House of Commons

Tuesday 14th January 2014 Commons Chamber

Tuesday 14 January 2014

The House met at half-past Eleven o’clock

Prayers

Tuesday 14th January 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker in the Chair]

Oral Answers to Questions

Tuesday 14th January 2014 Commons Chamber

The Secretary of State was asked—

[Glyn Davies (Montgomeryshire) (Con)]

1. What steps he is taking to promote awareness of atrial fibrillation.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Jane Ellison)]

NHS England is responsible for promoting awareness of atrial fibrillation among health care professionals, and the new NHS improvement body, NHS Improving Quality, is encouraging GPs to detect and manage atrial fibrillation by promoting the use of GRASP-AF risk assessment tools. My hon. Friend will know about that as it is supported by the all-party group on atrial fibrillation, which recently published a helpful report on AF. I pay tribute to the work of my hon. Friend and his colleagues on that.

[Glyn Davies]

What steps are the Government taking to improve the uptake of National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence-approved medicines and alternatives to warfarin for the treatment of atrial fibrillation to reduce the incidence of AF-related stroke?

[Jane Ellison]

NICE has issued technology appraisal guidance to the NHS on the use of newer anticoagulants—I think there were three in 2012—for the treatment of atrial fibrillation. NHS commissioners are legally required to fund treatments recommended by NICE in its technology appraisal guidance.

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

Mr Speaker, there is a crisis here. The fact is that half of those who suffer from AF—as a member of my family does—do not know they are suffering from it and are not diagnosed. If they are not diagnosed, that leads to great expense to the health service because they are very prone to having a stroke. Even when doctors know about AF, they say inappropriately, “Have an aspirin as part of your medication.” Some 25% of doctors recommend aspirin, and that is very dangerous. When will the Minister wake up? AF is a dangerous condition and it is very expensive.

[Jane Ellison]

The hon. Gentleman is right to say that it is a serious condition, which is why GPs need to take it extremely seriously and ensure that they look at the tests, and particularly at those who are susceptible to AF. We will get new NICE guidance in the summer on some aspects of self-monitoring, which will be an opportunity to remind all clinicians of their responsibilities.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

There is a community resuscitation strategy for the whole of Northern Ireland, and my constituents in Strangford, the Ards peninsula and Crossgar have examples of that. Will the Minister consider a community resuscitation strategy for England and Wales, similar to the one we have in Northern Ireland? It would help in this case.

[Jane Ellison]

I am happy to look at that. It is obviously an NHS England responsibility, but I will ensure that I draw its attention to the scheme that the hon. Gentleman mentions in Northern Ireland.

[Chloe Smith (Norwich North) (Con)]

2. What steps his Department has taken to ease the short and long-term effects of winter pressures on the NHS.

[Mark Menzies (Fylde) (Con)]

12. What steps his Department has taken to ease the short and long-term effects of winter pressures on the NHS.

[The Secretary of State for Health (Mr Jeremy Hunt)]

In the short term, a record £400 million has been assigned to help the NHS through this winter, with £250 million announced in August, much earlier than before. For the long term, we are restoring the link between GPs and vulnerable older patients by bringing back named GPs for all over-75s—something that was broken in 2004.

[Chloe Smith]

I thank the Secretary of State for that answer. My constituents, including a family who came to my surgery on Saturday, are frustrated by the brick walls that sometimes seen to exist between different bits of the health service, and which are all the worse in urgent and traumatic winter cases. Different health services in Norwich have come together in Operation Domino to improve services in the face of demand, and they have used winter funding money to run a new style of urgent care unit at Norfolk and Norwich hospital. Does my right hon. Friend agree that Norfolk is leading the way?

[Mr Hunt]

I congratulate the health services in Norfolk—and indeed in Norwich—on what they are doing to break down those barriers. That is the key issue, and this year I am working closely with the Minister of State, Department of Health, my hon. Friend the Member for North Norfolk (Norman Lamb), to merge the health and social care systems—a £4 billion merger—to ensure that medical records can be shared across all the different systems, and that there is a named accountable doctor for the entirety of people’s time outside hospital. I hope that will make a difference in Norwich as elsewhere.

[Mark Menzies]

My constituency has a high proportion of elderly people. What steps is the Secretary of State taking to reduce admissions of elderly people to hospital this winter?

[Mr Hunt]

We are doing a very great deal and the £400 million announced to help the NHS through the winter is a record amount. My hon. Friend will be pleased to know that a lot of that money is being spent not inside A and E departments but in the community to help GP practices, and to try to recognise properly that for many older people—particularly vulnerable people with dementia —a busy A and E department is not the best place to go when something goes wrong, and if we possibly can we should avoid it.

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

Is it the case that worries about winter pressures are greatest in A and E, and that the crisis in A and E is entirely of the coalition’s own making? Ministers have been warned about cuts to elderly care and letting GPs off the hook on office hours and opening in the evenings and at weekends, and about the increasing costs of locum staff. They have been warned but they have not acted. What will the Secretary of State do now, late as it is, to ensure that A and E has enough doctors to see patients safely through the winter?

[Mr Hunt]

The Opposition try to talk up a crisis in A and E, but unfortunately, such talk does not withstand the facts. Let us look at the facts on how A and E is doing and perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will understand. We are seeing 2,000 more people every single day within the four-hour target than were seen when Labour was in power; we have 20% more A and E consultants; and the waiting time to be seen in A and E is half what it was under the Labour Government. However, we are doing more: we are addressing the long-term pressures in A and E, including the barriers to the social care system, which were mentioned in an earlier question, and the lack of good primary care alternatives. That is why we are restoring named GPs for the over-75s.

[David Wright (Telford) (Lab)]

A and E is in crisis across the country, but getting people out of hospital in a suitable time frame is also important. What is the Secretary of State doing to better connect the health service with other social care providers? Does he acknowledge that, in places such as Telford and Wrekin, there has been a substantial cut in continuing health care funding, which means the system is in danger?

[Mr Speaker]

Order. Did I hear a mention of winter in the context of this question?

[David Wright]

In the winter, Mr Speaker.

[Mr Hunt]

Thank you for that guidance, Mr Speaker. Let me assure you that this winter, a lot is happening in Telford to break down the barriers between the health and social care systems. One big change we are championing—it is starting to happen for the first time—is a seven-day social care system, so that hospitals can get people assessed and discharge them at weekends. With respect to the hon. Gentleman, if he looks at the facts, he will see that that is beginning to happen in a way that it did not when Labour was in power. He should welcome it.

[Margot James (Stourbridge) (Con)]

I congratulate my right hon. Friend on the planning for, and the extra resources he has committed to, relieving winter pressures in A and E departments. What effect does he expect the additional combined budget for health and social care to have on admissions to A and E, particularly of older people?

[Mr Hunt]

We know that every year, 1.2 million of 5.2 million admissions to hospitals are avoidable if we have better alternatives in the community. The Government believe that restoring that personal link between doctors and the people on their lists—the people in their communities—who could often be much better looked after outside hospitals is the way to deal with that. That is why we are making that major change to the GP contract—it is the biggest change since named GPs were removed in 2004. That will benefit my hon. Friend’s constituents and those of all hon. Members.

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

Before Christmas, the Secretary of State said that the A and E crisis is behind us. However, NHS data released last Friday show that patients have just experienced the worst week in A and E so far this winter. The A and E target was missed; 103 trusts failed to meet their individual target; and, shockingly, more than 5,000 patients were left waiting on trolleys for more than four hours—more than double the number in the previous week. The Secretary of State asks us to look at the facts, but those are the facts. They are apparent to all except, seemingly, him. Is he really still of the view that the crisis is behind us?

[Mr Hunt]

Let us look at those facts for last week and compare them with the facts in the identical week when the right hon. Member for Leigh (Andy Burnham), the shadow Health Secretary, was Secretary of State. When he was Secretary of State, 362,462 people were seen within four hours. Last week, we saw 365,354 people—3,000 more people—within the target. A and E is doing better under this Government than it ever did under Labour.

[Mr Nicholas Brown (Newcastle upon Tyne East) (Lab)]

3. How many mesothelioma cases are being treated by the NHS; what strategies have been adopted for treatment and prevention of mesothelioma; and if he will make a statement.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Jane Ellison)]

In 2011, 2,238 people were diagnosed with mesothelioma. NHS England has set out guidance on the diagnosis, treatment, care and support of patients with that serious disease. That will deliver access to high-quality and consistent services across England. Both clinicians and patients are involved in the development of the guidance. UK legislation requires the active management of asbestos in buildings to prevent further exposure.

[Mr Brown]

The number of full-blown mesothelioma cases is expected to peak next year and then decline. The Department of Health is best placed to say whether that is happening. Will the Minister assure the House that the Department is carefully monitoring the situation and is in close contact with the Health and Safety Executive with a view to ensuring that our public protection measures are adequate for the challenge we face?

[Jane Ellison]

The right hon. Gentleman is right to say that it is a very serious situation, and we of course keep a very close eye on it. Higher-risk work with asbestos must be licensed by the HSE, which has recently published an updated approved code of practice, “Managing and Working with Asbestos”. The code provides guidance and practical advice to companies, because we do not want more people being exposed in the way that so many have been in the past.

[Hywel Williams (Arfon) (PC)]

There is particular interest in this dreadful disease in my constituency because of the location of a factory that used asbestos. Can the Minister assure me that further research into treatment for this condition will be carried out in conjunction with research institutions in Wales and in conjunction with the Welsh Government?

[Jane Ellison]

Obviously, health is a devolved matter, but research goes across the United Kingdom. In 2012-13, we spent £2.3 million on research into this disease through the National Institute for Health Research. The hon. Gentleman may be aware that during the passage of the Mesothelioma Bill, which has recently passed through this House, ministerial colleagues agreed to write to the Association of British Insurers. The Department of Health is seeking to set up meetings with the ABI and the British Lung Foundation to explore how insurers can individually sponsor specific mesothelioma research.

[Valerie Vaz (Walsall South) (Lab)]

4. How much has been spent on medical locums in accident and emergency departments in each year since 2009-10.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Dr Daniel Poulter)]

Staff employment is a matter for NHS trusts and we do not collect that data centrally. We recognise the challenge in recruiting and retaining A and E doctors, who can take up to six years to train. However, growth in the medical work force has kept pace with the increase in attendances since 2010.

[Valerie Vaz]

I am sure the Minister will agree that it is a grotesque situation where a trainee doctor working as a locum is paid as much as a fully qualified doctor. That is the result of not listening to legitimate concerns during the passage of the Health and Social Care Act 2012, so will the Minister not blame women in the work force or overpaid doctors but do something quickly to stop this drain on public money?

[Dr Poulter]

I hope the hon. Lady will be pleased to hear that under the current Government we have reduced locum costs to the NHS by about £400 million. That is, of course, good medical practice: it is good for patients to receive better continuity of care from permanent doctors. In A and E, specifically, we have seen the work force grow by more than 350 since 2010.

[Simon Kirby (Brighton, Kemptown) (Con)]

Last week, my son had to visit A and E in Brighton and spent the week in hospital. Will the Minister join me in thanking the hard-working doctors and nurses, including locums, in Brighton for their outstanding care and dedication, and for the excellent service they provide?

[Dr Poulter]

Yes. My hon. Friend will be aware that I have a particular knowledge of his local trust. I pay tribute to the dedication of the many high-quality front-line staff working there, and to those who put in extra hours to work as locums, usually from within the existing trust work force, who often have to cover maternity leave and other periods of staff sickness.

[Meg Hillier (Hackney South and Shoreditch) (Lab/Co-op)]

17. The Minister talks complacently about improvements in A and E consultants, but in Queen’s hospital in Romford only seven of the 19 posts have permanent A and E medical doctors in post. Surely he is fiddling while Rome is burning. People are not getting the service they need, while he is spending a fortune on locums.

[Dr Poulter]

The important point the hon. Lady has to remember is that it takes six years to train an A and E consultant, so it would be much better to put the question about advanced work force planning to the former Secretary of State, the right hon. Member for Leigh (Andy Burnham), rather than to members of this Government. Since we have taken charge of medical education and training, the number of those entering acute common training—those who may go on to become A and E consultants—has increased. We are now seeing a complete fill rate for those entering that training—something that the previous Government were not able to achieve.

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

How much of this difficulty might be caused by excellent staff working part time in accident and emergency? On a recent visit to the emergency department at York hospital trust, I was struck by the excellent work done by doctors, many of whom, by choice, worked long shifts three days a week. Will my hon. Friend look into this matter?

[Dr Poulter]

I will certainly do that and write to my hon. Friend to reassure her, although members of staff who work part time often put tremendous effort into their work, and we often get well rewarded by the broader experience they bring as a result of being part time, so there are benefits to having part-time staff in the NHS.

[Andy Burnham (Leigh) (Lab)]

Figures out today show a staggering 60% rise in spending on locum A and E doctors under this Government—in some trusts, 20 times more—because they cannot recruit staff. It has now come to light that Ministers were warned about this problem three years ago. Dr Clifford Mann, president of the College of Emergency Medicine, said that when he tried to raise this issue, he was left feeling like

“John the Baptist crying in the wilderness”.

Why did Ministers ignore an explicit warning in 2011 from the top A and E doctor in the country?

[Dr Poulter]

The first warnings about the challenges facing A and E were put to the previous Government in 2004. The shadow Secretary of State was a Health Minister in 2006 and Secretary of State in 2009-10, but he failed to act adequately to deal with the shortages. It takes six years to train A and E consultants, so it will take six years to deal with the problem. The good news is that under this Government enough doctors are entering acute care common stem training to fill the places available.

[Mr Speaker]

Order. I do not wish to be unkind to the hon. Gentleman, but his answers almost invariably suffer from the failing of being far too long. It is nothing to be smug about; he really has to improve.

[Andy Burnham]

Mr Speaker, sometimes it takes a long time to rewrite history, which was what the Minister was just doing. The first warnings did not come in 2004. Dr Mann said:

“The first warning signs were three years ago when we failed to recruit 50% of our posts. Those concerns were raised at the time.”

Why does he believe his concerns were ignored? He blames “decision-making paralysis” caused by a top-down reorganisation no one wanted and nobody voted for. Ministers dismantled work force planning structures, making redundant the very people who could have done something to stop the locum bill spiralling out of control. Will he now concede that breaking the coalition agreement promise of no top-down reorganisation has weakened the NHS and made the A and E crisis worse—[Interruption.]

[Mr Speaker]

We’ve got it. We’ve got to have an answer.

[Dr Poulter]

It is the right hon. Gentleman who needs a lesson about not rewriting history. Dr Mann said that this issue had been building for the past decade. When the right hon. Gentleman was Secretary of State and before that a Minister in the Department, he failed to make those long-term work force decisions and also signed up to the European working time directive, which exacerbated the problems on medical rotas. Those were decisions that he made. He created this crisis; we are fixing it and increasing the number of doctors working in A and E.

[Jesse Norman (Hereford and South Herefordshire) (Con)]

5. What steps he is taking to promote the health and well-being of older people.

[The Secretary of State for Health (Mr Jeremy Hunt)]

We will ensure that everyone over the age of 75 has a named GP responsible for delivering proactive care for our most vulnerable older citizens in the best tradition of family doctors. Through our £3.8 billion better care fund, we are also merging the health and social care systems to provide more joined-up health and social care.

[Jesse Norman]

Dementia is a terrible blight for an increasing number of older people. Last week, I had the great privilege of opening Henffordd Gardens in Hereford, a supported living scheme that will allow dementia sufferers in my constituency to enjoy a better quality of life for longer and is a model of good practice for the country. Will the Secretary of State join me in congratulating Herefordshire Housing and all those who have worked so hard to bring this plan to fruition?

[Mr Hunt]

I absolutely join my hon. Friend in congratulating Herefordshire Housing. One of the key things about people with dementia is that relatively small adjustments to their homes can make it possible for them to live at home healthily and happily for much longer under the care of a husband, wife or partner without having to go into residential care. Those are precious years that we should treasure and do everything we can to facilitate, so I am delighted that that is happening, and he will be pleased to know that, thanks to the Government’s initiative, it is happening all over the country.

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

Figures from the House of Commons Library show that £1.8 billion has been cut from social care budgets since 2010. Does not that imply that delayed discharge among older people will be driven upwards because the finances are just not there to look after them?

[Mr Hunt]

I think the figures the hon. Gentleman is talking about are efficiencies and not actual cuts. [Laughter.] Well, Members should look at the figures carefully. If they are the figures from the Association of Directors of Adult Social Services, that is what they will find. If the hon. Gentleman looks more specifically at the figures related to delayed discharges, he will find that, year on year, the number attributable to the social care system went down by 50,000 bed days in the last year.

[John Howell (Henley) (Con)]

One of the principal ways of promoting the health and well-being of older people in my constituency would be a rapid sign-off for the rebuild of the Townsland hospital complex. I recognise that the decision lies with NHS Property Services, but will the Secretary of State join me in using whatever influence we have to put pressure on it to get a move on?

[Mr Hunt]

I have spoken to my hon. Friend about the scheme, which sounds excellent. Obviously we want to encourage it, while working within the correct processes. The Under-Secretary of State for Health, my hon. Friend for Central Suffolk and North Ipswich (Dr Poulter), has agreed to meet him to do all we can to speed it along.

[Sheila Gilmore (Edinburgh East) (Lab)]

One of the things that some older people would like is to move closer to their families. Will the Secretary of State update me on what discussions he is having with the Scottish Government on the portability of home care packages across the border?

[Mr Hunt]

We are very keen to make home care packages much more portable. There are problems with home care packages across the board, particularly the 15-minute slots that, frankly, are completely unacceptable. We are definitely looking at that issue and I encourage the hon. Lady to talk to the Minister responsible for care services, my hon. Friend the Member for North Norfolk (Norman Lamb), to get more details on the progress we are making.

[Mr Stephen Dorrell (Charnwood) (Con)]

Does my right hon. Friend agree that the question asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Hereford and South Herefordshire (Jesse Norman) is the most important single question facing the health and care system? Do not too many elderly people—the greatest single source of growing demand on the health and care system—experience our system not as a national health service but as a national illness service? Is not the challenge facing the system to ensure that, as people live longer, we enable them to get greater quality out of those extended life years?

[Mr Hunt]

As so often, my right hon. Friend encourages us to raise our heads above the horizon and to look forward. He is absolutely right. There will be 1 million people with dementia by 2020 and, as he knows, most of those will have other long-term conditions alongside dementia. The name of the game will be looking after people so they can live healthily at home, which will be the focus of health policy.

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

Regular social interaction and a comfortable home environment are critical to the health and physical and mental well-being of older people. Has the Secretary of State carried out any assessment across Government or within his own Department of the effect of cost of living pressures and cuts in local services on the home environment, and on older people?

[Mr Hunt]

We are very conscious of that, which is why we introduced the triple lock on pensions and protected pensioners from the brunt of the cuts that this Government, sadly, have had to make to deal with the deficit we inherited.

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

Dementia is the disease that people over the age of 50 say they fear the most and it is one of the biggest challenges for our society and for our health and social care systems. One of the ways to meet that challenge is through research, and the coalition Government is to be commended for the doubling of spending on research into dementia by 2015. However, it will take another decade, until 2025, for this Government or a future one to double it again. Will he reconsider that? Surely there needs to be greater ambition and greater pace to deliver the cures, the solutions and the prevention we need.

[Mr Hunt]

I commend my right hon. Friend for his work on dementia when he was working at the Department of Health. We are doing our bit as a country but we will not be able to do it on our own. Dementia is an incredibly difficult disease to crack, which is why, in December, the Prime Minister hosted a G8 summit to encourage other leading countries to increase their investment in dementia. We secured a commitment that they would significantly increase that investment and we want to encourage the private sector to do the same.

[Angela Smith (Penistone and Stocksbridge) (Lab)]

6. When he expects to publish a revised adult autism strategy for England.

[The Minister of State, Department of Health (Norman Lamb)]

The Department of Health is currently leading a review of the 2010 adult autism strategy for England, “fulfilling and rewarding lives”, and we will publish a revised strategy by the end of March.

[Angela Smith]

Given some of the difficulties encountered by local areas in developing and sharing innovative practice in progressing the strategy he has just talked about, what consideration has the Minister given to the National Autistic Society’s proposal for an innovation fund as laid down in its “Push For Action” report?

[Norman Lamb]

I thank the hon. Lady for her question. The National Autistic Society is doing fantastic work, working closely with the Government. It has put this idea forward and we are considering it seriously; it has real merit. We shall announce our decisions when we announce the results of the consultation in March.

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

What plans does my hon. Friend have to use the review as an opportunity to bring forward programmes that will increase autism awareness among the general public?

[Mr Buckland]

My hon. Friend raises an incredibly important point. Awareness is still far too low. We are now in a position where the legislation is in a good place and we have a good strategy, now being reviewed. There remains, however, an awful lot of work to do on implementation on the ground and on making a real difference to the lives of people with autism.

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

7. What representations he has received on IT and data security issues relating to the GP extraction service; and if he will make a statement.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Dr Daniel Poulter)]

Sharing and linking GP and other data—lawfully, securely and appropriately—helps to improve care and provides a solid basis for research to benefit everyone. In addition to more than 100 items of correspondence on the GP extraction service received since July 2013, the Department of Health has also had representations on these issues from the Solicitor-General.

[Chi Onwurah]

I strongly support the better use of data and ICT to improve national health services, but it must be done securely and with informed patient consent, especially when the data are to be sold on. Yet the Health Secretary admits that he has not carried out any risk assessment of the move to a paperless NHS. Has a risk assessment been carried out for the extraction service and, if so, will he commit to publishing it and any recommendations made?

[Dr Poulter]

We have, of course, constantly assessed it. I hope the hon. Lady is not criticising the principle of improving and joining up care through better passing of data between services, which obviously has to be a very good thing. Let me reassure her that making available patient-identifiable information to third parties without the patient’s consent or on some other legal basis would be illegal. Information is held securely.

[George Freeman (Mid Norfolk) (Con)]

I congratulate Ministers on the reforms to open data and transparency, which have been a powerful catalyst for accountability and improvement in the health service—in particular, the care.data reforms. The Minister will be aware of my ten-minute rule Bill on the subject. Will he give us some assurance on the steps that the Department is taking to ensure the integration of data between the care and the NHS sector?

[Dr Poulter]

I can reassure my hon. Friend that the absolute heart of what we are doing on joining up data is ensuring that we join up data better and promote integration. Some of that will come from the £3.8 billion we are providing for more joined-up and integrated care between health and social care as part of our integrated care fund, or better care fund as it is now termed.

[Jenny Chapman (Darlington) (Lab)]

But why is it harder to get a GP appointment now than it was five years ago?

[Dr Poulter]

I think the hon. Lady will find that it was getting harder under the previous Government. It was not helped by the fact that, as we know, although it was not the fault of GPs, the contract that GPs were presented with by the previous Government made it difficult for many patients in many parts of the country to access primary and community care out of hours.

[Damian Hinds (East Hampshire) (Con)]

8. What progress his Department has made on introducing a cap on care costs.

[The Minister of State, Department of Health (Norman Lamb)]

Everyone will be protected against catastrophic costs by the insurance that, in line with the Dilnot commission recommendations, the cap provides from April 2016. We are currently considering the responses to the recent consultation on how the cap will work, and will publish draft regulations and guidance later this year.

[Damian Hinds]

Thanks to tough decisions from this Government, we can look forward to a time when people will no longer have to sell their home to afford care, but what can be done to raise awareness of this landmark policy so that older people, and indeed younger people, can be reassured?

[Norman Lamb]

I thank my hon. Friend for that question, and I am immensely proud that this coalition Government are reforming a grossly unfair system—something that should have happened a long time ago and is massively overdue. This Government completely recognise the absolute importance of an awareness-raising campaign, which will be carried out by local government, national Government and the financial services industry.

[Bill Esterson (Sefton Central) (Lab)]

Ministers have repeatedly claimed that no one will pay more than £72,000 in care costs, but given that the cap will be based on the rate local authorities charge for care and not the actual amount people have to pay, will the Minister confirm that people will have to pay more than £72,000 and that the so-called cap is not a cap at all?

[Norman Lamb]

People can always choose to spend more than local authorities deem it necessary to spend in order to secure care. However, we are implementing exactly the scheme that Andrew Dilnot recommended, and when he announced his proposals they were welcomed by the hon. Gentleman’s own party as a significant advance.

[Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)]

9. What steps he plans to take to improve the quality of health care provision in the east midlands.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Dr Daniel Poulter)]

Clinical commissioning groups in the east midlands will receive increases in funding in 2014-15. Specifically, Lincolnshire West CCG will receive an increase from £1,111 to £1,124 per head of population, and Lincolnshire East CCG will receive an increase from £1,249 to £1,258 per head.

[Sir Edward Leigh]

Does the Minister recall the very worrying Keogh report, published last year, which showed that Lincoln hospital in particular had a higher than average mortality rate? Some of us felt that if we had a stroke or a heart attack, it would be a lot safer for us to be taken to the nearest big city, such as Leicester or Nottingham. Will the Minister join me in welcoming the fact that Lincoln hospital has made progress since then, and is now expected to have a below-average mortality rate?

[Dr Poulter]

My hon. Friend is right to draw attention to the fact that the Government have taken seriously the need to deal with poor care where it exists. We have proudly taken a stand on that. It is also important for hospitals to understand that although they are making progress, there is still much more work to be done. I am sure that my hon. Friend and I are both keen to support the Care Quality Commission, Monitor and other regulators in order to ensure that care continues to improve in Lincolnshire.

[Keith Vaz (Leicester East) (Lab)]

There are currently 28,000 diagnosed diabetics in the city of Leicester, and it is clear that the whole of the east midlands—indeed, the whole country—faces a diabetes epidemic. What steps is the Minister taking to ensure that the CCGs and health and wellbeing boards in the east midlands work together and focus on prevention?

[Dr Poulter]

That is a very good question. Local health and wellbeing boards are an excellent vehicle for the adoption of a more joined-up approach throughout health care, enabling other key players in the health and wellbeing sector to drive forward improvements. It is for the boards to consider the local issues outlined by the right hon. Gentleman, such as increasing obesity and other public health challenges, and to ensure that they work with and direct funding towards local communities. The Government have provided 40% of their public health funding for that purpose.

[Andrew Percy (Brigg and Goole) (Con)]

My constituency is served by the Yorkshire and East Midlands ambulance services. Could we not make better use of our ambulance services and benefit those who require emergency admission by enabling paramedics to convey fewer patients and provide more care from the back of ambulances? I realise that that will probably necessitate tariff reform.

[Dr Poulter]

It is true that many parts of the medical and health care work force can contribute to the delivery of high-quality care, and paramedics have an opportunity to do that. As part of our “Refreshing the mandate for Health Education England” initiative, we will be considering how we can make progress in that regard during the coming months and years.

[Mr Jamie Reed (Copeland) (Lab)]

I wish you and Ministers a happy new year, Mr Speaker. We certainly hope that it is a much happier new year for NHS patients.

In the last 52 weeks, almost two in 10 patients who arrived in accident and emergency units at the University Hospitals of Leicester NHS Trust waited for more than four hours. In 2011, the local risk register for Leicester, Leicestershire and Rutland primary care trust cluster warned that the Government’s reorganisation of urgent care services would lead to the

“risk of…inability to develop a resilient, predictive, high quality, Urgent and Emergency Care System.”

Given warnings from local risk registers about the disastrous impact of the Government’s reorganisation, and following the worst week of the winter so far for accident and emergency services, will the Secretary of State come clean, act transparently, and publish the warnings contained in the national risk register?

[Dr Poulter]

I remind the hon. Gentleman that the last Government never published risk registers. The policy that we have adopted is therefore entirely consistent with theirs. However, as the hon. Gentleman will recognise, it is not for Whitehall to micro-manage local commissioners and health care services. Decisions of that kind need to be made locally, by local commissioners working with patient groups in the best interests of patients and local communities.

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

10. What plans he has for regulation of the counselling and therapy professions.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Dr Daniel Poulter)]

We support the system of accredited voluntary registration established by the Professional Standards Authority for Health and Social Care. It has already accredited counselling and psychotherapy registers and others are seeking accreditation.

[Geraint Davies]

But the Minister knows that under this Government the number of people referred to psychotherapists and counsellors has tripled to 1 million at a cost of £400 million, and some of them are faced with so-called gay to straight conversion therapy. When will he support my Bill to regulate psychotherapists and ban so-called “gay cures”, which cause enormous trauma among their victims and are being promoted this Thursday at a big conference in Westminster?

[Dr Poulter]

As I am sure the hon. Gentleman is aware, the reason there have been increased referrals to therapists is that this Government are investing in early intervention and ensuring we invest in improving access to the psychological therapies programme so we can get to people with mental health problems much earlier and give them better support before they reach the point of crisis.

If I may beg your indulgence for one second, Mr Speaker, on the hon. Gentleman’s specific point about gay to straight conversion therapy, I also find that absolutely abhorrent in principle, but the issue is—it is an important issue and he should listen to this—that if we were to ban or put in place regulations on that it may have unintended consequences. That may stop counsellors practising who are supporting people coming to terms with their sexuality. That is an important service, and I hope we can support it on both sides of this House.

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

11. What assessment he has made of the effect of social care budget changes on the number of accident and emergency attendances.

[Robert Flello (Stoke-on-Trent South) (Lab)]

13. What assessment he has made of the effect of social care budget changes on the number of accident and emergency attendances.

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

16. What recent assessment he has made of the effect of social care budget changes on accident and emergency attendances.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Dr Daniel Poulter)]

Although councils have reduced social care budgets, the evidence suggests that this is not having an impact on the NHS. In fact, the data published by NHS England show that councils are getting better at getting people out of hospital at the appropriate time.

[Grahame M. Morris]

The National Audit Office reports that cuts to social care led to nearly 500,000 delayed bed days in accident and emergency in 2012-13, so will the Government see sense and commit to investing in lowering the eligibility threshold to moderate, ensuring that older and disabled people’s needs in Easington and throughout the country can be met in their community so they do not need to present to A and E causing further pressures on it?

[Dr Poulter]

Taking the hon. Gentleman’s question in the spirit he intends, I think there is a misunderstanding of the statistics. We need to reduce the pressure on A and E, and evidence from NHS England already shows that improvements in how social care works with the NHS over this Parliament are delivering improvements to care. In 2011-12 there were about 523,000 bed days lost because of delays attributable to social care, but in 2012-13 the number had fallen to 476,000, a drop of nearly 50,000. That shows that social care is working well to reduce pressure on A and E.

[Robert Flello]

I am absolutely amazed at the answer the Minister has just given. Stoke-on-Trent, which, despite the local authority having to cut a third of its budget, has managed to make cuts—or efficiency savings as the Government would call them, of course—and move money into social care. Despite that, however, it still has less to spend this year than it had just three years ago, and that is resulting in people not getting social care because of cuts to the budget and to eligibility. When is the Minister going to wake up and do something about it?

[Dr Poulter]

There is always a lot of political smoke around this, but spending has roughly been flat in cash terms according to the Association of Directors of Adult Social Services survey and councils are budgeting to spend more this year than they were last year on social care. In addition, we are setting up the integrated care fund of £3.8 billion to better join up health and social care, and that will help to improve the care available to patients as well as reduce pressure on budgets.

[Barbara Keeley]

But Government budget cuts have forced Salford local authority to change its eligibility criteria. For 1,400 people it is going to be zero-day social care, not seven-day social care, and even our excellent Salford Royal hospital is going to struggle when those 1,400 people find that the hospital is the only option for them. Age UK says these cuts make “no financial sense” and are “morally wrong”. When are Health Ministers going to see that point?

[Dr Poulter]

I make two points. First, the eligibility criteria began to change under the previous Government, so it is wrong of the hon. Lady to try to make political points which do not stand up to scrutiny. Secondly, I am disappointed that she is unable to recognise that there is very good integration of health and social care in Salford, in her own constituency. That is a model that we could look at to see how good care can be delivered elsewhere.

[Sarah Newton (Truro and Falmouth) (Con)]

I am delighted that Cornwall has been chosen as a pioneer area for joining up health and social care. It is the only pioneer area to be led by the voluntary sector. Will the Minister meet me and the Cornwall team to enable us to deliver that care in Cornwall?

[Dr Poulter]

I can confirm that the Minister of State, Department of Health, my hon. Friend the Member for North Norfolk (Norman Lamb), will be delighted to meet my hon. Friend to take that further, and that he and I will be visiting Cornwall in the next few months to see at first hand the excellent work that is being done there.

[Mr Philip Hollobone (Kettering) (Con)]

Would the Minister like to congratulate the Northamptonshire Healthcare NHS Foundation Trust, Kettering general hospital and the Northampton General Hospital NHS Trust for coming together to form the frail and elderly crisis hub in Northamptonshire, to prevent unnecessary admissions of elderly people to local accident and emergency departments?

[Dr Poulter]

I would very much like to do that. It is important, given that we sometimes have adversarial discussions on these matters, to highlight the examples of good practice. The example in my hon. Friend’s local area of Kettering is exactly the sort of initiative that we need to see elsewhere in the country. That is why we have given £3.8 billion to better support the integration of health and care.

[Mr Marcus Jones (Nuneaton) (Con)]

Changing working practices in hospitals is an important way of reducing pressures on social care and on A and E. Will my hon. Friend join me in praising the staff of the George Eliot hospital, who, through changes to working practices implemented under the supervision of the Keogh process, achieved the second-best A and E four-hour target performance in the country over the busy Christmas and new year period?

[Dr Poulter]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right to highlight the fact that integrated care working, better intermediate care and ensuring that GPs work closely with accident and emergency departments are exactly the kind of factors, along with joining up health and social care, that take pressure off A and E departments. I am delighted that things are going so well in his local area.

[Liz Kendall (Leicester West) (Lab)]

Happy new year, Mr Speaker.

People want a care system that gets the best results for patients and one that makes the best use of taxpayers’ resources, but under this Government they are getting neither. Half a million fewer people are now getting social care services to help them to continue to live at home, and half a million more older people are being admitted as more expensive hospital emergency cases that could have been avoided. Will the Minister tell us how that record represents good care and good value for taxpayers’ money?

[Dr Poulter]

The point I made earlier is that the number of cases of bed blocking due to social care delays has decreased under this Government. Also, it was the previous Government who began to change the eligibility criteria. Labour Members talk about a crisis in social care, but per-head funding for social care fell in the last term of the previous Government. That is the legacy that we are dealing with, and we are sorting it out—

[Mr Speaker]

Order. I do not wish to be unkind to the Minister, but I am quite interested in making progress with Back-Bench Members, who have had to wait too long.

[Sir Richard Ottaway (Croydon South) (Con)]

14. What assessment he has made of the causes and effects of the 2010-11 financial losses of NHS Croydon; and if he will make a statement.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Jane Ellison)]

As my right hon. Friend knows, an independent report published by NHS London in June 2012 identified a systemic failure of financial management within NHS Croydon, which caused an inaccurate picture of the organisation’s financial position to be presented. However, the report found that that there was no adverse effect on local patient care.

[Sir Richard Ottaway]

In 2011, NHS Croydon posted a surplus of £5.5 million. This was later corrected to an overspend of £23 million—an error of £28 million. Two years later, no one has been found culpable, no one has accepted responsibility and officials are refusing to answer questions. Does the Minister accept that unless someone is held responsible, the responsibility will lie with her?

[Jane Ellison]

My right hon. Friend is right to feel frustrated. The report did not find any one individual responsible; it found systemic failings. What really matters is what has been done to ensure that this sort of thing does not happen again, or that the chances of it happening again are minimised. Following the publication of the report, NHS London wrote to all the primary care trusts outlining the lessons to be learned, and my right hon. Friend will be relieved to hear that all clinical commissioning groups’ chief financial officers have been subject to a rigorous independent assessment and appointment process.

[Mr Speaker]

We come now to topical questions. It would be good to get through the list and beyond, so may I just remind Back Benchers and Front Benchers alike that topical questions and answers are supposed to be brief?

[Andrea Leadsom (South Northamptonshire) (Con)]

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

[The Secretary of State for Health (Mr Jeremy Hunt)]

I know that the whole House will wish to join me in remembering Paul Goggins at our first Health questions since his tragic death. He campaigned with great distinction on a number of health issues, including contaminated blood, mesothelioma and services at Wythenshawe hospital. I had the privilege of visiting a GP surgery in his constituency with him, and I know how much this utterly decent and selfless man cared about the health of his constituents. He has so sadly passed away, and the whole House will want to honour his memory and pass on our condolences to his family.

[Andrea Leadsom]

I certainly associate myself with the Secretary of State’s remarks. Will he undertake to look carefully at The 1001 Critical Days manifesto, which was recently launched by the right hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr Field), the right hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam (Paul Burstow), who is in his place, the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion and me? Will he look at what more can be done to provide a comprehensive care pathway for the perinatal period?

[Mr Jeremy Hunt]

Yes, we are looking at that closely, with the Minister responsible for paediatric services doing so particularly closely. In principle, we support what my hon. Friend is trying to achieve with that document and we welcome its contribution to the debate.

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

Last week, we heard shocking revelations about the reasons behind the Government’s U-turn on minimum unit alcohol pricing. In particular, researchers at Sheffield university have confirmed that they were asked by government not to publish a report that would have undermined the Government’s decision to shelve minimum unit pricing. Why were Ministers so keen to suppress the report? Will the Secretary of State please tell us why some of our country’s leading public health experts are accusing Ministers of deplorable practices and of dancing to the tune of the drinks industry?

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Jane Ellison)]

On the hon. Lady’s substantive point, the reports for the British Medical Journal investigation, which I read in full, did not say that at all and in fact confirm that that was not asked, so what she says is not quite right.

On the wider point, over the past two weeks we have heard a succession of attacks from the hon. Lady and the Opposition about dealings with industry and business. This Government have set out to work in partnership across business and industry, with public health experts and local authorities, to tackle some of these really big public health issues. It is simply incredible that the Labour party believes that these big issues can be taken seriously without engaging with business. Instead of demonising businesses, let us hear some praise for those such as Lidl, which yesterday announced that sweets would be removed from all its checkouts across the country, in response to its customers—a voice that is too little heard by the Labour party.

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

T2. Will the Secretary of State join me in congratulating the UK Chronic Fatigue Syndrome/Myalgic Encephalopathy Research Collaborative for providing a mechanism for ME charities, researchers and clinicians to work together in a co-ordinated way? What support will his Department give research into the causes of and treatment for ME?

[The Minister of State, Department of Health (Norman Lamb)]

I am not the Secretary of State, but I would be very happy to join my hon. Friend in congratulating the collaborative, which is doing excellent work to generate more CFS/ME research. Spend by the National Institute for Health Research has already doubled in two years, and more funding applications are welcome. The NIHR has awarded nearly £0.9 million to the collaborative’s deputy chair for a senior fellowship studying paediatric CFS/ME.

[Joan Walley (Stoke-on-Trent North) (Lab)]

T4. Given that tomorrow Staffordshire county council intends to confirm devastating cuts to services for those with special needs, including the closure of the purpose-built Kidsgrove day centre in my constituency, does the Secretary of State agree that it is time now for the council to wait and at the very least share its detailed needs assessment and future action plan before forcing these cuts through?

[Mr Jeremy Hunt]

I am very happy to look into the issue that the hon. Lady raises. Obviously, some very big changes are happening in the Staffordshire health economy, and the purpose of those is to improve services for everyone, so if she gives me the details of her concerns, I will happily look at them.

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

T3. At the end of last year, the Prime Minister hosted the very successful G8 summit on dementia. What plans does the Secretary of State have to continue, and indeed enhance, the UK’s global leadership on tackling dementia in 2014?

[Mr Hunt]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. That is a critical job that we must do this year. The purpose of the G8 summit was to wake up the world to the huge threat posed by dementia, as the world woke up to the threat of HIV/AIDS in the 1980s and the threat of cancer in the 1960s. We need to continue that work. Summits will be going on in America, Canada and Japan over the course of the next couple of years, and we need to keep up the momentum, because everyone agrees on the need to do such work.

[Hugh Bayley (York Central) (Lab)]

T5. On 1 January, the York Teaching Hospital NHS Foundation Trust ceased providing antenatal advice classes for pregnant women and refers them instead to online advice on its website. Is that an approach the Government support, and will they urgently invite the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence to review the change in policy and look at its effectiveness?

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Dr Daniel Poulter)]

I am sympathetic to the point that the hon. Gentleman raises, and I am happy to meet him to discuss it further so that we can see whether the matter needs to be addressed.

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

T6. On any given day in the Derriford hospital in Plymouth, 75% of patients are over 65 years of age and rising. Does that not demonstrate the demographic pressures that face our acute hospitals, and what more can this Government do to ensure that people, especially elderly people, are treated in the community?

[Mr Jeremy Hunt]

We are doing a huge amount, but the first thing is to ensure that there is someone in the NHS who is accountable and responsible for all vulnerable older people outside hospital, because out-of-hospital care is where we need to have the big revolution. There will be a big change in April with named GPs for the over-75s. The integration of the health and social care systems is the next step. I hope that my hon. Friend will see real progress for his constituents.

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

T7. The Secretary of State has had a letter from 118 specialists about the MenB—meningococcal B— vaccine. It is available to parents who pay privately, but denied to most of our children by the Joint Committee on Vaccine and Immunisation. Will the Secretary of State agree to meet the families of children who have had meningitis B and consider all the points raised by the clinicians before letting the JCVI rule out access to the vaccine?

[Mr Hunt]

I recognise the real concern over the previous advice given by the JCVI. I hope that the hon. Gentleman agrees that, on something as important as this, it is helpful to have an independent body coming to these decisions and making a ruling. When a ruling is made, we are legally bound to accept the advice, which means that there is a measure of independence. I have met families campaigning for the MenB vaccine. We are waiting to hear what the JCVI says in February. We should let it come to its conclusion after re-reviewing all the advice and the literature.

[Richard Graham (Gloucester) (Con)]

T8. The Government’s decision to increase our dementia research budget was welcome news, and the G8 conference agreement to share research among all G8 members was an important development too. Does my right hon. Friend agree that there is a role for MPs in helping to keep constituents informed about scientific developments that may lead to significant progress?

[Mr Hunt]

I do agree, and I congratulate my hon. Friend on his work. I know that he is meeting Alzheimer’s Research UK next month in his own constituency. This matter is something in which we can all be involved in our own constituencies. There is a lack of willingness to talk about dementia. Many people are frightened of it, and the more we can do to raise the profile of this condition, the more we can give people hope that something can be done about it.

[Meg Munn (Sheffield, Heeley) (Lab/Co-op)]

Although I support the principles of the Better Care Fund, does the Minister recognise that, in the context of severe cuts to local authorities and cuts in the NHS, the top-slicing of existing budgets is not sufficient? To encourage the kind of innovation that we need to get better integration, we must have additional funding.

[Norman Lamb]

The Government are getting on and implementing integrated, joined-up care. I remember talking about it constantly when the hon. Lady’s party was in government, and nothing ever happened. We are taking concrete steps to join up the system with the benefits of the £3.8 billion Better Care Fund.

[Iain Stewart (Milton Keynes South) (Con)]

T9. The Secretary of State is aware of the plans being developed by Milton Keynes hospital to expand its A and E capacity. In the interim, will he set out what assistance he can provide to ease short-term pressures?

[Jane Ellison]

I can confirm that the Department of Health is investing an additional £250 million over the next two years in A and E, with NHS England also allocating an additional £150 million for the current year. Milton Keynes has been allocated £2.8 million to support local initiatives to relieve pressures on A and E, and I know that, as a great champion for his local hospital, my hon. Friend will welcome that additional support.

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

Given the ongoing crisis in A and E units in the UK, particularly in the area I represent in Northern Ireland, will the Minister confirm whether the Health Minister in Northern Ireland has had discussions about possible solutions to finding and recruiting extra doctors?

[Dr Poulter]

I am not aware of any direct conversations with Ministers here, but as the hon. Lady will be aware, the Minister responsible for A and E services is my right hon. and noble Friend Earl Howe. I will write to her about the discussions that have been had with the noble Lord and Health Education England.

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

T10. I warmly welcome initiatives such as the introduction of personalised GP care for the over-75s, but what more can be done to ensure that personalised care treats the individual’s well-being as opposed to merely a collection of symptoms?

[Mr Jeremy Hunt]

We want people to be treated as individuals, not a bundle of illnesses. That personalised care must happen not only out of hospitals but in hospitals, too. We want doctors to take responsibility for the whole stay and to avoid that sense of people being passed from pillar to post. That is an area in which we hope to announce some important changes shortly.

[Alison Seabeck (Plymouth, Moor View) (Lab)]

In an earlier response, the Under-Secretary of State for Health, the hon. Member for Central Suffolk and North Ipswich (Dr Poulter), expressed his dislike for the working time directive. Would the Secretary of State be happy to revert to a situation in which patient safety, already compromised at weekends, is further compromised by over-tired doctors?

[Mr Hunt]

No one wants to go back to the bad old days of junior doctors working all the hours God gives, but the working time directive has had a negative impact on patient safety. It has made training rosters more difficult and it has meant that there is less continuity of care as people do not see the same doctor when they go back to hospital. We need to look at whether we can do that better, because it is not helping patients.

[Mr Philip Hollobone (Kettering) (Con)]

By Christmas, almost 2,000 staff at Kettering general hospital had received their flu jab—that is about 60% of front-line staff. Would the Secretary of State like to congratulate the hospital and its members for its bid to become the acute trust in the east midlands with the best flu jab record for three years in a row?

[Mr Hunt]

Absolutely. I am very encouraged that across the NHS trusts have had a much higher uptake of flu jabs for staff than in previous years, but Kettering is leading the way.

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

At the excellent James Cook University hospital between 19 December and 1 January, 49 ambulances were delayed for more than 30 minutes, 168 beds were blocked and 82% of admitted patients had been treated within 18 weeks, rather than the Government target of 90%. Why does the Secretary of State think that that is the case?

[Mr Hunt]

Because there is sustained pressure throughout the NHS. Across the NHS, hospitals and ambulance services are doing very well in the circumstances. I am happy to look at the hon. Gentleman’s specific concerns to make sure that his local NHS trust is doing everything it should.

[Mr Simon Burns (Chelmsford) (Con)]

Is the Secretary of State aware that every fast food outlet in the United States displays the number of calories for each portion of food that it sells? Given that some fast food restaurants in this country, such as McDonald’s, already do that, does he believe that more should be done to make all fast food outlets in this country display the number of calories so that people are educated before they make a choice about what they are going to purchase?

[Jane Ellison]

My right hon. Friend is quite right to say that that is a real priority. The responsibility deal, on which we have worked with our partners, means that 70% of fast food and takeaway meals sold on the high street in the UK have clearly labelled calories, but there is always more to do. This is a priority for the responsibility deal and we are working closely with our industry partners to make more progress.

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

Does the Minister believe that social isolation, which is a key contributor to the health and well-being of older people living on their own, has got worse or has improved under this Government?

[Norman Lamb]

I think that social isolation, if we are honest about it, has got worse over quite a long period, particularly as extended families have been dispersed far and wide. The answer has to be for the whole of society and must involve statutory services working together with the voluntary sector. In Cornwall, one of the pioneers in integrated care, there is a fantastic collaboration between the voluntary sector and the statutory sector to ensure that they directly address the problems with loneliness.

[Mr Speaker]

Last but not least and I hope with exemplary brevity, I call Tessa Munt.

[Tessa Munt (Wells) (LD)]

What steps is the Secretary of State taking to ensure that the number of cancer indications treated in this financial year by stereotactic ablative radiotherapy does not fall below the number of treatments delivered in the 2012-13 financial year?

[Jane Ellison]

That is an area that the hon. Lady and I have discussed at some length. I know that she feels strongly about it. We have meetings coming up to discuss it and I think that it would be easier to deal with her detailed points in those meetings.

IT Systems (Army Recruitment)

Tuesday 14th January 2014 Commons Chamber

12:34

[Vernon Coaker (Gedling) (Lab)]

(Urgent Question): To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the performance of Ministry of Defence IT systems and the effect on Army recruitment.

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

The Army entered into a partnering contract with Capita in March 2012 to manage the recruitment of regular and reserve soldiers. That is an Army-led initiative designed to free up military personnel from recruitment-related administrative tasks and to improve both the quantity and quality of Army recruits. It will play a key role as we transition the Army to the new Army 2020 structures.

I should make it clear to the House that the Army has not outsourced its recruitment; it remains in overall charge of recruitment and will continue to play a major role in attracting and mentoring recruits. Capita’s role is to manage the supporting processes by which a would-be recruit becomes an enlisted regular or a fully trained reservist.

As I have explained to the House previously, there have been initial difficulties with that recruiting process as we transition to the new recruiting arrangements with Capita. In particular, we have encountered difficulties with the IT systems supporting the application and enlistment process. The decision to use the legacy Atlas IT platform was deemed at the time to be the quickest and most cost-effective way of delivering the new recruitment programme. An option to revert to a Capita hosting solution was included in the contracts as a back-up solution.

I was made aware in the summer of last year that the Army was encountering problems with the integration of the Capita system into the Atlas platform. Since then we have put in place a number of workarounds and mitigation measures for the old IT platform to simplify the application process, and we have reintroduced military personnel to provide manual intervention to support the process.

Having visited the Army’s recruitment centre in Upavon on 30 October, it became clear to me that, despite the Army putting in place measures to mitigate those problems in the near term, further long-term action was needed to fix the situation. It was agreed in principle at that point that the Atlas system was not capable of timely delivery of the Capita-run programme and that we would need to take up the option of reverting to Capita building a new IT platform specifically to run its system, which will be ready early next year.

In the short term, we have already taken action to bring in a range of initiatives that will make it progressively easier and quicker for applicants, both regular and reserve, to enlist. As I informed the House in December, we have taken a number of actions, including: the introduction this month of a new front-end web application for Army recruitment; a simplified online application form; more streamlined medical clearance processes; greater mentoring of recruits by local reserve units through the application, enlistment and training process; and the reintroduction of reserve unit recruitment targets and the provision of recruitment resource to reserve unit commanding officers. With an improved Army recruitment website, streamlined medicals and an increase in the number of recruiting staff, recruits should see a much-improved experience by the end of this month.

As we move forward, we are looking at further ways of improving the management of the recruiting process in the intervening period before the introduction of the advanced IT system now being developed in partnership with Capita, which is expected to be deployed in February 2015. We have just launched a new recruitment drive for the Army, both regular and reserve, which will remind the House and the public that the Army is always recruiting and continues to offer exciting and rewarding careers in both the regular and reserve forces.

[Vernon Coaker]

I thank the Secretary of State for that statement.

In these first few weeks of 2014 there is no danger of auld acquaintance being forgot with this Secretary of State and Government. It may be a new year, but is it not the same old story of complacency, inefficiency and a lack of transparency at the Ministry of Defence? Here we go again. The Secretary of State has been forced to come to the House of Commons to try to explain catastrophic failures costing millions of pounds of taxpayers’ money. This time it is an IT fiasco. It did not have to be like this.

Will the Secretary of State acknowledge that many in this House, myself included, warned that the Government were taking risks with Britain’s security by not fixing the reserve recruitment crisis before reducing numbers in the regular Army, and now we have the IT debacle? Does he accept that, just like the mess the Government made of privatising procurement, his entire armed forces reform programme is in danger of collapsing, too?

I asked the Defence Secretary specifically about the IT problems and Capita on the Floor of the House on 20 November 2013. Did he not say that everything was in hand? It is clear that the computer said no, but the Defence Secretary said, no problem.

Does the Defence Secretary remember telling the House on 4 November 2013 that there had merely been “teething problems” with the IT support for Army recruitment? If today’s reports are accurate, I would advise the Defence Secretary to seek dental advice elsewhere, because today we have learned that the problems are even worse than anyone thought and still have not been fixed.

Will the Defence Secretary tell the House which Minister signed off the deal and who has been responsible for monitoring it? Will he confirm that the project, costing £1.3 billion, is almost two years behind schedule and will not be fully operational until April 2015 at the earliest?

The Future Reserves 2020 report, placed in the Library on 18 December—I am sure it was only a coincidence that that was the day on which the House rose for the Christmas break—confirms that an improved IT system will be developed in partnership with Capita. Will the Secretary of State confirm how much that will cost? Is it the figure of nearly £50 million that has been reported in the papers today?

Will the Secretary of State also confirm that £15.5 million has been spent building the existing flawed computer system behind the project? Finally, is it correct that this continuing disaster is costing taxpayers £1 million every month?

On 10 April 2013, the then Minister of State, the right hon. Member for South Leicestershire (Mr Robathan), said that

“the Recruiting Partnering Project with Capita…will lead to a significant increase in recruiting performance.”—[Official Report, 10 April 2013; Vol. 560, c. 1134W.]

Is there any Member of this House, any member of our armed forces or, indeed, any member of the British public who still believes that?

The blame for the mess we are now in lies squarely with the Government. We cannot take risks with our armed forces and we cannot gamble with our nation’s safety and security. Does the Defence Secretary not need to get a grip and sort out this shambles?

[Mr Hammond]

That is precisely what I am doing. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman should remind himself that the initial gate business case for this project to outsource recruiting was approved in July 2008, so I hope we are not in dispute over the principle.

The hon. Gentleman mentioned an IT debacle. Yes, there are big problems with the IT and I have told the House on repeated occasions that we have IT challenges. There are problems with IT in Government. The hon. Gentleman speaks as if he was not a member of the Government who spent £13 billion on a health computer system that we had to write off and £400 million on a work and pensions computer system that had to be written off.

What we are doing now is gripping this problem and addressing it. That means, in the short term, workarounds and putting additional manpower into the system to provide additional support. Short-term solutions include the new front-end web application, which will go live over the next two weeks, to improve the experience of applicants accessing the platform.

The hon. Gentleman asked about the costs and I can give him some figures. The Capita solution will cost about £47.7 million to produce a full new IT platform. The alternative Atlas IT platform proposal would have cost about £43 million, so the additional cost of the Capita solution is about £4.5 million. He asked about the £15.5 million of sunk cost. Our initial estimate is that about £6.7 million of that represents costs that will have to be written off, but that will be subject to a proper audit process.

The hon. Gentleman asked about the additional cost—the running cost, as it were—of the interim solution that we have put in place. It comprises additional payments that have to be made and the cost of the additional manpower that has been delivered into the system. That is currently running at about £1 million per month. The solution that we have adopted and that we have now approved—going ahead with Capita platform and placing the integration risk back on Capita—is judged to be the quickest way of eliminating that ongoing expenditure and the best way of delivering a permanent solution for the benefit of the Army and the taxpayer.

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

I again suggest to the Secretary of State that plans to replace 20,000 regulars with 30,000 reservists will cost much more than the Government envisage, leading to false economies and a waste of taxpayers’ money. Given the tens of millions of pounds already wasted on this IT shambles, will he outline how much more it will cost to put it right? Does this not reinforce the point that the Government should now halt and stop the disbandment of regular units until we are sure that the plan to replace them with reservists is both cost-effective and feasible?

[Mr Hammond]

Let me deal with the cost point first. The overall programme, the Capita recruiting partnership project, has a budget of about £1.3 billion over a 10-year period. As I have just outlined, the additional cost of the IT platform is estimated to be £47.7 million.

Repeating the question that he has asked many times, my hon. Friend asked whether it is appropriate to replace 20,000 regular soldiers with 30,000 reservists. That is not what we are doing; we are changing the shape of the British Army and we are changing the role of reservists, whom we intend to fill specialist roles and provide resilience in the case of a prolonged future deployment. He makes a regular versus reserve point, but I should be clear with him that the recruiting platform is used for regular and reserve recruitment: it affects both regulars and reservists.

[Mr George Howarth (Knowsley) (Lab)]

I declare a non-pecuniary interest as I chair Knowsley Skills academy, which has a 100% success rate in preparing candidates for entry into the military.

Does the Secretary of State accept that, regardless of who initiated the project, the problem is not the IT system, but the fact that the online recruitment model is flawed? It does not allow those doing the recruiting to identify at an early enough stage what candidates have to do to get up to the necessary standard to meet the requirements. He needs to go back to a professional soldier looking candidates in the eye and telling them what they need to do to get up to the required standard.

[Mr Hammond]

There is some truth in what the right hon. Gentleman says. One measure we have already put in place for reserves recruitment is reverting to an early face-to-face interview over a weekend session, where it is possible to deal with several processes in one hit, rather than stringing them out over a much longer period, which was how the system was originally set up.

It is clear to me that the original concept did not give a big enough role to front-line reservist units in managing the process of attracting recruits and then mentoring them through the pipeline to the point at which they join stage 1 training. We have now put that right, with recruitment budgets and recruiting targets allocated to reserve unit commanding officers, who will be held to account for delivering the recruiting targets. From the reserve units that I have visited and the COs to whom I have talked, I know that they are very glad to have back that role and responsibility.

[Mr Julian Brazier (Canterbury) (Con)]

In welcoming the recent package of changes and the work of the new and energetic major-general at the Army recruiting group, Major General Chris Tickell, may I suggest to my right hon. Friend that one of the key lessons to learn is the importance of developing distinct pathways towards the same ultimate aim? That applies not just to the recruiting group, but to other areas such as the military secretary’s department and the wider personnel function. That is what is done in every other country in the English-speaking world.

[Mr Hammond]

I think that my hon. Friend is talking about a distinct pathway for reserves, as opposed to regulars.

[Mr Brazier]

indicated assent.

[Mr Hammond]

I pay tribute to my hon. Friend. It is largely as a result of his insistence on that point that I have become focused over the past four or five months on the importance of maintaining that distinct ethos, not just in the recruitment process, but elsewhere in the reserves. I agree with him entirely.

[Mrs Madeleine Moon (Bridgend) (Lab)]

Millions wasted on planned “cats and traps” on aircraft carriers, millions wasted on a failed GoCo and millions wasted on a failed IT system—will the Secretary of State tell us how many members of the armed forces would still be in their jobs if it were not for the millions that have been wasted by this Government’s failures?

[Mr Hammond]

Unfortunately, the hon. Lady forgot the £1.6 billion that was wasted by deliberately delaying the aircraft carrier contract because of a shortage of £300 million of cash in-year. The restructuring of the British Army is a long-term strategic response to the fiscal environment and the post-Afghanistan challenges that we face. The size of the Army is right for the future.

[Sir Bob Russell (Colchester) (LD)]

How many military personnel have been deployed to bail out Capita’s failure to deliver on recruitment?

[Mr Hammond]

First, we need to be careful about succumbing to the temptation which there always is in this House to blame Capita.

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

You did.

[Mr Hammond]

No, I did not. It is Atlas that has failed to deliver an IT platform that Capita can utilise effectively.

To answer the question of the hon. Member for Colchester (Sir Bob Russell), just under 1,000 personnel are involved. Some of them have been surged into front-end recruiting and are acting as military recruiters on the ground, and others are providing manual support for administrative tasks that should be, and ultimately will be, carried out by the IT platform.

[Derek Twigg (Halton) (Lab)]

Not long after the Secretary of State visited Upavon, it was visited by a number of members of the Defence Committee, including me. It was clear that there had been problems for quite some time. The Capita representatives said that there was no reality in what they were being asked to deliver. When did he and his Ministers first become aware that there was a serious problem with the project?

[Mr Hammond]

As I said earlier, in early summer last year, it became clear that there were problems in integrating the Capita processes with the Atlas IT platform. It was when I visited Upavon in October that I formed the conclusion that there was no way of resolving the Atlas problem, and that we had to revert to the Capita option and place the integration challenge back with Capita to deliver a platform and a process.

[John Glen (Salisbury) (Con)]

Complex IT problems are common in the public and private sectors. It is important that steps have been taken to put the problems right. Will my right hon. Friend come back to the House in the near future to convince us that the targets on the recruitment of regulars and reserves are being met, so that the wider public can be confident that the problems have been resolved?

[Mr Hammond]

As was mentioned by the shadow Secretary of State, just before Christmas I published the trajectory of recruiting targets for the reserves that we will have to meet to deliver on our commitment of 30,000 trained reservists by 2018. I have given the House a commitment that we will publish the out-turn figures on a quarterly basis. Aside from the numbers, anyone who looks at the Army recruiting website will start to see measurable, noticeable improvements by the end of this month, as some of the interim solutions start to take effect.

