resolution 1325 on women, peace and security and for delivering the UK’s national action plan on the resolution. The Government’s progress on the plan is reported in the third annual review and, as my noble friend Baroness Kinnock has already indicated, many of the positive aspirations unfortunately have yet to be translated into reality.

Challenging attitudes and beliefs around gender-based violence is critical, alongside the implementation of effective legislation. Like the noble Baroness, Lady Coussins, I welcome the decision to host a global summit in London next year, co-chaired by the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees’ special envoy Angelina Jolie. Campaigning organisations such as Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, Saferworld and others have made a vital contribution to help to advance this cause over many years. I, too, ask the Minister to assure the Committee that these organisations will be able to be active participants in the summit. The UK commitment to increase funding to the UN Secretary-General’s special representative on sexual violence in conflict is also welcome and I would be grateful if the Minister could tell us whether other countries have followed suit and what the Government are doing to ensure that they do so.

As we have heard in this debate, despite its prevalence, sexual violence in conflict has remained an invisible crime, ignored or dismissed as an inevitable consequence of war. As my noble friends highlighted, 20,000 to 50,000 women were raped during the 1992-95 conflict in Bosnia, yet only 12 attackers have been tried to date. In Rwanda, 500,000 women were raped in 100 days of conflict, yet only 3% of the genocide trials that followed contained any convictions for sexual violence.

The Government are right in saying that this is the time for the international community to step up its efforts to respond to these crimes. Will the Minister set out how many UK personnel have been deployed in post-conflict areas, as part of the UK team of experts, to help to improve local accountability structures since the initiative was first launched? Will he set out what discussions he has had with international partners on contributing their skilled and experienced staff to an international team of experts that can be deployed more widely?

There are a number of priority areas that I would like the Minister to specifically address in his response today. First, what response have the Government received from the Sri Lankan authorities since the Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting on the offer to help to bring perpetrators to account, and how do they plan to take this work forward? In respect of the work that is being done by the UK’s team of experts on the Syrian borders, are there plans for support to be given to those in need in Syria itself?

As my noble friends have confirmed, the global community commitment to protect girls and women raped in armed conflict is made clear by the UN Security Council’s seven resolutions addressing sexual violence in armed conflict. We heard from my noble friends that the denial of safe abortion to war rape victims is deadly, inhuman and cruel. Resolution 2106’s mandate to provide comprehensive and non-discriminatory health services seeks to end this wrong against those victims. I am aware that the Government have made their policy position clear on the provision of safe abortions, but will the Minister make strong representations to those Governments that, as we have heard, continue to make aid and support conditional, urging them to adopt the same approach as us?

We had an excellent debate recently in this Room in Grand Committee on women in Afghanistan post-2014, initiated by the noble Baroness, Lady Hodgson. The debate highlighted that over 4,000 incidents of violence against women in just six months this year were documented by the independent Afghan Human Rights Commission. I am aware of the substantial funds allocated to development aid in Afghanistan by DfID, but what training is being given to the Afghan army so that, particularly post-2014, it sees protecting women from sexual and other forms of violence as part of its role? What protection is being given there to women human rights defenders?

17:10

[Lord Bates (Con)]

My Lords, I join all noble Lords in paying tribute to the noble Baroness, Lady Gould, for securing this debate and for the way in which she introduced it. I will preface my remarks by making two points. The first is to pay tribute to her and other Members who have spoken today, particularly the noble Baroness, Lady Kinnock, and my noble friend Lady Hodgson, for the tremendous work that they have done in this field to bring light to a subject that has often been swept under the carpet. The declaration, now on the international agenda, that violence against women and girls is no longer acceptable is surely something that we want to hear.

Secondly, contributions to the debate have been helpful in crystallising matters. We heard the noble Baroness, Lady Coussins, refer to Colombia and Latin America and the noble Lord, Lord Hussain, talk about India and Kashmir. We heard my noble friend Lady Hodgson and the noble Baroness, Lady Kinnock, talk about Africa and the Middle East. The noble Lord, Lord Collins, spoke about Bosnia. This reminds us that this is not something that is restricted to a particular place or geography. It is endemic in warfare and needs to be tackled with the utmost severity. In response, finally, to the noble Baroness, Lady Kinnock, who understands well the briefings that one might receive ahead of debates like this, I can say that there will be no complacency. Of course we will seek to inform Members about what the Government are doing, but in no way are we saying that it is enough: it is simply the start of taking action in this important area.

The Government have put women and girls at the heart of their international development work. Our vision is set out in our strategy on delaying first pregnancy, support for safe childbirth and preventing violence against women and girls. We recognise that such violence is widespread, highly prevalent and has devastating consequences. It has been hidden and accepted for far too long. My right honourable friend the Secretary of State for International Development has made it clear that tackling violence against women and girls is a central part of the UK’s development policy. My honourable friend Lynne Featherstone continues her active efforts to be a champion for combating violence against women. My right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary, as a number of noble Lords and noble Baronesses have mentioned, has made prevention of sexual violence in conflict-affected countries a priority.

Violence affects about one-third of women and girls in the course of their lifetime. Preventing violence against women is a development goal in its own right and is a key to achieving other development outcomes, including educational attainment, maternal health and economic activity. The impact of violence and rape does so much to erode and destroy those in the human lives concerned. Evidence shows that in emergency situations, including times of conflict, the risk of violence to women and girls is exacerbated. Existing social structures and networks that can protect women are often weakened or destroyed. Inadequate facilities and limited resources reduce women’s options and increase the risk of economic and sexual exploitation. The violence perpetrated is not always sexual violence—evidence shows that in times of conflict, the incidence of domestic violence also increases. The use of sexual violence against women and girls in wartime is well documented. It is used for many reasons: to inflict injury, to degrade, to intimidate and to force a population to flee. Estimates of the scale of violence against women and girls during conflicts in the 1990s demonstrate large-scale targeted abuses, which have been placed on record here this afternoon.

The consequences of violence against women and girls in conflict situations are stark. Sexual violence causes physical and psychological damage to thousands of women and girls, and in the worst cases results in the loss of life. Some survivors will be faced with an unwanted pregnancy, and the choices they face are often limited and harsh. They risk death from an unsafe abortion or face social exclusion and destitution. Every year, 47,000 women and girls die as a result of unsafe abortions and millions more are permanently injured. Improving access to safe abortion is challenging, and I am proud that the UK is one of only a handful of donors willing to take on the challenge. Given the scale of the problem, it is important that the international community works to ensure that the needs of women and girls are prioritised and that action is taken to protect and support women and girls affected by violence in conflict zones.

I am pleased to reassure noble Lords that the Government have been leading the international community in addressing the challenges of violence against women and girls in conflict situations. Just last month, my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for International Development hosted Keep Her Safe, a high-level event attended by senior representatives from the Government, the UN, NGOs and civil society. The point has been made from across the humanitarian system, and that will continue in future meetings. They agreed a fundamental new approach to protecting girls and women in emergency situations. They recognised the need for comprehensive services for sexual reproductive health, psychological health and mental health for women and girls affected by crisis. The event secured £40 million in pledges from the international community to support this work in emergencies. We will track the progress of these commitments, working very closely with the US, which takes the lead on this initiative in 2014.

In another major step, the Foreign Secretary launched the preventing sexual violence initiative in May 2012. It aims to address the culture of impunity by increasing the number of perpetrators brought to justice both internationally and nationally, strengthening international efforts and co-operation, and supporting states to build their national capacity to deliver justice and services. In April this year, G8 Foreign Ministers adopted a historic declaration on preventing sexual violence which committed countries to use all measures—political, practical and legal—to ensure that there are no safe havens for the perpetrators of sexual violence in conflict. Last week, the Foreign Secretary announced that he would co-chair an international summit in the UK which would aim to take further the commitments already made.

In the remaining time, I will address as many of the questions raised as possible. The noble Baroness, Lady Gould, asked what actions were being taken following the UNGA ministerial meeting in 2013, when the Foreign Secretary launched the Declaration of Commitment to End Sexual Violence in Conflict. I will refer to some specific elements. The first is eroding impunity, to which the noble Baroness, Lady Coussins, referred. The 137 endorsing countries have agreed that no peace agreements should give amnesty to people who have ordered or carried out rape. The second is protecting civilians. Every UN peacekeeping mission should now automatically include provisions for the protection of civilians from sexual violence in conflict. The third is eradicating safe havens for the perpetrators of sexual violence in armed conflict. Suspects wanted for war-zone rape can now be arrested in any of the countries that have signed up—a number that is growing. We need to see an increase in the number of prosecutions, something referred to by my noble friend Lady Hodgson and the noble Baroness, Lady Kinnock. Only that will really underscore the determination of the international community to stamp out this wicked and heinous crime.

A new international protocol will be launched next year which will improve global standards for documenting and investigating conflict-zone sexual violence and improve accountability. There will be new global efforts to ensure support and justice for survivors of rape. A number of speakers referred to the shame and stigma felt by people who have been victims and the need to ensure that that is squarely put on the shoulders of the perpetrators.

The noble Baroness, Lady Gould, was concerned about some attitudes towards abortion among the donor community. DfID welcomed recent UN Security Council Resolution 2122, which said that women ought to have,

“access to the full range of sexual and reproductive health services, including regarding pregnancies resulting from rape, without discrimination”.

That is a very clear statement and something that this Government support and acknowledge. We will uphold that and encourage other donors to equally respect and uphold it.

The noble Lord, Lord Hussain, referred to events in India. Priorities for DfID’s work in India include tackling violence and investing in girls’ education. As for his specific point about whether we would raise this directly with the Government of India, I shall take that back and report to my right honourable friend the Secretary of State and see what action we might take to ensure that the horrific cases that he brought to our attention are acted upon.

The noble Baroness, Lady Kinnock, asked for examples of perpetrators being brought to justice. As I have mentioned, that was a key element of the G8 and UN General Assembly declarations on the subject. One additional element is that we will not hesitate to arrest and transfer fugitives required to appear before these courts who come to the UK. That is an important addition that should go without saying. It is something that all agencies and departments are signed up to.

I am running out of time so will just refer to some closing remarks in my brief. I will write to those noble Lords and noble Baronesses whose questions I have not addressed and give them the best possible answers that I can to the points that they have raised. I conclude by saying that this is something that the Government take with the utmost seriousness. We believe that progress is being made on it in the international community. We acknowledge that it has been referred to as “history’s greatest silence”. Along with the actions that are taking place, this debate today is giving a voice to the victims. We can all be proud of that, but there is a lot more to do.

Badgers: Bovine Tuberculosis

Monday 9th December 2013 Grand Committee

Question for Short Debate

17:25

Asked by

[Lord Knight of Weymouth]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what plans there are in future years to continue with a cull of badgers as part of the Bovine Tuberculosis Eradication Programme, following the withdrawal by Natural England of the licence to cull badgers in Gloucestershire.

[Lord Knight of Weymouth (Lab)]

My Lords, this debate follows the decision by Natural England at the end of last month to prematurely halt the extended licence to cull badgers in Gloucestershire. I believe that this decision indicates that the overwhelming view of the independent scientists on badger culls was correct: that a cull is costly and impractical and that continuing for the remaining years of the licensed cull risks exacerbating the serious problem of TB in cattle.

The problem has been growing over recent decades. I live in the south-west of England, where dairy farmers have been particularly badly hit. It has cost the taxpayer as much as £0.5 billion over the past decade in testing, compensation and research, with further sums borne by the agricultural industry. It therefore follows that urgent action must be taken. There is a logic in thinking that killing badgers should be a part of that. Badgers are undoubtedly involved in transmitting TB to cattle and it therefore seems obvious that fewer diseased badgers will lead to less disease in cattle. However, infection is also passed from cattle to cattle, from cattle to badgers and between badgers. The Government are therefore right to pursue other measures as part of their eradication plan for bovine TB, such as pre- and post-movement testing for cattle.

However, in continuing with culling, the Government ignore the most important part of the science: that the social behaviour of badgers produces a much more unpredictable effect due to the effects of perturbation. I am very happy to stand corrected by the real experts in this debate—the noble Lords, Lord Krebs and Lord Trees—but in layman’s terms, perturbation is brought about by the territorial behaviour of badgers. A group of badgers will stick to a territory around a sett if they detect other badgers at their boundary but will extend their range in the absence of other badgers.

The randomised badger culling trials carried out by the previous Government, devised by the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, who I am delighted to see in his place, had clear and undisputed findings. First, localised small-scale culling of badgers in the RBCT increased bovine TB. Secondly, 100 square-kilometre areas receiving widespread culling had lower cattle TB rates than those with no culling. The benefits took several years to emerge but persisted four years after culling ended. Thirdly, land adjoining the widespread culling areas experienced rapid increases in cattle TB. These detrimental effects faded over time but never turned into benefits. The trials, as with the current pilot culls, tried to reduce these effects using natural impermeable boundaries such as rivers.

These findings informed the current government policy. The licensing criteria are intended to produce large-scale, long-term, rapid and efficient culls, as the trials agreed that small-scale, short-term, slow and inefficient culls will increase cattle TB. By extrapolating the RBCT effects to a 150 square-kilometre circle, it followed that Government-led cage-trapping of badgers could reduce local cattle TB over a nine-year period by 12% to 16% below what it would have been with no culling. However, because background TB levels are rising, this 12% to 16% relative reduction over nine years actually represents a slowing of the rate of increase of cattle TB, not an absolute fall. On average, farmers would probably experience as much TB as they do today, or more. Farmers on adjoining land would almost certainly experience increased TB risks. To get this limited impact, the licence required 80% confidence of culling 70% of the badger population in the area.

When the policy was announced in October 2012, more than 30 of the leading scientists in this area wrote to the Secretary of State. At the very end of their letter, they said:

“Implementing these criteria entails substantial challenges, both for government and for farmers and, as a result, beneficial effects on cattle TB cannot be guaranteed. For example, licensees will be required to cull a minimum number of badgers (to avoid net increases in cattle TB) without exceeding a maximum number (to avoid causing local extinction, which would breach the Bern Convention on the Conservation of European Wildlife and Natural Habitats). Setting such minimum and maximum numbers is technically problematic, especially when local estimates of badger numbers—”

17:30

Sitting suspended for a Division in the House.

17:40

[Lord Knight of Weymouth]

My Lords, before the Division I was reading an extract from a letter to the Secretary of State from 30 scientists sent in October 2012. I will continue:

“Setting such minimum and maximum numbers is technically problematic, especially when local estimates of badger numbers are very imprecise. Furthermore, shooting the required number of badgers sufficiently rapidly and with due regard to public safety is likely to be challenging in the face of public protest and potentially inclement weather”.

So the Government were warned by the leading scientists.

What do we now know about how the pilots have gone? In Somerset, 65% of the estimated population of badgers was culled in the pilot area. In Gloucestershire, it was just 39%. Based on the science that the Government used to design these pilots, this means that the cull was not sufficiently effective to reduce cattle TB, and in Gloucestershire is likely to have caused more harm than good. Will the Minister therefore tell us when we will get any statement on the record from the Government’s Chief Scientific Adviser, Defra’s chief scientist and the Chief Veterinary Officer, and their analysis of whether the pilot culls have increased or decreased the incidence of bovine TB in Gloucestershire, Somerset and neighbouring areas?

Will the Minister also take this opportunity to explain one other curiosity? The licensing is for trapping and shooting and for free shooting. The data show a sudden increase in the more expensive trapping and shooting halfway through the initial six-week pilot. The extension was stopped at the same time as the cage-shooting season ended, with three more weeks to run for free shooting. This suggests that those carrying out the cull voted with their feet and abandoned free shooting. Is this true? Do the Government expect free shooting to be widespread if they push ahead with a cull over the next few years? Will he publish a new cost-benefit analysis accordingly?

It looks like an effective farmer-led cull is very difficult, due to weather and protesters, as scientists predicted, and due to badgers moving the goal posts, which no one predicted. If an ineffective cull is what we have ended up with, it will make matters worse, so what should we do? The answer appears to be vaccination of badgers. Thanks to FERA trials on the safety of an injected vaccine, we know that it reduces the transmission of the disease among badgers. We do not yet know the effect on cattle, but we could, through the evaluation of vaccination pilots.

The case for piloting vaccination is profound. It plays to the perturbation effect, not against it. Vaccinating an area reduces disease in the badger population in that area while keeping badgers alive. Those badgers then keep out other potentially diseased badgers, thus creating an area where the situation is improving, which also blocks further spread of the disease in badgers.

There are normally three broad arguments against badger vaccination. The first is cost. This objection is because it needs cage-trapping. Given that that is what culling now seems to favour, that element is cost-neutral. Unlike culling, there is negligible policing cost. The pilot culls have cost considerably more to police in Gloucestershire than expected, for example. The remaining element is the cost of the vaccine, offset against the cost of disposing of badger corpses. It is also clear from voluntary vaccination programmes that there is considerable public support. Many come forward to volunteer and some are funding vaccination.

Secondly, people say that we cannot wait for a vaccine to take effect; that it is too slow, with no effect on animals already infected. To that I say: ask the scientists. The annual mortality of badgers is 25% to 35%. Hence, vaccination would work pretty quickly compared to the cull impact of 16% over nine years.

The final argument is that vaccination does not remove infected badgers. The evidence is that, with culling, the reduction in infected badgers is much slower than the overall reduction in the badger population due to perturbation. We know that culling will not reduce the overall level of infection because the overall level of reduction is offset by background levels of rising TB. However, vaccination would at least reduce transmission between badgers without the increase in transmission created by the perturbation effect induced by culling.

To summarise, I am assuming that we mean vaccination by injection; I think there are issues attached to oral vaccine that have to be addressed. There is long-term potential attached to a cattle vaccine, but that is more complex and not something that we can proceed with as quickly as we need to. The Government should look closely at the pilots that they have carried out and then be led by science. This will tell them that culling is impractical, due to perturbation. It may have worked against non-native invasive possums in New Zealand with very different social behaviour, or in Ireland, where much lower badger density leads to much less of a perturbation effect. But the evidence from England is great and consistently shows that it does not work. The efforts and resources spent on culling badgers should be replaced by a vaccination pilot. I look forward to other contributions and to the Minister’s response.

17:45

[Baroness Parminter (LD)]

My Lords, I thank my noble friend for introducing this debate and his speedy overview of the issue. I also welcome the Government’s commitment to eradicate this terrible disease and its impact on our wildlife, our farmed animals and our farming community. I want to focus on the cull pilots, which were introduced nearly two years ago to the day. They were set up to test three things: first, the effectiveness of removing the target percentage of badgers; secondly, the safety of culling by free shooting; and thirdly, the humaneness. Let us remind ourselves that free shooting has not been trialled anywhere else in the world for badgers, and therefore I understand the decision by the Government at that time to introduce those pilots—although even before we had the changes in the pilots, with the introduction of cage-trapping and the extension periods to both, I certainly had some sympathy with the view that the boundaries of the pilots were beyond the parameters of the randomised badger culling trials and therefore could not be used as a gauge for the likely outcome of the pilots in analysing the impact of reducing the incidence of TB in cattle.

Given the evidence that we have had of those pilots, it is hard to conclude anything other than that they have failed the efficacy test that was set in 2011. The licence issued specified,

“the killing of no less than the specified minimum number of badgers in a single period of 6 weeks during the Open Season”.

During the period of the two pilots, both of the cull periods were extended: in Somerset, from 42 to 63 days and in Gloucestershire, from 42 to 93 days, with a week intervening in between. Cage trapping has been introduced to supplement free shooting and of course the initial number of badgers has been revised and brought down by the Government. Even with those changes, though, it was still impossible for the cull to reach that 70% of the population that the cull licence required it to achieve.

It has clearly been the right decision for the Government to set up an independent panel to assess the outcome of the two pilots, particularly in the light of their commitment to support evidence-led policy. We all therefore eagerly await the outcome of the IEP. In advance of that, however, I have three questions for the Minister. First, what is the expected time for the delivery of the report from the independent expert panel, given the extension to the pilots and any impact that that might have on the subsequent decision by the Secretary of State about whether to roll out culling in up to 10 further areas?

Secondly, it is critical that we have confidence that the assessment of the humanity of these pilots has been done on the basis of the badgers that were killed by free shooting as opposed to those killed by cage-trapping. Will the Minister therefore confirm that there will be full disclosure of how the data were collected and assessed at the time of release, so that we can be assured of the methods used to kill the badgers?

Thirdly, given that the costs of cage-trapping are significantly higher than those for free shooting, and that the duration of the cull has increased the costs for policing, does the Minister now accept that a new impact assessment is necessary prior to the Secretary of State deciding whether or not to allow the rollout of these culls, so that we know what the net cost/benefit is, both to the taxpayer and the farming community?

The Government have made it clear that they will not do nothing on this important issue, and I applaud them for that. As we await the reports from the IEP, and as the future of licensed shooting is in doubt, I urge the Government to redouble their support for the vaccination programme and to set up a high-level working group to take leadership on this issue and bring together the key players of the NFU, the Wildlife Trusts and the National Trust in order to give best-practice guidance to those in the farming community and landowners who want to take forward voluntary vaccination as a means to tackle this appalling disease.

17:51

[Lord Krebs (CB)]

My Lords, I, too, thank the noble Lord, Lord Knight of Weymouth, for bringing forward this debate. As noble Lords will be aware, I have an interest in this topic, having been involved in the debate about badgers and TB in cattle since my 1997 report on the subject, which led to the establishment of the randomised badger culling trials that the noble Lord, Lord Knight, referred to.

As the noble Lord, Lord Knight, said, the randomised badger culling trials showed that large-scale, persistent culling of badgers—removing a large proportion of the population—had a modest effect in reducing TB in cattle. The best estimate, which is only a rough guide—confirmed recently by Professor Charles Godfray and 10 top expert scientists in a paper published in the Proceedings of the Royal Society—is that the reduction expected after nine years could be 16%. Of course, as the noble Lord, Lord Knight, said, the evidence from the randomised badger culling trial was that it made things worse in the early years, and worse for farmers around the edges of the cull areas.

Nevertheless, the Government decided to go ahead with pilot culls in Gloucestershire and Somerset. It is worth reminding ourselves of the purpose of the pilot culls. As the noble Baroness, Lady Parminter, said, it was not to test whether killing badgers controls TB in cattle but to test whether or not it is possible to kill enough badgers by free shooting, as opposed to cage-trapping, and to kill them humanely and safely. This was stated very clearly in a letter to me from the then Minister of State for Agriculture and Food, David Heath, which said that,

“the pilot is not a scientific trial but rather a test of our assumptions about practical areas of uncertainty”,

and that it would,

“give us sufficient information on both the effectiveness and humaneness of controlled shooting to be able to make a judgement on its acceptability as a culling method”.

However, this is not what the current Minister of State or the Secretary of State say. Quoted on the BBC website, George Eustice said that the pilots,

“will make a difference to disease control in the area”.

Likewise, Owen Paterson said that the aim of the pilots was to,

“achieve the earliest and greatest possible impact on bTB in the area”.

I am confused. Does the Minister agree with David Heath or with George Eustice and Owen Paterson? Are Defra Ministers clear about the purpose of the pilots?

We now know that the pilots have been a complete fiasco. As has been said, there was confusion about the number of badgers in each area, as well as the target proportion to be shot, and the farmers completely failed to meet the target numbers in the allotted time period. Back in October 2012, just before the pilot was due to start, the number of badgers estimated to be in each area went up by a massive 400%. In October 2013, during the cull, the number shot down by 35%.

We know that the Secretary of State accused the badgers of moving the goal posts, but there is another possible interpretation: it might just be that Defra did not have a clue about how many badgers there were in those areas. As has been said, the target of the pilot was to remove more than 70% of the badgers but less than 100%. The 70% target was set because in the randomised badger culling trials this was the proportion that had to be removed to achieve the modest positive benefit to farmers.

Part of the way through the pilots, when it was clear that the target of 70% would be missed, it was magically changed to 53%. Those badgers seem to have moved the goal posts again. Could the Minister please explain to us why the target was changed part of the way through the pilots, and on what scientific basis? Furthermore, why was the maximum proportion to be killed in Gloucestershire lowered from 90% at the start of the pilot to 70% part of the way through? Does the Minister agree that this change means that any farmer who was efficient enough to meet the initial target would have ended up breaking the law by the end of the pilot?

I was quoted some months ago in the press as saying that the pilot cull was a “crazy scheme”. It seems to have got even crazier. However—now I come to my key point—as the noble Baroness, Lady Parminter, said, Defra has established an independent expert panel, chaired by Professor Ranald Munro, which will advise it on the effectiveness, humaneness and safety of controlled shooting. I understand that the panel is due to report very soon. If it concludes that controlled shooting is not effective or humane, will Defra abandon its plans to roll out further controlled shooting? I have one further question, which has already been alluded to by the noble Lord, Lord Knight, and the noble Baroness, Lady Parminter: in the light of the experience of the pilots, will Defra re-evaluate the cost/benefit analysis of the policy?

I could seek answers to many more puzzling questions about Defra’s plans for shooting badgers to control TB in cattle, but I would be very pleased if the Minister would give direct answers to the questions that I have already posed: what is the purpose of the pilots; why was the 70% target changed; will Defra follow the advice of its independent expert panel; and will it do a new cost/benefit analysis in the light of its experience of the pilots?

In concluding, I emphasise that the focus on killing badgers is misplaced. We all agree that TB is a dreadful problem for farmers, particularly in the south-west, and that something has to be done to bring it under control. However, there is no point in doing something if it is the wrong thing. The sad fact is that there are more effective and cheaper ways of controlling TB in cattle. We have already heard from the noble Lord, Lord Knight, and the noble Baroness, Lady Parminter, about the idea of vaccination. However, in the short term, before vaccines became effective, putting in place rigorous measures to prevent transmission of the disease between badgers and cattle, and among cattle, would be a more effective policy in achieving a 60% reduction than trying to kill badgers. If Defra were to turn its attention to this solution, farmers, scientists and conservationists would all be relieved, and badgers would be able to take a rest from their task of moving the goal posts.

The NFU has told me that in 22 years, 25% of cattle herds in Cornwall, Devon, Gloucestershire, Herefordshire and Worcestershire have never had TB. There may be a clue in trying to understand why those 25% have never had TB. Surely that could give us an indication of what those farms are doing differently that helps to prevent their cattle from getting the disease. That would be a more fruitful approach than the pointless exercise of trying to kill badgers.

17:59

[Lord Trees (CB)]

My Lords, I, too, thank the noble Lord, Lord Knight, for bringing this subject forward for debate. I want to try to look at the problem rather holistically, which is a challenge in under 10 minutes, but I will try. Let us be under no illusions: bovine tuberculosis is a major threat to the health of domestic animals and wildlife in Britain today. This is a disease that was almost eradicated from Britain 40 to 50 years ago by means, directed at cattle, that were essentially the same as those we use now—TB testing of cattle and the removal of reactors, although a good many other measures have been put in place that mean that the controls on cattle are even tighter than they were then. A key factor that has changed in the past few decades is the emergence of badgers as a major wildlife reservoir of this infection. There is epidemiological evidence that something like 50% of outbreaks in cattle are related to badger infections.

We are faced now with a problem of infection in badgers and in cattle on a substantial and increasing scale. If I could show the Committee maps of the spread of the infection, noble Lords would see that there has been a relentless spread in the geographical distribution of bovine infection from the original hotspot in the south-west of England, when it was nearly eradicated, to the current situation where bovine TB is threatening the dense cattle populations of Cheshire and Lancashire.

Although there is an understandable focus on the adverse impact on cattle and badger health and welfare, we should not forget that there is another victim of this disease—the cattle farmer who suffers huge stress and distress every time their herd is tested and animals are removed from the herds that they have built up over many years. We do not concern ourselves enough with the human toll that this disease is having. It is a fact that the suicide rate in farmers is the highest of any professional group. Although one certainly cannot claim that this is all due to TB, the fact is that an already vulnerable group of people is being subjected to excessive anxiety and uncertainty. That is the situation that we are facing. When the average city dweller pours their milk over their cornflakes each morning, they may not understand the hard work, worry and commitment that go into producing that daily milk.

What are the options to deal with this disease? Ideally, an effective vaccine for cattle is the solution but for various reasons, which have been made clear most recently by a letter from the EU Commissioner Tonio Borg, it is likely to be some 10 years before a vaccine is accepted and licensed in the EU to be deployed in the UK. Experience shows that in the absence of a vaccine for the target domestic species—in this case, cattle—and where there is a wildlife reservoir of infection, control measures need to address the wildlife reservoir as well as the domestic animal. In the case of bovine TB, there is a wildlife host, the badger, that is present in very high numbers—10 to 15 setts on a farm is not unusual—is in close direct and indirect contact with cattle on grazing areas, in forage crops such as maize and indeed in farm buildings, has no natural predators and is excreting substantial amounts of Mycobacterium bovis into the environment. In this situation, and in the absence of a cattle vaccine, measures directed at the wildlife host, as noble Lords who spoke earlier accepted, are essential as well as stringent measures directed towards cattle.

What are the options vis-à-vis badgers? As your Lordships are aware and as has been mentioned, a vaccine for badgers is licensed for use by injection. It has various limitations, including the fact that a high coverage of the population is necessary to reduce infection and transmission. Something over 40% has been suggested, which is feasible but difficult in a wild animal population compared with a controlled domestic animal population. Animals that are already infected will not be stopped by vaccination from excreting bacteria, and susceptible young animals are constantly being born into the population. Moreover, the animals have to be cage-trapped and restrained to allow injection—itself a stressful procedure for a wild animal. This is one rational approach, and it was advocated by noble Lords who spoke earlier, but it has to be said that the effect on bovine TB incidence is unproven. It is also a very costly measure, as things stand. The current vaccination trial in Wales, which has completed two years, shows that it costs more than £600 to vaccinate each badger. With a population of probably 250,000 to 300,000 badgers in Britain, you need only do the mathematics to determine the cost of vaccinating at least even a proportion of that population.

Still, if interested parties could work together effectively and economically to deliver a vaccine, that would be hugely helpful and doubtless the cost could be reduced. It would require a co-ordinated approach by many different groups, including those working in conservation. In that context, the Welsh Government have offered grant support to private groups to subsidise the cost of vaccination by 50%, and certain conservation groups are seriously considering that option. It is regrettable, however, that so far neither the RSPCA nor the Badger Trust has taken up the invitation to commit funds to achieve badger vaccination.

[The Duke of Montrose (Con)]

I am most grateful to the noble Lord for giving way. Can he help the Committee by telling us at what age young badgers catch TB and at what age they can be vaccinated?

[Lord Trees]

I am not sure whether the data are available but they may be. I am sorry that I cannot answer the question; I would hate to do so without preparation.

The dynamics of infectious disease in general show that reducing the density of the population will reduce infection transmission. This does not require the complete elimination of a population—far from it. However, if the population density is lowered so that the rate at which a primary infection creates secondary infections falls below 1, the so-called parameter R₀—the reproductive rate—the infection will subside. We know that in a number of areas the R₀ for bovine TB is only fractionally greater than 1; in fact, estimates range between 1 and 1.2. Reducing that to less than 1 may be achievable with modest reductions in the badger population.

The use of contraception is a possibility to reduce badger-population density and would be a humane way of doing so, but research is at an early stage. I am told that it will be some years before we might have a deployable contraceptive method. As well as contributing to the control of bovine TB, a reduction in the badger population would benefit other species that appear to be adversely affected by predation by badgers, such as hedgehogs, ground-nesting birds and some rare species of bumblebee.

That brings me to culling. This has been used to reduce many wild animal populations, including badgers, in various circumstances. We currently cull deer, foxes, grey squirrels, seals, magpies and rodents, among others. No one likes killing animals—I certainly do not—but the majority of us accept that culling animals in certain circumstances is justified, provided always that it is done humanely. Members of this House are complicit in the extermination of rodents within these very walls.

If the culling of badgers can be done humanely and with a sound scientific basis, ruling it out at this stage as one of the tools in the control of bovine TB is premature. As the noble Baroness, Lady Parminter, has said, we need to see the report of the independent expert panel on the current trials to evaluate their humaneness and safety, and to understand why the culling rate was less than intended and what factors were responsible for it. As the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, mentioned, a key meeting of experts in 2011 accepted that a reduction in TB incidence of around 16% could be achieved by culling badgers under certain circumstances, and that included allowing for the perturbation effect. One may think that 16% may not sound a huge amount, but if the infection rates from badger to badger, badgers to cattle and cattle to cattle can be reduced by just a relatively small amount so that the infection parameter R₀ can be tipped below 1, the disease will be driven to extinction, which is a goal that we all seek.

18:09

[Lord King of Bridgwater (Con)]

My Lords, I am delighted to have the opportunity to follow the noble Lord, Lord Trees, and what I thought was the most interesting contribution to this debate so far, with great respect to other noble Lords who have spoken. The fact that the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, published his report 16 years ago and now stands up and says that actually 75% of the farms in the south-west of England have got problems with TB indicates something that the noble Lord, Lord Trees, brought out so clearly.

I declare an interest as a minority partner in a small farm which has been affected, where we have had to face the problems of very inadequate science. The tests produce false positives or false negatives, and perfectly good cattle have gone for slaughter, having given the impression that they had TB when they did not. This is a closed herd and I am in absolutely no doubt that the TB comes from the badgers and that the badgers have led to the increase in the problems with TB. Only on Thursday our neighbour had a reactor and that is a frequent event. The noble Lord, Lord Trees, brought out well the appalling pressure that is on so many farming communities and the number of people who are going out of dairy, some for economic reasons, but others because the problems of TB are so great for them.

I declare another interest, because the first culling area is in my old constituency of Bridgwater and West Somerset. I recall that it was not so bad in west Somerset for a time and then there was an exercise in Devon, which had a particular problem with TB. There was trapping of badgers and testing them for TB, and some very misguided animal rights activists got hold of the trapped badgers and transported them to west Somerset and released them there. I am in no doubt that that significantly contributed to the serious aggravation that they now face.

The other thing is that there is certainly no shortage of badgers. The problem that my noble friend the Minister has to face is how well we can actually count the badger population, but there is absolutely no doubt in my own observation of the number of setts, that there has been a significant explosion. I have to say, as the Minister who took through the Wildlife and Countryside Act back in the early 1980s, that when one sees how the populations of animals that have no natural predator and which are protected have exploded, to the detriment of a lot of other wildlife species, it is necessary to find some way of controlling numbers in these areas.

There is one point about vaccination that did not come out. I was told—I do not know if this is right—that there has to be annual vaccination. If true, that just adds to the extraordinary difficulties. The noble Lord, Lord Knight, suggested that the solution was vaccination. I think he will concede, having listened to the noble Lord, Lord Trees, and the comments he made from his own professional background, that the idea that vaccination is the solution to the problem seems highly unlikely. Obviously we await the findings of this report with great interest—I as much as anybody, because of west Somerset.

If I might dare to presume to advise my noble friend who will be answering this debate, I would suggest that he does not answer any of the questions asked by the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, at this stage. He should give no guarantees or undertakings from the ministerial Bench at this stage, when he has not even seen the report and what possibilities and qualifications there may be in it. It would be much fairer not to answer those questions at this stage, but to say that the report will be looked at absolutely objectively, that it is a very important report and everybody will need to study it. He should not be asked pre-emptively for assurances of one sort and another in advance. I hope the noble Lord does not think that that is an aggressive remark—I understand his concern—but that seems to me to be the fair answer for the Minister to give.

This is an issue from which nobody can take any pleasure. There are a lot of people around the country listening to discussion of these issues who are desperate. There has, so far, been no successful progress on dealing with this appalling problem that has caused such tragedy, including suicides and family break-ups of every kind. At this stage we should try not to score points, but to see how we can work together to find a better way forward.

[Lord Krebs (CB)]

I thank the noble Lord, Lord King, for those comments. I just want to emphasise that Defra has set up an independent expert panel, which will advise on the safety, humaneness and efficacy of controlled shooting. My question to the Minister is: if the expert panel finds that these conditions have not been met and that free shooting is not effective and not humane, will Defra continue with the policy? It is not a matter of prejudging the outcome of the panel’s results but of asking a conditional question. If the answer is, “We would go ahead even if the panel says that free shooting is not effective and not humane”, that is interesting to know. It is surely something that Defra must have thought about ahead of time.

[Lord King of Bridgwater]

With great respect, if the noble Lord reads in Hansard what he said the first time around, he will find that what he was asking for was considerably more direct. He was asking for guarantees of certain specific answers. The Minister may disregard what I said but my advice would be not to answer that.

18:15

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Lord De Mauley) (Con)]

My Lords, we must not underestimate the scale of the devastation wrought on our farming industry and rural communities by the worsening bovine tuberculosis epidemic; I think most noble Lords who have spoken today have acknowledged that. It is unacceptable that in the 10 years to 31 December 2012, more than 305,000 cattle were compulsorily slaughtered as reactors or direct contacts in Great Britain. Moreover, a further 22,512 cattle have been slaughtered up to August this year solely because of bovine TB. As the noble Lord, Lord Knight, said, over the past 10 years the disease alone has cost the taxpayer more than £500 million. It is estimated that it will cost another £1 billion in the next decade unless we can use all the available tools to intensify the action that needs to be taken.

In the face of such a grave problem, difficult decisions must be made. There is no single solution—no silver bullet—so we must use every possible means at our disposal. As the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, said, strict controls on cattle movement must be applied, loopholes closed and measures tightened, a point I will come back to later. However, that alone will not reverse the inexorable spread of this devastating disease. The wildlife reservoir in the high-risk areas cannot be ignored, and it needs addressing urgently. That is why the Government have developed an ambitious and comprehensive strategy for combating the disease, with the aim of achieving bTB-free status for England within 25 years while maintaining a sustainable livestock industry. I thank my noble friend Lady Parminter for her comments on our intention to eradicate the disease.

The strategy emphasises that robust cattle controls must be combined with tackling the reservoir of disease in badgers, drawing on demonstrably successful approaches from around the world. It includes a comprehensive set of controls focused on the different disease risks in different areas of the country. The strategy also covers the development of new tools to control bTB such as diagnostic tests, alternative badger controls and, indeed, vaccination. Tackling the reservoir of disease in badgers is a key element of the strategy and we are committed to making it work. In this matter we must be guided by the experience of other countries which have successfully rid themselves of this terrible disease.

We have clear evidence from the randomised badger culling trial on the role of badgers in the spread of the disease in endemic areas. Work by Professor Christl Donnelly, to which the noble Lord, Lord Trees, referred, suggests that up to half of all cattle herds found to have TB in the high-risk area of England contracted the disease directly or indirectly from infected badgers. The evidence also shows that, carried out in the right way, badger culling will make a significant difference in reducing the incidence of TB in cattle. Other countries, such as the Republic of Ireland, New Zealand, Australia and the United States, have eradicated or greatly reduced the levels of bTB by culling infected wildlife in combination with tight cattle controls.

The results of the RBCT have been used to estimate that culling over an area of 150 square kilometres could reduce new herd incidence of bTB by an average of 16% over nine years: enough to stop the incidence of bTB continuing to increase and even begin decreasing it. We proceeded with pilots this summer to test the assumption that controlled shooting is a safe, humane and effective means of reducing badger numbers. These four-year pilots are closely managed and monitored by the licensing authority, Natural England. The independent panel of experts is now considering the information collected during the pilots. Its report to the Government in the New Year—to answer my noble friend Lady Parminter—will inform the decision on the wider rollout of badger control in those parts of England most severely affected by this disease. The report will be made available to Parliament and the general public. We have always been clear that these were pilots from which we will learn lessons in advance of taking any decisions. We expect to be in a position to take such a decision by the end of February.

Turning to questions raised by noble Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Knight, asked why the cull had been cut short in Gloucestershire. The decision that the licence for the extension should end was taken following discussions between the cull company in west Gloucestershire, Natural England and the NFU. The end of the cage-trapping season was agreed by the cull company and Natural England as a sensible point to stop activity. The decision was based on the decreasing number of badgers seen by contractors over the preceding weeks, which made achieving a further significant reduction in future weeks unlikely. Given that this was the first year of controlled shooting of badgers, it was uncertain how the winter would affect badger behaviour, but it was deemed likely that even fewer badgers would be seen due to the onset of cold weather, when they tend to stay underground for longer.

The noble Lords, Lord Knight and Lord Krebs, referred to perturbation. The RBCTs concluded that larger areas would offer greater benefits. The Gloucestershire area is 311 square kilometres and the Somerset one is 256 square kilometres. These are very substantially larger than those in the RBCTs. In the pilot culls, we were able to emphasise hard boundaries around the cull areas: sea, significant rivers and dual carriageways, each of which produces a significant challenge for badgers to cross. We are also conducting biosecurity measures, including vaccination, in the buffer zone around the cull areas. These are some of the lessons of the RBCTs on which we have been able to capitalise.

The noble Lords, Lord Knight and Lord Krebs, and my noble friend Lord King referred to population estimates in the context of a prospective rollout of culling in future years. Estimating badger populations is difficult, as is the case for all wildlife populations. However, the fact that it is difficult does not mean that we should avoid tackling disease in wildlife. When looking at lessons learnt in the pilots, we will look at how the efficacy of culling could be best assessed in future. In the RBCTs, as many badgers were removed as possible rather than having a fixed target. This approach, repeated each year for a number of years, resulted in an estimated 70% removal rate. This was not based on an estimate of the badger population in the area; instead, an estimate of the reduction of the badger population was made based on field signs and road kill over four years.

The noble Lord, Lord Knight, said that in Gloucestershire, the proportion of badgers killed was not more than 40%. It is worth saying that the most effective culls during the RBCTs had removal rates of between 64% and 76%, with an average of 70%. However, three areas had initial culls of lower effectiveness, with removal rates of below 40%. Those areas with low reductions caught up in subsequent years so that the reduction in population at the end of culling was comparable to those areas with good initial culls.

The noble Lord, Lord Knight, asked about the advice from the Chief Veterinary Officer. That advice was that a further increase in the number of badgers culled over the initial six-week period would improve the disease-control benefits achieved even further and enable them to accrue earlier. It was his view that a further significant reduction of the badger population in the first year would increase the likelihood of disease benefits in cattle over the full four years of the cull. A copy of his advice to the Secretary of State on the case for extending the culls in both Somerset and Gloucestershire was made public on 18 October.

The noble Lord, Lord Knight, asked about costs. The costs of the pilots must be put in the overall context of tackling the disease. Each TB outbreak costs an average of £34,000 and if left unchecked the disease will cost the taxpayer, as I said earlier, approximately £1 billion over the next 10 years. We must start tackling TB in wildlife to bring the disease under control and begin reducing the bill to taxpayers. We will know more about the costs of the pilots once the final figures have been disclosed and scrutinised.

The costs of the police efforts in Gloucestershire, for example, are likely to have been higher than expected. However, the uncertainty around costs provided an additional reason for the decision to proceed cautiously with two pilots before considering wider roll-out, where many of the current costs will not apply. The pilots will enable us to test our and the farming industry’s cost assumptions for areas where there is uncertainty, such as policing, and take these into account in a decision to roll out the policy more widely. As planned, costs will be reviewed after the conclusion of the pilots when all the information is available.

The noble Lord, Lord Knight, asked about vaccination. As noble Lords know, there are practical difficulties in using the injectable badger vaccine, including the cost and the fact that each badger must be trapped by a trained and licensed operator. Crucially, the vaccination does not cure already infected badgers and provides only limited protection to a proportion of uninfected badgers. Furthermore, unlike culling, we do not know what effect vaccinating badgers has on TB in cattle. Developing an oral badger vaccine remains a top priority for the Government. It is still at research stage and we cannot say when it will be deployable in the field, but we are progressing with this work as fast as possible and any additional spending will not speed the process up.

My noble friend Lady Parminter and the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, asked what we will do with the independent expert panel’s advice. The independent panel was established to provide a robust scientific peer review of the analysis of the data gathered during the pilot culls to support an assessment of the humaneness and efficacy of controlled shooting. When the panel has finished reviewing the output of this monitoring, it will submit its assessment and conclusions to Ministers. The panel will not be making recommendations about the humaneness of controlled shooting, but its conclusions about the robustness of the data will enable Ministers to make informed decisions about its use as a culling method in future years.

Measures are in place to ensure that the evidence base resulting from the pilots is robust. This is the first time a cull of this nature has been carried out and there are lessons that we can learn from the pilots. The panel’s report will be published in due course after it has been submitted to Ministers, along with the supporting evidence, and in deciding how to proceed we will consider it extremely carefully.

I have a number of other answers that I would like to have given noble Lords and I undertake to write with various answers. The noble Lord, Lord Trees, spoke about the Welsh Government providing funding for vaccination. We are providing the same amount of funding as the Welsh Government to help start-up vaccination in the annual TB testing area, and the fund will also be used to subsidise training and competence certification for staff and volunteers of voluntary and community sector organisations wishing to become lay badger vaccinators.

Although we have much to learn from this year’s experience, conducting two pilots has been a significant achievement and is another major step towards halting the spread of bovine TB. In helping us to achieve this, local farmers and landowners have undertaken the pilots in both areas, often in difficult terrain and weather, and in the face of a sustained campaign of harassment, intimidation and widespread criminal activity. I pay tribute to those undertaking the pilots for not wilting in the face of this and for showing commendable restraint in the manner in which they have conducted themselves throughout.

Controlling the disease in wildlife has to remain a key part of our TB strategy. No country has successfully dealt with TB without tackling the disease in both wildlife and cattle. Unless we tackle bovine TB in badgers, I fear that not only will we never eradicate it in cattle and free our livestock farmers of a huge burden but that we will see the disease in cattle and that accompanying burden continue to grow and spread until the disease is endemic throughout the whole of England. This Government are resolved to prevent this happening and to achieve freedom from TB in 25 years.

Committee adjourned at 6.29 pm.

House of Lords

Monday 9th December 2013 Lords Chamber

Monday, 9 December 2013.

14:30

Prayers—read by the Lord Bishop of Truro.

Nelson Mandela

Monday 9th December 2013 Lords Chamber

Tributes

14:37

[The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Lord Hill of Oareford) (Con)]

My Lords, 50 years ago, almost to the day, this House met to pay tribute to a foreign statesman. Then, our tributes were for President Kennedy, a man seen to embody hope and change but whose life was cut short, his promise unfulfilled. Today, we pay tribute to Nelson Mandela, another man who epitomised hope and change but whose life was long and whose promise, towards the end of that long life, was triumphantly fulfilled. Although we are here to pay tribute to his achievements, I know that the whole House will want to send its deepest condolences to Mr Mandela’s family and friends, as well as to the people of South Africa, who have lost their leading light.

The story of Mr Mandela’s life—from herding cattle, to study, to struggle, to setback, to imprisonment and finally to victory—is so like a fable that it is easy to think that there was always bound to be a happy ending. That was not so. For 27 long years in prison, the struggle must have seemed endless and, at times, without hope. However, Mr Mandela did not give up, nor did he compromise his principles, even when release from prison was dangled in front of him. In his resistance, he was supported by many in this country and, indeed, in this House, most notably by the noble Lord, Lord Joffe. To their great credit, trade unionists, academics, journalists, politicians and people up and down the country campaigned tirelessly for his release. That came in 1990. Elected president of the ANC the following year, he, along with FW de Klerk, won the Nobel Peace Prize in 1993. Then, in South Africa’s first universal and non-racial elections, he became president in 1994. Macmillan’s winds of change had at last blown through South Africa.

If Mr Mandela’s first historic achievement was the moral leadership that he provided in the overthrow of apartheid, his second was the extraordinary way in which he brought about reconciliation and led his country away from violence and civil war. On his release from prison, he was passionate, not angry, and magnanimous, not bitter. How many of us, if we had been kept in prison for 27 years and been prevented from attending the funerals of our own mother and son, would have had the moral strength and political wisdom to forgive our enemies? That South Africa at last respected the political destinies of free men and did so without a violent revolution was undoubtedly due in large part to Mr Mandela’s extraordinary grace as a human being after his release from prison.

Having become president, Mr Mandela then stood down after just one term—a rarity among leaders from any country. However, the end of his presidency did not signal the end of his work to create a better South Africa. He campaigned tirelessly for more research into HIV and AIDS and for better education and treatment. He named his HIV and AIDS fundraising campaign after his Robben Island prison number and made a huge impact by announcing to the world that his own son had died of AIDS. He used his moral authority on the world stage to persuade other leaders to take action on AIDS, leaving a legacy that will be felt by generations to come.

Mr Mandela’s statue rightly stands next to Abraham Lincoln’s in Parliament Square. He wears a free-flowing shirt; his arm is raised in oratory and open welcome. His connection with this Building is a real one. In 1996, he addressed both Houses during a state visit as president, making a passionate plea for people around the world to work together to build a new Africa; and, in 2000, he returned to be made an honorary Queen’s Counsel under the noble and learned Lord, Lord Irvine of Lairg, as Lord Chancellor.

It would be easy to slip into hagiography in talking about Nelson Mandela, but we do not have to pretend that he was a saint to recognise his achievements and his extraordinary power over the imagination of the world. In his inaugural address as President of South Africa, Mr Mandela said:

“Let freedom reign. The sun shall never set on so glorious a human achievement”—

a fitting epitaph for the life of Nelson Mandela himself.

14:45

[Baroness Royall of Blaisdon (Lab)]

My Lords, it is a real privilege to lead my Benches in paying tribute to the most extraordinary man, Nelson Mandela, a humble giant with indomitable courage who provided a moral compass for his country, his continent and our world. Today we celebrate his life but, like the noble Lord the Leader of the House, I send our condolences to the family and friends of Nelson Mandela.

There are few people of whom it can truly be said that their life had an impact on the world, but such was the life of this brave man who, through oppression, understood that evil must never be accommodated or accepted; rather, it must be resisted and overcome. His belief in democracy and a free society was so strong that he was prepared to die for it. Since the announcement of his death, and, indeed, since he guided the South African people to freedom and democracy, the world has rightly revered Mandela, whose dignity, compassion, generosity and power of forgiveness knew no bounds. However, in remembering the peace and reconciliation which became a model for the world, we should not forget the struggle which went before, when he was fighting for the liberation of his people who lived with the evil of apartheid, which crushed “non-violent struggle” with “naked force”. As he said, however, he was fighting not people but principles. In doing so, as the most reverend Primate the Archbishop of Canterbury said yesterday:

“He faced the insult of being labelled a terrorist”.

The struggle led to 27 dark years in jail, 18 of them under the brutal regime of Robben Island, but a place where thanks to his leadership there was comradeship and a thirst for education, football for fitness and team building, and the vision of a new South Africa was born.

It is almost beyond belief that when free from prison at the age of 71, he embraced the colossal task of building a society in which all South Africans, both black and white, would be able to walk tall, without fear in their hearts, assured of their inalienable right to human dignity—a rainbow nation at peace with itself in the world. The way in which he did this, with magnanimity, love and understanding of his fellow human beings, as well as with idealism and courage, seemed to show the world that love is stronger than hate and that the human spirit can triumph over inhumanity.

There are many behind me who are far, far better qualified than me to speak about Nelson Mandela. I am very proud of their actions, but also of my party’s relationship with the ANC in exile, its support for the Anti-Apartheid Movement and its support for political activists and their families through international defence and aid. My noble friend Lord Joffe was a defence lawyer at the Rivonia trial, and who, the accused said after the trial,

“has understood and accepted that, above all else, we would not compromise our belief or consciences for legal advantage and in that understanding he has advised us along a course which we fully believe to have been politically correct, and legally as well”.

My noble friend Lord Hughes of Woodside, who cannot be in his place today, was the energetic chair of the Anti-Apartheid Movement for 20 years and was instrumental in increasing its support and focusing its activities in the 1980s, leading the campaign against the Government’s refusal to impose sanctions against South Africa and helping to bring about the end of apartheid.

My noble friend Lady Kinnock was a tireless fundraiser and supporter of the families of political prisoners, as well as a friend to many in exile. My noble friend Lord Healey introduced Mandela to Hugh Gaitskell in 1962, and later visited him in his cell on Robben Island. My noble friend Lord Boateng was high commissioner in South Africa, which must have been a joy after a lifetime campaigning for justice. Many of my noble friends who worked in trade unions did everything possible to show solidarity with the oppressed workers in South Africa. Other noble friends worked with their churches to bring about change and I know that the vast majority of my colleagues were members of the Anti-Apartheid Movement and that makes me proud.

My noble friend Lord Kinnock, when leader of the Opposition in the 1980s, was unwavering in his support for Nelson Mandela and the struggle against apartheid. It was when I worked for my noble friend that I had the honour of meeting this legend, when I made and served him tea. As for so many noble Lords, the Anti-Apartheid Movement was part of my political life—indeed, my family’s life: the marches and demonstrations, latterly with children in pushchairs, the careful weekly shop to ensure that nothing from South Africa found its way into the shopping basket—and I played a small part in organising the 1988 Mandela 70th birthday concert at Wembley.

It was therefore the most enormous pleasure and privilege to shake his hand when he came to meet my noble friend and the shadow Cabinet. I was reminded by Richard Caborn, who in 1990 was an MP and treasurer of the Anti-Apartheid Movement, that at the time Mandela was still deemed by Parliament to be a terrorist and he was unable to book a Committee Room for a meeting with MPs.

Nelson Mandela was not a saint, he was an exceptional human being who started life in a hut and, like 80% of his fellow South Africans, suffered oppression because of the colour of his skin. His thirst for justice was the catalyst for his training as a lawyer; his hunger for freedom and his passion for equality of opportunity drove him to fight against the evil of apartheid; his empathy and personality enabled him to work with President FW de Klerk, to bring democracy to South Africa; his belief in the power of peace and reconciliation enabled him to lead the citizens of his country to the birth of a new South Africa.

On Robben Island, the prisoners had a copy of the complete works of Shakespeare, which they called the Bible. Each prisoner marked their favourite passage. Mandela’s was from “Julius Caesar”:

“Cowards die many times before their deaths;

The valiant never taste of death but once.

Of all the wonders that I yet have heard,

It seems to me most strange that men should fear;

Seeing that death, a necessary end,

Will come when it will come”.

It is clear that Nelson Mandela died only once. There are many apposite quotations from Shakespeare, but I will end with Ben Jonson’s words about Shakespeare, which sum up the truly great but humble and compassionate Mandela. His genius,

“was not of an age, but for all time”.

14:49

[The Advocate-General for Scotland (Lord Wallace of Tankerness) (LD)]

My Lords, I associate those of us on the Liberal Democrat Benches with the condolences expressed by the Leader and shadow Leader of the House to the family of Nelson Mandela and to the people of South Africa.

It is a reflection of the stature of Nelson Mandela, of a life conspicuous for the breadth of his humanity, and the profundity of his messages of reconciliation and inspirational hope, that tributes such as this will be being paid in parliaments and assemblies on every continent. But more than that, as befits a man who radiated such humility, tributes and prayers have been said not just by Prime Ministers and Presidents, but by ordinary people of every colour and creed.

I never had the honour of meeting Mr Mandela, but as he was leaving Westminster Hall after addressing both Houses of Parliament in 1996, he stopped at the end of the row I was sitting in to talk to two young children. I suspect that the noble Baroness, Lady Boothroyd, remembers that he stopped at the end of many rows. I cannot put adequately into words the experience. Yes, it was his humanity; maybe, too, it was the proximity of someone who had endured so much and subsequently achieved so much for his people and his country; maybe it was his challenging words still ringing in my ears; but to say that his presence was magnetic would barely start to describe the aura of the man.

However, on the one occasion in my political life when my responsibilities brought me into Nelson Mandela’s orbit, I confess that I had to dare to disagree. Although he had wished a court in a neutral country with international judges to try the two men accused of the bombing of Pan Am flight 103 over Lockerbie, President Mandela’s initiative eventually led to the handing over of the two men and their trial in the Scottish court in the Netherlands. In 2002, he visited the one man convicted, Abdelbaset al Megrahi, in Barlinnie prison. The BBC’s “Reporting Scotland” that night had an interview with Mr Mandela calling for Mr Megrahi’s removal to a prison in a Muslim country such as Egypt or Tunisia to serve out his sentence. This was followed by an interview with me, as Scottish Justice Minister, saying that the Scottish Government’s view was that we should abide by the UN resolution establishing the process, whereby any sentence would be served in a Scottish prison. Watching the programme at home in Orkney, my teenage daughter asked my wife, “So does that mean Nelson Mandela’s criticising my dad?”. When Rosie replied, “Probably, yes”, Clare thought for a moment and said, “Now that’s cool”.

That underlines the point that Nelson Mandela’s legendary status was understood and recognised across the generations as well as across continents. Young people who could not possibly remember his walk from prison, or the crowds waiting to vote in South Africa’s first properly democratic elections, nevertheless recognise that they have been alive during the lifetime of such a towering figure. And just as we, today, revere names of past generations such as Lincoln, Wilberforce, Gandhi, who championed the struggle for freedom, so too will future generations revere the name of Nelson Mandela—a man who transcended generations just as he bridged cultures and healed divisions; and just as he did when he addressed us in 1996. He did not shy away from reminding us of our colonial record or the dismissive response given by our forebears in the early years of the last century, when, as he said, his,

“predecessors in the leadership of the African National Congress came to these venerable Houses to say to the government and the legislators of the time that they, the patricians, should come to the aid of the poor citizens”.

But consistent with his powerful message of reconciliation at home, he talked to us about “closing the circle”, and said:

“Despite that rebuff and the terrible cost we had to bear as a consequence, we return to this honoured place neither with pikes, nor a desire for revenge, nor, even, a plea to your distinguished selves to assuage our hunger for bread. We come to you as friends”.

He concluded by challenging us:

“To close the circle, let our peoples, the ones formerly poor citizens and the others good patricians—politicians, business people, educators, health workers, scientists, engineers and technicians, sports people and entertainers, activists for charitable relief—join hands to build on what we have achieved together and help construct a humane African world, whose emergence will say a new universal order is born in which we are each our brother’s, or sister’s, keeper … and herald the advent of a glorious summer of a partnership for freedom, peace, prosperity and friendship”.

Our lasting tribute to Nelson Mandela is to take that challenge to our hearts, and respond with our actions.

00:00

[Lord Laming (CB)]

My Lords, on behalf of my colleagues in the Cross-Bench group, may I be associated with the moving and well earned tributes to the life of Mr Nelson Mandela, who was such a towering person? We send our condolences to his family. I did not have the honour to meet Mr Mandela so, like many others, my regard for him and all that he stood for stems from his speeches and writings and from the reports of his actions.

It is impossible even to attempt to record all that Mr Mandela gave, not just to his country or to the continent of Africa, but indeed to the whole world. That so many people from across the world, be they rich or poor, powerful or weak, high or lowly, now hold him in such amazingly high regard, even though he did not attain public office until he was well into his 70s and was in office for only one term, speaks volumes about his personal greatness. Others have portrayed the life of Mr Mandela with greater eloquence than I can, but I will simply try to highlight four qualities of his that I am sure will endure.

First, he demonstrated over and over again his faithfulness to his beliefs. He had the courage, determination and discipline to stand firm, even if it meant spending many years in prison and separation from his family. As an aside, I suggest that Governments across the whole world should learn from his life: while oppression may appear to succeed for a time, the human spirit of brave people like Nelson Mandela will never be crushed. Secondly, wherever he was, he accorded to each his genuine belief in their unique, individual quality. He was always able to treat each one of his fellow human beings as being on life’s journey, whatever their role or status. Thirdly, he conveyed an inner sincerity and humility that made him really want to learn from others, even his jailers, irrespective of colour, creed or nationality. He was at heart someone who loved and respected his fellow human beings, and it showed. Fourthly, he had a lifetime commitment to unity; we all know that conflict is commonplace and often the easy option, whereas bridge-building, reconciliation and harmony are very much harder won. Nelson Mandela was at heart a unifier. The world needs more people with his special qualities.

What is the legacy that he has left for us and future generations? I suggest that over and above his intellectual qualities, his legal skills and his political instincts, he had one quality that found expression in everything and that will remain a challenge to us all: his generosity of spirit that he accorded to friend and foe alike. He had an inner generosity that enabled him to treat everyone, whatever their beliefs, with a pervasive dignity. We may not achieve the higher human qualities that characterised Nelson Mandela, but surely it is no defence if we fail to strive to emulate what he was able to achieve.

In the final paragraph of his autobiography, Long Walk to Freedom, Mr Mandela wrote:

“I have walked that long walk to freedom. … But I can rest only for a moment, for with freedom comes responsibilities, and I dare not linger, for my long walk is not yet ended”.

This part of his long walk has ended. He has left the world a better place and his achievements will endure. May Nelson Mandela now rest in peace.

14:59

[The Lord Bishop of Truro]

My Lords, I am keen to associate myself and all my colleagues who sit on these Benches with the tributes paid to Mr Mandela here and throughout the world. The focus on one man is extraordinary, but it is entirely right, for he was extraordinary. My thoughts and prayers go to all his family and friends and indeed to everyone in the whole country of South Africa, who have lost a father.

Two words have been repeated many times in the millions of words spoken about him: humility and dignity. In matters of faith, although he was baptised into the Methodist Church and went to a Christian school, he believed that religion was a deeply personal and private affair, yet the way that he lived out his faith by challenging unjust structures, and then through public service, was an example to all of us. He believed in the old African proverb that we are people through other people and that only by recognising the humanity in others do we ourselves become truly human. It was this reconciling message that Mandela lived out daily.

A priceless gift that Nelson Mandela gave us was helping us to understand forgiveness and healing through truth and reconciliation, thus enabling both the victim and the oppressor to progress. He fought a racist power structure but, when he gained legitimate political power, he did not answer racism with racism. He said, “We are not anti-white but against white supremacy”. He was a living testament to integrity and dignity—a courageous man who sacrificed his freedom for the elimination of racial oppression.

As well as prayers being said for Nelson Mandela and South Africa in churches up and down the country yesterday, as I am sure noble Lords are well aware, readings from the Old Testament prophets, and in particular yesterday readings from the New Testament featuring John the Baptist, will have been heard during services on the second Sunday in Advent. It strikes me as entirely appropriate that we should consider prophecy and prophets as we pay tribute to Nelson Mandela, who was himself a prophet.

Like most of us, I suspect, I am surprised at how someone who suffered as he did and was brought up under such circumstances as he was maintained his humility and dignity and ensured the downfall of an unjust regime. As we pay tribute to such an extraordinary man, it is far too early to talk properly of legacy, yet I wonder whether one reflection for all of us is what injustices and evils we are in danger of being comfortable with and complacent about in our time.

Prophets surprise and challenge us; so did Nelson Mandela. I find it hard to believe that I could survive and remain as humble and as dignified as he did if I had experienced circumstances similar to his. For me, the key question is: am I listening to the prophets, who are now pointing me to the issues about which I am in danger of being blind and deaf? How might we ensure that our fellow human beings are properly surprised and so change their way of life? May he, Nelson Mandela, rest in peace and may his prophetic humility and dignity, and that strong smile, continue to affect each and every one of us in our long walk to freedom.

15:04

[Lord Joffe (Lab)]

My Lords, on Monday, 24 April 1964, Nelson Mandela, on trial for his life for planning a revolution to replace the apartheid Government, delivered his historic speech from the dock at the Palace of Justice in Pretoria. He ended with the words:

“I have cherished the ideal of a democratic and free society in which all persons live together in harmony and with equal opportunities. It is an ideal which I hope to live for and to achieve. But if needs be, it is an ideal for which I am prepared to die”.

We, his lawyers, had advised him to delete the “prepared to die” sentence, because it could be construed by the judge as an invitation to hang him. His response to our advice was that it was necessary for him to make that declaration, so that his people would understand that no sacrifice was too great in the battle for freedom. This would inspire them to carry on the battle when he was no longer there to lead them.

It was this indomitable courage which was the hallmark of Nelson Mandela. As a leader he epitomised leadership, political genius, integrity, justice, forgiveness, generosity and humility. As an individual he was warm and friendly, with a natural charm, keen sense of humour and an infectious laugh. He treated everyone as equals and with warmth and respect. For all these qualities to come together in one human being, to such great purpose, is unique.

Understandably, Nelson Mandela is revered and adored by all in South Africa, and beyond. He will endure as the inspiration for all their hopes for the future. It is a great privilege for me to pay tribute to the most revered and loved statesman of his time, and to be able to do this in your Lordships’ House. He always valued the support of the British people in the fight against apartheid and was a great admirer of our Parliament and this House. When I last met him about three years ago in his home in Johannesburg, he was sitting on a low sofa in his living room. Being quite frail, he struggled to rise. I said, “Madiba, please do not get up for me”, and he, with a mischievous twinkle in his eyes, replied as he rose, “I always stand up for a member of the House of Lords”.

15:07

[Baroness Boothroyd (CB)]

My Lords, rightly, much has been said about Nelson Mandela’s genius at forging friendships across the divide of politics and creating unity out of discord. I saw him demonstrate this skill during his state visit to Britain in 1996. It is among my most treasured memories. He was undoubtedly the greatest statesman to visit Westminster in my lifetime.

I witnessed his self-discipline and professionalism when he made his memorable address, void of all bitterness, to the joint session of Parliament in Westminster Hall. I was worried about him negotiating the narrow steps of that hall, worn by a thousand years of history. I had warned him about them at the state banquet in Buckingham Palace the night before and I did so again next morning. “Don’t worry, Madam Speaker”, he said, when we met at St Stephen’s entrance. “I came to look at them at 6 o’clock this morning”. What a man he was. The trumpets sounded and with that he took my hand and we mounted the steps of St Stephen’s and into great Westminster Hall. He was then 78 years old. After the ceremony he made straight for Margaret Thatcher, who was in the audience, smiling happily, hand outstretched. She had branded him and the African National Congress as terrorists and she had resisted punitive sanctions against apartheid. But Mandela held no grudges. He said he hated apartheid—not white people.

Naturally, he will be remembered as South Africa’s first black president. But that was only half his achievement. What matters perhaps even more is that he was South Africa’s first democratic president—the first, we hope, in a long line of democratic leaders who will safeguard his legacy.

I was Chancellor of the Open University when we last met. I went to Cape Town to present him with the OU’s honorary doctorate. He was very fragile even at that stage, but he was gracious and as modest as ever. “I’m all right”, he told the press at a press conference afterwards, “Don’t worry, I’m all right”. He said, “I will tell you one thing. As soon as I get to those pearly gates you can be sure that I shall join the local branch of the ANC”.

There was no artifice about him. He believed in old-fashioned courtesies, tolerance and conciliation—qualities our own political leaders would do well to try sometime. But he was no stranger to discord. Mandela held the moral high ground and he created a rainbow nation shorn of the colour bar.

Much remains to be done in South Africa but his achievement set him apart among world leaders. He dispelled the racial prejudices that oppressed his people, disgraced its perpetrators and held his country back. He believed that the point of freedom was to make others free.

Goodbye Madiba, may we follow where you led.

15:11

[Lord Howe of Aberavon (Con)]

My Lords, very briefly, perhaps I may add to the impressive tributes that have been paid by noble Lords on all sides of the House and reflect on the period, almost 30 years ago, when the Commonwealth was taking action as widely as it could to try to secure improvements in conditions in South Africa. It commissioned a group of wise men, who were sent out there to see what could be done at a time when Nelson Mandela had already spent 27 years on Robben Island. When the two selected—Tony Barber, a former Minister in this country, and Malcolm Fraser, a former Australian Prime Minister—went in to see Nelson Mandela, his first, most impressive, question was, “Can you tell me, is Don Bradman still alive?”. What more could he have said, even there, to those two in the prison and to the rest of us back here in Britain, to underline his qualification as something more than a citizen of South Africa—as a citizen of the world indeed? On that basis, I am sure that he deserved the support that he was already enjoying at that time.

15:13

[Lord Kinnock (Lab)]

My Lords, for 50 years since I first campaigned against apartheid in the wake of the Sharpeville massacre, Nelson Mandela has been a supreme inspiration to me. He showed unsurpassed bravery and endurance in his fight against oppression and unequalled humanity in his guidance to South Africa and the world. He had the strength to be merciful, the wisdom to be gentle and generous. I salute those qualities of truly great leadership. It was a marvellous privilege to meet Mandela the hero, a delight to know Nelson the man. I cherish memories of times together, of his mischievous humour and of his dazzling smile. To be called “comrade” by such a man was an irreducible honour. I join with countless others, here and across the world, in offering my affection and deepest sympathy to Graça, his widow, and to their family.

Nelson Mandela never forgot the past of hatred and bigotry, of searing injustice and violence, but from the outset his political life was resolutely committed to plotting, planning and building for a different future with his people. It was that which drove him to take up arms. It was that which gave him the resilience to withstand captivity and its dreadful indignities and tragedies. It was his fixation with the future that could be created which, in the late 1980s, made him withstand the proffered comforts of compromise and instead gain the courageous agreement of FW de Klerk to release him unconditionally and to prepare for non-racial democracy. It was Mandela’s dedication to the future which, above all, made him exert his full authority as a warrior, a convict and a leader to compel reconciliation when vengeful reprisal could have brought remorseless racial civil war and desolated South Africa.

As we pay tribute to Mandela’s determined and valorous idealism, we must do him the justice of recognising his daring realism. In this House, evolved through centuries of conquest and preferment, I would not lecture the leadership of a 19 year-old democracy about its conscience or its duty. I do not need to. In the most explicit terms, Mandela himself charted the course that must be followed. At the Rivonia trial, at which my noble friend Lord Joffe played a brave and distinguished part, when Nelson and his comrades were faced with the lethal probability of execution, he said in plain, provocative words which have resonated through the decades, as we have already heard from my noble friend:

“I have cherished the ideal of a democratic and free society in which all persons will live together in harmony and with equal opportunities. It is an ideal which I hope to live for and see realised. But, my Lord, if it need be, it is an ideal for which I am prepared to die”.

He did live for that ideal, but did not see it realised. But he dedicated his life to securing the conditions in which it could be fulfilled by free people, governed by mortals who apply a measure of the integrity, dignity, bravery and sagacity that were central to Nelson Mandela’s being.

That was his true legacy. Honouring it must now surely propel the current leadership of the ANC into embracing reform and transparency, strengthening accountability and combating the self-indulgence and corruption which so retard Mandela’s beloved country and its people. If that course is not taken, Nelson Mandela will be their brilliant, brave, but unrequited dead hero. If it is taken, as he would have wanted, he will have a fitting, enduring, living memorial of full freedom in South Africa. He deserves that and South Africa sorely needs it.

15:18

[Baroness Williams of Crosby (LD)]

My Lords, in 1990 I was in South Africa with my husband, doing something that Mandela had asked others to do, namely beginning the training of young Africans to fill places in the civil service, which they would have to do almost immediately if there was truly to be a rainbow nation and truly to be a South Africa that both administratively and politically represented all the peoples of that great republic.

We were in South Africa at the time Mandela came out of prison. I remember watching the march as he removed himself from the terrible, hellish place in which he had been, and recognising that there was the sense that day that the sun had risen over South Africa—a wonderful moment. I would like also to pay great tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Joffe, who was indeed a crucial part of the construction of a democratic South Africa.

One other thing which is important is that one of the very closest friends that Nelson Mandela had was the famous white South African, Helen Suzman. I mention her because he was extremely close to her and because some of us remember two things. First, there was never a month that passed in which she did not visit Nelson Mandela on Robben Island, against all the opposition that the Administration of white South Africa could produce. Secondly, and at least as importantly, we should remember on this occasion that from 1961 to 1974—13 bitter years—Helen Suzman was the only opponent in that Parliament of every aspect of apartheid. That meant that she was spurned, abused and, in some cases, threatened. Yet, day after day, her courage did not fail and she matched that of her dear friend and much beloved leader, Nelson Mandela. So on this occasion, as we celebrate that great man, I hope that we will celebrate also those men and women of all races who had the courage and strength to support him in what he did and who will be, in many ways, part of his lasting memorial.

15:21

[Lord St John of Bletso (CB)]

My Lords, I wish to add a few words of tribute as one who lived in South Africa for 28 years of the 40-year apartheid regime and one who had the good fortune of getting to know Nelson Mandela, known to us all as Madiba, over many occasions. I shall remember him for his charming and engaging smile, his empathy and humility, his magnanimity, his vast self-confidence and pragmatic approach to life as well as, most importantly, his forgiveness and mantra of inclusivity.

There is no doubt that Madiba will be remembered as one of the most important and distinguished politicians of the past century. He will be remembered as a universal icon for his lack of bitterness, after 27 years of incarceration, and for his incredible negotiating skills in achieving peace and reconciliation in a country where most of us believed that civil war would be inevitable. One of the most remarkable achievements in South Africa was for him to persuade the Afrikaners to agree to a peaceful settlement. It is well known that in his last five years in prison, he had no fewer than 70 secret meetings with Kobie Coetsee, the Minister of Justice, and Niel Barnard, the national intelligence chief, to explore the possibility of a political accommodation between blacks and whites.

After his release, his agile negotiations on the national anthem and his support for Francois Pienaar ahead of the Rugby World Cup changed the minds of everyone in South Africa, both black and white, and created unity in what was, no doubt, the most racially divided country in the world. His death has further inspired the youth and forces for positive change in South Africa to achieve the rainbow nation and follow his legacy.

15:23

[Baroness Kinnock of Holyhead (Lab)]

My Lords, I was privileged to meet Nelson Mandela on several occasions. On each occasion, I was inspired by him and marvelled at his strength and courage. I am also proud to report that he poured me a cup of tea at his home in Soweto, soon after his release; indeed, I can boast that I have been hugged by him.

From the 1960s until the end of the 1980s, in the anti-apartheid movement we struggled with the idea that apartheid could be overcome peacefully, but we knew that it would eventually end as a political system, leaving in its wake the misery and suffering that it had created. We watched from afar those barricades of burning tyres and the street battles fought in the townships by unarmed youngsters against a well armed and brutal police force set upon destroying black opposition. In desperation, Nelson Mandela advocated and engaged in the armed resistance in the early 1960s, but it was he who insisted upon peace and reconciliation when the white minority eased its grip on power 30 years later.

Like others here today, I joined the anti-apartheid movement in the 1960s and can confirm that that wonderful solidarity movement, through every form of persuasion—from letters to newspapers, mass picketing and demonstrations to rugby and cricket pitch invasions—was able to play a part in shifting public opinion and in exposing the apartheid regime as an international pariah. It is, indeed, regrettable that the anti-apartheid movement did not enjoy the support of the Government or the Prime Minister of the day. However, I believe that the world is a better place because of the solidarity that was shown in those dark days, with South Africans seeking justice and freedom. Nelson Mandela publicly emphasised the contribution made by those efforts in the United Kingdom to isolate the apartheid state.

Now we mourn the man who achieved so much, who challenged the might of white minority apartheid and who forged a new rainbow nation after 27 years in prison. In the last few days we have realised how much he meant to us and how much respect and affection he has earned across the world. He was loved and he will be missed, not least by his beloved wife, Graca Machel. I can only imagine her great sadness at her loss. It was she who gave him love, trust and real happiness. Nelson famously said that Graca made him “bloom like a flower”; we know that she will be feeling deeply her loss at this time.

Other noble Lords have mentioned Nelson Mandela’s visit as the first democratically elected President of the Republic of South Africa to speak to the joint Houses of Parliament in 1996. He said:

“We are in the Houses in which Harold Macmillan worked: he who spoke in our own Houses of Parliament in Cape Town in 1960, shortly before the infamous Sharpeville Massacre, and warned a stubborn and race-blinded white oligarchy in our country that,

‘the wind of change is blowing through the continent’;

he to whom a South African cartoonist paid tribute by having him recite other Shakespearean words,

‘Oh, pardon me thou bleeding piece of earth,

That I am meek and gentle with these butchers!’”.

Then he said:

“We have come as friends to all the people of the native land of the Archbishop Trevor Huddleston”—

a great friend and comrade to Madiba—

“who in his gentle compassion for the victim, resolved to give no quarter to any butcher”.

He went on to emphasise the nature of the relationship between South Africa and Britain, which was,

“not one between poor citizens on the one hand and good patricians on the other, but one underwritten by our common humanity and our human capacity to touch one another’s hearts across the oceans”.

No one could have articulated the great cause of liberty and solidarity better; and no one did.

15:28

[Lord Bilimoria (CB)]

My Lords, I returned today from India, having attended the UK-India Round Table. We started our meeting on 6 December with two minutes’ silence for Nelson Mandela. In fact, India has declared state mourning for five days. We could not even consume alcohol at the meeting.

I was born and brought up in India and married my South African wife a year after Mandela was freed in 1990. When I first visited the Free State she came from, my family there told me, “If you had come just a few months earlier, no Indian was allowed to spend the night in the Free State”. An Indian whose car broke down on the way from Johannesburg to Durban would report to the police and invariably would have to spend the night in jail. Things have changed, thanks to Nelson Mandela and President F W de Klerk.

One individual who has not been mentioned in these amazing tributes is Archbishop Desmond Tutu. He is the one who has spoken about the word “ubuntu”, which anyone who has been to South Africa knows about. The person who personified ubuntu was Nelson Mandela himself. As he said, ubuntu is about not enriching oneself but putting back into the community with human kindness. We can see that in his lack of bitterness, his ability to forgive and that saying of his:

“No one is born hating another person because of the colour of his skin, his background, or his religion. People must learn to hate, and if they can learn to hate, they can be taught to love, for love comes more naturally to the human heart than its opposite”.

What about Mahatma Gandhi? Nelson Mandela was a huge admirer of Gandhi. In fact, he said:

“India is Gandhi’s country of birth; South Africa his country of adoption. He was both an Indian and a South African citizen”.

He also said:

“Both Gandhi and I suffered colonial oppression, and both of us mobilized our respective peoples against governments that violated our freedoms”.

Is it not amazing that these two men had difficulties with our two great Prime Ministers—Mahatma Gandhi with Winston Churchill and Nelson Mandela with Lady Thatcher?

The noble Lord, Lord St John, mentioned the great rugby victory. In prison on Robben Island, Mandela would often quote the poem “Invictus” by William Ernest Henley, and its last lines:

“I am the master of my fate:

I am the captain of my soul”.

Mahatma Gandhi’s most famous saying applies better to no one else—ever, ever—than Nelson Mandela. I will paraphrase it: “Your beliefs become your thoughts. Your thoughts become your words. Your words become your actions. Your actions become your habits. Your habits form your character and your character determines your destiny”. Mandela has been an inspiration not just to his country, the world or this generation but for ever more.

15:31

[Lord Morris of Handsworth (Lab)]

My Lords, today we have heard about Mandela the great world leader and Mandela the statesman. I take the opportunity to share my experience of Mandela the ordinary man, whom I had the privilege of meeting on four separate occasions.

On the first occasion, I was in my office and the telephone rang. It was the leader of the Labour Party, the late John Smith. He said, “Can you come to the office? There is someone here I would like you to meet”. I walked in, Mandela was sitting there and I did a double-take. The conversation developed around the question of how we could shape a political party on the basis of equity of all the constituents—the people who matter. At that time, my party was debating one person’s shortlist and how we could bring more women within the context of our party’s leadership. John Smith turned to Mandela and said, “Nelson, our research tells us that within the ANC constitution there is equity. But we also researched your office and we note that there is a preponderance of women against men in the presidential secretariat. How did you cope with all that?” Nelson said: “It was worse than being in Robben Island”.

My second experience was when I led a delegation on behalf of my union to South Africa. Naturally, we went to Johannesburg and it was all set up for me to meet Mandela. I met him on time and he signed a copy of his autobiography, The Long Walk To Freedom. After about 20 minutes or half an hour, he said, “I am very sorry but I must curtail this discussion, interesting as it is, because I have to get down to Cape Town. I have a very important statement to make to Parliament”. We said our goodbyes. I noted on the evening news that it was the day that he advised Parliament that the relationship with Winnie had come to an end and she would play no further official role within the spheres of government.

My last meeting was as a member of the receiving delegation at Brixton. I was standing in the line. He came up to me and said, “You are the man who nearly made me miss my plane”. He did not miss his plane, but the world will certainly miss him.

[Baroness Anelay of St Johns (Con)]

My Lords, we have had remarkable tributes, very much like the man himself. The noble and learned Baroness, Lady Scotland, has been waiting to contribute for some time and has graciously given way to other Peers. I feel that the mood of the House is to wish to hear from the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Scotland, and then perhaps to move on to the Orders of the Day.

15:35

[Baroness Scotland of Asthal (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the House for tolerating one last speech. As a child of the 1960s, I was much influenced by the events in South Africa, events that struck me at such a tender age as being pivotal to my upbringing. Apartheid robbed people, both black and white, of their humanity, because it damaged the souls of those who inflicted it on others as much as it damaged those men and women who suffered from it. It was extraordinary that although many people feared that South Africa would be robbed of its humanity for all time, apartheid did not rob Nelson Mandela—Madiba—of his humanity. Throughout all the stress, the strain and the pressure of those years, he remained quintessentially human, kind and loving.

That love spread right across the world and allowed young people like me to think that it was possible to join the legal profession, possible to become part of the rule of law and possible to facilitate change. That change was fundamental not only to South Africa but to our country, the United Kingdom. How many people in the 1960s would have thought that one day we would have a black, female Attorney-General? But we did, because our humanity has changed and Nelson Mandela helped us to make that change.

We have also benefited from the jurists who came from South Africa to help us here, not just my noble friend Lord Joffe, but also the noble and learned Lords, Lord Scott of Foscote and Lord Steyn, whom I see on the Bench. Those eminent South African jurists ran from South Africa and from apartheid, but they enriched our humanity by enriching our jurisprudence. I give thanks to South Africa for them, and I give thanks for the life of Nelson Mandela. To those who loved him he was Madiba, and all those who knew him were among that number.

One of the most special things about him was that he did not differentiate between men and women, and from my experience he loved women very much. I am not at all surprised that he showed the good judgment to surround himself with women at all times, to give him counsel, to add to his wisdom, to enrich his life and to make sure that he kept on the straight and narrow path. I join my voice with all those who say that we not only greatly enjoyed his presence but deeply loved and appreciated what he did for his country and what he did for each of us.

Burma

Monday 9th December 2013 Lords Chamber

Question

15:39

Asked by

[Baroness Cox]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what is their assessment of recent developments in Burma with regard to the situation of the ethnic national groups, in particular the Kachin, Shan and Rohingya peoples.

[The Senior Minister of State, Department for Communities and Local Government & Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Baroness Warsi) (Con)]

My Lords, we welcome continuing talks between the Burmese Government and ethnic groups, including the Kachin and Shan, towards a nationwide ceasefire and political settlement. We are, however, concerned by recent reports of fighting in Kachin state and continue to argue for full humanitarian access. We continue to monitor tensions in Rakhine state and press for improved security and accountability, better co-ordination of humanitarian assistance and a solution to the question of Rohingya citizenship.

[Baroness Cox (CB)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for her encouraging and helpful reply. Is she aware that I have visited Kachin and Shan states, where I have seen massive civilian displacement, widespread suffering caused by the Burmese army’s continuing military offensive and violations of human rights? Therefore, the proposed engagement of the British Army with the Burmese army is causing such anxiety that ethnic national leaders have written a letter highlighting their concerns. What assurance can the Minister give that this co-operation will provide no enhancement of Burmese military capacity for further assaults on its civilians but will be conditional on progress on the protection of human rights and a genuine peace process?

[Baroness Warsi]

As ever, my Lords, the noble Baroness comes to Question Time with the most up-to-date information, and I very much value her input. As she will be aware, the Burmese military is a core political force in Burma. It is therefore important that professionalism and human rights as an essential element of the work they do is part and parcel of their training. The focus of our defence engagement in Burma is on adherence to the core principles of democratic accountability, international law and human rights. We have been delivering a course—a course which has been delivered in many other parts of the world—that specifically focuses on the professionalisation of the work that the army does. The Chief of the Defence Staff visited Burma earlier this year to deepen that engagement. I can assure the noble Baroness and other noble Lords that we will not be involved in the sale or transfer of arms or military equipment or play a part in military combat. We are involved in the professionalisation and accountability that the Burmese army needs to be aware of when conducting operations.

[Baroness Berridge (Con)]

My Lords, Aung San Suu Kyi stated that Nelson Mandela made us all understand that nobody should be penalised for the colour of his skin or the circumstances into which he was born. Sadly, the Rohingya Muslims are still being persecuted on grounds of their race, ethnicity and religion. What representations are Her Majesty’s Government making to the Burmese Government that they should sign up swiftly to the basic international norms in the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights? Without such a commitment, how can the Minister assure the UK taxpayer that our aid is being distributed without discrimination?

[Baroness Warsi]

The discrimination against the Rohingya community and, indeed, against Muslims in other parts of Burma, is a matter of huge concern. It was raised at the highest level by the Prime Minister in discussions with President Thein Sein when he visited earlier this year. It is important for us to respond to the deteriorating humanitarian situation on the ground in relation to the Rohingya community and to deal with the long-term issue of citizenship. My noble friend has made an incredibly important point. The basis of the argument used by the Minister who raised the issue with me was that the Rohingya were not really members of the Burmese community because they looked different, they had not been in the country long enough and they were from a different religion. I am sure that the irony of that was lost on the Burmese Minister when he was talking to me.

[Baroness Kinnock of Holyhead (Lab)]

My Lords, a national census is due to take place in Burma in 2014, as I am sure the noble Baroness knows. It has largely been funded by the United Nations and, as I understand it, the UK will contribute $16 million. In view of the appalling levels of religious and ethnic discrimination in Burma, does the Minister anticipate that the Rohingya—who are not officially recognised, as we have heard, as one of the country’s ethnic groups—will be included on equal terms in that census? In view of that reality, how do our Government intend to ensure that the UN guarantees a complete count of the population of Burma?

[Baroness Warsi]

This is a hugely controversial issue in Burma. There are concerns about the way in which the Government would like to define the Rohingya community, not so much as Rohingya but as Bangladeshis—I think that they want to define them as Bengalis. We have raised this issue. Some recommendations were made in the internal report that was done, and the President made some positive comments. We have also put forward evidence that shows the length of time that the Rohingya community has lived in Burma. I am not sure that I can give the noble Baroness a specific answer but I will write to her with further details.

[Baroness Falkner of Margravine (LD)]

My Lords, given that my noble friend has mentioned humanitarian assistance, can she tell us what discussions the Government are having with Burma’s neighbours about the people from all the tribes that the noble Baroness, Lady Cox, mentioned, who are displaced across Burma’s boundaries? Particularly in light of the forthcoming census, are the Government supporting efforts to identify those who should rightly be identified as Burmese but are displaced externally?

[Baroness Warsi]

We have of course had discussions not just within Burma but with the Thai authorities. I had an opportunity to discuss the matter with the Bangladeshis and, indeed, had an opportunity to visit Cox’s Bazar, where there are large numbers of the displaced community. We have committed £180 million up to 2015, which is specifically humanitarian assistance. Some of that is for use in relation to individual communities, such as the Kachin and the Rohingya, within Burma, but some is for peacebuilding and support along the Thai-Burmese border. I am not sure that I caught all of my noble friend’s question because of the noise but I hope that that answers it.

[Lord Alton of Liverpool (CB)]

My Lords, has the noble Baroness had the opportunity to look at the Human Rights Watch report that has categorised what is happening to the Rohingya people as genocide, and said that what is happening in Kachin state amounts to war crimes in the perfectly technical sense, not just in the rhetorical sense? Given those allegations, can she tell us what the Government are doing about raising that issue, particularly in the Security Council? Does she accept the underlying point that the ethnic minorities in Burma are in grave danger of being exploited more and more as the country opens up, and that more needs to be done to protect them during this process of opening up?

[Baroness Warsi]

Yes, I am familiar with the report; and alongside that report we have our own disturbing and specific allegations which have been backed up by comprehensive evidence. However, at this stage we feel that rather than a UN-mandated inquiry, it would be better and probably more likely to be effective if it were done internally by the Burmese, and we have been encouraging them to go down that route. The noble Lord will also be aware that the Burmese Government have agreed to open up an OHCHR office. The President made a commitment to an office with a full mandate but it has not at this stage been fulfilled. The noble Lord may also be aware of a recent UN Third Committee resolution which focuses on concerns about the delay to the opening of that office. We think that the opening of an office with a full mandate is one of the ways in which we could take forward some of these concerns.

Equality and Human Rights Commission: Funding

Monday 9th December 2013 Lords Chamber

Question

15:47

Asked by

[Baroness Prosser]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government which of the Equality and Human Rights Commission’s proposed programme bids will be funded; and, for those that will not be funded, why not.

[Baroness Northover (LD)]

My Lords, the process for the commission to access additional programme funding is set out in its framework document. The Government have now approved, in whole or in part, more than half of the bids submitted by the EHRC under this facility. The main reason that the remaining bids were not approved was concern over their value for money.

[Baroness Prosser (Lab)]

I thank the Minister for that reply. In light of the Government’s recent successful application for membership of the UN Human Rights Council, could she explain how she hopes the Equality and Human Rights Commission, which is recognised by the UN as the independent watchdog for human rights in Britain, will work with civil society to monitor our compliance with the human rights treaties to which the Government are a signatory? Will the Government, as they indicated in their application to the UN, actively support the commission in this work and thereby reconsider the decision not to allocate funds for capacity-building in NGOs around UN treaty monitoring?

[Baroness Northover]

I pay tribute to the noble Baroness for the work that she has done in this area. As she knows, the EHRC has its core funding for its core responsibilities and, obviously, in relation to the UN Human Rights Council, that is part of what it is doing. The grants that were rejected were rejected because they either duplicated what others were doing or were regarded as poor value for money. On building capacity for NGOs to contribute to UN treaty monitoring, there was a concern about duplication because many of the bid’s constituent parts may already be provided by others, including the voluntary sector.

[Baroness Hussein-Ece (LD)]

My Lords, under Article 33 of the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, the Government are obliged to fund disabled people and organisations that support them. Is this still the case, given the changes that have recently been made?

[Baroness Northover]

We are very much committed to working with disabled people and their organisations. As I said, the EHRC has some core responsibilities; as regards those grants, we are talking about additional areas for which the EHRC put in bids. I can assure my noble friend that the EHRC plays an important part in the independent mechanism for monitoring the convention. A number of the EHRC’s bids for additional funding have not been approved in this instance because of the concern about value for money. However, that does not affect the EHRC’s core budget and its responsibilities.

[Baroness Royall of Blaisdon (Lab)]

My Lords, the Minister says that only half the bids have been agreed to, which I understand. What plans, if any, are being made for the money that has not been allocated? What do the Government propose to do with it?

[Baroness Northover]

I do not have any information about what would happen to money that has not been allocated. Nine bids were submitted and five of them have been approved. One of them was somewhat contingent on the progress made within that bid, after which further money will be brought in if it goes well. However, I do not have any information about the money that is left over.

[Lord Lea of Crondall (Lab)]

My Lords, we are told that core funding is okay because that is a totally separate question. However, one’s impression is that we passed legislation with a need to implement it through secondary legislation, and the EHRC has many times been given the responsibility to monitor and implement that secondary legislation. Is the Minister saying that the core funding is keeping pace with all the extra secondary legislation that we are asking the EHRC to implement?

[Baroness Northover]

I am sure that the noble Baroness, Lady O’Neill, will come and tell us one way or the other. However, my understanding is that the Ministers responsible are working very closely with the EHRC—I am very glad to see the noble Baroness, Lady O’Neill, nodding—to ensure that it can focus on those core responsibilities. There was, as the noble Lord will probably remember, a previous concern—for example, from the National Audit Office—that some of the extraneous activities around the edge were taking away from those core responsibilities. The bids here do not relate at all to the monitoring of how statutory instruments and so on might operate. That would all be part of the core responsibilities. To come back to the previous question, neither would one assume that all bids would automatically be approved—to do so would be fallacious. Just because the EHRC put in bids for the amount up to the limit of what might have been available, that should not indicate that it will all be allocated if all those bids do not pass the same tests as those that were accepted.