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

The Secretary of State still seems confident that these are initial difficulties that can be overcome. I am not so convinced. I think that they are systemic problems. These problems shed light on his decision to reduce the regular Army before the reservists are fully tested. Now that he knows about the problems, will he say in his own terms at what stage he will say that these are no longer initial problems and that we need to review the situation properly because there is a systemic failure in his approach?

[Mr Hammond]

To interpret the hon. Lady’s question, I am clear that the problems with the ICT platform are not initial difficulties. We have made a clear decision that the Atlas platform is not fit for this purpose and have asked Capita to develop a dedicated platform for Army recruitment.

However, I think that the hon. Lady is probably referring to the wider challenge of recruiting the necessary reserve numbers. She is right to say that there are two components to that. There is the technical challenge of processing recruits through the pipeline. I have admitted to the House on a number of occasions that the system is very clunky, which is partly but not exclusively because of problems with the ICT platform. There is also the wider challenge, in the face of societal change and public attitudes, of encouraging people to want to join the Army Reserve and encouraging employers to want to support employees in joining the Army Reserve. It is very early days, but the signs are encouraging. I have no doubt that I will continue to report to the House as the evidence becomes more readily available over the course of the year.

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

In answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Salisbury (John Glen), my right hon. Friend referred to the reservist recruiting targets that he set out before Christmas. He has also indicated to the House when he first became aware of the IT problems. Will he confirm that the targets that he set out for reservist recruitment took into account the problems that he has outlined to the House in his statement today?

[Mr Hammond]

Yes, the growth trajectory is fully cognisant of the challenges that we face and the time scales for correcting those problems.

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

The fact that Atlas is not fit for purpose and the mess that we are in suggest that there was a fundamental flaw in the design of the project and in the project management thereafter. When such mistakes occurred under the previous Administration, the Conservative party regularly asked for somebody to resign. Who will take responsibility for this failure?

[Mr Hammond]

The hon. Gentleman might like to reflect on the previous Administration’s record of taking responsibility for their failures. Hon. Members who are interested in the IT challenge in government will recognise that there is always a tension between the desire to utilise existing platforms and contracts to deliver IT in an effective and efficient way that provides value for money, and the fact that the Department shoulders the integration risk. By asking Capita to develop a process using the existing Atlas platform, the Department effectively accepted the integration risk. We are now asking Capita to shoulder the integration risk by developing a platform that is purposely designed for its process.

[Sarah Newton (Truro and Falmouth) (Con)]

I welcome the statement by my right hon. Friend today and his action to recruit reservists. However, the continued uncertainty over the Rifles reservist base in Truro is having an impact on recruitment. Will he give an update on his consideration of the case that I have made to keep the Rifles reservist base in Cornwall? People in Cornwall really do want the opportunity to serve their nation in this way.

[Mr Hammond]

My right hon. Friend the Minister for the Armed Forces tells me that he discussed that issue recently with my hon. Friend. We are looking at the decision on reserve basing in Cornwall. We have announced our plans for reserve basing, but have indicated that there is flexibility in those plans. We must, of course, recruit where the recruits are available. We recognise that necessity.

[Toby Perkins (Chesterfield) (Lab)]

The Secretary of State referred to streamlining medical requirements as part of this process. We have all had people in our constituencies who have attempted to join the armed forces, but subsequently found that their bodies were not robust enough to fulfil the process. That is damaging for them and costly for the armed forces. Will the Secretary of State assure the House that streamlining the process will not lead to more people dropping out as a result of being unable to fulfil medical requirements further down the line?

[Mr Hammond]

The hon. Gentleman makes a good point, and there are two parts to the problem. One is the time it is taking us to get medical records from GPs, and we are addressing that specific problem. Even if that is overcome, however, there will still be a time lag in getting medical records from GPs. We are looking at whether we can use a system similar to that used in officer cadet training units in universities, where recruits can answer a simple medical questionnaire to enable them to begin taking part in some carefully defined activities. That would capture and get them engaged in that first flush of enthusiasm, rather than leave them sitting on the bench for months, waiting for medical records to come through from their GP.

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

Given the IT challenges we face, will the Secretary of State confirm that we are still on track to meet our recruitment targets? With the rebalancing of the Army’s regular reserve forces, will he say what more is being done to encourage those who have served as regular officers and soldiers and completed that service, and who might now consider service in the Territorial reserves and take advantage of that experience?

[Mr Hammond]

My hon. Friend makes a good point, and recruiting ex-regulars is an important part of our strategy for building the reserves, not least because ex-regulars drop straight to the trained strength if their regular Army service is recent enough. As he will know, we are currently offering an enlistment bounty for ex-regulars to join the reserves, which reflects some part of the cost saving that we make through not having to take ex-regular recruits through the full reserve training process.

[John Woodcock (Barrow and Furness) (Lab/Co-op)]

This administrative quagmire is the latest part of what is becoming a worrying and costly pattern of events under the Secretary of State’s stewardship. He had a good reputation for competence around Whitehall before he took up his latest job. What has happened?

[Mr Hammond]

The important thing in a Department as large and complex as the Ministry of Defence, with a budget of £33 billion a year, is not to pretend that we can operate the vast range of contracts and arrangements we have in place without some failures. That is never going to happen. The challenge is to grip failure when it becomes apparent, and to manage and resolve it as quickly and efficiently as possible. I am prepared to stand on my record of delivering that kind of outcome.

[Jason McCartney (Colne Valley) (Con)]

As an officer commanding the Royal Air Force recruiting offices in Newcastle and Middlesbrough, I saw at first hand the challenges of recruiting particular trades and branches—at the time it was aerospace systems operators, and Royal Air Force regiment gunners. Will my right hon. Friend say what implications and consequences there have been for Royal Navy and Royal Air Force recruiting as a result of some of the challenges with Army recruiting in recent months?

[Mr Hammond]

The platform that the Army is putting in place is ultimately intended to deliver for all three services, but at the moment it is the Army that is principally affected by those problems. I understand that Royal Auxiliary Air Force recruitment is going extremely well at the moment.

[Nick Smith (Blaenau Gwent) (Lab)]

On 11 December—about a month ago—I asked the Minister of State, Cabinet Office, the hon. Member for Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner (Mr Hurd), why the Government had not planned the ICT better so that the new recruitment processes and Ministry of Defence systems would work better. He said:

“What we have done is to put in proper controls and create the conditions in which smaller and leaner organisations can come in and offer better value.”—[Official Report, 11 December 2013; Vol. 572, c. 225.]

Back in the real world, how many recruitment applications have fallen between the cracks of this failed system?

[Mr Hammond]

I have heard Capita referred to as a lot of things, but not normally as “smaller and leaner”. The hon. Gentleman is referring to precisely the tension that I mentioned a few moments ago—between the desire to allow smaller players to come in, provide IT solutions to the Government and utilise existing IT solutions, and the desire to ensure that the integration risk lies with the supplier. My view is that the Government are poor at managing integration risk, and I suggest that a solution that may look superficially good value, but which transfers integration risk to Departments, is probably to be viewed with some suspicion.

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

The Secretary of State explained that the interim solution will lead to an improvement in recruitment numbers over the next few weeks, and that we should start to see that improvement come through. Will he therefore explain why the interim solution is not capable of being turned into a much cheaper long-term solution?

[Mr Hammond]

There are a number of elements to that. I said that potential recruits seeking to access the system will notice an improvement in the quality of the IT platform, principally because the front end—the web-based portal through which they will access the system—will be replaced at the end of January by a system that is now running but still being trialled before it goes live. The system will work, but that is by applying additional manual resource, which, as I have already told the House, is costing us £1 million a month. The purpose of the partnering contract is to take about 1,000 personnel who were involved in the administration of recruiting out of that role, and save about £300 million a year. In the long term we still need to harvest that saving, and it will be necessary to have a proper ICT solution to do that.

[Gavin Shuker (Luton South) (Lab/Co-op)]

How many recruits have fallen through the cracks?

[Mr Hammond]

That is difficult to say because, by definition, when we talk about recruits falling through the cracks, we are essentially talking about people who have become frustrated with the delay in the process and simply dropped out and gone away. We are seeking to track those people and to go back and re-engage them, as it were, but I know from anecdotal evidence—e-mails I get in my personal e-mail account—that a number of people have just got fed up with the system and given up. The Army is acutely conscious that we cannot afford to waste any potential recruits.

[Mr Philip Hollobone (Kettering) (Con)]

Will the Secretary of State confirm that the Royal Marines are outside this Army recruitment system because they come under the Navy recruitment platform? I am slightly alarmed to hear that he intends to roll this system out to the Navy and the RAF. What lessons might the Army learn from naval and RAF recruitment, and what efforts are being made to recruit from our great pool of cadet forces across all three services?

[Mr Hammond]

There are several questions there. First, the IT platform—the management of the process—is intended to provide a tri-service platform, and once it is fully operational, it will provide savings to the Navy and Air Force as well. Cadets provide an opportunity to showcase careers in the armed services, and we know that significant numbers of recruits have cadet experience. I want to be clear that we should support young people who join the cadets, and when they are interested in a career in the armed services, we should support them to explore the possibilities of such a career. As my hon. Friend will know, we are also committed to rolling out an increased number of combined cadet forces in state schools, to mirror the great success that those established combined cadet forces in independent schools have already demonstrated.

[Hugh Bayley (York Central) (Lab)]

The Defence Committee report published today expresses concern that the rate of voluntary outflow from the armed forces is way above the long-term average. It also mentions the problems in pinch-point trades. What is the Secretary of State doing to address those problems? Would it make sense to modify the redundancy scheme, at least in the short term, until the recruitment problems are overcome?

[Mr Hammond]

I can assure the hon. Gentleman that nobody who is in an area where we have a shortage is eligible for redundancy. The redundancy programme essentially addresses the changed structure of the Army. At the same time, we have an over-supply in certain areas and a chronic shortage in others. In the short term, we are paying retention bonuses in pinch-point trades, particularly in the Royal Navy—sea-going engineering skills and nuclear engineering skills are in desperately short supply. We are actively managing the work force with retention initiatives. In the longer-term, we must grow the skills we need. We are working with the Department for Education and the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills to ensure that we generate the nuclear engineering skills the armed forces need as the UK civil nuclear industry regenerates.

[Julian Smith (Skipton and Ripon) (Con)]

Having undertaken recruitment programmes for some of the largest companies in the world, I can reassure the Secretary of State that such large initiatives always take time. This is not a sausage machine; it is about getting the right people for our armed forces. I urge him not to be too concerned with obsessing over quarterly targets.

[Mr Hammond]

I am sure my hon. Friend’s advice is sound, but hon. Members, who are focused on the challenge of reaching the 30,000 target by 2018, will want to hold the Government to account on the interim recruiting targets. However, my hon. Friend is right in another important respect. Changing how we recruit is not just about getting additional numbers in at the top of the hopper. It is about improving the efficiency of the process; ensuring that we get a greater percentage of initial applicants accepted; and ensuring that a greater percentage of those who are accepted for enlistment make it through to the completion of training and join the trained reserve strength. Making the process more efficient will save us money and deliver us the results we need.

[Ian Lucas (Wrexham) (Lab)]

Yesterday, I questioned Department for Work and Pensions Ministers about Capita’s failure to deal expeditiously with cancer patients who apply for the personal independence payment. Today, the Secretary of State for Defence asks hon. Members to have confidence in Capita sorting the recruitment mess out. Why should the country and the House have any confidence whatever in the capacity of that organisation to do that?

[Mr Hammond]

Outsourcing services is here to stay. At the cost that regular Army soldiers represent to us, we cannot contemplate using them to perform administrative tasks in the recruitment process in future. Those tasks must be outsourced to be sustainable. We are confident that Capita has a solution. At the outset of the contract, we chose not to adopt the Capita solution, but to go with extant departmental policy, which was to use the existing Atlas platform. We have now reversed that decision for the Army recruiting programme.

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

Based on the figures the Secretary of State has given today, the original decision to try to integrate the Atlas platform seems strange. When that decision was taken, was there no contingency plan? Given the history of trouble with Government IT projects and the importance of the project, what consideration was given to a contingency plan when the decision was taken?

[Mr Hammond]

The contingency plan was put in place and the fact that there was a risk was clearly recognised at the time. The contracts with both Capita and Atlas were written to allow for a reversion to a Capita-hosted solution if the Department decided that that was necessary. That is what we have done.

Registration of Stillbirths

Tuesday 14th January 2014 Commons Chamber

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

13:14

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

I beg to move,

That leave be given to bring in a Bill to amend the Births and Deaths Registration Act 1953 to provide that parents may register the death of a child stillborn before the threshold of 24 weeks gestation.

My wife and I are very fortunate to have three teenage children. All were born healthily and without complications. We, like other hon. Members, are lucky, but other parents —I suggest that there are more than many would realise—have not been so fortunate. Some experience loss through miscarriage, often repeatedly; some give birth routinely but experience the pain of losing a child within days, weeks or months; and some go through all the trials and tribulations and highs and lows of pregnancy only to give birth to a stillborn child. It is to try to help those parents that I am introducing this Bill.

Perinatal mortality rates—stillbirths and neonatal deaths of babies within 28 days of being born—remain worryingly high in the UK. In 2012, 7.4 deaths per 1,000 live births were recorded. That was little changed on the year before, although an improvement of about a third from 30 years ago. That is better than some of our European counterparts, but worse than most. It is also nothing like the progress that has been made on preventing cot deaths, which, after much high-profile attention and the “Back to Sleep” campaign in the 1990s, have fallen dramatically by two thirds in less than 20 years.

Other countries, such as Holland and Norway, have reduced their mortality rates much more dramatically, yet, in the UK, we continue to see wide variations geographically and demographically. For example, the stillbirth rate in the south-west of England is 4.7 per 1,000 live births; in the north-east, it is 5.8, a 23% difference. There are big differences between age groups and mums from different ethnic backgrounds.

The simple fact is that 3,558 babies were stillborn in England and Wales alone in 2012. One in 200 pregnancies ends in stillbirth after 24 weeks—it is 15 times more common than cot death. That equates to nearly 10 babies every day. That is 10 mothers who have lost a child after completing more than half the term of a pregnancy. They then have to go through the pain of childbirth to see a baby who will not grow up. In 2011, the figure was 3,811 babies, and in 2003, it was 3,612. The situation has not improved in the last decade.

I am not the first hon. Member to raise the issue in the House. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Daventry (Chris Heaton-Harris), who has worked tirelessly through debates, and through his work with constituents and Sands, the excellent stillbirth and neonatal death charity. I also recognise the work that Health Ministers and the Department of Health have done with the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists, and with the Royal College of Midwives, to promote better research into causes, develop a stillbirth prevention programme and examine variations in clinical practice.

I am using this opportunity to reiterate the challenges we still face over perinatal mortality rates, but the situation is worse, hence the focus of my Bill. A stillbirth is classified as such only if the gestation period is 24 weeks or more. One day less, and that stillbirth becomes a non-viable delivery, or is more commonly referred to as a mid-trimester miscarriage. There are no central records of exactly how many babies are born in that way, so they do not form part of the perinatal mortality figures.

Without wishing in any way to downplay the importance and pain of a miscarriage, particularly for new parents struggling to have their first child, the experiences are different. That was brought home to me most starkly by the story of a constituent of mine, Hayley, who came to see me before Christmas, campaigning for a change in the law.

Last year, Hayley was pregnant. For nearly 20 weeks, she carried the child of her partner Frazer. She felt the baby kicking. She went through all the other ups and downs of a first-time pregnancy. Sadly, after around 19 weeks, something went wrong, and Hayley and Frazer’s baby died unborn. It was not a miscarriage, and the following week Hayley had to go through the pain of giving birth to a baby that she knew was no longer alive. She had to take powerful drugs to induce the pregnancy. She experienced contractions. She went into Worthing hospital and had pain relief. The following day in June, she gave birth to her baby, Samuel. She held Samuel in her arms. She and her partner took photographs, had his hand and footprints taken and said their goodbyes.

Fortunately, Hayley was given good support by the clinical staff at Worthing hospital and had bereavement guidance later. She has an understanding employer in West Sussex county council. She was also fortunate to find a sympathetic funeral director. The funeral took place two weeks later.

To all intents and purposes, Hayley went through all the experiences of pregnancy and the pain of childbirth endured by any other mother, but they were coupled in this case with the unimaginable grief of a parent who has lost a child before they could ever get to know him. She did not just go through a stillbirth: she had a still baby; she became a mum. The crucial difference is that Hayley’s and Frazer’s baby is not recognised in the eyes of the state because he was born before 24 weeks’ gestation. If he had survived until 24 weeks and one day, he would have been recognised and the death properly registered in a register of stillbirths, forming part of the statistics I referred to earlier. More than just adding to the statistics though, that would have been the acknowledgement of an actual, individual baby. To add further insult to injury, Hayley had to hand back her maternity exemption certificate straight afterwards.

That stark difference surely cannot be right; it adds insult to the unimaginable pain that the parents have already had to suffer. Until the passing of the Still-Birth (Definition) Act 1992, which amended the Births and Deaths Registration Act 1953, the threshold was 28 weeks, so prior to that even more babies went unrecognised in official records. That change followed a clear consensus in the medical profession on the age at which a baby is considered viable. Since then, in fact, there have been cases of babies born before 24 weeks who have, incredibly, survived.

It is true that there is an informal procedure for hospitals to issue so-called commemorative certificates for foetuses that are not classified as stillbirths. They provide parents with a certificate that records their pregnancy loss before 24 weeks. Sands has produced a template of a certificate of birth and encourages all hospitals to adopt it. However, it is unofficial and counts for little in the eyes of the state.

Late last year, Hayley became pregnant again, but sadly suffered a miscarriage after five weeks. Coming hard on the heels of the stillbirth, this was a further huge blow for her and her partner. The effect was no less tragic than the earlier stillbirth, but the experience was a very different one. Yet the stillbirth and the miscarriage are treated as just the same in the eyes of the law, and it is this inequity that I want to put right.

My Bill would provide for the official registration of stillborn babies below 24 weeks’ gestation. It would not be based on a crude time threshold of what is deemed a viable foetus, but on the experience of giving birth. Hayley and Frazer’s baby would be recognised as having existed; Samuel’s death would have been registered. That would go some way to providing some comfort to parents such as Hayley and Frazer at an unimaginably painful time. It would provide some form of closure and allow them to move on more easily. It would also provide more data to aid the analysis of why such stillbirths happen and, hopefully, of what can be done to jump-start a resumption in falling numbers from the last decade’s plateau. For those who say that the physical act of registering a dead child alongside those registering a healthy birth could open up wounds and exacerbate the grief of the parents, I am sure that a more discrete and empathetic procedure could easily be devised.

The Bill has nothing to do with changing the law on abortion. It does not propose to change the status quo with regard to entitlement to maternity benefits and bereavement entitlement, although I think official recognition would make it easier to secure appropriate empathy and flexibility from employers. The Government have already made changes, rightly, to maternity allowance guidance to ensure mothers whose babies are stillborn after 24 weeks receive benefits they are legally entitled to, and the process has been made easier.

My Bill proposes a modest measure that requires minimal changes to legislation and little cost to the state, but for mums like Hayley, and her partner, and thousands of others struggling to have children, it has the potential to make a huge difference in helping them to handle the grief of a loss that most of us could not imagine. It is the right thing to do, it is the right thing for this House to do, and I commend it to hon. Members.

Question put and agreed to.

Ordered,

That Tim Loughton, Chris Heaton-Harris, Mr Gary Streeter, Paul Burstow, Tracey Crouch, Sarah Teather, Mr Frank Field, Andrea Leadsom, Mrs Caroline Spelman, Pauline Latham and Jim Shannon present the Bill.

Tim Loughton accordingly presented the Bill.

Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 28 February, and to be printed (Bill 153).

Offender Rehabilitation Bill [Lords]

Tuesday 14th January 2014 Commons Chamber

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

New Clause 1

Probation Service Reform: Parliamentary Approval

The Secretary of State may not undertake a national restructure or reform of the provision of probation services unless the proposals have first been laid before, and approved by a resolution of, both House of Parliament.’.—(Jenny Chapman.)

Brought up, and read the First time.

13:25

[Jenny Chapman (Darlington) (Lab)]

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

[Mr Speaker]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

New clause 4—Piloting of probation reform—

‘The Secretary of State may not undertake a national restructure of the provision of probation services until the proposals have first been subject to an independently evaluated pilot scheme, and the results of that evaluation laid before both Houses of Parliament.’.

New clause 5—Provision of probation services: report to Parliament—

‘(1) The Secretary of State must lay before both Houses of Parliament a report on the performance of all providers contracted to provide officers to perform the duties of supervisor or responsible officer as described in this Act after one year of this Act coming into force.

(2) The report must include—

(a) an assessment of the information made available by each provider to the public, and their assistance to the Ministry of Justice in its performance of duties under the Freedom of Information Act 2000; and

(b) an update on what measures were included in each contract to allow the Secretary of State to penalise a provider that fails to perform to national standards or fulfil its contractual obligations, and on what occasions these measures have been brought into force.’.

New clause 6—Review of the effectiveness of prison services in delivering the Transforming Rehabilitation Strategy—

‘The Secretary of State may not undertake to introduce competitive tendering for the provision of probation services until a review of the prison service’s ability to implement the Transforming Rehabilitation Strategy has been conducted, and the results of that review laid before both Houses of Parliament.’.

New clause 9—Contracts—

‘Arrangements made by the Secretary of State resulting from this Act in accordance with which functions are conferred on officers of non-public sector providers of probation services, must include provisions requiring that—

(a) contracts for the provision of probation services from such providers be published;

(b) the economy, efficiency and effectiveness of such providers in discharging relevant functions be subject to National Audit Office assessment;

(c) companies under investigation for fraud may not bid for, nor be part of consortia bidding for, a contract for the provision of probation services; and

(d) companies with the status of prime contractor under the Work Programme may not bid for, nor be part of consortia bidding for, a contract for the provision of probation services.’.

New clause 10—Transparency—

‘Any contract for probation services shall be transparent and available for both public and parliamentary scrutiny, and be the subject of National Audit Office inspections.’.

New clause 11—Prohibition—

‘No company or other consortia shall be allowed to bid for Probation Service work if they are being investigated for fraud.’.

New clause 13—Annual reporting of reconviction rates—

‘The Secretary of State must publish an annual report which must include details of the impact of new supervision legislation for those offenders serving less than 12 months on the reconviction rates of offenders supervised by providers of probation services and as a consequence of participating in any programme or intervention.’.

[Jenny Chapman]

I would like to start with a few words on our friend and colleague, the former Member for Wythenshawe and Sale East, Paul Goggins. Paul served on the Public Bill Committee for this Bill, and I also served with him on two other Bill Committees. I have to say, and I am sure others Members agree and have said it already in this House, that he was the most thoughtful and supportive colleague anyone could ever have hoped to have sitting behind them on a Bill Committee. He advised me and gave me feedback, and he would definitely have been here today making a very strong contribution to our consideration on Report and on Third Reading. If he was here, our deliberations would be much improved.

I worked with Paul on amendments relating to looked-after children. He would have been very pleased to see the Government shift their position on the length of time that looked-after children can remain in foster care and be supported to do so. That is something he should have taken personal pride in. Although he was not the sort of person who would be arrogant enough to have personal pride, I think he should get the credit for this particular change. I know that he would have planned to speak today and that he would have tabled amendments. I am sure his name would have appeared many times on the amendment paper.

New clause 1 will look very familiar to those who have been following the passage of the Bill through both Houses. For a short and welcome period, it was included in the Bill. The Opposition, and I imagine a number of Government Back-Bench Members, would like to see it put back. I will point out from the start that the call for parliamentary scrutiny did not start life as an Opposition amendment. Although the Minister might sometimes think it, it was not cooked up on the Labour Benches just to make his life uncomfortable. The call for parliamentary approval before significant upheaval of the probation service was a Cross-Bench amendment tabled by the noble Lord Ramsbotham who, as colleagues will know, is a former chief inspector of prisons.

Lord Ramsbotham’s amendment was supported by every Cross-Bench peer who heard him speak to it. While the Bill focuses on one element of change to probation, it is flanked by a massive irreversible sell-off of a public service. It appears that the Government were hoping just to push that through under the radar and we think that that is very wrong. The former chief inspector of prisons was concerned enough by the proposals to try to stop that happening and enough noble Lords agreed with him to pass the original version of the amendment. New clause 1 concerns proper parliamentary scrutiny: MPs taking responsibility for a decision that will irreversibly alter the way in which offenders are supervised in the community, and for which there is no evidence and precious little support.

New clause 4 would provide a duty on the Minister to pilot his proposals for probation before rolling them out at what we think is breakneck speed across the whole country. They are conspicuously absent from the Bill. I will briefly remind the House of the Government’s proposals that are causing us such concern. They plan to abolish all local probation trusts; to sell off the majority of services to providers with no experience of probation or supervising offenders; to split up offenders according to risk categories, despite the fact that risk regularly changes; and to roll out an untested payment-by-results model to every region in one go. Probation services will be fundamentally unrecognisable after this upheaval.

13:30

The Minister might think that our list of concerns is becoming a bit tedious, but the only reason the House has had the opportunity to debate these proposals is that Members of the Opposition and another place have forced the Government’s hand. We regret this enormously. The Government ignored the will of one House of Parliament when it asked for a chance to study the plans in depth, and then they voted to remove the amendment from the Bill in Committee. We hope to fare a little better today and that they will consider it appropriate and helpful to have parliamentary oversight of the future of this incredibly important public service.

[Lorely Burt (Solihull) (LD)]

On the pilot, some of us in the House expressed our concerns. I have now looked into the matter a bit further, and it seems that it would take three or four further years properly to conduct a pilot. Would that not be three or four years during which a continual problem would remain unaddressed?

[Jenny Chapman]

The hon. Lady might want to reflect that had the Secretary of State not cancelled the pilots already taking place, we might now have had a year’s worth—the pilots would not necessarily have to last three or four years—of evidence, information and lessons learned that might have proved invaluable to the Minister as he proceeded with his programme.

[Gareth Johnson (Dartford) (Con)]

Would the hon. Lady accept, then, that there would be some delay to short-term prisoners getting the help they need, if we implemented the roll-out programme she is suggesting?

[Jenny Chapman]

I do not quite follow the hon. Gentleman’s logic. Had we kept the pilots running, we would be exactly where we are now, but with more information on which to base a decision. Also, we could conceivably deliver supervision to short-sentence prisoners without the sell-off and reform the Government seem hellbent on implementing.

[John Pugh (Southport) (LD)]

Does the hon. Lady not accept that my colleagues’ arguments are against pilots in general, not pilots in this specific case?

[Jenny Chapman]

We are in favour of piloting. We like to have evidence on which to base decisions, and we think it odd that the Government scrapped a pilot that was already set up and of which they spoke very highly when they set it up. That was a very strange decision, and we think the Government made a mistake when they cancelled the pilots.

[Stephen Gilbert (St Austell and Newquay) (LD)]

I have a lot of sympathy with the hon. Lady’s point about the need to pilot this significant change. She just criticised the Government for making a mistake in cancelling the pilots, but is it not also true that the Offender Management Act 2007, which Labour introduced and which allows Governments to make these changes, did not specify the need for a pilot? Does she accept that that was a mistake as well?

[Jenny Chapman]

I will come to the 2007 Act later, but since the hon. Gentleman has mentioned it now, I shall comment on it briefly. The 2007 Act created probation trusts, and they have now been in existence for several years and actually become quite good—I am sure even the Minister would concede that they are performing very well—but they could perform an awful lot better if challenged and supported to do so. We strongly believe, however, that the 2007 Act should not be being used to abolish the very entities it was set up to create.

On piloting, we have tabled new clause 4 to address the Government’s complete lack of evidence for their proposals. When we ask for evidence for how well the model might work, why it was picked and how much it will cost the taxpayer, we are told that the Secretary of State just believes it is the right way to go about things. The Joint Committee on Human Rights, of which I do not think he is a particular fan, reported its concern that the Government did not appear to consider any other policy options before alighting on this one. It seems that he has had his heart set on this from the very beginning.

Previous Ministers in this Government believed that the proposals should be piloted. In early 2012, the hon. Member for Reigate (Mr Blunt) announced two “ground-breaking” probation pilots to

“help develop…Payment by Results policy”

and to

“test how…public, private and voluntary…partnerships…could”—

“could”, he said—

“drive…reductions in reoffending”.

Had these pilots gone ahead, we would have had more than a year’s experience of this sort of model, but unfortunately the current Secretary of State cancelled them as soon as he took up his post. When we ask, as Opposition Members rightly do, how well these proposals work, there is no evidence with which to answer the question, because the Secretary of State has not tested them, and does not intend to do so, to see whether they work. If he were here, I hope the hon. Member for Reigate would be tempted to vote for new clause 4, because he seemed to support the principle when he was a Minister.

We are left, then, without any evidence and without a pilot, and we have lost the opportunity to test the details of these plans on a much smaller scale and with a manageable level of risk. Inevitably, there will be teething problems and inexperienced providers, there will be failures in communication and there will be glitches in the new IT system. We have just had an hour’s urgent question on the difficulties of introducing a new IT system, yet here we are implementing one at the same time as a wholesale upheaval and sell-off of the service. All this will have to be contended with all at once and on a national scale.

[Meg Hillier (Hackney South and Shoreditch) (Lab/Co-op)]

My hon. Friend is no doubt aware of the fiasco of the IT service for interpreters in courts, which, dare I say it—ironically—is another Ministry of Justice success story. Does that not underline her point?

[Jenny Chapman]

My hon. Friend is completely right. Serving on the Public Accounts Committee, she will be familiar with the manifold problems that the MOJ has with commissioning and procurement. I will refer later particularly to the court interpreters contract and the inclusion of small mammals, which hon. Members might find surprising.

We have recent experience of the fallout from a botched implementation. At the end of last year, universal credit was slowed down, for its own good, after being poorly managed and heavily criticised and after wasting what was predicted to be millions of pounds of taxpayer money. The Work and Pensions Secretary assured Members that the programme would eventually work because under the timetable they were

“testing the system and learning first, and then finally implementing it.”

When I asked him, he said that I needed

“to understand the difference between an approach that rolls something out at every stage and learns from it”—[Official Report, 10 December 2013; Vol. 572, c. 139-144.]

and an approach that rushes something in and sees it fail. Well, I think he is right, but I am well aware of the difference. It is just a pity that he has not had the same discussion with the Justice Secretary.

After the recent track record of the Ministry of Justice in mismanaging procurement processes, the PAC recommended that the Ministry

“should draft and implement future contracts so as to minimise transitional problems, for example through piloting and rolling-out new systems gradually.”

The NAO agreed and reported that steady regional roll-outs would allow the Ministry to limit the effect of poor performance. But rather than learning from past mistakes and introducing his reforms at a sensible pace, the Secretary of State is instead opting for a national roll-out at breakneck speed. The operating model for the reforms was published only in September, yet if it all goes to plan trusts are supposed to be abolished by April. Lord Ramsbotham described the timetable as a party political time frame

“that pays no attention to practical reality.”

[Alison Seabeck (Plymouth, Moor View) (Lab)]

My hon. Friend is certainly reinforcing concerns raised by officers in Devon and Cornwall about the way in which this is being handled. Although they are unhappy about the whole process, they would be prepared to consider operating within a pilot to see whether it had legs, to put it crudely. Does she agree with that?

[Jenny Chapman]

It will not surprise my hon. Friend to know that I do agree. I visited the pilots when they commenced and was impressed with the entrepreneurial attitude taken by trust chief execs and the desire to make them work. For all that the professionals involved had misgivings, the desire in the probation service to make whatever it is dealt work for the benefit of victims of crime and the offenders it works with is quite overwhelming. It is such a shame that those very organisations that have developed to become quite outstanding are going to be abolished.

Lord Ramsbotham said that the time scale paid no attention to practical reality and he is absolutely right. The Chair of the Justice Committee has said that there are

“significant risks in the pace at which the government intend to implement the programme.”

The Minister’s own officials describe the timetable as “aggressive” and a number of probation trust chairs have written publicly to the Secretary of State to advise that he must delay his plans or risk inevitable public protection failures. The chairs of Derbyshire, Leicestershire and Warwickshire probation trusts have, in turn, warned that the timetable is risky and unrealistic and has serious implications for service delivery.

The Ministry of Justice’s own assessment of the implications for service delivery are bleak. A leaked copy of the Department’s risk register reported an over 80 per cent. chance of an

“unacceptable drop in operational performance.”

We have been over this—I have lost count of the number of times that the Minister and I have had this conversation —so I know he will reply that it is not the Government’s practice to publish departmental risk registers. But as the information is already out there, does he not think that it would be beneficial for the Secretary of State to come to the House to discuss the possible risks with Members? I would like to know what an

“unacceptable drop in operational performance”

might look like when we are talking about the supervision of dangerous offenders in the community.

The area of the proposals that has raised the most professional concern is the issue of risk management itself. These are people who are in the risk management business. The Government’s plans will fragment the service and split up offenders based on their category of risk, with low and medium-risk offenders being managed by new providers while those deemed to be high risk stay with the public sector. The problem with that split is that risk is not static and regularly shifts. Around a quarter of offenders change risk category during their order and they do not just change it once or in incremental steps. Low risk can become high risk almost instantaneously if an offender’s circumstances change. The Government are institutionalising into this system a break, which we think is dangerous, where offenders whose risk escalates will have to be handed over to a different provider at the moment they are most volatile, with all the risk that that brings in terms of time delays and communication failures, which we know from other areas cause real problems. That is an unnecessary and, worse, a dangerous layer of bureaucracy that the Government should be doing all they can to avoid. The chief inspector of probation has warned that

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

We find that deeply concerning.

13:45

The Minister has previously given assurances that providers and the national probation service will be co-located to ease handovers but I am not hugely comforted by that. He cannot guarantee that that will be the case in a few years’ time when providers have taken over their own office management; of course he cannot. Anyway, does being in the same building mean that an officer of the national probation service will have the time to monitor the entirety of a community rehabilitation company’s cohort as well as their own case load? It is just not realistic. Will the national probation service be guaranteed the resources and capacity to take over quite a high percentage of CRC cases if that is what it needs to do? We are not reassured, and neither is the profession, that that will be the case.

13:45

[Lorely Burt]

My understanding is that within the CRCs there will be skilled professional people whose job it will be continually to asses the risk factor of low and medium-term prisoners. Would that not indicate that those issues are being covered?

[Jenny Chapman]

I would hope that there will be someone working in a CRC who could assess risk. The point is that whenever we have a transition between organisations, there will be different systems. The relationships will not be so strong and there will be scope for communication failures and for information not to be passed on. That gets to the nub of the concern felt by us and by those working in the sector about where the problems will arise with what the Government are proposing.

The Government have made much of the fact that new and inexperienced providers will only manage those who are low and medium risk. But the Minister knows that low and medium risk includes offenders who have committed sexual assault, burglary, violence against the person, domestic violence and other quite serious offences. All of them will now be under the supervision of companies that have no experience of managing this kind of risk. Alarm over this lack of experience of providers is part of a wider concern not only that the proposal is not fit for purpose, but that some of these potential providers are not properly fit to deliver it either.

The Government are, I know, painfully aware of the MOJ’s record on procuring services and managing contracts. After the somewhat infamous saga—here is the mammal bit—of the language services contract, the PAC concluded that the Ministry of Justice

“was not an intelligent customer”

and the Chair of the Justice Committee reported that “serious flaws” were exposed in the Ministry’s procedures and policies and that the process was a “shambles”. The NAO concluded that the Ministry

“underestimated the project risks when it decided to switch from a regional to a national rollout”

and allowed the contract to be operational before it was ready. I do not need to spell out the extent of the risk to public safety if these sorts of failures are allowed to occur in this exercise.

Perhaps because of all these problems, Ministers have pinned all their hopes on the payment mechanism. They assure us that success is guaranteed because providers will be paid by results. But Members will recall similar claims being made about the Work programme, in which every provider started by failing to meet its targets. Ministers have also so far been unable to tell Members exactly how much of a fee will be paid by results and how much the provider will get up front, regardless of their performance. My hon. Friend the Member for Rotherham (Sarah Champion) made an excellent point in Committee, when she said that when universal credit had been bailed out the original structures were still in place to provide services that the reforms could not. There was at least some sort of continuity. Given that the Secretary of State is planning to abolish every probation trust in a matter of months, what will be in place to protect the public? Should a provider fail or the entire roll-out have to be halted because of poor performance, nothing would be in place.

The performance of providers and the very real concern about failure brings me to new clause 5, which deals with contract management. It is designed to ensure better performance from providers and much better management of contracts by the Ministry of Justice than we have seen in recent years. I know the Minister will accept that this is needed. Now we come to the bit about the rabbit! The MOJ paid for a rabbit to be licensed as a court interpreter—the commissioning car crash, as it was called, meaning the language service’s contract. The Chairman of the Justice Select Committee concluded that the Ministry’s naivety at the start of the process appeared to have been matched, once the new arrangements came into operation, by its indulgence towards underperformance against the contract.

We will disagree today on how well the Secretary of State and his Department can manage this kind of process, but I am sure that the Minister would agree with the Opposition Front-Bench team at least on the fact that we must not tolerate underperformance if and when these contracts come into force. We cannot allow these problems to happen again in the future. Neither the Ministry’s nor the Government’s records are particularly encouraging on this front. The Justice Select Committee in its review of the budgeting structure of the MOJ reported—astutely, I think—that the Department has a tendency to focus on policy creation rather than implementation. The recent independent review of MOJ contracting reported in December that there were long-standing and significant weaknesses in contract management at the Department. It found that the focus on contracts lessened significantly after the initial procurement and, in some cases, there appeared to be a lack of appetite for continuous improvement. The review concluded that opportunities to mitigate risks and optimise services were being missed.

We have seen first hand the damage done when the Ministry’s attention span fails to keep track of a contract. Our new clause 5 attempts to support the Government to get a bit better on that. Contracts for two major providers and potential failures in probation bidding are currently under investigation by the Serious Fraud Office, after the taxpayer was overcharged by millions for the tagging of offenders who were dead, had been released or, in some cases, had left the country. The prisoner escort contract with Serco has been referred for investigation by the Metropolitan police, and the Ministry’s own review of contracts has led to two more G4S contracts being referred to the SFO. It should not be necessary to mention how unhappy Members on both sides of the House would be if a company under investigation for fraud were to be permitted to bid to manage public protection, so I am sure the Minister will want to assure us that that will not be the case. So far, the Government have not done so.

Opposition Members have proposed a number of safeguards in new clause 5, which we believe should be included to improve the quality of the Government’s reforms. If the Government are hellbent on going ahead, new clause 5 would provide at least some kind of oversight and scrutiny for this House. We want them to pilot the proposals and seek parliamentary approval, which we have discussed. We tabled in Committee a number of measures to help improve the quality of contracts. These included ensuring that all providers of this key public service would be subject to freedom of information requests, that contracts would last for a maximum of five years so that a Government were not able to make decisions binding the entire Parliament that follows them, and that taxpayers’ money should be protected by the inclusion of break and clawback clauses in all contracts.

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

I am listening intently to the hon. Lady’s argument, but how can it have real force if she dismisses the experience of contractual arrangements gained over a significant period of time with organisations such as Turning Point, the St Giles Trust and Catch 22? The argument cannot have force if she dismisses out of hand the quality provision of rehabilitation by these and other organisations. Is she saying that these organisations cannot be trusted with the management of rehabilitation?

[Jenny Chapman]

I do not have a problem with any of the organisations to which the hon. Gentleman refers. The fact that organisations are third sector does not of itself make them good, responsible and right in every case. If organisations are to take on these contracts, they will do so almost entirely in conjunction with other large companies, and it is reasonable to expect them to be open to scrutiny; my experience suggests that they will be.

[Mr Burrowes]

I am trying to get to the point of the characteristics of the organisations that are fit for the purposes involved. One cannot label an organisation as acceptable simply because it is third sector if it is inappropriate. Does the hon. Lady recognise the principle that there is a role for private sector involvement in rehabilitation?

[Jenny Chapman]

Yes, I do. All I am asking for is parity. A public sector provider of these services is subject to a certain level of scrutiny, not least in respect of freedom of information, and when we are spending increasingly vast sums on a small number of private sector providers it is not unreasonable to expect them to be subject to similar oversight. The hon. Gentleman will not be surprised to learn that the Government voted against all these measures in Committee, saying that the current arrangements offer enough protection and assuring us that any necessary safeguards would be included in the contracts.

I am afraid to tell the Minister, who is well respected in this House, that it is a little difficult simply to accept even his word on such important issues, particularly given that the Government’s record on outsourcing is so awful. We have already discussed the compelling example of the court translation services contract, and another example fresh in our minds is the running of Oakwood prison.

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

I am grateful to the hon. Lady for giving way and, as ever, for her kind words. I suggest, however, that I am not asking her to take only my word about the safeguards in the contracts. We will publish the contracts in draft so that the House can see for itself.

[Jenny Chapman]

Perhaps, then, if that is the Minister’s attitude, he will be minded to support our new clause 5. It is reasonably worded and if he reads it carefully he might find that he can support it.

Returning to HMP Oakwood, the Government have somehow managed to build a brand new, state-of-the-art prison that seems to be failing on every imaginable front. A surprise prison inspection last year found inmates reporting that it was easier to get drugs than soap on the wings, while the inspectorate report revealed that the inexperience of staff was visible everywhere, with staff unwilling to challenge bad behaviour and many being

“passive almost to the point of collusion”.

As the report continued, indicators of levels of violence were high, there were not enough activity places and the control and supply of medication was “chaotic”. The chief inspector of prisons called the state of the prison “unquestionably concerning”. The Secretary of State was disappointingly somewhat less firm in his criticism, largely dismissing these as “teething problems”. A couple of months later, inmates managed to stage not one, but two rooftop protests. As late as last week, six months after the inspectorate visited the prison, West Staffordshire police were notified of an incident lasting through the night, apparently involving an entire wing being barricaded by inmates.

[Sir Edward Garnier (Harborough) (Con)]

I am sure it is entirely my fault for being obtuse, but could the hon. Lady try to weave her remarks about the prison into her arguments in support of the new clause because I do not see a connection?

[Jenny Chapman]

I will attempt to assist the hon. and learned Gentleman. The point is that Oakwood prison is run by one of the would-be providers of probation services.

[Jeremy Wright]

It is not.

[Jenny Chapman]

Perhaps the Minister knows more than I do—I hope he does—but nothing we have read suggests that G4S will not take part in any way in the provision of these services. A statement made on 19 December informed us that it would not be a lead bidder, but also indicated that it might be part of a consortium.

14:00

[Jeremy Wright]

Perhaps I can help. The list of prime bidders has now been published, and Members may well find it worth their while to have a look at it. It is true that neither G4S nor Serco appears on the list, but a number of others organisations do, including 10 probation mutuals.

[Jenny Chapman]

But those are lead bidders, and I understand that none of the contracts will be taken on by one organisation alone. There is nothing to prevent G4S and others from being involved in the provision of probation services when the contracts are awarded. The other reason this information is relevant to probation is that it reveals that the quality of the supervision and enforcement of contracts by the Ministry of Justice is not quite what we would like it to be.

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

The statement that was made to the House a couple of weeks ago was explicit about the possibility that G4S and Serco would form parts of consortia. I think that the Minister should make the position absolutely clear.

[Jenny Chapman]

That is certainly my understanding, and nothing that the Minister has said so far contradicts it. Unless we hear something more definitive from G4S, the Ministry of Justice or the Minister today, I think that that must remain our assumption.

The MOJ tends to take its eye off the ball as soon as a contract has been signed, so new clause 5 helpfully provides for a longer-term regular check on the performance of probation service providers. Its scope is really quite limited: it merely requires the Secretary of State to report to both Houses of Parliament on the performance of all providers that are contracted to manage offenders. In particular, the report must include an assessment of the transparency of each provider, and must specify what information it is making available to the public and how reliably it is responding to freedom of information requests submitted to the MOJ. It must also update both Houses on what measures were included in the contracts to ensure that poor performance could be penalised, and on whether any have been invoked.

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

In the past, the Justice Committee has suggested not that private companies should be subject to freedom of information requirements, which would be contrary to any working commercial system, but that when writing contracts, public bodies should ensure that they have access—and thus create freedom of information access—to any information that would have been public if the work was still being done in the public sector.

[Jenny Chapman]

We would probably go a little further, but I accept what the right hon. Gentleman says. The new clause merely requires companies to respond in a way that helps the MOJ to meet its own freedom of information requirements.

Opposition Members are becoming increasingly concerned about the blind spot that seems to be developing in relation to outsourced contracts. Given the rate at which the Secretary of State is issuing invitations to the likes of Eddie Stobart to take over justice contracts, more and more information is being put out of the taxpayer’s reach.

Responding to amendments tabled in Committee, the Government argued that the status quo, whereby a contractor is considered to hold information on behalf of a public body, was working well enough. We disagree, and the Minister knows that, in practice, there is information that private contracts choose to keep to themselves while public providers are rightly held to account. That is not a level playing field, and it does not give us, our constituents or, indeed, the press enough power to scrutinise those who are wielding large public budgets and providing front-line public services.

[Meg Hillier]

The heads of some of the big private sector providers recently appeared before the Public Accounts Committee. They expressed a wish for more openness, and some of them told us that they were being constrained in that regard by their contracts with the Government rather than by their own desires.

[Jenny Chapman]

I was not aware of that, but I am very pleased that some of the big providers are taking that attitude.

We have pledged to expand the scope of freedom of information requirements if we win the next election. We should have liked the Government to make a start with probation providers, but, unfortunately, it seems that so far they are unpersuaded. We hope that, as a compromise, they will agree to monitor the extent to which providers respond to their duty to release information to assist the Ministry of Justice with its FOI duties. That will allow us to establish whether the current provisions are indeed sufficient, or whether more needs to be done to make companies accountable to the public.

Finally, new clause 5 requires an update on what measures were included in contracts to ensure that poor performance can be dealt with properly. We are very concerned about that. The Government refused to assure us that break clauses, which allow the taxpayer to walk away if a provider consistently fails to perform to national standards, would be included in all contracts. Instead, the Minister has given his word that underperformance will not be tolerated, and that contracts will include a number of safeguards to protect the quality of the service and the cost to the taxpayer. The new clause would simply allow Members to hold the Minister to that welcome assurance.

The Government’s proposed reforms are ill thought through, risky and, in our view, reckless. We believe that the Government should slow down the process and take the time to get it right. In fact, they may well be right, and if they organised pilots and obtained some evidence, we would be the first to support them. However, if they press ahead with their gamble with public safety, the bare minimum that our constituents must be assured of is that providers will be expected to perform exceptionally well.

New clauses 1, 4 and 5 are intended to build safeguards into the process. They would allow plans to be properly scrutinised, tested, and made fit for purpose. The Secretary of State is taking a gamble with public safety. He is rolling out an untested model in the hands of unqualified providers, and he expects us to be reassured by his inner belief. It is a great pity that the Government are not willing to proceed slowly, to do things properly, and to work with the professionals, and even the Opposition, to arrive at a result on which we could possibly all agree.

[Mr Burrowes]

I am, in some ways, trying to help the hon. Lady’s case. She has referred to “unqualified providers”. I know that she does not want to pick and choose between different sectors, but is she saying that those 10 probation mutuals are unqualified?

[Jenny Chapman]

Absolutely not. I welcome the involvement of probation mutuals. I think that it would have been a great deal easier, less time-consuming, less expensive and less traumatic if some of those organisations had been allowed simply to get on with it without having to form themselves into new organisations. Had the Government’s initial proposal been for all trusts to be able to re-form as mutuals, using the skills, experience, knowledge and relationships that they already have, we would not have needed to engage in this debate today.

We will press new clauses 1, 4 and 5 to a vote. If the Government are so confident about what they are doing, why should they not submit their plans to proper parliamentary scrutiny?

[Sir Edward Garnier]

I will be brief because we enjoyed the speech of the hon. Member for Darlington (Jenny Chapman) for some little while. Essentially the point of difference between her and me, certainly in relation to new clause 1 and the new clauses that mirror it, is that she would like to delay the progress of the implementation of the Government’s proposals and I would like them to be implemented as soon as possible.

There has been a considerable amount of to-ing and fro-ing both across the Dispatch Box and between Members of Parliament and their constituents who work within what I loosely term the probation services, by which I mean not specifically the Government agency, but those who carry out rehabilitation services. I have recently met members of staff of the Leicestershire probation service and when I was a shadow Justice Minister I made a point of visiting a huge number of probation offices, meeting both probation staff and those who work not in the Government agencies but in the charitable sector, such as the organisations my hon. Friend the Member for Enfield, Southgate (Mr Burrowes) mentioned in his intervention. It struck me that, by and large, there was a big hole in the way we look after short-term prisoners and repeat offenders. They were released from prison unsupervised, and the sooner we start supervising these under-12-month prisoners the better for them and for their victims and society as a whole.

I can appreciate the political arguments the hon. Member for Darlington advanced. I appreciate that from her pre-parliamentary background she has an affiliation with the GMB and therefore has an interest in—

[Jenny Chapman]

indicated dissent.

[Sir Edward Garnier]

Well, I hope I have read the hon. Lady’s entry correctly. Perhaps she had better come and see me later and we can get it corrected. In any case, her party has a closer affiliation to the trade union movement than I personally have and my party has. I can therefore understand why she is advancing these arguments requesting pilots and other forms of delay mechanisms, because she does not want these measures to come to pass. I think that argument has been had and the situation now needs to be resolved, however, and I therefore urge her not to press her amendment to a Division. I am far more interested in the results we can achieve for our constituents and those offenders who desperately need the supervision they are currently not getting than I am in the political arguments.

[Sarah Champion (Rotherham) (Lab)]

Might not another reason for our pressing these amendments be accountability and wanting to see evidence?

[Sir Edward Garnier]

No doubt that might be one of the collateral reasons, but that does not undermine the point I am making, which is that we need to help these under 12-monthers as soon as possible. If we are to have further statutory brakes on the introduction of supervision, either through the national probation service or through the non-Government organisations—

[Jenny Chapman]

rose—

[Sir Edward Garnier]

I seem to have provoked all sorts of charming people. I give way.

14:15

[Jenny Chapman]

I really did not want to intervene and was trying very hard not to do so, but I just want the hon. and learned Gentleman to understand that we are not opposed in any way whatever to the introduction of supervision for prisoners who serve short sentences, but we believe there are other ways in which that could have been implemented without going through this ridiculous process that the Government are hell-bent on pursuing.

[Sir Edward Garnier]

Is it St Francis I am reminded of: “Oh Lord make me pure, but not yet”?

[Jeremy Wright]

St Augustine.

[Sir Edward Garnier]

St Augustine. I am so glad for that correction. The Minister is multi-talented.

I do not think I need to pursue my argument. I have made the point I want to make, and I understand the points the hon. Member for Darlington has made and I disagree with them. I suggest we get on and permit the arrangements to be advanced as soon as possible. I say that not out of party political animus; I say it out of a desire to see something done, having spent five years in opposition between 2005 and just short of 2010 taking an intense interest in the way in which we ran our prison system, our criminal justice system and our rehabilitation system. I also say it as someone who has sat for 12 or so years as a Crown court recorder and who had to deal quite regularly with the results of failure, and I think the time has come to stop that.

[Sarah Champion]

May I begin by apologising as I will not be able to be present for the final winding-up speeches? I mean no disrespect, but I have an outstanding parliamentary engagement I just cannot get rid of. [Interruption.] Sorry; an engagement I cannot be excused from.

Every time I have been involved in proceedings on this Bill it is as though I have stepped into the twilight zone. I was on the Bill Committee and in the Opposition debate on this issue, and from what I am hearing today, the same thing keeps on happening and I do not understand why.

I support new clause 5 and the other new clauses to which I have added my name. We are asking for a full debate in Parliament about a major overhaul of the judicial system. The safeguard of new clause 1 was previously inserted in the Bill in the other place but was removed by the Government in Committee. I do not understand the logic for doing that.

The nub of this Bill—which is not actually included in its provisions—is that 70% of the probation service will be privatised. I do not understand the motivation for doing that. I hear the arguments and I hear a lot of myths about what Labour is saying and is not saying, but the two do not stack up and I am just not hearing the evidence for making the change.

[Gareth Johnson]

Does the hon. Lady not accept that a tendering-out process is vital if we are to assist short-term prisoners and that that cannot be achieved within existing budgets?

[Sarah Champion]

I hear that point and I have heard it made for months now, but I do not agree that that is the only way forward and I am yet to hear the evidence that tells me that it is the best way forward. I would like to develop that point.

As we are not being presented with evidence, the only conclusion I can reach is that the policy is driven by ideology rather than facts. This is not a subject we should be playing with. We need to have evidence and proof. Even a pilot would give us time—that breathing space and that evidence. That is why I support new clause 4. The proposal is being rushed through. The system is over 100 years old and it has served us well in that time; we have been debating the proposal for only the past six months.

I would like to set the record straight once again on Labour’s position. We are not in any way opposed to supporting offenders who have had sentences of under 12 months. We actually tried to bring that support through but were unable to do so. We are very supportive of that, but we question the one way that has been presented to us in which it should be done.

[Jeremy Wright]

The hon. Lady is right that the previous Labour Government set out exactly such an aspiration and she is right, too, that they came to the conclusion that they could not achieve it, but does she not accept that they came to that conclusion because they could not find a way of affording it? That is precisely why we have put forward these proposals—it is the only way we can see of affording that extra cost. So far, I have heard nothing to suggest that there is an alternative.

[Sarah Champion]

I support what the Minister says, but there are two points to make. First, we have not been presented with the costs, so we do not know whether it can be afforded. Secondly, I do not agree with the premise that that is the only way to go forward.

Although I would not choose it, we are not fundamentally opposed to commercial companies tendering for and running Government contracts, as long as they are proved to be the best provider. We are also not at any level against voluntary organisations being involved. Indeed, a number of such organisations are providing specialist services in Rotherham, and we want that to continue. I am sure that that is happening across the country. This is not an either/or situation.

I want to use this debate to challenge some of the Government’s reasons for this massive overhaul of our judicial system, in the hope that even just one person in the Chamber will listen to some of the evidence that we are putting forward and question the assumptions that are being made. The underlying assumption is that the existing system is not fit for purpose, yet the National Offender Management Service published a report in July 2012 that demonstrated that the quality of the probation service was either good or exceptional in every single probation trust. After the probation service as a whole won an award for excellence in 2011, the hon. Member for Reigate (Mr Blunt), who was Minister for prisons and probation at the time, said—

[Mr Burrowes]

The hon. Lady has attended the debates on this subject. She was here for the Opposition day debate and she served on the Bill Committee. Plainly, the focus of the Bill is the provision of rehabilitation for short-term offenders. Will she provide statistics on who is looking after those short-term offenders and on their reoffending rates? Is it really acceptable to defend the status quo?

[Sarah Champion]

I agree that it is unacceptable that those people are not getting support now. I would like to go further and start their rehabilitation in prison. I would like there to be a complete system, so that when people come out they will be able to engage much better in society and will not reoffend.

[Lorely Burt]

Will the hon. Lady give way?

[Sarah Champion]

I should just like to tell the House what the hon. Member for Reigate said. After the probation service as a whole won an award for excellence in 2011, he stated:

“This prestigious award recognises the professionalism of probation staff and the excellence of their work. This very public recognition of not just what they do but, perhaps more importantly, how well they do it, will be a source of pride for probation staff.”

The existing probation trusts are doing an excellent job, and that is being recognised. They are not broken.

[Lorely Burt]

I do not think that anyone in the House would dispute the fact that the probation service does an excellent job. However, during the last 10 years of the previous Government, the cost of running the service rose by 70%. The hon. Lady says that she does not disagree with the use of private providers or with the aims of the Bill. Can she explain how on earth it would be possible to realise those aims without taking these steps?

[Sarah Champion]

Unfortunately, I cannot explain that, because the plans have not been put before us. I am therefore unable to scrutinise them or to change them to the degree that I would like. I am supporting new clause 1 because I would like the House to be able to debate those matters, but we are not being given the opportunity to do so.

Another assumption that is being presented to us is that probation trusts are failing to reduce reoffending rates, yet reoffending rates are falling. The latest statistics published by the Ministry of Justice show that the probation service reduced reoffending by a further 5% below the target figure. This continues the downward trend in reoffending rates witnessed over recent years, and reoffending by all adult offenders in the community subject to probation supervision is now at its lowest since 2007-08. The probation service has achieved that while making the considerable budgetary savings asked of it. In South Yorkshire, the figures are even better, at 12.77% lower than the target figure.

Reoffending rates are important, but they are not the only criterion for success in this area. The probation service can also boast that victim feedback has been positive in 98% of cases; that targets for completions on domestic violence interventions, and for court report timeliness, have been met and exceeded; and that completion targets were also met or exceeded on the vast majority of probation programmes. The probation trusts are doing a superb job, and they should be allowed to continue to do so.

Another assumption that keeps being mentioned in the debate is that the only way in which supervision for people serving a sentence of under 12 months can be afforded is through privatisation. However, the proposals will necessitate the wholesale reorganisation of the probation service and a lengthy and complex national tendering and contracting process, all of which will require significant investment before we even get to the meat of doing the job. There is huge concern over the lack of information on the cost of the proposals. We have asked for that information, but it has not been presented. Despite the publication of several impact assessments, the Ministry of Justice has yet to set out the cost of the reforms and the way in which they will be funded. This is a fundamental point. If we are expected to take this leap in the dark, at least we should be chucked a lifeboat so that we can get into it.

The current budget for probation is approximately £800 million a year, suggesting a 10-year budget of £8 billion. The House of Commons Library has broadly estimated that the 10-year value of outsourced probation would be between £5 billion and £20 billion. That is in addition to the budget for the remaining public sector probation service. That suggests that a significant increase in costs is being predicted, contrary to Ministry of Justice claims that the reforms are a cost-saving initiative. In addition, there would be the unknown percentage resulting from performance-related pay.

Now it starts to get surreal—not that it was not already. The Government say that the probation service cannot tender because of the performance-related pay aspect, so why do they not just drop that element? The probation trusts have been saying all along that they would like the opportunity to support people serving short-term sentences. They are clearly the best trained and most skilled specialist people to do that work, but they are not even being allowed to tender for it. I find it incredibly challenging that the main stumbling block to retaining the status quo in that area is that the Government will not drop the performance-related pay element.

I support new clauses 5 and 11, but other people want to speak so I shall not say any more about the companies that are tendering for the work. Nor will I go into the whole data protection issue that will result from state, private and voluntary organisations sharing information. My hon. Friend the Member for Darlington (Jenny Chapman) has already mentioned the logistics of reorganisation and the risks incurred during a transition period. Those risks are enormous. We are not talking about people not getting paid for a week. We are talking about people being out in the community without the necessary supervision, and the potential for the data to collapse around them so that we would not even know where they were.

In conclusion, new clause 1 would prevent the Government from being able to sell off or restructure the probation service unless their proposals had first been laid before, and approved by, both Houses of Parliament. The Government have not given Parliament any opportunity to scrutinise their plans to privatise probation, claiming instead that they can use existing legislation to push the plans through. The only time we have debated this topic is during Opposition day debates. That cannot be democratic. The way in which this has been handled has shaken me to the core.

[Jeremy Wright]

Of course democratic accountability is important. The hon. Lady has mentioned the opportunities the House has had to debate these matters. She has mentioned the Opposition day debate, in which there was a vote and the House voted against her point of view. She has also mentioned the Second Reading debate, after which the House voted against her point of view. She was also in the Committee, where the Committee voted against her point of view. How much more democracy does she need?

[Sarah Champion]

Again, it would be nice to have the evidence; instead, we are debating in the dark. I find it shocking that we had to raise the issue in an Opposition day debate, rather than the Government presenting their findings to us.

For me, it is right and proper that this House should debate the privatisation of 70% of probation services; the fragmentation of the resulting services; the abolition of local probation trusts; the commissioning of services direct from Westminster; and the imposition of an untried, untested payment-by-results model. Instead, the Government are pushing ahead with their half-baked plans for probation privatisation by misusing existing legislation and avoiding parliamentary scrutiny. I can only assume that that decision is driven by political ideology, but this proposal will put the public at risk.

The chairs of the probation trusts of Derbyshire, Leicestershire and Warwickshire have written to the Minister to warn him of the dire consequences of rushing this reform through. Those experts say that

“performance is bound to be damaged and that public protection failures will inevitably increase”.