Visas: Artists and Entertainers

Monday 9th December 2013 Lords Chamber

Question

15:54

Asked by

[The Earl of Clancarty]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government whether they have plans to improve the official information available, including on the United Kingdom Border Agency website, for long- and short-term visitors to the United Kingdom, and in particular artists and entertainers.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Home Office (Lord Taylor of Holbeach) (Con)]

My Lords, on 21 November Visa4UK, the UK’s online visa application system for overseas customers, was upgraded to make applications easier to complete. The content of the former UKBA’s website will be transferred to gov.uk by the end of March 2014. Those measures will make immediate improvements to the online customer experience for all users, including the artists and entertainers mentioned by the noble Earl in his Question.

[The Earl of Clancarty (CB)]

I thank the Minister for that helpful reply but does he realise that the official artists and entertainers information is out of date and does not include the permitted paid engagements scheme the Government introduced to improve the system? Can something be done more quickly to ensure that those planning to visit this country have access to the most up-to-date information at all times? They cannot wait on UKBA reorganisation.

[Lord Taylor of Holbeach]

My Lords, this is well recognised by us and we regret that the publication of the revised leaflet, of which the noble Earl will be well aware, has been delayed. We plan to publish the revised leaflet in the next few weeks on the existing website. It will move in due course to gov.uk as part of the wider web content migration. We are grateful for the contribution made by the noble Earl and representatives of the arts sector in developing the leaflet and for their helpful feedback on immigration systems for artists and entertainers.

[Lord Clement-Jones (LD)]

My Lords, is my noble friend the Minister aware of the case of the singer and composer Pamela Z, who came from San Francisco on a PPE visa on the invitation of Sussex University and City University, London? She was held by UKBA at Gatwick for more than three hours and eventually allowed to enter only on the extraordinary condition that she could teach at Sussex but not perform at City University. Can my noble friend clarify whether non-EU performing artists invited on these visas by higher education institutes can both teach and perform? Indeed, perhaps he can tell us how to distinguish between the two on every occasion.

[Lord Taylor of Holbeach]

My noble friend makes a very good point. In fact, I have had some briefing on this incident and I am grateful that it has been drawn to our attention. We suspect that a deficiency in the guidance of the operation of the rules rather than the rules themselves led to this incident. I do not want to go into a lot of detail about a particular circumstance but my noble friend’s comments have not gone unnoticed.

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

My Lords, this is a bit of a shambles and it is also becoming highly embarrassing for the UK. Towards the end of last week a London concert by the Pakistani Sachal Jazz Ensemble was cancelled because of visa problems. The residents of New York had enjoyed packed performances at the Lincoln Center just the week before but the musicians had problems getting visas to come to the UK. A Home Office statement today says:

“Britain is open for business and genuine visitors and tourists coming here to enjoy our world class attractions, study or do business are always welcome”.

It does not appear like that to those artists and performers who are having great problems getting to this country to perform, so our citizens are denied the opportunity to see them whereas American citizens have not been. Can the noble Lord give this urgent attention? I am sorry to say that his answers so far sound slightly complacent.

[Lord Taylor of Holbeach]

I hope the noble Baroness will never assume that I am complacent about anything. I am well briefed on this subject too and this incident. It is part of our commitment to work with those putting on concerts and international events to ensure that they are aware of the visa application process. However, the responsibility to have the correct visas rests with people coming here and guidance is available on the website to help them before they travel. As with any other visitors to the UK, we expect individuals to meet our entry requirements. I can say no more than that.

[The Lord Bishop of Truro]

My Lords, I do not wish to argue that all clergy are entertainers as that would not be true in my experience. But can the Minister comment on the frustration felt again and again by Christian people—clergy and others, especially from Africa—who are invited by dioceses in this country with expenses guaranteed? They have to travel long distances and are not always able to access websites to apply for a visa and are then faced with delay or refusal based on the assumption that they will not return home to their families and responsibilities.

[Lord Taylor of Holbeach]

I am sure the right reverend Prelate will be aware of the responsibility on all Border Agency staff to deal judiciously with these matters. However, they can act only on the information that they have when people present themselves for entry. I hope that the new website will make it much easier for everybody to come here. If anybody is organising an event which involves people coming from overseas, they have an opportunity, in a spirit of partnership, to make sure that everybody is aware of the documentation they require. There is no difficulty getting that documentation provided the application is made.

[Lord Rowe-Beddoe (CB)]

My Lords, will the Minister take a look at the Russian situation? Next year—2014—is designated the UK-Russia Year of Culture. At the first meeting of the joint Russian-British committee, we were informed by the Russian ambassador that considerable trouble and expense are involved in getting Russian artists over here to perform. As we are about to embark on a joint year of culture, as I said, perhaps he will be kind enough to look at this.

[Lord Taylor of Holbeach]

I am very happy to pass that message on within the Home Office. I recognise the importance of Russian art and culture in many art forms, not least music. We have made enormous strides in our relationship with China, another country with a large number of potential visitors, and we hope that that will set a useful precedent for arrangements we can make with Russia.

Energy: Prices

Monday 9th December 2013 Lords Chamber

Question

16:01

Tabled by

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what estimate they have made of the impact of recent energy price rises on local authorities in financial years 2015-16 and 2016-17, compared to a price freeze.

[Lord McKenzie of Luton (Lab)]

My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend Lord Kennedy of Southwark, and with his consent, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in his name on the Order Paper.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Energy and Climate Change (Baroness Verma) (Con)]

My Lords, the Government are helping local authorities with their energy bills. The Salix Finance public sector energy efficiency loan scheme provides interest-free loans to public sector organisations, including local authorities in England, Scotland and Wales. Last week we announced an additional £90 million of funding to help improve the energy efficiency of public sector buildings. The Government Procurement Service purchases energy on behalf of many public sector organisations, including local authorities, resulting in lower energy costs for the public sector.

[Lord McKenzie of Luton]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply. However, we know that local authority budgets are being cut to the bone and many local authorities are already struggling to meet their statutory obligations to vulnerable people. Notwithstanding what the Minister has said, does she agree that, by ruling out price freezes, households are faced with a double challenge of rising energy prices at home and further cuts to vital local authority services on which so many depend?

[Baroness Verma]

My Lords, although the Government cannot, of course, control wholesale prices, in our announcement last week we put forward a package of measures which should help local authorities and consumers. The noble Lord will be aware that only today the OECD said that if it were to follow the noble Lord’s party’s plans on an energy price freeze, there would be underinvestment as investment would be frightened off coming to the UK. I am sure that is not what the noble Lord or his party want, but, sadly, that is what would happen. The noble Lord will also be aware of the complete drop in share prices across energy companies following the statement made by the leader of his party in September.

[Lord Teverson (LD)]

My Lords, as part of their localism agenda, the Government have removed many restrictions on local authorities, one of which is the ability to generate electricity from their own resources. Will my noble friend the Minister remind us what income this initiative has generated for the benefit of council tax payers?

[Baroness Verma]

My Lords, my noble friend is absolutely right. This initiative is of great benefit to local communities and allows local authorities to look at how community-based renewable energy schemes can not just benefit local communities but help local consumers reduce their energy costs.

[Baroness Royall of Blaisdon (Lab)]

My Lords, my right honourable friend Ed Miliband is certainly leading the country in many ways and forcing many U-turns on the Government, but it would be extraordinary if the leader of the Opposition were to have such an impact on the share prices of energy companies 18 months away from a general election. That said, I note what the noble Baroness said about new measures which she believes will have a beneficial impact on local authorities. Have calculations been made about the rise in energy prices for hospitals, health centres and health in general in this country?

[Baroness Verma]

My Lords, the noble Baroness is being incredibly complacent if she thinks that making a statement would not have an impact on share prices across the country. Of course, it undermines investor confidence. We need to make sure that people wishing to invest in the energy infrastructure of this country are confident that we will have a stable set of measurements. That gives confidence to investors rather than deters them from coming here. The noble Baroness asked a number of questions about what we are doing to help. We have done an awful lot to help consumers get through the difficult period. Through ECO we have put in many measures to help 230,000 of our most vulnerable households. There are cold weather payments and there will be warm house discounts to help them see out cold winters. This Government are doing a lot to ensure that those who need help will receive it.

[Lord Harris of Haringey (Lab)]

My Lords, is the Minister telling the House that the Government believe that those people with shares in energy companies are right to be confident that Labour will win the next general election? That is the implication of what she is saying. However, I do not expect a detailed answer to that point. Will the Minister say what she thinks will be the impact on police budgets of rising energy costs and whether this will further add to the loss of local neighbourhood policing in various parts of the country?

[Baroness Verma]

My Lords, on the noble Lord’s first question, no, I do not expect his party to win. In fact, I am trying to point out that he and his party ought to be very careful that we do not undermine this country’s great strength in attracting inward investment. Making complacent statements that have no substance puts investors off.

[Lord Hamilton of Epsom (Con)]

Does my noble friend think that I am being too optimistic in believing that my Centrica shares will start going up again as we approach the next election and the chances of the Conservatives winning it will increase?

[Baroness Verma]

My Lords, as long as we have a Conservative Government in place, I am sure that we will all benefit.

[Baroness Royall of Blaisdon]

My Lords, the politics are very interesting, but the noble Baroness has been asked two questions—one about the impact of energy price rises on hospitals and the health community in this country and the second about the impact on police forces and policing. If the noble Baroness is not able to reply to these questions today, will she write with the requisite information?

[Baroness Verma]

My Lords, I do not wish to avoid answering any questions but, given the time, I have to answer as much as I can of the questions that I am given. The Government Procurement Service purchases energy on behalf of many public sector organisations, including, I am sure, the organisations to which the noble Baroness refers. Harnessing that collective purchasing power and buying directly on the wholesale market results in lower energy costs.

[Baroness Maddock (LD)]

My Lords, does my noble friend remember, like me, that the present leader of the Labour Party was once the Secretary of State for Energy? Does she also remember that, far from increasing competition in the market, which is the one way that we will drive down prices, we saw competition decrease on his watch?

[Baroness Verma]

My noble friend is absolutely right. When the party opposite came to power, there were 14 energy companies. When it left, there were six. I am glad to announce that since then eight independent generators have come on the scene.

European Union (Definition of Treaties) (Colombia and Peru Trade Agreement) Order 2013

Monday 9th December 2013 Lords Chamber

Motion to Approve

16:09

Moved by

[Lord Popat]

That the draft Order laid before the House on 21 October be approved.

Relevant documents: 13th Report from the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments, considered in Grand Committee on 2 December.

Motion agreed.

Infrastructure Planning (Business or Commercial Projects) Regulations 2013

Monday 9th December 2013 Lords Chamber

Motion to Approve

16:09

Moved by

[Lord Popat]

That the draft Regulations laid before the House on 31 October be approved.

Relevant documents: 13th Report from the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments, 18th Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee, considered in Grand Committee on 2 December.

Motion agreed.

Children and Families Bill

Monday 9th December 2013 Lords Chamber

Report (1st Day)

16:10

Amendment 1

Moved by

[Lord Nash]

1: Before Clause 1, insert the following new Clause—
“Contact between prescribed persons and adopted person’s relatives
(1) In section 98 of the Adoption and Children Act 2002 (pre-commencement adoptions: information), after subsection (1) insert—
“(1A) Regulations under section 9 may make provision for the purpose of facilitating contact between persons with a prescribed relationship to a person adopted before the appointed day and that person’s relatives.”
(2) In each of subsections (2) and (3) of that section, for “that purpose” substitute “a purpose within subsection (1) or (1A)”.
(3) In subsection (7) of that section, after the definition of “appointed day” insert—
““prescribed” means prescribed by regulations under section 9;”.”

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Schools (Lord Nash) (Con)]

My Lords, I am delighted to be starting the Report stage of the Children and Families Bill. I know that we are all hoping to make significant progress through the Bill this afternoon and evening, but before I speak to my first amendment, I hope noble Lords will allow me to share a few words of thanks.

We had some very good debates in Committee over 12 days and I am extremely grateful to all noble Lords who contributed to those debates and to those who came to the many meetings we had during Committee and since on specific issues. I found the debates and those meetings extremely helpful, and I have tried hard on those relatively few matters where we do not have a consensus really to understand both sides of the argument. I am grateful for the patience and expertise of all noble Lords who have taken time to talk to me and I have shared those discussions with my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Education and my honourable friend the Minister for Children and Families—noble Lords will realise, I am sure, that they have been supporting me on a learning curve which has been, at times, almost vertical.

I am also grateful to noble Lords for tolerating the large volume of paper that I and the Bill team have been sending their way. Some people have been kind enough to say that our meetings and correspondence have been helpful, and I very much hope that has truly been the case. We have now shared improved indicative statutory guidance on adoption, sibling contact for children in care, care leavers’ access to records and support for care leavers aged between 21 and 24 who are not in education, training or employment. We have also shared information on new regulations and guidance on support for trafficked children. Copies of that information are in the Printed Paper Office if noble Lords do not already have them. Some of the guidance addresses issues that we will continue to discuss today; in other areas, I am pleased that we have been able already to make progress towards addressing the issues that your Lordships have raised.

A number of noble Lords were kind enough to join me in a discussion with our new chief social worker, Isabelle Trowler. Isabelle was inspirational in her account of the reforms she is helping the Government to drive to improve the confidence, professional skills and quality of social workers. Achieving that will do more than any primary or secondary legislation or statutory guidance can do on its own to secure the step change we all want to see in support for our most vulnerable children.

There are also some issues on which we have been persuaded that legislation is the answer. Noble Lords will see further evidence of this when I table amendments to Part 3 of the Bill later this week. If we proceed at pace tonight, we will be able to speak about the Government’s commitment to use this Bill to legislate on “staying put” arrangements for care leavers in foster care.

Returning to the matter in hand, however, let me thank my noble friend Lady Hamwee and the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, for helping me to understand the initially confusing issue of access to intermediary services for the descendants of adopted people. There was one debate in Committee in which I felt we were operating in two completely parallel universes and there was also a moment in the debate when I felt there was an anomaly which could not possibly be as simple and straightforward as was being proposed. However, on investigation afterwards and following an extremely helpful meeting with my noble friend Lady Hamwee, the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, and a number of people who are experts in the field, it became clear that there was an anomaly that we needed to rectify. I am therefore delighted to be putting forward an amendment today that addresses this.

Under the current law as it applies to adoptions that took place before 30 December 2005, both the adopted person and the adopted person’s birth relatives are able to make use of an intermediary service to facilitate contact between them, but the children of the adopted person are not able to do so. My noble friend Lady Hamwee and the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, have set out very clearly that this anomaly leaves a number of people in the dark about their family history. The proposed new clause will correct this anomaly. It will enable regulations to be made that will extend access to intermediary services to those who have a prescribed relationship with the adopted person. I should be clear that the reason that the proposed new clause does not apply to adoptions that took place after 30 December 2005 is because information about these adoptions is held and accessible under a different legal framework, which does not distinguish between descendants and other relatives.

Noble Lords may wonder why the wording of the new clause refers to “persons with a prescribed relationship” rather than “descendants”. Were we to put “descendants” on the face of the Bill, we believe that the extended access would be limited to children and grandchildren of the adopted person. While it is our intention that the regulations will, at a minimum, include the children and grandchildren of the adopted person, we also wish to consult on whether it is appropriate for others, such as spouses and siblings of the adopted person, to be able to access the same services.

With the help of my noble friend Lady Hamwee, the Government have explored the implications of this reform with the Law Commission and the British Association for Adoption and Fostering and are confident that this new clause will close the current gap in the law. I hope that your Lordships agree that this amendment is necessary and I urge noble Lords to accept it. I thank again my noble friend Lady Hamwee and the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, for bringing this important matter to our attention. I am very glad to be able to rectify the problem. I beg to move.

16:16

[Baroness Hamwee (LD)]

My Lords, I start where my noble friend the Minister started by referring to the series of meetings that he and his colleagues arranged as well as the many papers—I cannot remember what term he used, but it was a lot of paper, which was welcome—that we received during the period starting before the end of Committee. I do not think that I have ever known so many meetings as he was able to arrange, but they have been extremely helpful. Because we are on the first day of another stage of the Bill, I need to declare interests as patron of the Intercountry Adoption Centre and of PAC and as a president of London Councils.

It will not be a surprise that I support and welcome this amendment. I thank the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, and the noble Baroness, Lady Howarth of Breckland, for their support in Committee, the officials who struggled with the technicalities of the not-very-easy current provisions and, most of all, the Minister, who dealt with the matter with care and, if I may say so, very effective pragmatism. I know that I pass on the thanks of the British Association for Adoption and Fostering and the Law Commission, both of which were involved, and of the individuals who have campaigned for this change. I have been able to show to the Bill team the very grateful and excited emails that I have had from the lady who has led the campaign. She and those with whom she is in touch can see that they will be able to answer questions about their own heritage, medical issues and indeed their very identity.

I understand the Government’s caution to ensure that the extent of the new rights is appropriate, and the Minister has given us an assurance as to children and grandchildren being the minimum within the prescribed relationships. I hope that he can assure the House that the consultation on this will take place very soon after Royal Assent and that the necessary regulations are expected to follow very speedily so that the anomaly that has been identified can be corrected with the minimum of delay. I thank him and his colleagues very much indeed.

[Baroness Butler-Sloss (CB)]

My Lords, I declare an interest at the beginning of the Report stage as a governor of Coram and as a patron of, among others, BAAF, PAC and Childhood First.

I start by saying that I think that this is a good Bill, though it needs some improvements. What is absolutely splendid is that in certain places the Minister has listened with great care and, like the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, I am extremely grateful to him, not only for a number of very useful meetings on this particular amendment and indeed others, but also for the outcome. I am really very grateful indeed and look forward to that being a source of relief to a number of families.

[Lord Nash]

My Lords, I assure my noble friend Lady Hamwee that we will consult on this immediately after Royal Assent. I thank both her and the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, for their comments.

Amendment 1 agreed.

Clause 2: Repeal of requirement to give due consideration to ethnicity: England

Amendment 2

Moved by

[Baroness Butler-Sloss]

2: Clause 2, page 2, line 12, at end insert—
“( ) In subsection (4)(d) (matters to which court or adoption agency must have regard), after “the child’s age, sex, background” insert “and (except in relation to an adoption agency in Wales, to which subsection (5) applies) religious persuasion, racial origin and cultural and linguistic background.”

[Baroness Butler-Sloss]

My Lords, I said that this was a good Bill; none the less, there are certain aspects of it with which, respectfully, I do not agree.

This amendment relates to comments at the beginning of the pre-legislative scrutiny report by the Select Committee on Adoption Legislation, which I had the honour of chairing. It was the unanimous view of the members of that committee that, compared with the previous position, the Government had gone too far in the opposite direction. Section 1 of the Adoption and Children Act 2002 lists eight considerations applying to the exercise of powers. The previous Government had included subsection (5) as a separate subsection. It reads:

“In placing the child for adoption, the adoption agency must give due consideration to the child’s religious persuasion, racial origin and cultural and linguistic background”.

Instead of being one of a number of considerations, that was out front. The result was that social workers, who were dealing with what is properly called the “ethnicity question” up front, were refusing to place children for adoption with parents who were not of the same colour, the same persuasion or whatever, and this was impeding the very natural and highly to be commended desire of this Government for adoption to move speedily.

The Government therefore decided to take Section 1(5) out of the Adoption and Children Act 2002. So far, so good, but now they have gone too far the other way because it does not appear anywhere. The nearest you get to it is Section 1(4)(d) of the Adoption and Children Act 2002, which reads,

“the child’s age, sex, background and any of the child’s characteristics which the court or agency considers relevant”.

The Government’s view is that that covers the ethnicity point but I do not share that view. The evidence that the Select Committee received was that, whereas social workers paid too much attention to that consideration when it appeared as a separate subsection, there was now a very real danger that they would not pay any attention to it at all. Matters which are of considerable importance to a child—their religious persuasion, racial origin and cultural and linguistic background—have to be taken into account. They must not be permitted to frustrate a proper adoption if the circumstances of the adoption come outside one of those matters but they must be included in the checklist of the various points to which the social workers, the adoption agency—but usually the social workers—and the court must have regard, and removing them presents a problem.

I have had various meetings with the Minister and I even gave him a cup of tea this afternoon before we embarked on what is going to be a very long evening. However, I am afraid that I am not persuaded by his suggestion that there should be statutory guidance. Having it on the face of the legislation means that it has “an importance” but not “the importance”, whereas we all know that, although statutory guidance is important, it may not necessarily be read as carefully as it might be. However, it cannot be entirely ignored if it is in primary legislation. I share the Select Committee’s thought, which was to tuck it in neatly into subsection (4)(d), so you would read it as,

“the child’s age, sex, background and any of the child’s characteristics which the court or agency considers relevant”.

This would then include,

“religious persuasion, racial origin and cultural and linguistic background.”

It would not be too prominent, but it would be there. For those reasons I wish to pursue this amendment, and I beg to move.

[Baroness Hamwee]

My Lords, I have the other amendment in this group. Like the other members of the Select Committee, I agreed that certain characteristics of a child for whom adoption was sought should not be highlighted as if they overrode everything else. Like the other members, as the noble and learned Baroness has said, I was concerned that the wrong message might be taken from new legislation. In taking out a provision for due consideration—because that is all it is, not an overriding consideration—to be given to the child’s,

“religious persuasion, racial origin and cultural and linguistic background”,

Parliament would be saying that no consideration should be given. Like the noble and learned Baroness, I fear that guidance would not be enough in that situation.

I do not think we said this in Select Committee, but I am fearful about this. England would not be in the same situation as Wales. Wales will be keeping this wording. The fact that adoption is a devolved matter does not answer the concerns that I have. It would be seen as a very significant distinction. This swinging political pendulum has got to end up in the middle. As the noble and learned Baroness has said, it is not an overriding issue, nor something to be entirely discounted. In Committee I said there had been oversensitivity to what some parts of the media regard as political correctness. I know that the Minister’s concern is that minority-ethnic children are being short-changed. Sadly, the cohort that is being short-changed is the many children from all sorts of backgrounds who are waiting for adoption. The problem is the imbalance between their numbers and the numbers of prospective adopters. To adopt, one needs to be sensitive—to be understanding of the importance of religion, of racial origin, of cultural and linguistic background. It is not a matter of “being the same as”. People who are the same may not understand, and may not be sensitive enough. But that sensitivity, that openness, addressing issues which may arise—that is the matching which is important, not the direct same characteristics.

As the Government were not been persuaded in Committee, a different approach might appeal. My amendments would take out the references to age and sex so that the court and the agency should have regard to the child’s background and characteristics, because those cover everything. The Minister has said that background and characteristics must include ethnicity. He said that is a matter of plain English. Age and sex are also characteristics, so I hope that my plain English amendment might be helpful.

[Baroness Perry of Southwark (Con)]

My Lords, pendulums do swing; it is very difficult to find a middle way. We are all agreed that it was wrong that for a period of time there was too much emphasis given to a child’s racial and religious background, as the noble and learned Baroness has said. That has resulted in appalling waiting times for children of some ethnic-minority backgrounds, who wait to be adopted for three or four times longer than white children—their contemporaries—do. That is not acceptable in our society. But we are in danger of swinging the pendulum a little bit back in the wrong direction by trying to put in the words of,

“religious persuasion, racial origin and cultural and linguistic background”.

I am of the view, which I understand is also the Minister’s view, that any sensible person trying to interpret the “background” would include racial, religious, cultural and linguistic origins. There is no way that you can look at someone’s background without taking those into account, otherwise the word “background” is meaningless. What else could it possibly mean?

I turn to the amendment of the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee. I have a lot of sympathy with her wishing to take out the racial, cultural and linguistic elements as put forward by the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, but I wonder whether we have not taken too much out there. It is a question of the pendulum swinging in all directions. Given all the various views that there are here, it seems to me that we all want the same thing: we want children of ethnic-minority backgrounds to be able to be adopted as quickly as their contemporaries; and we also want all their background to be taken fully into account. Given the efforts we are making to get the pendulum to hang in the middle, I think the Government have got it just about right.

16:31

[Baroness Walmsley (LD)]

My Lords, my name is attached to the amendment of the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee. Our intention in paring this down to background and characteristics is to force people to look at the guidance. The Government tell us that they are strengthening the guidance considerably and will emphasise the need to understand that a child’s ethnicity is an important aspect of their identity. What concerns me particularly about taking ethnicity out altogether is that we will continue to have a large number of trans-racial adoptions. Hurrah to that, I say, as long as the child is going to a family who can love them, bring them up in a caring way and, if there are differences in background, ethnicity, culture and so on, understand how that affects the child. Whether through the Bill or in the guidance, we need to ensure that local authorities, when dealing with prospective parents, are able to investigate whether they are the kind of parents who would understand the importance of that characteristic of the children. I fear that taking “ethnicity” out will not fix the problem.

As my noble friend Lady Hamwee said, there is a mismatch between the cohort of children waiting for adoption and the size of the cohort of parents prepared to adopt them. There is also a difference in the ethnicity of those two groups and that is why, until we can balance the ethnicity of the one group and the other, there will continue to be those trans-racial adoptions. That is why we need to make quite sure that, among all the other wonderful characteristics of those prepared to take the step and adopt a child who needs a home, there is that sensitivity and understanding of the child’s ethnic background. Whichever way we do it, it has got to be done well.

[Baroness Whitaker (Lab)]

My Lords, following the intervention of the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, with which I agree absolutely, I warmly support the amendment in the names of the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, and my noble friends on the Front Bench.

The noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, has unrivalled expertise. I have only personal experience—I am speaking as the parent of an adoptive child of Asian background—and it is my conviction that any child of a different racial background from the parents is deprived if it cannot identify easily, almost unconsciously, with someone close to it in the way children do. A baby first learns visually to recognise faces. A teenager depends very much on confirmation of his or her identity to develop confidence. A loving home is, of course, all important. I am speaking not only as a parent, but as a member of a support group for adoptive parents, so I am also aware of their experiences. You impose a burden and a cause of stress on a child if ethnicity—as far as is possible—is not respected.

Children survive all sorts of things and I hope we have had a happy family. But that in no way alters my conviction that the Government should pay attention to this need of children and accept this amendment.

[Baroness Eaton (Con)]

My Lords, some interesting points have been made by the previous speakers, but one of the things none of us has mentioned so far is the valuable and important role of social workers in this exercise of matching children with appropriate, loving parents.

I worry that by being as prescriptive as putting something like this on the face of the Bill or making guidance hugely prescriptive, we are limiting the opportunities of social workers to be flexible and professional about their assessment. If we need to do anything, perhaps it is strengthening that kind of perception and understanding within social worker training. I have confidence that, if the Government choose to remove this, it does not mean that social workers will not look at each child’s background very fully; and not just the backgrounds of children who are easily identified as from a minority. The assumption that all Caucasian children, for instance, have no difference in their needs is quite ridiculous.

If we are prescriptive about applying considerations to do with parental connections only to the lives of children from ethnic minorities, we are not giving social workers the right to make the proper professional judgments. For example, if a Quaker family adopts a child from a Catholic background, it is just as important for them as it is for people of mixed ethnicity. I am concerned that if we are prescriptive and put something on the face of the Bill and are also prescriptive in the statutory guidance, we may make the situation worse in some cases.

[Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Lab)]

My Lords, in Committee I spoke in support of Amendment 2. I quoted the Joint Committee on Human Rights, of which I am a member, in its legislative scrutiny report. This led to some debate about the implications of the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child for this clause.

I want to read from the letter that the chair of the Joint Committee on Human Rights wrote to the Minister following our debate in Committee. He expresses disappointment at the Government’s refusal to accept the amendment. He writes: “In your response”—to the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss—

“you said that ‘the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child does not require children to be placed with someone who shares exactly the same ethnicity but someone who respects it.’ That is correct, but what the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child does expressly require, in Article 20(3), is that ‘when considering solutions, due regard shall be paid … to the child’s ethnic, religious, cultural and linguistic background’. Removing the statutory provision which gives effect to that obligation, without retaining those considerations in the welfare checklist, is incompatible with that provision of the Convention.

Unless the Government accepts the amendment when it is brought back at Report stage, it seems to us to be inevitable that this aspect of the Bill will be the subject of criticism by the UN Committee on the Rights of the Child. The Government is currently finalising its Report to the UN Committee on the Rights of the Child, for submission in January 2014. My Committee will ensure that the issue is brought to the attention of the Committee when it examines the UK’s Report”.

Would it not make sense to listen to experts such as the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, and the NSPCC? It has said that the amendment would,

“ensure that reference to ethnicity in the Adoption and Children Act is better balanced rather than it being given prominence in its current standalone form, and that it is appropriately recognised given its significance. We welcome the updating of statutory guidance … and are keen to work with DfE to input into this. However, while the detail of the guidance is certainly important it will only go so far in ensuring this is appropriately taken into account and could send a contradictory message as to its importance having removed this from primary legislation”.

That is one of the concerns—that having expressly taken this out of the legislation, and if nothing is put back, it will send out a message that whatever the statutory guidance says, this is not important. But it is important, and I really hope the Minister will think again. I know that his reading of the UN convention is different, but the Joint Committee on Human Rights is expressly given the duty to advise Parliament on the human rights implications of legislation. I hope the Minister will take seriously this rather strong advice given by the Joint Committee.

[Baroness Meacher (CB)]

My Lords, I was not planning to speak in this debate at all but I feel strongly that we need to support my noble and learned friend Lady Butler-Sloss. I want to mention only one case—that of a really superb set of parents who adopted two children across the racial barrier; that is, two African children. You could not find better parents. They were both involved in the mental health services and were devoted to these two girls. It seemed that the thing was perfect. But both those girls committed suicide in their late teens. If we are to neglect the advice of the UN convention, we need to beware. It is no accident that these issues are emphasised so clearly, and no accident that our extremely experienced noble and learned friend, Lady Butler-Sloss, has tabled this amendment. We should support it.

[Baroness Young of Hornsey (CB)]

My Lords, I support my noble and learned friend Lady Butler-Sloss on this amendment, as I did in Grand Committee. I do not want to repeat what other noble Lords have said, but I support very much what the noble Baroness, Lady Lister, and my noble friend Lady Meacher said. The noble Baroness, Lady Eaton, said that she thought it would be restrictive to put these words back into the Bill. However, to urge people to have regard is perhaps not as restrictive as she thinks. The agencies from which I have received briefings and with which I have had round-table discussions, along with other discussions over a long period, also support the amendment tabled by my noble and learned friend.

That is not to say that everybody has a kind of purist, essentialist view on who should be adopting who, but to recognise that there are many other factors regarding black and mixed-race heritage children, and children with disabilities. Children with those kinds of backgrounds have experienced delays in the system for all kinds of reasons, not simply because of previous legislation. There are lots of different ways of supporting those children, too, which can be long-term. Fostering can provide long-term stability in lots of different ways. So, as I say, I support my noble and learned friend.

[Baroness Morris of Yardley (Lab)]

My Lords, I support Amendment 2 and should like to comment briefly. What is strange is that it seems we are all in agreement. On the substance of the matter, there is not as much disagreement in this debate as I thought there would be when the Bill was published, which is interesting. To some extent, what we seem to be debating this evening is: what is the best way in legislation to give that message to people whose lives will be affected by what we decide?

16:45

I want to add two points to that. The first is about perception. Throughout the implementation of this Bill, one problem will be not so much with the legislation but with how it is seen out there by people who have to interpret it. This is about changing culture. As far as this matter is concerned, the perception of people outside this Chamber is not that there is wide agreement across the political spectrum about the need to take these matters into account, but that this legislation intends to move the position to the other end from where it has been in the past. For me, the challenge is: how do we have something in law that clearly gives the message that it is all right to take into account a child’s ethnic background? Many people out there think that what this legislation is about is that it is not all right to consider a child’s ethnic and cultural background when making a decision on adoption.

I ask myself which of the two alternatives available to us—statutory guidance or something in primary legislation—will most strongly give the message about where this House wants to have the legislation. It has to be in the Bill; that is my non-expert interpretation. It would be unwise not to take the advice of the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, who is paramount in her expertise in this area. If I have to come down on one side or the other, I will go for that of the noble and learned Baroness, not the Minister. In the run-up to the Bill, the spin that the Government gave was that they were moving away from taking into account a child’s ethnic, cultural and linguistic background. That is where people in the wider world think they are. To get the pendulum back to the middle, we clearly need something in the Bill, and so far I have heard nothing that argues against that. To give that message and to get this new legislation to have a fair and good start is better served by putting it in the Bill. I support Amendment 2.

[Lord Storey (LD)]

My Lords, I rise to speak with no real expertise on this matter, although, as it happens, my father was an adopted child. It is interesting that there has been a 20% increase in the number of looked-after children since 2009. I suspect that there is a perception that if you do not ethnically match, children will be hanging around waiting for a loving, caring family. I am not sure that that is the case. We all want the same thing, do we not? We all want to make sure that children are adopted by the right families, in all sorts of ways. I rarely disagree with my noble friend Lady Eaton, but if there is statutory guidance—and there will be—it is hugely important that the religious, heritage, cultural and ethnic issues are clearly spelt out. Presumably it is called “statutory” because it is backed by the full weight of the law. When the Minister replies, I hope that he will spell out how important that statutory guidance is.

I suspect that, for all sorts of reasons, we are at a bit of an impasse because of views shared by other people who are not in this Chamber. I understand that. Clearly, however, there has been real movement by the Government to have statutory guidance. I do not think that I would ever dare to disagree with the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss. However, I think that social workers do take note, and will have to take note, of that statutory guidance, given that it is enshrined in law. They will know clearly what the thinking is. When the statutory guidance is put together, organisations such as the NSPCC will play a prominent part in making sure that it is fit for purpose and delivers what we all want.

[Lord Elton (Con)]

My Lords, I learnt one lesson at the Home Office where I legislated for some years. When you make a list, the longer it is the more that considerations which are not on the list are excluded. Expressio unius est exclusio alterius: if you have a list of what must be done, the inference is that the rest does not have to be done. Therefore, if you are going to have a list, let it be complete.

[Baroness Benjamin (LD)]

My Lords, first, I thank the Minister for listening to concerns raised in Grand Committee and for the many meetings with all interested parties over the past few weeks to find ways to move forward in dealing with adoption issues.

With regard to Clause 2, I acknowledge the Government’s argument for removing the requirement in primary legislation to have particular regard to,

“religious persuasion, racial origin and cultural and linguistic background”,

as it has become evident that in some cases the current legislation of due consideration has been interpreted too bluntly, with some social workers giving undue regard to racial characteristics and seeking perfect ethnic matches. There is a need to find ways to avoid that happening—to find a balance. Statutory guidance could be the answer if it is fully thought through and applied. However, as we have already heard, there are concerns that the removal of the express requirement to give,

“due consideration to the child’s religious persuasion, racial origin and cultural and linguistic background”,

when matching a child with prospective adopters might increase the risk that a child’s racial origin will be completely ignored in matching decisions.

I would appreciate it if the Minister could tell the House what the Government propose should happen when a child is adopted by a family of different race, heritage or religion. How will the guidance ensure that those families are given help to understand, appreciate and engage with the background and culture of the children placed with them? How will the statutory guidance address identity, background and heritage issues that will almost certainly need to be dealt with at different times in a child’s life as, getting older, they grapple to understand their identity? As we have heard, some find it very difficult if they are not exposed to those issues. In short, how will adopters of a different background and ethnicity access additional training and support to help them understand issues their child might have to face, such as racism and identity crisis as well as religious and cultural differences?

I have spoken to both the NSPCC and CCS Adoption based in Bristol. I declare an interest as I am a patron of the latter. Both believe that a stronger case needs to be made before the removal of due consideration of race and ethnicity when a child is adopted. Some people have asked why we cannot simply amend the welfare checklist specifically to include ethnicity. Can the Minister explain the Government’s reasoning behind the decision not to do this?

One of CCS Adoption’s concerns is that guidance might be considered discretionary and is more likely not to be adhered to or might even be ignored. Just last week it was advised by its local authority that it was not the authority’s policy to undertake life story work with children or to produce a life story book for a child. In the local authority’s view, these tasks should be done by the adopters. Would statutory guidance make this clearly the responsibility of the local authority, as it holds the child’s key information? The life story workbook is key to any child coming through the care system in helping to preserve and develop their identity. To try to delegate these responsibilities to adopters when all the key information is held by the local authority is unacceptable as it does not ensure that the best interests of a child are met. Will this practice be addressed and enshrined in statutory guidance?

As we have heard, the NSPCC welcomes the updating of statutory guidance in relation to this issue and is keen to work with the department to input into this. However, it feels that this is work in progress and that at this stage it cannot commit wholeheartedly to endorsing the guidance. It and others have asked a number of questions to seek reassurance. What impact will the statutory guidance have and how will it be implemented? Aside from whether the guidance is statutory, as the Government are proposing to remove “due consideration” from primary legislation, do they think that stating this in guidance is contradictory and could lead to confusion among social workers as to whether it is a priority issue for consideration? How will the guidance ensure that all families are given help to understand, appreciate and engage with the background and culture of children placed with them? How will the Government ensure that local authorities actively recruit more adoptive parents from a range of ethnic backgrounds?

I believe that when a child is adopted by a family of different race, heritage or religion, that family must fully understand the child’s background and help the child to cherish their birth heritage. Adopters do not have to share the same ethnicity, but they must be able to respect the child’s background. They must be able to help the child to identify with their birth heritage and to be well prepared for issues that may arise as the child develops into a teenager and beyond. These adopters therefore need to be supported and helped by appropriate training to strengthen their skills together with their knowledge and understanding of the child's birth heritage, so that they can meet these needs.

This will undoubtedly avoid situations like the one I was made aware of recently by a young mixed race girl. She wrote:

“Growing up in a completely white family meant I didn’t get a taste of my heritage and not knowing my father meant that I wasn’t introduced to my black heritage until my teens. I feel strongly about this topic as I used to be picked on when I was younger and called an ‘Oreo’ (black on the outside, white on the inside) purely because I didn’t know or understand my black heritage”.

Over the years I have heard many similar stories.

Every child needs a loving and stable home, but they also need to be confident about their identity in order to face the world. We all agree that children must not suffer as a consequence of our decisions. So if we end up with statutory guidance, we must all work diligently to ensure that it is clear and understandable to all and not open to misinterpretation. As I always say, childhood lasts a lifetime and a child’s experiences shape their adulthood. So let us get this one right. I am happy to work with the Minister to do just that. In the mean time, I look forward to hearing how the Minister believes the Government can achieve this.

[Viscount Eccles (Con)]

My Lords, these are complicated matters. We need to come down on one side of the fence. Can primary legislation cope with these matters, or are there so many variables that we have to rely on guidance? Guidance would allow more judgment than could be exercised if faced with a section in an Act of Parliament. My perception is that we would be better advised to rely on statutory guidance. If we do not like it or do not think it deals adequately with all the variations that have been talked about today, we can debate it in Parliament and ask the Government to think again. However, trying to cover what has been talked about today in a clause in a Bill which becomes an Act of Parliament will not work. Therefore we have to rely to a much greater extent on the development of confidence and judgment within the system operated by the courts, local authorities, social services and voluntary agencies. That is the way we should go.

17:00

[Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)]

My Lords, I speak in favour of Amendment 2, to which my name has been added, and very much support the arguments that the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, has put forward this afternoon.

Noble Lords who were in Committee will recall that we debated this in depth. It is fair to say that there was widespread sympathy for the point of view that the noble and learned Baroness has put forward this afternoon. There was a sense that we wanted to get the balance right—not overstating their importance, but recognising that ethnicity, culture, language and heritage are all factors that make up a child’s identity, which any prospective adopter should be able to respect and value. The challenge for us is how to get it right and achieve that.

The noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, explained that this issue was dealt with in some detail by the adoption pre-legislative scrutiny committee last year, which took evidence from a number of the major players in the adoption sector, including Coram and Barnardo’s. We continue to believe that that is an authoritative piece of work. While no one wants children to be disadvantaged by delays being caused by the search for the perfect match, the evidence of the adoption committee seemed to show that while there are some pockets of poor practice, it is no longer a widespread issue. For example, Barnardo’s believed that the current legislation was adequate and Coram argued that while this might have been a problem in the past, the situation was improving rapidly. The committee also identified that there were several other factors affecting the placement of BME children, including having fewer prospective adopters and a failure by social workers to promote their availability. The truth is that there remains a paucity of evidence that BME children are waiting longer for placements because of the current wording on ethnicity.

In his response in Committee, the Minister referred to two pieces of research, which I have now had a chance to look at. The first is by Julie Selwyn and commenced in 2005, which is some time ago. Even so, the study did not find systematic bias or mishandling of minority ethnic children by children’s services. The second piece of research, which was by Professor Elaine Farmer, was also carried out some time ago. It commenced in 2007. It was also interesting reading, but it covered a limited sample and, as she acknowledged, it was impossible to draw definitive findings because local authority practice was changing at the very time that the research was taking place. I believe that the latest research carried out by the adoption Select Committee is probably a better reflection of what is currently happening in adoption practice rather than research carried out six or seven years ago.

While there is, no doubt, scope for further definitive research, we should in the mean time be cautious about driving major change in this area. This is why we believe that putting these factors in the welfare checklist along with other considerations strikes the right and proportionate balance in addressing this issue. It would require agencies to have regard to these factors, but they would not be paramount.

The Minister argued that, if references to ethnicity and culture were removed, they would nevertheless remain as a silent, unspoken part of the children’s characteristics and would still need to be taken into account. A similar argument was put forward by the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, in her amendment. The Minister also referred to the fact that indicative statutory guidance is being prepared, which we welcome. But putting those two things together, I do not think they are good enough. By removing the references to ethnicity, religion, culture and language from the Bill, the Government plan to send a deliberate message to courts and social workers. Why else would they do it? We believe that that message is disproportionate and misguided and will be interpreted in the wrong way.

As we discussed in Committee, any change in the law in this area would also be in direct contradiction to the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, and in particular Article 20, which states:

“Children who cannot be looked after by their own family have a right to special care and must be looked after properly by people who respect their ethnic group, religion, culture and language”.

I am very grateful to my noble friend Lady Lister for updating us on the continued concerns of the Joint Committee on Human Rights in this regard. We continue to share those concerns. We think it is important that parents understand the identity of the child and are able to help them feel at ease with that identity. We cannot be blind or neutral to these considerations.

For all these reasons, we urge the Government, even at this stage, to agree to the amendment. We all want what is in the best interests of the child, which in this case is to have their identity respected and nurtured. We believe that our amendment sends the right message to the sector, building on their developing good practice and helping to speed up placements. I therefore urge noble Lords to support the amendment.

[Lord Nash]

My Lords, it seems ironic that, on a day when we have been paying tribute to probably the greatest force for racial reconciliation ever, we are having a debate about a matter relating to race. However, I am encouraged by today’s debate. It is absolutely clear that we are really not very far apart; we are all trying to achieve the same thing—the question is just how. Perhaps I could try and outline, at some length if I may, how I and the Government see the matter, our motivation, and where I believe there is considerable common ground.

The fact is that it takes two years and seven months for a child from entering the care system to be formally adopted, but for a black child it is 13 months longer—nearly four years. It takes one year and seven months for a child to be placed with his or her proposed adopters, but for a black child it takes 13 months, or 70%, longer. Of course, this conceals the fact that many children never get adopted. This is completely unacceptable and upsets me now as much as it did when I first heard about it three and a half years ago. This is not a question of the pendulum having swung too far. The pendulum has swung off the scale.

I have since I started working with children and young people felt very strongly that we need to ensure not just that the life chances of all young children are substantially improved but particularly those of the BME community, and in particular the black community, because it seems to me that we need more successful black people and more successful black role models. It defines our society to have a balance of successful people. I look forward greatly to the day when there are many more Baroness Youngs and Baroness Benjamins. Although I was scribbling some of the time, I think I agreed with everything the noble Baroness, Lady Benjamin, had to say.

There is unequivocal evidence on the negative impact of delay on children’s development and well-being. Children need to form secure and stable attachments, with one or two main carers in order to develop physically, emotionally and intellectually. Therefore, what can we do about the appalling fact that it takes black children, and other children from other minority ethnic groups, so long to be adopted? First, we are taking great steps on a number of fronts to improve the speed at which children are adopted generally. Secondly, we must seek to recruit more adopters and BME adopters and, as my noble friend Lady Hamwee said, we need to open up the system on a more national basis so that there is more scope for making the right matches. However, our research still reveals that in too many cases social workers try for too long to make a perfect match.

I have reflected deeply on this clause since Grand Committee. When children are being matched, consideration of their background and heritage plays a critical part. It is an integral part of a child’s identity and their new parents must be able to support them as they grow up. In Committee, there were moving testimonies from my noble friend Lady Perry, who spoke about Marrianna, the little girl of the Kindertransport, for whom her parents cared, ensuring that they learned about Jewish religious tradition so they could help Marrianna cherish her religious identity.

My noble friend Lady Walmsley spoke about her granddaughter Cathryn, of Chinese heritage, whose parents are learning about her heritage so they can support her. Clearly, with the right awareness and commitment, mixed-race adoptive families can be very happy and successful ones. What is crucial to making effective matching happen is good social work practice and support for adoptive parents so they can support their children, not just at the point of adoption but beyond, as the child grows into a young adult. I do not think that the blunt wording of the Adoption and Children Act—however well-intentioned and wherever it is placed—can secure that.

I am delighted to see the noble Baroness, Lady King, here this afternoon. I had the great pleasure of meeting her now probably eight week-old son the other day, and one could not wish to see a more charming baby. Perhaps the whole House can join me in congratulating her on the birth of Tullio.

[Noble Lords]

Hear, hear.

[Lord Nash]

Under the Government’s proposal, courts and adoption agencies will continue to have to have regard to,

“the child’s age, sex, background and any of the child’s characteristics which the court or agency considers relevant”,

as set out in the welfare checklist. The Government take a strong view that that must include the child’s ethnicity. We therefore believe that the amendment is not necessary, as that aspect of a child’s identity will form part of an agency’s, or court’s, considerations in deciding the most appropriate match for a child. It is not in the nature of social workers to ignore ethnicity. That has been confirmed by discussions I have had with practitioners, to which I will refer shortly.