They go on to say that the fragmentation proposed by this Government would lead to

“more systemic risks and more preventable serious attacks and deaths”

and that the current timetable was

“unrealistic and unreasonable...with serious implications for service delivery and therefore increases the risk to public”.

I urge the Minister to listen to the people who know and understand the service best, and to support our proposal in new clause 1.

[John Pugh]

I rise to speak in support of new clause 4. The hon. Member for Rotherham (Sarah Champion) mentioned ideology. It might surprise her to learn that I am a great fan of ideology; I think that people should have clear political beliefs. There is at least one clear ideology on public services, which states that government services are best delivered not by a Government agency but by private bidders trying to satisfy the Government. There is a general view that Government agencies are necessarily incompetent, inflexible or naturally the prisoner of Government employees and unions, and that outsourcing is always the best and first option.

14:30

A known technique is used, as we have seen in connection with this Bill, which is to discredit the existing service; propose restructuring and reform; argue for appreciable haste; reduce the Government’s role, where possible, to that of a commissioner rather than a provider; and then, if necessary, to talk up what has been referred to as “bid candy”. That involves talking about mutuals or charities, rather than private providers, which will be the big players in most scenarios. In addition, savings are promised, as are a reduction in bureaucracy and greater efficiency through competition. The ideology is always clear, although the political manoeuvring is sometimes less than transparent. Critics legitimately claim, as they have done in this debate, that a loss of institutional memory occurs and a less integrated service results, just as the demoralisation and de-professionalisation of existing staff results too. There are other attendant risks, such as the risk of putting profit before service or cost before quality. An ideological view would, however, assure us that we can have all the upside gains from this approach and none of the downside risks if we are clever enough, plan right, commission wisely and so on. I am sure that is what the Government will say.

That is where the debate goes, and it is where we are now, but for one thing: ideology, or what we think should happen, is always trumped by evidence—by what actually happens. Regardless of what we think ought to work, we have to look at what actually does work. So far, there is no evidence that the suggested demarcation and division of work load projected by this legislation can work; that clients can be permanently labelled either “high risk” or “low risk”, or move effortlessly from one category to the other; that the savings—this does worry me—can be guaranteed; that there are enough good bidders in all markets to provide a good and equitable service, which should worry the Minister; and that it is necessarily a good thing to have mandatory 12 months’ supervision of all people in all circumstances, with that being the most efficient and effective way of using the probation service, which it might be, but the evidence is not there so far to support that. There is no evidence to suggest that the current system is not working as well as can reasonably be expected or that payment by results is likely to work better.

On the other hand, there is plenty of evidence that staff are demoralised and unconvinced. We do not need to be persuaded of that; it is the case. Plenty of evidence from previous restructurings in the NHS shows that wholesale restructuring absorbs time and resources, and reduces efficiency, and that there are still lingering communications systems issues to address—we have mentioned the IT system, too. Enough evidence is available to make an ideologue—though not perhaps a Minister—think that a smart move in this case would be to have a pilot, because we are talking about a precious asset, the probation service of this country, and we need to handle it carefully. One way of doing that is to pilot things first and then, when we are totally satisfied that everything is working, to put it in place nationally, if need be.

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

I wish to speak briefly to new clauses 1 and 4, both of which I have co-signed with Her Majesty’s official Opposition. The Government do not want new clause 1 in the Bill because they are concerned that, in due course, they will not win the vote in either House of Parliament because, frankly, what they are proposing does not add up to much. At the end of last year, the official Opposition held a debate on the Government’s plans to restructure probation work and, until that point, the Justice Secretary had refused to answer for his plans on the Floor of the House. During that debate, many of us outlined why we thought it baffling that the Government should want to target the probation service, a service that is so high performing and where the numbers speak for themselves.

The Ministry of Justice’s own figures show that none of the 35 probation trusts is currently showing cause for “serious concern” and none “require development”; and that 31 of the trusts are “showing good performance” and four are “performing exceptionally”. In 2011-12, victim feedback was positive in 98% of cases; 80% of orders or licences were completed successfully; and 49% of offenders were in employment at the end of their orders and 89% were in accommodation. Reoffending rates were better than predicted in both England and Wales, and the probation service met all its targets in 2012. The service achieved a successful completion rate of 81% for participants of sex offender treatment programmes and exceeded its completion targets on domestic violence interventions. In October 2011, the probation service became the only public sector organisation to be awarded the British Quality Foundation award. The board said that the service was

“on the right path to achieving and sustaining excellence and essentially to being the best providers of these essential services.”

The reoffending rate among those sentenced to more than 12 months but less than four years is 36.2%, while among those serving between four and 10 years it is 30.7%. As we know, the reoffending rate for individuals sentenced to less than 12 months—the cohort that currently, by and large, receives no supervision, despite some probation trusts asking for the authority to take control of them—stands much higher, at 58.5%. That takes us to the crux of the argument. Everybody in this Chamber agrees that something has to be done, but we disagree about how it should be done, because what the Government have proposed is untried, untested and downright dangerous.

[Mrs Madeleine Moon (Bridgend) (Lab)]

I endorse everything the right hon. Gentleman is saying about the excellent service that the current probation service provides. Is not part of the problem that the Government are failing to address a major problem, which is the reoffending by people with mental health conditions? If we tackled mental health and mental health services rather than imprisoned people, we could cut some of that reoffending more dramatically than we could by privatising the service.

[Mr Llwyd]

The hon. Lady, who has taken an interest in this subject for many years, as have I, is absolutely correct. I would go a bit further and say that if we dealt with mental health problems and drug addiction, we could empty about 40% of prisoners from prisons tomorrow without any danger—had we got the safety net out in the community.

The Government are taking a drastic step without having any proven record of any possible success. Unlike with some services that are privatised, there is an inherent danger to the public in all this. I agree fully with the Opposition when they say that we want the thing tried and tested. That is not a political scam to try to stop it. I would like it stopped, but let us also be honest and say that we are where we are and we should at least see whether these plans will work. That surely is a common-sense thing to do, but time and time again, in the Public Bill Committee and in all the other debates, we have been unable to persuade the Government to pause and to think carefully about why they initiated their two pilots previously. Why did they do that if they were that unconcerned and the pilots were bound to succeed?

The Secretary of State, who drifted in and out here today, in typical fashion, has said in some debates, “You do things sometimes because they are right.” I am sure that is right, but it is a bit risky to have a messianic view of life and say, “Because they are new and are being tried now, they have got to be right. What’s right is right.” That is absolute balderdash and I am afraid he will eat those words in the next two or three years. I hope not, but there will be a danger in this system.

As we are all aware, what will be left of the public sector probation service will work with victims, hostels and offenders who pose a high risk of harm. The remaining 70% of cases—the low-risk and medium-risk offenders—will be managed by the private sector under the model that we are talking about. The point has already been made that such risks vary—they can vary from day to day or from week to week. I do not know how the system will be managed, but co-location has been mentioned. I am not sure whether that will work, but, again, it is a matter of crossing one’s fingers and hoping for the best.

There are serious concerns about the payment-by-results model, most of which I will briefly outline with regard to another amendment that would compel the Government to pilot the plans before implementing them across the board. To some relief, we find that G4S and Serco will not be coming in on this, although they do know a lot about criminality.

Under the proposals, private companies will be responsible for the majority of cases involving domestic violence, sexual offences, burglary, robbery, violence against the person and gang-related crimes. That is highly sensitive work, which clearly requires trained professionals with experience of how to deal with victims and perpetrators of such complex crimes. It is highly unlikely that the private sector will prioritise holistic initiatives such as work with victims of crime. I am afraid that it will be driven by profit rather than levels of care. Many individuals who come into contact with the probation service have one or more mental health problems. They may have suffered abuse, have substance misuse issues, literacy problems and poor educational attainment. Such people need to be signposted to the proper avenues for care and support. They are highly damaged individuals and require special attention.

The proposals will compromise public protection and provide a perverse incentive for private companies not to put resources into decreasing offending behaviour. There are also numerous possibilities for conflicts of interest, the tackling of which is the aim of another amendment that I have co-signed.

The Social Market Foundation has argued that payment by results incentivises an increase in offending. To understand that, it is important to note that the Government have decided that a private company will neither be penalised nor rewarded for an increase or decrease in offending of 3% either way. Ostensibly, that is to take account of the fact that external factors can have an impact on offending rates. In practice, however, it would mean that private companies would have to achieve a 4% decrease in offending before being rewarded. They will simply not invest that amount of money when there is no guarantee of a return on their investment. Unfortunately, it is far more likely that the companies will make a profit by delivering court orders in the cheapest way possible by opening call centres. Understandably, the National Association of Probation Officers—the experts on this—is worried, and legitimately I would say.

The hon. and learned Member for Harborough (Sir Edward Garnier) referred to the GMB union. It is a question not of union versus anybody else but of what works and what does not work. NAPO has had experience over many years, and I have already referred to its successes.

[Sir Edward Garnier]

rose—

[Mr Llwyd]

Yes, of course I shall give way, but let me make this point. Time and again, I have heard NAPO say, “If it is inevitable that we have to go down this path, let us see whether it works.” Let us pilot this system. Let it come before Parliament before the changes are effected, because, although NAPO refers to its jobs, its main concern is the safety of the public it serves.

[Sir Edward Garnier]

The right hon. Gentleman and I have many mutual friends who are members of NAPO. Harry Fletcher is a former assistant general-secretary whom we both know and respect. My point was quietly to tease the hon. Member for Darlington (Jenny Chapman) who happened to say in a parliamentary reference book that she was a member of the GMB, but she tells me that that is not the case. I was not making a substantive point but—

[Jenny Chapman]

rose—

[Sir Edward Garnier]

I do not think that we need to divert into other areas. The short point I am making is that of course there are political differences between my party and Labour over the influence of trade unions. Essentially what I want to get across is that this needs to be done because the victims and the prisoners in question need to be assisted.

14:45

[Mr Llwyd]

I agree entirely with the hon. and learned Gentleman on that. We all agree that we need to deal with these prisoners. If the model works, that is fine, but if it does not, it will be a disaster. Pausing a bit would have been a good idea. There were two pilots that were cancelled halfway through. If they had carried on, we would have had some evidence to consider. Even people like me who need some persuasion about the system would see that it works and that there is no danger to the public. Instead, we rush headlong into the dark.

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

Does my right hon. Friend agree that there has been too much social experimentation between the private sector and some public sector organisations, such as the probation service? In industry, for example, if a company were bringing in an innovation, it would have a pilot scheme either to silence the doubters or to answer them. I agree that we should have a pilot scheme on this. It is far too dangerous to deal with it in the abstract.

[Mr Llwyd]

I agree entirely with the hon. Gentleman. That feeling is held widely across the House, and not just on these Benches. The hon. Member for Southport (John Pugh) referred to ideology. The Bill is a victory for ideology over common sense. That by itself is ridiculous enough, but the inherent dangers of it make it even more insidious.

To avoid treading over old ground, I will not talk about the risk register. None the less, it still alarms me that the risks were seen as so high at the commencement of this exercise, and I have no reason to believe that they have changed for the better since.

Briefly, let me refer to new clause 4. The impetus behind it is to ensure that we do not rush headlong into implementing these reforms without first having a pilot, which would be independently evaluated and reported on to both Houses of Parliament. I notice that the esteemed Chair of the Justice Committee, the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Sir Alan Beith), is in his place, so I must be careful about what I say. Over the past few weeks, we have taken evidence from many sectors involved in probation and rehabilitation. A considerable amount of it was from people who had been involved in previous Government privatisations. Surprisingly, they were saying, “Don’t do it. Don’t rush in. It is not proven. It may not be cost-effective and it could cause huge problems.” Such people are surely aware of the risks involved and they came before the Committee to give their opinion. It is not simply a matter of one political divide against the other. Some of those people presented as being more in sympathy with the Government than with anybody else, but they said not to do it because it is unproven and could be dangerous.

The probation service has prior experience of the damage that can result from privatisation. Building management, for example, has been contracted out to the private sector, which has resulted in a great deal of waste and inefficiency. I have heard of an engineer being sent from Liverpool to Cardiff to fit a carpet tile even though, ironically, there is a carpet shop opposite the Cardiff probation office—you could not make it up.

In 2007, the running of bail beds was outsourced to a company called ClearSprings, which had no experience in the criminal justice sector. Numerous complaints were made about antisocial behaviour and drunkenness and the contract had to be removed. We know about Serco and G4S, so I will not go there again. Clearly, there is a significant prospect of disorder and possible dangers if the plans do not prove to be sensible. As for the Government’s risk assessment, time is short so I will not go there.

The restructuring will mean that there will have to be an entirely new operating model with 21 new government companies; that staff will have to be allocated to new roles in community rehabilitation companies and the national probation service; that no fewer than 18,000 staff members will be transferred to new employers; and that up to 250,000 offender cases will be reallocated. It would be foolhardy indeed to proceed without some guarantee of success.

It would not be unheard of for new measures being introduced to the justice system to be piloted nationally. Recently, pilots on payment by results have been held at HMP Peterborough and Doncaster, albeit voluntarily, while in recent years Governments have held pilots on satellite tracking, the domestic violence 28-day prevention order and drug reduction schemes. Piloting is not unheard of.

This is not a question of reputational risk for the MOJ. We are all concerned about the safety of the public more than anything else. A further risk register produced by the probation employers last November of last year warned of a high risk of

“a failure of the programme to be delivered either in scope or within the timescale set by ministers”.

At this eleventh hour, I plead with the Minister and his colleagues to give the scheme a chance and to give us all a chance to evaluate it. We might come back one day saying, “Yes, it was right,” or, “No, it was not.” If the answer is no, many people will suffer. Those members of the public are the people whom it is our duty to protect.

[John McDonnell]

I apologise to the House for the fact that I will leave after my brief remarks, because at 3 o’clock I have a meeting, which I have been seeking for a couple of months, with the Secretary of State for Education, about a school in my constituency. I hope that I will be back in time for the Minister’s response.

Let me pick up on the point made by the hon. and learned Member for Harborough (Sir Edward Garnier). We have all been pressing for some time, under the previous Government and this Government, for the supervision of offenders with sentences of less than 12 months, but we all expected that to proceed normally—that is, with a proposal being made with a budgetary paper attached that the existing system would be challenged to meet—so that we could plan the development of the probation service. If there were to be additional funds, some of us would have lobbied the Treasury while others would have argued that the service should swallow its own smoke and keep the budget within its existing budgets. That was what we expected.

I think that clause 1 was inserted in the Bill in the other place because none of us expected the use of the previous legislation to introduce proposals for the wholesale privatisation of the probation service—that is what this means for 70% of the service going forward. When that legislation was going through, I opposed it and I warned those on my Front Bench that it could be abused in such a way. I was assured that the legislation, which was supported on both sides of the House if I remember rightly, would ensure that the third sector, voluntary sector organisations and others could participate in rehabilitation, and that it would introduce flexibility to the system. A number of organisations lobbied for that, particularly in the drugs rehabilitation field. That is why I think that this is an abuse of process. It is an abuse of the previous legislation, which was never intended to be used in this way, and I think that is why the other place inserted the clause.

I have been angry and have shouted about the subject in this House, and it is not good for my health. This is, however, a leap in the dark, and I am fearful for my constituents. As with other privatisations, there is a financial risk, but that is nothing in comparison with the risk to life and limb. As a result of this leap in the dark, there could be safety problems that will bear down on Ministers in the future.

I warn the House that if we allow this Bill to go through and any of our constituents suffer and are harmed in some way as a result of an offender not being properly supervised, we will, quite properly, be held responsible. The hon. Member for Southport (John Pugh), my hon. Friend the Member for Rotherham (Sarah Champion) and my right hon. Friend the Member for Dwyfor Meirionnydd (Mr Llwyd) have made exactly this point: why not ensure that the alternatives proposed by the Government are properly tested? Setting up pilots and then ending them without taking any account of them seems extraordinary and completely illogical.

In previous debates, we seized on the risk register because advisers to the Government were saying that there were risks. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Dwyfor Meirionnydd has said, there is an 80% risk of failure in some instances. The Secretary of State argued that the risk registers are only there at the beginning to point out a range of issues that will then be addressed, so we asked, “Why not publish the risk register and make it completely public, and why not publish those mechanisms you have put in place to address the specific risks? At least then we could be assured that they have been properly addressed and, perhaps, overcome.” As my right hon. Friend has said, we are walking into the dark and putting our constituents at risk as a result.

As other Members have explained, the experience of privatisation in the justice service has given us sufficient warnings that we need to tread very carefully. I do not want to go over those again, but many of us have had experience of the justice system over the years and I have never seen the system so vulnerable as a result of private interventions. There are riots almost monthly, and concerns expressed within our prison system. The introduction of the Serious Fraud Office into investigations of companies that provide services within the justice system is ironic, to say the least.

I support the amendments tabled by my hon. Friends on the Front Bench, which are supported by the chair of the justice unions parliamentary group and by the group overall. We have also tabled a number of other proposals that are somewhat bureaucratic but, I think, important: new clauses 10, 9, 11 and 13, which are all in my name. They are simple suggestions. First, if the Government are going down this path let us have full and open transparency. The new clauses suggest that the contracts should be fully published. The Minister has said that the draft contracts should be published, but I think that it is important that the full contract should be published so that we can all see it, in particular the elements of the contract that include the requirements and expectations of the providers’ performance. It is important that in future the National Audit Office can investigate and assess the effectiveness, economy and efficiency of the implementation of the contracts.

One change that I have suggested is just common sense: no company that has been investigated for fraud should be able to bid for the contract. I do not wish to see sleight of hand, with the suggestion that such companies will not be the primary providers but can be part of a consortium. They will play a key role within those consortia because of the resources they have.

New clause 9 suggests that companies that are the prime contractors for the Work programme in an area should not be able to bid, and I say that because there is a potential conflict of interest. If one company is implementing the Work programme at the same time as the new probation system for those with sentences of less than 12 months and there is a sanction, the Work programme will lose out. That introduces a conflict of interest within the system. What worries me is that a number of companies will bid for a range of contracts in an area, across the piece, with the result that mini-monopolies will be built up in particular geographical areas.

My new clauses are simply administrative amendments. New clause 13 says that we need an annual report to Parliament and I know that that is a standard amendment that we table for a range of legislation, but in this instance it is vital. I want to know from an annual report from the Government exactly how the contracts are being performed against, how safe my constituents are, how safe the offenders are and how successful the implementation of the new system is.

I do not want to go over everything I have said before. I am extremely worried and I will hold Ministers to account if any of my constituents are injured as a result of the Bill. I have said that twice before. In fact, the late Paul Goggins advised me that I was threatening Ministers and I said, “Yes, I am actually, because they are threatening my constituents with this legislation.” I hope that today we will be able to defeat it or at least pass some amendments that will stabilise the system and enable us to gain some accountability. If not, I hope that the other place will say no and introduce an element of common sense to the debate.

15:00

[Meg Hillier]

I rise to support new clauses 1 and 4. I will not repeat the excellent arguments that my hon. Friends have made, but I am concerned about the impact that this big and sudden change to the probation service will have in my community and on offender rehabilitation, both of which are central to the aims of the Bill, which is why elements of it enjoy cross-party support.

I am not opposed to having specialist providers in the probation service. For example, there is a high incidence of mental health problems in my constituency, and in Hackney as a whole, and many of the people affected, if they get caught up in the criminal justice system, would benefit from more specialised services, so I am not opposed to the private sector or voluntary bodies coming in to provide certain aspects of probation.

However, the scale of this outsourcing, particularly when it is being done in such a hurry, poses a real risk. I believe that it will reduce standards. People will be taken on by large companies that have no track record in probation, and will be paid at much lower levels, as probation assistants, rather than full-blown and experienced probation officers. I call it probation-lite. Those people will be making very important decisions. They will decide, for instance, whether someone is a high-risk offender who needs to be transferred to a probation officer. There is a risk there.

[Jeremy Wright]

It might help the hon. Lady if I clarified two points relating to what she has just said. First, in all contracts we will expect those taking on the work to employ properly skilled staff—not to do so will not be permitted. Secondly, those who decide whether someone is a high, medium or low-risk offender will be public sector national probation service employees, not contractors.

[Meg Hillier]

I thank the Minister for that clarification, particularly the first point, which is indeed good news. I was not a member of the Public Bill Committee and so might have missed some changes that have been made.

[Mrs Moon]

Will my hon. Friend give way?

[Meg Hillier]

Yes, but I will just finish responding to the Minister’s intervention.

On the Minister’s second point, I hear what he says, but there is always a risk that someone might be miscategorised and dealt with by an employee who is of a lower grade. The Minister says that they will be qualified, but they will be of a lower grade than fully qualified probation officers, and that decision might need to be made in the other direction. Perhaps he can reassure us on that point when he responds.

[Mrs Moon]

I should have waited for my hon. Friend to finish responding to the Minister before seeking to intervene, because she has just covered the point I wanted to make. It is not about the level of skills, but the qualification, because the qualification provides a background of knowledge that enforces and informs the way in which a probation officer acts. Someone who is deemed to be skilled might actually be unqualified, so it is important to have the qualification and the experience and skills.

[Meg Hillier]

I thank my hon. Friend for her comments.

I am also worried about some of the companies that might come into this. I serve on the Public Accounts Committee, and I challenged the big public sector providers that appeared before us recently on whether they would bid for contracts in areas where they had no experience. They all denied that they would, but we have seen, in the Public Accounts Committee, in other Committees and on the Floor of the House, example after example of companies that bid for contracts because they are good at bidding but that do not actually have a background in delivering the relevant service. They then have to backfill by recruiting people to take on those jobs. I have dealt with the Minister on constituency matters and know him to be assiduous, and I am sure that he will bear that point in mind, but I think that it is worth reiterating that it is a very serious matter. Companies should not be bidding for huge contracts in areas where they have no experience because that fragments the service.

Fragmentation can be good where there is specialism, where there are smaller contracts, perhaps run by specialist voluntary sector groups, or indeed by private companies if they have the necessary level of expertise, but they have to work together. We are in danger of seeing another approach whereby the MOJ and the Government put out big contracts and the smaller specialist providers simply do not get a look in. They might get the odd crumb from the big contractors’ table, but they will be squeezed out. That is particularly true in mental health, one of the local concerns in my constituency.

There is an important concern about local accountability. I am a great supporter of extending freedom of information in the first instance, even with limitations, to private sector companies that deliver public contracts paid for by the taxpayer. It should be the tax pound that determines whether there is freedom of information, not the nature of the delivery body. Most parties in the House support some degree of contracting out, but we need to ensure that transparency is built in. Companies have told the Public Accounts Committee that they are in favour of a much greater degree of transparency, so perhaps the Minister will take this opportunity to challenge them to stand up for what they say and make that part of the bidding process.

New clause 4 is important—I will not repeat all the arguments Members have made—because we need proper scrutiny. If we look at reoffending as a whole, we see that there are other ways of looking at it, for example by looking at mental health support or the Work programme. We know that offenders who come out of prison with a job are less likely to reoffend, but does the Work programme, which is provided by another Government Department, go into prisons to ensure that offenders have jobs for when they leave? Perhaps we should be challenging them to step up to the mark and provide job opportunities as a major plank of what we all want to see: less reoffending, particularly by offenders given short-term sentences.

In summary, the Public Accounts Committee has seen far too many poorly managed large Government contracts. The Cabinet Office is pushing hard to see that procurement is done in a different way that allows smaller companies a bite of the Government contract cherry and to stop the big companies being able to snaffle public money without being held properly to account. This is an opportunity for the Minister to consider, even at this late stage, allowing something in the contract to ensure that the big companies are required to work effectively with the small companies and not, as many of them do, to dodge their responsibilities later by saying, “Actually, we can’t quite deliver what we promised, so we’ll do it differently, but we’ve taken it all on.” That is often how they get around that. That will need constant monitoring and an audit of what happens with the contract. If this is to go ahead, I urge the Minister to tell us how the Government plan to audit the impact and the delivery of the service.

[Mr David Hanson (Delyn) (Lab)]

I begin by echoing the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Darlington (Jenny Chapman) about our late colleague Paul Goggins. I followed him as a Justice Minister, doing the job he did when he was in the Home Office and had responsibility for probation, and I know how well respected he was in the sector, by officials and the community at large. I also had the pleasure of sharing time with him as a Northern Ireland Minister, where he was also well respected. This is my first opportunity to put that on the record in the House. I will attend his funeral on Thursday, along with many colleagues across the House, to pay my final respects to Paul for all his work.

I wanted to speak in this debate for several reasons. Nobody disagrees with the Government’s general premise for dealing with offenders sentenced to 12 months or less in prison. They are often prolific offenders who go on to reoffend. They are often tomorrow’s serious offenders. It was an aspiration we had when I served in the Ministry of Justice to try to reduce their reoffending. We need to involve the voluntary and private sectors in supporting rehabilitation work for individuals who go to prison and come out within 12 months. Housing associations, voluntary providers and employers all have a role to play. That can be done in a positive way by the voluntary and private sectors.

Let us therefore not have a debate today on the difference between the Government and the Opposition on the need to involve some elements of the voluntary and private sectors. Instead, I want to raise my concerns about the issues addressed by new clauses 1 and 4. New clause 1 would ensure that we put a parliamentary brake on reorganisation, pending proper parliamentary scrutiny, and new clause 4 would put in place a pilot to test some difficult and serious matters in relation to which mistakes—they will be made, because that is the nature of the business the Minister deals with—will have a real impact on the community at large.

New clause 1, which I fully support, would prevent the Government from selling off or restructuring the probation service unless the proposals had first been laid before, and approved by, both Houses of Parliament. It is no secret that if the Government did that this year, they could put a Bill before Parliament and get it through before the general election. They could have it scrutinised and probably, because of the votes they have in this House, get their way. I object to the Government using the Offender Management Act 2007 to achieve that objective. I declare an interest, because I was the Minister who took that Act through the House. At the time I was pressed strongly by many Members on my own side, including my hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell), on whether it meant the privatisation and break-up of the probation service. I was pressed very hard about whether it meant, in practice, the abolition, ultimately, of probation trusts.

I gave assurances during the Bill’s passage through the House and I want to repeat them today, not because they have not been heard here before, but because they support what my hon. Friend the Member for Darlington says in new clause 1 and are worthy of repetition. On 18 July 2007, I, as the Minister, said from the Dispatch Box:

“There will be a mixture of commissioning. Some will be at national level, because in certain cases and with certain contracts that will be the best way of securing a strong and efficient service. There will also be a strong role for those commissioning work at regional level. As my hon. Friend surely accepts, economies of scale will sometimes be necessary, and some services will be best purchased and commissioned at that level. However, there will also be a need for local probation trusts to act not just as service deliverers but as commissioners of services from the voluntary sector, or from others, providing a proper service to help prevent reoffending at local level.”—[Official Report, 18 July 2007; Vol. 463, c. 352-53.]

I said that in support of what my noble Friend Baroness Scotland and the then Lord Chancellor, my noble Friend Lord Falconer, said in another place when introducing the Offender Management Bill. I would be interested to hear what the Minister has to say about that. I am very pleased that the hon. and learned Member for Harborough (Sir Edward Garnier) is present, because I said it in response to a Lords amendment that he supported and that sought to do exactly what the Minister is seeking to do now to the probation service. We rejected it and I put it on record that the Offender Management Bill would not be used for that purpose.

I would be grateful if the Minister reflected on Pepper v. Hart from 1992. Legislation can be interpreted according to what a Minister said at the Dispatch Box about what they thought about a particular interpretation of a Bill. My assessment is that during our deliberations on the Offender Management Act, I, on behalf of the then Government, rejected from the Dispatch Box an amendment that sought to do what the Minister is now doing; supported the aspirations of my noble Friends Lord Falconer and Baroness Scotland; and spoke in support of retaining probation trusts to commission at a national, regional and local level. As my hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington has said, it is an abuse of this House for the Minister to try to use that legislation to secure his objective.

Will the Minister—just for me, so I can sleep easy in my bed—put on public record the legal advice he has received that says that he can do what he is doing, so that we can test his interpretation against the potential interpretation of lawyers outside the House under the terms of Pepper v. Hart?

[Jeremy Wright]

I am not sure I will be able to help the right hon. Gentleman sleep easier in his bed. Equally, I do not want to pull rank on him, but I have to put to him something that was said by his then boss—the then Home Secretary and the now noble Lord Reid—on Third Reading of the Offender Management Bill in this House:

“I can therefore give an assurance today…that the core offender management tasks of the probation service—for example, offender report writing, offender supervision and breach proceedings—will remain in the public sector for the next three years.”—[Official Report, 28 February 2007; Vol. 457, c. 1024.]

Will the right hon. Gentleman explain why his then boss did not say “for ever” instead of

“for the next three years”?

[Mr Hanson]

I do not wish to upset the Minister, because he is a decent cove, as far as he can be with his brief, but the noble Lord Reid was never my boss. I have never served under him and he never line managed me in any way, shape or form. When I served as a Justice Minister, my noble Friend Lord Falconer and my right hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn (Mr Straw) were my bosses. What I said at the Dispatch Box at the time was said on their behalf. We supported a publicly supported probation service.

[Jeremy Wright]

rose—

[Sir Edward Garnier]

rose—

[Mr Hanson]

I give way to my former shadow, the hon. and learned Member for Harborough.

[Sir Edward Garnier]

I think my shadow is rather bigger than it used to be. I want to encourage the right hon. Gentleman with the tedious little point that at least he and I have remained consistent over the past seven years, so why not comfort himself with that and then we can put this to a vote?

[Mr Hanson]

The point I am trying to make is that I support new clause 1 because the Government are trying to use the 2007 Act to take an approach that the then Ministers, in both Houses, rejected. I accept that the Minister believes that he has a legal basis to do this. I simply ask him to publish it, so that we can test it in due course. I am happy for the Minister to intervene, but he will have a chance to respond later. Like my hon. Friend the Member for Darlington and other hon. Members who have spoken, I remain concerned about the proposal, because I believe it is a gamble.

15:15

[Jeremy Wright]

I take the right hon. Gentleman’s point that I will have a chance to respond later and I suspect I will have quite a bit to respond to by then, but I wish to address this specific point. I apologise to him for my misunderstanding of the chain of command back in the days of his time in government. However, unless I misunderstand him, I do not think he is suggesting that the noble Lord Reid was not speaking for the Government on that occasion. On the question of whether I will publish legal advice, I can do better than that by referring the right hon. Gentleman to the Offender Management Act itself. Section 3(2) states:

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

That is clear authority to do what we are doing, is it not?

[Mr Hanson]

This is the nub of the argument: I accept that the Minister believes he is acting in good faith under the Act, but what I am saying is that the interpretation I gave from the Dispatch Box, and that other Ministers gave in another place and in this House, was that the Act could not to be used for the Minister’s current purposes. My interpretation was that the Act could be used to contract the voluntary and private sector to deliver some services, but not the core probation service, which is what the Minister seeks to do. We can disagree about that—it is a matter of conjecture—and I think that the appropriateness of our comments could be tested under Pepper v. Hart.

If the Minister votes for new clause 1 he will have an opportunity to bring back new proposals and, as has been suggested, to pilot them so that we do not have to take a serious gamble and have an artificial split between public and private providers, or face the risk of cherry-picking and big companies hoovering up contracts. Moreover, we would not have the risk brought to my attention by a probation officer in my own constituency who corresponded with me this very week. She will remain anonymous because of her current status, but she said in her letter:

“This system is not tested. It’s just ideas and assumptions based on political ideologies. Knowing the work as intimately as I do I can’t tell you how risky this is.”

I know from my time in the Ministry of Justice that there will be risks and challenges in the management of offenders. One of the serious cases with which I had to deal as a Minister was when a low-level offender who was being supervised by the then London probation service broke into a property in Lewisham, close to the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham East (Heidi Alexander), undertook a burglary and, in doing so, murdered two individuals, set fire to them and burned the property down. The offender was given sentences of 40 and 35 years respectively and is, as we speak, serving them at Her Majesty’s pleasure. That was a low-level offender who committed a high-level offence. There is always risk.

I accept that that happened under the probation service—mistakes will happen; this is a risky business—but I am worried about the steps the Minister is taking without the pilot proposed by new clause 4 or the brake and proper parliamentary scrutiny proposed by new clause 1. That raises the risk even higher in a system that, by its very nature, is risky.

[Mr Gordon Marsden (Blackpool South) (Lab)]

On that point, does my right hon. Friend agree that there have been discussions about the difficulties of making judgments about low-risk people left in the private sector? He may recall that I raised in the House the case of Jane Clough who was murdered in the Blackpool Victoria hospital car park by her former abusive partner while he was on bail. The Government accepted the thrust of that campaign when they made changes in relation to the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012. Does that not show that the ability to have an artificial division between the two will not work?

[Mr Hanson]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for mentioning that case. Given the nature of probation service business, mistakes will be made. My contention is that mistakes that might currently be made could very much be exacerbated by the fragmentation of the service and the potential downgrading of its quality, as well as by the fact that the existing public accountability will not be as clear cut.

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

The right hon. Gentleman is making a very interesting speech. I am sorry that I missed its beginning, but I was at the Backbench Business Committee. Has he dealt with the sifting process? Some of my constituents have expressed concern that it is done at a snapshot in time, as they have been allocated to two different services based on the window of 11 November. Has he tackled that?

[Mr Hanson]

I am grateful to the hon. Lady for raising that matter, which just exacerbates and adds to our concerns.

The process is never a precise one. I want the Minister to justify—perhaps not today nor by agreeing to new clause 1, but through a proper parliamentary procedure or the evaluation of pilots—how his proposals for a radical change in the probation service will do what he wants, as well as what my hon. Friends and I want, which is to reduce offending and reoffending. My worry is that the Minister’s proposals—in many ways, they are adjacent to the provisions in the Bill—might increase the reoffending that may occur for reasons that have been mentioned.

I urge the Minister to consider new clauses 1 and 4 in particular, and to publish, for the House to scrutinise, the basis on which he has so far made decisions in relation to the 2007 Act.

[Heidi Alexander (Lewisham East) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to follow my right hon. Friend the Member for Delyn (Mr Hanson). He has great expertise in this matter, given his previous ministerial role. I am not sure that I will trouble the Minister with the same level of detail about the proposals. I want to make a short speech on some of the things I have learned about how the probation service operates in my area and about the need for us in Parliament to have a vote on whether the wholesale privatisation of the probation service should go ahead.

In recent weeks, I have visited Lewisham probation trust and met its staff. The Lewisham trust is very busy. It ranks fourth among London boroughs with respect to the complexity and risk of the cases with which it deals. A quarter of the cases it deals with involve young people aged between 18 and 25.

When I spoke to staff, they expressed very serious concerns about the plans to fragment and break up the probation service and, indeed, to privatise great chunks of it. They believe that the proposals actually endanger some of the important and innovative work they are doing. For example, they recently set up a specialist team to deal with the problem of young offenders, whereby staff time is split between the youth offending service and the probation staff so that the two services join up better. They told me that the proposals the Government wish to force through in the next year will lead to huge upheaval and massive duplication, and will make it less likely that the work that is so important in our community for reducing reoffending is moved forward and can bring about the outcomes we all want.

The management of the trust told me that instead of being externally focused on reducing reoffending and protecting the public, over the next couple of months their priority will be to support staff through the transition and to make sure that they move cases between the split services in a way that ensures that no cases are lost and no mistakes are made. That does not make sense to me. The priority for the management and those with experience should be to ask, “How do we reduce rates of reoffending out there in the community?”

What will happen when the case load is split? As I understand it, 70% of the cases will be dealt with by community rehabilitation companies and others will be left with the new national probation service. How will those really difficult decisions be made about the risk that such young offenders present? The people who work in the probation service tell me that such judgments, particularly those about young people, are very difficult to make.

[Jeremy Wright]

The first point I want to make to the hon. Lady is that the proposals we are discussing do not cover young offenders, but only adults. The second point is one that I made earlier, but I am not sure whether she was in the Chamber at the time. It is that in relation to risk assessments and the judgments she describes—I accept that they are difficult—such judgments will be made by employees of the national probation service, who are public sector employees.

[Heidi Alexander]

I fear that the Minister may have misunderstood me. When I spoke about young people, I meant those between 18 and 25. As I understand it, the proposals in the Bill relate to that age group.

Another point that has been made to me by probation staff in Lewisham is that one key to the reduction of reoffending relates is having stable relationships between probation staff and the individuals with whom they work, so that they can build trust and work together to achieve the things that will put those young adults on to a better path in life. If young people are transferred between different organisations because their risk fluctuates, I wonder how there can be that stability in such relationships that I am told is so crucial to the reduction of reoffending.

Some Government Members, particularly the hon. and learned Member for Harborough (Sir Edward Garnier), seemed to suggest that the Opposition have some ulterior motive for saying that we want to pilot the schemes and to have a vote in this House before these very significant proposals go ahead. I want to put it on the record that our interest in this debate is public safety, what is effective and what works. They ascribe to us motives that simply do not represent our position. We are advocating what is in the best interests of the public and asking how we can really get to grips with reducing rates of reoffending, which are far too high in our country.

[Jeremy Wright]

May I begin by endorsing entirely what the hon. Member for Darlington (Jenny Chapman) and the right hon. Member for Delyn (Mr Hanson) said about Paul Goggins? Paul was the first Minister I went to see as a newly elected Back Bencher. I was struck not only by his command of the brief, but by his inherent kindness, his reaction to somebody who was not of his party and his willingness to give me whatever assistance he could. That continued throughout the time that I knew him in this House. As others have said, he will be missed on a personal level by a great many people on both sides of the Chamber. It is right for us to recognise today that he will be missed in debates such as this. The lack of his warmth and wisdom on these subjects and many others will make our debates all the poorer. I know that we will all miss him in the Chamber more generally.

We have had an interesting and informed debate on this group of new clauses. There is no doubt that the substantial burden of the debate on the Bill has been not about the contents of the Bill, which are broadly uncontroversial, but about the wider reforms that surround the Bill. I understand why that is. It might therefore be helpful if I spend a little time dealing with what is at the heart of the Government’s reforms to probation and why we believe they are so urgent. That will relate to the issue of piloting, which has been raised this afternoon.

15:30

One reason for our belief that this is an urgent matter is that reoffending rates have barely changed over the last decade. That is not true only of offenders who are released from short sentences, whom we all agree get little or no support at the moment after release, but of every group of offenders. For adult offenders who serve community sentences, the reoffending rate in 2011 was 34%. After falling in the early 2000s, that trend has been broadly flat since 2005. For adult offenders who are released from custodial sentences of less than 12 months—the group that we are interested in—the reoffending rate in 2011 was 58%. That trend has been broadly flat since 2002. For adult offenders who are released from custodial sentences of 12 months or more, the reoffending rate in 2011 was 35%. That trend has been broadly flat since 2005.

I recognise that those rates have barely changed despite the considerable efforts and very good work of probation officers up and down the country. It has never been part of my argument that the changes are justified because no good work is being done. In my view, good work is being done. None the less, there is clear justification for a change in approach.

[Jenny Chapman]

If the Minister wants us to accept everything that he has said so far, will he explain why it was a good idea to cancel the trust probation pilots when he did?

[Jeremy Wright]

The pilots that we cancelled were not sufficiently close to the proposals that we are making for us to learn as much as Opposition Members would like us to have learned from their conclusion. That does not mean that we learned nothing from their period of operation. The point has been made from the Opposition Benches that it is possible to learn from pilots even if they are not allowed to run to full term. We certainly have learned from those pilots and from other experiences of payment by results. I will return to that point in a moment.

The Government essentially had two options. We had to decide how to approach the task of tackling reoffending rates within our means. The hon. Member for Lewisham East (Heidi Alexander) is right that reoffending rates are too high. We could not allow that situation to continue without a response. We could simply have imposed further significant cuts on the 35 probation trusts without targeting our efforts on those with the highest reoffending rates, or we could have brought in innovative approaches to supporting offenders that would also be more efficient and that would allow us to reinvest some of the savings to target support through the gate on the under 12-month group. We chose the latter option. At the heart of our proposals is the aim of opening up the supervision of low and medium-risk offenders to a diverse range of new rehabilitation providers to bring in the best of all sectors to tackle reoffending.

The right hon. Member for Delyn discussed the Offender Management Act 2007. He was here at the time and witnessed the passage of the Act at first hand. He knows that what I have described was the policy of the Government at that time. The Opposition want to forget it now, but they have to be reminded that the powers for which they legislated and to which Parliament agreed in 2007 entirely underpin the reforms that this Government are making. I have explained what Lord Reid said when he was Home Secretary. He made the matter perfectly clear when he said:

“The Secretary of State…will be responsible for ensuring service provision by entering into contracts with the public, private or voluntary sectors. With that burden lifted, the public sector can play to its strengths while others play to theirs.”—[Official Report, 11 December 2006; Vol. 454, c. 593.]

[Mrs Main]

The Minister is making a powerful case for why there needs to be reorganisation. However, will he help the staff who will be involved in the transition process by saying what the new organisations will look like? My constituents have told me that there is uncertainty about the new bodies that they will be obliged to work with and concern about what they will look like. Perhaps that would help to make the transition a little easier.

[Jeremy Wright]

I agree with my hon. Friend that it is important to keep existing staff informed about what is going on. We are trying very hard to do that. If there are specific issues in her area, I am happy to look at them. We are keen to ensure that staff are informed. If she will forgive me, I will come back a little later to the pace of the changes that we are making, which has been a substantial issue this afternoon.

Before I do that, I want to make a couple more points about the background to this point, and the issue of further parliamentary approval for what we are suggesting. I have already made the point that section 3(2) of the Offender Management Act 2007 states:

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

In Committee, the Opposition were unable to dispute that the power that they legislated for is clear and unambiguous. The phrase

“contractual or other arrangements with any other person”

does not mean solely with probation trusts or trusts commissioning other providers, or solely with the public sector.

[Mr Hanson]

I do not wish to take up too much time on this point, but the Minister will know that when that debate took place, the intention was that the national probation service and the Ministry of Justice could contract for unpaid work, for example, on a national basis, but that for core probation services the probation service locally would still be responsible for the lead provision under that Act.

[Jeremy Wright]

Again—I made this point earlier when I intervened on the right hon. Gentleman—I do not think that Lord Reid could have been any clearer on Third Reading. No doubt under considerable pressure from Back Benchers in his party, he undertook that those core functions, including two things that we do not propose to move from the public sector—advice to court and breach of proceedings—would remain in the public sector for three years. That was not in perpetuity, not as a matter of principle, but for three years which, conveniently enough, took him up to the date of the general election. I think we can all take from that a pretty clear understanding that the Labour Government were not promising that those functions would stay in the public sector for ever; they did it to take them up to the general election.

[Mr Hanson]

Can we be clear? Lord Reid was not the Minister responsible when the 2007 Act was dealt with in these Houses of Parliament. I was the Minister of State, my boss was Lord Falconer, and the Minister in the other place was Baroness Scotland. Those were the three Ministers dealing with the 2007 Act in June 2007.

[Jeremy Wright]

I understand the right hon. Gentleman’s point, but it is pretty clear that Lord Reid was speaking on Third Reading of that Bill on behalf of the Government. If the right hon. Gentleman thinks that what Lord Reid was saying did not represent the Government’s position, he had better take it up with him. We have to go by what Hansard tells us.

[Mr Sheerman]

As someone who was present at that time, and who would count themselves as a reasonably good friend of Lord Reid, I think there is a different interpretation and that the Minister is taking this out of context. Lord Reid had no experience of the many private sector providers, such as Capita and G4S, that are being sought for this role but that now have a different focus and profile because they have failed. With that experience, do we really want to destabilise a wonderful profession and give it to companies such as those?

[Jeremy Wright]

The hon. Gentleman is making a slightly different point. I am talking about what authority is given to this Government by the Offender Management Act and, more broadly, what the previous Government thought they were doing when they passed it. The case made by Labour Members is that we have in some way taken that Act and twisted its meaning. It has been taken wholly out of context, and we have a travesty of a representation of what that Act says and means. I have been saying to the right hon. Member for Delyn and his colleagues that what the Act says is very clear, and the Hansard that supports it is also clear. Not only did the previous Government anticipate that such a thing could happen, they chose not to rule out the possibility of its happening. They had every opportunity to do so but they did not take it. That is my point.

More to the point and in connection with further parliamentary approval, the Offender Management Act says nothing about requiring Parliament to approve the exercise of that power. By contrast, section 15 of the Offender Management Act provides that an order repealing or disapplying the restriction of certain functions, including advice to court, to the public sector, must be subject to parliamentary approval. If, when in government, the Opposition had wanted to ensure that the power in section 3 for the Secretary of State to enter into arrangements for probation provision was subject to the affirmative resolution procedure, they could have done so, but they did not.

What is more, the Labour Government were prepared to guarantee that the supervision of offenders more widely would remain in the public sector for only three years, as I have said. Let us be clear: the Labour Government’s position was that the supervision of any offender—not just medium or low-risk offenders—could at some stage be competed for outside the public sector. This Government are not saying that. We say that medium and low-risk offenders should be competed for. Secondly, the Labour Government’s position was that the only element of parliamentary scrutiny of the Secretary of State’s powers to organise the probation service relates to the relatively narrow concept of advice to courts, which this Government do not intend to alter. Thirdly, the previous Government’s position was that the public sector monopoly on providers would be guaranteed for only three years.

The hon. Member for Darlington now proposes a new version of the new clause. I am not convinced that new clause 1 does exactly what the Opposition want, because the word “national” next to the word “restructure”, which is designed to avoid the need for any small change of probation to be debated in the House, does not necessarily apply to the word “reform”. Therefore, we might end up being asked to discuss very minor changes to the probation service. Beyond that, the basic point is that the Labour Government were given the opportunity to ask for a further check in Parliament for the provision but did not do so. It is a little odd that Labour Members now say that they want one.

On the substance of the reforms, we have spoken about the establishment of 21 new community rehabilitation companies in England and Wales. In the first instance, they will be publicly owned for a number of months before we consider whether to transfer ownership to other organisations. It is open to organisations from the private, voluntary and community sectors, as well as organisations currently working in probation trusts, to bid for those first-tier contracts. Part of the payment of those organisations will be based on results, so that we incentivise a greater focus on tackling reoffending and achieving better value for the taxpayer.

A number of the proposals tabled by the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell)—he has tabled new clauses 9, 10 and 11—remain flawed, as they were in Committee. As drafted, they would apply only after a competition has concluded, and would not prevent organisations from bidding, which is what I believe he wants to do.

[Jenny Chapman]

The Minister unsurprisingly comes up with technical reasons why those proposals are deficient, but he knows what my hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) is getting at. Will the Minister therefore confirm that he will not accept bids from any consortium that has, as a partner, G4S or any other organisation that is under criminal investigation by the Serious Fraud Office?

[Jeremy Wright]

I entirely understand what the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington is getting at, but I am afraid that I do not dismiss as lightly as the hon. Lady flaws in the proposals that we are being asked to support. If they are flawed, the House should not support them.

Let me reiterate the Government’s commitment to publishing contracts for the delivery of services to low and medium-risk offenders. That includes not just draft contracts, as I have said, but final versions of the future contracts for probation services. I hope that that is some reassurance to the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington. Likewise, I reassure him that the Government will include within the contracts for rehabilitation services a provision that enables the National Audit Office to access private providers’ records and documents for audit purposes. Of course, the NAO might require access to the community rehabilitation companies’ financial systems when there is a need for public assurance. That will be reflected in the contracts. That also answers the point made by the hon. Member for Hackney South and Shoreditch (Meg Hillier).

The new clauses seek to limit who can bid for contracts by excluding certain organisations. For example, prime providers for the Work programme could be excluded. I am afraid that that would simply reduce the diversity of the market of rehabilitation providers. Many organisations are doing important work within the Work programme, including voluntary organisations working with disabled and disadvantaged people.

The hon. Member for Darlington made a point on fraud, which the new clauses tabled by the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington address. Let me be clear that the Justice Secretary and I are determined to ensure the integrity of future contracts to deliver value for money for the taxpayer. The Ministry of Justice is currently following a proper procurement process and will do so in future competitions. It is that process that should rightly be used to determine who can bid for contracts and who the future providers of services should be. Procurement law permits consideration of issues that affect a bidder’s eligibility, such as fraud, only at the initial prequalification stage, and not after that stage unless a bidder’s circumstances have changed.

In respect of the current competition to identify the future owners of the 21 CRCs, the prequalification stage was completed in December. Even at that stage, we would not have been legally allowed to exclude a bidder on the grounds that they were under investigation for fraud. The grounds for mandatory exclusion under procurement law are that the bidder has, or any of its directors have, been convicted of fraud. The ongoing investigation by the Serious Fraud Office into the conduct of G4S and Serco—which, I remind the House, this Secretary of State initiated—in delivering the Government’s electronic monitoring contracts would not have provided a legal basis for excluding those organisations from the current competition.

15:45

[Jenny Chapman]

I just want to be clear about this, so that colleagues on both sides of the House can be clear. Despite all the assurances that the Minister has given here in the past, he is saying that companies under criminal investigation by the SFO will be able to be partners in bidding for provision of services to monitor offenders in the community.

[Jeremy Wright]

The point I am making is that the rules, which pre-existed this Government by the way, are very clear: investigation is not the same thing as conviction. We have made it very clear, however, that we have initiated our own investigations. I have warned the hon. Lady before that she is sitting in a very large glass house and that she should think before throwing stones. This is a contract negotiated by her Government and substantially abused, it would seem, during her Government’s term in office. That abuse was discovered by this Government and acted on by this Government. She is hardly in a position to suggest that we have behaved in any way improperly. In any event, I remind the House that both organisations, Serco and G4S, are not on the list of lead providers.

The hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington raised the question of whether those organisations could act in a supporting role. The answer is that we will want to look very carefully not just at the process of corporate renewal those companies are undergoing at the moment but at the specific bids they are making. However, they are not on the list of lead providers. I remind Opposition Members that we were told not so very long ago that the proposals could never work without G4S and Serco, that no one would be interested in bidding. We have a list of 30 different bidders, comprising 50 different organisations at lead bidder level. The Opposition are simply wrong about the level of interest.

[John McDonnell]

I just want to get this absolutely clear and on the record. What the Minister is saying is that the two organisations that the Serious Fraud Office is investigating will be allowed to bid as part of a consortium for some of these contracts. In addition, I see that also on the list are A4E, which, if I remember rightly, was forced to hand back money to the Government as a result of its failure on contracts—in fact, some fraudulent activity on contracts—for the Department for Work and Pensions. We are opening up this whole network to a group of villains.

[Jeremy Wright]

The hon. Gentleman needs to be very careful with his language. He needs to understand that someone being investigated is not the same thing as someone being found responsible for poor conduct. It is important for a Justice Minister, in particular, to recognise that distinction. I assure him that in relation to each and every bid we receive we will look very carefully not just at the bid but at the organisations making the bid. He has heard me say on many occasions that we will not be awarding contracts to any organisation we think unfit to hold them.

Let me make the point, because it has been raised, that all the bidders on our list have experience of either working with offenders or across the wider criminal justice system. This is exactly the broad market that we want to see deliver these services. Below the community rehabilitation company level, we want to ensure that smaller organisations from the voluntary community and social enterprise sectors are able to play a key role in delivering rehabilitation.

[Mr Marsden]

I am grateful to the Minister for being generous in giving way, but does he not understand that the Secretary of State introducing these proposals is the same Secretary of State who did the same thing with the Work programme, from which those voluntary and third sector organisations are, more or less, entirely absent?

[Jeremy Wright]

I do not agree with the hon. Gentleman’s characterisation of the Work programme, and anyway, as he might have heard me say more than once, this proposal is not a clone of that programme. It is a different proposal, as it must be, because the criminal justice system is a different entity. It is important to recognise that.

On smaller voluntary organisations, about which people have understandable concerns, the House might be interested to know that along with the 30 lead providers that have passed the competition’s first stage, a further 800 organisations have expressed an interest in playing a role as part of the wider supply chain, with more than 550 voluntary sector organisations among them. In the process of contract management, we will want to manage properly the relationships between the larger and smaller players to ensure that those relationships are sustainable in the long term.

[John McDonnell]

Let me explain to the Minister why some of us feel strongly about this matter and why some of our language is strong. The Government awarded the contract for unpaid work in Greater London—so this affects our constituencies—to Serco. I will briefly set out some of the problems that have occurred: works shops have been closed, shutting down placements for women high-risk offenders; offenders recently complained to a probation officer in north-west London—my area—that no supervisors were available onsite; and rival gang members have been placed on the same scheme and transported in the same way. In addition, a known sex offender was alleged to be on the same placement as a victim. That is why we are angry.

[Jeremy Wright]

I understand the hon. Gentleman’s concern, but I do not agree with his characterisation of Serco’s contract. As he would expect, we have looked closely at its performance under the contract and, again, I assure him that we will look closely at all those who bid for this work. As with all competitions, the decision to award each contract depends on our being satisfied that bidders can meet our standards in respect of quality of service and price and, in this case too, on our being satisfied about the financial risk being taken to reduce reoffending and ensuring good value for the taxpayer. If we are not satisfied that overall bidders can meet our requirements, we will not award them contracts.

Hon. Members have raised the issue of the management of high-risk offenders, so let me make it clear exactly what will be involved. We are creating a new national probation service to manage directly all offenders who pose a high risk of serious harm and any sexual or violent offenders subject to multi-agency public protection arrangements. After an offender has been sentenced, the NPS will make an initial assessment of an offender’s risk of causing harm, and all offenders assessed as posing a high risk of serious harm will be the responsibility of the NPS. For low and medium-risk offenders, CRCs will be required to manage any risk of serious harm that the offender might present and to have appropriately trained staff and robust procedures in place for the management of cases where the risk of serious harm escalates to high during the offender’s supervision. They will also be contractually required to refer cases back to the NPS if they consider that the risk of serious harm might be escalating. In the end, the decision will be taken by the NPS.

New clauses 5 and 13 deal with reports by the Secretary of State to Parliament and the public on the impact of the reforms we intend to make. I want to reassure the House that the Government are already committed to acting in the spirit of those amendments. We are already considering how we can provide information about reoffending rates broken down by CRCs and the NPS. As Members will know, the MOJ already publishes reoffending statistics, not just annually but every three months, broken down by probation trust, prison and upper and lower-tier local authorities. I am happy to commit to the House that, in the future, the reports will break down reoffending rates for the different CRCs and the NPS. Indeed, as a first step, we have already published on the MOJ website a set of indicative figures to show what reoffending rates and cohort sizes in each contract package area would have looked like had the new structure been in place for the 2005-10 period. We are also piloting the justice data lab, about which I have spoken before, which will give providers the opportunity to match the performance of their cohort with something comparable.

On freedom of information, CRCs will be required in contracts to assist the MOJ in discharging its obligations under the Freedom of Information Act—very much along the lines of what my right hon. Friend the Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Sir Alan Beith), the Chairman of the Select Committee, outlined earlier, and in accordance with his Committee’s reports and conclusions.

On penalties, we are developing a performance framework that will include financial penalties for services not delivered to time or to quality. Contracts for CRCs will reflect that and, as I have said, the House will be able to see that this is the case when we publish those contracts in draft. I do not want to lose sight—nor should the House—of the major prizes here: first, expanding support for offenders released from short sentences and, secondly, developing a through-the-gate system for offenders released from prison. I think that that commands a broad measure of support.

That brings me to new clause 6, tabled by the right hon. Member for Dwyfor Meirionnydd (Mr Llwyd). I want to reassure him that as part of our reforms there will be a new resettlement service provided in custody for all offenders before their release. This will be tailored to the individual’s needs, but is likely to include support in finding accommodation, family support, mentoring and financial advice. Services in custody will be underpinned by the changes to the way in which the prison estate is organised. That will mean that, in most cases, the same professional can work with offenders in custody and continue their rehabilitation work in the community.

As the right hon. Gentleman would expect, the Ministry of Justice and the National Offender Management Service are working closely together to ensure that the Prison Service is well prepared to implement these proposals. Right from the outset of these reforms, we established a joint working group on this topic that reports to senior officials and ultimately to Ministers. The working group has commissioned an analytical model of prisoner flows through the prison estate. That allows us to test the impact on prisoner flows and locations from implementing the resettlement prison allocation model. Furthermore, I can reassure the right hon. Gentleman that the Prison Service is undertaking a full review of facilities and staffing levels at all proposed resettlement prisons. Together all these things will ensure that the changes we are proposing are deliverable and sustainable, which I think is exactly his concern.

On new clause 4, I understand that the case of Opposition Members is that this is a huge leap in the dark and that no testing of what we are doing is or will be going on. That is not the case. Let me set out to the House the key elements that make up our reforms, what we are doing to test them and the steps we have built in to assess how effectively they are working at key stages of implementation.

First, there are the reforms at the heart of the Bill: the extension of licence and supervision to offenders released from short custodial sentences. There are lawyers among Opposition Members, and they will know, and ought to appreciate, that with a change to the sentencing framework of this magnitude, it cannot be desirable to introduce it one part of the country but not another. To do so would risk postcode justice, with some offenders getting different sentences from others.

To expand supervision to the under-12-month group, as we all say we want to do, we need to make the changes at a national level. That means funding those changes at a national level. The savings to fund the changes come from two sources; first, the efficiencies generated by competing supervision of low and medium-risk offenders and, secondly, the back office savings from moving to 21 from 35 CRCs, along with a single national probation service. Competing services in only one area of the country, if that is what is being proposed—I have heard little detail as to what sort of piloting is being proposed here—would extend supervision to short-sentenced offenders but, in every other respect, we are carrying out extensive local testing of the reforms in no fewer than 14 probation trusts. There is also the testing we are carrying out on the new operating model for the CRCs and the NPS. Those tests will enable us to inform how the new processes will operate once implemented. The first round of tests has already started and will continue over the coming months.

Secondly, there is the important fact that the 21 CRCs that we are creating will remain in public sector ownership for some months after their creation until the conclusion of the competition. This gives us further opportunities to carry on testing and to refine the system. Caseloads will not all necessarily transfer at the point the NPS and CRCs come into being, and we have made it clear to trusts that where there is a case for doing so, we will give greater latitude to allow for caseload transfer to operate more slowly than the people transfer process. That will avoid disruption and the type of dangers that that might create, which Opposition members have described.

Thirdly, there is the testing that we are carrying out of our approach to payment by results. We have consulted extensively on this and there are also pilots under way to test different approaches to payment by results. Opposition members would have us believe that there has been no piloting and that there is no piloting. Neither of those two things is true.

[Jenny Chapman]

Will the Minister give way?

[Jeremy Wright]

In just a moment. The pilots that we are already undertaking—HMP Peterborough and Doncaster—are providing significant lessons for our wider reforms. Not only that, but they are engaged in another aspect of the reforms—the move to a through-the-gate system supporting the transition from custody to the community. The difference between them and the other pilots referred to is that these are much closer to the model we seek to pursue.

[Jenny Chapman]

I have a feeling that the Minister knows what I am going to ask him about payment by results. If he has done so much piloting and testing and has such confidence in this system, why has he repeatedly refused to tell us what percentage of a contract will be paid regardless of performance, and what percentage the reward element will be? We suspect that it would be very little.

16:00

[Jeremy Wright]

The hon. Lady keeps asking the same question and she is going to keep getting the same answer: that is called consistency. Let me tell her once again that she will have to wait until she sees the documentation on the invitation to negotiate. What she will see from it is that we are very interested not just in the initial figure, but in how those bidding for this work will develop the amount they are prepared to put at risk over time. That will assist precisely the type of organisations that Labour Members claim they are interesting in helping—voluntary sector organisations that might not be able to put a great deal at risk to start with, but might be able to build on it in the future. We think that is important, and I very much hope that the hon. Lady will support it.

Let me deal with the Peterborough pilot and what it does. It is worth making the point that the interim figures from the pilot—we have been told often this afternoon that there is no evidence for the changes we are making, so let me offer some up—show an 8% fall in reconvictions among offenders released from Peterborough between September 2010 and June 2012 as compared with the preceding period. Similarly in the Doncaster pilot, the sixth-month reoffending rate fell 5.7 percentage points compared with the preceding period. That clearly demonstrates that with targeted support and help aimed at the right people at the right time, we can divert more offenders from a return to crime.

We have built into our plans a set of our own business and system readiness tests, which will be carried out throughout the implementation process. There are therefore a number of things that we are doing to test these reforms—completely contrary to the characterisation of Opposition Members—and we are determined to implement them in a measured and orderly way to ensure that public safety is in no way impacted. That is why we are taking a structured approach to implementation, as I have set out.