On the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Lister, on the JCHR, we do not agree with the Joint Committee that the clause is incompatible with the United Nations convention. We are satisfied that the requirement in the welfare checklist to have regard to the child’s background and characteristics includes ethnic, religious, cultural and linguistic background. There is also a risk that to place the requirement in the welfare checklist as the amendment proposes will have the effect of giving this aspect of a child’s identity more significance than other equally important characteristics such as disability.

Due to the current wording, some local authorities have paid undue rather than due regard to ethnicity in some cases, at the expense of other needs of the child, as most noble Lords have acknowledged. Since Committee, I have spoken with several directors of children’s services about our proposals. I will share with noble Lords what those who are willing to be quoted told me, and why they support our clause. Ade Adetosoye is Director of Community and Children’s Services, City of London, and spent seven years as the director of social care at Lambeth Council, during which time his leadership helped transform practice. He told me:

“Changing the legislation to remove this explicit requirement is a positive thing—it will not change the good work of many local authorities who already look for the best placements rather than the perfect match. However, poorer performing local authorities do sometimes look too hard for the perfect match to the detriment of the child”.

Andrew Christie, Executive Director of Children’s Services for Westminster, Hammersmith and Fulham, and Kensington and Chelsea, said:

“I fully support the government’s plans not to have ethnicity on the face of the Bill and the welfare checklist because there is evidence that suggests that this leads to some social workers trying too hard to make the perfect match which can result in the child taking a very long time to be adopted, or in some cases never being adopted at all. In my authorities we have a strong focus on people realising that the crucial thing for the child is that the clock is ticking”.

Tim Coulson, Director for Commissioning: Education and Lifelong Learning, Essex, who has himself adopted a child of a different race, said:

“We agree with the Government’s proposal to remove the requirement in legislation to give due consideration to ‘a child’s religious persuasion, racial origin, and cultural and linguistic background’ because we think that this requirement makes some social workers look too long for an ideal match based on these factors”.

Those are practitioners at the coal face.

I think we all agree that we therefore need to change the behaviour and culture of some social workers. We think that the right way to do this is through considerably enhanced guidance, so we have been spending a great deal of time talking to the NSPCC and others about this. I have also had the opportunity to talk to the marvellous charity Hope and Homes for Children, which specialises in going into conflict-torn areas—it started in Bosnia—and placing children in adoptive-type arrangements. It has considerable experience of making cross-race placements, including of Roma children—there is a massive shortage of Roma adopters—and emphasised strongly to me in some detail the importance of training and advice for adopters in that situation.

The debates with noble Lords have made us look closely at the guidance on this issue. We need to underpin practice with nuanced statutory guidance and will continue to work with the NSPCC and others. We intend that the revised statutory—not discretionary—guidance on which we will consult in the new year, and on which I would welcome noble Lords’ comments, will build on the existing draft. It will add that identity, background and heritage are issues that may need to be addressed at different times in a child’s life so that they understand their identity within the family and wider society, particularly as the child reaches adulthood. The noble Baroness, Lady Whitaker, spoke convincingly and passionately from personal experience about the importance of this.

17:15

[Baroness Whitaker]

I am grateful to the Minister for understanding my convictions, but I was attempting to argue against his proposal that these characteristics should not appear in the Bill. It seems to me imperative that they are there as a signpost. I hope he can acknowledge that.

[Lord Nash]

I am grateful. I understand entirely the noble Baroness’s position. The guidance will also state that adopters of a different background/ethnicity may need additional training and support to help them support their child. This will include how to identify and deal with racism. On the matching process, it will ensure that the adopters can engage with the cultural background, heritage and ethnicity of the child. We will take my noble friend Lady Benjamin’s point about the importance of the child’s life story—the life book—and ensure that this point is in the statutory guidance. I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Eccles for his support for this approach.

We do not think that having ethnicity in guidance but not in legislation is confusing and we are funding the British Association for Adoption and Fostering to provide training seminars for all local authorities and voluntary adoption agencies on this matter and the rest of the adoption reform programme. Training to support ethnicity issues will be part of the 2014-15 sessions and places at these sessions are free. Of course, good matching is important for all children and all adoptive families need access to adoption support at different stages of childhood. We are addressing these issues for all adoptive families and the guidance will reflect that. We will also add other issues that may arise in our discussions with the NSPCC and other experts. During the consultation I will put a copy of the consultation document in the House Library and send a copy to former members of the Select Committee. I hope that many of you will respond. To make that as easy as possible we would be delighted to host a round-table discussion with Peers about the guidance.

However, improving outcomes for black children is not only about adoption. For many, fostering will be more appropriate: three-quarters of all looked-after children are in foster care. For others, it will be special guardianship with a relative or former foster carer. Where adoption is the right outcome for black children, we must do better to find them families as quickly as we do for other children. For those children for whom adoption is the right permanent outcome we need action on several fronts. This includes recruiting more adopters generally, including from minority ethnic communities. This year we have given £150 million to local authorities through the adoption reform grant to help boost adopter recruitment and £16 million for the voluntary adoption agencies to help recruit more adopters who can meet the needs of children needing adoption. For example, Southwark has come up with innovative ways of recruiting adopters from the black community.

There will be better training for professionals. We have appointed BAAF to provide training on a range of issues, which next year will include ethnicity. Places are free for all local authority and voluntary adoption agencies. There will be better adoption support. We know how important this is, not only when the child is first placed with the family, but also later on, perhaps when they are dealing with the trials of adolescence and maybe, as my noble friend Lady Benjamin alluded to in one particularly moving case, questioning their identity. In September 2013 we announced a new fund with a contribution of nearly £20 million to help adoptive parents access the best possible support to meet their children’s needs. This fund will be rolled out nationally from 2015 but will be trialled from next year. The investment will make a difference to adopters in providing the support they need and better guidance, and I have explained the steps we are taking here.

As the noble Baroness, Lady Morris, said so incisively, we have, I believe, complete consensus right up to, and including, the point of diagnosing the problem. The issue is precisely how we change a culture of behaviour, but we have no intention of moving away from the importance of the child’s cultural and ethnic background. It is imperative that these are taken into account on every front.

I hope that we do not vote on this matter. That would be unfortunate given the nature of the matter that we are dealing with. I am personally committed to spending as much time as possible with my officials, the NSPCC, noble Lords and other interested parties to ensure that we get appropriate guidance in place to enable this matter to be handled in a way that takes into account the best interests of the children so that, on the one hand, their ethnicity is fully taken into account in all placing and matching decisions and, on the other, they are not left on the shelf and short-changed by the system, as many are now.

I hope noble Lords will agree that we are all very much in the same place and that statutory guidance gives us the scope to steer social work practice in a more nuanced way than through blunt statements in the Bill. On that basis, I hope the noble and learned Baroness will withdraw the amendment.

I now turn to the amendment in the names of my noble friends Lady Hamwee and Lady Walmsley. I am grateful to my noble friends for their innovative thinking on this matter, proposing to remove references to age and sex from Section 1(4)(d) of the relevant Act. I understand the thinking behind the amendment, which I believe is designed to remove from legislation any of the specific characteristics about a child, and rely wholly on the phrase,

“the child’s background and any of the child’s characteristics which the court or agency considers relevant”.

After careful reflection, I do not propose to follow this line of thinking at present. This is because there is no evidence that there is an issue with the way that the courts or adoption agencies are interpreting the words “age and sex”. There is a fairly technical issue at play here. Clause 2 seeks to remove subsection (5) of Section 1 of the 2002 Act. This is a requirement which applies only to adoption agencies—that is, local authorities and voluntary adoption agencies—when placing a child for adoption. Subsection (4) of Section 1—what is known as “the welfare checklist”—applies to the court as well as to adoption agencies, so seeking to amend this suggests a change for the courts as well as for adoption agencies.

In addition, this provision in the welfare checklist reflects an identical requirement on the courts in Section 1 of the Children Act 1989 when considering orders under that Act. Therefore, if we were to change the wording in the Adoption and Children Act 2002 in the way suggested by removing the reference to age and sex, that would send a strange signal to the court as it would suggest a different decision-making process under the Adoption and Children Act 2002 from that under the Children Act 1989.

However, in the end I come back to the very serious issue we want to address: the delay that black children and other ethnic minority children experience while waiting for adoption. As I said at the beginning, we have today paid tribute to one of the greatest advocates of racial equality ever. I listen frequently to the wonderful speech given by the other great advocate, Martin Luther King, which in my view is the greatest speech ever made. It is not the “I Have a Dream” speech, which everyone thinks of, but the one he made two months before that at Cobo Hall in Detroit in June 1963, which was then the centre of popular music, in which he used that wonderful musical analogy that all God’s children, from base black to treble white, are equally important in God’s world and on God’s keyboard. However, that does not seem to be the result in terms of the outcomes for black children in our adoption system, and this Government are determined to change that.

It is the requirement on local authorities and other adoption agencies at Section 1(5) in the Adoption and Children Act which—albeit it was placed there with the best of motives—I believe has contributed to the delays that black children face, as I think all noble Lords have acknowledged. The statutory guidance gives us the opportunity to provide much more nuanced advice and guidelines which will benefit all children being adopted, not just those who are visibly different from prospective families. For this reason, I urge the noble and learned Baroness to withdraw the amendment.

[Baroness Butler-Sloss]

My Lords, I thank all those who have spoken on what in my view is an important issue, although it may be, as several have said, a question of balance and degree. I will start by answering some of the Minister’s points. As a former judge who tried adoption cases, I am well aware of the unacceptable delays that there have been in adoptions of non-white children and children from other cultural backgrounds. I believe that Section 1(5), requiring social workers and the courts to pay particular regard to ethnicity, was wrong and I am happy that the Government wish to remove Section 1(5) from the Adoption and Children Act 2002. However, I do not believe that putting these words into the checklist would have the effect that the Minister says.

The Government are putting forward a number of extremely sensible suggestions, many of them coming from the important reports that have been published. I hope that these will lead to far better adoption situations, and for all children who should be adopted to be adopted more quickly. Therefore, I very much appreciate the work the Government are doing. It is interesting that agencies remain unconvinced by the Government’s arguments, although they are, like the NSPCC, willing to work with Government to improve the statutory guidance if this amendment does not go through. I very much support any sort of enhanced guidance and training, but I am afraid that this is not enough.

I was probably wrong in my opening remarks to your Lordships in concentrating on ethnicity, because the words that I proposed should go into the checklist are four factors:

“religious persuasion, racial origin and cultural and linguistic background”.

They are all equally important and I was at fault for concentrating on ethnicity. It was a shorthand version and probably misleading.

I take the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Storey, about statutory guidance being good enough, but I ask him: if statutory guidance is good enough, why do we have the checklist? Surely the checklist could equally well go into statutory guidance. The checklist in Section 1(4) of the Adoption and Children Act has six paragraphs, (a) to (e), and three sub-paragraphs, (i) to (iii), and it is thought necessary to include them in the checklist, not just in statutory guidance. So why are the other factors in the 2002 Act so much more important than these four points that I have just set out, which I propose should be slipped neatly in with the rest of the checklist?

It has been suggested by the noble Baroness, Lady Eaton, that the words “have regard” might be seen as prescriptive, but sitting as I did as a judge, to “have regard” to something is not in the least prescriptive. One can have regard to it and then disregard it. One does not have to keep on regarding it. I certainly had no problem in the Children Act and the Adoption Act in having regard to something, then discarding it. There is nothing at all prescriptive about “having regard”. However, a checklist is a reminder to social workers and judges that they must not ignore it. To take it out altogether, which the adoption agencies are concerned about, is to swing that pendulum too far the other way, because it is not then anywhere.

It is suggested that the words “background” and “characteristics” are clear, as the noble Baroness, Lady Perry, said, and one does not need anything else. If I may respectfully disagree with her, I actually think that you do. You need a bit of a jolt. What do “background” and “characteristics” mean? They have to include certain points that I am not certain every social worker, however senior, might necessarily have in mind unless they were there. I say again that statutory guidance is not quite as good as having a checklist in primary legislation. The pendulum should be in the middle, and the middle means putting it in somewhere, but not making it too important. That is what I would like to see with this amendment, and I would like to test the opinion of the House.

17:30

Division 1

Ayes: 216

---

Labour: 146
Crossbench: 55
Independent: 5
Democratic Unionist Party: 1
Ulster Unionist Party: 1
Bishops: 1

Noes: 233

---

Conservative: 147
Liberal Democrat: 68
Crossbench: 10
Ulster Unionist Party: 1
UK Independence Party: 1
Independent: 1

17:39

Amendment 3 not moved.

Clause 3: Recruitment, assessment and approval of prospective adopters

Amendment 4

Moved by

[Baroness Hughes of Stretford]

4*: Clause 3, page 2, line 32, at end insert—
“( ) When it relates to a direction given under subsection (3)(b) or (c), the power to make a direction under subsection (1) will be exercisable by statutory instrument not to be made unless a draft of the instrument has been laid before, and approved by resolution of, each House of Parliament.”

[Baroness Hughes of Stretford (Lab)]

My Lords, I would like to speak to Amendments 4 and 5, which variously attempt to circumscribe the power that the Secretary of State is taking in Clause 3.

Clause 3 grants the Secretary of State a new power to force local authorities to franchise out adopter recruitment services, either to another local authority or to a registered adoption agency, by amending Chapter 2 of Part 1 of the Adoption and Children Act 2002. The new section inserted by Clause 3 provides the Secretary of State with the power to direct the outsourcing of local authority adopter recruitment functions, either from individual named authorities under subsection (3)(a) or from classes or groups of local authorities under subsection (3)(b) or from all local authorities at once under subsection (3)(c). The important aspect is not the power to outsource itself but the manner in which it would allow the Secretary of State to make change on a large or even national scale at once through a direction. The Secretary of State, in issuing a direction as opposed to bringing forward primary or secondary legislation, would not obviously have to subject himself to any parliamentary scrutiny, and Members in either House would not have the opportunity to question or amend the changes. This is the nub of our concern.

Our Amendment 5 would have the effect of deleting subsections (3)(b) and (3)(c) and therefore remove the power of the Secretary of State to direct outsourcing from classes or groups of local authorities or from all local authorities at once. We tabled this amendment in Committee to probe the Government’s intentions and we do not intend to press this amendment here. It was tabled at an early stage following Grand Committee to signal our continued concern and before we were able to see the Government’s response to that debate.

At the meeting last week, Edward Timpson said that there would be an amendment to respond to those concerns and we wanted to see the terms of that amendment before finalising our position. We were hoping that the Government would address those concerns by amending the clause to make subsections (3)(b) and (3)(c) subject to an affirmative resolution order. However, unfortunately both the government amendment and the policy statement that was issued alongside it really are a wholly inadequate response to what noble Lords across the House have been saying. Government Amendment 6 would simply delay the implementation of subsection (3)(c), which provides the power to outsource to all local authorities at once. Along with the government amendment, there was also a written commitment to report that decision in some as yet unspecified way. Delaying implementation is really neither here nor there—it is irrelevant—and reporting to Parliament falls far short of parliamentary scrutiny.

The policy statement that was published does not explain why the Secretary of State is seeking power through a direction rather than through secondary legislation but simply restates the arguments about the need to reshape the market in adopter recruitment. That is an argument with which we would not necessarily disagree but in support of which the Government have provided no evidence. These are important issues, but they are wholly irrelevant to our point that taking powers to institute major change to the national system of adopter recruitment by direction is a completely unacceptable way to treat this House and the other place. We cannot support the Government’s amendment.

Therefore, our Amendment 4 would retain the powers in subsections (3)(b) and (3)(c) but make their implementation subject to an order by affirmative resolution in both Houses of Parliament. We all support efforts to improve adopter recruitment if this will mean more children finding good homes. The Government’s policy statement sets out why the Government believe that major structural change may be necessary to address the shortfall in adoptive parents despite the 34% increase in the last two years, which is a very welcome improvement. However, even here the statement is contradictory on the role of the powers in Clause 3 in reshaping that market. Paragraph 11 says that the purpose of Clause 3 is to provide a powerful market-shaping lever to help restructure fundamentally the adopter recruitment system, but paragraph 12 says that, in moving towards the Government’s vision for that restructured system, Clause 3 is not seen as the sole or even the principal driver of reform—its role is to drive change only if there is little or no progress in reshaping the structure of the market and reducing the shortfall of adopters. That is because, as the Minister admitted in Grand Committee, Clause 3 is not of itself a solution to the problem of the shortfall of adopters that the Government have identified; Clause 3 itself cannot change that market. Indeed, it can be deployed only if and when it has been demonstrated that adopters can be recruited in sufficient numbers by different arrangements.

The policy statement goes on to outline the real levers for change which are happening now on a voluntary basis and which do not need legislation—for example, the consolidation in the local authority sector through mergers such as that involving St Helens, Warrington and Wigan in my region, the north-west, and the development of commissioning and provider relationships between local authorities in adopter recruitment. The adoption leadership board is encouraging and facilitating these developments, as well as supporting partnerships involving voluntary adoption agencies.

If these developments were successful, one could envisage that the system would have changed to such an extent that it reached a tipping point at which the use of the power in, say, subsection (3)(c) might make sense. However, if these developments were not successful, what would the Secretary of State do? Would he outsource adopter recruitment from all local authorities anyway when there was no credible alternative? That would be wholly irresponsible and I cannot believe that the Government would take such a risk. Either way, the point is that there really ought to be parliamentary oversight at that point.

The point is that mobilising the power in Clause 3 becomes necessary, and indeed possible in practice, only if and when the developments between local authorities and the voluntary sector reach a critical mass such that wholesale change across the country is a viable option. That is my concern with Amendments 4A, 4B, 4C and 4D. Together, they would have the effect of applying the affirmative resolution procedure only in the event of the Secretary of State wanting to outsource these adoption functions from all local authorities simultaneously—that is, using the power in subsection (3)(c). If these amendments were agreed, the Secretary of State would still be able to direct significant proportions of local authorities in groups under the power in subsection (3)(b) and require them to outsource their adoption functions. For instance, he might require that in respect of all shire counties or all metropolitan authorities. Indeed, by announcing three or four successive directions, each of which related to a large group of authorities, the Secretary of State could effectively sweep the country without any parliamentary scrutiny. In other words, by using a few directions under subsection (3)(b), he could achieve what I think we all agree we want to prevent, which is the use of subsection (3)(c) without any scrutiny.

In my view, it is not logical to try to apply the affirmative resolution to subsection (3)(c) but not to do so also to subsection (3)(b). The effect of that would be not to constrain the Government at all, because they could still use the power in subsection (3)(b) successively to include all local authorities. That is my big concern, and it is expressed and supported by organisations in the sector such as Barnardo’s.

We believe that, apart from in relation to individual named authorities under subsection (3)(a), we should expect the Secretary of State to come to Parliament and, via an affirmative order, outline the progress that has been made and to answer the questions that Members would inevitably have—questions such as how secure the changes are, what the national picture is in terms of the number of consortia recruiting adopters, how many adopters are being recruited, and whether the capacity of the voluntary sector has grown and what role it is playing. The voluntary agencies and local authorities might have issues that they would want us to pursue, as would be normal. There would be many legitimate questions, and answers to them could be put on the record.

The Government are right to address the problem of insufficient adopters. If they wish to review the adopter recruitment system and propose something radically different, they are entirely within their rights to do so. However, they should not try to instigate radical change to a national system on the judgment and pronouncement of an individual Secretary of State. They should come to Parliament so that those proposals could be properly debated and scrutinised in the normal way. That is all we are proposing, and I think it is very reasonable and very normal. I beg to move.

[The Deputy Speaker (Lord Brougham and Vaux) (Con)]

I should advise the House that if Amendment 4D in this group is agreed to, I cannot call Amendment 5.

[Baroness Meacher]

My Lords, I rise to speak briefly in support of Amendment 4, to which I have added my name. The noble Baroness, Lady Hughes, has set out the arguments very clearly and I do not need to take up more than very little of your Lordships’ time.

I understand that the intentions of the adoption clauses in the Bill are to improve the adoption system and to tackle the shortage of adopters. I am sure we all agree with that. Increasing the number of looked-after children appropriately and successfully placed for adoption must of course be a priority, and, again, I am sure we all agree with the Government about that. The question is whether issuing ministerial directions affecting adoption services across swathes of the country without parliamentary scrutiny is a desirable way forward.

If local authorities were removed from the adoption roles, as envisaged in Clause 3, the voluntary adoption agencies would need to increase their capacity fivefold, as I understand it. We could expect severe disruption of the system and a serious shortage of adopters for some years in the local authority areas affected. We would feel content if named authorities were dealt with in that way, because presumably there would be very serious issues in those authorities, but the idea of blanket shifts in this direction, using directions without any parliamentary scrutiny, sounds disproportionate.

My second concern is that Clause 3 risks fragmenting the system, as all councils would remain responsible for placing children for adoption and matching them with families. My understanding is that adopter families greatly value having continuity of social workers through the entire system and that they would not welcome changes simply because of alterations to the system as envisaged under Clause 3.

If a local authority fails in its duty in the adoption field, it is clearly important that the Government are able to intervene, and of course they can under Section 7A of the Local Authority Social Services Act 1970. Also, as has already been said, the amendment does not touch the right of a Secretary of State to intervene without any parliamentary involvement with directions in relation to specific named local authorities.

I understand that the Government have accepted the principle of our amendment in relation to directions affecting all local authorities, as the noble Baroness, Lady Hughes, said, but not in relation to directions affecting one or more descriptions of local authorities, which I understand could affect, for example, all boroughs throughout the country. Perhaps the Minister can explain why it is right and proper to have a statutory instrument laid before Parliament and approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament in relation to changes applying to all local authorities when the same principle is apparently not acceptable for directions applying to all boroughs, for example—and perhaps some weeks later all county councils and all other specific classes of local authority.

I confess that I am somewhat confused by the apparent lack of logic in the Government’s position. Does the Minister accept that the amendment does not prevent reform but merely ensures proper parliamentary oversight in a more consistent way than he currently envisages?

I hope that the Minister will be willing to think again and explore ways in which he might come close to meeting this amendment—I was going to say half-way but I do not think that that would work either. What we really want is parliamentary oversight if more local authorities than can be reasonably named are going to be affected in this way.

17:59

[Baroness Butler-Sloss]

My Lords, I have also put my name to Amendment 4. I am not too worried which of the various amendments finds favour with the Government, but I want the Government to look at where we stand at the moment. I do not want to repeat what either of the noble Baronesses has already said, but my concern is a general one. If a future Government became overenthusiastic, under the existing clauses there is a possibility of wholesale interference with various local authorities, either all together or singly by picking up on them one after another.

I am aware of this issue from the newspapers, but I used to be aware of it when I had local authorities appearing before me—my heart would sink when I saw the name of a particular local authority, because I knew that the way that it would behave in relation to the particular child coming before me was not up to standard. Indeed, I would use a phrase that has been used with regard to some government departments in the past that it was “not fit for purpose”. That, we know, is true of some local authorities even today, and that is very sad.

However, the issue needs to be dealt with in a less than heavy-handed way. There needs to be a degree of delicacy in how one deals with this. I would like the Government to reflect on the best way to bring forward to this House how we can ensure that any overenthusiasm of future Governments might be tempered by the requirement to show Parliament that what they want to do is appropriate, necessary and proportionate.

[Baroness Hamwee]

My Lords, I have Amendments 4A, 4B, 4C, 4D and 6A in this group. They have already been trailed. When I first became aware of a proposal for the Secretary of State to issue directions about local authority adoption functions, I shared the alarm which was expressed, because I am pretty unreconstructed when it comes to local authority powers. On the other hand, having heard some of the issues which seem to lie behind problems with recruiting adopters, during the debates that took place during the work of the Select Committee, at one point I wondered whether adoption services should be nationalised. My pendulum has swung back to the middle.

I am reassured from what the Minister has said that the clause is not about failure or the underperformance by individual local authorities; it comes about because of concerns about the system, and systemic underlying problems. The amendments in my name and those of the noble Baroness, Lady Eaton, the noble Viscount, Lord Eccles—also members of the Select Committee—and my noble friend Lord Storey, flow from that. They are aimed at building on and improving what we are presented with in the Bill. It has been voiced again today. What has very much exercised noble Lords is ensuring that Parliament is not sidelined. I realise that a direction under paragraph (c) would be very different from directions under paragraphs (a) and (b) of new subsection (3), and I will come back to that in a moment.

Our amendments would turn directions relating to all local authorities into an order requiring the agreement of both Houses through the affirmative procedure. That would mean the Minister explaining the position, and both Houses debating it with an order not to be made before March 2015. The parliamentary timetable suggests to me that it is very unlikely an order would be made two months before a general election. So I was glad to see the Government Amendment 6 and even more pleased when the Minister told me that he wanted to add his name to our amendments but was too late for the print of the Marshalled List.

The Select Committee said that local authorities should have the time,

“to develop viable and achievable alternative proposals.”

We see that they are already doing so. We heard in the Committee of successful structures in the “tri-borough arrangement” as it is called in London—the three boroughs—and with three local authorities in the north-west. I understand that there are now probably five groupings involving 12 local authorities, which return their data together and are coming together in new structures.

The noble Baroness talks about the levers for change, whether what we may have will be enough, and whether it needs a heavy hand. I do not think that this is proposing a heavy hand. But if an order is proposed by the Secretary of State, as I see it—and I hope that the Minister can confirm this—it would not be a lid, perhaps here a portcullis, coming down. It would be a point in a sequence development of work, a transitional point which could be, and I hope if necessary would be, tailored as to which of the functions in new subsection (2) was brought into play. It would not be necessary to make an order dealing with all the functions in new subsection (2). So it is not the nuclear option, which I at first understood it potentially to be, or as it has been described.

A direction under new subsection (3)(b)—I confess that I had not initially appreciated how this might differ from an order under a statutory instrument—would allow for a lot more continuing work, after as well as before a direction with the local authorities concerned, which is a much more flexible way of working. It has been described to me as a quality improvement measure, with the possibility of collaborative development of the detail of the direction before it is given. Thinking about how that has worked on other subject areas within child protection and children services work, I can see that would work well. That leaves me unable to support Amendment 4.

The Government have already given commitment to giving notice to a local authority before using the powers in new subsections (3)(a) and (3)(b). So there would be an opportunity for that way of—I am sorry, I hate the word—iterative working, a development and refinement process. The steps which have already been taken since this debate started earlier in the year, or at the end of last year, when the Government made their announcement, have been constructive and productive, with the adoption form grant, the adoption register, the adoption leadership board and the equalisation of fees between local authorities and voluntary agencies. I mention voluntary agencies because it will be essential to work with the voluntary sector. Capacity and culture issues are both important. They are not going to change overnight. But the clause, as it would be amended by our amendments, allows more than adequately for this.

I hope that the directions in new paragraphs (b) and (c) will never be used, because it will not be necessary. I hope, too, that the Minister can confirm that over-enthusiasm, as the noble and learned Baroness has called it, would not mean that the paragraph (b) direction would be applied to all local authorities. That seems to me to be something that would be very open to challenge, given the rest of the structure of the clause.

I see why the Government feel that they need to have reserved powers, operated as I described, and that means that I cannot support Amendment 6. I hope that the House will feel that Amendments 4A to 4D and 6A are the way forward. I am comfortable with the logic of this, and I am usually over-logical about things. It is not heavy handed. It might almost be delicate—I will not go quite as far as to claim that—but it is a way forward.

[Lord Storey]

My Lords, I cannot keep using the expression that I am a new person to your Lordships’ House, but I am still on a big learning curve, and I like to put into simple terms some of the language that is used.

When I saw this clause, I remembered that something like 84% of adoptions last year were carried out by local authorities and that, as we have heard, the majority of them do a fantastic job. That is recognised by the voluntary sector and, equally, the local authorities realise how important the voluntary sector is. When the Bill first came to your Lordships’ House, the voluntary sector, quite rightly, said, “Look, we could not cope if you took it all away from local authorities. We would not be able to do that”.

At the time, it seemed right that the Government pointed to the fact that some local authorities had an appalling track record. As I have said, it is a very small number, but some had an appalling track record. Indeed, the Local Government Association would be the first to recognise that. So it seemed absolutely crucial that the Secretary of State should have the power, if local authorities were underperforming and were not prepared to work together and co-operate, to take that responsibility away from them. I see the logic and the importance of that because, at the end of the day, we are talking about the children. However, I did not see the logic of having the power to take the responsibility away from every local authority—that seemed plain daft to me—given the expertise and commitment that local authorities have and the amount of work that they do. I was therefore delighted when the Minister tabled an amendment which ensured that nothing could happen before March 2015. But that still means, unless I have misunderstood it, that the Secretary of State could say in March 2015—although, as my noble friend Lady Hamwee said, it would be two months off a general election—“We are going to do this, and that is what we are doing”. That would not be in the best interests of adoption and children.

If in the mean time the Government work with local authorities and the voluntary sector and different structures come together with different ways of operating—and if it is decided that tri or quad groups working together is the structure that we want—that is great. Whatever structure is arrived at, the Secretary of State should come to Parliament and both Houses should be able to say yes to it. I was not used to the phrase “affirmative procedure” in the amendment. If the Minister feels able to support Amendments 4A to 4C, as his comments suggest, that would be a result with which we could all be happy.

I do not share the concern that the Secretary of State might use Amendment 4B to take away the responsibility from boroughs and metropolitan bodies. That would not happen in the timescale because, as we have heard, 84% of authorities carry out adoption. However, if some local authorities are letting down children or the adoption service, in extreme cases the Secretary of State would have that power. If these clauses and amendments are accepted, it will mean that local authorities have come to the table and discussed these matters even more rapidly with the voluntary sector. I welcome the work that the Minister has done in bringing those people together.

18:15

[Baroness Eaton]

My Lords, I support the amendments in my name and those of the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, the noble Lord, Lord Storey, and the noble Viscount, Lord Eccles. I do not wish to rehearse all the points that my colleagues have already made but it is important to say that part of what we need is a cultural change of collaboration and working together in local authorities to create a climate where adoption happens with ease for all the children needing a loving home.

The word “direction”, which hangs over local authorities, is not conducive to a working, productive relationship. It is dictatorial and does not create the atmosphere that we are all looking for. As the noble Lord, Lord Storey, said, we need the Secretary of State to have the absolute power at the end, if it is required, but the amendment ensures that there is justification for anything that is taken before both Houses of Parliament, and I am sure that we will all be more comfortable about such scrutiny. The idea that, with the direction, the Secretary of State merely has to give his reasoning but does not give anyone the chance to fully debate the matter and make changes would not be helpful in this process.

I support these amendments and I hope that they will take us much further forward in obtaining the co-operation we need and the adoption system that we are looking for.

[Baroness Walmsley]

My Lords, I support the amendment in the name of my noble friend Lady Hamwee.

A point was made by two earlier speakers that the Secretary of State could use successive orders under new Section 3A(3)(b) to achieve what new subsection (3)(c) provides for—in other words, to wipe out all local authorities from these various functions. Given the fact that new subsection (3)(c) is in the Bill, any Secretary of State who were to try that would, I am sure, be challenged for an abuse of process. I cannot see any Secretary of State trying to do that. It would be eminently challengeable. To colleagues who fear that scenario in the future, I suggest that it is not likely to happen. We have in my noble friend’s amendments a process—which I think the Government will be able to accept—to bring about parliamentary scrutiny if the powers in new subsection (3)(c) were used. That is the right level of parliamentary scrutiny required.

[Lord Nash]

My Lords, I am grateful to those noble Lords who have contributed to this debate. I am acutely aware of the concerns Peers have raised about this clause. I thank particularly my noble friends Lady Hamwee, Lady Eaton, Lord Storey and Lord Eccles for helping me to understand the nature of those concerns.

Following constructive discussions, I am persuaded that the Government’s amendment and the commitment to report to Parliament do not provide for the parliamentary scrutiny that many noble Lords would wish to see. I am therefore very grateful to my noble friends for tabling their Amendments 4A to 4D and 6A. I am persuaded that it is right for a direction to all local authorities to be subject to full and rigorous scrutiny by Parliament. I therefore confirm my support for their amendments and, if they are accepted, I will not of course need to move my Amendment 6.

Before I address Amendments 4 and 5 I remind noble Lords of the rationale of the clause as set out in the recently published policy statement. The clause is intended as a backstop should the current and significant efforts of local government and voluntary agencies prove insufficient. Unfortunately, we have to accept that this is a possibility as adoption agencies have to work within a flawed system. The fundamental problems are the structure of provision, based around local boundaries, and the unhelpful incentives associated with this structure. This constrains the ability to recruit adoptive parents in sufficient numbers. As a result, the system fails to deliver enough adopted parents to meet national demand, as we have already discussed.

However, let me be quite clear: it is the system that is failing to meet national demand, not the individual local authorities and voluntary adoption agencies that make up the system. The distinction is important and can be demonstrated by statistics. Recently published Ofsted data showed a 34% increase in adopter approvals in 2012-13 compared to the previous year. This is a huge achievement on the part of individual agencies. Local authorities have delivered a 32% increase in adopters recruited and approved and voluntary adoption agencies a 53% rise, and they should be congratulated.

Impressive though these numbers are, the sad truth is that this is still not enough to meet the needs of the number of children waiting for a loving home. At the end of March 2013, there were 6,000 children approved by the courts for adoption, waiting to move in with a permanent family. This is 15% higher than the year before. Furthermore, we estimate that we need around 3,100 additional adopters to meet the existing demand of the children who were already waiting with a placement order.

So we face a real challenge to recruit more adoptive parents. To meet it, we need to transform the system and tackle the underlying structural problems. I feel that we are well placed to do so. After welcome and constructive discussions with colleagues from local government and the voluntary sector, we have an agreed proposition for a national adoption leadership board. This is a significant milestone and demonstrates a collective commitment to take nationally driven action to close the adopter recruitment gap. The board’s members will be senior figures from the core organisations within the adoption system in England. I therefore see this board as the principal forum to deliver significant improvements in the performance of the adoption system.

Under the board’s leadership, we expect to see significant changes in the shape and structure of the providers available, including increasing consolidation and scale among local authority adoption agencies; growth in the capacity of the voluntary sector and an increase in the proportion of adopter approvals for which it is responsible; and more partnership working between local authorities and voluntary adoption agencies, local authority employees, spinouts into mutuals and the entry of some new providers.

These sorts of things are already happening. For example, I was pleased to see from the recent Ofsted publication that, as my noble friend Lady Hamwee referred to, 12 local authorities now provide adoption services under joint arrangements. These are Bedford borough and Central Bedfordshire; the west London tri-borough; Leicestershire and Rutland; Shropshire and Telford; and, as the noble Baroness, Lady Hughes, referred to, Warrington, Wigan and St Helens.

I also welcome the partnership arrangements that exist between local authorities and voluntary adoption agencies—for example, those operating in Harrow, Kent, Cambridgeshire and Oxfordshire. We just need to see these types of arrangements happening more quickly and more often.

Clause 3 therefore provides levers of last resort. It is the backstop to a number of things that Government are doing to support local authorities and voluntary adoption agencies. I have already mentioned the Government’s support for the new national adoption board. We have invested £150 million through the adoption reform grant to support local authorities in 2013-14. We are also investing £16 million to build the capacity of the voluntary sector.

We know that these investments are having an impact. We expect there to be a number of new voluntary adoption agencies in the near future and we know that many local authorities have made good use of the adoption reform grant. For example, they have recruited additional staff, provided staff training and development and funded a range of marketing activities to recruit more adopters. I was particularly interested in the work the Southwark area is doing, as I have already mentioned. It used some of its funding to develop an innovative recruitment campaign to target harder-to-reach prospective adopters using a reward scheme. Southwark is also working with Lambeth to fund an outreach worker to promote the recruitment of adopters from the BME community.

I will now explain the government amendment, which tries to address some of the concerns raised in Grand Committee. Amendment 6 delays the implementation of new subsection (3)(c) until March 2015 at the earliest. It therefore provides more time for current reforms to embed and for the new leadership board to have an impact. The Government also commit that the Secretary of State will report to Parliament before issuing any direction under new subsection (3)(c).

This report would set out an updated analysis of the state of the adopter recruitment market. It would cover both the local government and voluntary sectors and analyse their current structure and effectiveness. It would also include the latest estimate of the adopter recruitment gap. In essence, it would justify the requirement for a direction under new subsection (3)(c). Any such direction would provide sufficient time for new arrangements to be put in place. This is an important point as structural change cannot happen overnight.

[Baroness Hughes of Stretford]

My Lords, I would like to clarify whether the Minister is withdrawing Amendment 6, as I thought he stated earlier on.

[Lord Nash]

Yes, if I accept Amendment 6A, I do not have to move Amendment 6, because it is covered, I believe. If that is not clear, we will have a further conversation, I am sure.

[Baroness Hughes of Stretford]

For absolute clarity, is the Minister saying that he is withdrawing Amendment 6?

[Lord Nash]

My Lords, I am and I am accepting Amendment 6A.

In the period prior to March 2015, the Secretary of State would retain the capacity to issue directions under new subsections (3)(a) and (3)(b), if absolutely necessary. As I set out in my policy statement, these directions would follow due process. For example, they would be preceded by a letter setting out the Secretary of State’s intention to issue a direction. This would explain the underlying reasons and provide the affected local authorities with an invitation to respond. Only then would the Secretary of State take a final decision to issue the direction. In considering the issuing of any direction, I expect the new adoption leadership board to play a key advisory role.

Amendment 5 would largely reduce Clause 3 to an intervention power to tackle individual local authorities. But this is not the purpose of Clause 3 which, as I have said, is intended to tackle whole-system failure. Nor would such an intervention power be necessary. As noble Lords are aware, the Secretary of State already has the power to intervene if the performance of individual local authorities requires it.

We have already seen a welcome increase in the number of adoptive parents recruited. This is testament to the efforts of adoption agencies to rise to the challenge. Simply having Clause 3 in the Bill has undoubtedly helped to galvanise agencies, as referred to by my noble friend Lord Storey, but Amendment 5 would simply undermine this stimulus to further progress. I therefore urge the noble Baronesses not to move it.

Turning to Amendment 4, the Government do not agree that directions to “one or more descriptions” of local authorities under new subsection (3)(b) should also be subject to the affirmative procedure. New subsections (3)(b) and (3)(a) provide the Secretary of State with the flexibility to take swift, decisive action if required. For example, to answer the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Meacher, they could be used to direct a small number of local authorities who were resisting a successful regional initiative, driven by other local authorities, to collaborate and work more efficiently. A direction given in this way would be the result of a dialogue with the affected authorities. It would thus be an iterative process, not a unilateral declaration.

I can confirm to my noble friend Lady Hamwee that it is not the intention to use new subsection (3)(b) as a method of achieving the aim of new subsection (3)(c) without the affirmative procedure. My noble friend also asked whether the direction has to be about all the functions in subsection (2), or merely some of them. She is right; it can be about all or any of the three function in that paragraph.

I understand that the noble Baronesses, Lady Hughes and Lady Meacher, and the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, wished to make the case for the affirmative procedure and I have agreed that this should apply in relation to new subsection (3)(c). I am also surprised that Amendment 4 does not encompass the March 2015 milestone. This is an important staging post to ensure the reforms have maximum impact. I therefore ask the noble Baroness, Lady Hughes, to withdraw her amendment.

18:30

[Baroness Hughes of Stretford]

I thank all Members who participated in this debate. It is an important issue and it is right that it was aired again on Report. The noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, characteristically put her finger on one reason why this is important: the danger of allowing any Government, now or in the future, to interfere in a heavy-handed way with local authority functions without parliamentary scrutiny. That is the key issue.

The noble Baronesses, Lady Hamwee, Lady Eaton and Lady Walmsley, and the noble Lord, Lord Storey, all felt that there was no need for the affirmative resolution in relation to new subsection (3)(b). The Minister’s statement has just put on the record that the Government would not use new subsection (3)(b) as a way of progressively working through local authorities in this country, and thereby achieving new subsection (3)(c) through successive application of new subsection (3)(b). That was a very helpful statement to put on the record and it gives some reassurance. However, I say to the noble Lord, Lord Storey, and the noble Baronesses, Lady Hamwee, Lady Eaton and Lady Walmsley, that the noble Baroness, Lady Meacher, pinpointed the danger of that. Although the Minister said that new subsection (3)(b) could be used for small groups of local authorities, equally, it could be used for large groups of them in exactly in the way that the noble Baroness identified: all metropolitan districts or all boroughs, and so on. It would take only two or three directions of that nature to encompass all the local authorities in the country.

However, the Minister’s statement putting it on the record that the Government will not do that is helpful. With that, I think we have consensus across the House; this was evident in Committee and in the meetings that have taken place since. That consensus is on the principle of parliamentary scrutiny—particularly when the Government are implementing significant change in public services, which they would be if they applied new subsection (3)(c)—and that implementing change on that scale, involving all local authorities at once, should have the affirmative resolution procedure. It is very good that the Government have at last conceded the strength of feeling in the House on that issue and agreed the affirmative procedure in relation to new subsection (3)(c). Having achieved that, and with the Minister’s statement in relation to new subsection (3)(b), I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.

Amendment 4 withdrawn.

Amendments 4A to 4C

Moved by

[Baroness Hamwee]

4A: Clause 3, page 2, line 33, after “requiring” insert “one or more named”

4B: Clause 3, page 2, line 34, after “England” insert “, or one or more descriptions of local authority in England,”

4C: Clause 3, page 2, line 36, at end insert—
“(1A) The Secretary of State may by order require all local authorities in England to make arrangements for all or any of their functions within subsection (2) to be carried out on their behalf by one or more other adoption agencies.”

Amendments 4A to 4C agreed.

Amendment 4D

Moved by

[Baroness Hamwee]

4D: Clause 3, page 2, line 43, leave out from beginning to end of line 2 on page 3

[The Deputy Speaker (Lord Faulkner of Worcester) (Lab)]

My Lords, I must advise the House that if Amendment 4D is accepted, I am not able to call Amendment 5 for reasons of pre-emption.

Amendment 4D agreed.

Amendments 5 and 6 not moved.

Amendment 6A

Moved by

[Baroness Hamwee]

6A: Clause 3, page 3, line 2, at end insert—
“(2) In section 140(3) of that Act (statutory instruments containing subordinate legislation that are subject to the affirmative procedure), before paragraph (a) insert—
“(za) under section 3A(1A),”
(3) The Secretary of State may not make an order under subsection (1A) of section 3A of the Adoption and Children Act 2002 (as inserted by subsection (1)) before 1 March 2015.”

Amendment 6A agreed.

Amendment 7

Moved by

[The Earl of Listowel]

7: After Clause 6, insert the following new Clause—
“Looked after children: duty to provide information about support on returning home to care of parents or others with parental responsibility
(1) Except in circumstances prescribed by regulations, a local authority must provide the information specified in subsection (2) to—
(a) any person who has contacted the authority to request information about “return home support services” for a looked after child returning home to the care of P; and(b) any P within the authority’s area, to whose care a looked after child has returned, who has contacted the authority to request any of the information specified in subsection (2).(2) The information is—
(a) information about the return home support services available to people in the authority’s area;(b) information about the authority’s duties under section 22(3A) of the Children Act 1989 (“return home support services”: personal budgets) and regulations made under it;(c) any other information prescribed by regulations.”

[The Earl of Listowel (CB)]

My Lords, I shall speak also to Amendment 8. Before I do so, I join in thanking the Minister for the helpful meetings that he arranged between Grand Committee and Report and for the extremely encouraging meeting with the new chief social worker. As vice-chair of the All-Party Parliamentary Group for Looked after Children and Care Leavers, I agree with his analysis that the biggest difference to be made for these children and their families is in raising the status of child and family social work and recruiting and retaining the best workforce for them. Finally, I thank the Minister, the Minister for Children and Families and the Secretary of State for moving forward with the staying put amendment, which will make a huge difference to many young people leaving care. I am so grateful for that but I will not go further now because of the need to move forward.

Amendments 7 and 8 would ensure that when young people return from care to their biological families they have the support that they need to be successful in doing that. I will quote briefly from a letter published in the Telegraph yesterday, which had among the signatories Peter Wanless, chief executive of the NSPCC, Dr Maggie Atkinson, the Children’s Commissioner for England, and Dame Clare Tickell, the chief executive of Action for Children. The letter said:

“The Government has moved decisively to improve prospects for adopted children by offering an entitlement, in the form of a personal budget, to services for them and their parents. But most children who are taken into care are not adopted. They will return home where research shows that half of those who entered care as a result of abuse or neglect will suffer further harm unless changes are made. Too many young people end up in a revolving door of care that is damaging for them and has a significant cost for local authorities. The support offered to adopted children should also be made available to those who return home after a stay in care. Support should be driven by need and not by legal status”.

The purpose of my tabling this amendment again is to secure an assurance from the Minister that we can meet subsequently and discuss this issue and look at the welcome work that the Government are doing and some of the gaps that remain. I hope to establish a timeline for change. I will come to the problem in just a moment but I would be grateful for an opportunity to meet officials and, I hope, the Minister and any interested colleagues to look at how to take this forward and to monitor progress. It is moving in the right direction at the moment but it needs to move further and faster.

The problem, as laid out in that letter, is that the NSPCC conducted some research a year or so ago and was horrified to find that half of young people returning home from care were then returned to care fairly shortly afterwards. The needs of the families were not being addressed. They were still alcoholic or misusing drugs and those children were being returned home to unsafe places. Furthermore, what one finds in these circumstances is that children who are returned home, then taken back into care, then sent home again and taken back into care are damaged by that. In the worst cases, they lose all trust in adults and become people who are dependent on the state. They may be in prison. They are very damaged and it is hard to help them to recover from that damage.

I am extremely grateful for the actions that the Government have been taking following that NSPCC report. In their consultation which looks at permanency for children, they have looked at returning children from care and dealt particularly with the issue of accommodated children. There are new measures, including that there should be a plan established by each local authority for those children returning from care. I am grateful for the fact that they have set up a working group, which includes the NSPCC, to look at just this matter. There is one other step which the Government are taking and for which I am also grateful. I was pleased to meet officials and to hear from them that there will be opportunities to meet further with them and the NSPCC following this debate.