[Mr Llwyd]

There is no clear read-across from Doncaster and Peterborough because those are voluntary schemes and what the Minister proposes is not voluntary. Those who know better than I do—and, with great respect, as much as he does—will tell him that the figures do not correlate precisely.

[Jeremy Wright]

I would say two things to the right hon. Gentleman on that. First, he and his colleagues have busily argued that we should have had more pilots, while some of the pilots we cancelled were less comparable to our reforms than were Peterborough and Doncaster, so he needs to be careful what he is arguing for. Secondly, he is absolutely right to say that the Peterborough and Doncaster pilots were conducted on a voluntary basis. That is because the law does not allow us to impose them on a compulsory basis. That is the law I am inviting the right hon. Gentleman to vote in favour of today, and I very much hope he will do so. Unless we have that law, we will never be able to impose those kinds of provisions on a compulsory basis.

Finally, on the issue of the pace of the reforms—an issue of which others have made much—I want to say two things. First, it is important that those who are employed by probation trusts—my hon. Friend the Member for St Albans (Mrs Main) made this point—understand where they stand. It does not benefit them for us to drag our feet at this point. We need to get on with it so that those people can understand what their own futures hold. Secondly, to reiterate a point made by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Harborough (Sir Edward Garnier), I make no apologies for the urgency of these reforms: as long as we wait, there will be further cases of reoffending and further victims created. Some 600,000 offences are committed every year by those who are reoffending. That is the problem that everyone here has identified correctly and everyone says they want to do something about. The difference between the Government and Opposition Members is that we know how we are going to do it and they do not have the faintest idea. They do not know how they would pay for it, either. We know that the last Government set out to achieve this, but could not afford to do it within existing budgets. That option is out. We know how we will pay for this; they do not. They have not told us; they should certainly support what we propose.

[Jenny Chapman]

The Minister talks of paying for the reform. We worked out that we could not afford it at the time, but he has not presented a single bit of evidence to show that he can afford it: we have been presented with no costings whatsoever.

[Jeremy Wright]

I have already explained to the hon. Lady that one of the commercial realities is that we do not disclose such information to those who we hope will bid under the amount concerned, because we want a better deal for the taxpayer. We are very interested in getting a good deal for the taxpayer, and we think that this is the way in which to do it.

The last Government intended to introduce these measures within existing budgets and without contracting out. The hon. Lady opposes contracting out, but we say that that is the way to pay for it. What does the hon. Lady say is the way to pay for it? Or is this, once again, the sort of opportunistic opposition that says “We like the idea, but we do not really want to do it”? I remember—and perhaps the hon. Lady does as well— that on Second Reading the shadow Secretary of State for Justice, the right hon. Member for Tooting (Sadiq Khan), said that if we will the ends, it is very important to will the means. It does not seem to me that the Labour party has done any of that since his Second Reading speech.

By my count, we have engaged in 21 hours of parliamentary debate, and there have been three votes on the principle of our reforms. Opposition Members lost every one of those votes, and they still ask for more parliamentary debate. I wonder how much more of it they feel that they need in order to be persuaded of something that they supported, and legislated for, when they were in government. Now, for reasons of sheer opportunism, they wish to walk away from, and leave abandoned, the victims and potential victims of crime whom our proposals would help.

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

16:06

Division 176

Ayes: 247

---

Labour: 229
Liberal Democrat: 7
Democratic Unionist Party: 5
Social Democratic & Labour Party: 2
Independent: 2
Plaid Cymru: 1
Alliance: 1
Green Party: 1

Noes: 313

---

Conservative: 269
Liberal Democrat: 42
Independent: 1

New Clause 2

Rehabilitation of ex-service personnel

‘The Secretary of State must consult on measures to improve rehabilitation services for ex-service personnel who have been convicted of a criminal offence, and must lay a report on the findings of such a consultation before both Houses of Parliament within nine months of this Act being passed.’.—(Jenny Chapman.)

Brought up, and read the First time.

[Jenny Chapman]

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

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

New clause 3—Veterans’ rehabilitation requirement—

‘(1) The Secretary of State must by order establish a pilot scheme enabling courts to include a veterans’ rehabilitation requirement in a community order.

(2) A veterans’ rehabilitation requirement may only be used where an offender was previously a member of HM Armed Forces.

(3) A veterans’ rehabilitation requirement must provide for the offender to be referred to a veterans’ rehabilitation panel at the start of a community order, which will put in place a rehabilitation plan for the offender.

(4) An order under subsection (1) must make provision—

(a) about the membership of veterans’ rehabilitation panels; and

(b) to allow for the requirement to be reviewed periodically by the veterans’ rehabilitation panel at intervals of not less than one month.

(5) An order under this section—

(a) shall be made by Statutory Instrument; and

(b) may not be made unless a draft has been laid before and approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament.’.

New clause 12—Building better relationships programmes—

‘It shall be the responsibility of the National Probation Service to provide all Building better relationships rehabilitation programmes for male perpetrators of domestic violence where a court makes an order for participation. It shall also be the responsibility of the National Probation Service to provide any programmes that are deemed necessary for short-term prisoners who have been involved in domestic violence.’.

Amendment 7, page 9, line 41, leave out clause 10.

Government amendment 5.

[Jenny Chapman]

To begin with, I shall briefly mention Government amendment 5. This welcome proposal deals with the provision of restorative justice as part of a community sentence. I observed in Committee that it had become something of a tradition in justice Bills for the Government to show support for restorative justice and for the Opposition to try to push them a little further. We duly tabled an amendment in Committee that would add restorative justice explicitly to the Bill, with the aim of encouraging its use. The Minister was supportive, assuring the Committee that he would go away and consider the amendment. On this occasion, he has not disappointed us.

There is much cross-party support for the use of restorative justice, not least because of the high satisfaction rates it has received from victims who have been offered it. We know the Government intended that restorative justice would be able to be used as part of a rehabilitation activity requirement, and the Minister has now taken care to add that explicitly to the Bill. I know that Paul Goggins, who spoke in Committee in support of this, would have been very pleased that the Minister has done so. We welcome the amendment and I thank the Minister for the care with which he considered the issue.

New clauses 2 and 3 concern the involvement of veterans in the criminal justice system and stand in the names of hon. Members from both sides of the House. These provisions deal specifically with the rehabilitation of armed forces veterans who become involved with the criminal justice system, aiming to improve the support we are able to give them. The new clauses were tabled last week, since when there has been a flurry of activity from the Government, which I will discuss shortly. I thank all hon. Members who added their names in support of these new clauses, and I am sure they will join me in paying tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley Central (Dan Jarvis) for his work in raising awareness of the issue.

Most of us, and especially me, can hardly imagine the experiences that some of our servicemen and women deal with on a day-to-day basis, but we all know, and can appreciate, that the transition back into civilian life is not always easy. Happily, most of those who return from service will never need the particular support we are discussing today, but some will. The purpose of our proposals is to ensure that all our veterans are properly supported when they come home. Those making the move back into civilian life can face problems that include homelessness; drug and alcohol addiction; family breakdown; and mental health difficulties.

The north-east, where my constituency is, has a proportionately higher level of recruitment to the armed forces than any other region. A collaborative review of the mental health of veterans by north-east councils found that in the younger population—the under-45s—members of the ex-service community were three times more likely to suffer a mental health disorder than the general population. Some of those who fall on tough times upon their return will, unfortunately, become involved in crime or offending behaviour. As Lord Ramsbotham, president of the Veterans in Prison Association, has said, we are often talking about

“the person who has fallen on hard times through trying to come to terms with civilian life and needs particular help to enable them to re-engage.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 11 June 2013; Vol. 745, c. 1562.]

The intention of our proposal is not to let people off the hook or turn a blind eye to serious offences, but where adjustment does prove difficult, and an individual’s criminal behaviour could be linked to their military experience, we believe that those underlying problems need to be addressed to prevent further offending. The military covenant recognises that members of the armed forces, and their loved ones, can be left disadvantaged because of their service, and veterans have made a unique contribution to our country. As my hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley Central recently put it, the support we offer in return needs to extend to every area of a veteran’s life.

There are varying estimates as to the number of ex-service personnel who are in the criminal justice system. The Ministry of Defence estimates that veterans make up about 3.5% of the prison population, with a similar percentage under supervision in the community. Unfortunately, we have only estimates and unreliable data rather than a detailed understanding of the veteran population, which is an indication of how far we have to go to support those ex-service personnel who break the law.

[Alison Seabeck]

Does my hon. Friend accept that there was a similar problem in the GP service? People with mental health issues turned up at surgeries but were not identified as former service personnel. Clearly, ensuring that that information is available at some point in the process is important.

[Jenny Chapman]

It is difficult to develop policy sensibly without having the information to inform decisions. One thing we want to achieve in this debate is a commitment to gather the data that we need to make those decisions in a more structured fashion. The specific issue of rehabilitative services for veterans was first raised in debate on this Bill last summer by Members in another place. Noble Lords had taken inspiration from the United States, from which we have a lot to learn on this issue, and laid down amendments calling on the Government to establish a pilot of a so-called veterans court. Veterans courts are now quite well known in the United States, but, as yet, we have not used them here.

A veterans court is staffed entirely by ex-servicemen and women, and deals with veterans charged with non-serious offences. As it was explained in the other place, a veteran who has committed an offence can be referred from the trial court to the veterans court. Under the system, the court assigns a fellow veteran as a mentor and systematic efforts are made to help the offender deal with a range of problems with which they are struggling to cope, such as substance misuse, mental health issues, lack of housing, anger management, skills, jobs and family breakdown. Other problems can be addressed in that way. The veteran is expected to attend monthly hearings so that progress can be assessed. Failure to co-operate leads to recall by the trial court and the possibility of a custodial sentence being imposed. The reported results of the courts are extremely impressive. The state supreme court in Pennsylvania reports an average reoffending rate for courts in its counties of just 1%. In other reports, rates vary from 10% to 30%, which is substantially lower than rates for custodial sentences.

[Mr Llwyd]

I am interested in what the hon. Lady has to say. In 2008, I went out, as an adviser to the Howard League, to see the courts in action. The first such court in the United States was in Buffalo, New York state. Currently, eight years down the road, it still has a 0% reoffending rate, which is absolutely incredible.

[Jenny Chapman]

The right hon. Gentleman clearly has a great deal of experience and expertise in this area. I am heartened by what he has said, which makes the idea of veterans courts all the more compelling. Since the first court was opened, the programme has been replicated across the country, and a number of states have passed legislation providing for the state-wide establishment of such courts. One has introduced changes to allow veterans to be diverted, where appropriate, into treatment rather than prison. That is the mark of simple, systematic support that can make a life-changing difference to an individual.

New clauses 2 and 3 are the starting steps. They aim to start our catch-up with the US and other nations. New clause 3 provides for a pilot of a variation of the veterans court to be trialled in the UK. New clause 2 requires a wide-ranging consultation on the issue as a whole. Both new clauses are reasonably small asks and, if passed, would offer the chance to learn more about the particular needs of veterans and how best we can support individuals to prevent future offences.

16:29

New clause 2 would provide that the Secretary of State must consult on measures to improve rehabilitation services for ex-service personnel and must lay a report on the findings before both Houses of Parliament within nine months of the Act’s being passed. The benefits of a consultation are quite clear. It will allow us to get the data, to think about the best ways of screening for veteran status and to consider the international comparisons for best practice—the list goes on. It will also give us a platform to consider some of the less straightforward issues. I do not deny that such issues exist, and we will not press either new clause to a vote this afternoon as they are complex. However, such issues include the questions of who we consider to be a veteran and how we define a veteran. A veteran can be anyone ranging from a 23-year-old injured in Afghanistan to a 90-year-old honoured for world war operations, and there are certainly differences that should be considered between a recruit who dropped out of basic training early on and a soldier who served for years. We should be more clear in our minds about exactly what a veteran is.

Pre-empting the support that I am sure such a measure would have received from both sides of the House, the Justice Secretary chose to show his support early by announcing over the weekend a review, to be led by the hon. Member for Penrith and The Border (Rory Stewart), that will consider the reasons that lead to some veterans ending up in the criminal justice system. That is clearly a welcome announcement, although I cannot help thinking that we are a bit light on detail. Does the Minister plan to make a statement as well as issuing a press release? We would be interested in a bit more detail. Notwithstanding the fact that it was the press rather than this House that was briefed on the terms of the Government’s review, I hope that the Minister will be happy to offer some assurances and a little information about the detail this afternoon.

Will the Minister assure the House that the review will consider how best to support veterans who come into contact with the criminal justice system as well as the reasons they become involved? Will he also assure the House that his review will consider international comparisons and how other nations support those who have served? Furthermore, will he tell the House how long he expects the review to last and when we can expect to hear its findings?

As new clause 2 asks no more of the Government than they are apparently already planning, am I right to think that they might be happy to accept new clause 2 and fulfil a statutory duty to consult on this specific issue through their review? I suspect, looking at the Minister, that that might be a step too far for him.

New clause 3 would provide for a veterans rehabilitation requirement to be piloted as part of a community sentence. That would act as a simple variation of a veterans court. I sometimes think that calling it a veterans court is a bit misleading, as it could just as well be called a veterans panel. The new clause would provide for a veteran who received a community sentence to be immediately referred to a veterans panel that included representatives of probation services as well as experts on veterans’ health, resettlement and rehabilitation. The panel would put in place a programme of rehabilitative support for the offender and would request to see him or her at regular intervals to check on progress. We are keen that a pilot should take place, which would not only signal a commitment to act on the issue but would begin to build up an evidence base—we like evidence bases on the Labour Benches—and experience of what works with our armed forces.

[Mr David Anderson (Blaydon) (Lab)]

Does my hon. Friend agree that the experience in the United States shows that when such cases go through the courts the judge dictates how the person should be helped? The judge makes the point to the other key agencies that they have responsibilities to the person. For example, if the housing people or health people are failing, the judge can have a go at them. That makes things work much more effectively than saying, “Let’s just sit down and talk about this,” as it provides some direction.

[Jenny Chapman]

I agree with my hon. Friend, who has knowledge and expertise in this area. What he says could apply to any offender, as many of us are concerned that judges are not always as aware of the outcomes of the decisions they make as they could be. This particular idea would also help in that regard.

That might also start to make a world of difference for servicemen and women struggling to find their feet after their service to the rest of us. The Minister’s consultation is welcome, but we would like a commitment from the Government that action will be taken to trial and improve services for veterans who enter the system. As the noble Lord Beecham put it eloquently in another place,

“we should… not allow another situation to develop in which sentiments are pronounced but nothing much happens.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 11 June 2013; Vol. 745, c. 1565.]

I thank the House once again for the wide-ranging support on the matter and look forward to the Minister’s reply. We will not press these new clauses to the vote, but I would like him to respond carefully to what we have said and give us more assurances than he has given so far on the review he has begun.

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

I wish to speak to new clauses 2 and 3. As the hon. Member for Darlington (Jenny Chapman) has just pointed out, the Secretary of State has asked me to lead a review of these matters. I would like to pay huge tribute to the right hon. Member for Dwyfor Meirionnydd (Mr Llwyd) and the hon. Member for Barnsley Central (Dan Jarvis) for the work they have done on that. There has been a very good cross-party focus on the matter over the past few years, and I have a huge amount to learn.

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

Is my hon. Friend aware that the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee visited Washington last summer and saw at first hand some of the stuff we are talking about? Is he willing to take evidence from some of the Members who were on that trip to ensure that it is included as well?

[Rory Stewart]

I would be delighted to do that. My hon. Friend’s intervention reminds me just how much expertise there is in the House. I see that there is an enormous amount of expertise on the Opposition side of the House. He has a great deal of expertise on the matter, as do many other Members in the Chamber this afternoon.

We need to focus on this for three reasons: first, we have an obligation towards individuals in the criminal justice system as a whole; secondly, we have a huge obligation specifically to those who have served in the armed forces; and thirdly, we have an obligation to society as a whole. The US experience suggests that there is something we can do. It is unusual in such a situation to find that we have concrete levers that might be able to improve our relationship to reoffending.

There already exists enormous expertise, for example in the Howard League for Penal Reform, Combat Stress and the Royal British Legion, and in the work that has been done by all the forces charities—29 different forces charities are currently working on the issue. There is also deep expertise in our universities. For example, King’s College London has done an enormous amount of work on some of the trauma elements, and in the past 24 hours I have been contacted by seven doctoral students doing theses on these issues. I hope not to try to reinvent the wheel, but to learn an enormous amount, including from Opposition Members, to make this as much of a cross-party enterprise as possible and to bring in the expertise that is here.

[Alison Seabeck]

I look forward to the results of the work that the hon. Gentleman is undertaking, which I know he will do with a great deal of care and intelligence. We are talking a lot about trauma and front-line experience being among the key issues, but surely the institutionalisation of young men in particular has an impact on how they behave when they come out. That must also be part of his review.

[Rory Stewart]

That is a very important intervention. First, essentially we need to be looking at the base data. We need to understand what exactly is happening because, as hon. Members have pointed out, we do not yet have enough data on that. Secondly, we need to look at the causes of the incidence of offending and reoffending by people who have formerly been in the armed forces. Thirdly, we need to look at our response. In doing that, we need to be absolutely sure that we are not stigmatising. We must make it absolutely clear that we are not trying somehow to portray people who have been in the armed forces as more likely to offend. In fact, a lot of the data suggest that they might be less likely to offend than those from similar socio-economic backgrounds. We need to get that clear. It is important in terms of the recruitment and employability of people leaving the armed forces.

On the specific issue of causes, most of the research, according to my preliminary reading, suggests that the hon. Lady is absolutely right that there are different elements, one of which may be experiences before people join the military. For example, people who join the infantry tend, comparatively, to come from disadvantaged socio-economic backgrounds. A second element is experiences in the military, such as combat stress, and another is that raised by the hon. Lady, namely the question of what happens when individuals leave the military and go from what for many of them may be a very fulfilling institutional framework in which they feel a strong amount of team work and esprit de corps, to suddenly finding themselves in an environment in which perhaps less support exists.

That said, people coming out of the armed forces already benefit enormously from the forces charities and even from individual regimental associations, so we should not underestimate the amount of support that exists or try to reinvent the wheel.

[Oliver Colvile]

rose—

[Rory Stewart]

I will give way for a final time.

[Oliver Colvile]

Will my hon. Friend also recognise that in the United States of America all veterans are given a mobile phone when they leave the military and receive a couple of telephone calls during the following six months to a year, which means that there is permanent contact?

[Rory Stewart]

That is a good point on which to conclude.

[Lady Hermon (North Down) (Ind)]

rose—

[Rory Stewart]

I can see that the hon. Lady wishes to intervene and I will let her do so.

[Lady Hermon]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for taking an intervention from me as a Member who represents a constituency in Northern Ireland. I know that he will be very sensitive to the role of the British Army in Northern Ireland, which has in the past been very divisive for some sections of the community. May I urge the hon. Gentleman to bear it in mind, when he does his research in Northern Ireland, that former members of the Royal Irish Regiment and the Ulster Defence Regiment are very reluctant to raise their profile, because they are anxious not to be targeted by dissident republicans? I would be keen to meet the hon. Gentleman when he comes to Northern Ireland to do his research and to be as helpful as I possibly can be. I am sure I speak for all Members who usually sit on these Benches.

[Rory Stewart]

I thank the hon. Lady very much for her offer and I would love to take it up.

On the penultimate intervention, the provision of mobile phones is a simple example of a very important point that every Member has raised so far: what we do know about veterans who offend and reoffend is that the military provides a very powerful possible support network. Unlike other sectors of society, it provides an instrument or lever that could be incredibly helpful and supportive to backing people in their recovery process. Trying to make sure that we get the very best out of institutions that already exist will be the key. We have an obligation to the individuals who offend and reoffend; we have a particular obligation towards the military; and we have an obligation towards society as a whole.

[John McDonnell]

I add my congratulations to my hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley Central (Dan Jarvis) and, in particular, to the right hon. Member for Dwyfor Meirionnydd (Mr Llwyd). I attended the first session he held in Portcullis House about two and a half years ago, which was also supported, I think, by the ubiquitous Harry Fletcher, and we were shocked at the scale of the numbers of ex-military who were in prison and at the scale of the trauma they were experiencing. I welcome the review. It will be useful to get clarity on time scales and on how the recommendations will be dealt with by the Government at a later stage. I appreciate that.

I want to speak to new clause 12, which stands in my name and relates to domestic abuse. The scale of domestic abuse and the figures involved are always shocking. Last year, 7% of women reported some form of domestic violence or abuse against them. Two women a week are killed by partners or lovers, and the number of sexual assaults is about 70,000.

The existing probation service established national programmes in response to the issue. There is a 30-week programme in which perpetrators are placed, but there are concerns that it will be lost as this privatisation rolls out. I therefore suggest in my new clause 12 that programmes for tackling domestic abuse on which offenders are placed should remain with the national probation service. That would give the assurance that such work will continue and that there is consistency of approach. It would also allay several fears. I do not want to make this a contentious point, but one of the fears that has been excited relates to the unpaid work programme that Serco has taken over, in that some women’s workshops have been closed as a result of that privatisation. We do not want that to be experienced by such important programmes as those currently provided by the probation service, but they would be laid waste if privatisation took place.

The new clause is fairly straightforward. It would ensure consistency of approach, as well as the maintenance of such programmes, and the best way to do that is to retain those programmes within the state sector.

16:45

[Philip Davies (Shipley) (Con)]

I apologised to you in advance, Mr Deputy Speaker, but I apologise to you again for missing the beginning of the debate on this group of amendments. I extend my apology to all hon. Members. I had an important meeting with the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, and I got here as soon as I could. I did not intend any discourtesy, and I hope that no one will think that I have been discourteous.

I want to speak briefly about my amendment 7, which would delete clause 10. I do not want you to remind me that today is not a Friday, Mr Deputy Speaker, so I intend to be as brief as possible. Therefore, I will not read out exactly what is in clause 10, save to say that it makes special provision for the arrangements for supervision and rehabilitation of female offenders. As far as I am aware, the clause did not appear in the original draft, but was added to the Bill at some stage in the other place. Perhaps the Minister will expand on the reasoning behind the Government’s keenness to accept the clause, given that they do not appear to have been keen to introduce it in the first place.

The reason I object to clause 10 and therefore seek to delete it is that it is absolutely unnecessary. I suspect that it was put in—I hope that the Minister can help us here—to appease those whose whole mission in life is to keep virtually everybody, but female offenders in particular, out of prison. They have perpetuated a myth, which has built up a head of steam over recent years, that—bizarrely—women are treated more unfairly than men in the criminal justice system.

I pressed the Minister during Justice questions not long ago—I think it was just before Christmas—on whether he accepted, agreed with and stood by the figures produced by his Department on rates of offending, reoffending, sentencing and all the rest of it in relation to male and female offenders. I got the impression that he was prepared to stand by the Ministry of Justice figures. If so, and he still stands by them, he should clearly know that not this bizarre claim that women are treated more harshly in the criminal justice system but the exact opposite is the truth.

As it happens, as I am sure that the Minister knows, for every single category of crime, men are more likely than women to be sentenced to prison, to be given longer custodial sentences and to serve longer proportions of their sentence in prison. Yet clauses are still introduced to Bills to try to give even more preferential treatment to women in the criminal justice system, which is totally and utterly unjustifiable. There is this sort of politically correct myth that women offenders are currently hard done by and need special protection.

I am not a big fan of the equality agenda. In the previous Parliament, not only did I introduce an awful lot of amendments to the then Equality Bill, but I voted against it. This clause is a perfect example of why the equality agenda is such a sham. It should not really be called the equality agenda. It should be called the “equality but only when it suits us agenda”. All the people who campaign so vehemently on these issues argue, quite rightly, that men and women should be treated the same. There should be no difference in their pay, the way they are treated in the workplace and so on. I agree with the premise that we should be gender blind in all matters. That, to me, is true equality. It should not matter what somebody’s gender is. It should not matter what their colour is, what religion they are or what their sexual orientation is. Those are all irrelevances when it comes to anything, whether it is what they are paid or what opportunities they are given.

It therefore seems to me that gender should also be irrelevant in how the criminal justice system treats offenders. It should not matter whether the offender is male or female—they should be dealt with on the basis of the crime they committed, the seriousness of the crime, the persistence of their offending and their likelihood of reoffending. I do not see what on earth their gender has to do with any of those factors. Their treatment should be gender blind.

I believe that the view I have set out, which is that everybody should be treated the same, irrespective of their gender, is what most people would sign up to. If that is the case, perhaps the Minister and the other Members who support clause 10 will explain—because for the life of me I cannot see it—why they believe that everybody should be treated the same, apart from when it comes to sentencing and the treatment of offenders. Perhaps when he winds up, the Minister will explain why he thinks that women should be treated far more preferentially in the criminal justice system. If anybody doubts that, I have all the figures to hand. In the interests of time, I will not bandy them about the Chamber, but I have them here and am happy to share them with anybody. They are the figures from the Ministry of Justice itself and the evidence is striking.

Women are treated more favourably than men not only when it comes to being sentenced to prison, although that is particularly stark, but in the recommendations of the probation service. In a recent parliamentary question, I asked on how many occasions the probation service makes a recommendation of immediate custody for sentencing in the Crown court, which considers the most serious offences, for men and for women. The probation service recommends immediate custody for 24% of men who are up before the Crown court, but only 11% of women.

People would be forgiven for thinking, on the basis of that statistic, that the probation service is already bending over backwards to treat women more favourably than men in the criminal justice system. It recommends prison twice as often for men as it does for women. And yet there is a clause that seeks to make the probation service go even further in giving preferential treatment to women. That seems to me to be completely unnecessary.

The Minister might have been better served finding a way to ensure that men are treated more fairly in the criminal justice system, because that is where the problem lies at the moment. The figures on that are stark, and yet the Minister wants to go further in the opposite direction. The argument I have heard is that women should be a special case because they are often more vulnerable, but that ignores the fact that there are plenty of men who come from vulnerable backgrounds as well. Why are we not interested in those people? Why are we not giving them a fair lick of the sauce bottle, as they say in Australia? Why is it only vulnerable women offenders that we are bothered about?

Not only is what I have said about prison sentencing true, but men are more likely than women to be given the highest level of community order. More men than women go to prison, so we might therefore expect women to get more higher level community sentences than men because of the shortage of numbers going to prison. Even at that level, however, more men are sentenced to the highest level community orders than women—10% of women compared with 16% of men. At every possible level in the criminal justice system, men are already treated far more harshly.

So that the Minister is aware of this I will quote the latest report from the Ministry of Justice, “Statistics on Women and the Criminal Justice System 2011”, which makes it clear that on average, women receive shorter and less onerous community sentences:

“The average length of a community order and Suspended Sentence Order for women (12.9 and 17.8 months) was shorter than for men (at 15.0 and 18.3 months respectively). The average length of both orders was also shorter for women in each of the four preceding years.

Women beginning the most common types of supervision orders in 2011 generally had fewer requirements with which to comply than men. For community orders, 43 per cent of women and 51 per cent of men were given more than one requirement with which to comply. For Suspended Sentence Orders, the corresponding proportions were 55 per cent for women and 63 per cent for men.”

Women were also more likely than men to be given supervision as a requirement, and regarded as a lower risk category when being assessed.

There are already sentences run by probation services that women cannot be given, even if they fit into the offending type. The hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) referred to his new clause 12, and the sad thing about that is that it perpetuates the problem I am trying to highlight. It states:

“It shall be the responsibility of the National Probation Service to provide all Building better relationships rehabilitations programmes for male perpetrators of domestic violence”.

As it happens, there are an awful lot of female perpetrators of domestic violence. They may not be a majority, but there are an awful lot of them and in some age groups I think they are the majority of offenders. The new clause states that only male offenders are required to go on treatment programmes, and there is nothing about female offenders. I would have supported the new clause if it also included a requirement for female perpetrators of domestic violence to go on those courses, but the hon. Gentleman has spectacularly failed to mention that, for reasons best known to himself.

[Lady Hermon]

I have listened patiently to the hon. Gentleman, but with increasing exasperation. Has he made equal efforts to obtain statistics from the Department of Health about the impact on the mental health of women who have been sent to prison or had custody orders imposed on them and—just as importantly—on the welfare and health of the children of women who have been sent to prison? I would be interested if the hon. Gentleman read out those statistics to the House.

[Philip Davies]

I am delighted; I am trying not to go off the scent, so to speak, but perhaps you will allow me, Mr Deputy Speaker. I am sure these facts are a terrible irritation to the hon. Lady and may not suit her particular agenda and the world she would like to portray, but I am merely stating the facts as produced by the Ministry of Justice. If she does not agree with the statistics, she should feel free to contact the Minister. I can do no more than ask questions and get the answers.

The hon. Lady asks about children, and there may well be a case there. I would not mind so much if people said to me, “Well, of course women are treated more favourably in the criminal justice system, but there is good reason for that because they might have to look after children.” If somebody wanted to go down that line of argument I would at least have some respect for that; the point may or may not be valid, but that is not the argument that is made. The argument is that women are treated more harshly in the criminal justice system, but—quite frankly—they are not. It is no good people pretending they are when the facts are perfectly stark: they are not.

As the hon. Lady mentioned children she might want to bear it in mind—again, the Ministry of Justice made this clear—that two-thirds of mothers who are sent to prison are not even looking after their children at the time. In two-thirds of cases the children have already been taken off those mothers because they are not deemed fit to look after them. The people we are talking about are hardly great role models for their children. In fact, some prisoner organisations have made it clear that it is actually a relief when the mother is sent to prison—in one case they described those mothers as causing “merry hell” in their families. Therefore, the idea that it is to everybody’s advantage, including the children, to keep persistent and serious offenders out of prison to look after children is a bizarre one by anybody’s standards.

[Lady Hermon]

I am most grateful to the hon. Gentleman for taking a second intervention so promptly. When did he last visit a women’s prison? Will he do me the great courtesy of accepting an invitation to Northern Ireland to see the conditions in which women prisoners in Northern Ireland exist? I would be grateful for a response on both points.

[Philip Davies]

I would be delighted to visit Northern Ireland. As it happens, I have been a regular visitor to prisons around the country, including women’s prisons. I have visited 12 or 13 prisons in the UK, including two female prisons. I have also visited prisons in America and Denmark to see how they treat offenders. My point is that there is no justification for the new clause and no evidence to justify it.

17:00

[Mrs Moon]

I, too, have listened with great patience to the hon. Gentleman and have considered whether it is worth bothering to intervene. However, I must reiterate the point on community sentences and the selective passage he has read out. The fact is that eight out of 10 women who receive prison sentences have committed non-violent offences. That is why they have less onerous conditions in their community sentences. I draw his attention to the Corston report and the Prison Reform Trust report, “Lacking Conviction”. Instead of getting out more, he needs to stay in and read more.

[Philip Davies]

To be perfectly honest—I am trying to think of the polite way to describe that—what the hon. Lady says is utter garbage. It is utter rot. The idea that women are sent to prison for short sentences and non-violent offences is a myth—it is a big myth, but it is a myth. At any one time, there are about 3,700 women in prison. Perhaps she will tell the House which ones she believes should not be there. Perhaps it is the 211 who are in prison for murder; the 135 in for manslaughter or attempted homicide; the 352 in for wounding; the 142 in for serious assaults or other violence against the person; or the 58 in for cruelty to children. Perhaps she means the 58 who are in there for cruelty to children; or the 83 who are in for rape, gross indecency with children or other sexual offences. Perhaps she means the 272 women in prison for violent robbery. Perhaps she means the 151 who are in there for burglary. Perhaps she thinks the 398 drug dealers should not be in prison. Perhaps she means the 91 arsonists; the 24 convicted of violent disorder; the 45 in there for kidnapping and blackmail; or the 192 in there for serious fraud and forgeries. Perhaps she means the 320 in prison for importing drugs into the country, which end up being sold on our streets. She might mean the 111 others serving time for other serious drug offences. The hon. Lady might believe those people should not be in prison, but they are not non-violent, minor offences. It is a disgrace for her to suggest to the victims of those crimes that they are the victims of minor, non-violent offences. She should be absolutely, utterly ashamed of herself for suggesting that. That is the type of nonsense we have had to deal with in the debate for many years. I am delighted that I can shine a light on the utter rot that people like her have spouted year after year.

[Rory Stewart]

I am interested in what my hon. Friend says, but some of those figures on female offending seem relatively low. Does he have comparative figures for men in those categories?

[Philip Davies]

Absolutely. My hon. Friend is making my point for me. Some 95% of people in prison are men. If 95% of either men or women were treated in what we might call a harsh manner in any other walk of life one would think there would be uproar on behalf of the 95%, but, would you believe it, all the uproar is that 5% is too many women prisoners. It is a nonsensical argument to suggest that women are treated more harshly than men. My hon. Friend is quite right that a lot more men are in prison for those same offences. My point is that men and women should be treated the same, irrespective of their offence. For the hon. Member for Bridgend (Mrs Moon) to suggest that they are non-violent, non-serious offences is utterly disgraceful. Perhaps she would like to go to each of those victims of crime and tell them that they are the victims of non-violent and non-serious offences.

In conclusion, clause 10 is unnecessary because the facts are already stark: women are treated more favourably than men when it comes to sentencing. Men are more likely to be sent to prison, more likely to be given a longer sentence and more likely to serve more of that sentence in prison than women for every single category of crime. For every single category of crime, men are also more likely to be given a serious community order and a longer community order, and are more likely to have more requirements made. Why is it, then, that the Government are not satisfied with that and want to go further to make the criminal justice system even more imbalanced and even more in favour of female offenders?

[Mr Llwyd]

The previous speaker should not read anything into the silence in the Chamber. It was not acquiescence; we were stunned into silence.

I congratulate the hon. Member for Barnsley Central (Dan Jarvis) on being the driving force in bringing forward new clauses 2 and 3 on veterans to which I would like to speak briefly. I also welcome Government amendment 5 on the extension of restorative justice, which is a positive step. We had a debate on that in Committee. The Minister said that he would go away and consider the matter and he obviously has done so. I am sure we are very grateful for that.

I was glad to read in the papers over the weekend that there will be a Government review of how to improve the rehabilitation of ex-service personnel who are in prison, and that it will be led by the hon. Member for Penrith and The Border (Rory Stewart). I wish him well in that work. I have a feeling that it will be done consensually and that we will all be able to muck in, as it were, and do our best to come up with some good answers for the Government, because the work is long overdue.

As the House may be aware, I have campaigned for a number of years for greater recognition of the welfare needs of veterans of the armed forces, and I have raised the issue in this place and elsewhere since 2008. In January 2010, I published a paper that contained detailed recommendations for increasing the support available to veterans, in particular to those who come into contact with the criminal justice system. I have also had the privilege since 2010 of chairing the veterans in the criminal justice system parliamentary group, which meets under the auspices of the justice unions parliamentary group. The group comprises parliamentarians and representatives from criminal justice trade unions and charities, including the National Association of Probation Officers, the Association of Chief Police Officers, the Prison Officers Association, the Royal British Legion and several military charities. The group is able to disseminate good practice to ensure that it is available throughout the British isles, and I think that that is coming together and is working. I hope that at some point the hon. Member for Penrith and The Border might care to attend, to contribute and to perhaps pick up on a few points.

[Mr David Hamilton (Midlothian) (Lab)]

May I draw attention to what is happening in Midlothian, where Police Scotland has been giving out leaflets to local pubs, clubs and voluntary organisations? When an arrest takes place, the police now ask directly whether the person arrested is an ex-member of the armed forces, which helps quite a bit. We should replicate such things and learn from each other.

[Mr Llwyd]

That is precisely the point of the joint group, and I am proud to say that the police force where I live, north Wales, have been doing that for more than 12 months, as have others. It is difficult, though, because some ex-military personnel are not prepared to admit to having been in the forces; they feel they would be letting the regiment down. Then there are others—we have all met them; they always seem to be former leading members of the SAS—who have not served a day any more than I have. It is not simple—we need to be doing a complex set of things—but I am pleased that we now have something to concentrate our energies upon.

I first became aware of the disproportionate number of veterans in the system when appearing as a barrister in Chester and north Wales Crown courts one particular week some years ago. I noticed that increasing numbers of people who were appearing in court for serious crimes professed to have a military background, and often the distinguishing feature was that their crimes were inexplicable, or at least difficult for a person who had not served in theatre to explain. I remember one case vividly of a young man who had come back from Iraq and was standing in a fish and chip queue when the lad behind him who had had too much to drink bumped into him. He knocked the hell out of the young lad in no time at all. He was trained to look after himself—almost by reflex he would do it—and he ended up doing three years for assault.

When people come back from theatre, they need to be decompressed and brought back into society. Heaven knows how I would be affected, had I been out with the forces in theatre. It is natural to presume that many people will suffer mental scars as a result of service, and we owe it to them to do something about it.

[Rory Stewart]

Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that there is a particular issue with the reserves? For those in the regular forces, there is more of a framework for returning from operational theatre to battalion, whereas for the reserves we have a very specific challenge.

[Mr Llwyd]

Yes, and actually, as one who follows these things, I know that, interestingly, an increasing number of reservists are appearing in court, having left their work for a period and gone into the eye of the storm. On coming out again, as the hon. Gentleman rightly says, they are expected to go back to civvy street as normal, but it is clearly extremely difficult. That is a big problem, and the amendments would be a step forward.

Almost by instinct, as a lawyer I have something at the back of my mind saying, “Why should any class of society have a court set up especially for them?” In this case, the answer is simple: because these people have been through extraordinary situations that we cannot even imagine. Of those who would wish to argue along the lines I previously argued, I would ask: why do we have specialist drug courts in the UK? They have worked well. The Liverpool drug court was a great success when it was in full swing, as these courts, or disposals, could be—we are talking about disposals for veterans, to begin with, which is perfectly sensible.

[Mr Anderson]

Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that the American experience shows not only that such courts are effective, but that they are economically viable? People are not going to prison, so there are not the problems of family breakdown, and the huge array of things put in place when people keep going back to crime are no longer there, so there is an economic as well as a social case.

[Mr Llwyd]

Yes, there is. In addition, ex-service personnel are not used to paying regular bills and so on, and sometimes they do not balance their monthly income and outgoings, they end up in debt and everything spirals from there. I remember speaking with SSAFA in south Wales some time ago, and it told me that about 60% of its work was to do with debt, the handling of money and so on. That is another issue that has rightly been identified.

17:15

In March 2008, I tabled a number of questions to the Minister of State at the Ministry of Justice, asking how many inmates in UK prisons there were from service backgrounds. I was told that that figure was not available. In the summer of that year, together with NAPO and the redoubtable Harry Fletcher—[Interruption.] He must be mentioned more often than the Queen in this place, although we are not supposed to mention the Queen. NAPO estimated that the figure was about 9% of the prison population; at that time, that amounted to roughly 8,000 people. I know that the official figure is 3.5% but I will not split hairs now. It is a very big problem and my view is that much of it is avoidable if we offer treatment early enough. In other words, everybody leaving the services should go through a period of decompression to enable them, yes, to have medical checks, but also assistance with things such as balancing budgets, holding down jobs and all the things that people not in the services have. We need to assist personnel to adjust to civilian life.

I readily accept that the majority of returnees will be perfectly fine and happy, but a large percentage will experience acute social rupture, become homeless, be cut off from mainstream welfare services and be isolated, and unless something is done they will fall into a downward spiral. It is likely that, at the end of the day, they will fall into the criminal justice system. Abuse of alcohol and drugs and mental health problems are catalysts, of course.

That is why I think it essential that the Government invest in the rehabilitation of veterans when they leave the criminal justice system as well as when they leave the services, as new clause 2 calls for. The services available to Army personnel when they leave the forces should be improved. I have it on good authority—from when I was an adviser to the Howard League on this subject—that how well someone is reintegrated in society depends on the senior officer in their regiment and whether they take an interest or not. I hate to put it in that way but that is what came through from the evidence we took.

Psychological assessments should be made mandatory for all service leavers. Post-traumatic stress disorder will not be spotted immediately; it could manifest itself today or 12 years from now. That is a complex matter as well. We need to put in place strategies to ensure that the maximum help is available to all veterans and returnees. We must look at substance misuse, mental health, housing, employment, money management, violent behaviour and all the other problems that are typical.

I am also very supportive of the aim of new clause 3, which provides for veterans rehabilitation panels based on the courts in the United States to be piloted. In 2010, I sat on the advisory panel to the Nutting inquiry into veterans in prison, which was sponsored by the Howard League for Penal Reform. As part of our research, we travelled to the United States, where we visited the veterans court in Buffalo, New York State and saw at first hand how it worked. It was described very ably from the Labour Front Bench earlier, although I have one slight correction: individuals referred to the veterans courts would normally expect to spend between 12 and 18 months in prison.

Initially, the federal courts were completely against the idea. My understanding is that now, following the brilliant court that has been in operation in Buffalo, there are about 47 throughout the United States, and they are regularly receiving referrals from federal courts and even, in some instances, from higher appellate courts as well. It is working, but I add a word of caution: getting good mentors who speak the same language as the individuals and who are trusted, because typically they have been through the same thing in the services, is highly labour-intensive. A bond develops, and the individuals do not want to let down their mentor. That is how it works, and it has led to 0% reoffending in Buffalo—an absolutely incredible success. I gave a full dossier of my findings to the then Justice Minister, Lord McNally, so the Government are fully aware of the whole workings. I hope we can look forward to some real progress. There is a great deal to be learned, so I commend the findings to the Government.

I conclude by mentioning one important military motto: “Leave no man behind”. Unless we do something, we will be leaving very many behind. That concerns me and, I am sure, all of us.

Briefly, I fully support new clause 12, to which the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) has spoken. It provides an important step forward. We must ensure that victims of domestic violence are not punished as collateral damage in the implementation of the Government’s proposals to reform probation. I shall not dwell on that any further other than to say that I fully accept what the hon. Gentleman said. I commend that new clause, too.

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

I shall speak briefly to new clauses 2 and 3. I congratulate the hon. Member for Barnsley Central (Dan Jarvis) and the right hon. Member for Dwyfor Meirionnydd (Mr Llwyd) on their work. I have no personal experience in the matters raised, but I am aware of some of the issues and problems of ex-military ex-offenders from a particular project run in my constituency, so I shall speak briefly about that.

As the hon. Member for Darlington (Jenny Chapman) said, this is a hugely complex issue, and other Members have made it clear that there are multiple needs when people end up leaving the services and going into prison. It is clear that, as the right hon. Member for Dwyfor Meirionnydd said, we are not supporting those people adequately when they leave the services and go back to civvy street. Perhaps that should be the starting point. When they end up entering the criminal justice system, we need to ensure that their very specific needs for exiting prison are dealt with properly, too. That is why we need a joined-up approach.

We need to ensure that people coming out of the services do not find themselves misusing various substances, that their financial and housing needs are dealt with and that they are given support into employment. If they find themselves in the criminal justice system, they need to be given similar support. As we know from other aspects of people’s experience of leaving prison, something as simple as not having a bank account can be crucial. If they do not have a bank account, they might not get paid for the work they are doing and they might end up entering the criminal justice system much more quickly than those who do have a bank account. We need to think of this issue from an incredibly wide perspective.

It is good news that my hon. Friend the Member for Penrith and The Border (Rory Stewart) has been appointed to look at these issues. I hope he will notice the degree of party consensus and the wide and varied expertise that exist; he will, of course, take submissions from all parties and all those who have taken an interest in the matter for some time.

Let me focus specifically on people’s employment needs and on how the third or voluntary sector can help. I have seen this for myself in my constituency. Chatham and Aylesford are very different parts of the constituency and have very different needs, but on this particular project, they have combined and are working as one. Chatham has a long history and association with the military, while Aylesford is home to the Royal British Legion Industries. The RBLI has done a fantastic job over the last couple of years in trying to support ex-military ex-offenders into employment, which we know is a key part of successful rehabilitation from a custodial sentence.

The Victor project is a small-scale employment programme that assists ex-military ex-offenders into sustainable employment. The Secretary of State came to Chatham to meet people involved in the project, and I think that he thoroughly enjoyed himself and found the experience fascinating. I extend an invitation to any other Members who may wish to come down and see the work—especially my hon. Friend the Member for Penrith and The Border, who could include it in his review.

Victor began as a partnership between the RBLI, Blue Sky and Medway council, with funding from Forces in Mind. It has been co-ordinated brilliantly by the Shaw Partnership. The project, which has been operating for nearly a year, has provided six placements for ex-military ex-offenders undertaking grounds maintenance work at Medway council’s main offices in Chatham, and eight others with Veolia Environmental Services in Kent, Surrey and Essex. The grounds maintenance work would normally be undertaken by the council’s own contractor, Quadron, but Quadron has agreed to give part of the contract to the project, which is absolutely fantastic. Most of the participants are from the local prison at Elmley. This is the first initiative involving the partnership, and I believe that it is a pump primer for wider work for that group.

I think that there are initiatives out there that can really help ex-military ex-offenders to return to sustainable employment. Those whom I have met in connection with the project have described it as life-changing. They are getting up every day, and they have a routine. People are saying to them, “What you have done is fantastic: the grounds look amazing.” They are receiving the positive feedback that they need—something that they may have had when they were in the Army, or in other parts of the services—and they are being given support by a wider section of the community. I think that that is absolutely essential. If we are not giving such people the initial support that they need when they are coming out of the services, we must ensure that we give them support when they come out of prison. Very few former members of the armed forces go to prison, but they are an important few.

I am proud that the Victor project is operating in my constituency, and I hope that it will go on to greater things. I know that the Ministry of Justice is well aware of it, but I should like others to come and see it, and to think about whether it could be helpful to other initiatives. I think that, while we need to review this issue regularly, we can draw on the work of the voluntary sector.

[Meg Hillier]

I rise to speak with far less authority and experience than has been displayed by those who have spoken so far, but I am delighted to have added my name to new clauses 2 and 3, which were tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley Central (Dan Jarvis). I speak with some experience, as someone who, as a schoolgirl, grew up in Portsmouth in the 1970s. I saw at first hand how little support was often given to people leaving the armed forces in those days. I also saw the aftermath of the Falklands conflict, when those returning from it were having to readjust to life.

I want to tell the House a story. In September, I had the privilege of meeting Harold. Harold served in the Australian air force during the second world war, and saw action in the Pacific. Harold is 90 years old. Ten years ago, he began to receive support and counselling for the experiences that he had had in the 1940s. One of my main reasons for adding my name to the new clauses is that I remember speaking to Harold and being very impressed by him, and impressed by the service that the Australians provide their armed forces. They recognised that, even so many years later, Harold still needed support.

Harold has no criminal record. He has been an upstanding member of his community throughout his life, both in the armed forces and since. However, if people like Harold are still facing problems, that explains a great deal about why ex-members of the armed forces form such a large proportion of the prison population, and why my hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley Central and other members—I welcome the Government’s review, which is to be led by the hon. Member for Penrith and The Border (Rory Stewart)—want to ensure that these problems are nipped in the bud in the case of other veterans.

17:29

[Mr Anderson]

I want to speak in support of new clauses 2 and 3 and in support of veterans.

About five years ago I was approached by an ex-colleague who asked me to meet a group he was working with. Tony Wright was that colleague and he is an ex-Marine. He had to leave the Marines as a young man because of an injury and he went into the social services, ending up in the probation service. Everywhere he went he bumped into people who had gone through experiences similar to his. They had left the forces, sometimes under a shadow and sometimes not, and they had lost their way. He had become increasingly concerned about their well-being and eventually decided to do something about it, and five years ago he set up a group called About Turn, which has now become the charity Forward Assist. Tony asked me to become a patron of the charity. After sitting down with some of the people he works with, I said I would be very pleased to help them.

Three years ago, Tony won a Winston Churchill scholarship to travel to America. One of the first places he went to was Buffalo. He went to some courts that had been spoken about, and he was blown away by his experience there. The whole thing was based on comradeship. People who had gone the wrong way in life were being pulled back by the people in those courts. Everybody from the judge downwards was ex-service personnel and their determination that nobody would fail was what made things succeed. As we have heard already today, so far, in five years, not one person has gone back to crime—not one person. We should compare that with any other form of justice system.

As a result of that visit, Tony asked me if I would go with him to Arkansas to try to develop a link between Tyneside and Arkansas. The intention was not only to develop a civic link, but to develop a veterans exchange project. I went with him last December. While we were there, we were invited to go and meet Judge Mary McGowan, who runs one of the courts in Little Rock in Arkansas. She originally ran the drugs court, but after a discussion about drugs courts she decided—along with a gentleman called Rob McDonald, who was a prosecutor at the time—to set up the veterans treatment court. We sat in and listened to the court in action and spoke to people who were going through the system and we realised that this was something that could really work.

One issue we have not got our heads around was mentioned by the right hon. Member for Dwyfor Meirionnydd (Mr Llwyd): are we saying that these people are a special case? I think the answer to that has got to be yes. They are a special case because of what Members in this Chamber ask of them. We ask them to go around the world and to be prepared to die for us and to be prepared to kill for us, and if they refuse to kill for us, they will do time in jail. That is the complete opposite to the norm. We ask these people to do abnormal things. If somebody fires a gun at us, we run away. When somebody fires a gun at service personnel, they run towards them. When these people come out of the forces, what happens to them?

I will describe some experiences. A meeting was hosted by Mr Speaker in the House of Lords last year. There were about 10 to 12 men ranging from guys in their 20s to a gentleman who was 92 and who had been a tail-gunner in world war two. One of these guys told a story about when he came out of the services. He sat down with his wife and said, “Whatever you do, don’t ever leave me alone with the children, because I’m not sure I can cope with them.” Is that not really, really frightening? At least the man had the nous to accept his potential shortcomings. Another one told his story. Everything was normal in his life except that every time he went to bed, he got a panic attack. When he thought it through, he realised the cause was the simple act of turning the bedroom light off, because the switch reminded him of the time he was walking along with a friend who was killed by a booby-trap that was triggered by an electrical switch. That was put right by putting dimmer switches into his home. These are the sorts of situations that we, as ordinary people who send those guys out there, would never ever think about.

I talked with another guy who for 10 years had been given the wrong medication because nobody had realised that he had been in the forces. When that fact came out and people started trying to work out the causes of his problems, it was discovered that they stemmed from the fact that he was the only man who jumped out of a burning tank that still had his friends inside. After that discussion had taken place, the way in which he was looked after completely changed, and he is now on the right track and working towards a normal life.

When we came back from Arkansas, I was proud to invite people from the US to Newcastle to develop a link, and to discuss the Buffalo veterans treatment court. We held a seminar in Newcastle in May, which was addressed by Prosecutor Rob MacDonald who had come across from the United States. Lord Beecham was also there. He is a former leader of Newcastle city council, and a gentleman with whom I have had the privilege of working for more than a quarter of a century. He had never heard about the courts before, but he was instantly able to see how important they were. I asked him whether they could work in Britain and he said, “There’s no reason why they can’t work, Dave. We have the models; we already have family courts. We could adapt that model and we could make this work if we really wanted to.” He came back here, and he and Lord Ramsbotham tabled amendments in the House of Lords. Unfortunately, none has been accepted so far, but I am glad that progress is being made.

We are talking about giving people a purpose in life and a reason to get out of bed in the morning. We are not talking about people who have committed really serious crimes. This is about men and women who have committed crimes almost as a cry for help because they have no money or because they do not understand the chaotic world that we live in today. They have had a structured life and, all of a sudden, that life has been pulled away from them. This is about helping them to make a difference.

As the hon. Member for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport (Oliver Colvile) mentioned, we went to Washington with the Northern Ireland Committee last year to meet prosecutors and others involved with the veterans treatment courts. Some members of the Committee were, to put it mildly, cynical about them. Some, unlike myself, have a legal background. No one pretended that the courts provided a magic wand, but when it was explained how they worked, those Committee members agreed that this was something we should pursue. The veterans treatment court in Buffalo was the first, and more than 100 are now up and running. I think that two have been given up on, but the rest are reporting really positive results. They also link into the work being done on drugs, because the link between drugs and the activities that the veterans get involved in is hugely relevant.

I am often loth to push the American experience, but the way in which the Veterans Administration was set up can teach us some lessons. For example, it can teach us about the horrible experiences that came out of Vietnam. Vietnam veterans were treated disgracefully in America, but somewhere along the line, the light went on and the Americans realised that that was wrong, and that they should not blame those men and women for the mistakes made by the politicians. The work that has been done since is a great example to us all. It covers a huge range of things, and it shows us how we can learn to treat people properly.

I am a great advocate of the national health service. People in this country tend to think that if someone has a problem, the NHS can put it right. Well, it can be put right if people happen to put all the pieces together. As I have said, one of the biggest pieces is the ability to realise that a man is where he is because of his experiences —not because he is inherently violent or because he has a mental or physical problem but because of what he has gone through, and what we have put him through.

There is a raft of information available from America on how big this problem can be. A recent seminar held there under the auspices of Justice for Vets estimated that, in 2010, about 300,000 Iraq and Afghanistan veterans were suffering from post-traumatic stress disorder, and that almost 50% of the people who had been in those theatres of war were seen to be suffering from traumatic brain injury. The numbers are huge compared with those we have seen in previous wars. This is about the changing nature of war, and about being exposed to the real world of modern-day warfare 24 hours a day. That is very different from what people experienced before.

That does not mean that veterans from earlier wars do not have the same problems. The group I work with in Newcastle has a guy from world war two and people who went through the situation in Aden. Those events are still as live to them today as they were 50 years ago or more. They lost friends there, for example. Those who served in Northern Ireland also played their part in trying to put things right over there. There are huge issues involved in how we deal with those people, and we need to be aware of how we can help them.

A psychiatrist we met in Little Rock said, “You need to understand that a tsunami of mental health problems is going to hit this nation in the same way as it hit ours.” We know that the number who went from these shores was small compared with those who left America, but the number who are coming back with problems is big. I am not saying, and I would not like to be portrayed as saying, that everybody who goes to war and everybody in the services will have these problems, because they will not, as we know. Lots of people make a good new life for themselves and move forward, but the ones who are not able to do that deserve special care from us in this House.

One of the real issues was touched on by the right hon. Member for Dwyfor Meirionnydd—the numbers. Some of us from a group in Tyneside met one of the Justice Ministers just before Christmas, and the hon. Member for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport talked through this issue. What is clear is that nobody really knows how many people from the forces are in jail. A gentleman called Colin Back works on rehabilitating the forces to get them back into work, and he has done work in the south-east of England. He reckons that we could be talking about almost 12% of this population, which is hugely more than the official figures suggest. So as part of the review and the ongoing work, we need to get these figures to see how big the problem is. If we can get a fraction of those people out of that situation, that would be the right thing to do, not only for them and for us, but for the economy. If these people are in work, if their families do not need special support and if there is no family break-up, we will not have probation on the side and prisons that are too full—everybody will win, and that is the great beauty of it.

I am really pleased that the commission has been set up. The hon. Member for Penrith and The Border (Rory Stewart) is exactly the right man to lead on it, and I ask him to come over the Pennines as quickly as he can. He will be made to feel welcome in the north-east, because people there have lived through this, and although I am telling their story, I can never relate to it in the way they can. These people have been given a lifeline and they want us to help them, and we should do so. Part of that is about supporting these provisions. If the Government decide not to support them, I ask them to do the work regardless.

[Mrs Moon]

I will be as brief as I can, Madam Deputy Speaker, because I am aware that the Minister needs to wind up. I give credit to my hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley Central (Dan Jarvis) for tabling the new clause, to the right hon. Member for Dwyfor Meirionnydd (Mr Llwyd) for the work he has done and to the hon. Member for Penrith and The Border (Rory Stewart). On the work the hon. Gentleman is going to undertake, may I urge him to ensure that whatever we bring forward and whatever is recommended, appropriate research is done and data collected to sit alongside it? What will be important is to learn a huge amount from this, not just about the number of people who will need the support of the veterans courts, but about the effectiveness of having specialist courts that will advise on the most appropriate way to prevent reoffending.

One question that has been raised was how we are going to define “a veteran”. The importance of reservists has been mentioned, so I will not go back over that in the way that I had planned. We have to recognise that post-traumatic stress disorder and mental health conditions relating to service do not necessarily happen on return. I know that the hon. Member for Penrith and The Border is very aware of that, but we must ensure that we clearly identify who will be eligible for veterans courts. We must not just discount people because their service took place years ago. It was suggested that an 18-year-old who had joined the services but not completed basic training might not be suitable. May I ask the hon. Gentleman to look at the research on suicide carried out by Professor Nav Kapur at Manchester university, because it shows that the highest number of people who have served in the armed forces and are likely to go on to take their own life are found among exactly that group? Often that is because they have been failed by society because they have gone through the care system and, yet again, they feel that they have been failed.

In collecting that data, can we please look at how many of those people who go on to reoffend have gone through the care system? That is critical information, because we know for a fact that many people who end up in the criminal justice system have served time in our care system and have already been failed by society. Let us use this opportunity constructively and creatively to look at how we can tackle reoffending and to ensure that we offer the best way forward to reducing it. We have an opportunity to be not punitive or negative but constructive and creative. I look forward to the work that will come forward. If I can help in any way, I look forward to doing so.

17:45

[Jeremy Wright]

I apologise in advance to those who have participated in this interesting and useful debate, because I will not have the chance in the time that is available to go into the issues in the detail that I would ideally like.

Let me begin with new clause 2. I am grateful to the hon. Member for Darlington (Jenny Chapman) for what she has said about the nature of the amendments, and I hope that will curtail what I need to say about them. I pay tribute not just to the hon. Member for Barnsley Central (Dan Jarvis) but to the right hon. Member for Dwyfor Meirionnydd (Mr Llwyd) and many others across the House for the extensive interest they have shown in this matter. I know that they will want to interact with my hon. Friend the Member for Penrith and The Border (Rory Stewart) and express their expertise to him.

I agree that our armed forces do a difficult and dangerous job. We should also be clear—I know that no one has suggested otherwise in the course of this debate—that service in the armed forces does not inevitably lead to a life of crime following a return to civilian status. Undoubtedly, however, there are those who struggle with the transition, although, as my hon. Friend the Member for Penrith and The Border said, it is also true that those with a service background are less likely to commit offences than those who do not have such a background. We should also recognise the considerable support that the armed forces, as an employer, offer to those who are returning to civilian life.

The prison and probation services already work with ex-service personnel, and my hon. Friend will want to look at that and perhaps suggest further improvements. We are doing more in prisons to identify veterans as early as possible, and all prisons should now have a veterans-in-custody support officer to co-ordinate and assist in that task. The proposed probation reforms offer an opportunity to do better in that regard, and to encourage all sectors to work together to identify service personnel and offer the assistance that we can. I recognise entirely, as the right hon. Member for Dwyfor Meirionnydd and my hon. Friend the Member for Chatham and Aylesford (Tracey Crouch) have said, that a variety of organisations already do good work with offenders, but there is always an opportunity to do more. The review that my hon. Friend the Member for Penrith and The Border has been invited to lead will, I hope, give us that opportunity.

[Alison Seabeck]

rose—

[Jeremy Wright]

The hon. Lady will have to be brief.

[Alison Seabeck]

What I have to say is very pertinent. If there is no enabling clause in this Bill to bring forward any suggestions that come from the hon. Gentleman’s review, how long will it take for the necessary changes to be put in place, and is that something we should be considering?

[Jeremy Wright]

I want to come to the timetable. Without wishing to get into too much detail on these probing amendments, there are deficiencies within them that would require further legislation in any event. I understand the hon. Lady’s point, but I want to answer the question of the hon. Member for Darlington about what my hon. Friend’s review will be covering. First, we will ask him to consider the rehabilitation needs of ex-service personnel convicted of criminal offences and sentenced to a custodial or community sentence, and the current rehabilitation available to them. Secondly, we want him to consider the process whereby ex-service personnel are identified following conviction, and that goes very much to the point that the hon. Member for Blaydon (Mr Anderson) was making. Thirdly, we want him to consider best practice relating to the rehabilitation of ex-service personnel offenders, including evidence of effective interventions in other countries. Fourthly, he should consult with the cross-government military reference group, which already exists, and report to the Secretary of State within six months. That is an important time frame, because we want to ensure that our reforms are informed by what my hon. Friend and those working with him can tell us. We will publish my hon. Friend’s report and place it in the Library of both Houses so that it is available for all to see. If we were to wait for the conclusion of the Bill process, as the new clauses suggest, that would delay the beginning of the review. We do not want to do that as we want to get going as soon as possible and I hope that that will meet with the approval of the House.