I really am grateful for the measures that the Government are taking but I am concerned that there are still some gaps. In particular, the consultation which has just been completed deals only with accommodated children. That is the majority of children who return from care but a substantial minority have either interim care orders or full care orders, and those are not currently covered by the measures proposed by the consultation. While local authorities have the power to ensure that young people returning from care to their biological parents have the equivalent to the personal budgets we are giving to adopted children—the equivalent of a guaranteed range of services to support those families—there is no obligation on them to do so. Given the many responsibilities that local authorities have and the shortage of resources, the concern is that many will not do that. Finally, there is no consistent assessment of young people and their families before they return home from care to ensure that they are returning to a safe place where they can be secure and have a good, settled life.

I hope that we can discuss those gaps further subsequent to this debate. I look forward to the Minister’s response. I beg to move.

[Baroness Howe of Idlicote (CB)]

My Lords—

[Baroness Jones of Whitchurch]

My Lords, I am going to propose Amendment 9. Perhaps I may do that first—I am not intending to close down the debate.

Amendment 9 which stands in my name is on the subject of maintaining sibling contact. The amendment would require local authorities to give specific consideration to enabling children in care to remain in contact with their siblings. Many noble Lords here today will remember that we had a very good, if disturbing, discussion on that in Grand Committee.

First, we were confronted with some stark statistics. Some 63% of children in care whose siblings are also in the care system are separated from them. Surprisingly, those living in children’s homes are much more likely to be separated than those in foster care. What is more, children care very deeply about this separation; 85% said that it was important to keep siblings together and more than three-quarters said that councils could do more to help brothers and sisters keep in touch with each other. Secondly, we heard a number of moving individual stories of the distress caused to children who were separated from and unable to contact their siblings. For many, the relationship was more important than that with their parents and was a particular bond when they had been through a traumatic family break-up or protected each other in an abusive family. Often the elder children felt a particular responsibility for their younger siblings and were desperate when they could not check that they were okay; they had almost a quasi-parental concern for them. Although there will be occasions, of course, when children need to be separated for very good reasons, it seems that in the remaining majority of cases a lack of priority or perhaps just practical issues have been allowed to develop as an excuse for contact not happening on a regular basis. Our amendment would make that sibling contact a priority in social work practice and would give the requirement the additional weight of being in the Bill.

When we debated this in Committee, and in subsequent discussions, the Minister showed sympathy for the problem but resisted the need for primary legislation. He drew our attention to the current requirement for children’s individual care plans to set out the arrangements for sibling contact. He has also drawn up updated guidance on sibling contact for children in care. Of course, we are very grateful for that additional work. However, the point is that the previous guidance had little effect on practice on the ground, as the statistics have shown, so it is hard to imagine that the updated guidance will be any more effective. That is why we believe that emphasising the importance of this issue in the Bill can send a stronger message to those who are currently routinely failing to nurture sibling contact.

The Minister also referred to the views of an expert group, which looked into this issue and concluded that more needed to be done to improve practice on the ground. Obviously, we agree that more can be done in terms of advice, training and good practice dissemination. I do not know when that group reported its findings, but, again, so far there appears to be little evidence of a major improvement in sibling contact as a result of this.

18:45

That is why we believe that our amendment could act as a catalyst for change and help to drive the change in social work practice on the ground that we all desire. We have to find the right balance between key principles being set out in primary legislation and the detail that can be spelt out in statutory guidance. This is becoming an ongoing theme of our debates on the Bill. There may be a contradiction in the position adopted by the Minister and the Government if we compare their views on this to the position adopted on the ethnicity issue that we debated only an hour or so ago. There the Government took the view that if it was in the Bill people would take it very seriously and therefore they needed to remove it from the Bill so that it would not be taken so seriously. On the other hand, we are saying that people are not taking it seriously because it is only in secondary legislation so we need to put it in the Bill. However, the Government are very resistant to that, even though they are sympathetic to our arguments. There is a dichotomy about how we deliver that change on the ground.

We believe that the right to sibling contact for children in care, unless there is a specific and justified reason where it is not appropriate, is sufficiently fundamental for it to be in the Bill. We therefore hope that noble Lords will support our amendment.

There are other amendments in this group—Amendment 7, which was very ably introduced by the noble Earl, Lord Listowel, and Amendment 10, will be introduced by the noble Baroness, Lady Young. Those amendments were debated in Committee and received considerable support. Both the noble Earl and the noble Baroness made very coherent cases and I am sure that we will have a good debate on those amendments again. I hope that noble Lords will continue to support them.

[Baroness Butler-Sloss (CB)]

I hope it is convenient to follow the noble Baroness now on the sibling point so that these points are kept together. My name is on Amendment 9.

As I said in Grand Committee—there are people in the Chamber who may not have heard this so forgive me for saying it again—children came to talk to us in the Select Committee on Adoption Legislation. These children had been adopted or looked after, who were or had been in care. Perhaps the most important issue they raised with me and with another noble Lord on the Select Committee was their relationship with their brothers and sisters. They made absolutely clear the importance of those with whom they had already shared a family life. One girl, who was aged about 15 or 16, said, “I don’t expect to see the children born to my parents after I left home, but I really do need to stay in touch with those I knew”. Another boy, aged about 10 or 11, said, “I looked after my younger brother and sister. I am so worried about what is happening to them; nobody will tell me. I wake up each night and think: are they all right? Why can’t I find out what is happening and why can’t I see them?”. That was an adopted child who was extremely happy in his adoption placement but who remained extremely worried about the children who remained at home.

So this is a really important point, and as the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, said, if it is in primary legislation, it will have that added bit of importance. Social workers do not always recognise this, and neither do adopters. It is very important that the message is put forward: it is not that children should see their former natural parents, which may be totally inappropriate; but in certain cases there will be children who should see those they have had to leave behind. It is that group of children for whom the amendment has been tabled. It is a very important point, particularly where the child has been adopted. The new adoptive parents may well not appreciate the importance unless it is up front. They are not going to read social work practice—that is the last thing in the world they are going to read. They may not want any relationship. However, for both the social workers and the adoptive parents, this is an important factor in the welfare of the child about whom we are talking. It really matters.

[Baroness Young of Hornsey]

My Lords, in speaking to Amendment 10, I, like other noble Lords this afternoon, place on record how grateful I am for the help of the Minister and his officials in trying to get to grips with this issue of access to records for care leavers, especially as it was not originally part of the Bill. I understand why we needed some considered negotiations around the subject. I found those very useful, as did my colleagues from the access to records campaign group, which comprises professionals from the Care Leavers’ Association, the British Association for Adoption and Fostering, the Association of Child Abuse Lawyers, the Child Care History Network, the Post Care Forum and Barnardo’s. It is also supported by the fostering and adoption charity, TACT.

Some of the key issues that this amendment seeks to address are the lack of consistency across the country’s local authorities in the way they deal with giving access to records to care leavers, and also, importantly, how they deal with the issue of redaction of those records. A number of care leavers gave us evidence of how they received notes from their past which were essentially incomprehensible because of the amount of redaction that had taken place. Again, that seems to depend on whereabouts you live in the country. That should obviously not be the case. In the amendment, we call for clear, effective statutory guidance and the opportunity for care leavers to access support once they have accessed their records.

That is another important point. I am not sure that all noble Lords are aware how difficult that experience can sometimes be for people. It does not matter what age you are. This is not just for young people who have recently left care. Many older people also have that experience. At the moment, no kind of support is necessarily offered to them. Of course, care records must be properly maintained and every effort made to trace records from decades ago as well as more recent ones. That ties in to my earlier point about the ages of people seeking their records. In fact, colleagues at the Care Leavers’ Association say that the average age of those seeking its help in looking for their records is around 35 and goes up to a 90 year-old—who found her records, triumphantly. Whatever age you are when you eventually get your records, if you are fortunate enough to do so, the experience can be difficult.

During meetings with officials, it emerged that both the Minister—the noble Lord, Lord Nash—and the Minister for Children and Families agreed that the current wording on access to records in the care planning statutory guidance could be strengthened. Colleagues from the access to records campaign and I have worked with officials on that particular subject. It is also my understanding that Ministers have agreed to work with us on a programme to ensure that front-line managers and staff are aware of the new guidance. Again, that was raised earlier this afternoon in relation to how statutory guidance is used and the extent to which people take it seriously. We need to ensure that they do—once we have, as I hope, developed some new guidance in this area.

That activity will include supporting a round table for local authorities and voluntary sector organisations, and sending messages via the department’s various communication routes to relevant bodies which can raise that issue with their local authorities and make sure it is firmly on the agenda. We also understand that officials have spoken to the National Care Advisory Service, which runs the National Leaving Care Benchmarking Forum for managers. It said that it would be happy to run a session where the managers talk about how to improve their local practice, based on the proposed revised guidance and best practice. Could the Minister confirm my understanding of that? Also, would he be prepared to ensure that the voice of older adult care leavers is heard during all consultation processes and that an assessment of the effectiveness of strengthened statutory guidelines is carried out?

[Baroness Howe of Idlicote]

My Lords, having listened to the comments on the other amendments in this group, I am very interested in what the Minister will say in reply. I certainly have considerable sympathy with what has been said. However, I added my name to the amendment of my noble friend Lord Listowel and it is on that amendment that I wish to press a little further.

The Government’s consultation on permanence goes some way to ensuring that voluntarily accommodated children receive the support they need, but, as was made clear from the reference to the letter in the Telegraph, an awful lot of important bodies in this area, as well as academics, support the need for further action. As others have said, the Government’s attempts to improve the adoption system should undoubtedly be praised. However, adoption is not the outcome for the majority of looked-after children. Instead, most children placed in care return home to parents or carers. In 2012, 10,000 children went home after a stay in care compared with just 3,440 who were adopted.

However, many children go home without a proper assessment of their and their parents’ support needs prior to leaving care or after they have returned home. For example, in cases where children were returned to households with a high recurrence of drug and alcohol misuse, only 5% of parents were provided with treatment to help them address their substance abuse. The lack of these types of support services often results in children going back home to face a significant risk of experiencing further abuse. In fact, research by the NSPCC shows that around half the children who came into care because of abuse or neglect suffered further abuse when they returned home. Recent DfE statistics show that a third of children who return home subsequently go in and out of care twice or more. Suffering from or being at risk of further abuse, and moving in and out of care, only compounds these children’s already traumatic childhoods and can cause significant long-term harm.

The NSPCC believes that a child should only return home from care when there has been a comprehensive assessment of that child’s needs and effective support is provided for children and their parents, in particular to tackle the underlying problems—as well as drugs and alcohol, there might be domestic violence, mental health conditions or generally poor parenting. Research shows that such an entitlement is unlikely to place an additional burden on local authorities—it could save them money, given the high financial cost of failed returns home. In one case highlighted in the recent DfE data pack, the total social care costs were £22,068 due to the child having frequent episodes in care. That was as opposed to an estimated cost of £13,124 if support to tackle substance abuse had been provided to the child’s parents.

The Bill provides an important opportunity to address this issue and ensure that local areas are required to provide such an assessment and the subsequent necessary support. I very much hope that, along with these other amendments, the Minister will give welcome attention to what best can be done under these circumstances.

19:00

[Baroness Tyler of Enfield (LD)]

My Lords, I have a lot of sympathy with these amendments, particularly Amendments 7 and 8 in the name of the noble Earl, Lord Listowel, and especially the need for greater support for children returning home from care. As other noble Lords have said, the new proposals that the Government recently put out are very welcome and are certainly a good step in the right direction. I commend them for making these proposals. However, as we have already heard, almost half of children who return home re-enter care, and a third have gone in and out of care twice or more. It is a vicious circle and the impact on the child can be devastating.

Since we are now on Report, I restate an interest as chair of CAFCASS. We have already heard that much of the problem is that the very problems of the parents that have resulted in the children going into care in the first place generally remain unresolved. Unless there is more help and support available to the family, particularly to the parents, to help them deal with those problems—be they to do with substance misuse, domestic violence, mental health or alcohol abuse—the chance of the child coming home successfully to the parent and having the sort of loving and stable household and help that they need is slim indeed. I look forward to the Minister’s comments on what more can be done to address this issue.

[Lord Warner (Lab)]

My Lords, I support my noble friend’s Amendment 9, which puts contact between siblings in the Bill. I apologise to the House that I was unable to take part in this Bill’s proceedings in Committee because I was engaged on the Care Bill. However, I was on the Select Committee on Adoption Legislation and I echo the points made by the chairman of that committee, the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss.

On the basis of my six years as a director of social services, I have a general point about why the Minister should concede on Amendment 9. While I was director, the Children Act 1989 was passed. That was a classic example of Parliament saying in a Bill that decisions about children should be taken on the basis of the best interests of the child. In the overwhelming majority of cases where siblings are separated, the best interests of the child are to maintain that contact. Sibling contact is often a private child’s world, which is not always well observed by adults, whether they are social workers or other adults involved in that child’s life. Maintaining that contact is overwhelmingly important to children. My noble friend has shown that the option of putting it in guidance and relying on best practice has had a good run for its money and it has not worked. We should return to some of the ideas in the Children Act 1989 and put in the Bill the obligation to help maintain contacts between siblings when they are separated. These contacts are in the best interests of the children and very important to them. It costs very little to put that in the Bill.

[Baroness Hamwee]

I support Amendments 9 and 10. When the noble and learned Baroness was talking, I remembered that when she was meeting children—she shared with the House some of their moving comments—I was in the next room meeting the carers, mostly social workers. When we talked about contact generally, not just with siblings, several of them said that the problem lay in adopters not wanting to know, preferring to see their children as part of the new family and wanting to leave the past behind. Therefore I take very seriously the point that she and other noble Lords have made about the importance of having this in the legislation. Guidance has not been enough and I do not see that it will be enough.

In support of Amendment 10, in Committee the noble Baroness, Lady Young, gave such an important explanation of the need to know one’s identity that, without wanting to embarrass her, I feel it should be framed. It said a lot about the specific issue about which I was concerned, about descendants of adopted people and, as she has just mentioned, the need of older adults to know about their heritage and background. What she has said seems in line with adoption practice and with Amendment 1, which we have agreed. It is an important way to move practice forward though statute.

[Baroness Northover (LD)]

My Lords, I thank noble Lords for putting down these amendments and for their commitment in this area. We focus here on three areas that greatly impact on the lives of children in care and care leavers. I thank the noble Earl, Lord Listowel, for his thanks to my noble and honourable colleagues. Noble Lords will note that my honourable friend the Minister for Children and Families is at the Bar of the House. We appreciate his presence.

I start with the important issue of children who return home from care, addressed by the amendment of the noble Earl. I thank him for his acknowledgement that support for those returning home is a key priority for the Government. We agree that much greater attention is required to ensure that both the statutory framework and local practice are improved significantly. We are working closely with an expert group, including organisations such as the NSPCC, which are making an invaluable contribution to this work. I hope noble Lords will be reassured that we are strengthening the statutory framework for voluntarily accommodated children since we believe this is particularly weak. We are exploring whether the current statutory framework needs to be strengthened for other children who return home, including those who were previously on a care order and 16 and 17 year-old care leavers. We are also working to improve practice for all children who return home, whatever their legal status while they are in care or when they return home.

The noble Earl raised the issue of children on interim care orders. We are aware that the Alliance for Children in Care and Care Leavers has raised concerns about children who return home following an interim care order, and whether the new proposals to strengthen the statutory framework will apply to this group. We shall continue to work with the expert group and others to explore how to ensure that we improve the statutory framework where necessary for all children regardless of legal status. I hope he finds that reassuring.

The noble Earl and other noble Lords asked about personal budgets. The current statutory framework provides sufficient flexibility for local authorities to provide personal budgets if they think this is the best way to meet a family’s needs. We do not think that it would be appropriate to assume that this will be necessary in all circumstances. Therefore, we believe that decisions about financial support and how this is provided should be taken on a case-by-case basis. I hope that he is reassured that it is possible to give that kind of support.

I can assure the noble Earl that we shall continue to work with the NSPCC and other voluntary sector organisations through our expert working group as we develop and implement our programme of work. We should be delighted to meet him to discuss matters further. We know there is a long way to go, but we are committed to ensuring that all children receive the support they need to return home to their families where this is the right way to secure permanence for them. I hope that in due course the noble Earl will be content to withdraw his amendment.

Amendment 9 on sibling contact was introduced by the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, and is supported by other noble Lords. We are in complete agreement that contact between siblings is of great importance to children in care. I hear what my noble friend Lady Hamwee and others have said on this. We take this very seriously. We believe that the concerns that noble Lords have raised are an issue of practice and are best tackled through strengthening statutory guidance, improving local authority practice and monitoring impact through Ofsted reports. I noted the comments made by the noble Baroness, Lady Hughes, when we were discussing this in the round table about the difficulty that existed in taking this forward before.

We are therefore making our expectations of local authorities clearer in statutory guidance. Noble Lords will be well aware that statutory guidance is not merely advice; local authorities must comply with statutory guidance unless there are exceptional reasons which justify a departure. The noble Baroness, Lady Jones, asked how we will ensure that this makes a difference, which is the crux, and which was highlighted by her noble friend in earlier discussions. We will need to monitor the impact of our revised guidance and our planned programme of work in the short and long term. The noble Baroness is right about that. It must make a difference. The revised Ofsted inspection framework includes specific wording on sibling contact and will be an area that it will look at in its inspections of children’s services. We will use its reports to highlight areas of good practice and address areas of poor practice where the need arises.

Influenced by our discussions in Committee, we have produced a revised draft of our statutory guidance which emphasises the key points raised by noble Lords. We very much appreciate the experience that they fed in in Committee. These changes include a specific requirement for the care plan to set out arrangements for the promotion and maintenance of contact with siblings and for consideration to be given to whether staying-put arrangements may be beneficial to maintaining sibling contact when an older child leaves care. I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, for her thanks to us for incorporating these points.

We appreciate the comments from our discussion at the round table last week. They were very helpful. We appreciate that there is further work to do. We are very keen to involve noble Lords who are interested in taking this work forward in coming weeks to ensure that the guidance is as clear and robust as it can be. Clearly the noble Baroness, Lady Hughes, with her formidable experience as a former Children’s Minister, which she manifested at our discussions the other day, would be very important to that.

We want to make sure that the changes we make to the statutory guidance as a whole encompass all the necessary changes and that we have had sufficient time to consult sector partners, consider our wording properly and check its consistency with our other guidance. Taking this into account, we will progress with publishing this guidance as soon as possible in the new year.

When the guidance is published, we will work through independent reviewing officers and others to improve local practice. The revised Ofsted inspection framework includes specific wording on sibling contact, so we will monitor Ofsted reports on the impact that we are having.

I hope that noble Lords will recognise that we share their very real concerns and will work with us to take forward practice most effectively and that therefore the noble Earl will be willing to withdraw his amendment in due course.

Amendment 10 was tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Young. It is on access to records for care leavers. Having considered the issue further following the debate in Committee, we recognise that we need to improve the statutory guidance in this area. We thank the noble Baroness for her involvement in this. She gave her time very generously in facilitating meetings with officials and voluntary organisations. They have been very helpful for the department as we have drafted our new guidance. We would like to thank the voluntary organisations—the Care Leavers’ Association, BAAF and Barnardo’s—which took part in the meetings, for sharing their knowledge and expertise in this area. We especially thank the noble Baroness, Lady Young, for making sure that all these groups were brought together so that we could hear the case that they needed to make.

19:15

We would like to continue to work with them and others on finalising the revised guidance. The draft guidance is on our website, and we would welcome comments from noble Lords and others over the coming weeks. The revised guidance will emphasise the importance of good record keeping and the values and principles that should apply when supporting people in accessing their records. I assure the noble Baroness, Lady Young, and my noble friend Lady Hamwee that this will apply to supporting care leavers of all ages. They made that point very cogently.

I know that the noble Baroness, Lady Young, is keen to ensure that the revised guidance, when finalised, is properly implemented, and we will make sure that those working in the sector are aware of it. As well as placing the guidance on our website, we will work closely with the National Care Advisory Service, which facilitates the National Leaving Care Benchmarking Forum of care leaver managers. I assure the noble Baroness, Lady Young, that we will also work with care leaver managers, independent reviewing officers and children in care councils to raise the priority given by local authorities to this issue.

In addition, in order to help embed the guidance in practice, we will participate in a round table with local authorities and the sector to discuss good practice on this subject, as the noble Baroness, Lady Young, suggested. We will also monitor what Ofsted inspection reports say about local practice on this important issue. I again express our appreciation to the noble Baroness, Lady Young. We hope she will continue to work with us and that she will not move her amendment in due course.

I hope that I have reassured noble Lords of our commitment to improving support for children in care and care leavers and that they will welcome our commitments to improve statutory guidance on sibling contact and care leavers’ access to records. I urge the noble Earl to withdraw his amendment.

[The Earl of Listowel]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for her careful reply. It was encouraging to hear what she said about interim care orders and about treating all children similarly, notwithstanding their legal status. I am grateful for the opportunity to meet her and officials to discuss this matter.

I have great faith in the Department for Education as it deals with these matters. I have worked in this House for 15 years, and to my mind the current ministerial team and the way it works is remarkably effective, so I have faith that things will soon begin to improve for these children. Of course, we will need to watch very carefully that this happens. I am most grateful to my noble friend Lady Howe, the noble Baroness, Lady Tyler, and other noble Lords for their support of this amendment. The noble Baroness, Lady Tyler, is the chair of the Children and Family Court Advisory and Support Service, and she would perhaps save considerably on its expenditure if we could get this right and children were not moving in and out of care, as happens now. There is a real cost argument as well as a child welfare argument here.

I remind noble Lords of the work of Delma Hughes, a care leaver who was separated from her five siblings, who has spent her life providing therapeutic work to vulnerable young people. She has set up a charity, Siblings Together, which enables young people who are separated in care to spend holidays together. I was very pleased to see in the draft statutory guidance that attention was drawn to the need to allow young people to have the benefit of such facilities. I am most grateful to the Minister for her reply and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 7 withdrawn.

Amendment 8 not moved.

Clause 7: Contact: children in care of local authorities

Amendment 9 not moved.

Amendment 10 not moved.

Clause 9: Promotion of educational achievement of children looked after by local authorities

Amendment 11

Moved by

[Lord Nash]

11: Clause 9, transpose Clause 9 to after Clause 80

[Lord Nash]

My Lords, the small government amendment I have tabled will move Clause 9 from Part 1 of the Bill to the new Part 5, which is about the welfare of children. This will mean that the provision will be in the same part as other clauses that relate to looked-after children.

Before the noble and learned Baroness speaks to her amendment, it might assist the House if I confirm the Government’s position on enabling young people to remain with their former foster carers, commonly referred to as “staying put” arrangements. Last week, we announced our intention to propose an amendment to the Bill at Third Reading to place a new duty on local authorities to support every care leaver who wants to stay with their former foster parents until their 21st birthday.

I am fully conscious that many noble Lords have dedicated their life to public service, whereas I am a relative newcomer to this. Indeed, up until 10 years ago I spent my life in business focused, frankly, on money. However, about 10 years ago some philanthropic juices started to flow—better late than never you might think—which was initially sparked by two events which happened, as so often serendipitously occurs, in close proximity to each other that made a profound impact on me. First, I visited an organisation which was involved in looking after children in care who were particularly challenged and had fallen out of many other placements or, as the noble Earl, Lord Listowel, described it, had experienced a revolving door of care. This organisation provided intensive care for these children. I remember when visiting them being struck by how intensive this support was.

Shortly thereafter I visited the charity Amber, which looks after young people, many of whom have been in care and many of whom some years after leaving care have become homeless or been in prison. Amber takes these young people for an intensive residential course to rehabilitate them into society, teach them how to apply for a job, be interviewed, how to dress and show manners et cetera. The charity has a very high success rate of getting them into jobs permanently. When visiting this charity and talking to the young people, I was struck by the contrast between the often very good care that they spoke about receiving—not always but often it was very good care—and how, when they became adults, society seemed to drop them like a hot brick. Following this, I spent some considerable time understanding the plight of children leaving care, and I am delighted to say that we have moved a long way since then, thanks to the very good efforts of the previous Government and this Government.

Therefore, when the noble Earl, Lord Listowel, first started to talk about staying-put arrangements he was, as far as I was concerned, pushing against if not an open door at least one that was off the latch on well-oiled hinges. I discussed the matter with my honourable friend the Minister for Children and Families who—as the noble Baroness, Lady Northover, said, I am delighted to see is in the House—particularly following the latest disappointing figures from the staying-put pilots, had absolutely no hesitation in feeling that this was something we should do. We then spoke to my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Education, who agreed to it in a heartbeat. Therefore I am delighted to bring forward the amendment today.

I know that many from across both Houses share our commitment to doing better for these most vulnerable young people, but I would like to take this opportunity to pay tribute particularly to the noble Earl, Lord Listowel, for his commitment to increasing and improving the support available to care leavers. The way he presented the case for this new duty during our debates and in our meetings shows that he is a powerful advocate for this group of vulnerable young people. Indeed, I would like to thank the many noble Lords who spoke on this issue in Grand Committee.

Over recent years, I think we have all come to realise that young people often are not ready to leave home at 18. We rarely expect our own children to do so, so why on earth should we treat those in care differently? This issue has moved up the agenda, from the work started by the previous Government, including by the noble Baroness, Lady Hughes, to the significant step forward that we will make in the Bill. I pay tribute to the noble Baroness, Lady Hughes, for initiating the pilots, which have so informed our thinking on this matter.

My honourable friend the Minister for Children and Families has made improving support for looked-after children and care leavers one of his main priorities since joining Parliament—initially as chair of the All-Party Parliamentary Group for Looked-After Children and Care Leavers and now as a Minister. From last autumn, he has led a drive to promote staying put and to encourage local authorities to make this more widely available. As he said in the other place, we wanted to wait for this year’s figures to see what progress had been made. At Grand Committee, those figures had just been released and the increase was minimal. I explained our disappointment that they had not increased as much or as quickly as we hoped.

I would like to thank the sector, particularly the Fostering Network, for its work with officials on the evidence base which has so informed our decision. The new duty will come into force from April 2014. We will be giving local authorities £40 million over the next three years to put the support arrangements in place.

When we made the announcement on introducing this new duty, a number of voluntary organisations immediately supported the move. I will quote two of those. Janet Rich of the Care Leavers Foundation said:

“Step by step this Government has demonstrated that it truly understands the difficulties which face care leavers as they set out on the journey towards adulthood. Today’s announcement is another positive step on the journey towards State-as-parent acknowledging the duty they owe to this uniquely vulnerable group of young adults”.

Natasha Finlayson of the Who Cares? Trust said:

“This is absolutely fantastic news for thousands of young people in foster care, giving them vital security and support at a crucial time in their lives. It represents the most significant reform to the support children in care are given in a generation”.

I hope that noble Lords will welcome the significant change that we are proposing for care leavers. This will allow them to leave stable and secure homes when they are ready and able to make the transition to independence. I beg to move the government amendment, which moves Clause 9 to Part 5 of the Bill.

[The Earl of Listowel]

My Lords, perhaps I should rise. I was so focused on the previous amendment that I had rather missed that this was coming here. I apologise most sincerely for that, but I thank the Minister for his words.

Sorry, am I talking completely out of place?

[Baroness Hughes of Stretford]

My Lords, I ask for guidance as to whether we can now speak on Amendment 12, which the business paper incorrectly describes as “g12”—a government amendment. I think it is confusing people.

[The Deputy Speaker (Lord Haskel) (Lab)]

There is an error on the paper. The government amendment is number 11 and the amendment of the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, is number 12. The two are grouped together, so the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, may speak to her amendment.

[Baroness Butler-Sloss]

My Lords, I was completely confused. There was a moment when I thought I was getting out of control because I know this is not so far a government amendment.

I start by expressing my own gratitude to the Government for the way they have approached care leaders, from the Secretary of State downwards to the Ministers standing over there and sitting here. We on our side are enormously grateful for the fact that the plight of care leavers has been recognised and, I cannot resist adding, the particular plight of the trafficked children who at the age of 18 were possibly going to be in a very parlous state.

19:30

I do not know if I am in the loop, and of course as a Cross-Bencher I do not hear what happens in the usual channels, but I get the impression—I hope I am right—that the Minister proposes to bring forward an amendment at Third Reading that would bear some resemblance to the current Amendment 12. If that is so, I am absolutely delighted. I very much look forward to seeing what that amendment will be, what it contains, and whether it contains what the noble Baronesses and I, who put our names to this amendment, would hope to find there. However, for the moment, if that is what the Minister is going to do, it would be a total waste of your Lordships’ time for me to say anything more about Amendment 12.

[Baroness Hughes of Stretford]

My Lords, before the noble Earl, Lord Listowel, rises, I will say one or two words and not delay the House. The Government have recognised how dear this issue is to the hearts of so many noble Lords, including to myself. I am very pleased that they will bring forward an amendment at Third Reading. I wanted in particular to congratulate the noble Earl, Lord Listowel, and the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, who have both led the charge on this.

As the Minister said, the pilots were initiated by the previous Labour Government, and we would certainly have extended the provision across the country had we been able to and had the general election not intervened. I will not rehearse the benefits that the pilots have identified, but they are significant. However, despite those benefits, as the Minister said, figures show that depending on local authorities voluntarily to move in this direction and enable young people to stay put is not working.

I reiterate what the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, said. While the Minister has today given us some reassurance about the terms of the amendment that they will bring forward, we need to see it as soon as possible. The amendment that has been tabled envisages continuation of accommodation for young people up to the age of 21 unless there are very specific practical reasons why that is not practicable. In other words, the amendment that has been tabled would move the centre of gravity on this issue and make it much more the norm that a young person in care would stay with foster parents rather than not. That is what we would like to see in the government amendments. Can the Minister give us an assurance that the amendment will be published in good time so that we can consider it?

[The Earl of Listowel]

My Lords, I am most grateful to the Minister for informing us of the Government’s proposal to bring forward their own amendment at Third Reading to introduce the staying-put amendment. I was very grateful to him for his preparedness to listen. Our first meeting had to be postponed because of family illness, but he was very prepared for us to meet again to discuss this, he listened carefully to concerns and we met on subsequent occasions. I was most encouraged by his attention and his responsiveness to my concerns and to those raised by other noble Lords.

I was also very moved in Grand Committee by the strong support from all around the House, from so many noble Lords who are parents and grandparents, who recognised that they look after their own children until the age of 25 or 30. The average age of a child who leaves home is 24 or more. However, many young people who leave care move out at age 16, 17 or 18. I am so grateful to all your Lordships that this change has come about.

In the evaluation that was done on this following the pilots in the 10 local authorities that the noble Baroness set up under the previous Government, 24% of young people stayed put. Those who stayed put with their foster carers towards the age of 21 were twice as likely to be in education and more likely to be at university. Those who did not benefit from staying put, who did not stay with their foster carers, were more likely to have multiple changes in habitation immediately after leaving care and to have far poorer outcomes. As Natasha Finlayson, chief executive of the Who Cares? Trust, said, this is a huge change in the lives of many young people leaving care—one of the biggest changes we have seen in many years. It is very much to be welcomed.

I want to raise one issue at some point with the Minister, which Natasha Finlayson raised in her comments, on dealing with children in children’s homes. They would not be touched by the legislation as it stands, and I understand that it would be a considerable extra cost to allow young people to stay in their children’s homes past age 18. However, it has been suggested that there might be a method of connecting young people in residential care with foster carers towards the end of or early on in their stay in residential care so that, if they chose, they could move on to a fostering arrangement as they moved towards the ages of 18, 19 and 20. I hope that the Government might look at that. Perhaps that is something for guidance rather than statute, and therefore perhaps not for the amendment the Government will bring forward at Third Reading. However, I hope that they will consider it.

I am particularly grateful to the Secretary of State who, at a time of serious austerity, was prepared to come forward with £40 million to enable this to happen. I very much wanted that to be achieved, but felt some concern for the directors of children’s services, who would have to make some very difficult choices in the short term to make this possible. As regards this matter I am therefore extremely grateful for the actions of the Minister, to the Minister for Children and Families, and to the Secretary of State.

[Lord Nash]

My Lords, I can confirm that we will lay an amendment at Third Reading and that we will produce it in good time before that. We did not lay it today as we wanted to get the wording right. We want not only to ensure that the wording is legally correct but also that there is a consensus around it, both in Parliament and in local government and the sector. We will take account of all the comments made by noble Lords as we develop the amendment and start to work on statutory guidance. We will be consulting with interested Peers, local government and key voluntary sector organisations over the next few weeks on the wording of the proposed amendment. Officials will be happy to arrange a meeting with noble Lords to discuss the detail of the amendment.

The noble Earl, Lord Listowel, commented on care leavers who leave residential care. In general, as noble Lords will know, children’s homes do not seek to provide a permanent “family-type” placement, and few placements in homes last very long. However, there is nothing to stop local authorities from providing staying-put arrangements. However, our proposed duty will only apply to care leavers who leave foster care placements. As the noble Earl said, it is a great deal more difficult and expensive to provide staying-put arrangements in children’s homes. You would have vulnerable adults in homes with much younger vulnerable children. However, we are supporting Catch22 with a grant of £200,000 over two years to help improve support and outcomes for young people who leave residential care. The project is working with six providers in the north-west of England and learning will be disseminated nationally. I will be very happy to discuss that project with the noble Earl in more detail.

I hope that our decision to table an amendment on staying put at Third Reading will reassure noble Lords that we are committed to introducing legislation in the Bill on this issue. I therefore urge the noble Baronesses to withdraw their amendment and I beg to move the minor government amendment that would transpose Clause 9.

Amendment 11 agreed.

Amendment 12 not moved.

Amendment 13

Moved by

[Lord McColl of Dulwich]

13: After Clause 9, insert the following new Clause—
“Child trafficking guardians for children who may have been victims of human trafficking
After section 26A of the Children Act 1989 insert—“26B Child trafficking guardians for children who may have been victims of human trafficking
(1) A child trafficking guardian shall be appointed to represent the best interests of each child who might be a victim of trafficking in human beings if the person who has parental responsibility for the child fulfils any of the conditions set out in subsection (3).
(2) The child trafficking guardian shall have the following responsibilities to—
(a) advocate that all decisions relating to the child are made in the child’s best interest and, where reasonably practicable and consistent with the child’s welfare after ascertaining the child’s wishes and feelings in relation to those decisions;(b) advocate for the child to receive appropriate care, safe accommodation, medical treatment, including psychological assistance, education, translation and interpretation services;(c) assist the child to access legal and other representation where necessary, including, where appropriate, to appoint and instruct the solicitor representing the child on all matters relevant to the interests of the child;(d) consult, advise and inform the child victim of the child’s legal rights;(e) keep the child informed of all relevant immigration, criminal or compensation proceedings;(f) contribute to identification of a plan to safeguard and promote the long-term welfare of the child based on an individual assessment of that child’s best interests;(g) provide a link between the child and various organisations who may provide services to the child;(h) assist in establishing contact with the child’s family, where the child so wishes and it is in the child’s best interests;(i) where appropriate liaise with an immigration officer handling the child’s case in conjunction with the child’s legal representative;(j) accompany the child to all police interviews; and(k) accompany the child whenever the child moves to new accommodation.(3) Subsection (1) shall apply if the person who has parental responsibility for the child—
(a) is suspected of taking part in the trafficking of human beings;(b) has another conflict of interest with the child;(c) is not in contact with the child;(d) is in a country outside the United Kingdom; or(e) is a local authority.(4) In subsection (1), a child trafficking guardian may be—
(a) an employee of a statutory body;(b) an employee of a recognised charitable organisation; or(c) a volunteer for a recognised charitable organisation.(5) A person discharging duties as a child trafficking guardian shall not discharge any other statutory duties in relation to a child for whom they are providing assistance under this section.
(6) Where a child trafficking guardian is appointed under subsection (1), the authority of the child trafficking guardian in relation to the child shall be recognised by any relevant body.
(7) In subsection (6), a “relevant body” means a person or organisation—
(a) which provides services to the child;(b) to which a child makes an application for services; or(c) to which the child needs access in relation to being a victim.(8) The appropriate national authority—
(a) shall by order set out the arrangements for the appointment of a child trafficking guardian as soon as possible after a child is identified as a potential victim of trafficking in human beings;(b) shall by order set out requirements for the training courses to be completed before a person may discharge duties as a child trafficking guardian;(c) shall by order set out the arrangements for the supervision of persons discharging duties as a child trafficking guardian;(d) shall by order set out the arrangements for the provision of support services for persons discharging duties as a child trafficking guardian; and(e) shall by order designate organisations as a “recognised charitable organisation” for the purpose of this section.(9) A person’s appointment as a child trafficking guardian for a particular child under this section shall come to an end if—
(a) the child reaches the age of 18; or(b) a durable solution for the child has been found based on an individual assessment of the best interests of the child.(10) In this section, a child is considered to be a “potential victim of trafficking in human beings” when a referral has been made to a competent authority for a determination under the identification process required by Article 10 of the Trafficking Convention (Identification of Victims) and there has not been a conclusive determination that the individual is not such a victim.
(11) For the purposes of subsection (10), there is a conclusive determination that an individual is not a victim of trafficking in human beings when, on completion of the identification process required by Article 10 of the Trafficking Convention, a competent authority concludes that the individual is or is not such a victim.
(12) In this section—
“parental responsibility” has the same meaning as section 3 of this Act;
“competent authority” means a person who is a competent authority of the United Kingdom for the purposes of the Trafficking Convention;
“the Trafficking Convention” means the Council of Europe Convention on Action against Trafficking in Human Beings (done at Warsaw on 16 May 2005);
“trafficking in human beings” has the same meaning as in the Trafficking Convention.””

[Lord McColl of Dulwich (Con)]

My Lords, I will begin with the story of a boy from Vietnam whose parents needed to borrow money for essential medical treatment. They were later forced to hand over their son to the gang that had loaned them the money. He was brought to the UK and forced to cultivate cannabis to work off the debt to the criminal gang that had brought him here. I will also tell the story of the girl from Nigeria who was told that she was being brought to the UK to go to school and receive an education. Instead, she was forced to do work around the house where she was held captive. Her passport was taken from her, she was not allowed to leave the house, and she was even made to eat separately from the rest of the household. Not only was she used as a domestic slave and violently beaten, but she was sexually abused by the man of the house and by his friend, became pregnant and was forced to have an abortion.

These are just two of very many stories. Over 500 children and young people believed to be victims of human trafficking were identified in the UK Human Trafficking Centre’s A Strategic Assessment on the Nature and Scale of Human Trafficking in 2012. It is with these children in mind that I move Amendment 13 today.

On 15 February 2012, we discussed a similar amendment during the debate on the Protection of Freedoms Bill. Your Lordships might ask why I am returning to this now. When I moved Amendment 57A of the Protection of Freedoms Bill on Report there was considerable support for it among your Lordships but the Government pressed us not to divide, offering to commission research to evaluate the current arrangements for the care of trafficked children. In the light of these assurances I agreed not to divide. I tabled an amendment to this Bill in Committee and move Amendment 13 today because the evidence produced by the very research commissioned as a result of our first intervention compels us to do so.

The research commissioned by the Home Office following that debate was undertaken by the Children’s Society and the Refugee Council and the resulting report, Still at Risk, was published on 12 September this year. The report demonstrates that what was said during the debate on the Protection of Freedoms Bill in 2012 about the inadequacy of the care was true and remains true today. It echoes the call we made then and make again today for the provision of an independent trusted adult who will work to ensure that each child victim is able to understand their rights, has their voice heard in decisions that affect them and is supported effectively through the different legal processes in which they are engaged. Amendment 13 calls that role a “child trafficking guardian”.

I will first restate the arguments for child trafficking guardians, as I set them out in February 2012, and then consider the findings of Still at Risk. Before I do so, I want to be really clear about the rationale for the child trafficking guardian as set out in Amendment 13. Sometimes we can get into a bit of a muddle when considering the appointment of guardians, thinking that they conduct a role that an existing body or agency should conduct. If the guardian proposal is seen in this way, arguments in favour of it are inevitably seen as a criticism of existing agencies. This, however, is to misunderstand fundamentally the role of child trafficking guardians, which is different from that of any existing actor or agency.

The child trafficking guardian model is based on the UNICEF guidelines and international best practice because the problems that child victims of trafficking experience have remarkable similarities from country to country. Rescued victims are children in a foreign country who have to engage with multiple state agencies such as the courts, the police, local government, education and so on. In each agency they have to deal with a different set of people. They have to retell their painful story again and again. This is disorientating and distressing for the children and in this context of being passed from pillar to post children become alienated and particularly vulnerable to retrafficking.

This is not a distinctly British problem. It is a problem of being a trafficked child in a foreign country and having to engage with different state agencies. The child trafficking guardian solution provides an entirely new role that no existing agency provides. It does two things. First, the child trafficking guardian, while regulated by law, is independent from those state agencies that make decisions about the child’s immigration status or which finance a child’s care. Trafficked children are invariably afraid and tend to distrust authority figures representing the state. A child trafficking guardian can speak to and for the child without any other conflicting interest. Secondly, the child trafficking guardian is not a new level of bureaucracy with which a rescued trafficked child must engage to be processed by the state in addition to the police, courts, local government and so on. Rather, their role is to be a constant in an ever changing world and to accompany the rescued trafficked child as they relate to all the different state agencies. To enable the child trafficking guardian to do this, they have legal recognition so that all the agencies are obliged to recognise them, allowing them to accompany the child. They also have the right to speak on behalf of the child if the child requests it so that the child does not have to repeat their painful stories again and again if they do not want to.

19:45

Having established the rationale for child trafficking guardians, I now turn to the problem I highlighted in February 2012, which child trafficking guardians are designed to address, and the findings of the resultant research. I argued that we badly needed to make provision for child trafficking guardians because of the extraordinarily large number of rescued trafficked children who were being lost from local authority care—301 out of 942 trafficked children looked after between 2005 and 2010. I pointed out that this national disgrace was hardly surprising given that our child trafficking provisions did not and do not comply with the international best practice set out by UNICEF. I also examined each provision in the Children Act that the Government have argued has the effect of providing a child trafficking guardian function, explaining why it does not provide this function and I will briefly recap, explaining why this is still very much the case.

First, independent advocates appointed under Section 26 of the Children Act act only on the child’s behalf in relation to the care that a child receives from a local authority. Quite apart from the obvious and immediate problem that Section 26 advocates do not engage with a child’s interaction with any other state agencies, a child is not appointed an advocate from the moment they are identified as possibly being a trafficked child, which is a key requirement of the EU anti-trafficking directive. The advocate is appointed only if the child wishes to avail themselves of this opportunity. Moreover, there is currently no guarantee that the advocate provided for a trafficked child who requests one would have any knowledge or understanding of human trafficking, even with the proposed new statutory guidance. Secondly, independent visitors can be offered if a local authority considers a child would benefit from such support but this is simply a befriending role. Thirdly, independent reviewing officers do not accompany or support the child in their interactions with all state agencies. They meet them only to talk about their care plan.

When I made the same points in Grand Committee the Minister referred to each of these roles without addressing my arguments that none of them amounts to the provision of a child trafficking guardian. However, she did refer to one additional role, that of the child social worker. I have already explained that the child trafficking guardian is a unique, separate and complementary role to that of other professionals caring for a trafficked child. It is not appropriate to expect social workers to fulfil the role of a child trafficking guardian, physically accompanying rescued children in all their interactions with the state. A child trafficking guardian alongside a trafficked child will enable social workers to provide the best support for all the children in their care.

Having set out these arguments, I agreed to withdraw the amendment in response to the promise of research. That research, published in September, makes for deeply distressing reading. The researchers found a great variation in the quality of the care provided to trafficked children. There are examples of best practice by local authorities and caring, supportive social workers but many other children had multiple social workers or social workers who were unfamiliar with human trafficking and the risks of retrafficking, resulting in children being placed in unsuitable accommodation.

Of very specific and direct relevance to my amendment of 15 April 2012, the research concluded that,

“the immediate provision of intensive, one-to-one support for these children by an adult who the child can form a trusting relationship with and who could help them to make sense of the different processes and professionals that they encounter, would reduce the risk of the child going missing”.

There can be no pleasure in being proved right when, because of the time taken to produce the report, we have lost nearly two years—two years when rescued trafficked children could have been assisted by the provision of a child trafficking guardian, but have not been. It is for this reason that I and my co-signatories have seized the first opportunity since the publication of the report to retable the version of our amendment which I commend to the House.

Having already defined the role of child trafficking guardian, I will pick up on just two features of Amendment 13. First, the training, skills and expertise of a child trafficking guardian are extremely important. The strength of the system proposed by this amendment is in the specialist care and support that these guardians would provide. Proposed new subsection (8) of the amendment would require that guardians meet the training requirements set out by the Secretary of State and that appropriate structures for supervision of the child trafficking guardians are put in place. Secondly, in the current economic climate, the Government must rightly take into account the need to spend public money wisely and most effectively. Amendment 13 seeks to give the Government flexibility both now and in the future for how these guardianship services are provided by enabling this to be done through public sector employees or the employees or volunteers of recognisable charitable organisations as designated by the Secretary of State. Creating a new public sector agency to provide these services could be expensive, but equipping and empowering charities and volunteers to fulfil this role could be very cost effective. Some may have concerns about the role of volunteers but I have already emphasised the importance of training and supervision enshrined in the amendment. This country has a long-standing system of volunteer magistrates and well trained volunteer child trafficking guardians could provide similarly excellent support to children who have been trafficked.

While I was, of course, grateful for the Minister’s response to this amendment in Committee, I was none the less extremely disappointed. The reasons she gave for not supporting it were exactly the same as those advanced by the Minister responding in February 2012 without in any way responding to my critique of that reasoning. It was almost as if the Still at Risk report had not been commissioned.

I recognise that the Government are taking steps to reform social work and to improve statutory guidance for local authorities caring for trafficked children following the Still at Risk report. However, I return to the fact that this same research, which was commissioned by the Government in response to our original proposal for child trafficking guardians, has demonstrated not only the need for the various changes the Government are proposing for the guidance but also the need for a system of child trafficking guardians. For the sake of children such as those whose stories I shared earlier, we must take on board all the recommendations of the Still at Risk report.

In conclusion, I note that in the 18 months since we first considered this issue, the Joint Committee on Human Rights, the Group of Experts on the Council of Europe convention against human trafficking and the US State Department Trafficking in Persons Report have all recommended we introduce a system of child trafficking guardians. We must not miss this opportunity. I beg to move.