In view of what the hon. Member for Darlington has helpfully said, I do not think that I need to go through the deficiencies we believe that there are in new clause 3. I recognise the intent behind it and we very much support that. We want to ensure that the review produced by my hon. Friend the Member for Penrith and The Border can assist us in producing solutions and suggestions that we can make use of in the course of our broader reforms.

Let me say something about new clause 12, tabled by the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell). He is right that it is hugely important to ensure that domestic violence is treated seriously and that the programmes he has described are implemented effectively. He knows that those at highest risk of serious harm will in any event be the responsibility of the national probation service, and the NPS will also manage all offenders who are subject to multi-agency public protection arrangements. That will include all offenders convicted of sexual and violent offences attracting a sentence of more than a year and all those whose offending leads them to become registered sex offenders.

On the specifics of the programmes that the hon. Gentleman described, I entirely agree with his enthusiasm for a consistency of approach. I hope I can offer him some reassurance, as such programmes would have to be accredited. Accreditation is overseen, as he will know, by the National Offender Management Service, which ensures that the programmes are evidence-based and have therefore demonstrated their effectiveness in reducing reoffending. The programme requirement will continue to be available to sentencers, and the NPS will have a key role in assessing offenders and providing advice to courts on their suitability for such programmes. CRCs will be mandated to deliver the sentence imposed by the court, and that will include the provision of accredited programmes. All offenders, whether they are managed by the NPS or CRCs, will be able to access accredited programmes and other interventions provided by CRCs.

I hope that the hon. Gentleman is reassured by those points. I understand that he would prefer all those programmes to be delivered by the public sector, but I think that he and I would agree that what is crucial is that the standards and quality of those programmes are maintained. We will achieve that by virtue of accreditation and, of course, the accreditation process will still take place within the public sector.

I am grateful for what the hon. Member for Darlington and others have said about Government amendment 5, which I will move at the appropriate time. I am also grateful to the hon. Lady for raising the issue initially in Committee. I also want to take the opportunity to pay tribute, as she did, to Paul Goggins and the contribution he made not only to the amendment but to the restorative justice agenda over a considerable period of time. There are few who can say that they have contributed more to the agenda than he did. I am grateful to the hon. Lady for her support, and I hope that there will support on both sides of the House for amendment 5.

The final amendment in the group is amendment 7, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Shipley (Philip Davies). As he has outlined, the amendment would remove clause 10, which was added in the other place, rightly, by the Government. I am sorry to disappoint him, but it would not be right to remove the clause at this stage. I know that he has a healthy disrespect for consensus, but the fact that almost everybody disagrees with him does not automatically mean that they are all wrong. In this case, I do not think that they are. We should recognise that this is not a sentencing question, as he says that it is—I agree that there is no justification for treating female offenders per se more leniently than male offenders. We are discussing not the sentencing process but the process of rehabilitation that takes place after sentencing. It seems to me that the evidence is clear that how one approaches rehabilitation for female offenders must be materially different, if one expects it to be successful, from how one approaches it for male offenders. That is what clause 10 sets out.

The experience of female offenders is different in a number of ways, whether that concerns the abuse that they might have suffered before committing offences or the rate at which anxiety and depression are suffered. As my hon. Friend said, female offenders have different rates of child care responsibilities from male offenders, so a one-size-fits-all approach will not, in all likelihood, be successful. Let me be clear again that this is not about advocating preferential treatment for women in the criminal justice system or a different sentencing regime for female offenders; it is about ensuring that our reforms remain responsive to offenders’ needs in order to ensure that we turn their lives around and end reoffending.

On that basis, I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Shipley will see fit not to press his amendment and that Opposition Members will see fit to withdraw new clause 2 and not press their other amendments.

[Jenny Chapman]

I beg to ask leave to withdraw the clause.

Clause, by leave, withdrawn.

New Clause 4

Piloting of probation reform

‘The Secretary of State may not undertake a national restructure of the provision of probation services until the proposals have first been subject to an independently evaluated pilot scheme, and the results of that evaluation laid before both Houses of Parliament.’.—(Jenny Chapman.)

Brought up, and read the First time.

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

17:56

Division 177

Ayes: 244

---

Labour: 225
Liberal Democrat: 7
Democratic Unionist Party: 5
Social Democratic & Labour Party: 2
Independent: 2
Plaid Cymru: 2
Alliance: 1
Green Party: 1

Noes: 315

---

Conservative: 268
Liberal Democrat: 44
Independent: 2

18:09

Proceedings interrupted (Programme Order, 11 November 2013).

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

New Clause 5

Provision of probation services: report to Parliament

‘(1) The Secretary of State must lay before both Houses of Parliament a report on the performance of all providers contracted to provide officers to perform the duties of supervisor or responsible officer as described in this Act after one year of this Act coming into force.

(2) The report must include—

(a) an assessment of the information made available by each provider to the public, and their assistance to the Ministry of Justice in its performance of duties under the Freedom of Information Act 2000; and

(b) an update on what measures were included in each contract to allow the Secretary of State to penalise a provider that fails to perform to national standards or fulfil its contractual obligations, and on what occasions these measures have been brought into force.’.—(Jenny Chapman.)

Brought up.

Question put, That the clause be added to the Bill.

18:10

Division 178

Ayes: 239

---

Labour: 225
Democratic Unionist Party: 5
Liberal Democrat: 3
Social Democratic & Labour Party: 2
Plaid Cymru: 2
Independent: 1
Alliance: 1
Green Party: 1

Noes: 318

---

Conservative: 268
Liberal Democrat: 47
Independent: 2

Clause 2

Supervision after end of sentence

Amendments made: 1, page 2, line 39, leave out

‘an officer of a provider of probation services’

and insert ‘a person’.

Amendment 2, page 2, line 42, at end insert—

‘( ) In relation to a person subject to supervision requirements under this section following a sentence of detention under section 91 of the Sentencing Act, the supervisor must be—

(a) an officer of a provider of probation services, or

(b) a member of the youth offending team established by the local authority in whose area the offender resides for the time being.

( ) In relation to any other person, the supervisor must be an officer of a provider of probation services.’.—(Jeremy Wright.)

Clause 4

Supervision of certain young offenders after release from detention

Amendment made: 3, page 5, line 6, at end insert—

‘( ) In subsection (2)(c), omit “if the offender is under the age of 18 years at the date of release,”.’.—(Jeremy Wright.)

Clause 6

Supervision of certain young offenders after detention and training order

Amendment made: 4, page 7, leave out lines 42 and 43 and insert—

‘(4) “The supervisor”, in relation to the offender, must be—’.—(Jeremy Wright.)

Clause 15

Rehabilitation activity requirement

Amendment made: 5, page 14, line 12, at end insert—

‘, such as restorative justice activities.

‘(4) For the purposes of subsection (7)(b) an activity is a restorative justice activity if —

(a) the participants consist of, or include, the offender and one or more of the victims,

(b) the aim of the activity is to maximise the offender’s awareness of the impact of the offending concerned on the victims, and

(c) the activity gives a victim or victims an opportunity to talk about, or by other means express experience of, the offending and its impact.

(5) In subsection (7A) “victim” means a victim of, or other person affected by, the offending concerned.’.—(Jeremy Wright.)

Schedule 3

Release and supervision: minor and consequential provision

Amendment made: 6, page 34, leave out lines 28 to 30 and insert—

‘(1) For paragraph (i) substitute—

(a) post-release supervision in accordance with a licence under section 31 of the Crime (Sentences) Act 1997 or section 250 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003 of a person sentenced to detention under section 90 or 91 of the Powers of Criminal Courts (Sentencing) Act 2000, section 226, 226B or 228 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003 or section 209, 218, 221, 221A or 222 of the Armed Forces Act 2006;

(b) post-release supervision under section 256B of the Criminal Justice Act 2003;

(c) supervision under section 256AA of the Criminal Justice Act 2003 of a person sentenced to detention under section 91 of the Powers of Criminal Courts (Sentencing) Act 2000 or section 209 of the Armed Forces Act 2006;”.’.—(Jeremy Wright.)

Third Reading

18:20

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

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

I thank all right hon. and hon. Members who served in Committee and those who have spoken on Report. The Bill contained many excellent measures when it was introduced in the other place last May, but following the House’s scrutiny it returns there with important improvements.

Before I set out the detail of the Bill as it is now, and although words have already been said in the House on this, it would be appropriate to refer to the tragic loss of the Member for Wythenshawe and Sale East, who played an active role in the debate on the Bill. The news we heard at Christmas time was distressing for hon. Members on both sides of the House. He will be much missed. All involved in the Bill send our best wishes to his family.

On restorative justice, the Bill gives many more victims the means to bring home the impact that crime has had on them. On drug testing, the Bill provides for testing after release for a wider range of offenders whose drug abuse contributes to their offending. For offenders who enter the justice system as juveniles but leave as adults, the Bill gives the support they need, either from an adult probation provider or a youth offending team, whichever is best suited to their needs.

I commend the excellent work in Committee of the Under-Secretary of State for Justice, my hon. Friend the Member for Kenilworth and Southam (Jeremy Wright), who has responsibility for prisons and rehabilitation, and who has done a fine job of leading on the Bill to this stage. I pay tribute to those on the Opposition Front Bench for engaging in lively and constructive debate. We may not always agree on the detail, but this has been a constructive debate of the kind that does credit to the House. I also thank the Clerks and the Bill team in the Ministry of Justice for their advice and support.

For too long, the criminal justice system’s efforts to reduce reoffending have been hampered by a major gap in the law—the lack of any statutory supervision for offenders released from short prison sentences. As a result, the most prolific offenders have historically received the least support. The Bill will change that. It will put an end to offenders who cause havoc in our constituencies leaving prison with only £46 in their pockets and little or no support. It is not a surprise that about 60% of them go on to reoffend within a year. It is often easier for them to return to a life of crime than to sort their lives out. The Bill begins to address that huge problem.

The human cost of not providing support for that group is enormously high: 85,000 crimes every year, including hundreds of serious sexual and violent offences. The Bill will significantly reduce the terrible harm that that group of offenders currently causes to victims and communities. It will also help those people to turn their lives around.

The Bill will give 12 months of licence and supervision after release to every offender who is given a short sentence. That will give those working with them the time and professional discretion to deliver the rehabilitation necessary to provide proper mentoring support after offenders leave prison to help them turn their lives around. It will create a light-touch framework for dealing with breach of supervision that allows for sanctions in the community or a warning, as well as a return to custody. It will expand the group of offenders who can be tested for drugs after release from prison to tackle what is a major cause of reoffending, and it will make reforms to the community sentencing framework to create equivalent flexibility and discretion to what we are creating for post-release supervision and mentoring. All of those are sensible and long-overdue reforms. They will, I believe, make major inroads into the current reoffending rate of nearly 60% for short sentence offenders. They should command the unanimous support of this House.

It has been disappointing to see a long list of flawed wrecking amendments from the Opposition to our wider reforms to probation that are the polar opposite of policies that only three years ago they supported, and which they seek to undo even though they emanate from their own Offender Management Act 2007. What they have tried to undo are reforms to the supervision of offenders that will harness all sectors, bringing in the right expertise from the voluntary, community and private sectors to reinforce the work of the public sector. The reforms will bring new ideas and new approaches to rehabilitation and will deliver more for less for the taxpayer. Crucially, they will finally deliver a proper through-the-gate resettlement service for offenders leaving custody, so that support starts well before people leave prison and follows them through the gate in a seamless way. They will create a new, single national probation service dedicated to managing offenders who pose the highest risk to the public, working alongside 21 community rehabilitation companies drawing on the best of other sectors.

I am happy to say, too, that following intensive negotiations before Christmas, in principle an agreement has been reached with the trade unions on the terms and conditions for staff transferring to the new organisations. We are currently awaiting ratification by the formal probation collective negotiating machinery later this month. The unions have written to all their branches, making it clear that local trade disputes are suspended pending ratification, after which the disputes will be formally withdrawn.

The great irony of all this is that the Opposition’s approach to reducing reoffending when in government was very similar, recognising that organisations from a range of sectors have something to offer offenders. I remind the House once more of what Lord Reid said on this topic when Home Secretary:

“The Secretary of State, not the probation boards,”—

as they were then—

“will be responsible for ensuring service provision by entering into contracts with the public, private or voluntary sectors. With that burden lifted, the public sector can play to its strengths while others play to theirs.”—[Official Report, 11 December 2006; Vol. 454, c. 593.]

That is precisely what these reforms do. I could not agree more with him. That is why the Offender Management Act gave wide powers to commission probation services from across all sectors, yet only a few years on it is disappointing to see that the Opposition have returned to many of their roots and want to forget that they ever passed the 2007 Act.

In spite of that, the right hon. Member for Tooting (Sadiq Khan) said on Second Reading:

“we agree with the broad objectives of the Bill.”—[Official Report, 11 November 2013; Vol. 570, c. 671.]

I very much hope that this remains his position, and that right hon. and hon. Members on the Opposition Benches will join us in giving the Bill a Third Reading tonight. It is a Bill about giving rehabilitation to a group of offenders who desperately need it. It is about reducing the 85,000 crimes committed against individuals and communities across the country. It is about giving those working with offenders much greater freedom to pursue what works in stopping offenders, without all the constraints that can often exist within the public sector and without central diktat. It is about taking action for the victims of the 85,000 crimes committed by those short sentence offenders every year. Last but not least, it is a long overdue offer of rehabilitation to offenders who have been let down by the rest of society.

The Bill is designed, no more and no less, to fill a gap that is wholly unjustifiable in our criminal justice system. We cannot go on for year after year with people who are most likely to reoffend released from prison with £46 in their pocket, and with nowhere to go and no one to support and mentor them. More often than not, they simply return to the same streets and the same people, and reoffend all over again. The Opposition might not like our approach to these reforms, but in government they looked themselves at trying to do the same, and decided they could not. If they understand the importance of the step we are taking, they should at least give us credit for following a line that we believe could make the difference we have all sought for so long, and I urge the House to give the Bill its Third Reading tonight.

18:30

[Sadiq Khan (Tooting) (Lab)]

I intend to keep my comments short. The Bill has many worthy objectives that we support, although I will have to mention those things that are missing. First, however, I want to begin by thanking colleagues in both Houses and on both sides who have worked hard to refine and revise the Bill, as the Lord Chancellor has just explained.

I would also like to pay tribute to Paul Goggins and express on behalf of both sides of the House our particular thanks to him. My hon. Friend the Member for Darlington (Jenny Chapman) and the probation services Minister began their contributions on Report with kind, moving words about this decent, conscientious and kind man, and the Lord Chancellor did the same just now. Paul brought to the House his enormous experience of criminal justice, as a passionate advocate for the excellent work done by our probation service. His contributions to the Bill’s Second Reading, a previous Opposition day debate and the Bill Committee were of the highest quality. He spoke with a depth of knowledge, and the House will be the poorer without him. Many of us will miss him enormously.

I have previously outlined how the Bill is controversial more for what is not in it than for what is. I am pleased about the provisions on drug testing and rehabilitative support for women offenders. We have sought to include provisions to address rehabilitation for former members of the military services, and late in the day, to be fair, the Government have partly come round to the importance of this, although they have not gone as far as we would have liked. In winding up, the Minister was going to give time scales for the review, but he ran out of time. Will he write to me about that?

[Jeremy Wright]

The right hon. Gentleman is right that time was short, but I got the chance to say that it would take six months for my hon. Friend the Member for Penrith and The Border (Rory Stewart) to report back to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State.

[Sadiq Khan]

I am grateful to the Minister for setting out the six-month time scale.

No one can disagree with the objective of extending supervision and the accompanying help to all those released from prison. In this regard, I want to place on record our admiration for the massively important work that professional probation staff around the country do to rehabilitate some of the most troubled individuals while keeping the public safe. Much of the public do not realise the work of the probation service, and it is a sign of its success that the Government will leave to it the most high-risk offenders. It is welcome that offenders released from sentences of less than two years will be subject to at least 12 months of mandatory supervision in the community, but it is multi-national companies with no track record in this area that will be responsible for this, rather than the probation service, which we know can do the job very well.

It has always been an anomaly that short-sentence prisoners—the group with the highest risk of reoffending —are the ones left to their own devices when released from prison. As has been mentioned and the House knows, the previous Labour Government tried to address this with custody plus, but financial constraints prevented it from being implemented. The House also knows, from Paul Goggins’ Second Reading contribution, that by contrast the Government have no idea how much the extension of supervision to those serving 12 months or less will cost. Their impact assessment skirts around this, saying that

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

The Government have done nothing to update the House on this and so the plans remain uncosted.

The Justice Secretary and the Minister with responsibility for probation say that extending supervision will be paid for by privatising probation. But if that is the case, one would assume that the Justice Secretary and his officials must have figures to support it. It is hardly surprising that experts and others are suspicious about why the Government will not come clean on the numbers. The Justice Secretary has linked the cost of extended supervision to savings delivered by privatising probation, so the Bill is directly related to the wider probation privatisation plans. The two issues simply cannot be separated, which is one of the reasons new clause 1 was inserted by the other place.

The changes that flow from the Bill are untried and untested and will see supervision of serious and violent offenders fragmented. I must give credit to the Justice Secretary, whose plans have created an impressive coalition of those opposed to them: probation officers, chief executives and chairs of probation trusts, The Economist, his own officials and, most recently, the chief inspectors of both probation and of prisons, who questioned the system’s ability to cope with his plans. The chief inspector of probation warned that the plans would lead to

“an increased risk to the public.”

The Economist called the plans “half-baked.” The Ministry of Justice’s own risk register warns that there is an 80 per cent. risk of an unacceptable drop in operational performance, which when dealing with offenders can only lead to higher risks to public safety.

But still the Justice Secretary pushes ahead, with the same arrogance and dismissal of expert advice that led to the disaster that is the Work programme—a Work programme so bad that someone has more chance of still being in work after six months if they do not go on it.

[Chris Grayling]

We may be going slightly off track, Mr Speaker, but may I just point out that the Work programme is doing about twice as well as the predecessor programme that we inherited from the last Government?

[Mr Speaker]

That is totally irrelevant to the Third Reading of the Bill.

[Sadiq Khan]

I wish the Justice Secretary was right, but he is not.

Imagine that shambolic record being repeated in a privatised probation service, with someone’s chances of being rehabilitated being better if left to their own devices than if they go through £600 million of supervision by the likes of G4S, Serco, A4E and Capita. By the way, for those who believe that G4S and Serco will have nothing to do with the privatised probation service, that is not necessarily the case. On 19 December, the Justice Secretary said that the Government had left open the possibility of either supplier playing a supporting role, working with smaller business or voluntary sector providers to support their objective of achieving a diverse market. Once more, there is smoke and mirrors from the Ministry of Justice, more hiding the real facts. G4S and Serco could still be involved in the probation service.

The best way to pursue plans that lead to massive changes of this kind and affect public safety are through piloting and testing to see if something works before rolling it out, rather than a big bang. Perhaps the Justice Secretary should also consider asking probation trusts to take on the extra supervision rather than ignoring them and opting for big private company involvement instead. That is precisely the kind of piloting and testing that his predecessor planned and which the Justice Secretary cancelled in his first week in his job in a fit of pique, when he announced that his own gut instinct trumped evidence and statistics. Does the House really think, without any evidence whatever, that a privatised and fragmented probation service will be able to deliver the provisions in this Bill? The Justice Secretary has nothing to point towards to support this—not the Peterborough scheme, as he claims, which is a totally different model. That is comparing apples with pears.

It is a double risk because at the same time as supervision is extended the institutional landscape responsible for supervision will be radically overhauled. This will see the Government abolishing local probation trusts, commissioning services on behalf of local areas direct from Whitehall, splitting responsibility for offenders based on a non-static risk level between public and private organisations and handing over to big multinational companies supervision of serious and violent offenders, and all at breakneck speed without any evidential base: a monumental gamble with public safety.

Of course we support attempts to reduce reoffending; we support extended supervision of those in custody for fewer than 10 months; we support attempts to provide through-the-gate support for those leaving prison; we support attempts to get more charities, voluntary groups and small and large businesses involved—but we do not support reckless, half-baked plans without any evidence that they will not put public safety at risk. We cannot support something that undermines public confidence in the criminal justice system, and we will not support ideologically driven leaps in the dark.

It is simply wrong for the Justice Secretary to argue that those who are concerned about his plans are against reducing reoffending just because we are against his particular half-baked and reckless proposals. We happen to believe that his plans are precisely that, and those concerns are shared by experts, staff, the chief inspector and even his own officials.

The Bill will now return to the other place. I hope colleagues there will insist that their clause—to ensure that probation privatisation should not happen without both Houses having the opportunity properly to scrutinise the Government’s detailed plans to change the structure of the probation service—is reinserted in the Bill. I see no reason why the other place should back down. The concerns reflected in the clause it inserted are as important now—if not even more so—than they were last summer. Scandals involving private companies have increased, and more evidence has come to light about concerns from the chief inspector of probation and from the Ministry’s own internal assessment of the risks. It is thus only right and proper for the Government to submit their full and detailed plans to proper parliamentary scrutiny, and not rush things through. We cannot afford to take reckless gambles where public safety is concerned. The Government’s plans risk doing exactly that, which is why we cannot support them.

18:41

[Lorely Burt]

I originally intended to make a full contribution at this stage, but a great deal has been said and I shall not detain the House by going over ground that has already been covered.

Let me make a point about the pilots in Peterborough and Southampton, which have had encouraging interim results. The hon. Member for Darlington (Jenny Chapman) suggested that pilots had been concluded and stopped, but the pilots for Peterborough and Doncaster have not been cut, and as I say the interim findings have presented encouraging results, although we will have to wait and see the full results. The right hon. Member for Dwyfor Meirionnydd (Mr Llwyd) asked whether the pilots were precisely comparable; notwithstanding that, it looks good.

I am not content to wait another four or five years to get the full results; we need to make progress now. I understand that the Opposition believe that there are flaws in the Bill, but I believe it will bring about a great improvement. I regret the fact that when in government, Labour made provision for a Bill but did not bring it into practice when it had the opportunity. We have wasted too much time already. The previous Government facilitated the legislation eight years ago, and now is the time to get on with the job. I am delighted to support my coalition colleagues in doing that.

[Mr Speaker]

I pay tribute to the hon. Lady’s stoicism and fortitude in not allowing matters beyond her control to divert her from the content of her remarks. I feel sure that the sex change made by the Annunciator will now be corrected.

18:44

[Mr Llwyd]

I hope I do not suffer a sex change, which with this moustache would be awful to see!

When we enter the legislative processes, we usually start with a lot of unanswered questions. What distinguishes the process for this Bill is that we have almost as many such questions now as we had at the very beginning. The Justice Committee took evidence very recently, and experts in the field are asking some fundamental questions about how the procedure will work and how safe it will be. I do not know; obviously, I do not profess to know all the answers.

We have had an interesting debate or two during the Bill’s passage so far. I pay particular tribute to the Under-Secretary of State for Justice, the hon. Member for Kenilworth and Southam (Jeremy Wright)—he is the man steering the Bill through the House—for attempting to engage constructively with the process at all times. I am sure that, on occasion, that has been as difficult for him, as it has been for Opposition Members.

Let me also associate myself, warmly and sincerely, with the tributes that have been paid to our friend and colleague Paul Goggins. He played a large part in the Bill’s progress, speaking as he did with great knowledge.

I welcome the provisions for the rehabilitation of female offenders and for the extension of restorative justice. I also welcome the parallel process—if I may call it that—of over the weekend appointing the hon. Member for Penrith and The Border (Rory Stewart) to prepare a report on veterans. That is all to the good. Overall, however, I still feel uneasy, because there are a great many unanswered questions. I do not pose the following question in expectation of an answer today, but I should be pleased if the Lord Chancellor could respond to it in due course.

During our debates, including those that have taken place today, the Government have prayed in aid the Peterborough social impact bond pilot. The original published figure for crime reduction was 6%. The Under-Secretary of State said on Radio 5 Live that it was 12%. In Committee, the Justice Secretary said that it was 20%, and today, in the Chamber, the Under-Secretary of State said that it was 8%. All four figures cannot be right. It would not be a bad idea for us to be given a single figure, because that disparity underlines my unease about some of the facts and figures that have been cited. I do not think that we should be prodding around in the dark when it comes to such a potentially dangerous area of law.

[Chris Grayling]

I hope that I can help the right hon. Gentleman. Two sets of statistics have been published. The comparators are between the absolutely numerical reduction at Peterborough and the reduction among a comparable group at a prison elsewhere in the country. The 20% figure, which is the highest, refers to the number of further crimes committed by the cohort, while the lower figures show the overall reduction in the absolute rate of reoffending—the binary rate. I should be happy to write to the right hon. Gentleman and set out the figures in detail, but I can tell him now that the experience of mentoring at Peterborough has been very encouraging indeed.

[Mr Llwyd]

I thank the Justice Secretary for his response, and I am sure that he is right about mentoring. I think he will find in due course, when the hon. Member for Penrith and The Border reports to him, that it is key to any improvement in dealing with the rehabilitation of ex-service people, and I am sure that that experience will translate into other forms of rehabilitation.

I do not want to elaborate on the position that I have taken, or, indeed, on the position that anyone else has taken. We have had a good-natured tussle over the past few weeks; I only hope that some of our worst fears are misplaced, for the sake of the British people.

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

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. With the leave of the House. [Laughter.]

I am given to understand that I recently made a speech. Even more unusually, I cannot remember what I said. I know that that happens to all of us sometimes, but what concerns me is that, as far as I am aware, it is a very rare occurrence.

I wanted to give my full support to the speech that was given in my name by my hon. Friend the Member for Solihull (Lorely Burt), but also to suggest that, if anything unfortunate was said, you might refer it to my hologram, who may have been speaking instead of me at the time. I am grateful for the opportunity to set the record straight, and to make clear it that I was somewhere else at the time. That excuse is given commonly enough in politics, but on this occasion it is actually true.

[Mr Speaker]

All is now clear. I think that the House is grateful to the right hon. Member for North East Bedfordshire (Alistair Burt) for his sense of humour, and not least to the hon. Member for Solihull (Lorely Burt) for hers.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed, with amendments.

Business without Debate

Tuesday 14th January 2014 Commons Chamber

European Union documents

Tuesday 14th January 2014 Commons Chamber

Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 119(11)),

European Union External Action Service

That this House takes note of Unnumbered Explanatory Memorandum dated 27 August 2013, submitted by the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, on the European External Action Service; and supports the Government’s approach of working to ensure the EEAS supports and complements UK international objectives.—(Karen Bradley.)

Question agreed to.

Speaker’s Absence

Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 9(6)),

That the Speaker have leave of absence on Thursday 16 January to attend the funeral of the Right honourable Paul Goggins, late Member for Wythenshawe and Sale East.—(Mr. Lansley.)

Question agreed to.

Beth Schlesinger (Custody of Children)

Tuesday 14th January 2014 Commons Chamber

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—(Karen Bradley.)

18:50

[Graham Stringer (Blackley and Broughton) (Lab)]

I am grateful to have the opportunity of this Adjournment debate to bring the case of Beth Schlesinger to the attention of the House and, hopefully beyond this House, to the whole country. I believe the injustice that has happened to Beth Schlesinger deserves a wider audience and wider understanding than has been the case so far, although the case has already attracted international attention if my inbox is anything to go by. I have had e-mails from the United States, Italy and Israel as well as Austria, thanking me for bringing the case of Beth Schlesinger to this House’s attention.

I request that the Government take some action on this case, although I am under no illusion that that is very difficult for the Government, even with the best will in the world. Austria is a modern European country with a judicial system that follows the rules of natural justice and it is very difficult for any Minister from that country, let alone this country, to comment on, or interfere in, the process. However, such is the scale of the injustice that has happened to Beth Schlesinger that I hope the Minister can in some way approach the Austrian ambassador to the United Kingdom or the Austrian Government to express the concerns that many of my constituents have on this matter. Beth Schlesinger lives in Vienna at present, but her parents are my constituents.

This case is Kafkaesque. That is an overused word, but what has happened to Beth Schlesinger defies normal understanding. Authorities have taken decisions about her life and her children’s lives which are inexplicable and certainly unjust.

The best way to explain to the House what has happened is to go through the chronology of the events. Beth Schlesinger—her maiden name was Alexander—married Mr Schlesinger in October 2006. On 24 May 2009 the twins Samuel and Benjamin were born to the couple. Unfortunately the marriage then deteriorated and Mr Schlesinger, became violent and abusive towards Beth Schlesinger, and on 15 February 2010 Mr Schlesinger tried to have Beth committed to a mental hospital in Austria. Because there had been violence against Beth, however, the police were called and they removed Mr Schlesinger from the family home. He was given five minutes to pack his bags, and a restraining order was placed on him. He was subsequently given limited access to the children. Full custody was given to Beth Schlesinger; he was given two hours’ supervised access, three times a week.

So far, so understandable, unfortunately. It is not an uncommon arrangement for married couples, in this country and elsewhere in Europe, for the mother to end up with custody and for the father to have supervised access because of his violent activities. Mr Schlesinger had been violent and abusive not only towards Beth but towards her father and her father-in-law.

Then, things took a turn for the worse. Mr Schlesinger requested a friend of his, Konstanze Thau, a high court judge in Austria, to contact Susanne Göttlicher, the judge in charge of the case. It is highly irregular for a high court judge to intervene in another court on behalf of a father who has shown himself to be violent. However, after that meeting, Beth’s custody rights were reduced. The judge also ordered that the children were not to leave Austria.

In January 2011, the father was given further, unsupervised, access to the children. I am told that that happened through a legal technicality. Let us remember that, after the violent episode, Mr Schlesinger had tried to have Beth committed. I suppose we would call it “sectioned” in this country. A doctor, Ulrike Willinger, then produced a psychiatric report on Beth, in which she recommended, without having fully examined all the people involved in the case, that the children should be returned to Mr Schlesinger’s control. That report was considered by the judge on 17 June 2011.

A further report was produced by Dr Sinko-Sanz, a qualified psychiatrist, which informed the court that there was nothing wrong with Beth and that the children were developing normally. Social services put in a similar report. Unfortunately, however, Judge Susanne Göttlicher —who had previously been visited by the friend of Mr Schlesinger—decided to give full custody to the father. That was an extraordinary decision, and no details were given in the order of how the handover should happen.

In October 2011—this is a crucial point, because these decisions were never carried out—Beth brought an appeal and the father’s rights were reduced; he was granted only temporary custody. Crucially, the higher court asked for a further investigation, and that reports should be drawn up on the children, the father and the mother. That instruction from the higher court was never carried out, however, and the only reports that were ever produced for Judge Göttlicher’s court were those relating to Beth. The father was told by the courts—there is a specific word for this, as is often the case with the German language—to give as much information to the children’s mother as he could so that she could understand all the needs—

19:00

Motion lapsed (Standing Order No. 9(3)).

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—(Karen Bradley.)

[Graham Stringer]

The father was basically asked to tell the mother what the children’s needs were and what was happening, but what actually happened was that he cancelled 50 of Beth’s visits. Rather than him looking after the children, Filipino nannies were hired to do that for 12 hours a day and at weekends, and to take them to and from the nursery. Beth became more and more worried about the children; Samuel had four teeth taken out without any medical reasons given and Benjamin had two teeth removed. Beth was not only worried about what was happening, as the visits were cancelled and the children were upset, but it became clear that in the court’s previous decision Judge Göttlicher had suppressed a report from the nursery which had shown, and expressed the view, that when the children were seeing the father they had been crying and screaming, and had been extremely distressed. Clearly, Judge Göttlicher had had that report but it was not used. Things went from bad to worse, in terms not only of access to the children, but finance. Mr Schlesinger stopped paying maintenance and, indeed, tried to demand that Beth paid maintenance. She was now given access only on two afternoons a week and three hours every second Sunday, which represents an extraordinary turnaround from the original situation.

In July 2013, the judge awarded full custody to the father. At this time, crucially, no assessment of the father, or of the father with the children, had taken place. Beth had been examined in German for the psychiatrist’s report that had recommended against her. She is not fluent in the language, and so her answers had been slow, which was counted as a mark towards her being considered mentally unstable. Some of the relationships involving Judge Konstanze Thau became clear, and not only the one with Mr Schlesinger; her husband worked in the same hospital as Dr Willinger. I do not usually believe in conspiracies, but in this case the decisions that were taken were so strange that one has to suspect that undue influence and conspiracy were taking place.

Beth has asked me to draw to the House’s attention a case of a similar custody issue, although much more extreme in many ways, that has been before the higher Austrian courts in the past week or so. It involved a neglected and filthy child—not the same as in the Schlesinger family’s case—that had been taken away from the mother, who was deemed to be inadequate. The higher courts in Austria said, in giving the child back to the mother, that a loving child’s bond is of “paramount consideration”. I agree with that, and that Austrian court got it right in a much more difficult case than this one. Court cases are always difficult to compare because they involve details that one does not know, but I think that that case highlights what has gone wrong in Beth’s case.

I want to thank a few people before I come to my conclusion on this case. I have been to see the Austrian ambassador about this matter. He was courteous and listened carefully before explaining the situation to me. The Minister has received a delegation consisting of me and my hon. Friend the Member for Bury South (Mr Lewis), and I am grateful to him for that. I know that he is familiar with the case and sympathetic, and I hope that he will listen to what are outrageous decisions from the Austrian courts and, even with all the difficulties that I have explained, take action on them.

I have great respect for the Austrian state. As a Minister I had regular meetings with Austrian Ministers. I like Austria, but the decision in Beth Alexander’s case is a blight on the Austrian judicial system and I hope that it will be put right. Brought to its bare bones, this case is about a violent father who has been violent towards the mother of his children and other members of the family and who has been given custody of two children. The children are clearly unhappy. They do not speak very well, and they are still in nappies beyond the age of four. He was given custody after exerting undue influence on the courts over a mother who is completely blameless. As a Member of this House for 16 years and a councillor for many years before, I have rarely come across a case of such injustice. Despite all those difficulties, I hope that the Minister, who has shown that he is interested and sympathetic, can be of help.

[Dr Matthew Offord (Hendon) (Con)]

I want to put it formally on the record that I thank the hon. Member for Blackley and Broughton (Graham Stringer) for bringing this case to the House’s attention. I also speak on behalf of my constituent, Adrian Alexander, who is the brother of Beth Schlesinger. Adrian and I had cause to visit the ambassador at the Austrian embassy and we discussed the case with him. I came away with the feeling that even the ambassador was confused about some of the details, particularly about the recent judgment in which there was no recitation of the facts of the case. If we could at least establish what we are dealing with, we could seek some kind of resolution. As I have said, I want to place it formally on the record, on behalf of Beth’s family, that we thank the hon. Gentleman for bringing this matter to the House tonight.

[Graham Stringer]

As I explained to the House, we are not just talking about Beth’s family. There has been concern throughout the world. I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his thanks.

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

This case has caused considerable concern among my constituents. At the start of the hon. Gentleman’s very fine comments, he talked about the Austrian judicial system following the rules of natural justice. Is he aware that in the judgments handed down by the judges there has been no explanation as to why Mr Schlesinger was favoured over Mrs Schlesinger? They simply issued a judgment with no explanation. That surely cannot be in line with natural justice.

[Graham Stringer]

I am grateful for that intervention. I am aware that justice was denied in that last judgment without any explanation. There is a great deal that mystifies me about the case—how a higher court’s decisions are not carried through, and the inadequate decision of the lower court. Even though we have slightly longer than the normal half-hour Adjournment debate, one could have taken an hour going through the technical details of the case, but I wanted to get to the heart of the subject and show the basic injustice that has happened in this case. I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his intervention.

19:09

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

I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Blackley and Broughton (Graham Stringer) for securing the debate and for the compelling way in which he has explained this incredibly complex case in a truncated fashion. I also thank other hon. Members for their concern about a case that puzzles those of us who have been involved in it over a long period of time.

We should begin by saying that the only thing that matters is the best interests of the children, Benji and Sammy Schlesinger. After two and a half years in the care of their father, they are suffering from seriously impaired development and appear traumatised. The decision to award custody to the father, Dr Schlesinger, is one of the worst miscarriages of justice I have ever experienced during my long period as an elected representative. Beth Schlesinger has been falsely and cruelly labelled mentally ill and an unfit mother, labels both disproved by independent professionals. She is a mother, by the way, who is still allowed unsupervised access to her children. If this woman were an unfit mother and suffered from serious mental health problems, surely the norm would be supervised access at the very least. As my hon. Friend has said, the father’s documented history of abusive behaviour has not even been considered by the relevant court. A senior Austrian judge, Konstanze Thau, a friend of the father’s family, sought to influence the judge hearing the case on behalf of the father.

There is an element of the case that my hon. Friend did not mention. A senior social worker, Dr Kindlehoffer, who testified to the mother’s positive parenting skills and expressed serious concern about the integrity of the legal process, has been intimidated and threatened with the loss of her job. As a consequence, she is no longer willing to express an opinion on the case. As my hon. Friend has said, the final decision made by the Austrian court was that the father should be awarded custody without any independent professional assessment of the father, the children or the interaction of the father with the children, despite the fact—this is not generally known—that one of the children has been referred for professional help because they are self-harming, at such a tender age, and despite the fact that child protection agencies have been called to the father’s home following reports of children crying endlessly, in an unusual way, in distress. Despite all that the court’s final decision was one word: “refused”. It refused the appeal.

As my hon. Friend has said, it is ordinarily incredibly difficult for any Government to intervene in the justice system of another country. I can testify to that as a former Foreign Office Minister. The default position of the civil service in the Foreign Office—I hope that people will take this in a good natured manner—is not to get involved in civil disputes of any nature. That is the default position and I am almost certain that that is the advice that the Minister will have been given.

The Minister has been incredibly sensitive in how he has previously dealt with the case and he has offered to provide an element of assistance on behalf of the Foreign Office. At that time, the solicitor for Beth Schlesinger advised that that would not necessarily be helpful, but we are long past that point now. The family and their current legal representative are very clear that any assistance that the UK Government could give would be welcome and could make a difference. We are asking the Minister to raise the case, as my hon. Friend said, with the Austrian ambassador to the UK, to raise it, through the relevant channels, with the Austrian Justice Ministry and to ensure that there is a comprehensive review so that, if possible and where appropriate, the case can be reopened. We are realistic enough to realise that it would be entirely inappropriate for the UK Government to instruct the Austrian Justice Ministry or the Austrian courts on the decision they ultimately make, but there is no question but that there are serious issues to be addressed about a flawed process and, as my hon. Friend said—I will go even further—about corruption. The Austrian justice system is not renowned for corruption—it is viewed as modern and transparent—but in this case there are so many questions to answer that it would be entirely appropriate for the UK Government to ask the Austrian Justice Ministry to look at all the elements of the case and reopen it as a matter of urgency.

I have one final point to make. The earliest years of a child’s life are the most important, as you, Mr Speaker, know better than most, having done a tremendous amount of work in recognising that in a different context. We make the greatest difference in the earliest years of a child’s life. That is why there is no time to waste. Anyone who has met those children and observed them will be extremely concerned about their lack of development and their apparent traumatisation. In those circumstances, I think that we all have a duty to act.

19:15

[The Minister for Europe (Mr David Lidington)]

I congratulate the hon. Member for Blackley and Broughton (Graham Stringer) on securing the debate and on speaking with such clarity and passion in the case he has put forward on behalf of Ms Beth Schlesinger. I also acknowledge the long-standing interest of the hon. Member for Bury South (Mr Lewis) in the case and the interest of my hon. Friends the Members for Hendon (Dr Offord) and for Finchley and Golders Green (Mike Freer), who intervened earlier in this evening’s proceedings.

It is a sad fact that international custody cases are becoming more frequent, as in today’s world more parents of different nationalities marry and bring up children, and marriages and relationships sadly sometimes collapse. Although in many cases arguments about the care and custody of the children can be settled amicably, in an increasing number of such cases we see parents going before the courts to argue about who should have custody or in which country the children should reside. In more extreme but increasingly common cases, one parent absconds with the child without permission, an action that can quickly escalate into charges of abduction, and arrest warrants being issued.

This case is different. In cases of child abduction, it is our standard practice in the Foreign and Commonwealth Office to urge parents to look to The Hague convention to provide them with the way forward. The Hague convention, as the House knows, provides a mechanism by which to determine, in an international dispute over custody, in which country’s courts the children’s future should be decided.

Let me turn to the case we are debating this evening. Ms Schlesinger is a British national and her husband is an Austrian national. They both currently live in Austria. Their children were born in that country in 2009 and have lived there ever since. That is why this custody case has been heard by the Austrian courts, rather than the United Kingdom courts. Ms Schlesinger contacted my office only this week to outline her concerns about the welfare of her children—concerns that the hon. Member for Blackley and Broughton described in some detail. I was somewhat reassured to see that she has the support of her family and friends and specialist non-governmental organisations, such as the Twins and Multiple Births Association, but I am the first to acknowledge that her separation from her children and her consuming anxieties about their welfare make this an incredibly difficult time for her.

I want to explain the Government’s involvement in supporting Ms Schlesinger to date and then move on to how we see the case today. In February 2010, Ms Schlesinger’s father visited the British embassy in Vienna to discuss his daughter’s situation. Divorce and child custody proceedings were taking place in the Austrian courts at the time and Ms Schlesinger was clearly concerned that her husband might prevent her from returning permanently to the UK with the children, following the breakdown of their relationship.

At that time, the embassy was able to help by providing our list of English-speaking lawyers in Austria and information on local women’s support organisations and international organisations with relevant experience. Our consular staff explained that, in cases where families could not agree custody arrangements for the children on their own, it would be for the courts to decide which parent should retain custody and where the children should be resident.

Our staff also explained that both the UK and Austria are party to the 1980 Hague convention on international parental child abduction. That means that both countries have agreed that, where there is an international dimension to custody disputes, it is the court in the country where the children usually live that is best placed to make a custody decision in the best interests of the child. In this case, for the reasons I have described—the children were born in Austria and have always lived there—that is the Austrian court. In July 2011, as the hon. Gentleman has explained, the Austrian courts awarded custody of the children to their father, Michael Schlesinger.

When parental relationships break down and they cannot agree where a child should live, the resulting custody case inevitably causes untold distress to everybody involved—from the children themselves and both parents, to the extended family. That distress can only be amplified when large geographical distances separate, or threaten to separate, one parent from their children. However, as I explained when I met the hon. Gentleman and the hon. Member for Bury South last year, while there is no doubt that this is a deeply distressing case for Ms Schlesinger and her family, there is limited scope for the Foreign and Commonwealth Office to intervene.

Our staff are not legally trained, and therefore cannot offer legal advice. Instead, we help to put British nationals in contact with reputable and, where possible, English-speaking local lawyers who are familiar with local laws and procedures and best placed to offer professional advice and support on the case and to identify any procedural irregularities with the court process in the country concerned. Nor can the United Kingdom—the hon. Member for Bury South was right about this—interfere in the independent judicial process in another country, just as we would not stand for another country interfering in our own independent judicial proceedings.

When I met the two hon. Gentlemen last July to discuss the case, I explained the background and the fact that custody disputes are private legal matters. If parents cannot agree on arrangements for children, the decision on what is in the children’s best interests must be made by the courts in the country where the children are habitually resident.

It is very clear from what the hon. Member for Blackley and Broughton has said that he and Ms Schlesinger have deep concerns about the integrity of the legal process that has taken place in Austria and believe that some of the information and evidence presented to the Austrian courts may have been seriously flawed. Ms Schlesinger needs to address those concerns with her legal team and consider what options there are to pursue them through the Austrian and, potentially, the European legal system.

Although the Foreign and Commonwealth Office cannot become involved in the competent judicial process of another country, if Ms Schlesinger’s legal team were to approach us with significant and substantiated—I stress that word—concerns about the process involved in the case, we would certainly be prepared to consider such representations and raise them with the Austrian authorities.

Our embassy in Vienna has provided some assistance to Ms Schlesinger and her family since the initial contact in 2010. As well as providing the lists of lawyers, support organisations and international bodies such as Reunite, the embassy has, during the course of this case, contacted the judge on some practical questions about timings and provided a statement to Ms Schlesinger’s lawyer at the lawyer’s request. There has been no direct contact between Ms Schlesinger and our consular staff between May 2012 and now, but in all our contact we have consistently advised the family that this has to be a matter for the courts to determine. I gave that advice to several hon. Members and other interested parties in 2011, 2012 and 2013.

Ms Schlesinger and her family have asked for the Foreign and Commonwealth Office to intervene to raise concerns about the court process, and to lobby the Austrian authorities for her to be given custody of her children. I must be clear that we can intervene only if there are sufficient grounds, particularly substantiated grounds about the process, and that we cannot simply take sides regarding custody of the children, any more than Ministers can take sides in such disputes that are handled by United Kingdom courts.

Ms Schlesinger’s lawyers’ concerns have previously been dismissed by the appropriate judicial authorities. When I met the hon. Members for Blackley and Broughton and for Bury South, I agreed that our officials should again contact Ms Schlesinger’s legal team. We took that step and the lawyers’ clear advice was that any form of diplomatic intervention could prove detrimental to their case, which was then at the appeal stage. We therefore stepped back from making any representation and considered instead whether we could do anything to expedite progress at a hearing. If the lawyers have changed their view and can bring forward substantiated evidence of something having gone seriously wrong in the process, we will examine such representations.

Since then, Ms Schlesinger has taken her appeal to the Austrian Supreme Court, which has said that it is inadmissible. Having listened to the two hon. Gentlemen, I can understand that the Austrian Supreme Court’s somewhat terse language must have upset Ms Schlesinger deeply. The absence of any detailed explanation must also have made that decision even more difficult for her to bear. I am aware that no words that I or anybody else could say tonight will console her, given the huge emotional burden—as well as the enormous financial one—that this case will inevitably carry.

It is now crucial, however, that Ms Schlesinger discuss with her new lawyers how best to proceed, and whether there are any further avenues within the Austrian legal system, or whether she needs to consider the European courts, especially the European Court of Human Rights. The UK ambassador to Austria has agreed to meet her this week to look at whether there is anything more that he and his team can do beyond what they have already undertaken.

At the root of the dispute are allegations of irregularity in the court process. Any evidence of procedural irregularity should be pursued by legal means in Austria. I cannot emphasise too strongly our view that, following recent decisions by the courts, Ms Schlesinger should seek immediate legal advice. If her lawyers advise that there are grounds for a diplomatic intervention that might be beneficial and could be substantiated by sufficient evidence, her legal team and/or the hon. Member for Blackley and Broughton are welcome to put their representations to us again.

Like any parent, I feel nothing but heartfelt sympathy for Ms Schlesinger in the plight she faces. I am sure that every Member of the House hopes that this case can be resolved swiftly, amicably and, above all, in the best interests of the children.

Question put and agreed to.

19:29

House adjourned.

Ministerial Corrections

Tuesday 14th January 2014 Ministerial Corrections

Tuesday 14 January 2014

Advertising: The Guardian

Tuesday 14th January 2014 Ministerial Corrections

[Julian Smith]

To ask the Secretary of State for Justice how much his Department spent on advertising with (a) The Guardian newspaper, (b) The Guardian website and (c) The Guardian Media Group in (i) 2009-10, (ii) 2010-11, (iii) 2011-12 and (iv) 2012-13.

[Official Report, 29 October 2013, Vol. 569, c. 417W.]

Letter of correction from Shailesh Vara:

An error has been identified in the written answer given to the hon. Member for Skipton and Ripon (Julian Smith) on 29 October 2013.

The full answer given was as follows:

[Mr Vara]

The information requested is set out in the following table:

[Mr Vara]

The information requested is set out in the following table:

Reserve Forces

Tuesday 14th January 2014 Ministerial Corrections

[Mr McKenzie]

To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what support his Department provides to employers to assist employees who are army reservists; and how their skills will enhance the employer's company.

[Official Report, 6 January 2014, Vol. 573, c. 15-16W.]

Letter of correction from Anna Soubry:

An error has been identified in the written answer given to the hon. Member for Inverclyde (Iain McKenzie) on 6 January 2014.

The full answer given was as follows:

[Anna Soubry]

SaBRE-Supporting Britain’s Reservists and Employers-is an organisation supported by the Ministry of Defence which is positioned to provide support to both reservists and employers. It maintains a website

www.sabre.mod.uk

that provides information for employers including detailed advice on the benefits of employing reservists and examples for companies of HR policies tailored to reservist employees. SaBRE also operates a telephone helpline that is available for both reservists and employers to address specific inquires. Further, each of the 13 Reserve Forces’ and Cadets’ Associations (RFCAs) has a Regional SaBRE Campaign Director able to provide a personal, face-to-face service for employers at a local and regional level.

In the White Paper ‘Reserves in the Future Force 2020: Valued and Valuable’ (Cm 8655) the Government pledged to improve the relationship between Defence and employers. Financial support is given to assist employers to recruit staff or to cover overtime to fill an absence left by a mobilised employee. An incentive payment of £500 per employer per month is also available to some small and medium enterprises. Under our fresh approach to the Reserves, employers will have greater awareness and predictability of when their staff may be mobilised.

Reserve Service will benefit different employers in different ways. For some, the improved skills, experience and training of the individual reservist will be beneficial. For some, where the reservist’s military role is close to their civilian one, there will be more benefit from transferable skills.

For some companies and sectors, Reserve Service suits and supports their business models. Reserve Service might support corporate social responsibility objectives and be part of their social action plans, alongside any wider volunteering policies.

The correct answer should have been:

[Anna Soubry]

SaBRE-Supporting Britain’s Reservists and Employers-is an organisation supported by the Ministry of Defence which is positioned to provide support to both reservists and employers. It maintains a website

www.sabre.mod.uk

that provides information for employers including detailed advice on the benefits of employing reservists and examples for companies of HR policies tailored to reservist employees. SaBRE also operates a telephone helpline that is available for both reservists and employers to address specific inquires. Further, each of the 13 Reserve Forces’ and Cadets’ Associations (RFCAs) has a Regional SaBRE Campaign Director able to provide a personal, face-to-face service for employers at a local and regional level.

In the White Paper ‘Reserves in the Future Force 2020: Valued and Valuable’ (Cm 8655) the Government pledged to improve the relationship between Defence and employers. Financial support is given to assist employers to recruit staff or to cover overtime to fill an absence left by a mobilised employee. An incentive payment of £500 per mobilised employee per month is also planned to be made available to some small and medium-sized enterprises. Under our fresh approach to the Reserves, employers will have greater awareness and predictability of when their staff may be mobilised.

Reserve Service will benefit different employers in different ways. For some, the improved skills, experience and training of the individual reservist will be beneficial. For some, where the reservist’s military role is close to their civilian one, there will be more benefit from transferable skills.

For some companies and sectors, Reserve Service suits and supports their business models. Reserve Service might support corporate social responsibility objectives and be part of their social action plans, alongside any wider volunteering policies.

Westminster Hall

Tuesday 14th January 2014 Westminster Hall

Tuesday 14 January 2014

[Sir Edward Leigh in the Chair]

High Speed 2

Tuesday 14th January 2014 Westminster Hall

Motion made, and Question proposed, That the sitting be now adjourned.—(Mr Gyimah.)

09:30

[Sheila Gilmore (Edinburgh East) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Edward. I thank the Backbench Business Committee for granting this debate, which I think is the first to be held under the new arrangement whereby this debate in Westminster Hall is allocated by that Committee rather than through the mysterious balloting that normally takes place. I am grateful to the Committee for listening to and granting my request.

I also thank the large number of people who have raised this issue with me since the debate was announced. All did so in polite and civilised terms, even if they disagreed with the perspective they thought I was going to take. I would not like to suggest that I have read every one of the more than 400 e-mails that I have received on this subject down to the very last detail, but I have reflected on the key points that people raised and hope that they will appreciate that I have attempted to do so. It is important to look at this subject as calmly and respectfully as we can, because these sorts of plans and projects always arouse strong emotions. Those who are in favour of the development need to be as robust in our defence of it as those who oppose it are in their arguments.

When phase 1 is complete the journey time from Scotland to London could be cut by half an hour—that might not sound a lot, but it is an important reduction—because trains will be travelling at a higher speed for the first part of the journey before connecting on to conventional lines. When phase 2 is complete, journey time could be reduced to around three and a half hours, which would be a significant gain. However, my support for HS2 is not simply about cutting journey times from Scotland. I think that the project is in the national interest. The fundamental underpinning of that view is the need to grow our economy throughout the United Kingdom, and improved connectivity is a crucial part of achieving that. It is particularly important for the midlands, the north and Scotland: we need to distribute our centres of manufacturing and service industries throughout the country, and improved connectivity is the key to doing that.

[Mr Simon Burns (Chelmsford) (Con)]

The hon. Lady is making a powerful case. Does she accept that, however important the increased improvement in journey times is, the most crucial justification for high-speed rail in this country is capacity?

[Sheila Gilmore]

I agree with the right hon. Gentleman and will be coming on to that issue. The underlying purpose, I would argue, is to be able to distribute our investment in our economy more generally, and connectivity is important to that. We have seen, for example, what has happened in Salford with the development of Media City and the BBC’s sometimes apparently painful move up there, which some people obviously felt meant going to the end of the world. That development led not merely to one large company moving part of its operations out of the south-east, but to supporting media industries locating in Salford deliberately because of the bigger pool there.

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

I apologise, Sir Edward, that I will have to leave before the debate ends, but I congratulate my hon. Friend on bringing this important subject to the House for debate this morning. Although the debate is predominantly about the economic benefits of HS2, does she accept that there are also environmental benefits? If as a result it means that, for further-flung destinations in Scotland and the north of England people are less likely to use air travel, and for areas nearer to London people are less likely to use the roads, there will be green benefits for our economy too.

[Sheila Gilmore]

I accept my hon. Friend’s point about green benefits in the long term, certainly in terms of air travel, although that will not necessarily be the case in the short term, as people will constantly argue.

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

I am not going to attack the hon. Lady aggressively on this matter, but she is making the point that she wants to see economic benefits spread throughout the country, so does she not agree that it would have been more sensible to look at connectivity between northern cities and with Scotland well in advance of running yet another line between Birmingham and London, especially as we do not even know yet whether that line will connect well or properly with HS1, or with Heathrow, Gatwick or wherever it is decided that our future airport capacity will be in the south-east? Does she agree that the project would have been better started in the north?

[Sheila Gilmore]

The right hon. Lady will not be surprised that I do not entirely agree with her view. We have to remember, for example, that the lines between cities across the north are already being electrified, quite separately from HS2.

[Mr Angus Brendan MacNeil (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (SNP)]

Will the hon. Lady give way?

[Sheila Gilmore]

I will shortly, but I want to complete my argument about why, if we want to grow regional economies, we need to improve connectivity and why that is not possible within the existing rail network. There has been a huge growth in rail over the past 20 years, and there is limited spare capacity. Investment in existing lines has been increased and, we acknowledge, that investment is continuing under this Government, but—this is perhaps the point that the right hon. Member for Chelmsford (Mr Burns) wished to make—the ability to make further improvements is decreasing because of the limits on capacity. If we decide that we are going to build new lines in various places, we may as well think about the high-speed line now.

[Mr MacNeil]

Did I understand the hon. Lady’s response to the right hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham (Mrs Gillan) correctly as implying that, as a Scottish Member, she would prefer to have high-speed rail starting in London rather than in Scotland?

[Sheila Gilmore]

Personally, I would like to see it starting at both ends. I would be interested to learn the proposals of the Scottish Government to assist in achieving that within the powers that they have.

A number of objections are made to the arguments about capacity. Some people argue that the high rate of growth in long-distance travel—it has been about 4.8% a year—will not continue, but that is unlikely, given the patterns we have seen. The factors that are pushing people away from their cars and on to trains—high petrol prices and congested roads—are unlikely to change any time soon. Any type of sustained economic growth, which we all say we want, is likely to push demand for long-distance travel up further, not reduce it. On top of that, there are the predictions for growth in our population, which are now well established.

[Andrea Leadsom (South Northamptonshire) (Con)]

Since the hon. Lady agrees that High Speed 2 is about capacity not speed, what assessment has she made of the difference in cost between going at high speed across floodplains, with tunnelling and the like through and across environmentally sensitive areas, versus the cost of going at a slightly lower speed around the problematic natural areas within England and Scotland that the HS2 link will have to go through?

[Sheila Gilmore]

I understand the hon. Lady’s concerns, but if we are to make a serious step change in our rail investment, this scheme is the appropriate route to take.

The other point that some people have raised about capacity is that some inter-city trains operating at peak times—those operating in and out of Euston, for example—are not actually full and we should use that capacity before building a new line. However, on present patterns, it is likely that that capacity will be used up by the time the new line is built. London Midland trains, for example, which serve many commuter towns on the west coast main line, are already full to bursting and room must be created for trains to serve those destinations. Upgrading the west coast main line would be difficult and disruptive and would not provide the other benefits.

Some people have argued that HS2 would not release useful capacity around Birmingham, Manchester and Leeds. Existing services will still be needed in some places, but those trains will be able to stop at intermediate stations. The lines will remain and the trains will be able to stop at more intermediate stations without holding up longer-distance travellers, giving a substantial boost to regional connectivity. For example, stations between Coventry and Birmingham New Street would stand to gain more services.

We could tackle commuter demand at the southern end of the west coast main line by building more cross-rails. One is being built at the moment and another is planned. I am not saying that those schemes are not helpful, but if such an approach continues it will exacerbate many of the problems created by London’s dominance and would not help economic growth in other parts of the country. People often suggest that other schemes could achieve that, but no one has come up with firm proposals in which we can have confidence. The main transport corridor between Newcastle, Leeds, Manchester and Liverpool—the trans-Pennine route—is already being electrified and will provide that greater connectivity, which is good. This is not a matter of either/or.

The other argument that is often raised is that the business case is not sufficiently strong. Perhaps one of the biggest arguments is about the use of time and the value that is placed on that. People say that in the modern age people can work on trains so there is not the same value to be gained from speeding up journey times, but that does not make up for the fact that it is even more valuable if staff can arrive at their destination and return in a shorter time. Although the cost-benefit ratio is low compared with smaller projects—some people have suggested that road bypasses have a much higher cost-benefit ratio—we cannot build a whole network with small projects. As large projects go, HS2 is relatively good value for money.

There are wider economic benefits that are not always captured in the business case. One argument that I have already addressed but want to talk about a bit more is that HS2 will be a disbenefit to the midlands, the north and other parts of the UK. Examples sometimes cited from Europe are that high-speed rail there has not benefited the places to which it goes. What matters is whether the project connects significant population centres.

[Mr Simon Burns]

I am grateful for the hon. Lady’s generosity in giving way. I suggest that she does not need to go overseas to Europe to see the benefits of high-speed rail. All she needs to do is to look at the benefits that HS1 has brought to Kent and London.

[Sheila Gilmore]

The right hon. Gentleman’s experience and knowledge is valuable to this debate. Not all examples are of linking large conurbations with others. In some, the benefits may be spread around the country.

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

My hon. Friend’s speech is extremely welcome. I have never accepted the argument that building HS2 will somehow be a disadvantage to the north or the midlands. By that logic, if we tore up our motorways and existing rail lines, we would be more prosperous. The central point that I am interested in is the economic benefits of HS2—this responds to the point that the right hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham (Mrs Gillan) made and that the Scottish National party tries to make—and the need for HS2 to go to London because of decentralisation. This country is the most centralised in the western world and decentralisation will come from London. That is why the route must be built as suggested. London’s property prices show that the country cannot sustain that level of centralisation. That is the crucial benefit of HS2.

[Sheila Gilmore]

There is no doubt about current centralisation and the pull factors. Some opponents of HS2 say that it would increase centralisation in London, but I argue the opposite. The pull factors towards the south-east exist despite the disadvantages of London—high property prices, lack of land for development, long travel times to work from not far away, and so on. I am seriously worried that we are seeing more of that than we have for some time. As the population is pulled in that direction, it increases even more as people who move to work in the financial services sector and other sectors require other public and private services to support them, so London’s population becomes more and more dense. If we genuinely want to decentralise our economy, we must think about that seriously.

Birmingham, Leeds, Manchester and Scotland have competitive advantages over London in terms of population, availability of land to develop, relatively cheap housing and a lower cost of living. The service sectors that are already in many of those places and are powerful there would benefit from better access and could grow and develop to the advantage of all of us in the UK.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Mr Robert Goodwill)]

Does the hon. Lady agree that the Labour leaders of our great northern cities cannot all be wrong in that regard?

[Sheila Gilmore]

I certainly agree that their views should be listened to and that they have their cities’ best interests at heart. They want them to develop and widen. Of course there will be an environmental impact and I understand people’s concern about that. It is never easy to develop such projects. It would be foolish to say that there will be no disruption or environmental damage, but on balance the country must weigh up the benefits. We must accept, as we have done and will continue to do, that enabling the country to develop as we want and in a much more balanced way means that we must take that on board, while always trying to mitigate the environmental problems.

[Mrs Gillan]

Is the hon. Lady telling the Chamber that sacrificing homes, businesses, ancient woodland and the area of outstanding natural beauty in my constituency is a price worth paying for HS2?

[Sheila Gilmore]

I certainly hope that there will be as much mitigation as possible. Any other option, and even expanding some existing rail lines, would also cause damage and loss of housing, because when lines were built there was development around them, so it is difficult to expand them.

If we are serious about expanding our economy, we must find a way to improve capacity because I firmly believe that it will increase. We have to move forward with the project as quickly as possible. There would be regret if in future we looked back and asked, “Why did we not do it 10 or 20 years ago?” This is our opportunity to grow and distribute our economy throughout the UK.

[Sir Edward Leigh (in the Chair)]

I have the right to impose a time limit, but I think we should be all right for the time being, if Members are aware of the clock. I shall start by calling Cheryl Gillan, who, I am sure, will be considerate to other people.

09:50

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

I will try to be considerate, Sir Edward, but as you know, this project has a very deleterious effect on my constituency. I am grateful to be called by you, first of all, and to have the opportunity to put some points from the position of Chesham and Amersham.

I start by congratulating the hon. Member for Edinburgh East (Sheila Gilmore) on obtaining the debate. She has shown interest in this railway for some time, although I have to say that I am not sure it is a priority for her constituents, as 92% of all Scottish rail journeys begin and end in Scotland. As I understand it, some flagship improvements to the Edinburgh-Glasgow route have already been cut by £350 million. I have to say that if she is interested in the issue, she has failed to acknowledge that her constituents and anybody else travelling from Scotland will have years of disruption at Euston station. If she looks carefully at the plans for Euston station and where the long-distance trains from Scotland arrive, she will see that there will be fewer platforms and reduced services for many years, so her constituents and many people in Scotland will face a lot of disruption at the end of their journey if the project goes ahead.

[Sheila Gilmore]

Perhaps I should just point out that most of my constituents—although not necessarily all the people from Scotland—will be travelling to Kings Cross.

[Mrs Gillan]

I am sure that most of the hon. Lady’s constituents will be travelling to Kings Cross, but plenty of people from Scotland travel to Euston. As she does not appear to want the route built to Scotland immediately, nor to want the northern routes to be constructed first, she can rest assured that there will be a lot of disruption right across the network as the project develops. I was surprised that she did not ask for the line to be built from Scotland to England, because there is to be a referendum in Scotland and, as I have always said, if we want Scotland to remain as part of the United Kingdom, connectivity to the rest of the United Kingdom is really important. Despite any differing views about HS2, I think that most people in the Chamber would agree that we want Scotland to remain part of the United Kingdom.

[Mr MacNeil]

Does it not show London’s priorities that, rather than building high-speed lines to the north, it built high-speed lines to the south and towards the continent—indeed, to countries that were not in political union with London?

[Mrs Gillan]

No, I do not at all agree with the hon. Gentleman on that, and he knows it. If that is a mischievous way of pushing the SNP’s message, I have to say that I believe that we are better off together and that the people and economy of Scotland will be a lot better off if it remains firmly as part of the United Kingdom.

Today we have a fightback from HS2, because Sir David Higgins takes up his appointment; we have already had the PR charm offensive from HS2 this morning, conducted from Old Oak Common. We heard that we will have a new further education college to train the 2,000 engineers that we do not currently have to complete the build over the next 20 years of HS2. The Government are constantly trying to talk up the project. We have had more fightbacks and comebacks on HS2 than we can possibly imagine. More alarmingly, we heard this morning that over the next six weeks, Sir David will prove that he can produce HS2 cheaper and quicker. That is what he has been charged to do. That will be interesting; it means that the past four years and the work by the Department for Transport and HS2 Ltd is obviously not good enough, and that a great rescuer can come in and show us, over the next six weeks, how we can do it quicker and cheaper. I wish him the best of luck, but it makes me wonder what we have paid nearly £1 billion for in terms of the work that has been carried out so far.

[Mike Thornton (Eastleigh) (LD)]

Is it not always a good idea constantly to make savings and improve delivery? Is that not what every businessman would do every day of his life? To say that that is not a good idea is very strange.

[Mrs Gillan]

I am not saying that it is not a good idea; I am asking what the hundreds of people who have been working on the project have been doing over the past four years. Surely—

[Mr Simon Burns]

Will my right hon. Friend give way?

[Mrs Gillan]

The former Minister here is responsible. When we have a project for which the Secretary of State has had to come to the House and announce that the figures are wrong and that the cost has gone up by £10 billion, surely it is amazing that we now have a new chairman coming in who is already charged with trying to reduce that cost. What is going on with the costings for the project? Neither the Department nor HS2 Ltd have got a grip. I give way to the former Minister.

[Mr Burns]

I am grateful to my right hon. Friend. I can certainly say that people have been working, over the past four years, on fine-tuning and improving the line of route and the delivery of it, and on mitigation, which, for example, directly benefits my right hon. Friend. She knows as well as I do that 19 km of HS2 go through her constituency; 14.5 km are in a tunnel and the other 4 km are in a cutting.

[Mrs Gillan]

I am so glad that my right hon. Friend can remember his brief from when he was a Minister. I am grateful for the tunnel, as are my constituents and the environment, but the fact remains that the area of outstanding natural beauty will be drastically affected by the project. If the issue is about connectivity and capacity, there is no reason why alternative routes cannot be found. The reason why it goes straight through my constituency is speed. There are alternative strategies—I am sure that he remembers the 51m alternative strategy that was produced. There are ways of achieving the connectivity and economic renewal of the country other than HS2.

The business case, which the hon. Member for Edinburgh East mentioned, is dreadful. At the end of October, the Government released yet another version of it, which confirmed the shrinking benefit. The benefit-cost ratio for phase 1 is now estimated to be 1.4, excluding the wider economic benefits. However, experts working on the figures—particularly those in HS2 Action Alliance, which includes some great experts on transport and economics—have estimated that the real figure could be under 0.5. That is less than 50p back for every £1 spent. Even the official figures now beg the question whether the project is value for money.

In order to deal with the bad publicity that HS2 was getting about the benefit-cost ratio and the project’s value for money, which is a shrinking benefit, a report from KPMG was commissioned. That was supposed to build a positive view of the railway, as we all now know. It claimed that the economy would be boosted by £15 billion a year. Within days of that report being published, that claim was challenged from many angles. In September, Robert Peston, the BBC’s business editor, drove a coach and horses through the report. He rightly pointed out that many of the gains that KPMG had calculated were based on a reasonable notion that companies would be established in places where there were better transport links, but the report took no account of whether those regions contain available land to site new or bigger companies, or actually have the people with the relevant skills to employ. As those two features are the fundamental causes of poor growth in many parts of the UK, it is amazing to me that the report even stated:

“The methodology employed makes the implicit assumption that transport connectivity is the only supply-side constraint to business location.”

That was a coach and horses through the report.

[Kate Green]

I recognise how strongly the right hon. Lady feels about the matter and on behalf of her constituents. She referred to the KPMG report and the criticisms that were levelled at it. I also point out—and invite her comments on this—that aspects of economic gain were not referred to in the report. For example, it did not take account of the added economic benefits to us in Greater Manchester of investment in a station and of bringing the line through Manchester airport.

[Mrs Gillan]

The hon. Lady could be right. An awful lot was missed out of the report. It was in September that Robert Peston came up with the criticism. In October, a freedom of information request from “Newsnight” revealed the bad economic news that was missed out in detail from the report. The potential losses to some of our regional economies from this rail link will cause real problems. The negative impact on the north-east of Scotland, for example, was described as “significant to say the least” by the Aberdeen chamber of commerce. Areas from Cardiff to Kettering have been identified as ones that will lose millions of pounds from their annual GDP. I agree—that was missed out of the report. There was a nice little map that was supposed to disguise the figures behind, but a freedom of information request from “Newsnight” flushed out that important detail.

By November, the Select Committees were getting their teeth into the HS2 project, and so they should, although one cannot help feeling that the Select Committee on Transport is really an extension of the Department for Transport, given its latest thin and rather inadequate report.

[Mr Simon Burns]

Can my right hon. Friend answer a very simple question? Why is it that anyone who expresses any criticism of HS2 is 100% accurate, but anyone who sees any benefits in HS2 is either an appendage of the Department for Transport or just downright wrong?

[Mrs Gillan]

We could turn that question around to the former Minister, because he seems to think that everyone connected with HS2 is absolutely right, that this is the project that will solve all our economic problems and woes and that anyone who opposes it is not worth listening to. He is on dangerous ground with me, because he knows that I have been—

[Mr Burns]

So there is no answer to the question.

[Mrs Gillan]

There is an answer to the question. We could easily be wrong on some points, but that is not to say that HS2 is not totally wrong. Besides, they have been set off in a certain—

[Mr Goodwill]

rose—

[Mrs Gillan]

I will give way to my hon. Friend the Minister in a minute.

[Sir Edward Leigh (in the Chair)]

Order. We are in danger of going round in circles now, so perhaps the right hon. Lady could get on with her speech. Perhaps if she gives way to the Minister, we can get on and hear from other people.

[Mrs Gillan]

I give way to the Minister of course.

[Mr Goodwill]

I understand that my right hon. Friend is entitled to her own opinions, but I do not accept that she is entitled to her own facts.

[Mrs Gillan]

Perhaps the Minister will intervene and give me the facts that I should have. Would the Minister like me to give way? How are my facts wrong?

[Mr Goodwill]

There will be plenty of facts when I make my concluding remarks.

[Mrs Gillan]

I will be grateful for a reply from the Minister then, of course. He knows that what I am doing is talking common sense and repeating what has happened, as opposed to making anything up. If this project is so good, perhaps the Minister will also, when he replies, let us know why the Government have still not published the Major Projects Authority reports, which highlight the risk. I believe that they have been classified as amber and red. If the Government are so convinced that this is such a wonderful project, it is important that those reports are made public. After all, we came into government saying that we would be the most transparent Government ever.

The hybrid Bill, which has been deposited, has also proved to be contentious. I think that tomorrow the Standing Orders Committee will meet for the first time since 2008 to examine the 14 Standing Orders that it may have transgressed. Alongside the hybrid Bill was deposited an environmental statement of nearly 50,000 pages, from which, as the Minister told me in answer to a question, some 877 pages were omitted. That and the fact that 56 days is the shortest period that has been given for any consultation on HS2 matters reflect the fact that the Government are not wanting to listen in detail to people who are raising valid and very worrying concerns about where we are going with this project.

It is widely known that Buckinghamshire gets all the pain and none of the gain. I am not sure whether the new college that is being promoted by my colleagues in government will be dangled in front of Buckinghamshire —whether it could come to Buckinghamshire. If that were considered, at least it would be something more than we are getting at the moment, because if people start to look in detail at what is proposed and the impact on Buckinghamshire, they will see that it is very worrying.

I talked to my right hon. Friend the Member for Aylesbury (Mr Lidington) before this debate. We were talking about the effects on the local economy and particularly on tourism in Wendover and beyond, and also in Great Missenden in my constituency. But also, more worryingly—my right hon. Friend the Member for Chelmsford, who is also a former Health Minister, will know about this—concern has been expressed, because of what is proposed in changing the transport architecture locally, that even blue-light services could be affected during the construction phase of the project.

[Mr MacNeil]

I am grateful to the right hon. Lady for giving way; she has been very generous. She is painting a truly frightening picture of high-speed rail. I just wonder where high-speed rail has been constructed whether she would advocate digging it up and taking it away, because it does seem to be a very frightening project indeed.

[Mrs Gillan]

I think that I understood what the hon. Gentleman just said to me. We all know that we need to have a balanced economy and that we need to get growth across the country, but there are alternative ways of doing that. It always seems to me that HS2 was a project dreamt up by politicians—by Andrew Adonis in opposition—and adopted by the coalition when it came in and that no one really and truthfully sat down and said, “How do we get an integrated transport system? How do we join up our roads, railways and airports?” We do not appear to have done what I consider to be the overarching work to deliver an integrated transport system. [Interruption.] It is not yet going ahead. As we know, the hybrid Bill must pass through this House and the other House, so it has not got the final stamp of approval.

[Mr MacNeil]

Which ones would the right hon. Lady dig up?

[Mrs Gillan]

I am not digging up anything. The project has not got the final stamp of approval. There is still the option of pursuing other ways in which we could improve our economy.

Let me get back to my local picture, because I think that it is only fair to my constituents that some of their grievances are aired. The agricultural holdings in Chesham and Amersham will be severely impacted. Several farms will be badly affected by the construction, to such an extent that they will probably be put out of business. People cannot run an equestrian business next to a major construction site; nor can they use ground that has been submerged in 50 feet of soil. Will the Minister, although he is rightly going to defend his position, as he must, let me know what detailed work he had done on the losses that will be sustained by the businesses and particularly the farming and agricultural holdings in my neck of the woods? HS2 Ltd estimates that, across the whole route between Birmingham and London, about 300 existing businesses will be required to relocate to new premises, but people cannot relocate a farm and people cannot relocate a family business, when its land has been divided into two or part of its land has been appropriated.

I referred briefly to roads that will have to be closed, realigned or diverted during the construction phase. The impact on communities and local facilities will alter people’s travelling patterns and shopping habits, perhaps even for life. That is a great threat to the local economy. If people start to read through the detail of the environmental assessment, they can see some of the estimates of traffic congestion at the junctions of School lane and the A413, the Amersham bypass and the A404, and Chesham road and Bottrells lane—I could go on, but people will have got the idea. But I want to know what estimates the Department has made of the losses to our local economy from the delays, traffic congestion and disruption that years of construction will bring to Chesham and Amersham.

I believe that some of the claims made by consultants are not correct. There will be a lot of substitution in the economy. Yes, businesses will be attracted to the high-speed rail line and may move, as they did when the BBC, which the hon. Member for Edinburgh East referred to, went to Salford. That move has attracted many production companies and media companies to that area. However, that is substitution, because the businesses have been drawn from other parts; hence one of the very important things that was highlighted in the KPMG report was the disinvestment and the permanent loss to GDP of other regions as businesses are attracted falsely to the line.

This will be a distorting project. Many MPs around the country do not realise that there will be an effect on their constituency, which will suffer disinvestment as businesses move closer to new conurbations, for example into buildings created with Chinese investment, as we have heard, for the Manchester airport area and in other centres where they intend to build buildings that will accommodate businesses or shops.

[Sir Edward Leigh (in the Chair)]

Order. The right hon. Lady has been speaking for 20 minutes, so I think she might bring her remarks to a close now.

[Mrs Gillan]

That is exactly what I intend to do, Sir Edward, and I am grateful for your latitude. I think everybody understands how badly Chesham and Amersham will be affected and how strongly people feel about the matter.

I do not believe that HS2 will deliver all the benefits that have been laid out, but I can see at first hand the terrible effect that it will have on my locality and the businesses there. Many commentators, including the Institute of Directors, the New Economics Foundation and the Institute of Economic Affairs, have said that the project is not the answer to economic growth. I urge the Minister to be sympathetic to my constituents and what they are going through, and to question hard whether the project is the right one. It is still not too late to look at the alternatives.

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

[Sir Edward Leigh (in the Chair)]

Order. The wind-ups will start at 20 minutes to 11.

10:11

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

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Edward. I congratulate my constituency neighbour, my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh East (Sheila Gilmore), on securing the debate, because it is important that we continue to advance the economic case for High Speed 2 as part of the wider case. I assure the right hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham (Mrs Gillan) that I am not speaking as part of any lobby, and I have not been asked by anybody else to come here. I have simply come to express what I think is important for my constituents, for my city and for Scotland and Great Britain as a whole.

From a Scottish perspective, support for high-speed rail continues to be almost universal. One or two people oppose it, but the vast majority of interest groups across different sectors support it. The Scottish Government are united with the other political parties in Scotland in supporting HS2. The Scottish partnership group for high-speed rail has a wide range of supporters, including the major local authorities in Edinburgh and Glasgow, CBI Scotland, the Scottish Chambers of Commerce, Scottish Enterprise, the Scottish TUC, Transform Scotland—an environmentally focused transport organisation—and the local transport networks. There is wide public support as well.

Those organisations clearly set out the case for high-speed rail in the UK and the benefits that it will provide to Scotland. To me, those seem self-evident, although others do not agree. There are numerous arguments, and it is not right to single out one issue as the priority, whether it be speed, capacity or modal shift, because they are all important. HS2 will provide faster journey times, increase capacity and promote modal shift from air and road to rail, and it will support and benefit businesses not only in Scotland but in the rest of the UK. All those factors together make a powerful case for HS2.

We have heard the argument that instead of spreading economic benefits throughout the country, HS2 will suck economic activity into London. As my hon. Friend the Member for Stalybridge and Hyde (Jonathan Reynolds) has pointed out, if we took that argument to its logical extreme, we would have to tear up all the existing roads and railways. Presumably, if we were to return to the days of toll roads with a turnpike every few miles and highwaymen along the road to stop us getting anywhere, it would lead to wonderful economic benefits for the rest of the country. I take that argument to its extreme to highlight the folly of the suggestion that HS2 will suck economic activity into London. Supporters of HS2 cannot simply assert that, however; we must give examples of the economic benefits that will result from the project, and recognise that some cities and some parts of the country might lose out from HS2 if it were not done in the right way. The answer is not to say “No HS2”, but to address the problems of areas that might suffer genuine negative economic consequences if high-speed rail is not introduced in the right way.

Let me outline the powerful case for HS2 from a Scottish perspective. Scotland has an important tourist industry, and many tourists come to Scotland not only by rail connections, but by road and air. Anyone who travels regularly on the routes from Scotland to the south will know that the passenger trains are already pretty busy, so tourism might be further enhanced by better, faster trains with improved capacity. Again, it is a question of people’s choices. London is and always will be a major tourist hub, and visitors to London increasingly go on to visit other places. They have to decide whether to go on, for example, to Edinburgh, Glasgow, Manchester or somewhere on the continent of Europe. If the choice is between travelling to other destinations in the UK on relatively slow routes, and travelling in Europe using better rail routes or improved air connections, visitors may well choose not to travel within the UK but to go elsewhere. The tourist industry, therefore, strongly supports HS2.

HS2 also has business consequences. It is not simply a question of speed, because modern technology allows people to work together without necessarily all being in the same place at the same time. Nevertheless, we still need to produce things that must be transported, and we still need to have business meetings, so people make choices based on the accessibility of locations to head offices and other sites of economic activity. A business that is well connected to a major economic hub—in reality, that will often be London—has a much better chance of being successful than one that is not easily accessible.

In addition to improving connections to London, it is important to improve connectivity between other cities and regions in the UK. We have heard about the benefits of faster links between cities such as Leeds, Manchester and Birmingham, and I have another example of how regional economies might benefit from high-speed rail. In Edinburgh and the south-east and east of Scotland, the strong renewables sector is an important and growing part of the economy. There is also a strong renewables cluster around the north-east of England, but although there are some connections between the two, I get the impression that they do not work together as much as they could to achieve maximum benefit. Who knows where high-speed rail might go in the future? Increased connectivity between the east of Scotland and the north-east of England would benefit that potential regional economy.

Edinburgh, in particular, has an international, outward-based economy, which depends on good air links as well as rail links. HS2 would allow travellers the option of using airports further south by providing direct links to Scotland.

[Sheila Gilmore]

Does my hon. Friend agree that even after the recession, the financial services sector remains an important part of Edinburgh’s economy, accounting for 11% of employment in the city? Does he agree that good connectivity is essential to sustain that industry and ensure that headquarters and major offices are retained in Edinburgh, rather than being drawn to other places?

[Mark Lazarowicz]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. I was about to come to that important point, so I will not repeat what she has said. As I suggested, high-speed rail stations can be important hubs and promoters of economic activity, and it will be up to local governments, communities and businesses to make the most of the opportunities that those connections offer. They will have to choose whether to view high-speed rail as a benefit, or as something that will suck prosperity away from their economy.

At the start of the railway age, towns reacted in all sorts of ways to new railway lines. Some towns chose deliberately to keep the railways away and avoid building stations, but they soon started to campaign for branch lines to reach their communities. I believe that some communities close to the route of HS1 regret choosing not to have a station and reap the benefits that we now see. That emphasises the fact that communities across the country must take the opportunities that arise from HS2, because if they do not, they will not get the benefits.

There is a question about whether HS2 could damage the economic position of certain parts of the country. If HS2 does not go from London to the midlands, the north and Scotland, those parts of the country are in great danger of becoming worse off as a result of economic developments elsewhere. If there are improved transport links from London to elsewhere in Europe and the world, but no such links going further north, those of us from communities further north will be relatively worse off. In addition to the high-speed services from London to Brussels and Paris, operators are planning direct high-speed services all the way from London to Cologne and Frankfurt, for example. If people and businesses in London have access to that high-speed link, but we are relatively worse off further north, our economic position is likely to be damaged. That is why I strongly support the argument for high-speed routes reaching Scotland as early as possible.

It would be damaging if we had the development of high speed to Birmingham, Manchester, Leeds and York, but did not take further the benefits of those connections and faster services. That is why I welcomed the announcement from the UK and Scottish Governments a few months ago of a study to look at ways to ensure that high-speed rail reaches further north to Glasgow and the rest of Scotland. I understand that the parameters for the study laid out by the Department for Transport state that all options should be considered. That could include new lines, upgrading existing lines or a combination of both. I am interested in hearing from the Minister an update on that study of the lines and connections from the end of HS2, as currently planned, on to Edinburgh and Glasgow.

[Mr MacNeil]

I am sure that the hon. Gentleman would agree that it is important to take a wider perspective on how to ensure that HS1 and HS2 interact with each other seamlessly, so that we can travel from Scotland into the wider European market without hitting the buffers in London and having to change trains there.

[Mark Lazarowicz]

That is part of the argument, and that leads me on to the issue of where work on HS2 should start. Should it be from the north or the south, or somewhere in between? I am sure that the right hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham would like it to start as far north from her as possible and never actually make it to her constituency. That might be a bit unfair, but some people do seem to have put forward the argument for starting as far north as possible so that work does not start in the south.

To me, those options do not seem to be in opposition. Work obviously cannot start everywhere at the same time, but the idea that the line must start from the south and meander until it eventually reaches the north is the wrong approach. There are no economic or technical reasons why starts on the line could not be made at more than one location. I understand that part of the difficulty has more to do with politics. I understand the wish of the Government not to have to deal with the difficulties of the HS2 route from London to Birmingham alongside the difficulties of planning the route from Birmingham to Manchester, or from Manchester to further north. It would be great if Members on both Front Benches made it clear that time would be made available to allow planning for HS2 to go further north from Birmingham, and perhaps for work to be started in Scotland and the north at the same time as in the south. That option should be back on the political agenda, and I urge the Government to consider it.

[Mr MacNeil]

It is a political reality that we probably instinctively feel to be true that if the work started in the north, it would be more likely that a bridge between the two high-speed lines would be completed than that High Speed 2 would be extended further north via High Speed 3. The pressing political and physical reality would make it more likely that a gap would be filled than an extension completed.

[Mark Lazarowicz]

I recognise that there is a strong case for work to start as soon as possible on the London to Birmingham section. There are particular capacity issues there, so I do not think that that should be left until the end. At the same time, I feel that we should be discussing trying to do more work much earlier on in the process to benefit parts of the country that are further north as well.

I have taken longer than I intended, Sir Edward, so I will try to make my last few comments as brief as possible.

[Mrs Gillan]

Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the only thing really stopping HS2 from being started in the north, and therefore from achieving the connectivity between the northern cities that they so dearly require, is the legislative timetable? It would simply be a case of stopping what we are doing on the hybrid Bill on the line between Birmingham and London, and progressing quickly with the northern connectivity. We could, for example, bring in a Bill at the back end of the year for the northern stages, which could go through Parliament first. It is a shame that we are not doing it the right way round, for the sake of a few months. We could meanwhile discover, for example, what we are going to do about airport capacity in the south.

[Mark Lazarowicz]

I do not know whether the former Minister, the right hon. Member for Chelmsford (Mr Burns), who is commenting quietly at the right hon. Lady’s side, wants to intervene, but it is not my position that we should stop what we are doing with HS2; we should be developing and bringing forward plans for the next stages of the line.

[Mr Simon Burns]

I will be brief. The fact is that one cannot do that and gain time, because there are so many set procedures to follow before we could produce a hybrid Bill. For example, all the environmental impact assessments must be carried out, as well as consultations, and time must be taken over coming to conclusions. It is pie in the sky to think that we could wave a wand and reverse the process without losing about four years.

[Mark Lazarowicz]

I am not suggesting that the process should be reversed. Others are obviously much more expert on the issue, but my point is that I do not see why we have to wait until 2033 for the lines to reach Manchester and York, and then perhaps 10 or 15 years beyond that for them to reach Edinburgh and Glasgow. The Government and Ministers should address that point, as should politicians from all parties who support HS2; we should try to make things happen as soon as possible.

[Mr MacNeil]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Mark Lazarowicz]

I will give way, but it has to be the last time.

[Mr MacNeil]

I am very grateful to the hon. Gentleman. Given the time scale he mentioned—up to 2033—and the wait, does he agree that Barnett consequentials are also important to the debate?

[Mark Lazarowicz]

I will have to leave that point.

I will make some final points as briefly as possible. First, one strong argument for committing to high-speed routes as well as high-speed trains going to Scotland is that the economic case for the entire line is improved if Scotland is linked into the process at an early stage. That point has been made by other people, and I strongly endorse it.

My second point is about the economic benefits of the line, not just in the long term, but in the construction phase, as a direct consequence of engineering and construction. The Government must assure people like me that they are making every effort to ensure that the benefits are spread as far as possible throughout the country. A document on HS2 was recently produced, I think by the Department for Transport, that emphasised how Crossrail had brought a wide range of job benefits to large parts of the country. If one looks at the chart in that document, the vast majority of the benefits, perhaps unsurprisingly, were focused around the Crossrail route and south-east England. Hardly any benefits from construction, engineering and knock-on consequences reached further north. The Government must ensure that a major effort is made to make sure that the indirect benefits from the construction phase—jobs and employment—reach the entire country.

Finally, I have a question for the Minister about the further education college that has been proposed to provide trained workers for the high-speed line. I recognise that the college must be based somewhere, but all its activities need not be based around one location; nor must they take place at just one physical college. That initiative should be aimed at ensuring that the job benefits from the construction phase of HS2 are spread as far as possible throughout the country. I suggest to the Minister that it would be worth while to enter into discussions with the Scottish Government at an early stage, so that there could perhaps be a linked initiative in Scotland to provide similar benefits to the section of the HS2 line that I hope will be promoted by both the UK and Scottish Governments at a relatively early stage. In that way, we too can see the jobs benefits, as well as the longer-term economic benefits, of HS2, for which I think the case is very strong.

[Sir Edward Leigh (in the Chair)]

The three speeches so far have lasted 20 minutes, 20 minutes and 17 minutes. I am afraid that Members’ speeches are going to have to be a bit more high-speed.

10:29

[Mr Simon Burns (Chelmsford) (Con)]

I certainly will be more high-speed, Sir Edward. I congratulate the hon. Member for Edinburgh East (Sheila Gilmore) on securing this important debate. It is refreshing to have the opportunity to discuss the positive impacts of High Speed 2 and the benefits that it will bring to many areas of the country. I have considerable sympathy for my right hon. Friend the Member for Chesham and Amersham (Mrs Gillan), because I appreciate that there is tremendous pressure against the scheme in Buckinghamshire. However, benefits will also come to her constituency, although not in the same way as to Manchester, Birmingham or other areas along the line of route.

The most important thing about High Speed 2 is that high-speed rail is the future. We already have an example of high-speed rail in this country in High Speed 1, which runs through Kent and London. The benefits that it has brought to the economy of Kent in particular have been immeasurable, so it is not that we are talking about this while looking at a completely blank canvas; we know the potential benefits and impact of a high-speed rail system in this country.

There is an air of déjà vu about the criticism of High Speed 2. Like you, Sir Edward, I was in the House in 1987, 1988 and 1989, when legislation for High Speed 1 was going through Parliament. I vividly remember colleagues with constituencies in Kent talking about how it would be the end of the world and would destroy Kent and its economy while bringing it no benefits. Of course, since then, High Speed 1 has been built and is up and running. It has brought considerable benefits to Kent, particularly around Ashford and Ebbsfleet, where the stations are, to the point that Kent county council, which, along with Kent’s MPs, was opposed root and branch to High Speed 1, is offering to talk to county councils along the line of route of High Speed 2 to explain to them why it was wrong in its opposition, and what benefits high-speed rail brings.

Unfortunately, the county of Buckinghamshire does not wish to participate in any discussions with Kent. I am sure that if my right hon. Friend the Member for Chesham and Amersham tried to persuade Kent county council, it would benefit by having some of its fears allayed.

[Mrs Gillan]

Will my right hon. Friend give way?

[Mr Burns]

I will, briefly, but then I will not give way again, due to the shortness of time.

[Mrs Gillan]

I would be grateful if my right hon. Friend confirmed who made that offer to whom and when, and what meeting was turned down. I happen to know that the chairman of Buckinghamshire county council, Councillor Martin Tett, has put tremendous effort into considering HS2 and all the alternatives. Indeed, “Better than HS2” is a strategy produced by 51m, which is headed by Buckinghamshire county council. I cannot believe that he would refuse to talk to anybody.

[Mr Burns]

I suggest that my right hon. Friend has a word with Councillor Tett; as he is a constituent of hers, it should not be difficult for her to contact him. Certainly, when I talked to officials at Kent county council as a Minister, they made it quite clear that they were more than happy to talk to county councils, and officials there told me that Buckinghamshire was reluctant to engage in any meetings with them on the subject.

On the economic benefits, the most important thing is capacity. Faster speeds for the rail network are important, but so is capacity. The west coast main line will reach its full capacity by 2024-25. Given that it is the spine of the country up to Scotland, and that we need those communications for passengers and freight, it is crucial that we relieve that capacity. People in Buckinghamshire and parts of London will say, “It brings no benefit to us.” Of course it will bring benefit to them as well. Although High Speed 2 will not stop in Buckinghamshire, the released capacity on the conventional west coast line that goes through Buckinghamshire and other related conventional lines will ensure that passengers using those lines to commute to London will have more capacity and a better journey experience, because others who might otherwise have been on those conventional trains travelling to London will be using the high-speed line.

High Speed 2 will also give eight of the 10 largest cities in England far greater connectivity, as was said by the hon. Members for Edinburgh East, and for Stalybridge and Hyde (Jonathan Reynolds). That is crucial. As the experience of Kent has shown, it will also create jobs through the actual building of the railways and through increased business activity, particularly around stations, whether at Birmingham, outside Sheffield, at Manchester, or elsewhere where there might be stations. The figures that I have seen, which some people would say are on the conservative side, suggest that 100,000 extra jobs will be created, although a conglomeration of local authorities has come up with the bolder suggestion of 400,000 jobs. Equally importantly, 70% of the economic benefits of the project are expected to be seen outside London, although obviously parts of London will benefit from the project.

I would like to mention the KPMG report. I know that people who do not support High Speed 2 rubbish it, but people like me who do support the project have a more open and reasonable approach to it. According to the report, when High Speed 2 is up and running to Leeds and Manchester, the annual benefit to the economy is anticipated to be in the region of £15 billion a year. Of course, as was said, some businesses and jobs may well be pulled away from other areas. That is part of economic life, but it does not mean that we should not allow a project that will bring a potential £15 billion a year in improvement to the economy once it is up and running. People must be careful about rubbishing a report that shows the potential for job creation, increased and enhanced economic development and growth, and an improvement in the growth abilities of our economy as a whole.

I believe also that we must embrace high-speed rail beyond Leeds and Manchester. That is why I am so pleased that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport, along with the Under-Secretary of State for Transport, my hon. Friend the Member for Scarborough and Whitby (Mr Goodwill), set up a project in October 2012 to examine the benefits of extending a phase 3 into Scotland, to Glasgow and Edinburgh. Personally, freed from ministerial responsibility, I believe that that is an important next stage for High Speed 2. I also see HS2 as a spine. In time, when there is a business case and financial resources available, it should have spurs to other parts of the country that could benefit economically. The areas that come to mind as potential candidates for a continuation of High Speed 2 are Liverpool, south Wales and the south-west of England.

[Mr MacNeil]

Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

[Mr Burns]

I will, but very briefly, as my time is almost up.

[Mr MacNeil]

May I add to that a plea for Inverness and Aberdeen, and for the integration of Scotland into the high-speed European network as well?

[Mr Burns]

The hon. Gentleman makes an extremely valid point. That is what is so exciting about the project’s potential throughout the whole United Kingdom. In conclusion—

[Mark Lazarowicz]

Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

[Mr Burns]

No, because I really must allow the shadow Minister and the Minister to begin their winding-up speeches.

There are people who oppose the project root and branch because it will be built in or near their communities; I have considerable sympathy for them, because the building phases are difficult and can be upsetting in cases where people’s property is affected. I hope that once the Government conclude their consultations and consideration, the compensation scheme will be fair and generous. With any project on this scale, there will be difficulties, and some properties and some areas will be adversely affected. One has to balance those problems with the national interest, and to my mind, the benefit to the nation—the economic benefits that will be brought to the nation, and to people, business and commerce in this country—is so overwhelming that we cannot afford not to move forward on this project.

10:39

[Lilian Greenwood (Nottingham South) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship today, Sir Edward.

I begin by congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh East (Sheila Gilmore) on securing this important debate. A constant champion of the railways in this Parliament, her speech this morning exemplified both the passion and the attention to detail that she brings to discussions of rail issues.

I think that all right hon. and hon. Members would agree that the exponential growth in passenger demand now poses a serious challenge for our railways. We have debated the causes of that growth at length before and I do not propose to revisit those arguments today, but it is a fact that passenger demand has doubled in the last 20 years and we are now accommodating the same number of passengers as there were in the 1920s on a network less than half the size it was then. That growth has continued through periods of infrastructure disruption and even through recession. Technology is making it easier for people to travel and young people are now the group who are most predisposed to travel by rail.

Passenger numbers grew by 7.3% at the start of last year compared with the first quarter of 2012, and across the network conflicts between inter-city, commuter and freight trains are common as competing grades of traffic jostle for scarce paths. As my hon. Friend spelled out, some sections are already approaching the limits of their capacity, especially on the west coast main line, where the number of trains being run has doubled during the past 15 years, leading Network Rail to warn that the line will effectively be full by 2024. All this has happened despite the west coast route modernisation project, which cost £9 billion and caused enormous disruption over a period of 12 years without delivering the long-term capacity benefits that we as a country need.

I have full sympathy with right hon. and hon. Members and local authorities who represent communities served by the west coast main line, and they have made it clear that they have no wish to relive the experience. Unfortunately, the heavy demands on the line mean that expensive periods of disruption continue. In 2014, there are three planned closures of the line in the Watford area alone, which means that the southern end of the line will be closed for most of August as track and signalling is replaced. Such closures require sizeable compensation payments to train operators—Network Rail puts the cost for such works on the west coast main line at 18% of its overall budget—and cause delays and inconvenience to businesses and individual passengers, the costs of which are much more difficult to quantify.

Consequently, before I talk about the economic case for HS2, we should consider the economic impacts of inaction. Commuter trains could be cut as train paths are reassigned to more profitable long-distance trains—a process familiar to transport planners and passengers in the west midlands. In the most extreme cases, some smaller stations in Staffordshire were closed while the west coast main line was being modernised, and they have not reopened. Thousands of passengers are already being left standing on their morning commute, not only on routes into London but on the approaches to Birmingham, Manchester, Leeds and Sheffield. In addition, growing congestion on the lines hits resilience and reliability, undermining rail’s traditional advantage over other modes of travel. A consequence of the growing number of services provided is that journey times have not improved on most of the main lines, and in many cases have got worse in the past 20 years. Even after the intercity express programme trains are introduced on the east coast main line, a number of important long-distance journeys will still take the same time as they did in 1991.

There is a clear need for capacity improvements, and as the British Chambers of Commerce has said:

“Future business success depends on infrastructure networks that meet demand. Rail is no exception. The UK rail network must have the capacity to meet rocketing business demand - for long-distance services, for commuter rail services, and for the transport of freight.”

That was why Lord Adonis, when he was Transport Secretary in the last Labour Government, developed proposals for a new north-south line.

[Mr MacNeil]

Will the hon. Member give way?

[Lilian Greenwood]

No. I will not take an intervention at the moment.

As my hon. Friend the Member for Wakefield (Mary Creagh) said on Third Reading of the High Speed Rail (Preparation) Bill:

“High Speed 2 is a project that is in the national interest.”—[Official Report, 31 October 2013; Vol. 569, c. 1179.]

That is why Labour supports HS2 to meet our north-south capacity requirements and provide the connections between the core cities that our regional economies need to thrive.

In that respect, I am happy to declare an interest as an east midlands MP. There are relatively good links from Nottingham to London, which are due to be strengthened by electrification of the midland main line, but our inadequate rail connections to Birmingham and Leeds hold back growth. As the right hon. Member for Chelmsford (Mr Burns) said, increasing capacity is vital, but so are connectivity and journey time improvements. It can take two hours to travel from Nottingham to Leeds by rail, but with HS2 that journey time would be cut by two thirds. Although it is important that we continue to invest in our existing network—the budgets published up to 2020-21 show that investment is not being diverted from conventional lines—high-speed rail will bring real improvements for journeys between cities outside London.

It is important to stress that communities away from the high-speed rail stations also stand to benefit, as more local services can be run on the conventional network. The right hon. Gentleman drew attention to people’s experience of HS1 in Kent. Similarly, compatible trains will run off the new high-speed rail line, enabling faster journey times and direct connections to the new network. I draw hon. Members’ attention to Network Rail’s “Better Connections” report, which examined how additional services can be provided. We need to see more of this sort of work from both Network Rail and local bodies, who should be emboldened as they plan how to maximise the benefits of HS2 as part of the transport devolution agenda.

When the High Speed Rail (Preparation) Bill was in Committee, we took evidence from two academics who both agreed that regional benefits would depend on the quality of the local plans that were put in place, so my first question to the Minister is: what steps is he taking to encourage transport authorities that are not on the immediate high-speed rail route to plan for HS2? We have already seen how high-speed rail can be a catalyst for regeneration in west London. Plans have been outlined by Queens Park Rangers football club to relocate to Old Oak Common in order to create a new 40,000-seat stadium, a project that the developers say will support 24,000 new houses. In Birmingham, the city council has said that the arrival of HS2

“presents a huge opportunity to breathe new life”

into the Eastside area. The new station is planned to be at Curzon Street, which was the original terminus of the first London to Birmingham railway and which last saw long-distance services in the 1850s. If the planners get the design and the connections right, the reborn Curzon Street station promises to be the jewel in the crown of Birmingham Eastside’s rejuvenation. Centro, the west midlands transport authority, has developed a wide-ranging plan for integrating high-speed rail with its Metro system, commuter rail lines and bus services.

My hon. Friends the Members for Edinburgh North and Leith (Mark Lazarowicz) and for Stalybridge and Hyde (Jonathan Reynolds) have touched on the importance of the HS2 line for Edinburgh and Manchester, and as an east midlands MP I can point to other examples of how HS2 can act as a spur to investment. A recent report by consultants Volterra found that development in the immediate vicinity of the planned station at Toton could build 650 to 875 houses and support up to 1,500 administrative jobs. However, more can be done to promote jobs and skills. Can the Minister update us on how many apprenticeships have now been created by HS2, both directly and indirectly? Also, will he commit to the target of creating an apprenticeship for every £1 million spent on the project, as my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition has called for?

[Mr MacNeil]

Will the hon. Member give way?

[Lilian Greenwood]

I will not give way as I have very limited time to speak.

We heard this morning that the Business Secretary has announced plans for a new further education college to educate the work force we need to build HS2. That is welcome news, but we want a proper jobs and skills strategy. Last year, during the evidence sessions for the High Speed Rail (Preparation) Bill, we were told that that document was being prepared. Can the Minister tell us when it will be published? As he knows, the current Crossrail project has begun to train a new generation of highly skilled workers, and a plan must be in place for the HS2 project too.

Labour successfully amended the High Speed Rail (Preparation) Bill to make the Government account for the number of vocational qualifications gained each year. Another Labour amendment that was accepted will compel the Government to account for any underspending or overspending in the project’s annual budget. I note that the Minister’s colleague in the Lords, Baroness Kramer, described the process that we put in place as

“a very vigorous reporting process under which the Government must report back annually and record any deviation from budget, and the consequences of that…which has put in place a very intense scrutiny process around the budget.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 19 November 2013; Vol. 749, c. 949.]

I am glad that Labour successfully wrote a “vigorous reporting process” into the primary legislation, but the truth is that the Government should have got a grip on escalating costs since the election.

The right hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham (Mrs Gillan) rightly raised concerns on behalf of her constituents about the uncertainty about compensation after the Government’s initial consultation was deemed to be unfair—

[Sir Edward Leigh (in the Chair)]

Order. Will the hon. Lady bring her speech to a conclusion?

[Lilian Greenwood]

Certainly, Sir Edward. It is in the interests of the wider rail network, regional economies and the nation as a whole for the project to succeed. That is why I am proud to support it and why Labour wants to see HS2 delivered on time and within budget.

10:50

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Mr Robert Goodwill)]

As ever, it is a joy to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Edward. I thank the hon. Member for Edinburgh East (Sheila Gilmore) for securing this morning’s debate and everyone else for their most useful contributions. I will try to address some of the large number of questions asked.

To respond to the speech of my right hon. Friend the Member for Chesham and Amersham (Mrs Gillan), we are well aware that there are real concerns about not only the environment, but people’s property and businesses, in the areas through which the line will be driven. We have done as much as is reasonably possible to avoid or reduce environmental impacts. We will, for example, provide more than 150 miles of tunnels and cuttings, make extensive use of sound barriers and plant a total of 4 million trees along the line of route. In my right hon. Friend’s constituency, 77% of the line will be tunnelled and the rest will be in a cutting, which is a great achievement that she has managed to secure for her constituents, who will understand how she campaigned to secure it.

[Mrs Gillan]

I am grateful for the Minister’s kind acknowledgement of the work that I and others have put in. Will he assure me that he will not rule out at this stage looking at mole tunnelling further to protect the area of outstanding natural beauty, which environmental organisations in my constituency have forcefully proposed?

[Mr Goodwill]

The hybrid Bill process, which we hope to commence this year, will provide an opportunity for those who want to make representations. As I say, however, 77% of the line in my right hon. Friend’s constituency will already be in a tunnel.

My right hon. Friend also referred to the KPMG report. HS2 will of course not serve all areas of the UK, which is reflected in the figures, and the benefits will naturally be greater in the places directly served by the line. Of course, the analysis does not include the benefits of other investments to boost the transport system. Indeed, the Government will invest £73 billion in the next Parliament, of which only £17 billion will be spent on HS2 and which will help the places not being served by HS2, particularly those in the north of England.

[Lilian Greenwood]

Does the Minister accept the Select Committee on Transport’s recommendation that the Department, HS2 Ltd and Network Rail work together on identifying potential high-speed Britain projects that might be included in the next control period for transport spending?

[Mr Goodwill]

It is vital that other investment happens in both rail and road infrastructure and that account is taken of how that will dovetail with High Speed 2. HS2 will also free up capacity on the existing classic network to allow services to places such as Blackpool or Shrewsbury and, most importantly, for more freight, which many people have missed. Moving freight off the roads and on to rail will free up capacity on our roads.

The hon. Member for Nottingham South (Lilian Greenwood) mentioned apprenticeships. It is envisaged that HS2 will create up to 2,000 apprenticeships during its construction. I was pleased to be with Sir David Higgins and other Ministers at Old Oak Common this morning, when the further education college that will focus on the skills necessary for HS2 was announced. Several locations have been proposed, and I will take on board the suggestion made by the hon. Member for Edinburgh North and Leith (Mark Lazarowicz).

I believe passionately in a successful Britain and in a country that can compete and thrive in the global economy. To achieve that, we need infrastructure that is fit for the 21st century and beyond. Nowhere is that truer than in the context of transport, which is a key enabler of economic growth. Good transport equals good economic conditions. An important way to support British business, to power up the recovery and to put people back in work is to invest in and modernise our transport networks. Growth and prosperity are created by businesses and people having ideas, taking risks, innovating, working hard and creating jobs. A balanced and successful economy requires modern and efficient infrastructure. The Government’s role is to help create the conditions for success by fostering the security, skills and infrastructure that support our economy. By delivering additional capacity and enhanced connectivity, transport infrastructure allows businesses to grow and work together and to access a wide range of customers, suppliers and skilled labour. Business investment is encouraged by the quality of transport links, influencing the decisions of international companies on where to locate and, in turn, increasing investment in the UK.

Transport infrastructure has particular economic significance for UK cities. In 2009, London and the core cities of Birmingham, Bristol, Leeds, Liverpool, Manchester, Newcastle, Nottingham and Sheffield, together with their wider urban areas, contributed almost 50% of UK GDP. The core cities deliver 27% of the UK’s GDP and need to be better connected to thrive and achieve higher levels of growth if they are to close the performance gap between the south-east and the rest of the country—the so-called north-south divide.

Major infrastructure investments like HS2 stand apart from many other decisions made by the public and private sector. They affect the lives of generations of citizens and last centuries, not decades, which makes it important that we make the right decision. In proposing HS2, the Government are firmly convinced that we are investing in a solution that is right for the future economic development of the country, and I am pleased that we have such widespread cross-party support.

HS2 is a transformational project that will enhance rail capacity, connectivity and reliability, helping to underpin economic growth. It will provide the spine for a truly national network, connecting seamlessly to the existing rail network, serving destinations not directly on the high-speed line, releasing capacity on the existing main north-south lines to enable additional commuter, regional or freight services to use the line and freeing up more space on existing trains. It will provide a step change in the capacity of the rail network to accommodate the growing demand for long-distance travel. Our transport system is already under strain, as we have heard today, and will only get worse as demand continues to grow. Alongside the £73 billion that the Government will invest in all forms of transport by 2021, HS2 will help us get ahead of current demand on our core transport network.

HS2 will slash journey times for passengers between our key cities and regions: London to Birmingham will take just 49 minutes, London to Manchester just 1 hour 8 minutes, and London to Leeds just 1 hour 23 minutes. The hon. Member for Edinburgh East knows the current journey times between Edinburgh and London all too well. Scotland will benefit from high-speed services from the moment that HS2 opens. The Y network allows for the seamless transition of trains on to the east and west coast main lines and is expected to slash the journey times between Edinburgh and Glasgow to London by up to an hour, which will benefit the Scottish economy by some £3 billion.

Scotland is an important part of the United Kingdom, and we must not be swayed by those who propose dangerous alternatives. In November last year, the Secretary of State for Transport announced further work into rail capacity and connectivity in Scotland and between Scotland and England. The study’s objective is to identify the broad options available and to provide the evidence base for any future decisions. Work is ongoing and a draft report will be ready in time for the summer recess.

We have taken steps to ensure that the economic opportunities presented by a scheme as transformational as HS2 are fully exploited. The HS2 growth taskforce, ably led by Lord Deighton, has a relentless focus on maximising the economic growth potential of HS2. Lord Deighton was also at Old Oak Common today to see the potential in that part of London. HS2 will be the biggest infrastructure project in Europe and will have a significant direct impact on local jobs, particularly in engineering and construction. Independent research predicts that HS2 is capable of directly generating up to 22,000 jobs in the next five years, rising to a maximum of 50,000 jobs by the late 2020s. In addition, HS2 will support over 100,000 jobs. Phase 1 will create 40,000 jobs in the midlands and London and phase 2 will create at least 60,000 jobs in the midlands and the north. We recognise that the benefits will not just fall into our lap, and the role of the growth taskforce is to identify the work that must be done in advance to ensure that we capture the full potential of this investment for the UK.

In conclusion, HS2, coupled with the record investments we are making in existing transport, is the right solution to the transport challenges that we face. It is about a step change in capacity and connectivity for passengers. It is about unlocking the potential of our major cities and regions, supporting jobs and driving growth. It is about building a dynamic society, a thriving economy and a successful Britain. HS2 is not just a viable proposition for a new railway; it is so much more than a piece of transport infrastructure.

South Sudan

Tuesday 14th January 2014 Westminster Hall

11:00

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

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship once again, Sir Edward, and to have secured this important debate on the humanitarian tragedy that is continuing to unfold in the world’s newest state, South Sudan. I am grateful to members of the associate all-party group for the Republic of Sudan and South Sudan, which I chair, who have supported this debate and are present.

In less than two years of statehood, South Sudan has experienced an unprecedented shock to its national income; its gross domestic product fell by nearly 250% in 2012, at the height of the dispute between South Sudan and Sudan over oil charges and compensation. There has been some progress since then on what have been generally dismal indicators on health, maternal mortality rates, mortality during childbirth and education. In that respect, the past four weeks have been a tragic and massive step backwards.

When members of the associate all-party group, including me, visited Juba and Lakes state in April 2012, we saw at first hand the challenges and the great opportunities before the new state of South Sudan. We heard of the problems in bringing together a cross-tribal, cross-community Government able to function efficiently in order to alleviate hunger and educate the country’s children. We heard of the need to adopt a genuinely pluralist constitution that provides for the accountability of the state to its citizens and of the Government to Parliament. We listened to the complex issues regarding the future of Abyei state and the need to resolve the continuing border problems with Khartoum.

We witnessed the positive effects that investment by the Department for International Development and its partners in the United States and France, through the UN, is having on the economic empowerment of women and the attempts to rebalance the economy in favour of agricultural production, which the rich foliage, particularly in the southern parts of the country, strongly promotes. We experienced for ourselves the problems of a country that has only 60 km of paved roads and, in many respects, a very weak—in many states, non-existent—infrastructure. We saw the intense difficulty that that causes to farmers in getting their goods to market and in distributing seeds and other agricultural products from the capital out to the other states. We also met farmers who had fled to Uganda during the earlier civil war and were making painstaking efforts to rebuild their businesses and their lives on land that had been returned to them after that civil war ended.

I will not forget the huge numbers of female fruit and vegetable growers north of Rumbek, in Lakes state, who greeted us when we visited their UN World Food Programme-supported plantation. They were all wearing T-shirts proclaiming: “Marriage can wait, women’s right to education first.” I asked one of them how many children she had, and she told me 12. She was determined to make a success of the agricultural co-operative, so that her children would have something that she had been denied: the right to an education. It is tragic that the avoidable humanitarian situation is putting at risk all that essential work in one of the poorest countries on earth. The avoidable political instability, the internal displacement and the tribal conflict that is being stoked up for political ends, or to settle old scores, mean that the extraordinary work of many such women, who are empowered in South Sudan’s economy for the first time, and of the UN and the United Kingdom in carefully supporting such programmes, runs the risk of being lost.

The conflict could not have come at a worse time. The planting of crops is due to take place next month. The rainy season in South Sudan is due to begin in April and May. In that period, 60% of the country will be inaccessible by road, and many parts will be accessible only by air. The country struggled to cope with spiralling food security problems in 2011 and 2012—nearly 4 million people were threatened by hunger in that period—and the risk is that the situation will get worse in the spring if agreement cannot be reached between the Government and their Opposition.

Nearly two years ago, the biggest humanitarian challenge in South Sudan was the returning refugees who had spent many years in Sudan and were returning to their former homeland in the south without jobs to go to or the means of ensuring a livelihood in the future. Additionally, the current conflict means that there are up to 400,000 displaced South Sudanese nationals, with some 50,000 having fled into neighbouring states. The UN estimates that between 3,000 and 4,000 people a day are fleeing South Sudan into neighbouring Uganda. The violence is having a tragic and serious impact on the region.

[Alison McGovern (Wirral South) (Lab)]

Is my hon. Friend aware of this morning’s news reports that more than 200 people appear to have perished in a ferry accident while fleeing the fighting? Does that not show the absolute desperation of the terrible situation that the South Sudanese face?

[Mr Bain]

My hon. Friend is right to draw the House’s attention to the growing disaster. The UN’s best estimate is that 10,000 people have lost their lives in the conflict in the past month alone. As we know, the impact of conflict is always felt most profoundly by the most vulnerable. Women and children in South Sudan are bearing a particularly harsh burden in a conflict that is not of their making. The UN has also said that health facilities in many states of South Sudan are already beginning to creak at the margins. There are shortages of blood and transfusion supplies. There is one hospital at which 192 patients are awaiting surgery pending blood becoming available. That is the scale of the crisis that the violence is beginning to produce among the weakest in South Sudanese society.

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

Is not a serious development the fact that refugees are now moving to surrounding countries, such as Uganda, Kenya, Ethiopia and, of course, Sudan? That is putting further pressure on those countries, and further exacerbating the difficulty of getting humanitarian support to people who are now dispersed over a wide area.

[Mr Bain]

My hon. Friend is entirely correct that that is making the job of the UN Mission in South Sudan even harder. An added burden is also being placed on the mission, as a number of refugees are fleeing into neighbouring states.

The conflict has exacted a deadly toll. The International Crisis Group estimates that some 10,000 people have already perished in the conflict. Mass graves are being discovered, and humanitarian access is limited in conflict areas, with battle having spread to seven of South Sudan’s 10 states. The very real prospect is that the final number of deceased may be even higher.

The source of the renewed political instability in South Sudan is the aftermath of President Kiir’s Cabinet reshuffle last July, when Vice-President Machar was removed from his posts—along with the secretary-general of the governing Sudan People’s Liberation Movement, Pagan Amum, and others—after Riek Machar issued a public challenge to President Kiir and indicated his desire for a leadership contest. The President then announced the dissolution of all internal Sudan People’s Liberation Movement party structures in November. That step was described by his internal critics as unconstitutional. There was a walk-out by the Opposition at the national liberation council on 15 December, and fighting began later that day between factions of the presidential guard in Juba, spreading to other parts of the armed forces in the following days. That violence has now become ethnic in nature, and has led to as many as 60,000 people seeking refuge in the South Sudanese compounds of the United Nations Mission in South Sudan, particularly those in the capital, Juba.

The conflict has spread to the other states in South Sudan, with former Vice-President Machar declaring it an armed rebellion. There is now evidence that the armed forces are splitting along ethnic and tribal lines. There has been prolonged fighting over the city of Bor, with control switching between the forces loyal to the President and those loyal to Machar. There have been harrowing accounts of ethnic killings in Jonglei, along with the deaths of two UN peacekeepers. The obvious consequences of that are that non-governmental organisations’ staff and others have had to be evacuated from the country, making an already difficult humanitarian situation even worse and reducing access.

Some of the international responses have been welcome. The Intergovernmental Authority on Development has dispatched a delegation of Foreign Ministers to Juba. The African Union is now engaged, and talks are continuing in Addis Ababa to try to find a resolution. While that happens, people continue to die and women and children are facing a terrible humanitarian position. Can the Minister update the House on how many areas of South Sudan are open to humanitarian access? We need to ensure that the South Sudan crisis response plan is fulfilled, and that the shortfall of $106 million to meet the immediate needs in the crisis is contributed to by supportive Governments. I welcome the fact that DFID has allocated a further £12.5 million to help deal with the crisis, but can she say what representations have been made to other Governments to help to meet our collective responsibilities as an international community to the many hundreds of thousands of people at risk?

There is a wider question about the UNMISS mandate. After the UN Security Council passed a resolution in late December, extra troops were promised to provide a peacekeeping function in South Sudan. Will the Minister state what the latest intelligence is on when those troops will be deployed, in which states and with what remit? Will it be to support food supply lines? Will it be to support hospitals and schools? What will be the function of those additional troops?

A wider question has to be asked on the future of the United Nations Mission in South Sudan. Questions have been asked about its capacity to provide security in that country. When we visited in 2012, there was already tension between dealing with the day-to-day alleviation of hunger and deprivation, and longer-term development objectives. Is it the view of the Minister and the Government that those two functions are still compatible, or does the crisis mean that a review of UNMISS’s mandate in South Sudan should be considered? There are also issues with the perceptions that some in South Sudan have of UNMISS. How can the international community act to overcome that, and to ensure cross-community, cross-tribal confidence in what UNMISS is doing?

My sense is of a state that has had an enormously difficult start in its birth and early years. My sense in visiting the country was of a state that has enormous capacity to supply economic benefits and be the bread basket of central Africa, but it badly needs support from the rest of the world to establish an effective system of governance that gives proper democratic rights under a permanent constitution, that observes the normal relationship between the armed forces and the people, that allows democracy to come to the fore, and that has a mechanism to resolve the territorial disputes between South Sudan and Sudan.

My other strong sense is that a process of reconciliation has to happen. It was necessary before the conflict, and it will be even more necessary now. I wonder what our country, with its hugely important diplomatic heritage in Sudan, South Sudan and the entire region, can do together with other countries, such as the United States, China and our other partners, to ensure that a proper process of reconciliation can take place once this conflict has been resolved.

[Mark Durkan (Foyle) (SDLP)]

In exactly that regard, and in the current terrible context, does my hon. Friend agree that it is important that as humanitarian aid is directed into South Sudan, Governments and foreign donors make a point of trying to ensure continuing engagement and support for national civil society organisations and faith networks, so that they can maintain their fabric and ethics and underpin that course for reconciliation?

[Mr Bain]

My hon. Friend is absolutely correct, because the sense of anyone visiting Juba and the outlying states in South Sudan is that civic society—non-governmental organisations—largely constitutes the means of delivering health, education and other services to the people in those areas. Those groups are critical in rebuilding the country, particularly after this hugely devastating conflict, and in securing the international community’s development goals for the area.

It is clear that we have to document the human rights abuses and violations of international humanitarian law committed in the past few weeks. Those responsible for any violations have to be held to account. What is the Government’s view on dealing with that situation when the conflict comes to an end? Will the Government be prepared to call for the reinvigoration of the national peace and reconciliation committee to bring people together? That committee should reflect the diversity of South Sudan society and encourage further nation-building initiatives.

In conclusion, South Sudan has had a tragic first two years of its life. We have a strong history in the area: this country has contributed enormously to the improvement of the diplomatic situation in Sudan and what is now South Sudan over the past few decades. We and the rest of the international community cannot walk away from this issue; people look to us for leadership. I hope that in replying to the debate, the Minister will show that the United Kingdom is prepared to offer that leadership on a devastating and tragic situation.

11:18

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

It is a pleasure, Sir Edward, to serve under your chairmanship. I thank the hon. Member for Glasgow North East (Mr Bain) for securing this extremely important debate. As chair of the associate all-party group for the Republic of Sudan and South Sudan, his experience and knowledge is huge. His was a powerful exposition of the situation in South Sudan, and I thank him for that.

The UK is deeply concerned—I am deeply concerned—by the terrible violence in South Sudan that began on 15 December 2013. We have been at the forefront of humanitarian and political efforts. Conflict is continuing in parts of the country and there are large numbers of reported deaths. The ethnic dimension, which the hon. Gentleman mentioned, of some attacks is deeply worrying. We have been calling on all sides to ensure protection of civilians and respect for human rights. We are urging the leaders on both sides to remain engaged in the talks led by the Intergovernmental Authority on Development and to agree on the immediate cessation of hostilities while pursuing a sustainable political solution to the crisis, rather than continuing to seek resolution through military means.

South Sudan is close to my heart. It was the first country that I visited when I took up my post. I saw an 18 month-old country full of optimism, hope, possibility and potential. It was undeveloped and there were huge needs and challenges—but it was all there. It is heartbreaking to think how much of a setback the current situation will be and to wonder how any good things can continue. Even before the crisis, as the hon. Gentleman said, South Sudan had one of the largest humanitarian emergencies in the world, with a complex mix of needs, including refugees—more than 225,000 are Sudanese. I went to the camps on the border of Blue Nile and South Kordofan, and refugees were pouring across the border. As the hon. Gentleman said, there are no roads, and we had to go by helicopter. It is a logistical nightmare, particularly in the rainy season, when everything becomes inaccessible.