[Baroness Butler-Sloss (CB)]

My Lords, my name is also on this amendment. This is a goal which the noble Lord, Lord McColl of Dulwich, and I have pursued for not far short of two years. If I may put it rather bluntly, we were fobbed off last time. The fobbing off produced the report to which the noble Lord referred, which only underlines the importance of bringing this amendment back in a slightly different form, as he said. In speaking to it, I declare an interest as the co-chairman of the human trafficking parliamentary group and a trustee of the Human Trafficking Foundation. I am also very much involved with Frank Field MP and John Randall MP in an inquiry into modern slavery with a view to advising government on the proposed modern slavery Bill. However, this amendment is appropriately tabled to the Children and Families Bill as it deals with children. We are talking about children and young people under the age of 18.

The Government have produced excellent guidance on unaccompanied trafficked children and other vulnerable children and, as far as it goes, I have nothing but praise for it. However, it does not begin to meet the amendment that the noble Lord and I are putting forward. The excellent guidance presupposes that social workers and independent reviewing officers will be able to give a trafficked child what is needed to help that child from the moment of identification of the child having been a slave until the moment that that young person’s future is determined. How on earth is a social worker with a child accommodated under Section 20 of the Children Act—not even with parental responsibility—to do more than treat him or her as a looked-after child among many other looked-after children?

Trafficked children go missing and are retrafficked. Some local authorities do not even know that a missing trafficked child has been identified as having been trafficked. Therefore, they do not alert the police to the fact that this is a particularly vulnerable child who might be picked up if immediate action is taken to try to find that child. All too often these children are treated like any other missing children, many of whom run in and out of care and are technically missing but may return after 24 hours. That is a totally different group of children.

The statutory guidance does not provide what is needed, which is continuity, regularity, responsibility and a trusting relationship from the moment the child is identified to the moment his or her journey to whatever solution is arrived at is met. We have to bear in mind that this will generally be a foreign child, as the noble Lord, Lord McColl of Dulwich, said—I do not apologise for saying it again—because English children who are slaves are dealt with differently. The foreign child will probably speak no English and will have been brought into this country and enslaved in a wide variety of ways such as labour exploitation, prostitution or domestic servitude. Whichever method is used, the child is identified and is then known to be a victim. The child will not necessarily speak English and will not have papers. It will be difficult to work out exactly how old the child is and whether he or she is 15 or 18. Different arrangements apply according to the child’s age. The child will almost certainly be traumatised and, as the noble Lord, Lord McColl, said, frightened. He or she will have been told that they must not talk to the police, social services or to anybody else because they will put the child back on a plane or a boat and send them back to the place where people—very often the parents, as the noble Lord, Lord McColl, pointed out—have sold that child into slavery because they need the money. That is not just the case with Vietnamese children; it is across the world.

20:00

Therefore the child is already in a very poor state and there is a danger, which is occurring, of the child being abused—I use the word “abused” deliberately—in the administrative process. This is a blot on the landscape of the United Kingdom. There is administrative abuse if the system does not adequately care for the child. What is needed is not well meaning officials who come and go—and there will not be a social worker or independent reviewing officer available all the time—but somebody on the end of a telephone, to whom the child can speak or leave a message. If that child goes missing, having been given to one of these independent people, they will then be able to get in touch with the police and say, “The child has gone missing. Please pull out all the stops to try and find the child”.

The sort of thing you want is a constant presence for counselling, therapy, mental health issues, education, immigration and a host of other things that this traumatised child who has been rescued from slavery has to go through in our administrative process before a decision is made. What is asked for is not someone to see the child every day of the week, or probably not more than once a week or once a fortnight, but someone to whom the child can turn, who can ring up and find out from the foster parent or whoever, how the child is getting on; someone who the child knows will be a constant presence in this period from identification to resolution. The excellent guidance does not provide that one person.

I know what the Government have been saying. The Minister said to us last time that what they do not want is yet another tier on top of all the other tiers. However, each of the other tiers is involved only from time to time. What we are talking about is somebody who will be constantly in the background—and in the foreground—when it is necessary. There is nobody for a child in that position at that moment and it is not good enough. To say that this is an extra tier is absolutely to misunderstand—if I may be polite about this—what is actually being asked for: not another tier, but a specific person to be there instead when that person is needed.

There is no shortage of agencies that would be prepared to take on this role for what I suspect would be quite a modest sum, but what they must have is the statutory power to require the agencies to give them the information that is needed. They must be able to be in touch with the police, social workers or the Department of Health, because unless they have statutory power, those other agencies will not listen to them. There will be well meaning volunteers who will not make much progress. Therefore, this is absolutely crucial. Time and again we have been fobbed off. Now is the moment not to be fobbed off any more.

[Baroness Royall of Blaisdon (Lab)]

My Lords, I was pleased and proud to add my name to this amendment. I do so having been pleased to support the noble Lord, Lord McColl, and the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, in their past attempts to deal with this gap in the way that we deal with young people who may have been trafficked. Both the noble Lord and the noble and learned Baroness have done an immense amount to improve the lives of young people who have been trafficked and changes are being made. However, as both have said today, there is still this gap.

If we think of our own children, not having been trafficked or been the victims of slavery, but put into a similar situation in a foreign country, unable to understand the language and for whatever reason having to deal with a multiplicity of different agencies, they would not cope. Today we are talking about children who are not just vulnerable, but probably traumatised, who may have suffered degradation in some way, yet who are still supposed to deal with a multiplicity of agencies. It is deeply unfair to expect them to do so.

This amendment would ensure that these children had one person—a constant in an ever-changing world—who they could trust and to whom they could turn whenever they felt it necessary. On the day when we have been paying tribute to Nelson Mandela, a man who was full of compassion, this is a matter of compassion and of fulfilling our obligation to these children who have suffered. Yes, as the noble and learned Baroness pointed out, these are foreign children, but that fact does not matter. These are young human beings who, for whatever reason, are now in this country and we have an obligation to ensure that they are properly cared for. One of the means of doing that is to ensure that they have a person there who can be their advocate and their support.

As noble Lords have said, there are agencies, people in the voluntary and charitable sectors, who are willing and able to provide this service, and, as the noble and learned Baroness said, it is not a question of another bureaucratic tier. This is something that does not exist and needs to exist. Not only will it not cost a lot of money, in the end it could actually save money, because it means that these children will not fall through all the gaps and into crisis, as they might have done. This is a means of saving money. We have an obligation to do our best for these children and I am pleased and proud to support this amendment.

[Baroness Lister of Burtersett]

My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord McColl, referred to the Joint Committee on Human Rights. In Grand Committee I picked up that reference and spoke briefly about what the Joint Committee had said about the Scottish experience of guardianship, which went broader but included trafficked children. In response, the Minister expressed a degree of scepticism, perhaps, about that experience. Once again, the chair of the Joint Committee on Human Rights has followed up our debates with a letter to the noble Baroness. I shall read part of that letter. It stated:

“I would like to draw your attention to the recommendation made by my Committee in its First Report of this Session, on the Human Rights of unaccompanied migrant children and young people in the UK, (HL: Paper 9 and HC 196), which dealt with guardianship and on which the Committee had taken evidence. This states (at paragraph 175):

‘We welcome the findings from the Scottish Guardianship Service, which demonstrate the value that a guardian can add for unaccompanied asylum seeking and trafficked children. We recommend that the Government commission pilots in England and Wales that builds upon and adapts the model of guardianship trialled in Scotland. The guardian should provide support in relation to the asylum and immigration process, support services and future planning, help children develop wider social networks, and ensure that children's views are heard in all proceedings that affect them. The Government should evaluate the case for establishing a wider guardianship scheme throughout England and Wales once those pilot schemes are complete’”.

The letter from the chair to the Minister continues:

“In your contribution to the debate in the Lords you suggested that the Scottish scheme had had mixed results, that it had not 'cracked' the problems that it was intended to address, and that it would add another layer of complexity”—

other noble Lords have talked about this—

“ to how these things are currently handled.

The results of the guardianship scheme, however, were largely positive, as was evidenced fully by the independent report undertaken by Professors Heaven Crawley and Ravi Kohli (who both advised my Committee during its inquiry into unaccompanied migrant children). These positive results led the Scottish Government to endorse the Guardianship Service, and support it with funding for a further three years at £200,000 per year”.

I would add here that Aileen Campbell, the Minister for Children and Young People in the Scottish Government, has said:

“The Scottish Guardianship Service gives asylum seeking children a voice and makes sure every young person involved understands and participates in decisions that affect them”.

The letter goes on:

“There is of course no question that the issues surrounding guardianship are complex and that it took time for the Service in Scotland to bed down and achieve some enduring coherence for vulnerable children in difficult circumstances. However, the independent report, in large part, is very clear that Guardianship was a safeguard for unaccompanied migrant children, and its design and implementation were exemplary”.

The report throws some light on this question of an additional layer of complexity. It found:

“The young people saw Guardians as helping them to understand what others did, especially when there were ‘too many people’ in their lives. This is an important perception by the young people of a key element of the Service—namely that the Service played a key role not because there were too few professionals in their lives, but because sometimes there were too many. The noise generated by these constant engagements and expectations, where young people were required to repeat some form of their story to an endless queue of professionals”—

a point that the noble Lord, Lord McColl, made—

“needed to be reduced to a sound that young people could hear, sometimes in sequence, and sometimes in a harmonised way. The Guardians did this”

in a number of ways. The letter concludes:

“My Committee believes that the Government should look at this again”.

I really hope that the Government will look at this again. There have been some very powerful speeches in support of the amendment and I very much hope that noble Lords will not be fobbed off again.

[The Lord Bishop of Truro]

My Lords, I support the amendment and declare an interest as chairman of the Children’s Society. The noble Lord, Lord McColl, has already mentioned the report, Still at Risk, published jointly by the Children’s Society and the Refugee Council.

The amendment raises an important matter. Doubts over a child’s age, their lack of documentation or uncertainty about their immigration status impede a child’s ability to access effective support to meet their welfare needs. For example, 10 of the 17 young people mentioned in the study had their ages disputed. Some had undergone multiple age assessments before it was agreed by the authorities that they were, in fact, children. Disputing a child’s age has serious safeguarding implications for them and can put them at serious risk. In the Still at Risk report, it was found that failure to recognise that they were children or victims of trafficking resulted in three of the young people who were interviewed being sent to adult prison, and two to an immigration removal centre. Several of the young people in the study did no know which country they were in because of the tight control exerted over them by their exploiters. The guidance on the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child states:

“Agencies or individuals whose interests could potentially be in conflict with those of the child’s should not be eligible for guardianship”.

The Children’s Society and others believe that local authority children’s services are indeed such agencies. A common problem for separated migrant children, including child victims of human trafficking, who may have entered the country without documents or on false papers is that their age is disputed by the Home Office and by local authorities, and that these agencies are unwilling to support them. Until the age of a person is verified, they should be treated as children, not adults, for the purposes of accessing support.

The case for guardians, as set out in the amendment, is supported by many international and domestic bodies, including the UN Committee on the Rights of the Child, the Council of Europe expert group on trafficking and, most recently, the Joint Committee on Human Rights in its inquiry into unaccompanied migrant children and young people. That is supported in the long-standing position of the Refugee Children’s Consortium, a coalition of more than 40 non-governmental organisations working with children caught up in the immigration system. I urge the Minister to think carefully in the response to the amendment, which is an important initiative that is much needed by the research called for earlier.

20:15

[Baroness Hamwee]

My Lords, I have to say to my noble friend that in 2012 I was not entirely persuaded by a similar amendment. I made supportive comments but wondered whether it was right to be pushing it at that stage—indeed, the noble Lord did not do so. I have changed my mind. I realised that time moves on and the fact that I am not going to repeat a number of points that have been made does not mean that I do not agree with them; I agree with them very much indeed.

It is difficult enough for trafficked adults—or, indeed, other adults who come up against the state—to deal with multiple agencies. For a traumatised child it is unbelievably more difficult. The distrust of state authorities has been mentioned and it seems that retrafficking happens because very often the trafficked child knows only his or her traffickers. They have been taught to trust the traffickers, who have said, “If there is a problem, here is the phone number. You contact us”. Of course that leads to the child leaving whatever care they are in, going back to the traffickers and being retrafficked.

Consistency and constancy have been mentioned. I want to talk about authority, whereby a guardian has authority not just to hear but to speak for the child—to contribute to the discussions and to have to be listened to by the others who are taking part in discussions and moving towards decisions. That legal recognition is particularly important, for instance, in dealing with immigration officers who are handling a child’s asylum case, in the national referral mechanism, and in instructing a solicitor. I say that from my experience; I have not dealt with anyone who has been trafficked but as a solicitor taking instructions you have to hear the instructions from the person who is entitled to give them. I have been in this situation with clients in many different fields where I am told, “That’s what so-and-so wants”. I need to know it from that person. You cannot assume it unless the person with clear authority gives the instruction. So the statutory power, the statutory authority, and the legal status are very significant.

Finally, I want to make a rather hard-headed point. You have to support victims and survivors of this sort of situation to enable them to be good witnesses when giving evidence. Unless we can achieve that, it will be that much harder to get convictions. My hard-headed point is that it is in the interests of attacking this despicable trade that I also support this amendment.

[Baroness Northover]

My Lords, this debate has made very clear the commitment across the House to improving the support received by trafficked children. My noble friend Lord McColl has made a very powerful case once again. We recognise that not enough has been done and that we must do more. I pay tribute to my noble friend Lord McColl, the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, and others for their determination to ensure that trafficked children, who are so very vulnerable, are properly protected. Noble Lords have made their concern extremely clear. We agree that these children are indeed among the most vulnerable and it is clear from what noble Lords and others have said that they are not being supported as they should be, so how is this best achieved?

We remain concerned that the introduction of guardians for trafficked children, alongside those persons who should already be working in the interests of the child, is not the most effective way to tackle the local problems that are clearly manifest here. Where local systems are not working as they should be to support the best interests of trafficked children, we need to address the causes of those problems. Others with extensive experience of the needs of trafficked children agree. Children and Families Across Borders, an organisation with considerable expertise in this area, has told us that introducing guardians would not improve the inadequate service that some trafficked children receive. Instead, they believe that a clear commitment to, and strong focus on, professional development by local government employers and others is required. This would help to improve practice and ensure that social workers understand the particular needs faced by trafficked children in their care. It is not clear that appointing another individual to speak for a looked-after child or to help them navigate the care system is the answer. Central to the role of a social worker is ensuring that the child’s best interests are protected. If that is not happening then that failure should be addressed. Introducing guardians could actually result in making things worse, with other professionals thinking they do not need to concern themselves as much about a trafficked child because their guardian is looking after them.

I note that my noble friend Lord McColl mentioned the variability of support and the best practice that can be seen among some social workers. He pointed to other cases of very poor practice and we fully agree that these must be tackled. We recognise that local authority performance with regard to trafficked children is clearly inconsistent. To address this inconsistency, we have proposed new regulations so that, when a trafficked child comes into the care system, the crucial information that they have been trafficked must be recorded on care plans. Under these new regulations, local authorities would be required, in planning and reviewing care for a trafficked child, to consider the specific and complex needs that may result from the experience of having been trafficked. This requirement would also extend to pathway planning for a trafficked child when they cease to be looked after. Social workers should support trafficked children to access mainstream and specialist services and this should include accompanying them to meetings with other professionals, as my noble friend Lord McColl highlighted. We will make this clear in the proposed new statutory guidance. To underpin the proposed new regulations regarding trafficked children, we have, as I say, drafted new statutory guidance. This sets out our expectations of how local authorities should go about providing the required support and we would welcome noble Lords’ views on how to make this draft guidance stronger. As noble Lords will be well aware, statutory guidance is of course not merely advice that local authorities can choose to ignore as they please. They must comply with statutory guidance unless there are exceptional reasons that justify a departure.

When they first enter care, trafficked children are particularly vulnerable, as noble Lords have made clear. They might not initially recognise that they are victims of a crime, or might believe that their best interests lie with their traffickers. The first hours and days are crucial in protecting a trafficked child from going missing. The new statutory guidance describes some of the steps that local authorities should take to protect against this risk, such as temporarily removing their phones to ensure that they are not in contact with those who can do them harm, providing 24-hour supervision, or employing previously trafficked children to assure the victim that they are safest in local authority care. The guidance provides a clear definition of a trafficked child and describes steps that should be taken when a child is identified as having been trafficked. This vital role is one that local authorities, with partners including the Home Office and police, fulfil—or should fulfil—as part of their child protection duties.

The noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, talked about missing children. Some of the things that I have just said are intended to try to stop those children going missing. However, we have also put specific advice in our revised guidance on trafficked children, including how to prevent them going missing and how to support them when they are found.

Children who have been trafficked into this country from overseas may require specialist support in dealing with immigration questions or proceedings, as noble Lords have made plain. The amendment says that guardians will assist the child to access legal representation, appointing and instructing a solicitor where necessary, and my noble friend Lady Hamwee picked up the issue of legal representation. However, independent reviewing officers should already ensure that any child in their care has access to the appropriate legal support. In our new statutory guidance, we will now go further and require that such support should be provided by a suitably qualified solicitor or immigration adviser. Any immigration advice or legal support would be in addition to the child’s right, as a looked-after child, to independent advocacy.

Part of making children feel safe when they have been trafficked from overseas is ensuring that they understand their situation and the support provided to them. Our new statutory guidance will require that, where interpreters are required, they should be trained to understand the particular risks faced by trafficked children. Helping children to overcome cultural or language barriers so that they can express their wishes and feelings is a role that is already carried out by independent advocates. The new statutory guidance notes the importance of commissioning specialist advocacy services to provide this support.

The noble Baroness, Lady Lister, brought up the discussion that we had in Committee about Scotland. I was very interested in the fact that Scotland has guardians, and that is why I asked how it had worked out. She probably knows that the Scottish guardianship system is much smaller than would be required in England because it covers just 80 unaccompanied asylum-seeking children. Scottish guardians essentially fulfil the role played by independent advocates in the English system but with specialist immigration skills. Our proposed statutory guidance requires that, where a trafficked child requires specialist immigration advice, it should, as I said, be provided by a solicitor or adviser with the relevant competences.

I thank the JCHR for its letter, to which I shall be responding, and for its engagement in this matter. It highlighted several aspects of the Scottish model for consideration in England, as the noble Baroness noted, including provision of support in relation to the asylum and immigration process, support services and future planning, helping children to develop wider social networks, and ensuring that children’s views are heard in all proceedings that affect them. These are, indeed, very important, and that is why each of them is addressed in our new guidance. It is also why, where local practice is good, those aspects are already provided through the existing care system without recourse to the additional role of guardian for trafficked children. Of course, we take very seriously the letter that the JCHR has written and, as I said, I shall be writing in response.

There was quite an emphasis in Committee and, to some extent, in the discussions this evening on stability of care. We agree that these children need stability and continuity. The new statutory guidance would require local authorities to prioritise trafficked children so as to provide the greatest likelihood of their building a sustained relationship with their social worker. These are the most vulnerable children and they are precisely those for whom social workers must do most in providing understanding and support.

I have described here only a portion of our proposed new guidance, which covers a range of issues to ensure that trafficked children receive the right care and support. We would welcome suggestions from noble Lords on whether the guidance should include other issues. It is hugely important that we get the support for these children right, and we very much look forward to continuing discussions with noble Lords about how best to do that. We recently sent both the draft regulations and the guidance to noble Lords and they are available on our website. In particular, we would like to discuss with my noble friend Lord McColl, and with any other noble Lord who might wish to join in, the opportunities offered by the regulations. I am delighted that we have in the diary a meeting with my noble friend Lord McColl later this week. Our discussions are clearly very important for this group of children.

When officials shared the drafts of the guidance with representatives of the Children’s Society, the Refugee Council, and Children and Families Across Borders, they all found much to welcome in the guidance. I hope that noble Lords will find the same when they read the drafts and that they provide a sound basis for further discussion when we meet shortly. I therefore hope that my noble friend will be willing to withdraw his amendment.

[Baroness Butler-Sloss]

I wonder if I could ask the noble Baroness what she meant by regulations. She has been talking about statutory guidance, but she also said regulations. Does she mean statutory instruments?

[Baroness Northover]

From authorities far higher than me, the answer seems to be yes—regulations.

[Baroness Royall of Blaisdon]

Could the noble Baroness also confirm that discussions or consultations about the guidance have taken place with Children and Families Across Borders, because I understand that they were not terribly happy about the discussions that they had been having with the Government on this issue, and that as an organisation they have been passed from pillar to post? I would like confirmation that they have been properly consulted on their views.

[Baroness Northover]

My understanding is that they have indeed been consulted, and that consultation will no doubt continue, because it is extremely important that we get this right. The noble Baroness is right to highlight it. I will of course look into this further, and if they have got concerns we invite them to engage with us, because all of us want to get this right.

[Lord McColl of Dulwich]

My Lords, I thank everyone who has taken part in this debate, especially the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, and everyone else who has been working on this subject. I am afraid the response is very disappointing indeed, and it does very little to help these poor trafficked children. The guidance does not provide for a child trafficking guardian, and I would therefore like to test the opinion of the House.

20:31

Division 2

Ayes: 130

---

Labour: 99
Crossbench: 19
Independent: 3
Bishops: 2
Liberal Democrat: 2
Conservative: 2
Democratic Unionist Party: 1

Noes: 145

---

Conservative: 98
Liberal Democrat: 40
Crossbench: 3
Independent: 2

[Baroness Northover]

My Lords, we are looking forward to discussing this further with my noble friend Lord McColl and with other noble Lords.

Consideration on Report adjourned.

Financial Services (Banking Reform) Bill

Monday 9th December 2013 Lords Chamber

Third Reading

20:44

Clause 8: Independent review of operation of legislation relating to ring-fencing

Amendment 1

Moved by

[Lord Deighton]

1: Clause 8, page 24, line 23, leave out “4” and insert “2”

[The Commercial Secretary to the Treasury (Lord Deighton) (Con)]

My Lords, this amendment brings forward the timetable of the independent review to be held of ring-fencing. As the House will recall, the Government previously amended the Bill to provide for an independent review of ring-fencing, once the ring-fence has come into force. Following the recommendation of the Parliamentary Commission on Banking Standards, our original amendment provided that the review be conducted no later than four years after the ring-fence had come into effect. This was to allow the ring-fence time to bed down before being reviewed.

The Government have, however, listened to arguments from the Opposition that the review should be held sooner. Two years is a long enough period over which to observe the operation of the ring-fence, and assess its effects. The knowledge that ring-fencing will soon be reviewed may also be a further encouragement to banks to comply faithfully with the ring-fence.

This amendment therefore requires that the independent review of the ring-fence be held within two years of the ring-fencing taking effect, rather than four years. This is a sensible change and one that we hope illustrates the Government’s constructive approach to reasonable suggestions from all sides.

[Lord Eatwell (Lab)]

My Lords, everyone in the House has from time to time expressed the view that this is a great experiment. We are not quite sure how the ring-fence will work and therefore it is appropriate that that it be monitored promptly and on a regular basis. I think this is a very sensible amendment—I would do, since I moved a version of it earlier—and I urge the House to support the Government.

[Lord Lawson of Blaby (Con)]

My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lord Deighton for putting forward this amendment. As he said, it is something which the banking commission, of which I had the honour to be a member, has been calling for. It is extremely welcome and it is very good that he has acceded to it. As the noble Lord, Lord Eatwell, said, the whole idea of ring-fencing is something of an experiment. We do not know whether it is going to work and therefore it is necessary that after an appropriate time it should be thoroughly investigated to see whether it is working satisfactorily and, if it is not, to have a move to full separation.

We know for certain that full separation works; indeed, separation was the norm in this country for most of our lifetimes. It is only during the past 25 years that there has not been separation. In the old days, there were the so-called joint stock banks, which were to do with the commercial banks and did retail lending and lending to small businesses, which are now known as SMEs, and there was a completely different group called the merchant banks, which were different people and institutions. For a long time, most of them were partnerships and had a different set-up altogether. They did what is now known as investment banking and it worked extremely well. We know that separation can work but we do not know whether this idea can work, so it is right that there should be a review.

While commending the Government, and in particular my noble friend, for introducing this, I hope that it will not be necessary. That is not because the ring-fence will, as it were, be found to work. I have grave doubts about that if it persists. However, there must be considerable doubt as to whether it will persist. Some noble Lords may have seen the interesting report in today’s Financial Times that the HSBC is thinking seriously of spinning off its UK retail and commercial banking enterprise as a separate company, with outside shareholders taking up to 30% in it. That is according to the Financial Times; we do not know, but there is a good reason for that. If the requirements of the ring-fence are really to be enforced toughly, they will make it so difficult, complicated, burdensome and onerous that many banks should, if they are rational, ask, “Is it actually worth staying together? Might it not be better for us”—the management—“and for our shareholders to separate and release increased shareholder value for that purpose?”. I hope that the institutional shareholders will also keep the banks up to the mark. That would be the happiest conclusion—that we will not even need the review because separation will happen of its own accord. However, just in case it does not we will need the review and I am grateful to my noble friend.

[Lord Turnbull (CB)]

My Lords, we should welcome this shortening of the period, particularly when one remembers that the clock for the new period does not start ticking until the transition to ring-fencing is complete—and that is a date in 2019. If we are adding four years to that, it will be 2023 before this review takes place; so even bringing it back to 2021 is to be welcomed.

Amendment 1 agreed.

Amendment 2

Moved by

[Lord Deighton]

2: After Clause 8, insert the following new Clause—
“PRA review of proprietary trading
(1) The PRA must carry out a review of proprietary trading engaged in (whether or not as a regulated activity) by relevant authorised persons, for the purpose of considering whether further restrictions on any kind of proprietary trading ought to be imposed.
(2) The review must begin before the end of the 12 months beginning with the first day on which section 142G of FSMA 2000 is fully in force.
(3) On completion of the review, the PRA must make a written report to the Treasury on—
(a) the extent to which relevant authorised persons engage in proprietary trading;(b) whether proprietary trading engaged in by relevant authorised persons gives rise to any risks to their safety and soundness;(c) whether any kinds of proprietary trading are particularly likely to give rise to such risks;(d) anything done by the PRA to minimise risks to the safety and soundness of relevant authorised persons arising from proprietary trading engaged in by them;(e) any difficulties encountered by the PRA in seeking to minimise such risks.(4) The report must include an assessment by the PRA of each of the following—
(a) whether the PRA’s powers under FSMA 2000 are, and might be expected to continue to be, sufficient to enable it to advance its objectives in relation to relevant authorised persons who engage in proprietary trading;(b) the effectiveness of restrictions imposed in countries or territories outside the United Kingdom on proprietary trading by banks (so far as experience in those countries or territories appears to the PRA to be of relevance to the United Kingdom). (5) The report must be made within 9 months of the beginning of the review.
(6) The Treasury must lay a copy of the report before Parliament.
(7) The PRA must publish the report in such manner as it thinks fit.
(8) The functions of the PRA under this section are to be taken for the purposes of FSMA 2000 to be functions under that Act.
(9) This section is to be read with the interpretative provisions in section (Reviews of proprietary trading: interpretation).”

[Lord Deighton]

My Lords, these amendments require the PRA to review proprietary trading by UK banks and PRA-regulated investment companies and prepare a report to the Treasury. That will be followed by an independent review of the issue. The PRA must consider in its report the extent to which regulated firms engage in proprietary trading. It will then have to assess whether that risks their safety and soundness.

As the Parliamentary Commission on Banking Standards showed, proprietary trading can take many forms. That is why we are requiring the PRA to look into what particular risks different forms of proprietary trading can pose to the safety of the firm.

To help to give a full picture to the Treasury and to Parliament, the PRA must also report on steps it has taken to deal with risks from proprietary trading and whether it encountered any difficulties when it tried to tackle those risks. Building on that, the PRA must then give an assessment of whether it believes the tools it has to tackle proprietary trading are appropriate, given the risks that may exist at that time and in future. It must also consider whether restrictions imposed on proprietary trading in other countries have been effective. The experience of the United States in relation to the Volcker rule, which banned proprietary trading by banks, will be particularly relevant.

That review will take place within a year of the ring-fence coming into force. The Government have committed to ring-fencing being implemented in 2019, so this will take place in 2020. In Committee, there was some discussion about the appropriate timing of the review. The Government returned to the original PCBS recommendation, which said that the review must include,

“an assessment of the impact of the ring-fencing rules on proprietary trading by banks”.

To do that, the ring-fence must be in place for at least some time to consider such issues. While the ring-fence and proprietary trading are in many ways distinct issues, they will of course interact. Therefore we think it is right to allow the PRA to consider the impact of risks from proprietary trading on ring-fenced banks and whether the safeguards in place are sufficient for the particular requirements for the safety of ring-fenced banks. I know that members of the PCBS have been very concerned about that in the past, and I want to make sure that this review looks at this important area.

Following the PRA’s report to the Treasury and to Parliament, the Treasury will set up an independent review panel. The first task for that panel will be to consider the evidence that the PRA gathered and come to a view on its findings. It will then have to make recommendations about whether future measures to deal with risks from proprietary trading are necessary. The independent review will be able to make any recommendations in relation to proprietary trading that it considers appropriate. It will not be constrained, and like the PRA review, will be able to consider the experience other countries have had with restrictions on proprietary trading, such as in the US with the Volcker rule. By the time of the review, I imagine that a wealth of information and views will be available to help the independent panel come to its conclusions. The independent review panel must make its recommendations in a report to the Treasury and to Parliament.

As I have said previously, the PCBS heard in evidence that proprietary trading does not currently pose a large risk for the UK financial system, but it can do little harm to keep this area under review, should risks emerge in the future.

As noble Lords have seen when we debated other parts of the Bill, and, indeed, through this Government’s willingness to set up and listen to the ICB in the first place, we are in favour of independent reviews. Therefore we are persuaded that proprietary trading is an area where an independent review in future can add value. These reports will give a future Parliament all the information it needs to assess whether future safeguards are necessary. I beg to move.

[Lord Lawson of Blaby]

My Lords, once again I would like to thank the Government and, in particular, my noble friend Lord Deighton, for moving this amendment. It is in response to a strong recommendation that was encapsulated in a specific report on this subject among the five reports from the Parliamentary Commission on Banking Standards.

Just as in the previous amendment, which concerned the review of the ring-fence, initially the Government were prepared to look at it only from the point of view of whether an individual banking institution had been gaming the ring-fence. They have now agreed to look at the system as a whole, and I am grateful for that. Again, initially the Government said, “No way should there by a review of proprietary trading”, but they have now come round to saying, “Yes, the parliamentary commission was right and there should be a review”. I am extremely grateful to my noble friend for that. He said that there is no risk at the moment. That is because proprietary trading has, for the time being, stopped to all intents and purposes. Yet at its peak it was for many banks up to 30% of their total business. One must imagine that that is quite likely to occur again in future. I do not know whether it will but it is clearly possible. But if I might say so to my noble friend, it is not simply a question of risk—although risk is obviously an important factor.

There was an important debate on Thursday last week on the five reports of the Parliamentary Commission on Banking Standards. Unfortunately, I was unable to attend but I read the Hansard report. It was introduced by a magisterial speech by the most reverend Primate the Archbishop of Canterbury and there were a number of good speeches—it read very well. In particular, I was impressed by the speech by my noble friend Lord Deighton, in which he gave us a little autobiographical counter. He spoke a little bit about his own experience as a banker. One thing I noted in particular. He said he was always conscious of the importance in banking of, “putting the customer first”. That is a very important aspect of banking culture. Indeed, banking culture was one of the most important things that the parliamentary commission was set up to look into.

However, in proprietary trading there is of course no question of putting the customer first—because there is no customer. It is the bank trading on its own behalf. That involves a totally different culture and mindset. If you want to preserve in banking—as I think we should—the culture that my noble friend believes in, as he said on Thursday, then you should ban proprietary trading by banks altogether. It is fine for hedge funds. It is an excellent activity for them and they can do it very well. I am not suggesting that it should be made an illegal activity, but banks should not do it. Most of us on the commission—though clearly not all—came to that conclusion. We called for a review because we were unsure about the practicalities. There is some difficulty in defining the sort of proprietary trading that should be banned for banks because there is a need for market-making. The line between market-making and proprietary trading is very clear in the minds of those doing it, but whether it is clear in law is another matter. We thought it useful to look at the American experience.

Finally on this, I say to my noble friend that we should look at the American experience but not too much at the American legislation. The complexity and detail of the American legislation was simply appalling. It is a problem across the legislative system that they have in the United States. My noble friend quite rightly referred to the Volcker rule because Paul Volcker insists that there should be a ban—for cultural reasons, above all. He also told us, when he gave evidence to the commission, that the legislation introduced in Congress was certainly not the sort he had in mind.

Having said that, I wish the Government well in this. It will be an important review, for the reasons that I have outlined. I commend the Government for repenting, if slightly belatedly—but as the right reverend Prelates on the Bishops’ Benches will know, better “the sinner that repenteth”, et cetera. Thank you very much.

20:59

[Lord Higgins (Con)]

My Lords, I thought the noble Lord, Lord Turnbull, was going to come in. I welcome these clauses, although these four new clauses add even greater length to the Bill in addition to the amendments that have been made. The rate at which this Bill has been growing has been quite extraordinary, and we shall have to wait and see how it ends up. I remain rather concerned at the way in which drafting has taken place. My noble friend might consider whether it would be appropriate to have some form of consolidation Act bringing together this and previous legislation. If the legislation is to be understood by bankers, or indeed by anyone, it will be necessary to correlate the various provisions which will exist after we have completed our debate. We have four new clauses at Third Reading, which is subject to tight rules.

I have merely one or two points. I am glad the ideas put forward by Mr Paul Volcker in the context of proprietary trading have been recognised as important. I have had many interesting exchanges with him, both as a Minister and as chairman of the Treasury Select Committee, and indeed in relation to the Claims Resolution Tribunal for Dormant Accounts in Switzerland, a quite different thing. He has been wise in all that he has said, but the problem is putting wise ideas into legislation.

As my noble friend has just said, if the Financial Times in the past few days is anything to go by the American legislation is going to be over 1,000 pages, while over here we are going to have a review and then a review of the review. This is going to take some time. Meanwhile the American legislation may be in place. What are we doing to co-ordinate the approach? This is an international matter. There are British banks operating in America and American banks that operate here. It would create considerable difficulties were the rules in one country to differ significantly from those in the other. A degree of international co-operation as soon as possible will be important if, as we all want, we are to ensure that proprietary trading does not carry both the risk to which my noble friend Lord Lawson referred and dangers in general to the banking system.

[Lord Phillips of Sudbury (LD)]

My Lords, I ask whether the independent review under Amendment 3 is on the same basis as the review carried out by the PRA under Amendment 2. Amendment 2 specifically refers to the risk factors that proprietary trading embraces, but there is no reference to that in Amendment 3 with regard to the independent review of proprietary trading. Is the second, independent review to be undertaken on a wider basis than the PRA review? Will it be able to look at some of the broader cultural aspects of proprietary trading by banks? I hope that question is not too late in the day for the Minister.

[Lord Deighton]

I thank noble Lords for those questions. In response to my noble friend Lord Higgins, with respect to proprietary trading and international collaboration and co-operation, that is the approach that we shall be espousing. On consolidation, this is structured so as to be integrated into existing legislation, thereby ending up with a consolidated result.

With respect to the question of my noble friend Lord Phillips, I confirm that the independent review of proprietary trading will not be constrained in what it can examine.

Amendment 2 agreed.

Amendments 3 and 4

Moved by

[Lord Deighton]

3: After Clause 8, insert the following new Clause—
“Independent review of proprietary trading
(1) The Treasury must, after receiving the report of the PRA under section (PRA review of proprietary trading) but before the end of the initial period, appoint one or more persons (“the review panel”) to carry out a review of proprietary trading engaged in (whether or not as a regulated activity) by relevant authorised persons.
(2) The initial period is the period of 2 years beginning with the first day on which section 142G of FSMA 2000 is fully in force.
(3) The members of the review panel must be persons—
(a) who appear to the Treasury to be independent of the PRA, the FCA, the Bank of England and the Treasury, and (b) who do not appear to the Treasury to have any financial or other interests that could reasonably be regarded as affecting their suitability to serve as members of the review panel.(4) In appointing the members of the review panel, the Treasury must have regard to the need to ensure that the review panel (considered as a whole) has the necessary experience to undertake the review.
(5) Before appointing the members of the review panel, the Treasury must consult the chair of the Treasury Committee of the House of Commons.
(6) The reference in subsection (5) to the Treasury Committee of the House of Commons—
(a) if the name of that Committee is changed, is a reference to that Committee by its new name, and(b) if the functions of that Committee (or substantially corresponding functions) become functions of a different Committee of the House of Commons, is to be treated as a reference to the Committee by which the functions are exercisable;and any question arising under paragraph (a) or (b) is to be determined by the Speaker of the House of Commons.(7) If the review panel consists of two or more members, the Treasury must appoint one of them to be the chair of the panel.
(8) The review panel must, within a reasonable time after the end of the initial period, make a written report to the Treasury—
(a) stating whether the panel agrees with the conclusions reached by the PRA in its report under section (PRA review of proprietary trading),(b) stating whether the panel recommends any further restrictions on any kind of proprietary trading in relation to relevant authorised persons, and(c) making such other recommendations as the panel thinks fit.(9) The Treasury must—
(a) lay a copy of the report before Parliament, and(b) publish the report in such manner as they think fit.(10) Any expenses reasonably incurred in the conduct of the review are to be paid by the Treasury out of money provided by Parliament.
(11) This section is to be read with the interpretative provisions in section (Reviews of proprietary trading: interpretation).”

4: After Clause 8, insert the following new Clause—
“Reviews of proprietary trading: interpretation
(1) This section has effect for the interpretation of sections (PRA review of proprietary trading) and (Independent review of proprietary trading).
(2) A person engages in “proprietary trading” where the person trades in commodities or financial instruments as principal.
(3) In subsection (2)—
(a) “commodity” includes any produce of agriculture, forestry or fisheries, or any mineral, either in its natural state or having undergone only such processes as are necessary or customary to prepare the produce or mineral for the market;(b) “financial instrument” includes anything specified in Section C of Annex I to Directive 2004/39/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 April 2004 on markets in financial instruments.(4) “Relevant authorised person” means a PRA-authorised person which—
(a) is a UK institution,(b) meets condition A or B, and(c) is not an insurer.(5) Condition A is that the UK institution has permission under Part 4A of FSMA 2000 to carry on the regulated activity of accepting deposits.
(6) Condition B is that—
(a) the institution is for the purposes of FSMA 2000 an investment firm (see section 424A of that Act),(b) it has permission under Part 4A to carry on the regulated activity of dealing in investments as principal, and(c) when carried on by it, that activity is a PRA-regulated activity.(7) In subsections (4) to (6)—
(a) “UK institution” means an institution which is incorporated in, or formed under the law of any part of, the United Kingdom;(b) “insurer” means an institution which is authorised under FSMA 2000 to carry on the regulated activity of effecting or carrying out contracts of insurance as principal;(c) “PRA-authorised person” and “PRA-regulated activity” have the same meaning as in FSMA 2000.(8) Subsections (5), (6)(b) and (7)(b) are to be read in accordance with section 22 of FSMA 2000, taken with Schedule 2 to that Act and any order under that section.”

Amendments 3 and 4 agreed.

Clause 9: Right to obtain documents and information

Amendment 5

Moved by

[Lord Deighton]

5: Clause 9, page 25, line 18, at end insert “or (Independent review of proprietary trading)”

Amendment 5 agreed.

Clause 14: Bail-in stabilisation option

Amendment 6

Moved by

[Lord Deighton]

6: Clause 14, page 27, line 37, leave out from “particular” to “any” in line 38 and insert—
“(a) enable the Bank of England, for the purpose of enabling it to exercise in relation to the business of a building society any of the powers exercisable as a result of the amendments made by this Part—(i) to convert the building society into a company, or(ii) to transfer the business of the building society to a company which immediately before the transfer is owned by the Bank or by a person of a description specified in the order;(b) enable the Bank of England, in connection with the exercise of a power conferred by virtue of paragraph (a), to cancel membership rights or shares in the building society;(c) provide for any power exercisable as a result of the amendments made by this Part to be exercisable in relation to the company—(i) into which the building society is converted, or(ii) to which the business of the building society is transferred;(d) enable the Bank of England, in a case where it has transferred the business of a building society by virtue of paragraph (a)(ii), to dissolve the building society at any time after the transfer;(e) confer functions on the Treasury, the Bank of England, the FCA, the PRA or a bail-in administrator;(f) make further amendments of Part 1 of the Banking Act 2009;(g) amend or modify the effect of the Building Societies Act 1986 or”

[Lord Deighton]

My Lords, the amendments in this group are minor and technical amendments to Clause 14 and Schedule 2 that will help to ensure that the bail-in powers can be used as intended in order to deal effectively with the failure of a financial institution.

First, they clarify the scope of the Treasury’s power to make an order applying the bail-in provisions to building societies. Since introducing this clause, we have had the opportunity to consider further what provisions may be necessary and are therefore in a position to specify this in the Bill.

Moving to Schedule 2, minor amendments are made to new Section 44B. They permit supplemental property transfer instruments to make special bail-in provision. This is consistent with the situation for resolution instruments and will further assist in combining bail-in with the bridge bank stabilisation option. They amend new Section 48R which, without this amendment, applies only to resolution instruments that do not transfer securities. As special bail-in provision may relate to things that are not transferred, it is appropriate that the new Section 48R power applies irrespective of whether securities are transferred. By broadening the Section 48R power in this way, we can then remove the amendment to Section 21, which makes similar provision, as no longer necessary.

Paragraph 15 of Schedule 2 is amended to address situations where a resolution instrument does not transfer securities, such as shares. Paragraph 15 amends the power to make continuity provision conferred by Section 18 of the Banking Act. This change will allow, for example, supplemental resolution instruments which do not transfer securities to make ancillary provision relating to an earlier transfer of securities. There are also some minor amendments to the compensation provisions.

Where bail-in is combined with the bridge bank stabilisation option, the Treasury needs to make a resolution fund order. Some minor amendments are made to Section 52 and new Section 60A to ensure that the compensation arrangements for special bail-in provision will work with full effect in this context. Minor amendments are also made to Section 53 to ensure that the Treasury may make compensation orders under Section 53 whenever any form of supplemental order or instrument is made to effect a stabilisation option. Finally, we have brought the compensation provisions for bail-in further into line with the other stabilisation options by making it optional for the Treasury to make a further compensation order following a supplemental resolution instrument. I commend these amendments to the House.

Amendment 6 agreed.

Amendments 7 and 8

Moved by

[Lord Deighton]

7: Clause 14, page 28, line 5, after first “section” insert—
““bail-in administrator” is to be read in accordance with section 12B of the Banking Act 2009 (as inserted by paragraph 2 of Schedule 2);”

8: Clause 14, page 28, line 6, at end insert—
““company” means a company as defined in section 1(1) of the Companies Act 2006 which is a public company limited by shares.”

Amendments 7 and 8 agreed.

Amendment 9

Moved by

[Lord Newby]

9: After Clause 18, insert the following new Clause—
“Vetting by relevant authorised persons of candidates for approval
After section 60 of FSMA 2000 insert—“60A Vetting of candidates by relevant authorised persons
(1) Before a relevant authorised person may make an application for a regulator’s approval under section 59, the authorised person must be satisfied that the person in respect of whom the application is made (“the candidate”) is a fit and proper person to perform the function to which the application relates.
(2) In deciding that question, the authorised person must have regard, in particular, to whether the candidate, or any person who may perform a function on the candidate’s behalf—
(a) has obtained a qualification,(b) has undergone, or is undergoing, training,(c) possesses a level of competence, or(d) has the personal characteristics,required by general rules made by the regulator in relation to persons performing functions of the kind to which the application relates.(3) For the meaning of “relevant authorised person”, see section 71A.””

[Lord Newby (LD)]

My Lords, these amendments do two things. First, and most obviously, they implement the changes that have been agreed with members of the Parliamentary Commission on Banking Standards to implement the commission’s recommendations for a licensing regime.

The Government’s amendments in Committee put in place the key element of those recommendations, the pivot on which the commission’s concept of a licensing regime rests, giving the regulators the ability to make rules for employees who were not senior managers, but commission members were concerned that the Government’s amendments did not give sufficient visibility or, as I put it, “full weight and impetus”, to the commission’s proposals and we undertook to bring forward amendments at this stage which will, as I said in Committee,

“put beyond doubt the determination which we all share to see real change in this area”.—[Official Report, 26/11/13; col. 1343.]

In brief, these amendments make explicit the requirement on banks to certify staff and enforce banking standards in the first instance. Amendment 12 delivers the commitment to require banks and PRA-regulated investment firms to verify that people are fit and proper before appointing them to functions in which they could do significant harm to the firm. It also requires firms to review that assessment annually. This gives effect to the commission’s recommendations in paragraph 634 of its final report. Indeed, the Government have gone further. Amendments 9 and 11 impose similar obligations on firms in respect of senior managers and other persons who have been approved by the regulators.

Amendment 12 also imposes the obligation on these institutions to issue certificates to persons performing functions in which they could cause significant harm to the firm to confirm that the fitness and properness checks have been carried out. As I explained on Report, it would not be appropriate to describe these documents as licences—the commission’s preferred term—but it is quite in order to call them certificates and they fulfil the same function. The amendment also imposes obligations on banks and PRA-regulated investment firms to maintain records of persons who have been issued with certificates. It is not, of course, necessary to require firms to keep lists of senior managers as their appointments will have been approved by the regulators and they are included in the financial services register kept by the FCA.

Amendment 14 requires banks and PRA-regulated investment firms to notify the regulators of disciplinary action that they take against any of their staff, not just senior managers and persons who have been issued certificates. I can assure the House that notifiable disciplinary actions will not include verbal ticking-off, for example, for turning up late to work. Only formal disciplinary action, such as a written warning, need be notified and only if it is for reasons specified by the regulators in their rules. This gives the regulators the ability to check up on how firms are policing the conduct of individuals and it delivers on the recommendations in paragraph 642 of the commission’s report.