South Sudan, a poor, young and vulnerable country, already faced immense challenges, and now it has deep difficulties, including internal displacement of people, populations affected by floods, returnees from Sudan and a large population affected by chronic, severe food insecurity. Those pre-existing issues have not gone away, but the response is being disrupted directly in areas affected by the current crisis, and indirectly elsewhere, as a result of disruption of supply routes and markets, and the evacuation of humanitarian agency staff. In addition, the humanitarian situation that has developed as a direct result of the conflict is extremely urgent. We estimate that there are more than 350,000 displaced people within South Sudan, with large numbers in UN bases, and an additional 50,000 people have been displaced to bordering countries—the majority to Uganda. Many are in acute need of food, health care, shelter, clean water, sanitation and protection, and we are concerned about reports of the conditions in which some displaced people are living, including in UN camps. Thousands of people are yet to receive any humanitarian assistance, and remain fearful for their safety and that of their families.

The hon. Member for Wirral South (Alison McGovern) spoke about the people who were on a boat on the Nile and, sadly, drowned. People are swimming across the Nile trying to escape their dreadful situation, because it is better than staying. Aid agencies are doing a tremendous job in reaching those in need, where security allows. The ability to provide assistance remains severely constrained because of the fragile security situation and subsequent lack of humanitarian actors on the ground. Without progress on the security front, aid efforts will remain inadequate, especially in the areas worst affected by conflict, such as the town of Bor in Jonglei state.

The humanitarian crisis remains our priority and the focus of our efforts. Our existing significant humanitarian programme—more than £60 million in 2013—has put us on the front foot in responding to the crisis with the redeployment of funds to ensure a rapid response. DFID is supporting the efforts of aid agencies through direct funding and by supporting logistics. On 30 December the Secretary of State announced a further £12.5 million commitment to provide immediate supplies and support to key organisations operating in South Sudan, including the International Committee of the Red Cross and UN agencies. That package of support will provide emergency medical treatment for thousands of people, clean water to 5,000 people and tents for 7,500 people who have fled their homes, including family-sized tents which provide women, girls and young children with some privacy and a safe space. That issue was raised, rightly, and it is a priority for DFID. The support package will also support the logistics of the humanitarian effort, through support to the UN’s humanitarian air service, which airlifts aid workers and humanitarian supplies to those in need across the country. On 5 January a UK-funded emergency relief flight carrying life-saving water and sanitation equipment landed in South Sudan to avert a potential health crisis that was emerging from the conflict. Via trusted partners, we are closely monitoring the situation on the ground and we stand ready to provide further assistance as required.

The facilitation and provision of humanitarian assistance, on the basis of need alone, must be allowed. We have called on all parties to ensure safe, secure access for humanitarian agencies and respect their neutrality, and to meet their own obligations to avoid civilian casualties and direct attacks on civilians and civilian infrastructure.

As I have said, before the current crisis, South Sudan was already one of the poorest countries in the world and more than half of its population were below the poverty line. Alongside our emergency humanitarian funding, the Department for International Development has a long-term development programme. However, that has been completely disrupted—I cannot put it any other way—because so many of our staff have had to leave, as have our implementing partners. Our priority at this point is to assess and respond to the immediate humanitarian situation. In the UN Security Council the UK was quick to agree to an emergency troop uplift of 5,500 to the UN mission in South Sudan, almost doubling existing numbers. We are now considering how to give more support to UNMISS through airlifts and by helping to fill gaps.

As to the specifics on what representations have been made, we are co-ordinating closely with other donor agencies and development actors and we know that further pledges are coming down the line, and are likely to be confirmed in the coming days, to contribute to the immediate funding shortfall that the hon. Member for Glasgow North East raised. As I have said, we have already contributed an extra £12.5 million. On the matter of UNMISS, I heard criticisms of the UN operation when I was in the country, and particularly in Jonglei. The need for regular review of all peacekeeping missions is built into the system, and clearly the latest events will have to be taken into full consideration at the next review.

The UN has been gathering disturbing reports of human rights abuses, and we are deeply concerned, as everyone must be. We welcome efforts by the UN Mission in South Sudan to investigate reports of abuses and ensure that civilians are protected. The UN Security Council agreed on 24 December to strengthen the UNMISS human rights component. We of course welcome the Sudan People’s Liberation Army’s announcement that it will investigate the involvement of organised forces in the killings in Juba. The UK is currently in discussion with international partners on how best an independent review can be taken forward. We welcome the UN Secretary-General’s announcement on Friday that he would send the assistant Secretary-General for Human Rights, Ivan Simonovic, to South Sudan.

On 10 January the UN Security Council statement gave a clear welcome to the African Union Peace and Security Council’s decision to establish a commission of investigation to ensure accountability, reconciliation and healing among all South Sudanese communities. The hon. Gentleman raised those issues and they are at the core of the matter. The situation may have started with political machinations, but the people were living side by side perfectly peacefully and they have now been drawn completely unnecessarily into ethnic divisions. The immediate focus is obviously on the cessation of hostilities, but I agree about the way forward in the longer term.

Humanitarian access is severely constrained. UN agencies and NGOs are on the ground and providing support where they can. I do not have the full breakdown of the uses to which new UNMISS troops will be put. DFID is still in the process of assessing needs, and therefore the deployment will presumably follow the needs that are expressed.

I will touch on the political side, and the work of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office. The Foreign Secretary has been in touch with both Kiir and Machar and is trying to bring all sides together. The Intergovernmental Authority on Development is the mechanism for taking those matters forward, but we are urging President Kiir to ensure that the issue of detainees will not prevent constructive discussions from progressing. We are working closely with our Troika partners, the US and Norway, and the EU and regional players, to support the political process.

I thank all hon. Members who have attended the debate for their interest in and concern about a matter that is close to my heart. The hon. Member for Glasgow North East gave an excellent exposition of the situation. My Department, working hand in hand with the Foreign Office and Ministry of Defence, will continue to focus our efforts on ensuring that we are responding to the humanitarian situation and continuing efforts to support the political process.

11:30

Sitting suspended.

Strengthening Couple Relationships

Tuesday 14th January 2014 Westminster Hall

[Mr Gary Streeter in the Chair]

14:30

[Sir Gerald Howarth (Aldershot) (Con)]

I am most encouraged to see so many of my hon. Friends joining me for this debate this afternoon. It is also good to see some of our friends from Northern Ireland here, too. It is a pity that there is only one Labour Member present, but there we go; I shall not be saying something positive about the Labour party. As you can probably gather from my voice, Mr Streeter, I am suffering from the lurgy that afflicts most of us at this time of year. I was not going to come in, but I was told that the debate would not happen unless I was here and as so many of my hon. Friends want to take part, I was not going to deny them this opportunity.

I also offer a warm welcome to the Minister. He may or may not be aware that, when we announced this debate, we received a call from his Department to ask who should be responsible for replying. I know that the Minister is robust, and I hope that the slight uncertainty between his Department and the Cabinet Office does not reveal some lack of co-ordination in Government on this hugely important issue. Research has consistently shown that stable families are the foundation for a strong society. In 2008, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said that

“there’s nothing more important to families than the strength of their relationships”,

yet the United Kingdom has one of the highest rates of family breakdown in the western world, with less than 70% of children living with both their parents. It is for that reason that I am leading this debate on strengthening couple relationships today.

In 2000, I helped to produce the Family Matters Institute report on the cost of family breakdown, which we then identified was costing this country £30 billion a year. According to the Marriage Foundation, last year that figure had risen to no less than £46 billion, which is more than the entire defence and overseas aid budgets combined and some £1,500 for every single taxpayer. It is a substantial burden. Just yesterday, the Daily Mail carried a two-page spread about a man who has apparently fathered 15 children by six different women, with seven more children by unnamed women, and who is said to have cost the taxpayer in excess of £1 million. One son is a convicted murderer and three others have served jail sentences, all of which cost the taxpayer a further £150,000 a year.

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

I pay tribute to my hon. Friend for securing the debate and to his courage in leading it despite his ill health. The doubling of family breakdown over the past 30 years is plainly a huge issue, but there are heroes. I pay tribute to Harry Benson of the Marriage Foundation, who will no doubt be referred to later, for helping to deliver practical support on the ground to help keep couples together. He says:

“We value commitment and faithfulness ever more. But we have lost confidence in marriage. The tide will turn when we realise once more that marriage is the best way to achieve both.”

Does my hon. Friend have any practical proposals to make to the Minister on how to achieve that?

[Sir Gerald Howarth]

If my hon. Friend will forgive me, I want to set the scene first, because the problem is of such magnitude that it is important to put the facts on the record. I will admit to him that I am light in the department of what the solutions are, but he will not be surprised to hear that I have some advice for the bishops. I know, however, that my hon. Friends are doing good work in this field.

I was drawing attention to an article in yesterday’s Daily Mail. Some people will say that it refers to an extreme example, which it may be, but it reflects on a smaller scale what is going on right across the nation. I regularly deal with broken family cases at my surgeries. One constituent recently told me that the father of her child walked out the day she went into labour and has not been seen since, although he boasts on Facebook that he has paid hundreds of thousands of pounds in cash for a London flat. Another told me that the father, who smokes a lot of weed, has not seen the children for two years; he has a child by another woman and is now with a third woman. A third constituent told me that she is expecting a child by a man who is not interested and has no job; he himself was placed in care as a child. This is going on all over the country. I am not talking about a deprived inner-city area. This is Aldershot, Hampshire. If it is happening there, imagine what else is happening in some of our inner cities.

The men who father these children seem to have absolutely no interest in bringing them up, let alone paying for them. It is important that we recognise that we cannot afford to continue to subsidise people who live such dysfunctional lifestyles. We do not have the money. It is immoral, it is wrong and it has to stop. Am I being judgmental in an age when such an approach is deemed inappropriate? Of course I am being judgmental. For the sake of our country, we need to be judgmental. Besides, plenty of people never cease to be judgmental about Members of Parliament.

Let me move from the particular to the general. Let us consider the data. According to the Centre for Social Justice—an excellent organisation—more than 3 million children are growing up in a lone parent household, 92% headed by the mother. Does that matter? I submit that it does matter because the evidence shows that

“marriage provides the most reliable framework for raising children.”

Those are not my words, but those of the right hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr Straw), the former Home Secretary, in his 1998 consultation document entitled “Supporting Families”. That view was essentially reiterated by this Government when, in their social justice strategy paper published in March 2012, they said that

“this Government believes marriage often provides an excellent environment in which to bring up children. So the Government is clear that marriage should be supported and encouraged.”

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

I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing this important debate. His point about dadlessness is important. The lifelong impact on dadless children’s educational achievement and job prospects, among other things, is immense, but does he accept that children sometimes grow up in dadless households because dads who want to be there have been excluded? The purpose of the presumption of shared parenting in the Children and Families Bill, which is going through Parliament now, is to ensure that, wherever possible, those dads who are unable to live with their children because of an acrimonious split continue to have whatever meaningful and valuable contact they have with their children because of the huge value that it brings to the experience of the children.

[Sir Gerald Howarth]

My hon. Friend makes an extremely important point. It is not one that I intended to cover in my speech, but I am glad that he has put that on the record, because it is clear that there are fathers who do want access to their children and who do want to play an important role in bringing up their children, but they are denied. I hope that the Children and Families Bill will be a move in the right direction to rectify that wrong.

Let me be clear that the problem is not just about the financial cost, massive though that is. As all right hon. and hon. Members are only too aware from their surgeries, there is a massive social cost in human misery, which has an undeniably detrimental effect on children, as my hon. Friend has just illustrated. Statistics show that children of separated parents are more likely to have physical and mental health problems in childhood and to fall into crime or substance abuse in later life. The Centre for Social Justice observes that lone parents are two and a half times more likely to be in poverty than couple families, and children from broken homes are statistically less likely to be able to establish stable relationships themselves, thereby continuing the cycle.

Research by the Office for National Statistics on “The mental health of children and adolescents in Great Britain”, published in 2000, found twice the incidence of disorders in boys aged 11 to 15 in lone-parent households as in married households. Even more interesting, the incidence in cohabiting households was similar not to that in married households, but rather to that in lone-parent households. I shall have more to say on cohabitation in a moment, but clearly one has to recognise that although not all children brought up in such conditions will necessarily struggle in those ways, we cannot ignore the facts if we are to tackle the issue. According to Relate, another excellent organisation, the number of families with dependent children increased by 5% between 1996 and 2012. The number of married-couple families with dependent children fell by 12%, however, and the number of lone-parent families rose by 22% and the number of cohabiting couples doubled. One million fathers do not live with their children.

Marriage, which for the majority of Conservative Members of Parliament can be only between a man and a woman, remains the core of a stable family. Only in this environment do children have both male and female role models for guidance and support. However, the number of marriages has fallen from about 415,000 in 1970 to about 240,000 in 2010, a near 100-year low. The number of single-parent households has risen from 8% of the total in 1970 to 22% in 2010. Since the late 1970s, there has been a steady increase in the rise of cohabitation, with nearly half of all children today born outside marriage, but cohabitation is a relatively unstable substitute for marriage. Figures from the Centre for Social Justice show that fewer than one in 10 married couples separate by their child’s fifth birthday, compared with one in three cohabiting couples.

Many of us welcomed the Government’s acknowledgement of the contribution that marriage makes to a strong society when the Chancellor included a tax break for married couples in his autumn statement. At this point, I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tim Loughton), who led the campaign on that front, but it can only be the start. I agree wholeheartedly with the Christian Institute that

“most marriages last for life… Children need a father and a mother to nurture them... Children need parents who love them and love each other just as much. That love must be a permanent and not a temporary commitment… The best environment for raising children is marriage because the spouses have committed themselves to each other, and thus their children, for life. No other kind of relationship provides this environment of stability and permanence for children. Social science confirms that lifelong and loving marriage is the ideal context in which to raise children.”

Some say that in a free society, people should be entitled to live any lifestyle that they want and to an extent that is unquestionably true. I am conscious that I am trespassing on delicate territory, as we are all touched in one way or another by such trends, even at the highest levels in our land, but overwhelmingly it is the taxpayer who is picking up the tab for the current state of affairs, so the state cannot be an idle bystander.

[Iain Stewart (Milton Keynes South) (Con)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing this important debate. His comments thus far have rightly centred on the importance for children of having a stable family background, but does he also agree that marriage is important for looking after more elderly family members as well, and increasingly so? My own family has had experience of this. People need a solid family life to look after elderly parents or grandparents who might need care, even if not at a level that requires them to go into a home.

[Sir Gerald Howarth]

I could not agree more. My hon. Friend makes an extremely important point—one that is not often made but needs to be, particularly as our elderly population continues to grow. The importance of families sustaining that elderly generation will increase. My own children never cease to remind me that I need to be kind and generous to them, because they will be choosing my old folks’ home. I do not know quite what they mean, but there we go.

The statistics I have quoted provide sound reasons why the state should encourage marriage. International studies have found that couple counselling has been effective in improving the quality of relationships. Relationship guidance and support from organisations such as Relate should be at couples’ disposal. I am pleased that the Government have pledged £30 million to support these initiatives, although I understand that only 2% of those eligible are able to access the facilities, because of a lack of resources. My hon. Friend the Member for South West Bedfordshire (Andrew Selous) has been doing hugely important work in the field of providing counselling to those whose relationships are in difficulty.

[Mr Andrew Turner (Isle of Wight) (Con)]

Does my hon. Friend agree that those who wish to stay at home, whether the father or the mother, should be encouraged to do so, if that is what they wish? Government policy should not push them out.

[Sir Gerald Howarth]

Again, I agree with my hon. Friend. Our friends always say how nice our children are, and perhaps it is all down to me, but actually it is not; it is down to my wife, because she gave up her job and spent the early years of our children’s lives looking after them. At dinner parties, people would say to my wife, “What do you do?” and she would say that she looked after the children, to which they would reply, “Oh, so you don’t do anything else.” Well, seeing all of my hon. Friends here who are male—[Interruption.] They are not all male, but many are, although sitting in front of me is my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Derbyshire (Pauline Latham), the mother of three children. Those men who have been asked to look after our children in the way that mothers do find it extremely demanding. The idea of the full-time mother staying at home has been belittled for far too long and the role should be properly recognised.

Many others beyond Relate seek to provide support to those whose relationships are challenged, and I salute all of them. The churches individually do a tremendous job in seeking to heal the wounds, but I wish that the bishops would be more vocal in their condemnation of dysfunctional lifestyles. Like the Bishop of Manchester, they seem to have no shortage of views on the iniquity of the Chancellor’s proposals on welfare, despite the overwhelming public support for them, but they seem reluctant to pronounce on the value and the virtue of fidelity.

I have been much encouraged by reading about Sir Paul Coleridge, a High Court judge who seems to have been eased out of his place for having trenchant and principled views on the importance of traditional marriage. He recently warned of the “yawning public ignorance” about the mental effects on children of conflict between parents, even from birth. He believes that the Government have spent too much time pushing through the same-sex marriage legislation rather than tackling a crisis of family breakdown.

The cost to the taxpayer, the cost in human misery and the damage to children serve to prove why it is time that Parliament took the issue more seriously. I hope that the Government will push it much higher up the agenda than they have been able to do up until now.

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

[Mr Gary Streeter (in the Chair)]

Order. Colleagues, about five people have caught my eye and we have about 50 minutes remaining. If we self-regulate at about nine minutes each, we should all get there, but I will let you know how we get on.

14:48

[Fiona Bruce (Congleton) (Con)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Aldershot (Sir Gerald Howarth) on securing this important debate.

I speak from the perspective that supporting stronger relationships is a public health issue. The importance of relationships in preventing disease and in prolonging life, health and well-being is becoming increasingly recognised, not only for partners in a relationship, but for their children, their wider family and the community at large.

The scale of the problem of relationship breakdown is such that we cannot put it into the “too difficult” category. Government have to act and treat it as a public health issue. The public health outcomes framework should make explicit mention of family and relationship factors. In particular, we need to be concerned about the impact of family breakdown on those in more deprived households. Relationship breakdown affects them more than others, and the outcome for the children can be disproportionately serious.

According to a recent YouGov survey for the Prince’s Trust of 2,161 young people aged 16 to 25, 21% of the children in poor homes said that no one had ever told them, “I love you.” Those results show that young people from deprived homes where there are not necessarily functioning and strong relationship standards are significantly more likely to face symptoms of mental illness, including suicidal thoughts, feelings of self-loathing and panic attacks. Young people who grow up in poverty are also twice as likely to believe that no one cares about them—22% expressed such a view compared with a figure of 10% for the wider youth population. The tragedy is that many young people are growing up today in households where they have no role models for strong relationships.

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

My constituency of Belfast North, which is one of the most deprived in the United Kingdom, bears testimony to what the hon. Lady is saying. Great work is being done by local groups on relationship support, but does she agree that part of this issue is the need to take away the stigma attached to going for help about relationships? There needs to be more education to ensure that people feel comfortable about coming forward.

[Fiona Bruce]

I agree entirely and hope to come on to that issue.

Professor Scott Stanley has talked about the perfect storm that is brewing with

“an ever greater amount of family instability”

and has said that for young people the problems are going to be pronounced. He says:

“Attachment is an unalterable, important human need and reality, and how attachment systems form in individuals really matters”

for their future health and well-being. He also argues that:

“The cultural systems and structures that always have helped couples clarify, form, and maintain strong commitments have been steadily eroding”—

most notably, the sense that marriage and childbearing inherently belong together, which makes ongoing stability more likely than not.

The nature and extent of the problem we are up against have all the hallmarks of a public health emergency. The Office for National Statistics recently found that people’s personal relationships, mental health and overall sense of well-being are all intimately bound up with each other. But the stakes are even higher than that: in many cases it is about life and death. A huge review of 148 studies, with almost one third of a million participants, that looked at how social relationships influence the risk of mortality showed that people with stronger social relationships have an incredible 50% increased likelihood of survival when compared with those with poor or insufficient social relationships.

I want to give credit to Dr Samantha Callan of the Centre for Social Justice for drawing many of these issues to my attention. She argues that the influence of social relationships on risk of mortality is comparable with risk factors such as smoking, and exceeds many well-known risk factors such as obesity and physical inactivity.

Other potential public health issues are isolation and loneliness. The absence of loving relationships of any sort is bad for health and is linked with increased risk of cardio-vascular disease, diabetes, stroke, obesity and death. One of my constituents has written to me to say that it is absolutely critical that the new health and wellbeing boards take into account the issue of loneliness and focus on how they can improve relationship support, bearing in mind the impact that loneliness is having on our older generation.

Studies on the impact of relationship difficulties suggest that improving couple relationships has the potential to reduce alcohol misuse. Recent studies focusing on metabolic syndrome suggest that obesity, high cholesterol, high blood pressure and poor blood sugar metabolism, all of which increase the risk of heart disease, diabetes and stroke, are other mechanisms by which poor marital adjustment increases poor health outcomes for women.

There is also the issue of obesity among children. Children who are raised by parents who have what is called an authoritative—not an authoritarian—parenting style apparently eat more healthily, are more physically active and have a lower body mass index than children raised under other parenting styles, such as authoritarian, permissive, indulgent, uninvolved or neglectful. Reports say that marital dissatisfaction results in more authoritarian and less authoritative parenting. In other words, there is a vicious cycle. The quality of the parental relationship has a significant bearing on children’s health. The sad fact is that disadvantaged children suffer the most.

If a focus on relationships has the potential to deliver significant public health gains, how do we realise those gains? Certainly, building stronger relationships requires encouraging couples to build on good habits and to reduce bad ones. We should encourage and support proposals within plans such as the “Let’s Stick Together” programme developed by Care for the Family, which talks about avoiding negative habits. Often the issue is skills, which can be developed. Such skills include being responsive or even enthusiastic about what a partner is saying, expressing feelings of warmth and affection, managing conflict, communicating well and preserving a friendship, as well as learning how to perceive and demonstrate commitment and deal constructively with misunderstandings. All those skills can be learned, and learning them is critical when people have had no role models.

We also need preventive relationship education, web-based support and specialist counselling and therapeutic services—prevention rather than cure. Could we not move some of the millions of pounds that Relate receives to work at the outset of relationships instead of using the money to deal with the fallout and damage at the end?

The CEO of the Fatherhood Institute, Adrienne Burgess, has said:

“Encouraging parents to both take a lot of responsibility for looking after the child…and earning is a great way to help couples become real team parents. When they do this child rearing brings them together and means they are less likely to split up.”

On maternity services, Adrienne Burgess has argued:

“Increasing the potential for both of them to be involved is a really simple way to help strengthen couple relationships.”

To return to my point about the elderly, loneliness has significant links to a range of chronic conditions, including high blood pressure and depression, and increases the risk of developing Alzheimer’s disease by over 60%. On average, 10% of the population aged over 65 is chronically lonely, which means that they feel lonely all or most of the time. It is vital that the health implications of this issue are recognised by those making decisions about local health priorities. The proportion of elderly people in our population is increasing. Many of them live alone due to relationship breakdown. Helping them to sustain partner relationships, with the mutual support that such relationships can provide in later life, could carry major personal and public health benefits.

The Relationships Foundation has described strong relationships as a national asset that we should preserve and strengthen. The social capital of families and communities is a sustainable bedrock not only of our national wealth but of our well-being. Stronger relationships between couples mean that those couples can then provide strength and support up and down generations, across families and out into communities. That is a national resource that we must nurture and cultivate, and that we ignore at our peril.

14:57

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I congratulate the hon. Member for Aldershot (Sir Gerald Howarth) on bringing this matter to the House for support and consideration. It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Congleton (Fiona Bruce). Perhaps I am a bit biased, but I believe that she always puts forward a good case on these issues. We are both concerned about them and are here to show our support. The Chamber is full of Members who, we were saying before the debate started, are the likely suspects. They are the ones who support what we are about in this debate on strengthening families.

I want to make a few comments in support of marriage in its totality. I do not want to be judgmental in the information that I relay. I am blessed in that I come from a strong family, and my parents are still a tower of strength in my life—my mother is 82 and my dad is 84—but I know that not everybody has the stable background that I had. I also know that there are single-parent families who simply could not do a better job raising their family than the one they are doing. I understand that and want to put that on the record right away. I believe that we have a role in this place in strengthening families and relationships, which is why I congratulate the hon. Member for Aldershot on bringing this matter forward.

[John Glen (Salisbury) (Con)]

Does the hon. Gentleman acknowledge that if we polled young people about their aspirations, it is unlikely that they would aspire to be a single parent? The reality is that we have to get in early and make sure that we give our young people the infrastructure in their lives so that they are able to make wise decisions and are not at risk of their relationships breaking down.

[Jim Shannon]

Those are wise words from the hon. Gentleman and I agree with him wholeheartedly. It is important that, through this debate, we try to explain why we feel that marriage is important and why it should be an aspiration of all young people. I believe that it is, by the way, but things happen and relationships fall down. That is a fact of life.

[David Simpson (Upper Bann) (DUP)]

The Library’s debate pack states:

“On current trends, 48% of children born last year”—

2013—

“are likely to see the breakdown of their parents’ relationship.”

That is why some sort of early intervention is needed. My right hon. Friend the Member for Belfast North (Mr Dodds) said that the stigma must be removed. It must be removed because 48% is unacceptable.

[Jim Shannon]

I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention. His wise words and heart contribute to this debate.

I have been an advocate of marriage between a man and a woman as the most stable way to raise a child, and I am on the record as saying that during a Bill Committee debate last year. I advocate that not because my parents remain a strong partnership after 60 years of being together, but because it is a fact that those who are married have a more stable relationship than those who cohabit. I base that on information and statistics that have been made available to me, and any social worker or person in that area of expertise will agree. I stress again that some families outside that mode do a great job, and I do not suggest that marriage is the only right way; however, it has proved to be the most stable way.

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

My hon. Friend will not be surprised that I draw to his attention to the fact that God says, in his precious word, that he put us together in families. Although many people have sought to undermine marriage, does my hon. Friend not agree that the scriptural bond of marriage is still the foundation stone of a strong society, and will be in years to come?

[Jim Shannon]

I agree absolutely with my hon. Friend’s wise words. Marriage is the bedrock of society. I have been married for 26 years and I have a very understanding wife. I do not say this with pride, but I was not always present while my children were being reared. My wife was a housewife and looked after them. Being a housewife is sometimes a harder job than working in a shop or elsewhere. The way my three boys have come on is a credit to my wife and the guidance she gave them, and I make no bones about that.

A consistent feature of cohabitation has been its relative instability compared with marriage. Some UK and European studies draw attention to the fact that, regardless of socio-economic status and education, cohabiting couples are between two and two and a half times more likely to break up than equivalent married couples. That is a fact; it is not made up. Even the poorest 20% of married couples are more stable than all but the richest 20% of cohabiting couples. The statistics are clear. Three quarters of family breakdown involving children under five arise from the separation of non-married parents. Only 9% of married parents split before their child’s fifth birthday compared with 35% of unmarried parents.

I was just talking to my right hon. Friend the Member for Belfast North (Mr Dodds), and we want to put on the record the good work that Relate does. I sometimes refer people to Relate and although its advice may not always have worked as I might have wished, it was always expert and important. I have also referred constituents to friends in their church. No one can speak better about churches’ good work than my hon. Friend the Member for South Antrim (Dr McCrea), but I want to put on the record my thanks to them for giving guidance, support, help and advice when it is needed.

CARE has supplied me with information combining new data on family breakdown from Understanding Society with household data from the Office for National Statistics. Research from the Marriage Foundation shows that cohabiting parents now account for 19% of couples with dependent children, but 50% of family breakdowns. We all know that marriages may break down irrevocably. I am no man’s judge and never will be, but every effort should be made to prevent breakdown.

Statistics also show that when a separated couple was married, the children are 60% more likely to have contact with their father than if the parents were unmarried, and that separated fathers are more likely to contribute to their child’s maintenance if the parents were married. The hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tim Loughton), who has just left the Chamber, referred to the father’s role and said that even in a broken-down relationship it is important that a father remains in contact with the children as they are growing up.

The prevalence of mental health issues among children of cohabiting parents is more than 75% higher than among those of married parents. Children from broken homes are nine times more likely to become young offenders. I give these statistics with no joy, but they account for 70% of all young offenders. I could continue to give statistics, such as the rise in the cost of family failure, which the hon. Member for Aldershot said was £44 billion. That is a massive amount of money. Failed relationships now cost every UK taxpayer £1,475 a year.

The Centre for Social Justice and the Marriage Foundation make it clear that the Government should strengthen stability and reduce family breakdown by encouraging and promoting marriage. The Democratic Unionist party, of which I am privileged to be a member, supported the married couple’s tax allowance. With my hon. Friend the Member for East Antrim (Sammy Wilson), I have pressed the Chancellor to implement that allowance. I believe that every hon. Member in the Chamber probably supports that.

[Mr Andrew Turner]

Will the hon. Gentleman help me and say whether there is a relationship between membership of the IRA and the extremist Protestant organisations, and the breakdown of families?

[Jim Shannon]

I cannot give the statistics, but I am sure that there has been some impact.

The public policy benefits of marriage are extensive and should be recognised in the UK tax system, as is the case in most OECD countries. Although marriage was recognised in the UK income tax system for many years and continues to be recognised in most OECD countries, that recognition was removed in the UK in 1999. Today, the UK is the only large, developed economy not to recognise marriage in its income tax system. Only 20% of people in OECD countries live in jurisdictions that do not recognise marriage and most of them live in the UK or Mexico. A fully transferable allowance would reduce discrimination against one-earner couples, increase the threshold for low and middle-income families, and reduce the imbalance between one-earner and two-earner families.

In 2010, the Conservatives proposed a transferable allowance of £750 for married couples and civil partners under which a spouse or partner who could not use their personal allowance could pass it to his or her partner if they were a basic rate payer. The Chancellor gave a commitment on that in the House and we have pressed him to ensure that it is introduced before the next election. I understand that he has given a commitment to do so. What discussions has the Minister had on the date of implementation of that allowance? It is time to introduce this encouragement for families. If nothing else is heard in this debate, I hope that that will be heard and that the Government will encourage families and marriage and do what they promised.

14:59

[Pauline Latham (Mid Derbyshire) (Con)]

It is a pleasure, Mr Streeter, to serve under your chairmanship. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Aldershot (Sir Gerald Howarth) for securing this important debate, and I look forward to the Minister’s response; I am sure he will bring common sense and sensitivity to it.

It goes without saying that the family is the backbone of our society. As I am sure many hon. Members have experienced, when couple relationships are turbulent, it shows in other aspects of the couple’s lives. Several studies show that those who are married or in stable relationships live longer lives and require medical assistance from the state less frequently. Couple, family and social relationships may act as a shock absorber in supporting people through life changes, such as becoming a parent, retirement or family bereavement, but for many the relationship itself may need support during, after and even before such events. That is why it is vital that when things go wrong in relationships, there are organisations to turn to that offer affordable support and guidance.

One such organisation operating in my constituency is Relate, which offers counselling services to couples, or those in complex relationships, which are now more common, as relationships and family structures are evolving all the time. Without Relate, many in relationships would not be able to afford the appropriate counselling; Relate has been able to subsidise its support, making it accessible to everyone, not just the well-off. Last year, it gave bursaries to more than 1,400 people.

I was alarmed last year when the director of Relate Derby and Southern Derbyshire contacted me to say that Derby city council had told it that it would reduce funding further. It looks as though Derbyshire county council will follow suit. In fact, it is expected that in time there will be no funding whatever from the two councils. The squeeze on funding has resulted in a 30% reduction in Relate staff numbers in the area. That means that the charity is finding it difficult to cope with the increasing demand for all its services.

Local changes to funding structures mean that many central initiatives could be undermined. Relate Derby and Southern Derbyshire is on the precipice of substantial cuts in funding that will mean a reduction in the provision of services, which will be felt by hundreds of vulnerable clients. Without regular grants from Derby city council and Derbyshire county council, funding for Relate services in the area increasingly comes from spot purchasing, which means that the charity experiences peaks in demand without the core funding to ensure that staffing levels are sufficient to meet that demand. The other issue with spot funding is that it generates an increase in administration costs for Relate. That has already had a knock-on effect on its provision of additional services. It is considering no longer accepting further requests. Children and young people in other groups will be all the poorer if they are unable to access the excellent services of our local Relate.

Relate Derby and Southern Derbyshire is well known for its work with people with Asperger’s syndrome and their families. Relate offers live chat, e-mail and webcam counselling, which can be more suitable for different client groups, such as those with Asperger’s. That counselling might well disappear if no money can be found, even though the demand is even greater this year. Last year, Relate helped more than 250 families in the area in which there were people with Asperger’s. It is clear that the withdrawal of funding by Derby city council and the county council, and the change to funding structures for services, will have a profound and negative effect on the number of referrals that Relate can deal with and the ongoing support it can offer to stakeholders.

Jeopardising the provision of subsidised counselling has an impact not only on the relationships of the couples and families who need it, but on the police force, the health service, social services, the school system, the courts and the economy as a whole. As has been said, a report by the Relationships Foundation estimated that the total cost to the economy of relationship breakdown was some £46 billion. That is perhaps not surprising when one considers that those who have experienced the breakdown of a relationship often have poorer employment outcomes and poorer physical and mental health.

The consequences of conflict in the home are even more keenly felt by children; those who experience such situations typically have poorer outcomes in the classroom. Domestic violence is a substantial issue for a number of Relate’s clients. In fact, 23% of all those referred by the two councils are victims of domestic violence, but only 4% of those had reported the abuse and violence to any other agency. Relate is doing an incredibly valuable service that other agencies seem unable to do. It goes without saying that it is in the Government’s interest to ensure that affordable counselling is accessible.

While I am extremely pleased by the Government’s commitment to keeping families together—demonstrated by their £30 million investment in relationship support bodies over the life of this Parliament—there is still more to be done to support organisations such as Relate Derby and Southern Derbyshire, which provides incredible value for money and great expertise for local families. The Government should further promote the importance of relationships by requiring local authorities to recognise family relationships as a core responsibility, and ensure that they do not continue to be overlooked in favour of other priorities in local government funding decisions.

[Fiona Bruce]

My hon. Friend is making a powerful case. Does she agree that local authorities should be required to measure levels of family breakdown in their locality? Family breakdown is a recognised index of social deprivation and a key driver of social disadvantage.

[Pauline Latham]

My hon. Friend makes a substantial point. If local authorities did that, they would have more information to go on, instead of just cutting funding without thinking about the consequences. The health and wellbeing boards could help fund some of the work done by organisations such as Relate; that would help. I look forward to hearing what the Minister has to say.

15:14

[Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)]

My hon. Friend the Member for Aldershot (Sir Gerald Howarth) has done the House a great service in ensuring that we have this debate. It is such an important debate that it is a matter of regret that we are having it in Back-Bench time in Westminster Hall.

The effects of marital breakdown on society are enormous. It is a modern plague and it is causing not just expense but misery. We have to speak up about it all the time, because there is almost a conspiracy of silence about such issues. Over the past 50 years, a view has grown in our permissive society that people are happiest if they are completely liberated and can do what they want and say, “It is about me.” The Churches, successive Governments, schools, the BBC, national newspapers and we as Members of Parliament are all complicit in that permissive view of society, which has left a trail of despair in its wake.

Sir Paul Coleridge, the family division judge, has been mentioned. He is one of the very few people who have had the courage to speak about this matter. He deals with these issues every day of his working life. He warns of the “yawning public ignorance” of the mental effects on children of conflict between parents, even from birth. He is either retired or about to retire, and The Daily Telegraph said that he

“decided to step down because of opposition from within the judiciary to his support for traditional marriage. He has been placed under investigation and could be officially censured over comments last year criticising the Government for pushing through same-sex marriage legislation rather than tackling a ‘crisis of family breakdown’.”

He is a man who knows what is going on and he should be listened to.

I am grateful to the Library for its work on the briefing papers, but I do not want to quote a load of statistics, because we all know the truth. It is absolutely clear what is going on and there is no argument about it. The decline of traditional marriage has been an unalloyed disaster. People in government, in schools and in Churches are frightened of speaking out about this issue. They think that if they say they support traditional marriage, they are somehow criticising people who are not married or who, for all sorts of reasons that are not their fault, are no longer married, but that is not the case. Surely we can value everyone in society and how they live, while speaking out for what is right in society, which is marriage and people setting out to stay married if they want to bring up children.

Again, we are indebted to the Library for telling us what is going on. These are all statistics and facts. They are not made up by people who come here with a particular point of view. A story in The Daily Telegraph on a National Centre for Social Research study said:

“One in eight divorced or separated fathers has lost all contact with their children”.

Is that not dreadful? Is that not sad?

[Sir Gerald Howarth]

It is tragic.

[Sir Edward Leigh]

Indeed. One in eight divorced or separated fathers do not see their children at all. The Daily Telegraph story continues:

“Almost a million men in the UK are estimated to have dependent children with whom they do not live. Almost 130,000 of them have no contact at all with their children.”

A story in The Daily Telegraph on the British social attitudes survey said:

“The belief that couples should ideally get married before starting a family has effectively collapsed within a generation, the British Social Attitudes survey, the longest running and most authoritative barometer of public opinion in the UK, shows.

Only a minority of people now view marriage as the starting point for bringing up children, with support for that view almost halving in less than 25 years.”

Do we not have a responsibility for the change in social attitudes? We are told, “Britain has changed. You have to accept it,” but do we not have a right to speak up for what is right?

[Dr McCrea]

Does the hon. Gentleman agree that behind the statistics in the briefing papers are many human tragedies and stories? We are talking about people and lives. Does he also agree that the traditional family unit has been constantly under attack in our society? It is about time that the Government did more to encourage and strengthen the marriage bond, rather than airbrushing marriage from family policy documents.

[Sir Edward Leigh]

Absolutely right; but it is the people at the bottom of the heap who suffer the most. We are not talking about society divorces in the 1950s. We are talking about hundreds of thousands of people living, effectively, a tragic life. The Marriage Foundation has interesting statistics, including:

“45 per cent of young teenagers (aged 13-15 years old) are not living with both parents…Half of all family breakdown takes place during the first two years”;

but—and this is the important point:

“Amongst parents who remain intact, 93 per cent are married…In sharp contrast, of the 47 per cent of children born to unmarried parents today, the report predicts that just 11 per cent will reach the age of 16 with unmarried parents still together.”

Marriage works. It is best for children. Every statistic proves it. Why are not the Churches, schools and Government crying that out from the roof tops?

[Sir Gerald Howarth]

My hon. Friend is making a passionate speech. He asks why Churches and schools do not recognise what many people say is the bleeding obvious, which is backed up by all the statistics. It is true that the previous Government had a good document supporting families, and the present Government have one. However, they do not give effect to the means by which we can strengthen marriage and those relationships, and send a clarion call out to people: “This is the way to lead your life—if you want a fulfilled life, you are more likely to have it through this means.”

[Sir Edward Leigh]

The Government are making one effort. They have said that they will bring in a transferable allowance for married couples. It is a matter of regret and has already been noted that the Labour party spokesman is here alone. Fair enough—he will speak in a moment; but it is a matter of regret that the Labour party has continually laughed at the proposal from the Chancellor of the Exchequer. The Labour viewpoint is “This is rubbish and will not make any difference.” The fact is that if one member—usually the mother—of a married couple who are doing their best to bring up children decides to stay at home, they are uniquely disadvantaged by the tax and benefits system.

There are six key arguments that drive a coach and horses through the arguments against the transferable allowance. First, the UK is out of line with international convention in not recognising marriage in its tax system. We are virtually alone of all big countries. One-earner married couples—those who would benefit from a transferable allowance—are thereby at a serious disadvantage relative to comparable families. The second is the distributional argument: introducing a transferable allowance for married couples will disproportionately benefit those in the lower half of the income distribution. In that way, it is quite unlike the coalition policy of increasing the personal income tax threshold to £10,000.

The third argument is about the married couples allowance, which was dismissed by some as something of an anomaly, but which played a key role in sustaining one-earner families. The fourth argument is that a transferable allowance would help to make work more rewarding for many of the poorest in society. The fifth is that transferable allowances should be introduced as soon as possible to compensate for the attack on one-earner families resulting from the introduction of a higher-income child benefit charge. The sixth and final argument is the stay-at-home spouse argument; most one-earner families do not have the option of becoming two-earner couple families.

The Government are at least doing one small thing. It will not, on its own, persuade anyone to get married or stay married; but at last we have a statement. That is what we want today from the Minister—and from the Prime Minister and all Ministers. We want them to have the courage to stand up for traditional marriage. That is not just because the current situation is a modern plague that costs us £46 billion a year—it is not just about the cost. The point is the human misery that comes in its wake. That is why the debate is so important.

15:24

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

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Aldershot (Sir Gerald Howarth) warmly on obtaining the debate. I am extremely grateful to the colleagues who have been here throughout this debate on a matter of important public policy. It is an area where we politicians sometimes fear to tread, thinking that it is an aspect of personal life where we should not intrude, and that we should get back to the building of bridges, bypasses, hospitals and schools. I reject that argument entirely. The issue is one of public policy that affects the amount of tax we pay, how children do in school, the criminal justice system and pretty much every area of life.

In support of my view, I quote the Prime Minister. In a great speech to Relate in June 2008 he said that

“there are some who think politics should stay out of issues like relationships…I just think that’s incredibly superficial and short-sighted”.

He continued:

“For too long, politicians here have been afraid of getting into this territory, for fear of looking old-fashioned or preachy.”

Those of us who support the thrust of his arguments are here with the full and explicit support of the Prime Minister, because he gets it. In his speech he said:

“The number one challenge we’ve got in this country today is to strengthen our society. There is no more important way of doing that than strengthening families, and there’s nothing more important to families than the strength of their relationships.”

I am delighted he said that. He continued by commenting that:

“helping people maintain strong relationships is not some fluffy alternative to reducing budget deficits—it is the way to reduce budget deficits, by reducing the demands on the state caused by family breakdown.”

In December 2010, as Prime Minister, he made another speech reiterating the important commitments he had made as Leader of the Opposition.

The parents of half the children born today will split up by the time the child is 15. By the age of 16, one in six children will not see their father at all. Cohabiting parents are sadly three times more likely than married couples to have separated by the time their child is five. A child whose parents split up is twice as likely to live in poverty as one whose parents stayed together, and has a 75% greater likelihood of underachievement at school. The Youth Justice Board says that 70% of children and young people in custody have an absent father. How much more evidence do we need that the issue is important, and a legitimate area of public policy? That is why those of us who care about it are here today. To me, it is a question of giving people the skills and support to make a success of the most important area of their lives; it is about reinforcing good habits and positive social norms.

The crisis is unfolding slowly and imperceptibly, without dramatic moments and media attention, but that is no excuse for not drawing attention to it. That is why the debate is so important, and why we look forward hugely to the Minister’s response. We want to encourage him to continue the good work begun by the Government. His boss, the Secretary of State for Education, who is charged with the matter, takes the issue seriously, too. He made an important speech to the Institute for Public Policy Research in August 2008 and considered the educational underperformance of children growing up in unstable families, citing important work by James Heckman of the university of Chicago.

We have been around the piece and we agree that we need to do something about the problem, so I want to be practical. I have five practical, positive steps that we could take. The first is to do with relationship support. There are some wonderful programmes today, and I want to give credit to them. My complaint is that often they are too small and piecemeal. I yearn to roll them out across the country so that they can be carried out to scale, to tackle the size and challenge of the problem. The first programme I want to mention is called As 2 Become 3, and is provided by Insights for Life, run by Bob and Jess Read as part of an antenatal package. That is important because dad is almost always there with mum as they go to the hospital for their antenatal courses, and the feedback about it has been tremendously good.

Let me quote what some couples said. Ali and Simone said of the course:

“The course also helped us make sure we share this 24/7 job and still find time for each other which is important as this is why the baby is here in the first place.”

Adrian and Britta, another couple, said:

“We discussed which values are most important to us, and how they could be developed and nurtured. Learning about different ways to manage conflict gave us permission to be more open and honest, and we now try to collaborate rather than merely compromising. It has been worth the extra effort as it has brought us closer.”

Many colleagues here have talked about the importance of giving people the skills and support of early intervention. Why is every single antenatal course in the country not signposting that course? Why is it not being made available in every single NHS hospital? If it is having good results and good outcomes, let us do it everywhere, not only in a few selected places.

The next course I would like to mention is Let’s Stick Together, which is run by Care for the Family. The Minister’s Department is giving funding to the Let’s Stick Together programme. Pilots are being run in different areas across the country, and we look forward to the evaluation of those. It is an hour’s course that is typically done for new parents in children’s centres. The feedback is really positive and people often want to go on and do more courses to keep their marriages and relationships strong. I celebrate that work; we should have more of it.

Another course, which is run by Family Action, is called Parents as Partners. It looks at parenting issues and encourages strong parenting, but all the academic evidence is that, as the relationship between mum and dad is strengthened, where the parents are together, the parenting outcomes are even better. I pay tribute to Family Action and the important work that it is doing.

This morning I had a briefing from Safe Families for Children, which is an excellent project to help vulnerable children. It involves early respite care for children whose parents are in deep difficulties, before the situation gets to the fostering stage. It has been run in the Chicago area very successfully, saving a lot of money there, and it has been rolled out in the north-east. I think the Minister has had an invitation from Sir Peter Vardy to go and see it, and I hope that he may be able to take that up at some point. Parents are most likely to split up just after a child has been born, so if parents can be given some space to deal with difficult issues, that can help the couple to stay together.

Last, but by no means least, I pay huge tribute to the work done by Holy Trinity Brompton, by Nicky and Sila Lee, who are the pioneers of the marriage preparation course, the marriage course, and the restored lives course, for people whose relationships have sadly split up—we must not forget such people, because we want to help them to rebuild their lives, so that they can build stronger relationships and marriages if they get the opportunity to marry again. That work is being looked at around the world. In Shanghai, they are very keen on the work of the marriage course. The Chinese Government get it in a big way and are copying in Shanghai what Nicky and Sila Lee are doing. That is the first area that I wanted to cover—practical things being done around the country. However, let us do them to scale and make sure that there is proper signposting in all those areas.

Secondly, I want those courses, and others which have not yet come to my attention but are no doubt happening, to have a kitemark—a Government seal of approval—so that public authorities such as local authorities, hospitals and others can refer people to them with confidence, knowing that proper provision is made and people’s qualifications and other standards will be acceptable. That would be hugely helpful, so that directors of public health, people running family centres, local authorities and so on could signpost such courses with confidence.

The third area I want to address, which has been mentioned by some colleagues, is local authority and local council engagement. I believe that if we value something, we measure it, and we also measure what we value. It is therefore really important that local authorities know what is going on in terms of relationship health in their areas. If local authorities saw the extent of family breakdown in their area, they would be more determined to do something about it. They have the opportunity to do so through their child poverty strategies, which need to address family breakdown. If they saw that an area was worse than another similar area, they would ask why that was and what that other area was doing better. They would perhaps want providers of some of the courses that I mentioned to come in and do something about it.

In my area, I set up the Bedfordshire Family Trust. We run couple strengthening courses. We get people coming to them and know that the courses work and that people appreciate them. That is the sort of thing that local authorities should be able to refer people to in order to save their budgets on housing, care placements and so on, because, as we know, local authorities have to watch the pennies at the moment. That is the third area where I would like to see action.

The fourth issue is public health, and that shows why family is so important. We have a Minister from the Department for Education here and I do not expect him to be an expert on health issues, but he will have heard colleagues mention health earlier. We know that there are significant implications and health costs, and that poor-quality relationships can lead to increases in alcohol consumption and cardiovascular disease, and linked problems with childhood obesity and diabetes.

As the chair of the all-party group on strengthening couple relationships, I was hugely surprised by one fact. We issued a report earlier this year called “Relationships: the missing link in public health”. Just listen to the data on coronary artery bypass grafting, which is perhaps not something that people would have thought was directly linked to the quality of relationships. The facts are that:

“The quality of couple relationships also has a remarkable impact on survival rates after bypass surgery, with married people being 2.5 times more likely to be alive 15 years after coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) than those who are not married, and those in high-satisfaction marriages being 3.2 times more likely to be alive 15 years after CABG compared with those reporting low marital satisfaction”.

That is a reason to have a strong marriage, if no other.

On that fourth point, the cost to the health service of people with long-term conditions is huge. When couples are together and can support each other in older age, we save a huge amount for the health service. That is another reason why we have to take public health seriously.

15:37

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

I congratulate the hon. Member for Aldershot (Sir Gerald Howarth) on securing the debate, and I thank all those who contributed. There have been some very interesting points made.

I was particularly keen on some of the practical suggestions made by the hon. Member for South West Bedfordshire (Andrew Selous), who is the chair of the all-party group on strengthening couple relationships, as he said. Looking at the group’s minutes, I was struck by some of the issues identified, especially by Dr Lester Coleman of the OnePlusOne charity. He emphasised that those who are more engaged at work enjoy a better quality of relationship. That may be because they are more personally fulfilled and more secure in their personal identity, and therefore are better able to give and share. That would seem to be an argument for making it easier for those who wish to work to do so, and is perhaps also an argument for supporting child care, which is a very important part of the Labour party’s policy, especially at a time when the cost of child care is rising so dramatically.

Apparently, parents, as opposed to non-parents, also experience better-quality relationships, and although I would be the first to accept that many contented couples do not have children, that finding suggests to me that we may need to do all we can to support those who wish to be parents. That might include measures such as those that the Government have embarked on to improve adoption. It might mean working harder to broaden the range of people who can adopt and foster. In some cases, it might mean making fertility treatment available to more couples on the NHS.

I also understand that Dr Coleman says that where there is greater work-family conflict, that can have quite a negative impact on the quality of relationships. Of course, that brings to mind all the arguments about making work flexible, so that it fits in with families, and the issue of the living wage, which we comment on from time to time. I am not sure that all of that has received enough attention in the debate so far.

It is perhaps also worth noting that in the YouGov survey commissioned by Relate, to which the hon. Member for Aldershot referred, 59% of respondents were concerned about the strain that money worries were placing on their relationship, which of course is one reason why we on this side of the House take so much time to emphasise the problems of the cost of living at the moment.

[Sir Gerald Howarth]

Who is “we”?

[Mr Gary Streeter (in the Chair)]

Order.

[Steve McCabe]

I think that I can speak for my side of the House, Mr Streeter. When it comes to strengthening couple relationships, the hon. Member for Aldershot has been clear. He is talking about heterosexual couples. We learned about his views on this issue during the debate on same-sex marriage. He has repeated them honestly today in this debate and in his ePolitix article, in which he states that marriage

“for the majority of Conservative MPs can only be between a man and a woman”.

I do not think that in this day and age it is possible to make such a narrow distinction, because whatever the views of individuals, the law and society are clear: “couple relationships” can mean married, cohabiting, heterosexual and homosexual relationships, however difficult that is for some people to accept. I acknowledge that many people put great store by traditional marriage, but that does not mean that we can deny the reality of what we see around us.

[Sir Gerald Howarth]

What the hon. Gentleman has heard throughout this debate, though, is that all the evidence has shown that cohabiting couple households—I am referring to the statistics relating to family disorder, the breakdown of family life and so on—are much more akin to single-parent households than to married couple households. No one is saying that people have to live that lifestyle, but the facts suggest to us that there is one lifestyle in this country that is likely to produce a happier outcome and is better for children, and that is marriage. His right hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn (Mr Straw), a former Secretary of State for the Home Department, said that himself, so why cannot the hon. Gentleman accept it?

[Steve McCabe]

As a divorcé, I do not feel that my divorce has prevented me from being able to have a further solid relationship; nor has it prevented me from having a strong parental role or from being part of a family.

It is interesting that the Government’s most explicit policy to support marriage, the married couple’s tax allowance—we heard quite a lot about that from the hon. Member for Gainsborough (Sir Edward Leigh)—is available only to one third of married couples. The proposals are really designed for the situation in which one partner does not work outside the home or earns very little. It is really a policy for stay-at-home mums, which is perhaps slightly at odds with some of Dr Coleman’s suggestions. Of course, it is available only for married mums, not for widows, cohabiting mums or anyone like that. Perhaps most astonishingly of all, it is available for the love rat who deserts his wife and family and runs off with someone else’s wife. He can remarry and claim the allowance. That strikes me as a slightly perverse way of strengthening couple relationships.

The other thing that is slightly strange about the policy is that it applies to only 4 million of the 12.3 million married couples, and it is not clear what impact it will have on children, given that pensioner families make up more than one third of the beneficiaries. In fact, only 35% of the 30% of families who gain from the policy have children, and only 17% have children under the age of five. It is hardly a well targeted policy if its aim is to support the concerns raised by the hon. Gentleman.

[Andrew Selous]

I want to draw the hon. Gentleman’s attention to the international facts. If we look across the OECD, we see that the UK is very much an exception in not recognising marriage at all in the tax system. In fact, it is really just us and Mexico alone among all the OECD countries that do not recognise it; 80% of the population of OECD countries live under a system in which marriage is recognised.

[Steve McCabe]

I was talking about the efficacy of a particular measure. Despite the doom and gloom, if we accept that not all relationships come in the form that the hon. Member for Aldershot would like to see—I accept that that is his view, and I understand that he holds it sincerely—the Relate survey to which I referred has some interesting observations. Let me pay tribute to the comments by the hon. Member for Mid Derbyshire (Pauline Latham) about Relate. I agree: I think that it is an excellent organisation that we should protect. The Relate survey paints a slightly rosier picture. It found that 93% of people said that, when times were hard, relationships within their family were important. Although the media sometimes presents our society as one in which family relationships have broken down, Relate could not find evidence that that was the case overall. According to its survey, families—albeit sometimes new families or reconstituted families—remain the backbone of our support systems.

15:47

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

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Streeter. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Aldershot (Sir Gerald Howarth) for raising this deeply important subject, and for stoically being here despite his heavy cold.

Like all those who contributed this afternoon, I believe that strong and stable families are the backbone of a strong and stable society—the key to ensuring that children grow up in a loving environment and develop into healthy and fulfilled adults. That is why the Government have invested significantly in supporting families and couple relationships, as well as the institution of marriage—because we understand the crucial role that the family plays in providing a foundation for a child’s development and success in later life. I saw that for myself in my own personal and professional life before coming to Parliament, so I need no persuading of the merits of a strong, stable and loving family environment in bringing about a better society.

Although the view that I have set out is based partly on what we know intrinsically works, and the values that help to improve and enhance lives, we also know from research that happy relationships lead to better physical and emotional well-being for all involved. The fact is that the quality of the relationship between parents is strongly linked to positive parenting and better outcomes for children. Family stability is key for children. Sustained parental relationships are associated with a range of positive childhood, adolescent and adult outcomes, including in respect of cognitive development, education—my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State himself said that in his speech to the Institute for Public Policy Research in 2008—better job prospects and less propensity to commit crime, as well as in relation to health. My hon. Friend the Member for Congleton (Fiona Bruce) raised important points about how health outcomes could be improved with the right support for relationships, and measures that we know help to achieve that. I will take away her comments about the health outcomes framework and the role of the health and wellbeing board, and I will discuss the matter with Ministers in the Department of Health to ensure that it is properly considered as those aspects of the health system develop further.

On attachment, which is a vital part of understanding whether a relationship is positive or not, the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence will for the first time produce guidelines on what constitutes a secure attachment, which will be an extremely useful addition. Conflict between parents is detrimental to children’s outcomes, hence the high priority we are giving to supporting all couple relationships, particularly those of people who are married. As my hon. Friend the Member for Aldershot told us, evidence shows us that the children of married parents do better than those of cohabiting parents, particularly on measures of social and emotional development at the ages of three and five. We need to ensure that all under-fives receive the best possible support, so such evidence is important.

Centre for Social Justice reports, which many hon. Members have brought with them, have starkly illustrated the considerable emotional, social and economic costs associated with the breakdown of families. As my hon. Friends the Members for Aldershot and for Mid Derbyshire (Pauline Latham) have reminded us, those costs amount to an astonishing £46 billion a year, which is not far off the total annual budget for educating all our children.

Important life events, including the transition to parenthood, relocation or changes in employment, can contribute to relationship stress. We must do what we can to encourage couples to take up support at an earlier stage—the early prevention that hon. Members have mentioned in this debate—to ensure that they get through difficult events in their lives. My time at the family Bar has shown me the devastating consequences of not doing so, not only for adults but, perhaps even more importantly, for any children involved. To bring that about, and by virtue of the strong prime ministerial steer, the Government have committed £30 million over the spending review period from 2011 to 2015, which puts funding for relationship support on a much more stable long-term footing. That gives us greater encouragement that we can get couples to use relationship support services.

The Department is funding a range of providers to deliver relationship support services, including one that my hon. Friend the Member for South West Bedfordshire (Andrew Selous) highlighted: the Parents as Partners evidence-based intervention programme delivered by Family Action, which works with couples who are particularly likely to face relationship stress or be at risk of relationship breakdown. There is also a series of campaigns and culture change messages aimed at employers, new parents and young people to raise awareness and encourage them to seek help on relationships. There is training for early years workers and managers, to help them to encourage positive relationships between parents, and to engage better with fathers, in particular, on relationships and parenting. The public policy agenda is being developed—a point made by my hon. Friend—through the formation of the Relationships Alliance, which I know he has been instrumental in helping to bring together.

I take on board the point that my hon. Friend made about the need to scale up some of those excellent services, and the Relationships Alliance is well placed to help achieve that. In my ongoing discussions with the alliance—I am meeting representatives next week—I am sure that that will be on the agenda. All those valuable services are provided by expert organisations. Many hon. Members have praised the work done by such organisations, which include Relate, Marriage Care, the Tavistock Centre for Couple Relationships and OnePlusOne. Those four organisations, which launched the Relationships Alliance in the House of Commons in November, will be key in helping to establish a much more coherent and cohesive message on what is available to those who need support.

[Fiona Bruce]

I thank the Minister for his constructive personal concern and his comments so far. We have heard today that the issue straddles many different areas: education, local government, the criminal justice system and health and well-being. Would it not be helpful to appoint a dedicated Minister to tackle this issue? Care for the Family has said that it feels as though there is no one in government waking up every morning thinking about this key social policy as a priority. After all that we have heard today, should not there be?

[Mr Timpson]

As the Minister with responsibility for children and families, I have sympathy with the need to raise the issue across Government and to ensure that all Departments play an active role in establishing what works and delivering it, but as my hon. Friend will acknowledge, I am not in a position to start appointing new Ministers or Departments. Forums are available to bring the topic together across Government; in particular, the social justice committee, which is chaired by the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, has a strong interest in the subject and is well placed to hold such cross-government discussions.

We are doing a significant amount to support families but we must recognise that, sadly, parents separate. When that happens, it can be a difficult time in which families need support on a range of issues. That is why we are improving the information, advice and support available to separated parents outside the court system to help them focus on their children’s needs and to agree workable arrangements for post-separation parenting. As my hon. Friend the Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tim Loughton) rightly said, the Children and Families Bill, which is currently in the other place, includes provision to highlight the importance of a child having a relationship with both parents following family breakdown, provided that to do so is safe and in the child’s best interests. The welfare of the individual child must be the court’s paramount consideration, but, subject to that, the parental involvement clause requires courts to presume that the child’s welfare is furthered by the involvement of each parent who can be safely involved. By making clear the basis on which the court makes those decisions, that provision is intended to encourage parents to reach agreement themselves about their child’s care without recourse to the court.

[Sir Gerald Howarth]

Before my hon. Friend the Minister sits down, may I thank him for the serious attention that he is paying to the issue? We hope that we can support him in raising it up the Government’s agenda. Before we conclude, may I also thank you, Mr Streeter, for all that you have done in this field?

[Mr Timpson]

It is remiss of me not to have directed similar praise to you, Mr Streeter, and I concur with the words that have just come in your direction.

The Government have commissioned two key pieces of work that will inform future policy makers and commissioners, because problems often start with poor commissioning decisions. That will help in areas such as Mid Derbyshire that want to move away from short-term, spot-purchasing solutions towards something more sustainable. Those two key pieces of work are an independent evaluation of relationship support interventions and a cross-government review of the family stability indicator of the social justice strategy.