Amendment 13 requires banks and PRA-regulated investment firms to notify individuals that banking standards rules apply to them. This delivers on recommendations in paragraph 643 of the commission’s report. Amendment 13 also requires banks and PRA-regulated investment firms to ensure that the individuals concerned understand their obligations under banking standards rules. This includes by providing suitable training. Amendments 9 and 12 also provide that, in checking that someone is fit and proper, firms must have regard to whether someone has a qualification or has undergone training prescribed by the regulator in its rules.

As your Lordships would expect, the Government will seek to ensure that Clause 15 is removed when the Bill returns to the other place. The amendments I have just explained do, however, deliver what the parliamentary commission recommended and, indeed, go further in some places. Clause 15 would simply not deliver what the commission recommended, or anything like it. As we will explain in the other place, there are a number of areas in which Clause 15 is incompatible with the recommendations of the PCBS. First, it would retain but re-label the approved persons regime, which the PCBS sought as far as possible to remove. Secondly, it would impose on the regulator an obligation to check fit and properness annually, while the PCBS emphasised that it should be the bank, first and foremost, that took responsibility for maintaining standards. However, I hope the noble Lord, Lord Eatwell, will feel that the inclusion of material on training and professional qualifications in Amendments 9, 12 and 13 clearly shows that his underlying concerns on those points have been met.

Finally, I turn to Amendments 17, 18 and 25. These amendments were tabled to address an essentially consequential issue which arose from the other amendments. Branches of foreign banks and investment firms operate in London. Often international banks will have both branches and subsidiaries. A branch is not a separate legal entity unlike a subsidiary company. However, it is likely that there will be staff working in branches in the UK who should be covered by the senior managers regime or the certification regime and so be subject to banking standards rules. Amendments 17 and 18 therefore give the Treasury the power to extend the senior managers, certification and banking standards regime to the UK branches of foreign banks and investment firms by order, after undertaking appropriate consultation. This will mean that branches and subsidiaries can be treated identically. Amendment 25 ensures that the order can be made only if approved by both Houses under the affirmative procedure so any such order will benefit from proper parliamentary scrutiny.

The amendments here complete the implementation of the parliamentary commission’s recommendations for what it called a licensing regime. They provide a comprehensive regime for raising standards of conduct in banking and demonstrate our determination to see that change really does happen. I beg to move.

21:14

[Lord Turnbull (CB)]

My Lords, the PCBS always envisaged a two-tier system, one for senior persons where prior registration would be required, and the other for staff below that who are not senior persons but who are nevertheless capable of inflicting damage to the bank, its customers or its shareholders. We felt that the original provisions made for the upper tier were broadly okay, although there were one or two refinements about what a bank is. However, we thought that the provision made for the second tier was too vague. I therefore welcome these amendments, which bring much greater focus to who is covered and what the obligations are.

There are two loose ends in this, which do not need to be concluded this evening. The first is that there are a number of functions in banks for which the APP—the approved persons regime—will be retained, namely the submitters of LIBOR numbers and those who have responsibility for money-laundering. It might be worth considering at some point whether instead of having three schemes for banks—the two new ones and the old one—they can all be consolidated. Finally, there is also the question of whether, in the fullness of time, a decision needs to be made on whether to continue with the old approved persons regime, with all the faults that we identified, in the rest of the financial services sector.

[Lord Flight (Con)]

My Lords, first, I declare an interest as a commissioner of the Guernsey Financial Services Commission. I will raise an issue which relates, as far as possible, to the territory being addressed right now: what will be the position of the banks in Crown dependencies of the UK under the new arrangements for ring-fenced banks? I have made inquiries of the Financial Secretary and got an answer. However, I have some reservations that the answer will not work very well. An issue analogous to the comment about foreign banks in London is that most of the banks in the Crown dependencies are not branches but subsidiaries. The proposal is for branches to be within the ring-fence and not subsidiaries. However, there is little incentive for banks to convert from subsidiaries to branches to come within the ring-fence. At the heart of this is an issue of UK interest in that those banks mostly effectively gather deposits that are lent to London, and are in some senses merely a legal fiction. Therefore if they will be within the ring-fence and will all have to convert to being branches, there is a strong practical case for including them within the UK deposit insurance scheme. If not, the banks in the Crown dependencies will stay as subsidiaries in the main, they will be outside the ring-fence, and there will be a decline in the deposits they upstream to the UK partly for regulatory reasons and partly because they will not be a subsidiary of the ring-fenced entity. I ask the Minister to think again about the precise arrangements regarding ring-fencing for the Crown dependencies.

[Lord Brennan (Lab)]

My Lords, the present amendments fortify Part 4 by creating a comprehensive structure for conduct, standards, licensing and so on. Third Reading is an appropriate time for the Minister to clarify how in this structure directors, including the chairman of a bank, bear responsibility for the fulfilment of Part 4 as regards conduct and standards. Amendment 9 talks about:

“Vetting by relevant authorised persons of candidates for approval”.

The relevant authorised person is the bank. The bank ultimately sets its standards at directorial level, and directors carry a responsibility for it under statute and common law. Therefore I invite the Minister to clarify what, under this system, is the position of the directors and the chairman in terms of the enforcement of this framework for good standards.

[Lord Eatwell]

My Lords, I am glad to see that the introduction of Clause 15 on Report has at last seen the Government take the recommendations of the Parliamentary Commission on Banking Standards seriously in this matter and introduce these amendments that capture most, though not all, of the recommendations. What we have left, as the noble Lord, Lord Turnbull, has pointed out, is something of a tripartite muddle because we now have three different regimes affecting persons working within banks. I am afraid that this is characteristic of so many parts of this Bill and will need to be sorted out in future.

I would like to ask some questions about Clause 17 which, as was pointed out, brings branches into part of this aspect of regulation. As the House will be aware, in recent months the Prime Minister has significantly weakened Britain’s regulatory protections of its banking system by encouraging the establishment of branches in this country. Previously, the regulatory authorities had strongly discouraged this because they are not then regulated by British regulators but by their home regulator. The Prime Minister has chosen to weaken this protection particularly by encouraging the establishment of Chinese branch banks, which will be regulated by the Chinese authorities.

However, what is particularly interesting about Clause 17 is that it brings some branches possibly within some British regulatory ambit. I say possibly because according to this clause the Treasury may by order provide that authorised persons falling within any of the descriptions are relevant authorised persons. Relevant authorised persons, for those who have not participated in these debates before, are actually banks. The Treasury can choose which branches will be brought into the ambit. It is enormously important that the branches should be. The noble Lord, Lord Newby, was absolutely right in this respect. I hope the Prime Minister will not undermine this legislation by instructing the Treasury to exclude particular branches, perhaps those emanating from Chinese banks, from this regulation.

[Lord Newby]

My Lords, I am very grateful to noble Lords for the general welcome that they have given these provisions. I have some sympathy with the noble Lord, Lord Turnbull, and the tripartite system of regulation which we now find ourselves with but the approved persons regime is still needed, in our view, not least for people responsible for money-laundering. At some point we may want to see whether it is possible to rationalise all these provisions but I do not think at this stage it would be sensible to attempt it.

The noble Lord, Lord Flight, asked about banks in Crown dependencies and referred to the discussions that he had with the Financial Secretary on this. I will take his concerns back to the Financial Secretary and ensure that we bring some clarity to these discussions so that people in the Crown dependencies and banks can be clear of their position.

The noble Lord, Lord Brennan, asked about the role of directors and responsibility for the enforcement of the standard. One of the key things we are trying to achieve here is to put the responsibility on the banks to ensure that their staff on appointment have and continue to follow adequate standards. The alternative is to say to the regulator, “You have a look at all these people and make sure that they are behaving in a responsible way and have the appropriate qualifications”. We believe that the banks should not be able to duck out of that and that it is for directors and the board to ensure that they follow the rules and do not hide behind the regulator.

The noble Lord, Lord Eatwell, asked whether it would be possible for the Treasury to choose certain categories of branches and treat them in a different way from other categories: in other words, whether it would be possible to deal with Chinese banks in a different way. Your Lordships’ House has spent many a happy hour discussing the meaning of “may”. My belief and understanding is that in the situation we are discussing “may” means that the regulators will adopt rules in respect of branches and will treat all branches equally.

[Lord Eatwell]

That is very helpful, but will the noble Lord therefore explain why proposed new Subsection (3B) begins with the word “If” rather than “When”?

[Lord Newby]

I think that is consequential on using “may”.

Amendment 9 agreed.

Amendments 10 to 12

Moved by

[Lord Deighton]

10: After Clause 18, insert the following new Clause—
“Determination of applications for approval
In section 61 of FSMA 2000 (determination of applications), in subsection (2)—(a) omit the “or” at the end of paragraph (b), and(b) after paragraph (c) insert “or(d) has the personal characteristics,”.”

11: After Clause 20, insert the following new Clause—
“Duty to notify regulator of grounds for withdrawal of approval
In section 63 of FSMA 2000 (withdrawal of approval), after subsection (2) insert—“(2A) At least once a year each relevant authorised person must, in relation to every person in relation to whom an approval has been given on the application of the authorised person—
(a) consider whether there are any grounds on which a regulator could withdraw the approval under this section, and(b) if the authorised person is of the opinion that there are such grounds, notify the regulator of those grounds.(For the meaning of “relevant authorised person”, see section 71A.)””

12: After Clause 23, insert the following new Clause—
“Certification of employees by relevant authorised persons
After section 63D of FSMA 2000 insert—“Certification of employees63E Certification of employees by relevant authorised persons
(1) A relevant authorised person (“A”) must take reasonable care to ensure that no employee of A performs a specified function under an arrangement entered into by A in relation to the carrying on by A of a regulated activity, unless the employee has a valid certificate issued by A under section 63F.
(2) “Specified function”—
(a) in relation to the carrying on of a regulated activity by a PRA-authorised person, means a function of a description specified in rules made by the FCA or the PRA, and(b) in relation to the carrying on of a regulated activity by any other authorised person, means a function of a description specified in rules made by the FCA.(3) The FCA may specify a description of function under subsection (2)(a) or (b) only if, in relation to the carrying on of a regulated activity by a relevant authorised person of a particular description—
(a) the function is not a controlled function in relation to the carrying on of that activity by a relevant authorised person of that description, but(b) the FCA is satisfied that the function is nevertheless a significant-harm function.(4) The PRA may specify a description of function under subsection (2)(a) only if, in relation to the carrying on of a regulated activity by a relevant PRA-authorised person of a particular description—
(a) the function is not a controlled function in relation to the carrying on of that activity by a relevant PRA-authorised person of that description, but(b) the PRA is satisfied that the function is nevertheless a significant-harm function.(5) A function is a “significant-harm function”, in relation to the carrying on of a regulated activity by an authorised person, if—
(a) the function will require the person performing it to be involved in one or more aspects of the authorised person’s affairs, so far as relating to the activity, and(b) those aspects involve, or might involve, a risk of significant harm to the authorised person or any of its customers.(6) Each regulator must—
(a) keep under review the exercise of its power under subsection (2) to specify any significant-harm function as a specified function, and (b) exercise that power in a way that it considers will minimise the risk of employees of relevant authorised persons performing significant-harm functions which they are not fit and proper persons to perform.(7) Subsection (1) does not apply to an arrangement which allows an employee to perform a function if the question of whether the employee is a fit and proper person to perform the function is reserved under any of the single market directives or the emission allowance auctioning regulation to an authority in a country or territory outside the United Kingdom.
(8) In this section—
“controlled function” has the meaning given by section 59(3);
“customer”, in relation to an authorised person, means a person who is using, or who is or may be contemplating using, any of the services provided by the authorised person;
“relevant PRA-authorised person” means a PRA-authorised person that is a relevant authorised person.
(9) In this section any reference to an employee of a person (“A”) includes a reference to a person who—
(a) personally provides, or is under an obligation personally to provide, services to A under an arrangement made between A and the person providing the services or another person, and(b) is subject to (or to the right of) supervision, direction or control by A as to the manner in which those services are provided.(10) For the meaning of “relevant authorised person”, see section 71A.
63F Issuing of certificates
(1) A relevant authorised person may issue a certificate to a person under this section only if the authorised person is satisfied that the person is a fit and proper person to perform the function to which the certificate relates.
(2) In deciding whether the person is a fit and proper person to perform the function, the relevant authorised person must have regard, in particular, to whether the person—
(a) has obtained a qualification,(b) has undergone, or is undergoing, training,(c) possesses a level of competence, or(d) has the personal characteristics,required by general rules made by the appropriate regulator in relation to employees performing functions of that kind.(3) In subsection (2) “the appropriate regulator” means—
(a) in relation to employees of PRA-authorised persons, the FCA or the PRA, and(b) in relation to employees of any other authorised person, the FCA.(4) A certificate issued by a relevant authorised person to a person under this section must—
(a) state that the authorised person is satisfied that the person is a fit and proper person to perform the function to which the certificate relates, and(b) set out the aspects of the affairs of the authorised person in which the person will be involved in performing the function.(5) A certificate issued under this section is valid for a period of 12 months beginning with the day on which it is issued.
(6) If, after having considered whether a person is a fit and proper person to perform a specified function, a relevant authorised person decides not to issue a certificate to the person under this section, the authorised person must give the person a notice in writing stating—
(a) what steps (if any) the authorised person proposes to take in relation to the person as a result of the decision, and(b) the reasons for proposing to take those steps. (7) A relevant authorised person must maintain a record of every employee who has a valid certificate issued by it under this section.
(8) Expressions used in this section and in section 63E have the same meaning in this section as they have in that section.””

Amendments 10 to 12 agreed.

Clause 24: Rules of conduct

Amendments 13 and 14

Moved by

[Lord Deighton]

13: Clause 24, page 37, line 45, at end insert—
“64B Rules of conduct: responsibilities of relevant authorised persons
(1) This section applies where a regulator makes rules under section 64A (“conduct rules”).
(2) Every relevant authorised person must—
(a) notify all relevant persons of the conduct rules that apply in relation to them, and(b) take all reasonable steps to secure that those persons understand how those rules apply in relation to them.(3) The steps which a relevant authorised person must take to comply with subsection (2)(b) include, in particular, the provision of suitable training.
(4) In this section “relevant person”, in relation to an authorised person, means—
(a) any person in relation to whom an approval is given under section 59 on the application of the authorised person, and(b) any employee of the authorised person.(5) If a relevant authorised person knows or suspects that a relevant person has failed to comply with any conduct rules, the authorised person must notify the regulator of that fact.
(6) In this section “employee”, in relation to an authorised person, has the same meaning as in section 64A.
(7) For the meaning of “relevant authorised person”, see section 71A.””

14: After Clause 24, insert the following new Clause—
“Requirement to notify regulator of disciplinary action
After section 64B of FSMA 2000 (inserted by section above) insert—

24
“64C Requirement for relevant authorised persons to notify regulator of disciplinary action
(1) If—
(a) a relevant authorised person takes disciplinary action in relation to a relevant person, and(b) the reason, or one of the reasons, for taking that action is a reason specified in rules made by the appropriate regulator for the purposes of this section,the relevant authorised person must notify that regulator of that fact.(2) “Disciplinary action”, in relation to a person, means any of the following—
(a) the issuing of a formal written warning; (b) the suspension or dismissal of the person;(c) the reduction or recovery of any of the person’s remuneration.(3) “The appropriate regulator” means—
(a) in relation to relevant authorised persons that are PRA-authorised persons, the FCA or the PRA;(b) in relation to any other relevant authorised persons, the FCA.(4) “Relevant person” has the same meaning as in section 64B.
(5) For the meaning of “relevant authorised person”, see section 71A.””

Amendments 13 and 14 agreed.

Clause 25: Definition of “misconduct”

Amendments 15 and 16

Moved by

[Lord Deighton]

15: Clause 25, page 39, line 38, leave out “authorised” and insert “PRA-authorised”

16: Clause 25, page 40, line 11, leave out “authorised” and insert “PRA-authorised”

Amendments 15 and 16 agreed.

Clause 26: Meaning of “relevant authorised person”

Amendments 17 and 18

Moved by

[Lord Deighton]

17: Clause 26, page 41, line 9, at end insert—
“(3A) The Treasury may by order provide that authorised persons falling within any of the following descriptions are “relevant authorised persons” for the purposes of this Part—
(a) non-UK institutions (or non-UK institutions of a specified description) that are credit institutions;(b) non-UK institutions that are investment firms of a specified description.“Specified” means specified in the order.(3B) If the Treasury propose to make an order under subsection (3A) they must consult—
(a) the FCA,(b) the PRA, (c) any organisations that appear to them to be representative of interests substantially affected by the proposals, and(d) any other persons that they consider appropriate.”

18: Clause 26, page 41, line 12, at end insert—
“( ) “non-UK institution” means an institution that is not a UK institution;( ) “credit institution” means any credit institution as defined in Article 4.1(1) of Regulation (EU) No 575/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council;”

Amendments 17 and 18 agreed.

Amendment 19

Moved by

[Lord Watson of Invergowrie]

19: After Clause 28, insert the following new Clause—
“Obligations relating to anti-money-laundering compliance: review
Within two weeks of the passing of this Act, the Chancellor of the Exchequer shall make a Written Statement to the House of Commons stating whether the provisions of this Act bind the Financial Conduct Authority to include anti-money-laundering compliance as one of the obligations covered under the new personal responsibility mechanisms created by the material the Act inserts into FSMA 2000 including, but not limited to, the senior management functions, Banking Standard Rules and Senior Persons Regime.”

[Lord Watson of Invergowrie (Lab)]

My Lords, my noble friends Lord Brennan and Lord McFall have tabled amendments on the issue of anti-money-laundering at previous stages of the Bill. It is with some regret that we feel we have to return to the issue as it has not been dealt with to our satisfaction or sufficiently seriously.

We accept that the coalition has acknowledged that it shares the view that this issue is of the utmost importance, and that it intends that the Bill should deal with it. However, in all its responses so far, I believe that it has failed to show that it has understood the crux of the matter and, in turn, has not amended the Bill appropriately. It is for this reason that my noble friend Lord Brennan and I have submitted this further amendment at Third Reading.

It is apt that, in preparing for the debate, I came across a press release of a court case held in London earlier today involving the imprisonment of a former Goldman Sachs banker who was sentenced to four and a half years for laundering £8 million on behalf of James Ibori, the former governor of Nigeria’s oil-producing state of Delta. Mr Ibori has himself been in prison since April of last year, having received a 13-year sentence after pleading guilty to various counts of fraud and money-laundering. He is the most senior Nigerian politician to have been held to account for the corruption that has blighted that large and very important African country. At the April 2012 court case, it was stated by the prosecutor, no less, that Ibori and his associates had used multiple accounts at Barclays, HSBC, Citibank and Abbey National—now part of Santander—to launder funds. Millions of pounds in total passed through these accounts, some of which were used to purchase expensive London property. The point is that there has been no investigation into those four organisations following that case, which leads me to ask your Lordships what disincentives there are for banks not to continue with their somewhat lax approach to some very large sums of money that are proffered to them. That is why it is important that we deal with this issue by inserting a provision in the Bill today, or at least when it returns to another place.

On Report, the noble Lord, Lord Newby, promised that the coalition Government would provide a commentary on the early amendments that my noble friends Lord Brennan and Lord McFall and I submitted, in order to explain both why they thought them unnecessary and how exactly the new personal responsibility mechanisms in the Bill would include anti-money-laundering compliance obligations. The noble Lord, Lord Deighton, wrote to my noble friend Lord Eatwell on 29 November, but I regret to inform noble Lords that his letter did not provide a satisfactory response.

21:30

The letter from the noble Lord, Lord Deighton, claimed that the amendments on Report would be counterproductive by requiring all junior staff involved in compliance to be covered by the senior persons regime, when in fact the opposite is the case. My noble friends and I sought the advice of independent counsel on this issue, which was reflected in a clearly worded amendment designed to ensure that the senior management of a bank can be held accountable for breaches of any bank’s anti-money-laundering obligations.

I urge the coalition to heed this advice and bring forward a new amendment in another place which reflects the debate in this House. I believe that failure to do so would mean that the buck for anti-money-laundering compliance could stop with the relatively junior post of money-laundering reporting officers. This is exactly the system that has been in place for many years and has clearly been found wanting. This is why we continue to raise the issue at this late stage of the Bill.

The Bill is in danger of implementing a groundbreaking and highly effective recommendation of the Parliamentary Commission on Banking Standards in a manner that could be singularly ineffective by merely maintaining the status quo. This should be avoided at all costs.

I should also say a little about the Government’s explanation of how the new personal responsibility mechanisms in the Bill will include anti-money-laundering compliance. Unfortunately, the letter from the noble Lord, Lord Deighton, also falls short in reassuring my noble friends and me in this respect. Instead, the argument appears to be that the note that the FCA provided on Report about anti-money-laundering, and the Treasury’s recent anti-money-laundering report outlining the approach and work of UK regulators, demonstrate that the FCA is fully committed to dealing with anti-money-laundering compliance issues.

However, this misses the point. Whether the FCA is or is not fully committed—and I am perfectly willing to give the benefit of the doubt on that—the fact remains that its attempts and that of its predecessor the FSA to enforce anti-money-laundering laws have been largely unsuccessful. In advancing that argument, I refer noble Lords to the FSA’s 2011 report, which found that in a review of banks, 75%—I repeat, 75%—of those banks were not meeting their anti-money-laundering obligations. That report also highlighted that banks were making the same mistakes as they did a decade earlier when the regulator reviewed the banks that had taken £900 million from the corrupt Nigerian dictator Sani Abacha.

The letter from the noble Lord, Lord Deighton, stated that the Treasury would raise my concerns with the FCA about the note. I welcome that. In this respect, I would also welcome reassurance that this will take the form of a statement from the Chancellor of the Exchequer two weeks after the Bill receives Royal Assent—or preferably earlier—clearly setting out that the FCA is bound both to require banks to identify a senior person as having responsibility for anti-money-laundering compliance and to include it in both the new banking standards rules and the remuneration code.

Such a statement is vital to be binding on the FCA to include anti-money-laundering compliance as one of the obligations. I beg to move.

[Lord Brennan]

My Lords, I support this amendment. The debate on anti-money-laundering that we have undertaken during the course of this Bill has led the Treasury and government Ministers to send colleagues and me a number of letters and documents. This was extremely courteous and informative—but legislatively useless. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Steyn, once described this kind of material as an exercise in investigating “legislative archaeology”, principally because it had no real significance. Neither do these letters. You cannot legislate by epistle; you do it by the text of the Bill.

Everyone accepts that money-laundering is a major issue. Today is International Anti-Corruption Day. It is also the anniversary of HSBC’s enormous fine for money-laundering imposed last year in the United States. The concern reflects the fact that in the developing world in particular there is a constant, never-ending haemorrhage back into the developed world and our banking system of money that should be going to the poor. Something should be done about it.

The explanation given thus far by the Government is that the FCA has the responsibility for dealing with money-laundering and it is for it to do so. On our side, we do not think that that is strong enough. If in today’s Amendments 2 and 3 the Government feel robust enough to say that the Treasury must take steps to review proprietary trading, why should it not tell the FCA that it must take steps, always and actively, to counter money-laundering. Why the diffidence? Why not put a plain statement before Parliament, now or through the amendment, that anti-money-laundering counts, that we are against it and that the FCA must ensure that banks deal with it.

[Lord McFall of Alcluith (Lab)]

My Lords, I support the amendment. In evidence from business people to the Treasury Committee and the parliamentary commission it was said that good and firm regulation is a competition issue. Given that we aspire for London to be maintained as a global centre for financial products, it is important to recognise that dirty money comes in and out. The example was given of HSBC. It acquired a Mexican bank in 2001 in America. From day one the board was told by the compliance officer that no decent compliance functions were available. Notwithstanding that, the situation continued for six or seven years in which drug money was laundered, people died in Mexico as a result, and HSBC was fined almost $4 billion by the US authorities. If that can happen to a UK-based bank, it can be happening elsewhere. It is important that we ensure that regulation in this country is firm.

Mention was made of General Abacha. In 2006 there was an investigation by the FSA that did not go anywhere because the regulator did not have authority. It is therefore important that in this legislation we underline the regulator’s authority. The regulator did not have authority because there was a tension—and there will still be a tension, despite the new architecture—between the financial stability of companies and conduct of business. If we are to make London an attractive global centre, we have to understand the elephant in the room—money-laundering. I am afraid that, if we do not give the regulator an express duty and authority on money-laundering, we could find the problems that happened with Nigeria in 2006 and elsewhere being replicated. That case has still not been investigated authoritatively enough. Having this anti-money-laundering element in the Bill would be extremely important, and I support the amendment.

[Lord Flight]

My Lords, perhaps I may make the point that I made last time this matter came up for debate—a point that is staring at us. The problem is with parts of the world where corruption, drugs and political corruption are rife. Much more demanding anti-money-laundering requirements are needed when accounts are opened for individuals or organisations from such parts of the world.

We already have a factfile that grades different countries around the world according to the extent of their corruption—so there is, if you like, a textbook. If those standards were required, it would, apart from anything else, discourage banks from potentially getting involved. Also, rather than imposing greater demands on everybody—I do not think anyone is suggesting that the average Mr and Mrs Brown from Dorking is engaged in money-laundering—much more demanding standards would be applied when dealing with organisations and individuals from parts of the world where there are the real money-laundering problems.

[Lord Deighton]

My Lords, I think that I can safely say that every Member of this House will agree with the noble Lords, Lord Brennan, Lord Watson of Invergowrie and Lord McFall of Alcluith, about the importance of the fight against money-laundering and other financial crime and about the importance of ensuring that the banks discharge their responsibilities in this area properly—absolutely no question. I hope therefore that the statement that I am making now will reassure them, more than my letters have done, that anti-money-laundering compliance in banks will be fully covered in the new senior managers regime. I can assure noble Lords that anti-money-laundering compliance in a bank will always ultimately fall within the responsibilities of a senior manager in that bank. The FCA will also have extensive powers to ensure that banks are clear about where these responsibilities lie.

First, under the new senior managers regime, the regulator will specify senior management functions in its rules. These will cover such roles as the chief executive and the finance director and may extend to any function that involves an individual managing aspects of a firm’s business that could have serious consequences for the firm or the wider economy. The total number of individuals covered by the new regime is likely to be smaller than those currently performing functions of significant influence in banks. In line with the recommendations of the PCBS, all the senior decision-takers—the most senior people in banks who take important decisions—will be covered by the senior managers regime.

Secondly, under the senior managers regime provisions that are now in the Bill, there will have to be statements of responsibility in respect of each senior manager. The banks will have to supply a statement with each application to the regulator for approval of the appointment of a new senior manager. The bank will have to update a statement whenever there is a significant change in a senior manager’s responsibilities. The regulators will also have the power to set out the form that the statements should take. They will also be able to require banks to verify the information in the statements in a way that they direct. As a result, the regulators will be able to tell who is responsible for anti-money-laundering compliance in a bank. They will also be able to detect any gaps in the responsibilities by comparing the statements of the senior managers in a bank. Senior management is always ultimately responsible for ensuring that the bank complies with all applicable legal requirements, including anti-money-laundering law. It is inconceivable that a senior manager will not be responsible in this area. Beneath senior management level there will, of course, be other staff involved in anti-money-laundering compliance work and these will include money-laundering reporting officers. In addition, the Government have deliberately retained the power for the regulator to pre-approve individuals performing key roles below senior management level, such as money-laundering reporting officers, even if those roles are not senior management functions. I am sure your Lordships would agree that this is a sensible measure.

We are also introducing, in line with the recommendations of the parliamentary commission, a certification and banking standards regime, applying to all employees of banks. As a result of those changes, the FCA will be able to set standards of conduct for all bank employees who may come into contact with money-laundering or other financial crime. Banks will have to certify annually that people performing particular functions are fit and proper to do them. These are roles in which an individual could do significant harm to the bank or its customers, such as trading or compliance roles or, of course, roles that involve preventing financial crime. The Government’s measures will ensure that senior managers in banks can be held to account for discharging their responsibilities in relation to anti-money-laundering compliance. The regulators will know who has those responsibilities and what those responsibilities are.

No one doubts the importance of the fight against money-laundering and financial crime. The Government’s reforms will ensure that banks and their senior managers will take their responsibilities in this area seriously and will start to discharge them properly. I hope therefore that, in the light of the assurances that I have given, the noble Lord, Lord Watson, will feel able to withdraw his amendment.

[Lord Watson of Invergowrie]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for that clearly considered response and I note what he says. Certainly there is great value in having clearly on the record in Hansard that it will be very senior people who are required to be responsible. That is all to the good and I welcome that, but I am still disappointed that the Minister has not gone a bit further. He talked about the regulator having powers. That is fine, but the regulator may or may not choose to exercise those powers in a particular way. As my noble friend Lord Brennan said, if the word “must” can be used in other amendments to the Bill, why cannot it be used in this one?

21:45

When involved in any issue, there is clearly a time when you feel that the horse you are flogging has undoubtedly been categorised as dead, and I do not think that we are going to get any further on this just now. However, very important points have been made and many of them have been committed to the record stating that anti-money-laundering is a very serious issue. I fully acknowledge that the noble Lord, Lord Deighton, says that the coalition accepts that, but I do not understand why he is not prepared, on its behalf, to go that step further. Perhaps the FCA objected—I do not know—but clearly it is not something that we are going to achieve at this stage. On that basis and on the basis of what has been clearly spelt out, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 19 withdrawn.

Amendment 20

Moved by

[Lord Newby]

20: After Clause 123, insert the following new Clause—
“Duty of FCA to make rules restricting charges for high-cost short-term credit
(1) In section 137C of FSMA 2000 (FCA general rules: cost of credit and duration of credit agreements), after subsection (1) insert—
“(1A) The FCA must make rules by virtue of subsection (1)(a)(ii) and (b) in relation to one or more specified descriptions of regulated credit agreement appearing to the FCA to involve the provision of high-cost short-term credit, with a view to securing an appropriate degree of protection for borrowers against excessive charges.
(1B) Before the FCA publishes a draft of any rules to be made by virtue of subsection (1)(a)(ii) or (b), it must consult the Treasury.”
(2) In Schedule 1ZA to FSMA 2000, in paragraph 11 (FCA’s annual report), in sub-paragraph (1), after paragraph (h) insert—
“(ha) any rules that it has made as a result of section 137C during the period to which the report relates and the kinds of regulated credit agreement (within the meaning of that section) to which the rules apply,”.(3) The FCA must ensure any rules that it is required to make as a result of the amendment made by subsection (1) are made not later than 2 January 2015 and apply (at least) to agreements entered into on or after that date.”

[Lord Newby]

My Lords, I turn to the Government’s amendments on high-cost, short-term—or payday—lending. The Government are committed to action to protect borrowers from the harm that these lenders cause. We have already taken decisive action to overhaul regulation of the payday lending sector, with the Financial Conduct Authority taking on its broad new powers in relation to consumer credit from April.

The FCA has already set out tough proposals to clamp down on the key causes of consumer detriment, including capping the number of rollovers and curbing the misuse of continuous payment authorities. However, the Government have agreed to do more. We want to put an end to the unfair and extortionate cost of borrowing from payday lenders and to prevent the spiralling costs faced by those struggling to repay their loans.

There is a growing evidence base, including lessons from other countries, that a cap on the costs is the right way forward for consumers. Of course, we are not just talking about an interest rate cap, which evidence shows is likely to be far less effective. A cap should include all fees and charges which may be incurred in relation to a payday loan, including default charges and rollover fees.

FCA powers are already sufficiently broad to ensure that charges of all kinds can be covered in the cap. This Bill presents the ideal opportunity to ensure swift action to protect consumers from unfair and spiralling costs and to give the FCA a definitive parliamentary mandate to act now. That is why the Government are introducing this amendment to require the FCA to impose a cap on the cost of payday loans. Under this new duty, the FCA must use the powers given to it by the Government in the Financial Services Act 2012 in relation to such loans.

In Committee, noble Lords asked about the framework within which the cap will be designed, and I will explain a little how this amendment delivers that framework. Designing a cap on the cost of credit is not a job for government; nor is it right that the detail of a cap should be enshrined in primary legislation, given that the industry it is intended to bind is so fast-moving and innovative. That is why the cap must be set by the independent and expert regulator, which has flexible powers to ensure that the cap remains effective. The FCA must be allowed to design a cap that works in UK consumers’ interests and fits the UK market.

However, the amendment makes clear the FCA’s overarching objective in this endeavour: it must make rules to impose a cap to protect consumers from excessive charges imposed by high-cost, short-term lenders. This language echoes the FCA’s consumer protection objective. The FCA must make rules to advance one or more of its operational objectives—consumer protection, market integrity and competition. This applies to the rules to implement the cap, just as it does to all FCA rule-making. The FCA’s competition duty also applies. It must consider how the rules affect the ability of the market to serve consumers’ interests.

Introducing a cap is not without risks or potential adverse consequences, including reducing access to credit for some individuals who are in financial difficulty. The FCA will not be able to eliminate those risks but it will seek to manage them. It will be important that the FCA strikes the right balance in designing and setting the cap. That is why it must publish a cost-benefit analysis on the impact of its proposals and undertake a consultation. The amendment specifically requires that the FCA must consult the Treasury before it publishes and consults on any draft rules. To reflect the importance of keeping the rules current and effective, the FCA must report on any rules it makes under Section 137C, including rules imposing a cap on loan costs, in its annual report.

Finally, I should point out why it is not worth defining payday lending in great detail in primary legislation. Putting a narrow definition in primary legislation could lead to unintended consequences. Lenders may just try to circumvent the definition. The amendment therefore allows the FCA to specify precisely which types of high-cost, short-term loans are captured when it makes its rules to effect the cap.

I now turn to the matter of timing, which is the subject of the amendment proposed by the noble Lords, Lord Eatwell and Lord Mitchell, and the noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson, which proposes to bring the timetable for implementing a cap forward to 1 October next year. I fully support the intention to bring the cap into force as soon as possible in order to protect consumers. That is precisely why the Government are taking this opportunity to bring forward legislation to require the FCA to impose a cap, so that the FCA can get on with implementation as quickly as possible. Introducing this new duty on the regulator ensures its efforts are focused on implementing the cap rather than on having to spend time and resources making the case for using its cost-capping powers in the first place.

The amendment provides a backstop date for implementation. The cap must be in place by at least 2 January 2015. Noble Lords should be in no doubt that, if the FCA can deliver sooner, it will. But there are a number of steps that must be taken before the cap is to be implemented. All of these are important. If rushed, they could put consumer protection at risk for the sake of speed. As I have already said, the risks of getting the cap wrong are also high—reducing credit for individuals or potentially pushing them into the arms of less regulated lenders.

Perhaps it would be helpful if I set out the FCA’s proposed timetable. The FCA’s current timetable for implementing a cap is ambitious but deliverable, and crucially allows the FCA to draw on the Competition Commission’s rigorous investigation of the market, which is currently underway. The FCA has already made good progress on background research on capping the cost of credit. It will start its detailed analysis phase in the new year, including drawing on the evidence the Competition Commission has already collected, through existing statutory information gateways between the two organisations, and where necessary, seeking information from firms.

The Government are bringing forward secondary legislation to allow the FCA to gather information from the industry as soon as possible to help it design the cap. The FCA will consult in the spring on its draft proposals, at around the same time as the Competition Commission is due to publish its provisional findings. It will have to publish the cost-benefit analysis when it consults. Consultation will take place over the summer, and the FCA plans to make the rules in the autumn. Again, this is likely to be around the same time as the Competition Commission’s final report. Lenders will have the rest of the year to update their systems and processes to ensure they comply with the new requirements, and the cap will come into effect at the beginning of January.

Were a 1 October implementation date adopted, the FCA would be so far out of sync with the Competition Commission’s work that it would not get the full value from the Competition Commission’s insight into the market to ensure the cap helps to secure the best outcomes for consumers. Such an early date would mean that important components of the FCA’s rule-making processes would need to be jettisoned, be that evidence-gathering in preparation of a cost-benefit analysis, consultation with interested parties on the proposals, or preparation time for the lenders to get their systems and processes in order to meet the new requirements and become responsible, compliant lenders. Noble Lords opposite may laugh at this, but if we were not proposing to do this, they would be the first to criticise the Government for not properly doing every single phase of what I have just described.

These processes are vital to ensuring that the cap works in the best interests of consumers and avoids the risks and unintended consequences I described earlier. Difficult though this choice is, the Government are not prepared to compromise the process, and I hope that noble Lords will agree. I am grateful to noble Lords for putting the spotlight on the timetable, but I hope that I have been able to persuade them that the risk to borrowers of rushing the design and implementation of a cost cap is simply too great and that the FCA is committed to implementing the cap as quickly as is reasonably possible. This, I trust, provides sufficient reassurance to convince them not to move the amendment.

I turn now to the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Sharkey, who has spoken so passionately during the Bill about the lessons we can learn from the way in which the state of Florida has approached regulation of payday lenders. His amendment aims to ensure that the FCA must impose restrictions on the number of loans an individual may have and the times a loan may be rolled over at the same time as it makes rules imposing a cap on the cost of payday loans. The Government fully agree that regulatory action is necessary to tackle both of these issues. The FCA has already proposed to curb rollovers. The noble Lord is, I know, convinced of the need for an outright ban, as in Florida. I have considerable sympathy with that conviction, but I have not seen robust evidence to show that a ban is the right approach for UK consumers. The ability to roll over a loan—for instance, if an unexpected expense crops up one month—offers a flexibility which is valued by some consumers.

In its consultation published on 3 October, the FCA has suggested a limit of two rollovers but has specifically also sought views on permitting one rollover only. This is a significant advance on the industry’s own codes of practice—which limit rollovers to three—with which, sadly, far too few lenders comply. The consultation period has just closed and the FCA is currently considering responses. Legislating to ban rollovers now could prejudge that consultation and evidence-gathering exercise. I am sure the noble Lord will agree that the outcome should be guided by the evidence.

Of course, a cap on the cost of payday loans, which will include rollover charges, will be a key factor in undercutting lenders’ reliance on rollovers as a generator of profits. I am confident that a cap on the cost of the loan and a cap on the number of rollovers, as the FCA has proposed, should help stop the cost of rolled over loans spiralling while still meeting borrowers’ needs.

The noble Lord also proposes that the FCA must curb multiply sourced simultaneous loans. I again have great sympathy with his intention here but in this case, too, the FCA is committed to taking action. The FCA is approaching the solution differently from the noble Lord but the effect is the same. Rather than limiting irresponsible borrowing, as the noble Lord proposes—particularly as this could have the side-effect of restricting choice and flexibility for consumers who are able to repay—the FCA has focused on restrictions to tackle irresponsible lending. It has proposed to put strict new requirements on firms to undertake affordability assessments to ensure that a borrower can afford to make sustainable repayments. This will include looking at other loans a borrower has outstanding.

However, the FCA is not stopping there. The quality and value of lenders’ affordability assessments clearly relies to a significant degree on the nature of the data available on an individual’s borrowing. The Government and the FCA have real concerns that data sharing is not working to support responsible lending and consumers’ interests. The FCA has already warned the industry that it must improve and that, if it fails to improve, the regulator will take action. The FCA has committed to exploring the best way to improve data sharing and thereby lending decisions. I will ask the FCA to keep noble Lords updated on this work.

I hope the noble Lord has been reassured that the FCA is committed to taking decisive action to curb rollovers and multiply sourced simultaneous loans. It will take action as soon as it assumes its regulatory responsibilities for this sector in April, so it is not necessary to expand the FCA’s cost-capping responsibilities to include these areas. I am very grateful to him, however, for drawing these issues to the House’s attention and highlighting the lessons we, and in particular the FCA, can learn from Florida. I trust that he will feel able not to move his amendment.

22:00

[Baroness Oppenheim-Barnes (Con)]

Before the Minister sits down, perhaps I may remind him that earlier this year the noble Lord, Lord Borrie, and I tabled an amendment to a previous financial Bill. A long-sought clarification, which is very important in these payday loans, is that the consumer should know not only in percentage terms but also in money terms how much it is going to cost them. Will the Minister therefore remind the FCA that there is a new EU directive, effective from 1 January 2013, wherein the very difficult and confusing equation is to be replaced by an actual amount in money? The only bad thing about this is that it has to be printed in a smaller print than the actual interest amount. Please will the Minister make sure that the FCA is knowledgeable about this and that it will see that it is brought to the attention of consumers as early as possible in the loan procedure?

Amendment 21 (to Amendment 20)

Moved by

[Lord Sharkey (LD)]

21: After Clause 123, line 9, at end insert “, and to preventing multiply sourced simultaneous loans and rollovers”

[Lord Sharkey (LD)]

My Lords, I rise to move Amendment 21 and to speak to Amendment 20. I congratulate the Government on bringing forward their amendment to cap the total cost of payday loans. I am grateful to the Minister and to his officials for meeting me to discuss the issue and for providing us with copies of the letters between the Financial Secretary and the FCA.

Amendment 20 clearly has the right intent but it raises several important questions as do the letters between the Treasury and the FCA. Nowhere in the Government’s amendment or in their correspondence with the FCA is there any mention of the problem now discussed by the Minister of multiply sourced simultaneous loans. The Financial Secretary says in his letter to the FCA that the main aim of the cap is to ensure that PDL customers do not pay excessive charges for borrowing and to minimise the risk to those borrowers who struggle to repay and to protect them from spiralling costs, which make their debt problem worse. In short, far fewer payday loan customers should get into debt problems.

Simply imposing a cap, as I think the Minister was acknowledging, will not produce this result if borrowers can take out multiply sourced simultaneous loans. If borrowers can do this, any cap will be ineffective in controlling indebtedness. My amendment, as the Minister has said, proposes a ban on these multiply sourced loans, as is the case in Florida. I think I heard the Minister say that the FCA will consider the problem caused by multiply sourced simultaneous loans when he considers the mechanism of the cap. I see the Minister is nodding in agreement that that is the case.

My amendment also proposes a ban on rollovers, as the Minister has said. That is also the case in Florida. I remind noble Lords that in Florida no loan may be taken out until all previous loans have been settled in full and then only after a 24-hour cooling off period. Rollovers are banned in Florida because they are the chief way of luring borrowers into a spiral of increasing debt. Here in the United Kingdom, 28% of all payday loans are rolled over and 50% of payday loan revenue, according to the OFT, comes from these loans. The FCA does not appear to understand the problem with rollovers. In its October proposals it suggested that rollovers be limited to two. It provided no evidence to suggest that this would have the desired effect and it is pretty obvious, I think, that it would not. Five days ago, the financial services consumer panel recommended in evidence to the FCA that rollovers be limited to one. I think the case for rollovers being banned is very strong. Will the FCA explicitly consider banning rollovers and will it publish its cost benefit analysis—the one the Minister talked about—of the relative merits of banning rollovers and limiting them to one or two only?

The Treasury letter to the FCA raises other questions. The Financial Secretary states:

“The Government is also committed to ensuring that you can access the information you need to design the cap. The Government will bring forward secondary legislation to allow you to collect information to support your new duty as soon as possible”.

The Minister has tried to explain what some of this information might be, but I should be grateful for more clarification on exactly what the FCA is going to be looking for and also confirmation that the Government will publish a draft of the proposed secondary legislation well before bringing it to Parliament.

In his reply to the Financial Secretary’s letter, Martin Wheatley of the FCA says that it is possible for firms in other EEA member states to provide a payday loan service through the internet to UK consumers within the electronic commerce directive. He went on to say that this is not something that the FCA can mitigate. What does that mean? Does it mean that the FCA cannot cap such transactions and, if it does, what is the point of the Government’s Amendment 20? The Financial Secretary’s letter to the FCA makes reference, as the Minister has done, to data-sharing practices. It says:

“There are a number of regulatory interventions in the market which may help to create the right conditions to ensure the cap is effective. For example, the Government shares your concerns that data sharing practices may not be supporting good consumer outcomes”.

This all seems rather opaque and quite a long way from plain English. Does this mean that the Government want credit agencies and lenders to pool data? Does it explicitly include the consideration of establishing a real-time lending database? I should be grateful if the Minister could confirm to the House that the answer is yes in both cases.

The whole matter of a cap turns on effective implementation and the evidence suggests overwhelmingly that we need a real-time database of loans to do exactly that, but the level of the cap is also critical. Amendment 20 requires the FCA to secure,

“an appropriate degree of protection for borrowers against excessive charges”.

There is no attempt in the amendment or in the correspondence to define “excessive” or to give guidance about how a judgment of what is excessive is to be arrived at. This seems an important and, perhaps, critical defect in the amendment. Surely the FCA must be given some guidelines in defining excessive for the purpose of fulfilling its duty. For example, we already know that payday loan borrowers in Florida pay, at most, one-third of the costs that such borrowers pay here in the United Kingdom. Will the FCA consider this kind of disparity in its definition of “excessive”? Will the Government set out in writing and publish the guidelines that the FCA must follow, and the factors it must consider, in reaching a definition of what may count as “excessive”?

I turn briefly to subsection (1B) of the Government’s amendment. It states:

“Before the FCA publishes a draft of any rules … it must consult the Treasury”.

I accept that the FCA will consult widely and not just with the Treasury before it publishes these draft rules but I am concerned about what happens after the publication of such draft rules. The FCA’s performance to date is not an obvious guarantee that any such draft rules will be what is required under the Government’s amendment. For its October publication of the draft rules, which the Minister has referred to, the FCA considered all the available evidence and proposed to allow two rollovers but no cost cap of any kind. A month later, the Treasury considered the same evidence and decided that it was sufficient to require the imposition of a cap. In other words, the Treasury appears to believe that the FCA got it wrong, which does not inspire confidence in the judgment of the FCA.

For that reason, and for reasons of openness and transparency, I believe it is important that there is the opportunity and time allowed for detailed public comment on whatever draft proposals the FCA comes up with and, in particular, that Parliament is given the opportunity formally to scrutinise the FCA draft proposals. I should like to know whether the Government will commit to allowing that opportunity and that time for detailed public comment and for allowing Parliament that opportunity to scrutinise FCA draft proposals.

Finally, I should point out that nowhere in Amendment 20 or in the two letters that we have seen is there any mention of a limit on the amount of the loan or of a minimum or maximum term. Will the Government confirm that the FCA will explicitly consider both a limit on the amount and on the term of any payday loan? I repeat that I welcome the Government’s intention in bringing forward Amendment 20 and I look forward to hearing the Minister respond to the questions I have asked. I beg to move.

[Lord Higgins]

My Lords, I want to make two very brief points. The amendment refers to “charges” and to “high-cost credit”. However, the words “interest” or “the rate of interest” appear nowhere in the amendment. I would have thought that there was some case for explicitly including that in the Bill, because the use of the other, rather wider, expressions leaves too much scope for the situation to be fudged. I would be grateful if my noble friend would say something about that.

We have been talking very much about payday loans and their provision; but it has become apparent that a number of charges made overall by clearing banks sometimes can approach, if not exceed, the limits charged by payday loan providers. I would like my noble friend’s assurance that the organisation will take account of that also and, if necessary, deal with the problem of very high overall charges—particularly with regard to unauthorised overdraft charges, for example—made by clearing banks as well as by payday lenders.

[Lord Mitchell (Lab)]

My Lords, my head has been spinning in disbelief since the introduction of this Government’s amendments. Even two weeks ago the Prime Minister, the Chancellor and the Business Secretary were resolute in their opposition to any form of capping of interest rates offered by payday lending companies and other suppliers of short-term credit; yet here we are today, legislating for just such a cap. We are stating to the FCA that what was previously defined as a “may” now will become a “must”. That is a good outcome and I, for one, applaud the Government for this massive U-turn. It could not have been easy for them to eat their words, but politics is politics and if the heat has got too hot it is time to get out of the kitchen.

For nearly four years I have been working on a campaign to regulate payday lending. Of course, I knew about loan sharks and the terrible misery that they cause; but I had not really focused on the way this industry was developing. When I did, I was aghast. Here was a business that was enticing people into debt and playing on their vulnerabilities. Any way you cut it and any way you measure it, 6,000% interest is beyond morality and decency. I felt that it had to be regulated and that it was my duty to do so within this Parliament.

Last year we managed to persuade the Government to include an amendment to the Financial Services Act that gave the Financial Conduct Authority the power to regulate all aspects of payday lending and, in particular, to cap interest rates. We gave it the teeth, but sadly it did not bite. Indeed, it decided that it was not yet persuaded that these rates should be capped at all. One can only wonder: if 6,000% had not moved the FCA, would 10,000% or 100,000% do so?

A little-known fact is the extent of financial support that payday lending companies receive from the City. I have read that Barclays Bank lent Wonga over £250 million; when I investigated further I found that the number was very much higher. If you consider how much all the clearers and all the other financial institutions must be lending to the payday lending companies, the number must be many billions of pounds. The City purports to have washed its hands of this grubby sector, but in truth it participates by using payday lenders as surrogates.

I have this to say to Barclays and, in particular, to its chairman. If your mission really is to clear up the mess of the last 15 years, then please tell me: what is your bank doing, funding the payday lending industry? We have come a long way in these past four years and tonight will be a milestone. But we need to go further still. I address these comments to the FCA. Please ban all advertising for short-term loans targeted at children. It is bad enough that people have to borrow money from the payday lenders—but giving payday lenders carte blanche to use sophisticated advertising to encourage young children to persuade their parents to get into more debt has to be morally wrong.

Despite appearances to the contrary, I am not against the payday loan industry. We need it, it is essential and it must be successful, but we want an industry that offers loans at fair rates and does not extort. I think that this amendment achieves just that.

22:15

Can the Minister confirm unequivocally that “must make rules” means that the FCA is compelled to introduce a cap on the total cost of these loans? Can he elaborate on what powers the Treasury will have to influence the cap under proposed new subsection (1B), where it states that the FCA “must consult the Treasury”? I know the noble Lord, Lord Sharkey, made a point on this, and that the noble Lord, Lord Newby, explained the situation but there has been a degree of wriggle room in all this and we must be absolutely certain where we stand.

We have one reservation with the Government’s amendment. To address that issue, we have put down our further amendment. The Government want these changes to take effect by 2 January 2015 and we want it to be by 1 October 2014. Why have we tabled an amendment for the sake of just 90 days, particularly since several bodies have said that the FCA needs time to prepare for the implementation of the interest rate cap? We understand that it needs to do the job properly but six months after it takes responsibility for regulating consumer credit provides a reasonable amount of time while ensuring that vulnerable people are protected in the lead-up to Christmas 2014.

At this very moment in this month of December, the payday lending companies are in full throttle. Last month, the Money Advice Service’s annual Christmas survey showed that over a million people planned to take out payday loans to pay for Christmas. Some 34% of adults in the UK believe that they will start the new year in debt because of the cost of Christmas. By wanting the new amendment to become effective on 1 October 2014, we are determined to make 2013 the last payday rip-off Christmas. By choosing this date, we will accomplish that goal. I beg to move.

[Baroness Cohen of Pimlico (Lab)]

My Lords, I rise to support Amendment 21 and will speak to Amendment 20. I am sure that we are all very grateful to my noble friend Lord Mitchell for his tireless efforts in bringing the payday lenders under regulation. I am sure that that is the best result for everybody. I also support his remarks about how we actually need payday lenders. They fill a gap that no one else fills. If you have no food in the house or your car needs repairing in order for you to get to work, and if your family and friends cannot help, there is nobody but the payday lenders. They are colossally efficient—as my noble friend Lord Mitchell found out when he bravely took out a payday loan. They will get you the money very quickly.

That is a function that, in my youth, was fulfilled by employers by way of something called the “sub”. At one point, I was the industrial relations man, temporarily, on the Western Avenue extension. About a third of that whole site received subs on their pay. The rules stopped you receiving a sub for more than three days ahead of time and of course it was not paid interest. I do not think that happens any more and the payday lenders have come into that gap.

What have not come into that gap and are not yet organised to fill it are the credit unions. I very much welcome the most reverend Primate the Archbishop of Canterbury’s view that the credit unions can fill this gap, but they cannot do so at the moment. They are just not fast or efficient enough. I would very much like to encourage, in all work on credit unions that the most reverend Primate is undertaking—and which I shall be pleased to join in on—that they be a bit more like the dreaded payday lenders in their speed, efficiency and ability to respond to need.

[The Lord Bishop of Birmingham]

My Lords, I take a moment to thank the noble Lord, Lord Lawson, for his kind remarks about my friend the most reverend Primate’s speech last Thursday. I shall pass that on to him. He regrets that he is not in his place today. He is presiding over a whole number of bishops—it amounts to about the number of noble Lords in your Lordships’ House tonight—up in York.

I support these amendments, particularly Amendment 22 on the timetable. I am grateful for the Government’s approach and seriousness towards this payday lending crisis. The examples we have heard from noble Lords about the experience of poverty are gruesome. I should like to introduce a new element of competition to the response time for this particular bit of industry in terms of its timetable, because the risk, referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Newby, to the industry itself in not getting it right is paralleled by the risk just mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Mitchell, of people having yet another Christmas borrowing at too great a cost and risk to their own future and that of their family. The Minister is trying to set a final deadline of January but I ask that he really encourage the industry to bring this forward to 1 October.

We have heard about the industry’s complexities and the credit unions that are needed. We have also heard of the encouragement this would give to those who are working very hard to provide effective money advice to those who are managing unmanageable debt and to help those young people who have been mentioned start handling their money properly. Local charities, churches and the faith groups are responding to the Government’s approach to tackling this global financial crisis. However, the slow timetable—several years before all this is implemented—is a completely different timetable from that of someone who has no resources, who has no back-up and who is looking for food tomorrow. I encourage people to support this amendment.

[Lord Eatwell]

My Lords, my noble friend Lord Mitchell in speaking to his amendment on the proposed date referred to 90 days. One might ask how 90 days can make a difference. Surely when the Government need something to be done they can get it done. The idea that somehow the whole process is so darn elaborate that they cannot do it in a period of time which saves 90 days on their side is, in the true meaning of the word, incredible. On the other hand, for the borrower 90 days includes Christmas Day 2014. That is a big issue, because this is the period when short-term borrowing is at its peak. That is why it is incumbent on this Government to take swift action. They have been dragging their feet on this issue for four years. It is incumbent on them to take swift action and that is why Amendment 22 is so important.

The noble Lord, Lord Sharkey, has raised a crucial and frightening point—that payday lenders within the European Economic Area could lend within the UK. I hope the Minister will be able to tell us that we are not wasting our time completely this evening—because that is what that would mean we would be doing—and that the noble Lord’s fears are unfounded.

Swift action is so important that when this amendment is called I intend to test the opinion of the House.

[Lord Newby]

My Lords, noble Lords have raised a number of issues and questions. I shall do my best to answer. The noble Baroness, Lady Oppenheim-Barnes, discussed the way in which the total cost of the loan, as opposed to the interest rate, is portrayed, and of course many people do not understand interest rates. The Government are discussing with the European Commission the relative prominence of the total cost of the loan. This discussion is taking place in the context of the Commission’s review of the consumer credit directive, so I hope we are well on top of that.

My noble friend Lord Sharkey asked a raft of questions. I hope that I managed to write them all down. He asked whether the FCA understood the particular problems of multiply sourced simultaneous loans. I can assure him that that is within its remit. My noble friend talked about rollovers and asked whether the FCA would look at one or none as part of this review. I can give him that assurance. He asked whether he could see a draft regulation in a timely manner. We will try to do that. Of course, if we are going to consult on draft regulations, things such as the odd 90 days here and there make a lot of difference. Our ability to consult properly at any point in this process requires us to follow something like the timetable that I set out earlier. He asked whether data sharing is being considered as part of the FCA’s remit. I can assure him that the FCA is looking at that.

My noble friend asked for a definition of “excessive” and why it was not in the Bill. The FCA will be looking at existing definitions of excessive, including that in Florida. Different people in different places who cap payday loans have different definitions of excessive. There is no single definition that is uniquely right. It has to be taken in the context of all the other factors and the overall design of the scheme. The FCA will be looking at international definitions as part of that work.

My noble friend asked whether there will be an opportunity and time in Parliament for debate on the publication of the draft rules. That partly goes to the speed with which we do that. If, as I set out, the FCA publishes a consultation paper by the end of May, it will be perfectly possible for Parliament to debate it. There are a number of ways in which that could be done. In your Lordships’ House, it is now very easy for individual Members to get a debate on an issue within a very few weeks, even if no other formal debate was allowed. I would be very happy to raise that issue in the usual channels. Finally, my noble friend asked whether the FCA will consider the limit to cover both the amount and the term of the loan. I can give him that assurance.

The noble Lord, Lord Higgins, asked why we do not refer to interest in the Bill. The provision covers every aspect of the cost of a payday loan, of which interest is only one part. The definition in the Bill subsumes interest.

[Lord Higgins]

Would it not be better none the less at line 9 of the amendment to say “against excessive rates of interest and charges” as the rate of interest is quantifiable whereas charges are much more amorphous?

[Lord Newby]

Charges are also quantifiable. The aim, as we have set out very clearly, is to cover all components of the total cost of the loan.

The noble Lord, Lord Higgins, asked about the high charges that high street banks sometimes impose. Issues there can be investigated by the FCA and no doubt it may well wish to do so.

The noble Lord, Lord Mitchell, asked a number of questions. I first congratulate him and my noble friend Lord Sharkey on the persistence with which they have pursued this issue, bringing before the House evidence of what is really happening in the market and helping everyone involved in the process to gain a better understanding of the scale of the problem. I can confirm that the government amendment does what it says in that the FCA will not have any option but to make rules. It has to do it. The “must” is a real “must”. In terms of the powers that the Treasury will have, the purpose here is to ensure that the Treasury has an input into the consultation and development of the policy by the FCA. However, we have been very clear that the primary responsibility must rest with one body and that the appropriate body is the FCA. I will come back to the noble Lord’s point on timing in a moment.

The noble Baroness, Lady Cohen, said that she wished that credit unions could be more like payday loan companies. I think many noble Lords would share that view but, sadly, they have some way to go before they get into that position.

22:30

The noble Lords, Lord Mitchell and Lord Eatwell, and the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Birmingham, urged the FCA to go quicker. The FCA will go as quickly as it can. Our amendment requires it to have the new system in place no later than the beginning of January. If it proves possible to do it earlier, certainly if it were possible to do it before Christmas, I know that the FCA will do so, and will use its best endeavours to bring forward these proposals as quickly as possible. Certainly, if we are going to include within the system features such as a real-time database, I am afraid that this cannot be done very quickly. Everybody has seen the success and failure both of Governments and other organisations to introduce IT systems very quickly. The thought that one can do this within a matter of weeks prior to consultation, possibly with no consultation, seems to me totally fanciful.

I end by saying—because I think a number of noble Lords slightly question this—that the Government and the FCA are absolutely committed to getting this system in place as soon as they possibly can. The FCA has said it is going to do it. It has already set a very tight timetable. I understand that when the system was introduced in Florida it took longer or at least as long as we are proposing to do it here. There is no lack of commitment to do it but we want to do it right. We want it to work. We do not want to have to change it as soon as we have implemented it because we found we rushed it and it has not worked. That is why the FCA has come forward with a speedy but deliberative approach. We think that makes absolute sense. That is why the deadline is in our amendment. I commend our amendment to the House.

[Lord Sharkey]

Before the noble Lord sits down, perhaps I may prompt him to address the question of payday loan companies operating outside the UK but in the EEA trading in this country. Do they or do they not? Will they be subject to the cap or not?

[Lord Newby]

My Lords, this is a complicated area that we have just begun to start looking at. In order to minimise the extent to which overseas operators might be able to operate in this area, we need to take our time and do the job properly. It is another contributory argument for doing the job in a deliberative manner.

[Lord Sharkey]

My Lords, I am grateful for the answers that the Minister has given, with the possible exception of the last one. I should be grateful if, as these deliberations take place, he would consider writing to us to tell us the latest position on these people trading from outside the country in the country. If that turns out to be possible, we need a radical rethink of exactly what we are about today. Leaving that to one side, I am reassured by the answers that my noble friend the Minister has given but I particularly want to stress that absolutely critical to this working at all is a real-time database. This is not about data sharing or the old system of batch processing. It will work only if real-time data processing and real-time lending information are available to the regulator and the lending companies. I hope that as the FCA proceeds it will come to an understanding that that is absolutely the case and an absolutely necessary requirement. Having said all that, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 21(to Amendment 20) withdrawn.

Amendment 22 (to Amendment 20)

Moved by

[Lord Eatwell]

22: After Clause 123, line 19, leave out “2 January 2015” and insert “1 October 2014”

[Lord Eatwell]

My Lords, I was struck by the reply of the noble Lord, Lord Newby, on the issue of companies from other parts of the European Economic Area trading on the internet. He said that the Government are just beginning to look at this. It is extraordinary that the Treasury does not know, now, what are the particular rules that affect financial trading within the European Economic Area. That is another incredible statement. We have been dragging our feet on this area. It is urgent that we deal with it with all due speed and that we ensure that the cap is in place before next Christmas. I therefore wish to seek the opinion of the House on Amendment 22.

22:36

Division 3

Ayes: 100

---

Labour: 90
Crossbench: 4
Independent: 2
Bishops: 1
Democratic Unionist Party: 1

Noes: 163

---

Conservative: 105
Liberal Democrat: 51
Crossbench: 4
Independent: 1

22:44

Amendment 20 agreed.

Amendment 23

Moved by

[Lord Newby]

23: After Clause 123, insert the following new Clause—
“Role of FCA Consumer Panel in relation to PRA
In section 1Q of FSMA 2000 (the Consumer Panel), after subsection (5) insert—“(5A) If it appears to the Consumer Panel that any matter being considered by it is relevant to the extent to which the general policies and practices of the PRA are consistent with the PRA’s general duties under sections 2B to 2H, it may communicate to the PRA any views relating to that matter.
(5B) The PRA may arrange to meet any of the FCA’s expenditure on the Consumer Panel which is attributable to the Panel’s functions under subsection (5A).””

[Lord Newby]

My Lords, I now turn to an amendment which will better position the PRA to take account of consumer interests by drawing on the views of the FCA’s Consumer Panel. This follows the debate at Lords Report stage where the noble Lord, Lord Eatwell, proposed amendments which would have created a role for the Consumer Panel by creating a duty on the PRA to consider representations made to it by the panel and to publish its responses, equivalent to the duty on the FCA.

We have considered the issues carefully, as I said we would on Report, and have proposed alternative arrangements which are more proportionate to the PRA’s prudential remit, but deliver, we believe, the essence of the noble Lord’s amendment. Our amendment will confer a role on the panel by allowing it to raise issues it is considering with the PRA; for example, through meetings or in correspondence. It will also enable the PRA to meet the expenses of the Consumer Panel when the Consumer Panel discharges this function. This will ensure that the PRA can benefit from the expertise of the panel without the undue burden on either the PRA or the Consumer Panel of a binding requirement on the PRA to consult the panel each time the PRA changes its rules or policies.

I have no doubt that this amendment, which has been welcomed and supported by the chair of the Consumer Panel, will strengthen the voice of consumers at the PRA, and I am pleased to add it to the list of improvements we have been able to make as a result of constructive debate and scrutiny in your Lordships’ House. I beg to move.

[Lord Eatwell]

My Lords, I welcome this amendment, which will add important coherence to the consideration of consumer affairs within the regulatory structure.

Amendment 23 agreed.

Amendment 24

Moved by

[Lord Deighton]

24: After Clause 124, insert the following new Clause—
“Duty to meet auditors of certain institutions
(1) Part 22 of FSMA 2000 (auditors and actuaries) is amended as follows.
(2) After section 339A insert—
“339B Duty to meet auditors of certain institutions
(1) The FCA must make arrangements for meetings to take place at least once a year between—
(a) the FCA, and(b) the auditor of any PRA-authorised person to which section 339C applies.(2) The PRA must make arrangements for meetings to take place at least once a year between—
(a) the PRA, and(b) the auditor of any PRA-authorised person to which section 339C applies.(3) The annual report of each regulator must include the number of meetings that have taken place during the period to which the report relates between the regulator and auditors of PRA-authorised persons to which section 339C applies.
(4) In subsection (3) “the annual report” means—
(a) in relation to the FCA, every report which it is required by paragraph 11 of Schedule 1ZA to make to the Treasury, and(b) in relation to the PRA, every report which it is required by paragraph 19 of Schedule 1ZB to make to the Treasury.(5) In this section “auditor” means an auditor appointed under or as a result of a statutory provision.
339C PRA-authorised persons to which this section applies
(1) This section applies to a PRA-authorised person which—
(a) is a UK institution,(b) meets condition A or B,(c) is not an insurer or a credit union, and(d) is, in the opinion of the PRA, important to the stability of the UK financial system.(2) Condition A is that the person has permission under Part 4A to carry on the regulated activity of accepting deposits.
(3) Condition B is that—
(a) the person is an investment firm that has permission under Part 4A to carry on the regulated activity of dealing in investments as principal, and (b) when carried on by the person, that activity is a PRA-regulated activity.(4) In this section—
(a) “UK institution” means an institution which is incorporated in, or formed under the law of any part of, the United Kingdom;(b) “insurer” means an institution which is authorised under this Act to carry on the regulated activity of effecting or carrying out contracts of insurance as principal;(c) “credit union” means a credit union as defined by section 31 of the Credit Unions Act 1979 or a credit union as defined by Article 2(2) of the Credit Unions (Northern Ireland) Order 1985.(5) Subsections (2), (3) and (4)(b) are to be read in accordance with Schedule 2, taken together with any order under section 22.”
(3) The italic cross-heading before section 339A becomes “General duties of regulator”.”

[Lord Deighton]

We now turn to the proposal to put in the Bill new requirements on regulators to meet the auditors of banks. This issue has been subject to extensive debate. The Government have been clear throughout that the regulators should carry the full responsibility for managing an effective relationship with the auditors of banks they supervise, and be held to account for how well they deliver it.

The reasons for this are strong. Before the crisis, regulators neglected their engagement with auditors while the auditors themselves signed off on the accounts of banks which we now know were, in some cases, in dire straits. The Government took action. There is now a requirement in the Financial Services and Markets Act for the PRA to lay its code of practice on auditor engagement before Parliament, meaning that the regulators will be held accountable for how well they deliver on the requirement to engage with the auditors of banks.

However, it has become clear how strongly the PCBS valued the opportunity to go further and specify the number of meetings in statute, to ensure auditors’ insights are used. For those reasons the PCBS is clear that, over time, this dialogue between auditors and regulators must not be allowed to lapse. The proposed amendment therefore includes two provisions to ensure that this crucial dialogue is preserved.

First, the regulators must disclose in their annual report the number of meetings they have held with the auditors. This allows Parliament to hold the regulators to account for the frequency of meetings. Secondly, the regulators must meet at least once per year with the auditors of firms that the PRA, the leading prudential regulator, considers to be important to the stability of the United Kingdom economy. This is a minimum requirement. The Government believe that it is right to place the duty on the regulator to determine how many more meetings are required with the auditors of firms of particular types, consistent with its risk-based, judgment-led approach. This allows the regulators to focus their resources where the risks are highest.

Some noble Lords may argue that the minimum requirement should be higher. The Government do not agree. The Government have said that the regulators must meet with any firm that may be important to the financial system at least once per year, but within this group, there will be firms of major and firms of minor significance.

For firms of major significance, once may be too little; for firms of minor significance, once may be sufficient. For example, under the PRA’s current code, for banks that could have the most significant impact on financial stability, the PRA code mandates at least three meetings a year. For other firms whose failure could still materially impact the UK financial system, the PRA code mandates at least one bilateral a year. The FCA meets at least twice per year with the auditors of the most significant banks and at least once per year with those in the next largest category.

The Government believe that it is right that Parliament does not seek to specify this level of detail in legislation. To do so would risk misaligning the PRA’s resources with the risks the financial system faces. The Government therefore believe that this amendment arrives at a suitable compromise between the desire to specify in the Bill a minimum number of meetings, to prevent meetings between auditors and regulators from lapsing entirely, and an approach that requires regulators to take responsibility for pursuing proportionate and high-quality engagement, and enhanced mechanisms for accountability. I commend these amendments to the House.

[Lord Lawson of Blaby]

My Lords, once again, I am extremely grateful to my noble friend Lord Deighton and his colleagues in the Treasury for agreeing to bring forward this amendment. As he pointed out, it is in response to a recommendation of the Parliamentary Commission on Banking Standards. Hitherto the Treasury has been reluctant to accept this, but it has now done so and it is in the Bill. Incidentally, this was also a recommendation of your Lordships’ Economic Affairs Committee, in its report on the auditors a little while back. This provision is needed in the Bill because we have been here before. The Banking Act 1987—I introduced the Bill that led to that—enabled these meetings to take place, and for a number of years they did. However, in the run-up to the great banking crisis and meltdown they had ceased. That is why we on the commission felt that this time it was necessary to have this provision in the Bill, and I am grateful to my noble friend for that.

I know that the hour is getting late but I should mention another matter that relates to a recommendation of the commission. There was lamentable failure of these meetings to take place and the fact that the auditors were in front of the crisis—the dog that never barked—was partly because of the lack of meetings and was largely the fault of the regulators at the time. It was their responsibility above all to seek such meetings. However, there was also the lamentable inadequacy of the accounting system at the time, IFRS. It is probably an inadequate system in general but it is particularly flawed when it comes to the auditing of banks. That is increasingly recognised within the accountancy profession. It is too late for me to go into the details, and I have explained the specific failings in previous debates and I will not go over the ground again.

When the commission addressed this issue it said that since we cannot change IFRS because the “I” represents an international agreement—although it is, in fact, a European agreement because the Americans have made it clear that they do not want to have any part of it—the PRA must require the major systemic banks to produce a second set of accounts that satisfies the needs of prudential regulation and supervision. That involves a small extra cost to achieve a considerable objective.

When this matter was discussed in Committee, my noble friend Lord Deighton said that there was no need to put such a provision in the Bill because the PRA had the power to do so—and I very much hope that it will do so. It is up to the Treasury Committee in another place to keep the PRA up to the mark. I hope that the present chairman of that committee will do that. Andrew Tyrie, the Member of Parliament for Chichester, outstandingly chaired the work of the Parliamentary Commission on Banking Standards and he secured its important and unanimous report. However, I was slightly alarmed in Committee when the Minister said that the regulators already have power,

“to make rules requiring banks to prepare additional accounts, to the extent that this is permissible under EU law”.—[Official Report, 23/10/13; col. 1022.]

While I thank him for the amendment, I must ask him: if the PRA wishes a systemically important bank to present a set of accounts in a way that it feels is necessary for proper prudential supervision, what will it be prevented from doing under EU law? The House needs to know that.

23:00

[Lord McFall of Alcluith]

My Lords, I will be very brief in supporting the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Lawson. I have been interested in the relationship between the auditors and the regulator ever since Northern Rock went down in 2007. The question that the regulator should be keeping in mind in discussions with auditors on a yearly basis is, what is the point of an audit? The auditors tell us that it is to have a backward look at what has happened in a company, but there is a need to have a forward look at the risks that are happening, to issues like low risk and low probability, low risk and high probability, high risk and low probability, or high risk and high probability. These scenarios need to be included, because the auditors came to all the committees, the Treasury Committee in the past and the Treasury Committee now, and said that it was their business to look at the audit at that particular time. That is insufficient and there needs to be a greater engagement between the regulator and the auditors.

I reminded the Minister that previously the regulator did not look at the business models of companies. They had nothing to do with them. Thankfully, the new chief executive, Martin Wheatley, has said that the business models are very appropriate for regulators to look at because the business models that were ignored let the PPI mis-selling scandal go for 18 years. There is a lot of work to do between the auditor and the regulator—and the question that I repeat again is for the regulator to say, what is the point of an audit? Auditors can come up to the mark and not just have a backward look or even a present look at the business model of a company but can ensure that there is also a forward look.

[Lord Deighton]

With respect to the question asked by my noble friend Lord Lawson about what constraints the EU law would put on the PRA getting the information in the form that it requests, this is merely tying it into what comes out of the capital requirement directive IV, just to make sure that it is consistent. I am not aware of a particular constraint, but I am aware that there will be additional disclosure responsibilities that come along with that. We really just want to integrate it, but I do not believe that it is a constraint; it should actually help with disclosure.

[Lord Lawson of Blaby]

I am most grateful, but will my noble friend agree to look further into this and, if there is a constraint, to write to me?

[Lord Deighton]

Of course, I would happy with that undertaking. I fully accept the observation from the noble Lord, Lord McFall, that an audit needs to have the context of the business model behind it to have a proper understanding of where the business is going. We will certainly encourage the regulator to ensure that the dialogue with the auditor takes into account what is really happening in the business and does not just look at the numbers in isolation.

Amendment 24 agreed.

Clause 126: Amendments of section 429 of FSMA 2000

Amendment 25

Moved by

[Lord Deighton]

25: Clause 126, page 99, line 5, after “procedure)” insert “—
(a) after “55C,” insert “71A(3A),”, and(b) ”

Amendment 25 agreed.

Amendment 26

Moved by

[Lord Newby]

26: After Clause 129, insert the following new Clause—
“Recovery of expenditure incurred by Office for Legal Complaints
(1) The Schedule to the Compensation Act 2006 (claims management regulations) is amended as set out in subsections (2) and (3).
(2) The provision in paragraph 7 becomes sub-paragraph (1) of that paragraph.
(3) In paragraph 7, after sub-paragraph (1) insert—
“(2) The fees that may be charged by the Regulator by virtue of sub-paragraph (1) include fees in respect of costs incurred by the Regulator for the purposes of meeting any leviable OLC expenditure.“Leviable OLC expenditure” has the meaning given by section 173(7) of the Legal Services Act 2007.”
(4) The Legal Services Act 2007 is amended as set out in subsections (5) and (6).
(5) After section 174 insert—
“OLC expenditure relating to claims management services174A OLC expenditure relating to claims management services
(1) This section has effect at any time when no person is designated under section 5(1) of the Compensation Act 2006 (the Regulator in relation to claims management services).
(2) In determining the leviable OLC expenditure for the purposes of section 173, any expenditure incurred, or income received, by the OLC in connection with the exercise of its functions in relation to claims management services is to be disregarded.
(3) The Lord Chancellor may by regulations charge periodic fees for authorised persons for the purposes of meeting any costs incurred by the Lord Chancellor in respect of relevant OLC expenditure.
(4) “Relevant OLC expenditure” means the difference between—
(a) any expenditure of the OLC incurred in connection with the exercise of its functions in relation to claims management services, and(b) the aggregate of the amounts which the OLC pays into the Consolidated Fund under section 175(1)(g), (h) or (n), so far as relating to the exercise of its functions in relation to such services.(5) Regulations made under subsection (3) may, in particular—
(a) permit the charging of different fees for different cases or circumstances (which may, in particular, be defined wholly or partly by reference to turnover or other criteria relating to an authorised person’s business);(b) enable the person exercising functions of the Regulator under section 5(9) of the Compensation Act 2006 to collect fees on behalf of the Lord Chancellor;(c) specify the consequences of failure to pay fees (which may include anything which could be specified in regulations under section 9 of that Act as a consequence of a failure to pay fees charged under those regulations).(6) In this section “authorised person” and “claims management services” have the same meaning as in Part 2 of the Compensation Act 2006 (see section 4 of that Act).”
(6) In section 206 (Parliamentary control of orders and regulations), in subsection (4), after paragraph (o) insert—
“(oa) section 174A(3) (power to charge fees on persons providing claims management services);”.”

[Lord Newby]

My Lords, I turn finally to the amendments that deal with claims management companies and the Office for Legal Complaints. It is essential that a new route of redress is available to consumers who feel that they have received a poor service from those providing claims management services, commonly referred to as claims management companies, or CMCs. It is also right that the claims management industry bears the cost of providing this new route of redress. I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter of Kentish Town, for raising this issue at Report stage and I am delighted that she has put her name to this amendment.

Section 161 of the Legal Services Act 2007 already makes provision for bringing complaints about regulated CMCs under the jurisdiction of the Office for Legal Complaints. Once commenced, this will give consumers greater scope for redress against regulated CMCs, including awards for financial compensation. Before Section 161 can be commenced, however, the correct mechanisms need to be put in place to ensure that the costs incurred by the OLC in relation to complaints about CMCs can be recouped. It is also necessary to ensure that these costs are borne by the claims management industry. It is right that costs associated with complaints about CMCs are paid for by the industry which creates them. It is also right to prevent the legal profession having to foot the bill for these costs or benefit from any income generated from recouping these costs.

Turning to the detail of the amendments, it is usual practice for the designated regulator to recoup the costs of redress from those it regulates. In this case, the Claims Management Regulator, or CMR, is the designated regulator. The Legal Services Board, or LSB, will then levy the regulator for the OLC’s costs and reimburse the OLC. To ensure that the Claims Management Regulator can recoup the OLC’s costs, these amendments change the Compensation Act 2006 to enable the Secretary of State to make regulations to allow the Claims Management Regulator to charge CMCs, as part of their fees, for the OLC’s costs associated with CMC complaint-handling. The Legal Services Act 2007 already provides for a levy on the Claims Management Regulator, if one is designated. This enables the LSB to levy the regulator for costs incurred by the OLC in relation to claims management costs.

That mechanism is applicable only when there is a designated person as the Claims Management Regulator. When no person is designated as the Claims Management Regulator, as is currently the case, this role falls to the Secretary of State. The mechanism does not operate in this situation as the Secretary of State cannot be levied. To address this, amendments to the 2007 Act are needed. They will change the Act to give the Lord Chancellor a new power to make regulations to allow him to recover the OLC’s costs associated with CMCs. These powers allow the Lord Chancellor to charge a periodic fee on regulated CMCs.

Finally, in this situation further amendments are needed to address cross-subsidisation. The amendments will change the levy mechanism in the Legal Services Act 2007 to ensure that the calculation of the OLC’s expenditure which is leviable on the legal profession excludes both its costs and its income in relation to CMCs.

These amendments are an important step in improving the redress system for consumers who have suffered from poor service from the claims management industry. It is right that consumers who have been treated unfairly are able to access this new route for redress through the OLC. I beg to move.

[Lord Brennan]

My Lords, these final amendments allow me to raise a point of general importance about the Bill. The amendments create yet a different and welcome addition to the commission’s original proposals.

The Bill came to this House at 30 pages long. With today’s amendments, it is going to be about 200 pages long, with about 150 clauses. I suggest to the House that it is incumbent on all of us—but on the Government, in particular—to assist public understanding of where the Bill is now at. It is going back to the Commons, where most of it will not have been debated, and the strain on people in this House over the past few weeks has been immense. Therefore, I suggest to the Government two measures that they might consider taking.

The first—although it sounds remarkable, it is of utility—is to prepare a set of Explanatory Notes on the Bill as it now is when it goes back to the Commons and when it is considered, as it will be, by the City of London in general and by the banking community and the lawyers in particular. The second point is that, from page 50 onwards, the Government’s response to the commission’s report of July 2013 very helpfully sets out 114 proposals with notes against them and proposed action. The Government have taken different positions on some of those, and there are additions to that list. It would be a great help if the list were revised, bringing it up to date to reflect what has actually happened.

I do not want to appear tedious but the fact is that this is a major Bill and we need to do everything we can to make it as well understood as it can be.

[Lord Eatwell]

My Lords, I am delighted to support Amendment 26, which stands in the names of the noble Lord, Lord Deighton, and of my noble friend Lady Hayter of Kentish Town. She is very sorry she cannot be in her place this evening to say this herself, but she is very grateful to the Government not only for accepting the essence of her amendment, moved at Report, but also for turning in some far better drafting than she could have done. This was done under some tight time pressures, for which we are grateful to both of the Ministers concerned and to their staff. My noble friend cannot be here to thank the Government herself because she is at a Labour Party fundraising event to help fund the campaign to expel the Government from office, but in the mean time she does sincerely want her appreciation for the help to be recorded.

The impact of the amendment is that, in future, consumers with complaints against claims management companies will be able to take these to the Legal Services Ombudsman to be resolved. They will therefore get redress when there is judgment in their favour. This will also help to drive up standards. By reporting repeat offenders to the regulator, it will help to get some of the CMC sharks out of the business. So congratulations to both to the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, and to the Government for accepting the essence of her amendment.

[Lord Deighton]

My Lords, I know it is getting late, but as this group of amendments draws to a close, I hope you will permit me to spend a few moments reflecting on the changes that this Bill has undergone since it first arrived in this House, and to thank all those who have contributed to it in that time. On Second Reading in July, my noble friend Lord Newby remarked that the great strength of this legislation was due in no small part to the intense degree of scrutiny that it had undergone on its journey to this House, and the constructive spirit in which those of all political colours had contributed to it. This is surely even more true of the Bill that leaves this House today.

My first thanks must go to the members of the Parliamentary Commission on Banking Standards, represented in this House by the noble Lords, Lord Turnbull, Lord McFall and Lord Lawson, the noble Baroness, Lady Kramer, and the most reverend Primate the Archbishop of Canterbury. The central role that they have played in shaping this legislation is one of the things that has made this Bill so unique; indeed, the great majority of the amendments that it has undergone in this House directly implement the recommendations of the Commission’s final report on professional standards and culture in the banking industry. These measures are not only the crowning achievements of this piece of legislation, but the final piece in this Government’s ambitious four-stage programme of reform for the banking sector.

Many of the noble Lords in this Chamber today will have contributed to the first stage of that reform, the Financial Services Act 2012, which recast the regulatory architecture for financial services. This Bill, as it was introduced in another place, made provision for the second stage of that reform, the implementation of Sir John Vickers’s recommendations on structural reform of the banking sector, and the Bill that leaves this House today puts in place the two final pillars of that legislative programme, overhauling the culture of the banking industry, and driving out competition to improve outcomes for consumers. Of course, the Government’s commitment to implement the recommendations of the Commission’s final report through this Bill has meant that the task of scrutinising these incredibly important measures has fallen largely to this House.

I shall respond to the noble Lord, Lord Brennan. As I understand it the explanatory notes have already been written for the amendments, and they will be published tomorrow. As always, my officials are a little bit ahead of the game, but we absolutely take on board the need to communicate this effectively, both to the other place and more broadly to the City.

All these changes are a challenge to which this House has ably risen, but I must thank all noble Lords for their patience in giving such careful consideration to this wide-ranging and important set of provisions, particularly with the number of amendments that have been introduced, the speed with which drafts have been turned around, and the speed with which noble Lords have been asked to absorb so much information. In particular I must thank the opposition Front Bench, led by the noble Lord, Lord Eatwell, for its thoughtful and constructive contributions to the debate. I thank my noble friend Lord Newby for his support, without which it would not have been possible to provide the House with the level of response that it deserves, and my officials for their consistent hard work. Special thanks must go to parliamentary counsel for their heroic efforts in drafting amendments with such speed and precision.

The Bill that leaves this House today is completely transformed from the one that arrived here five months ago, and it is hard to imagine how it could have reached its present state without the contribution of those that I have but briefly mentioned. It is a vital addition to the statute book, whose importance is hard to overstate. I beg to move.

Amendment 26 agreed.

23:15

Clause 131: Orders and regulations: general

Amendments 27 to 29

Moved by

[Lord Deighton]

27: Clause 131, page 102, line 11, leave out “or the Secretary of State” and insert “, the Secretary of State or the Lord Chancellor”

28: Clause 131, page 102, line 15, leave out “or Secretary of State” and insert “, the Secretary of State or the Lord Chancellor”

29: Clause 131, page 102, line 18, leave out “Treasury or Secretary of State” and insert “person making the order or regulations”

Amendments 27 to 29 agreed.

Clause 134: Power to make further consequential amendments

Amendments 30 and 31

Moved by

[Lord Deighton]

30: Clause 134, page 103, line 19, leave out “or Secretary of State” and insert “, the Secretary of State or the Lord Chancellor”

31: Clause 134, page 103, line 21, leave out “Treasury or Secretary of State” and insert “person making the order”

Amendments 30 and 31 agreed.

Clause 135: Transitional provisions and savings

Amendments 32 and 33

Moved by

[Lord Deighton]

32: Clause 135, page 103, line 31, leave out “or Secretary of State” and insert “, the Secretary of State or the Lord Chancellor”

33: Clause 135, page 103, line 32, leave out “Treasury or Secretary of State” and insert “person making the order”

Amendments 32 and 33 agreed.

Clause 136: Extent

Amendment 34

Moved by

[Lord Deighton]

34: Clause 136, page 103, line 41, leave out from “Ireland” to end of line 2 on page 104 and insert—
“This is subject to subsection (2).
(2) The amendments made by the following sections have the same extent as the enactments amended—
(a) section 10 (preferential debts: Great Britain),(b) section 129 (power to impose penalties on persons providing claims management services), and(c) section (Recovery of expenditure incurred by Office for Legal Complaints) (recovery of expenditure incurred by Office for Legal Complaints).”

Amendment 34 agreed.

Clause 137: Commencement and short title

Amendments 35 to 37

Moved by

[Lord Deighton]

35: Clause 137, page 104, line 5, at beginning insert “The following provisions—
section (Duty of FCA to make rules restricting charges for high-cost short-term credit), and”

36: Clause 137, page 104, line 8, leave out “Section 129 comes” and insert “Sections 129 and (Recovery of expenditure incurred by Office for Legal Complaints)(1) to (3) come”

37: Clause 137, page 104, line 9, at end insert—
“( ) Section (Recovery of expenditure incurred by Office for Legal Complaints)(4) to (6) comes into force on such day as the Lord Chancellor may by order appoint.”

Amendments 35 to 37 agreed.

Schedule 2: Bail-in stabilisation option

Amendments 38 to 55

Moved by

[Lord Deighton]

38: Schedule 2, page 121, line 25, leave out from first “instrument” to “may” in line 26

39: Schedule 2, page 125, line 39, after “41A(2)” insert “, or an associated supplemental property transfer instrument,”

40: Schedule 2, page 125, line 41, at end insert—
“( ) The reference in subsection (1) to an “associated” supplemental property transfer instrument is to a supplemental property transfer instrument in relation to which the original instrument (as defined in section 42(1)) is a property transfer instrument under section 12(2) or 41A(2).”

41: Schedule 2, page 125, line 42, after “12(2),” insert “or a supplemental property transfer instrument in relation to which the original instrument is a property transfer instrument under section 12(2),”

42: Schedule 2, page 126, line 42, at end insert—
“( ) In section 52 (transfer to bridge bank), in subsection (3)(b), for “specified classes of creditor,” substitute “persons of a specified description,”.”

43: Schedule 2, page 127, line 4, at end insert “or”

44: Schedule 2, page 127, line 5, leave out from “41A(2)” to end of line 6

45: Schedule 2, page 127, line 14, at end insert—
“( ) before paragraph (za) insert—“(zza) the Bank of England makes a supplemental share transfer instrument under section 26,”;( ) after paragraph (za) insert—“(zb) the Treasury makes a supplemental share transfer order under section 27,”;( ) after paragraph (d) insert—“(dza) the Bank of England makes a supplemental property transfer instrument under section 42,”;”

46: Schedule 2, page 127, leave out lines 18 and 19

47: Schedule 2, page 127, line 21, at end insert—
““( ) the Bank of England makes a supplemental resolution instrument under section 48U,”

48: Schedule 2, page 127, line 23, at end insert “or”

49: Schedule 2, page 127, line 25, leave out from “(3)” to end of line 27

50: Schedule 2, page 127, line 27, at the end insert—
“( ) in the heading, after “transfers” insert “etc”.”

51: Schedule 2, page 128, line 4, after “require” insert “a resolution fund order,”

52: Schedule 2, page 128, line 13, at end insert—
“( ) to depend in part upon the amounts which are or may be payable under a resolution fund order;”

53: Schedule 2, page 134, line 32, leave out “that provides for a transfer of securities”

54: Schedule 2, page 134, line 33, leave out from “instrument” to end of line 35 and insert “; and in relation to a resolution instrument references in this section to a “transfer” are to a transfer of securities (whether made by that or another resolution instrument) and “transferor” and “transferee” are to be read accordingly.”

55: Schedule 2, page 134, line 36, leave out paragraph 16

Amendments 38 to 55 agreed.

In the Title

Amendment 56

Moved by

[Lord Deighton]

56:In the Title, line 7, leave out “for penalties to be imposed on” and insert “in relation to”

Amendment 56 agreed.

Motion

Moved by

[Lord Deighton]

That the Bill do now pass.

[Lord Lawson of Blaby]

My Lords, it is incumbent on us to respond to the very kind words of my noble friend Lord Deighton. As he said, the Bill has been completely transformed. I have been a Member of this House for a very long time now but I cannot recall a Bill—let alone a Bill as important as this one—to have been so totally transformed for the better. It is not only a great deal bigger but also a great deal better as a result of its passage through your Lordships’ House. I am extremely grateful and the nation will be extremely grateful.

There has been a lot of nonsense talked about the excessive size of the banking sector in this country. Some people have been even as foolish as to talk about a monocrop economy. The fact of the matter is that banking accounts for a little over 5% of this country’s GDP; it is nothing like a monocrop economy. However, it is a supremely important sector and one in which we are world class.

There is a size problem—I have not got time to go into it now and it would not be proper to do so—with individual institutions. As the former Governor of the Bank of England said, if an institution is too big to fail, it is too big. The size of the sector is a great strength of this country. As the present governor, Mr Carney, said recently, it is a great strength of the United Kingdom that we are prominent and world class in this growing and supremely important industry. We want it to grow further, which I hope it will. It is our great strength. It is what economists call the law of comparative advantage—you should do what you are best at—and this is a sector in which we are very good. However, if it is going to get bigger and bigger, which I think it will and should, it has to be both clean and robust. The purpose of the Parliamentary Commission on Banking Standards was to try to ensure that it would be both clean and robust. That is what the Bill is about.

I say again how grateful I am to the Government, and particularly to my noble friend Lord Deighton, for having implemented so many of the recommendations of the parliamentary commission to ensure that the Bill leaves this House in an infinitely better state than when it arrived here.

[Lord Eatwell]

My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Deighton, expressed the view that this was the final piece of the jigsaw in financial regulatory reform. He is going to be disappointed in that respect. What we have achieved is but a step on the road. Many issues have still not been addressed and many parts of the financial services industry have not been incorporated into the overall consideration of what is necessary as we move into the future with a successful and resilient banking system, to which the noble Lord, Lord Lawson, referred. More will need to be done.

I add my thanks to those of the noble Lord, Lord Deighton, to the Parliamentary Commission on Banking Standards, and particularly the Members of this House—the noble Lords, Lord Lawson, Lord Turnbull and Lord McFall, the noble Baroness, Lady Kramer, and the most reverend Primate the Archbishop of Canterbury. They have done a fantastic job, as was discussed in the debate last Thursday, and they deserve the thanks of the whole House.

I also thank those on this side of the House who have contributed so constructively to the discussion of the Bill—my noble friends Lord Watson, Lord Brennan, Lord Mitchell and Lady Hayter. I would particularly like to thank my noble friend Lord Tunnicliffe for keeping me in order, as he has done throughout this entire process. I would also like to thank our researcher, Miss Jessica Levy, who has worked alone, as opposed to having a team of officials. She has done the most remarkable job. She is a very talented person and we would not have been able to achieve what we have achieved and contributed from this side without her help.

The noble Lord, Lord Higgins, who regrettably is not in his place at the moment, referred to the somewhat unfortunate process by which the Bill has got to this stage. The Treasury has made a bit of a shambles of it, really, and we have just been catching up through these various stages. I hope that when we next have a financial services Bill that, instead of having this elaborate and confusing process of continuously amending parts of FSMA, we have a proper coherent rewritten Bill to consider at the very beginning and that it is considered properly by both Houses in its passage.

That critical comment about the Treasury has not diminished at all my pleasure in discussing the Bill with the noble Lord, Lord Deighton. Ageing professors typically take rather excessive proprietorial pride in the achievement of their pupils; all I can say at this stage is that I am delighted that my teaching of the noble Lord does not seem to have done him any permanent harm.

Bill passed and returned to the Commons with amendments.

House adjourned at 11.21 pm.