Although significant evidence points to the importance of the quality of adult couple relationships to child outcomes, we know from various reviews of literature that there is limited evidence from within the UK about which relationship support practice has the most positive impact on adult and child outcomes. My Department has consequently commissioned research to test the effectiveness of several relationship support interventions, some of which we have already heard about—“Let’s Stick Together”, which my hon. Friends the Members for Congleton and for South West Bedfordshire have mentioned, as well as marriage preparation and couple counselling—to evaluate whether they are as effective as we would like. That report is due at the end of the month.

[Steve McCabe]

Does the Minister agree that it would be wrong of us to conclude the debate without acknowledging that figures released today show that the divorce rate in this country is falling, not rising?

[Mr Timpson]

It would be remiss of anyone not to welcome a fall in the divorce rate, but the fact is that it is still far too high. That is why our emphasis is on working with couples at the earliest opportunity so that they never have to reach that stage in their relationship.

The debate has been informative, passionate and serious. Although the Government have done a lot of work in this area, we recognise that there is still work to do, not only on the ground to improve relationship support, but in the messages that come from Government about how we build strong relationships across society. The past 50 years have seen a seismic shift in the structure and composition of families in this country. As my hon. Friend the Member for Aldershot rightly acknowledged, we should respect many of the reasons why that has happened, but we cannot accept the erosion of marriage and the many well evidenced benefits that it brings to society. That is why the Government are committed to supporting marriage. The marriage tax break is a step in the right direction that will help to ensure that all the attributes marriage brings with it flourish and do not wither.

Lower Thames Crossing

Tuesday 14th January 2014 Westminster Hall

4 pm

[Jackie Doyle-Price (Thurrock) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Streeter, and good to see my hon. Friend the Minister in his place. I have debated these matters a number of times with a number of Ministers over the past three and a half years, but this is the first time that I have had the pleasure to debate with him. I am also grateful for the interest shown by hon. Friends present, which shows the importance of the subject.

The Government are considering where to site a new river crossing in the lower Thames area. As we all know, new Thames crossings do not come along very often. Perhaps, as a result, the debate is all the more challenging when they do, but it is important that we get the location right. That is why we need to have a discussion today.

Some people think that the removal of the toll barriers due to take place next year will alleviate the need for a new crossing, given that it will increase capacity at the existing Dartford crossing. However, I think that they are wrong and that to rely too heavily on that solution is excessively short-termist. We need good infrastructure if we are to make the most of economic growth opportunities. I feel that we have insufficient crossings to the east of Tower bridge. I would like to see two more new crossings in London and a new crossing in the lower Thames area, but much further downstream than is proposed in the options before us.

The Government have consulted on three options. One of those has been ruled out, but we are still looking at two. People are looking for clarity, but perhaps the fact that we still have not reached a decision illustrates how difficult the problem is. I suggest to the Minister that, given the fact that there is no obvious solution to the problem, it is time to look again and perhaps consider other options.

[Gareth Johnson (Dartford) (Con)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing such an important debate and pay tribute to the work she has put into trying to alleviate the congestion that affects both her constituency and mine. Does she acknowledge the difficulties that would result from putting an extra crossing at so-called option A, next to the existing Dartford crossing? That would not, in fact, create an alternative for motorists. It would give them no choice, so if there was any problem on the M25 at that location, the problems that we see today would only get worse.

[Jackie Doyle-Price]

My hon. Friend pre-empts much of what I was about to say. I completely agree with him. That is really the mistake in the present options before us—to be honest, they are just lines on a map. They are sticking plaster, informed more by cost than by what is in the best interests of developing a sustainable road infrastructure that will actually meet the needs of our growing economy. We all have great ambitions for the Thames Gateway as a powerhouse of economic regeneration, but they will not be realised unless we have adequate road infrastructure in place. That means developing a new lower Thames crossing much further east so that we open up the whole of south Essex and north Kent to new opportunities.

My hon. Friend the Minister will be aware that the two options still under consideration both go through my constituency, but I must say that my objections are not based on nimbyism. My reasons for opposing them relate entirely to the resilience of the road network, by which I mean both the local and the strategic road network. On the local network, Thurrock is a major logistics hub with substantial port infrastructure, so a functioning road infrastructure is crucial to our continued economic success. I advise the Minister that the problems caused by traffic congestion are without doubt the biggest issue in my postbag. I hear from not just residents, but businesses, and they tell me that it is costing them jobs and business.

I am concerned that although the Highways Agency will advise the Department for Transport about the effect on the national road network, insufficient consideration has hitherto been given to the impact of either option on the local road network. I am sure that my hon. Friend the Member for Dartford (Gareth Johnson) agrees with me. The reality is that either option A or C—the two still under consideration—would have a critical impact on Thurrock’s local network.

[Stephen Metcalfe (South Basildon and East Thurrock) (Con)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing such an important debate. She is talking about the resilience of the road network and the economic potential of south Essex. Of the two remaining options on the table, A and C, does my hon. Friend agree that as well as not addressing or helping to deliver the full economic potential of south Essex, option C would also have an incredible environmental effect by dividing an established rural community and wrecking one of the most significant remaining rural parts of south Essex.

[Jackie Doyle-Price]

My hon. Friend is entirely right to identify that environmental impact of option C, which is perhaps the biggest barrier to that option. In addition, option A would have a significant effect on air quality. Taken together, both of those impacts—we are talking about serious environmental damage—show that we are looking at the wrong options.

I would like to say a little more about option A, which, as my hon. Friend the Member for Dartford said, is at the site of the existing Dartford crossing. I understand the Highways Agency’s reasons for recommending option A—I have been down to the control room.

16:06

Sitting suspended for a Division in the House.

16:17

On resuming—

[Jackie Doyle-Price]

I will resume my critique of option A. As I was saying, it is the Highways Agency’s preferred option, due to the current challenges of managing traffic flow into the tunnels. However, as things stand, Thurrock routinely experiences gridlock whenever there is an incident at the Dartford crossing, and that would only get worse if option A was chosen. To give an example, over the Christmas period, the bridge was closed on three occasions due to high winds. Those in my constituency who live inside the M25, including myself, are totally cut off when such incidents take place. The traffic conditions are utterly miserable. On 23 December, it took me 105 minutes to travel two miles between Lakeside shopping centre and my house. Dartford crossing may be part of our strategic road infrastructure, but when things go wrong, it has a great impact on the local road network in Thurrock. To add insult to injury for the local users who crossed via the tunnels, the tolls continued to be levied during the disruption, after many commitments that at times of serious congestion they would be lifted.

The Minister will also recall the security incident that took place last September, when both the bridge and the tunnels at the Dartford crossing were closed. The disruption that that caused illustrated clearly how dependent the road network is on that one crossing, which makes the argument strongly that any new crossing should be not at that location but at a new one. In my view, the interests of the strategic road network would be best served if we considered creating a new outer ring road to complement the M25. That brings me to what is wrong with option C, which would link up on the north side with the M25 and the A13, which is already severely congested.

Another issue with option A that the Minister should reflect on arises from representations made to me by Vopak, which has a fuel terminal sited just east of the Dartford crossing. Vopak has advises me that if option A were to be built, it might require the closure of Vopak’s West Thurrock terminal. That would have serious implications for the resilience of the fuel supply to London and the south-east. That is the final nail in the coffin of option A—I hope.

I am aware that option C has generated considerable support from the local enterprise partnership, not least because it is also supported by Essex and Kent county councils. To be fair to Kent, it has developed its own vision of how the road network should look on the south side, but, unfortunately, that type of thinking has not really been done on the north side. As I have said, the result is that there would be greater burdens on the M25 and the Al3, so, for me option C is not the answer.

I remind the Minister that at the time of the 2009 study, there were two further options, D and E. I believe those options might lead to the creation of a proper new orbital road, which would add significantly to our road transport infrastructure, but it appears that they have been ruled out on the basis of cost. Dare I say to the Minister that that is a false economy? Sooner or later, we will have to build a new outer ring road, particularly if we are to realise the economic potential of the Thames Gateway. It is also worth bearing in mind the additional connectivity of the eastern region that such a road would create. It would add to the connectivity of Stansted airport, which would help us to deal with our aviation capacity challenges. In particular, option D—a crossing at Canvey—would allow connectivity with the Al30, which is a very under-utilised road.

I am very aware that what I am suggesting would slow down the timetable for the new crossing, but it is really important that we get the right solution to this problem and that we do not just apply a sticking plaster.

[Stephen Metcalfe]

My hon. Friend is making some powerful points, particularly about option C. To maximise the potential for future growth in south Essex, does she agree that looking again at options D and E would also allow us to make the most of Southend airport, which is now a growing hub and making great strides in providing additional airport capacity? Now, if someone wants to get to Southend, they have to come all the way to the M25 and then go out along the A13. A new outer ring road might start to address that problem.

[Jackie Doyle-Price]

My hon. Friend makes an excellent point that illustrates again the importance of looking at transport issues not just in terms of rail, roads, or airports, but in terms of the whole picture. Let me remind those people just down the river at city hall who talk about a Thames estuary airport that we already have one at Southend. It is very popular with my constituents because going there is almost as nice an experience as going to London City airport—you will know that, Mr Streeter, if you have ever used it. If you are flying short-haul, I recommend that you use Southend. My hon. Friend is entirely right about that.

I am really disappointed about this entire debate. I congratulate Kent county council on the work that it has done. It has taken the 2009 study and used it as a prompt to develop its vision of what it needs for its road network, so it is very disappointing that that type of thinking has not taken place on the north side of the river. Essex county council and Thurrock borough council should hang their heads in shame, because we are now on the back foot as we respond to these proposals. In 2009, the highways engineers of those two authorities should have sat down and come up with a sensible solution. Actually, there is evidence that Southend council is starting to do that—as my hon. Friend pointed out, the council is recognising the opportunities, with its growth strategy based around the airport. Nevertheless, all this shows that communities can be very badly let down by poor leadership of their local authorities. We are now having to respond to decisions that are being made without being at the table, and that is regrettable. However, never say die. Both my hon. Friend and I are loud in being champions for our communities, so we will try to shift the agenda ourselves. Having said that, it is rather difficult, because—as I have said—we are on the back foot.

I make a real pitch to the Minister please to look again at option D, a crossing at Canvey. Look at how that crossing would connect with the A130 and look at the impact that the other options would have on the M25 and A13. I must point out that the A13 is only dual carriageway after Tilbury docks, which again shows the weakness of Essex and Thurrock councils in responding to the road traffic infrastructure challenges facing them, to which they should respond more strongly if we are to maximise our economic competitiveness. I know that what I am suggesting will slow things down, but I implore the Minister to bring to this issue the long-term vision and thinking that the Department for Transport has brought to aviation and particularly to rail, including the development of High Speed 2. I say that because this project is an investment that will bring more bang for the Department’s buck.

In closing, I thank the Minister and the Department for responding positively to the requests that we made locally for investment in junction 30 of the M25, which will go a long way to help tackle the problems affecting the M25. I also thank him for the concessions that he has given the residents of Dartford and Thurrock for use of the Dartford crossing, which are very welcome and have gone down well. The Department has always engaged very openly with representations made to it, and I hope that he will reflect on the representations that have been made to him today in the same spirit.

I will put one last thought into the Minister’s head. The options before us are based on bridges and tunnels, but if we are to take a longer-term view, an interim solution may be needed. I simply point out that the Woolwich ferry carries a million vehicles a year. Perhaps we should look at the potential of ferries to boost crossing capacity on the Thames.

16:25

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Mr Robert Goodwill)]

It is a great joy to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Streeter.

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock (Jackie Doyle-Price) on securing this debate on the options for the new lower Thames crossing. I acknowledge the attendance of my hon. Friends the Members for Rochester and Strood (Mark Reckless), for Dartford (Gareth Johnson) and for South Basildon and East Thurrock (Stephen Metcalfe), who I know have a personal interest in the subject.

I have noted the points that have been made during the debate, which echo issues raised during the public consultation we held last year on options for the location of the new crossing. My hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock responded to that consultation, taking the opportunity to present formally the views and concerns of her constituents. The Secretary of State for Transport made an initial response to the consultation feedback with his announcement to the House on 12 December. He announced our decision to discard one of the options—option B—and to undertake further analysis to understand better the relative merits of the remaining options. I will therefore respond to this debate with reminders of the challenge facing us and the point the Government have reached in deciding where to locate a new lower Thames crossing.

Options D and E involved locations further east than the other options. Quite aside from the costs and the environmental issues associated with them, they were found by the 2009 study to take relatively little traffic—about 5% or less—away from the existing crossing. Of course, we all know that 50 years ago a tunnel was opened between Dartford and Grays. Today the Dartford-Thurrock crossing comprises two tunnels and one bridge, which carry about 140,000 vehicles daily across the Thames and provide a vital link in the M25 orbital route around London. It is worth reminding ourselves that the Dartford-Thurrock crossing, or the A282, is the only river crossing east of London and the only road link between Kent and Essex. It is also in the Thames Gateway, which is the area identified for major redevelopment and growth. Therefore, whether people are making long journeys from the channel to the rest of the UK or travelling across the area east of London, and whether they are travelling for business or leisure purposes, the crossing provides a critical link.

[Jackie Doyle-Price]

I thank my hon. Friend for his remarks. He is getting to the nub of the issue for myself and my hon. Friends who are here today, namely that the crossing is the only link between Kent and Essex and the only link that connects up our ports. As the only crossing east of London, it is the only show in town when there is disruption, and that is why we need something else to build resilience into the system.

[Mr Goodwill]

Well, nobody has come to me with the argument that we do not need to do something to alleviate the congestion, and of course the whole point of the Government’s consultation and the work that we are continuing to do is to ensure that we make the right decision based on environmental, traffic, cost and of course air quality grounds. Air quality is a major issue now, as the vehicles we are using on our road networks are failing to deliver the clean exhaust emissions that had been promised in earlier testing. It is disappointing how the vehicles operate in practice compared with the predictions that were made about them. In fact, in terms of journey time reliability, the crossing is consistently one of the worst performing links in the strategic road network, and it is forecast that the problems will get worse in the future.

A succession of Governments, both at national and local level, commissioned studies on congestion and possible new river crossings. A study for the Department for Transport in 2009 identified short and medium-term measures to improve traffic flows. It concluded that a new crossing was needed in the long term, and shortlisted a number of potential locations: option A at the existing Dartford-Thurrock crossing; option B connecting with the A2, which we have since discarded; option C connecting the M2 with the A13 and the M25 between junctions 29 and 30; and the option C variant that would additionally widen the A229 between the M2 and the M20. The Government have been determined to solve the problem from the outset.

[Gareth Johnson]

I pay tribute to the work of the Department for Transport. Back in 2010 the previous Prime Minister vowed to sell off the Dartford crossing. There was no plan to address the congestion and pollution in the area or to do anything to help small businesses based in Thurrock and Dartford. There is still much to be done, and the crossing still remains a scar on the face of the local area—it is the nemesis of the Thames Gateway—but the Department should be congratulated on its progress thus far.

[Mr Goodwill]

The Government are well aware of the brake on economic development in my hon. Friend’s constituency and others in the area caused by the congestion at Dartford.

At the first spending review in 2010, we promised to introduce measures to tackle congestion at the crossing in the short to medium term. Indeed, autumn this year will see the introduction of free-flow charging on the Dartford-Thurrock crossing, as my hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock mentioned: motorists will no longer stop on the crossing to put money into a slot machine or to hand it to an attendant. We also committed to reviewing the options for a new crossing. Subsequently, the national infrastructure plan 2011, which identified a lower Thames crossing as one of the Government’s top 40 infrastructure projects, added a commitment to consult on those options. My Department has fulfilled both those commitments, and following the review of the options shortlisted by the 2009 study, the Department consulted the public from May to July 2013.

Knowing that our decision on the new crossing will affect many different interests, we engaged with the public in a variety of ways. In addition to online communications, both the Minister and officials met interested parties in a series of briefings, meetings and public information events. Numerous members of the public took advantage of opportunities to speak with officials to ask questions or raise concerns. In all, the Department recorded and analysed more than 5,700 responses to the consultation. The consultation feedback has confirmed that opinion is divided both on the need for a new crossing and where to locate it, and that there are serious issues at stake in reaching decisions on where to locate a new crossing and whether it should be a bridge or a tunnel.

[Stephen Metcalfe]

I am grateful to the Minister for giving up his valuable time. Has his Department at any point considered the capacity of the M25 as a whole and whether that will need expansion at some point? We have already moved to four lanes in some areas, but if at some point in the next 50 years we need an outer ring road or outer link road, so that people are not all using the M25, regardless of the crossing, would it not be worth reconsidering options D or E, or a variant thereof, and putting in place the most expensive part of the infrastructure of an outer ring road at this point in the investment cycle, rather than waiting to look at it again at some point in the future?

[Mr Goodwill]

I understand my hon. Friend’s point. Indeed, the Department is currently considering what further improvements may be needed on the M25, A282 and A13 to ensure that, when we address the bottleneck at the crossing, we do not push the congestion north and south to other parts of the M25, which is already a very congested road.

A number of consultation responses requested that we reopen other options previously rejected. Some, like my hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock, advocated options further east downstream, while others advocated options further west within London. However, given the Government’s objectives for the crossing, as set out in the consultation, 1 am not convinced there are any reasons that would justify reopening previously rejected options. I am sorry to disappoint her. Further information about the consultation feedback is set out in a consultation response summary published online by my Department alongside the Secretary of State’s announcement last December.

That brings us to the point we have reached in determining where to locate a new lower Thames crossing. As I said at the beginning, we have narrowed down the options and are obtaining further advice on points raised during the consultation in order to weigh up the relative merits of the remaining options. In pursuing further advice, I am listening to concerns expressed by respondents to the consultation. Specifically, I am seeking more information, first, on the scale of further improvements that may be required on the M25, A282 and A13. Secondly, I am seeking further information on potential implications for compliance with national and European air quality targets. Many hon. Members will have seen the coverage of our planned improvements to the A1 in South Yorkshire and Derbyshire, where we are having to take measures to reduce the speed of vehicles to reduce the pollution, particularly nitrogen oxides, that puts us in danger of breaching those targets. Thirdly, I am seeking more information on the scale of mitigation that may be needed to avoid impacts on protected habitats.

I make it clear that we have no plans to consult on additional options. The options we are still considering for a new lower Thames crossing are: option A, at the existing Dartford-Thurrock crossing; option C, connecting the M2 with the A13 and the M25 between junctions 29 and 30; and the option C variant that would additionally widen the A229 between the M2 and the M20.

[Jackie Doyle-Price]

The Minister has confirmed that he is still considering those options, but will he reassure me that there will be a close examination of the exact routes taken when the crossing hits the north bank? We have serious concerns about the impact on the M25 and the A13. Will there be further consultation with the community on those potential impacts?

[Mr Goodwill]

We are looking at the M25 as a whole as part of our route-based strategies, and will look at potential future routes for any outer orbital road, but we are not currently looking at that to tackle the urgent problem we have now.

The decision has far-reaching consequences and is not to be rushed. We will, however, make an announcement on our consideration of the options as soon as possible. My Department and the Highways Agency remain committed to accelerating delivery of infrastructure projects such as the lower Thames crossing. The final location decision need not delay the delivery of the crossing, as development of the remaining options continues.

A new lower Thames crossing represents a unique and challenging opportunity to address serious capacity issues on the strategic road network for the longer term, yet each option raises serious questions to which we are duly giving our full attention. I trust that hon. Friends and hon. Members will maintain their interest in the new lower Thames crossing as the Government progress and refine their proposal, and I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock and her colleagues will not be backwards in coming forwards to make their views known to me and my departmental colleagues.

Manufacturing in the UK

Tuesday 14th January 2014 Westminster Hall

16:38

[Mr Iain McKenzie (Inverclyde) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Streeter. I thank the Minister for taking time out of what must be a busy diary to come to this debate. I am delighted to have secured this debate because I believe that manufacturing plays a very important part in the UK economy, and I wish to see manufacturing encouraged and assisted to grow and prosper in every region of the UK.

Today, the manufacturing industry employs some 2.6 million people in the UK, which is just 8% of all jobs in the country. In 2011, manufacturing accounted for 11% of national economic output, some £145 billion. Still, manufacturing comprises only 12% of the UK’s economy, compared with more than 23% in Germany. As we are only too aware, manufacturing in the UK has underperformed compared with the service sector for many years—one reason being that manufacturing output declined particularly sharply during the recession and, after a short period of growth, again fell in March 2013 compared with March 2012. In the past few months, however, some manufacturers have started to grow and to increase their market share once more. Such businesses have embraced invention, innovation, quality and design, which I will discuss further as I make progress.

[Mr Andrew Smith (Oxford East) (Lab)]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way and I congratulate him on securing this enormously important debate. It is important to celebrate the success of our leading-edge manufacturers, so will he join me in congratulating MINI, which has its plant in my constituency, on its sales going above 300,000 last year, which is up 6% on the year before? That helps to make my hon. Friend’s point that, with the right investment, the right product, the right work force and partnership between trade unions and management, we can do great things.

[Mr McKenzie]

I could not agree more with my right hon. Friend. That example underlines what I am about to discuss, which are quality, design and improving market share. MINI is a true example of that.

The success of such businesses highlights that, without a strong manufacturing base, there can be no rebalancing of the economy, which we are told is a priority for this Government. Great importance should be placed on invention, quality and design in manufacturing. The importance of development to creating a product cannot be under-stressed. Research and development are essential to build businesses and to dominate markets.

[David Simpson (Upper Bann) (DUP)]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving way. I congratulate him on getting this important debate and must declare an interest in the manufacturing sector. Does he agree that this or any future Government need to remove the bureaucracy that affects companies, in particular SMEs, so that they can concentrate on market research and exports?

[Mr McKenzie]

I share the hon. Gentleman’s comments. SMEs clearly need all the help they can get to close in on markets and to increase their market share.

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

[Mr McKenzie]

I will make a little progress and will then give way.

I offer as evidence the innovation of a well-loved son of Greenock in my constituency. I dare say that hon. Members have heard of him. His name is James Watt. While his product has been consigned to history, his name lives on as a unit of power, which is testament to his innovative genius. It was the innovation of the steam engine that saw him and his business partner go on to dominate the market for such machinery for over a decade. As James Watt would have put it, research and development are vital to the pursuit of excellence. In technology-based sectors, research is a primary driver of innovation.

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

I thank my hon. Friend for giving way. Successive Governments have supported manufacturing in the west midlands, in particular Coventry, through their support for Jaguar Land Rover. The London Taxi Company was recently saved through useful agreements between the company and Jaguar Land Rover, because the trade unions were prepared to negotiate to save the company. We should welcome that and give credit to successive Governments. My hon. Friend mentioned research and development, and the university of Warwick and Coventry university have done a lot in terms of design and research in manufacturing.

[Mr McKenzie]

I note and accept my hon. Friend’s points and will develop them later in my speech.

The town of Greenock was not only the manufacturing birthplace of the personal computer back in the early 1980s but the innovation centre for surface-mounted technology and multi-layered processors, which have led to the powerful hand-held IT devices many of us rely on today. Sadly, that manufacturing base has moved to continents that can offer cheaper labour costs to satisfy the need for ever-reducing product prices, with the short-term justification of the need to maintain a healthy profit margin.

[Caroline Dinenage (Gosport) (Con)]

The hon. Gentleman is being generous in accepting so many interventions. As he says, innovation is the key to the future of a successful manufacturing industry. Does he agree that by incentivising R and D tax credits we are holding on to British manufacturers that might otherwise have gone overseas?

[Mr McKenzie]

I will go on to describe that as a positive step forward later in my speech.

The manufacturing base moved and was lost when investment and encouragement in research and development stopped, and that is not the first time we have seen this. Indeed, history could be said to be repeating itself. My constituency suffered greatly when shipbuilding manufacturing went into steep decline.

[Chris White (Warwick and Leamington) (Con)]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving way and apologise for not informing him that I intended to intervene. I congratulate him on securing this important debate. It is vital that we achieve consensus on the role and importance of manufacturing in the UK, and I only wish that more Members from all parties were here to listen to what he has to say.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware of “Making Good”, the report of an inquiry chaired by the hon. Member for Stalybridge and Hyde (Jonathan Reynolds) and myself that forms part of the work of the all-party group on manufacturing, which is co-chaired by myself and the hon. Member for Huddersfield (Mr Sheerman)?

[Mr Gary Streeter (in the Chair)]

Order. Interventions are supposed to be brief, so please conclude.

[Chris White]

Thank you, Mr Streeter. The report makes a number of important recommendations, from developing a long-term strategic fiscal framework to forming closer relationships with trade associations. I recommend the report to the hon. Gentleman and to anyone else who is interested in this debate.

[Mr Gary Streeter (in the Chair)]

Order. This is a half-hour debate. The more interventions that Mr McKenzie allows, the less time there will be for the Minister to make his response. I am sure that he will bear that in mind.

[Mr McKenzie]

Where once our shipbuilding industry pushed the boundaries of design and introduced propellers, double-skinned hulls, bulbous bows and countless other improvements, we stopped pushing the boundaries and proclaimed as a nation that anyone could build a ship. Instead, we should have been saying that not everyone can build the ships of tomorrow. We stopped asking, “How can we improve this product?” and stopped challenging the accepted conformity to regulation.

In other sectors, the rapid adoption of technologies is essential to innovation, and has transformed existing industries. The success of our economy depends on the extent to which businesses in all industries and sectors invest in adapting technologies and building capacity in order to get ahead. This is particularly true now. Since the industrial revolution, economic downturns have, on the whole, always been followed by surges of innovation. Manufacturing can have a prosperous future, but only if we prioritise research and development.

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

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Mr McKenzie]

I will make some progress and then give way.

Innovation and the speed at which innovative ideas are put into action are the keys to success. However, the costs of cutting-edge research and the latest high-tech processes are greater than ever before and are often too large for one company to bear. No competitive economy should leave universities, research laboratories and the private sector’s innovation arms to their own devices. The UK’s competitors understand that a country’s research and innovation capability is a key part of the national infrastructure, yet the UK spends relatively less on pure research development compared with its peers, and a significant part of that 23% is in the pharmaceuticals industry.

[Rehman Chishti]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way and congratulate him on securing this important debate, about which I know he is passionate. On research, does he agree that we need to get more students and pupils to study engineering, which would lead to an increase in manufacturing and construction? If so, does he welcome the Government’s initiative of creating university technical colleges around the country, one of which will be in Medway, to help to achieve that aim?

[Mr McKenzie]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. I will touch on education later in my speech.

The UK’s innovation performance is generally weak, although I concede that there are some exceptions. However, UK manufacturing companies overall spend less of their turnover on innovation than their European peers, while, oddly, the opposite is true for UK service companies. Other countries, notably the Nordic countries, Singapore, South Korea, Taiwan, and Israel, have significantly increased innovation as measured by US patenting. The UK has grown innovation output slowly and from a relatively low base.

[Graeme Morrice (Livingston) (Lab)]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way and of course congratulate him on securing this important debate. We both represent Scottish constituencies, and my hon. Friend will be aware that some 70% of Scotland’s exports are to England, Wales and Northern Ireland. As we strive to develop the manufacturing base in Scotland and seek to become more innovative, does he agree that it makes no sense whatever to turn our biggest customer into our biggest competitor, which is what would happen if the Scottish Nationalists got their way?

[Mr McKenzie]

I will not try the Chair’s patience by travelling down the route of an independence debate, but I and—I hope—Scotland could not agree more with my hon. Friend.

Current levels of UK innovation are insufficient to drive growth and to close the gap with key competitors. UK business enterprise research and development as a proportion of GDP has remained below that of other leading economies such as Japan, the US, Germany and France. Furthermore, there has been a slight downward trend in the intensity of business enterprise research and development in the UK, unlike in most other advanced economies. We need to combine public and private investment better to ensure that we do not fall behind.

Jason Lippitt, managing director of TMAT, which is an acoustic components manufacturer, argues that even with limited resources, smaller businesses must find a way to use research and development if they want to survive.

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

My hon. Friend is making a fine speech. Would he compare the experience in his constituency with that in mine? I find that many of my manufacturing employers are worried about, first, access to finance—they are increasingly moving towards crowdfunding and crowdsourcing, which the Government are about to regulate and might destroy —and, secondly, the lack of highly skilled technicians. Yes, graduates are good, but technicians are what most of my employers are desperately looking for.

[Mr McKenzie]

I will explore later business demand for graduates and highly educated people to bring into the manufacturing process.

Jason Lippitt said:

“Research and development is of paramount importance. We haven’t yet invented the products we will be making in five years. Research and development is the lifeblood of business.”

How true that there are products we have yet to discover. In five years’ time, we could be dominating markets, but only if we prioritise and plan for the future of manufacturing in the UK. If we look at the phones or tablets in front of us now, could we have imagined them five years ago, or even believed how essential to everyday life they would become? Devices that we are doing without now will make us wonder in five years’ time how on earth we managed without them. With them will come new careers that we also could not imagine.

That vision is shared by Andrew Johnson, senior economist at the manufacturers’ group EEF, who said:

“There are countries on other continents that Britain will never be able to match labour costs with, but they will never be the dominant part of the selling equation if we continue to develop innovative new products and develop new technology.”

How true. What is the position of the Minister and of the Government on forming a partnership with manufacturers to invest in research and development to create new products and to win existing markets and create new markets? Government policies can either make or break a nation’s manufacturing sector.

For example, Germany has an interventionist industrial strategy. Public-private collaboration enables innovation and technology advancement and promotes talent development. Global leaders in innovation, such as the US, Japan, Germany and Sweden, have well-connected systems that enable the public and private sectors to work together to maximise the economic benefits of manufacturing and innovation.

What of the UK? The UK system would seem not to be as well connected or orientated to the needs of business compared with that of, say, the US Government, which plays a major role in shaping innovation. The USA has a systematic and comprehensive approach to driving innovation and to supporting small businesses through its small business innovation research programme. The Dutch Government, too, have introduced a new policy to promote innovation in strategically important economic sectors.

In contrast, the lack of any coherent manufacturing and industrial strategy from the Government can only prove to be a disaster for the UK economy, as highlighted by Lord Heseltine’s report, “No stone unturned”, which received a positive response from industry and the manufacturing unions and was welcomed by the Prime Minister. Nevertheless, the lack of any real Government economic and industrial growth policy and their failure to take urgent action in developing a manufacturing policy are worrying.

On the whole, manufacturing continues to suffer throughout the UK. We need urgently to see the green shoots of recovery spring to life in all parts of the UK. Research and development tax credits are a move in the right direction, as I said, but what else might the Government do? Education and stimulation of the next generation of manufacturers could be a start, and I recognise the focus placed on that by some education providers throughout the country.

[Lindsay Roy (Glenrothes) (Lab)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing this important debate. Does he agree that the Scottish Government are hampering manufacturing growth in the UK by cutting severely the budgets of vocational colleges, in particular in the STEM subjects—science, technology, engineering and mathematics?

[Mr McKenzie]

I agree fully with my hon. Friend, but I fear that this debate is not the one in which to comment on the failures or otherwise of the Scottish Government to stimulate manufacturing or business.

In the past, universities did basic science, while companies worked separately on applications for commercial use. Today, such boundaries have blurred, and successful research and development often involves co-operation throughout the innovation process. Design and, more importantly, quality in design will also give a manufacturer the edge in competitive markets, as we have heard. We have also witnessed improvement by Jaguar Land Rover in quality and design. That is how important design and recognised quality in design are in improving market share. Furthermore, I dare say that Mr Dyson is not resting on his laurels and will continue to show competitors a clean pair of heels through design improvements.

What of the process of manufacturing itself and the innovation there? I was always told by my previous employer to take inspiration from and look no further for success in process change than the high jumper Dick Fosbury, whose revolutionary approach to high jumping is now the accepted method, or process, by which all athletes approach the bar. Similarly, many of our innovative manufacturing processes, such as constant flow, “just in time” and fully integrated supply chains, are now accepted methods.

That brings me to the importance of manufacturing clusters and supply chains. Clusters such as IT in silicon valley or high-performance cars in southern Germany can be located in a particular region within a larger nation and sometimes even in a single town. Clusters affect competitiveness in three broad ways. They increase the level of productivity at which constituent firms can operate; they increase the capacity for innovation and productivity growth; and they stimulate and enable new business formation that further supports innovation and expands the cluster.

[Caroline Dinenage]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Mr McKenzie]

I thank the hon. Lady, but I will push on.

What are the Minister’s plans for and position on mounting a sustained programme of cluster development to create a more conducive environment for productivity, growth and innovation? That would of course bring employment opportunities throughout the United Kingdom. More of our large companies should be encouraged to expand the number of UK-based companies in their supply chains. Also, what is the Minister doing to encourage the establishment of manufacturing supply-chain associations throughout the UK?

Labour is committed to implementing a comprehensive industrial strategy to form the cornerstone of how the UK will build competitive businesses in the long term, and that has been welcomed by the CBI and others. We are an industrial nation, a nation that still has much to offer the world through invention and innovation, and a nation that has a future with manufacturing, but only if we plan for manufacturing in the future.

16:49

[The Minister of State, Department for Business, Innovation and Skills (Michael Fallon)]

I join in welcoming you to the Chair this evening, Mr Streeter. I also congratulate the hon. Member for Inverclyde (Mr McKenzie) on securing this important debate and on the participation and audience that he has attracted from among both Opposition and Government Members.

A strong manufacturing sector remains crucial to the UK economy, now and in the future. It contributes disproportionately to our overall productivity growth. It drives innovation and business research and development; it accounts for 72% of all our business R and D. Manufacturing accounts for more than half of all our exports, and it provides skilled and well-paid jobs and employment opportunities for people of all educational attainment levels throughout our country, and particularly in the less affluent regions. The recent Foresight report, “The Future of Manufacturing”, pointed out that it is also one of the keys to resilience. It is one of only two sectors able to drive growth right across the economy through cross-sectoral supply chain linkages.

Of course, some manufacturers have not had an easy time during and after the recent financial crisis, but there has been some encouraging news of late. We know from the Office for National Statistics that manufacturing output rose by 0.6% in the three months to November, and industrial production rose by 0.3%. Two weeks ago, an executive survey by the Engineering Employers Federation and Aldermore told us that 2014 looks set to be better for the UK and for manufacturing than each of the past two years. Projected manufacturing expansion of 2.7% will put us top of the European Union growth league. The Deloitte chief financial officer survey, published on 6 January, reported that business optimism was at a three-and-a-half-year high. It is true that macro uncertainty and capital constraints, two of the biggest blocks to business activity, have begun to recede.

[Mr McKenzie]

We welcome the statistics that the Minister is rehearsing. Will he advise us of the spread of manufacturing across the length and breadth of the UK?

[Michael Fallon]

I do not have a figure on that immediately to hand, but perhaps the hon. Gentleman will allow me to write to him to fill in the picture across the regions. We have some statistical knowledge of that through the regional growth fund and our other funding instruments.

We have significant strengths in key manufacturing sectors, including automotive manufacturing, aerospace and pharmaceuticals. We need to make more of those competitive advantages and to sustain them. That is why we have a long-term plan in the shape of our industrial strategy, enabling Government and industry to work together to support the long-term direction that is needed to create more opportunities and jobs and to make this country more competitive. One of the most encouraging things about the industrial strategy has been the consensus that has built up around it, not simply among all parties in this House and in the all-party group on manufacturing, but between the CBI, the TUC, Lord Heseltine and others.

The strategy has five main strands: the sectors themselves, procurement, skills, technologies and access to finance. Through those strands, we are planning 10, 20 or even 30 years ahead. For example, with industry we are jointly funding the Aerospace Technology Institute to enable us to meet the challenges ahead and respond to the demand for up to 27,000 new civil aircraft between now and 2030.

[Mr McKenzie]

The Minister referred to the all-party group on manufacturing. What are his thoughts on that group’s call for a hotline to Government and a go-to man for manufacturing needs?

[Michael Fallon]

I was rather hoping that I was the go-to man and the contact figure within Government. Not only have I had the pleasure of addressing the group in this place, but the group has been to see me at the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills, and although titles vary, if there is a Minister for Manufacturing, I suggest that it is probably me. I am certainly happy to add to that a specific hotline, or an official with whom the group can have contact.

I have already mentioned the Aerospace Technology Institute. Through the construction strategy, we are trying to make the UK the global leader in sustainable construction by 2025, in a market that will grow by 70%. As part of the automotive strategy, we are investing around £1 billion over 10 years in a new advanced propulsion centre to develop, commercialise and manufacture advanced propulsion technologies in the UK. That strategy, too, looks 20 or 30 years ahead.

Hon. Members have referred to the renaissance of our motor manufacturing industry. There is the success of Jaguar Land Rover and Nissan, and also of the MINI plant at Cowley, which I have visited.

[Mr Sheerman]

Very briefly on that point, the big companies such as Rolls-Royce and the companies that the Minister mentioned are wonderful, but does he agree that our real future lies in growing small and medium-sized enterprises into larger companies, as most people who will work in manufacturing will work in SMEs in the future?

[Michael Fallon]

I certainly accept that, but I do not draw a sharp distinction between large and small. Companies need each other, and if I am given the time, I will come on to talk a little about the supply chains. The hon. Gentleman’s point on employment is well made.

On procurement, we have recently published procurement pipelines worth nearly £80 billion, covering a range of sectors. On skills, we are responding to the engineering skills shortage identified by Members by enhancing young people’s engagement through initiatives such as See Inside Manufacturing and Tomorrow’s Engineers. We are also supporting the technologies of the future through the “eight great technologies” strategy, focusing on advanced materials, big data, satellites, robotics, synthetic biology and so on.

I was asked three very specific questions. The first was on supply chains. They are absolutely essential to creating strong, sustainable and balanced growth, but they have weakened or hollowed out in recent years. Our broad objectives there are, first of all, to work with industry to map current supplier capabilities and quantify the opportunity to source more UK content. In each sector—aerospace, automotive manufacturing, marine industry, nuclear and the like—where that mapping finds gaps in supply chain capabilities, the sector will encourage domestic suppliers to expand to fill them, with the support of the manufacturing advisory service.

We are also working to strengthen existing supply chains by encouraging some of the prime producers to adopt a more collaborative and long-term approach to their suppliers. That is part of the answer to the point raised by the hon. Member for Huddersfield (Mr Sheerman). For example, the Rolls-Royce apprentice academy will enable the company to train additional apprentices to work not just for Rolls-Royce, but for other companies in the Rolls-Royce supply chain, as well as other manufacturing firms in the east midlands. We are helping domestic suppliers to build the strength and capabilities that they need to access new opportunities. We underpin that through the advanced manufacturing supply chain initiative, which helps with funding for capital investment for skills and innovation.

Secondly, the hon. Member for Inverclyde quite rightly drew attention to the continuing need for innovation. He was right that it was innovation that drove the first and subsequent industrial revolutions in this country, and when it comes to innovation, the Government have a legitimate and necessary role in ensuring that our future is prosperous. Despite financial pressures, my Department has sought to protect vital investment in future innovation. We have launched seven catapult innovation and technology centres, one of which is focused on high-value manufacturing.

The recent autumn statement pledged a further £600 million of support for the eight great technologies that I referred to, including advanced materials; the Government seek to support investment in innovative materials development and process technologies in manufacturing. For example, this year, the Technology Strategy Board will invest some £7 million in collaborative research and development to help British companies to improve and to enhance manufacturing process through innovation.

Thirdly and finally, the hon. Gentleman mentioned design, but before I come to that, perhaps I should touch on finance, to which several hon. Members referred. Of course it has been difficult for companies large and small in certain sectors, including manufacturing sectors, to access the finance that they need through mainstream lending. Through the business bank and other sources, we are determined to help enhance some of the alternative methods of financing. Again, the hon. Member for Huddersfield made the important point that we do not want to over-regulate the alternative funding streams as they emerge.

On design, which was the hon. Member for Inverclyde’s final point, he is absolutely right to say that it is driving buyers. Last week, it drove buyers to the London boat show to buy high-quality boats and yachts. He referred specifically to the quality of design, and we see time and again that the reason British brands are and will be sought out is the high quality of design.

In conclusion, I think it has been recognised throughout the debate that manufacturing is no longer in decline. I am not over-claiming for its renaissance, but it is no longer in decline. On the contrary, it is recovering hand over foot, and we have seen significant recovery, particularly in sectors such as aerospace, automotives and pharmaceuticals. The Government’s active encouragement is needed on skills, the supply chain and access to finance, and I assure all those who have spoken, including the hon. Member for Inverclyde, that the Government are absolutely committed to ensure that manufacturing continues to recover.

Question put and agreed to.

17:10

Sitting adjourned.

Written Statements

Tuesday 14th January 2014 Written Statements

Tuesday 14 January 2014

Investment Bank Special Administration Regulations 2011

Tuesday 14th January 2014 Written Statements

[The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Sajid Javid)]

Today, HM Treasury is laying before Parliament the final part of Mr Peter Bloxham’s independent review of the Investment Bank Special Administration Regulations 2011. This report follows on from the interim report laid before Parliament on 23 April 2013.

The special administration regime came into effect in February 2011, following provisions made under the Banking Act 2009 to offer a modified insolvency procedure to investment firms. In accordance with section 236 of the Act, the Treasury were required to review the effect of the regulations within two years of the date that these powers came into force. Mr Peter Bloxham was appointed on 28 November 2012, and reported to the Treasury on 7 February to begin the review.

The Act required a review of the Investment Bank special administration regulations to consider if the regulations are achieving their specified objectives. These specified objectives are:

identifying, protecting, and facilitating the return of client assets;

protecting creditors’ rights;

ensuring certainty for investment banks, creditors, clients, liquidators and administrators;

minimising the disruption of business and markets; and

maximising the efficiency and effectiveness of the financial services industry in the United Kingdom.

Mr Bloxham’s terms of reference set out a two-stage process. The first stage, denoted by his interim report, asked him to address each of the objectives above in turn to determine whether they had been achieved. The second stage asked Peter Bloxham to consider further possible changes to the special administration regime that may improve the operation of the regime, and consider wider changes that may make the regime more robust. The final report being laid before Parliament today represents the completion of the second stage.

After completion of both stages of the terms of reference, Mr Bloxham concludes that the special administration regime stands as a useful provision under the Act and should therefore be kept, subject to change. Mr Bloxham makes extensive and considered recommendations for possible improvements to the regime, which are summarised within the final report.

I am personally very grateful to Mr Bloxham for all his work on this review over the last year, and to those who consulted with him.

The Treasury agrees with Mr Bloxham’s recommendation to retain the investment firm special administration regime. The Treasury also recognises that amendments can be made to the regime to allow it better to fulfil its specific objectives. The Treasury will now consider the rest of Mr Bloxham’s recommendations in full and take suitable steps to enhance the regime in due course.

Flooding and Severe Weather

Tuesday 14th January 2014 Written Statements

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government (Brandon Lewis)]

I would like to update the House on the latest position regarding the severe weather that has affected parts of the country from early December to date.

Since the east coast tidal surge on 5 December 2013, there has been further significant severe weather and flooding throughout Christmas and the new year, including in some areas that had already been affected by the events in December. In the light of these more recent events, we have expanded the remit of the flood recovery group to include all the severe weather events throughout December and January.

At the local level, local authorities and multi-agency partners have been meeting to oversee the recovery effort in their areas, and my Department has convened a number of recovery co-ordinating groups at a national level to engage with local authorities on their issues. Ministers and officials from across Whitehall will be meeting again this week to explore the options available for additional support to local areas. I have already activated a Bellwin scheme for local authorities in England to assist with costs incurred in responding to these events. As of 14 January 2014, my Department has received 27 notifications from local authorities that they intend to make a claim under Bellwin for the recent severe weather events in due course. No council has actually made a formal claim as such. Bellwin scheme compensates councils retrospectively for exceptional expenditure which is incurred. Equivalent funding for Welsh and Scottish local authorities is a matter for the devolved Administrations.

Of course, with events such as these there are always lessons to be learned. The Government will review their response to severe weather, including flooding, to identify what more we can do to mitigate and respond to such events in the future.

I would like to thank all of those emergency responders, local authorities and charitable organisations who have worked to protect and support flood affected communities throughout this time. I will continue to update the House on recovery progress.

Committee on Climate Change (Triennial Review)

Tuesday 14th January 2014 Written Statements

[The Minister of State, Department of Energy and Climate Change (Gregory Barker)]

On 4 February 2013 as Minister for Energy and Climate Change I announced in Parliament through a written ministerial statement, Official Report, column 3SW, commencement of the triennial review of the Committee on Climate Change and its Adaptation Sub-Committee (the Committee). I am now pleased to announce the completion of the review.

The Committee was established under the 2008 Climate Change Act (32(1)) and is responsible for providing the Government with:



Advice on the level of the 2050 target (section 33);

Advice in connection with carbon budgets (section 34);

Advice on emissions from international aviation and shipping (section 35); and

Reports on progress—i.e. UK progress towards meeting its climate change targets—(section 36).

The review concludes that the functions performed by the Committee are still required and that it should be retained as an NDPB. The review also looked at the governance arrangements for the Committee in line with guidance on good corporate governance set out by the Cabinet Office. The report makes a number of recommendations in this respect which we expect will be implemented shortly.

The full report of the review of the Committee can be found on the DECC website and copies have been placed in the Libraries of both Houses.

Grand Committee

Tuesday 14th January 2014 Grand Committee

Tuesday, 14 January 2014.

Gambling (Licensing and Advertising) Bill

Tuesday 14th January 2014 Grand Committee

Committee

15:30

[The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Brougham and Vaux) (Con)]

My Lords, if there is a Division in the Chamber, the Committee will adjourn for 10 minutes as soon as the bells are rung.

Clause 1 agreed.

Amendment 1

Moved by

[Viscount Falkland]

1: After Clause 1, insert the following new Clause—
“Power to extend the horserace betting levy to overseas bookmakers
(1) The Secretary of State may by regulations amend any provision or provisions of the Betting, Gaming and Lotteries Act 1963 (at a time when the provisions listed in section 15(1)(a) to (c) of the Horserace Betting and Olympic Lottery Act 2004 (horserace betting levy system) have not been entirely repealed by order under that section), the Gambling Act 2005 and/or the Gambling Act 2005 (Horserace Betting Levy) Order 2007/2159 for the purposes of ensuring that each person who holds an operating licence under the Gambling Act 2005 which authorises that person to provide facilities for betting shall be—
(a) liable to pay the bookmakers’ levy payable under section 27 of the Betting, Gaming and Lotteries Act 1963; and(b) subject to the provisions of section 120 of the Gambling Act 2005 (as modified in accordance with the Gambling Act 2005 (Horserace Betting Levy) Order 2007/2159) if that person is in default of such bookmakers’ levy.(2) Regulations under this section must be made by statutory instrument.
(3) A statutory instrument containing regulations under this section may not be made unless a draft of the instrument has been laid before and approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament.”

[Viscount Falkland (CB)]

My Lords, in the absence of the noble Viscount, Lord Astor, I speak to this amendment, which is not brief but is logical. I hope I can persuade others it is logical that when we extend the area of tax we expect to online betting, the levy should benefit accordingly from the benefits that the bookmakers get from their increase in betting online. Noble Lords will realise that the levy fall has had a grave effect on the finances of racing. Among the causes of the fall has been the move to online betting by people who back horses and the fact that no levy comes from that source. There are all kinds of other reasons why the levy contribution has fallen. As regards the popularity of betting on horses, since the 1960s when the law effectively changed to introduce betting shops and so on, the fall has been gradual but the amount of betting has not in any way declined. It has just been spread over a wider area of gambling opportunities and is not likely to change favourably for racing in the foreseeable future.

I urge the Government to consider the logic of what I am saying. If the bookmakers find this unappetising and unacceptable, I suggest they realise that racing is threatened. The sport has existed in the form we know basically from the early 18th century. It has a worldwide reputation and its brand is unequalled. We really cannot afford that to change because bookmakers do not feel that they should contribute towards the sport from which they profit. I do not want to get any more e-mails from bookmakers, which I expect noble Lords also have been getting, saying how lovely betting shops are with their daffodils and how they are places where you can take children. Of course they are not like that.

As we all know, in those shops there are four gaming machines. They are called fixed-odds betting terminals, which is a euphemism and nobody understands what it means. They are casino machines. You can play poker, blackjack and so on. In most betting shops, they are a main contributor, if not the major contributor, to the bottom line of the bookmakers’ accounts.

I do not want to be rude about bookmakers. I did that once in the House. It was covered by what I can only call a pornographic newspaper, the Daily Sport. I had the privilege of removing the ladies in compromising positions on the front of the Daily Sport to find that my face was very large on the front of the paper under a heavy headline saying, “Falk Off!”. I have to tell you that that newspaper is displayed in a prominent place in my house. However, if noble Lords will allow me, I will say to the bookmakers through this Committee that if they do not play ball on this we will take away the machines—simple as that. The previous Government did not seem keen even on looking at the machines although, in opposition, most of the complaints about betting machines come from the Labour Party—I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson of Balmacara, will take note of this—and I agree with them. It is no good the bookmakers saying that there is no danger to people who go into betting shops in terms of social damage from increasing their gambling habit. It is a fact that it does that, but the bookmakers deny it.

I think it will be quite some time before we get those machines removed. I see no evidence of movement on that; other noble Lords may be able to disabuse me of that. If the bookmakers do not play ball now, such is the threat to racing that we have to find ways of putting pressure on. Maybe they have suddenly had a change of heart. If they agree that they should pay a levy online, we will have to find other ways, but if they do not agree we should consider asking the Government to tell them that the machines will be removed—simple as that. Others may not agree, and bookmakers certainly will not, but that is it.

That is what this amendment is about. I hope that the Government can make an encouraging response, because the other day we all had the benefit of listening to the new head of the horseracing authority. I was impressed by his general approach. His is a fresh look at racing, because he comes from outside it. He made this important point about this wonderful sport that we have exported to the rest of the world: what other activity is there, half of which is extremely profitable, in this case the breeding industry and the bloodstock agency in particular, and the other half of which—the racecourses and the people who work in the racing industry—is having a very bad time? It is about time that the Government took steps—many of us are keen to work with them and talk to them, together with the horseracing authority—on how they can get a balanced view of that and get racing back into the position where it deserves to be and is properly funded.

[Lord Lipsey (Lab)]

My Lords, nobody is going to tell the noble Viscount, Lord Falkland, to “Falk off” this afternoon because he is doing a noble thing. He sees the levy lying nearly unconscious on the sidewalk and rushes up to offer it mouth-to-mouth resuscitation. In that way, he offers the Committee a chance to discuss the levy and its future; I, among others, am grateful for that. However, I cannot support his amendment, and I am afraid that I am going to detain the Committee for a few minutes in explaining why.

I shall start at the technical end. It is not clear that the amendment would not constitute state aid in European terms, and state aid that would not be allowed. The recent French judgment on state aid has been much misunderstood. The Commission did not rule that the activities of the pari-mutuel in France were not state aid. It did rule, however, that it was legitimate state aid. What we have yet to determine is whether a similar ruling would apply were we to extend the levy in Britain, in the way that this suggests, to overseas betting. That judgment needs to be studied carefully and the views of the Commission need to be sought. It would be premature—indeed, I would say provocative—to seek to advance at this stage. On those minimal technical terms alone, I would not support the amendment.

A broader question is going to constitute the majority of my remarks. The Government have for some time been looking, and still are, at the future of the levy. There are all sorts of notions about the levy, from the kind of notion put forward by the noble Viscount, Lord Falkland, that we should extend its scope to the whole question of a sporting levy in general for sporting betting rights, to, at the other extent—and I am about to expand on this—the abolition of the levy. All these options are rightly open at the moment and still being reviewed. The Government have lurched to and fro for rather a long time on this, and changes in Ministers have meant changes of attitude. This is certainly not something that we should rush into. The levy has been about for 50 years, and for most of that time it has served its purpose. We ought not to go into a decision about its long-term future without careful reflection and analysis of the alternatives.

Having said that, I make it clear that I am in favour of the abolition of the levy. I have been for 25 years. I first wrote a leader on this subject in the Times in 1991 or 1992, and I have consistently never changed my mind about it. The only thing is that in those days, and indeed when I came into this House, I was in a minority of one. There really was not anyone else, in this House or another place, who favoured the abolition of the levy. That is not so today. Some of the most knowledgeable people about racing in the House of Commons take the view that the levy should go. I think of Mr Robertson, the chairman of the horseracing, betting and levy group, and Philip Davies. These are all opponents of the levy. They may or may not be right—indeed, I may or may not be right—but they have a view that ought to be carefully weighed.

I am an opponent of the levy for two sets of reasons, and they consist of being an economist and a socialist. The two do go together—in some people’s minds, anyway. First of all, I shall expand on the economic case. Throughout the world, including in a lot of countries that were once communist, there is now a strong understanding of how very bad subsidies are for industries. When I look at racing, I do not see an industry that has been brought low because it has not had enough subsidy; I see an industry many of whose flaws stem from the subsidy that has meant that every time, instead of sorting out the fundamental problems of the industry, people have asked someone else to pay for them through the levy. For years we have had a situation where the bookmakers and racing were at loggerheads, because racing was seeking more money out of the bookmakers and the bookmakers were seeking not to give it to them, when they should have been working together to grow the size of the cake by looking to their mutual interests and advancing those.

The multiyear settlement this year was a tremendous step forward, and the great improvement in the climate of relations between bookmaking and racing is also an extraordinarily encouraging development. I hope, however, that it could go still further: I hope that within a year or two the levy will simply seem to be an unnecessary mechanism. I am certain that no one would cheer louder in that case than Her Majesty’s Government. An absurd situation has arisen in recent years where at midnight one night negotiations break down and a Minister of the Crown is asked to decide how much money one industry should give to another in subsidy. That beggars the imagination. If anything other than racing were involved, it would be recognised that it beggars the imagination.

15:45

If the levy went, many of the other restrictive practices that bedevil racing would go. One example is the ban on artificial insemination of horses. In greyhound racing, which I used to have the pleasure of running, artificial insemination is taken for granted. In harness racing—I am president of the British Harness Racing Club—artificial insemination is universal, because it keeps the price of horses down and makes the racing industry viable at much lower prices. However, that restrictive practice, which suits a certain number of high-level breeders extremely well, persists in horseracing. I do not say that it would be easy to get rid of it, but it is the kind of thing that would go if we ever got rid of the levy.

Incidentally, the idea that the lack of a levy—and in particular the lack of levy support for prize money—is bringing racing to its knees is a total nonsense. I went to the opening meeting at Cocklebarrow, the new Heythrop point-to-point course near Northleach, on Sunday, to watch my two horses get pulled up. There is virtually no levy support for point-to-point racing, and none at all for prize money. If you were racing that day, the top prize was £500, which is very unusual, as it is usually £200. There were 234 entries for the seven races; they had to be divided. We started at 11 am and never stopped racing all day. That was not because people were in it for the money but because they were in it for the glorious sport of watching those horses racing.

Unlike horseracing in general, the standard of point-to-point racing has gone up and the standard of point-to-point riding has improved hugely. I cannot remember if the noble Viscount, Lord Falkland, ever rode in a point-to-point, although there are certainly Members of your Lordships’ House who have. The standard of riding is now extremely high, and all of it takes place without a penny in subsidy. That sport is flourishing. Harness racing manages without a levy; greyhound racing has a certain amount of levy support, but it is a voluntary levy and therefore more akin to a commercial transaction than anything else. Therefore the idea that racing would come to an end if the levy went is simple nonsense; that would be the first step to a more thriving industry.

I can speak as an economist in this House with perhaps more confidence than as a socialist, because I know that most Members of this House are not socialists. I have one other great problem with the levy. I simply cannot understand—it is beyond the life of me to do so—why poor people who like a bet on a horse should have to subsidise the hobby of rich people, like myself, who like to keep a horse. That is the most extraordinary reverse redistribution from the poorer to the richer, and it is wholly unjustified.

What would I like to see in its place? Obviously, in order to retain its profitable interest in horseracing the bookmaking industry needs a largish number of horseraces to be run each year. The suppliers of that racing are, essentially, racecourses, which in turn subcontract the provision of horses to owners and trainers to run in those races. Essentially, therefore, what we need is simply a commercial agreement, whereby both parties seek to maximise their revenue and the bookmakers offer the racecourses the amount of money that is required to get the sort of number of races that they think will be profitable for them. The racecourses then take into account that income, together with the income they take at the gate, in deciding what to put on; negotiation takes place and a sum is found. That might be a greater or a lesser sum than at the moment; it is very unpredictable where a free market would end up on that. However, it is perfectly clear that this is a free-market arrangement done on decent market principles, and that it would not be a compulsory levy on punters to subsidise the pastime of the better-off.

I have said not only that I think that it is premature to take a decision but what I think the decision eventually should be. I do not expect there to be 100% support—I should be delighted if the Minister stood up and said that he totally accepted my impeccable logic and would immediately ensure that it happened—but I do expect a proper analysis to take place. That should not be dominated by the interests involved—not by the bookmaking industry, not by the racing industry and not by owners or trainers—but should take place in a cool, calm economic framework designed to reach a cool, calm economic outcome that is in the interests of everyone. That would be a much better way forward than persisting with the pernicious levy system.

[Lord Cavendish of Furness (Con)]

My Lords, I support the amendment proposed by my noble friend Lord Astor. First, I should declare an interest—a very direct one—as a racecourse owner. As I said at Second Reading, I have never made money out of owning a racecourse and I do not think that there is room in racing for hungry shareholders; I do not think that it is greedy from that point of view.

The noble Viscount, Lord Astor, was called away to China, as some of your Lordships know, which is why he is not present. He has ridden and won in point-to-points, and he told a story a long time ago of how he and the late Lord Longford were racing together and fell off together, and their heads collided together. He always said that, before that collision, the late Lord Longford was a very staunch Conservative and that that changed him for ever—he then joined the other side. Whether that tale is apocryphal remains to be seen; I remember him as being a wonderful addition to your Lordships’ House.

I am much intrigued by what the noble Lord, Lord Lipsey, said and take issue only in one thing, which is that I do not really regard the levy as a subsidy—it is the wrong definition. After all, we are producing a product which is used by bookmakers and all we ask is that they contribute for that product. Racing has to be co-ordinated centrally, or else we would all race on one day and there would be no racing on a lot of other days. Also—here, I do not declare an interest—I race on very favourable fixtures and I think that one ought to have regard for the people who stage races on very unattractive racecourses in February on a windy, cold day.

After Second Reading, my noble friend the Minister kindly gave some of us the time to discuss the Bill. I went to the part of the meeting on the levy and I thank him for that—it was very kind. During that meeting, I think that it was the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, who summed it up best by saying, “Well, since this amendment probably cannot be included in the Bill, could at least powers be taken in this Bill?”. The significance of that is that any reform of the levy will require primary legislation, slots for which are not easily come by.

We heard that the Government still had anxieties—the noble Lord, Lord Lipsey, referred to this—about state aid, which may well be the case. I think that there was also a feeling that this was not entirely the appropriate Bill for this kind of amendment. Although the Treasury is very keen to reclaim leaked taxation, I think that the Government understood that we are also very keen to retrieve some of our leaked revenue. I therefore ask the Minister, since this is a probably a probing amendment, whether there would be a possibility of the Government bringing forward their own amendment if this one was not right, taking those powers in due course so that the need for primary legislation could be avoided.

[Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)]

My Lords, I have added my name to this amendment, which is a reflection of cross-party support for the levy and the principles that underpin it, even if there is not exactly unity on it within one party. Its purpose is to capture the revenue that racing should be paid, as Parliament has already determined, from all betting operators who take online and telephone bets on British racing, wherever they are located—in effect, to secure levy payments from exactly those operators whom this Bill brings within the remit of the UK tax regime, as we have heard, and who will have to have a Gambling Commission licence in order to be allowed to continue to operate in the British market.

I do not want to repeat all the reasons why there has been a fall in the value of the levy; we have heard them already in the debate. But this change in arrangements could be worth up to £20 million a year to British horseracing and, in my humble opinion, would lead to a healthier sport, more investment, growth and jobs.

I have heard the ideological arguments today and I am impressed by them, but too often people focus on the prize money, which of course is substantial. However, there is other work that the levy provides and the board distributes, such as training, education and employment initiatives, which are key to the sport retaining its integrity and developing. Nor do people see the broader picture of how the racing industry has a direct link to building sustainable rural economies. In the past, as a socialist, I have been very keen to support training levies and to ensure that the small firm is able to benefit from the overall expansion of training and education.

This measure would also create a level playing field among all betting operators. Why should onshore betting operators and those in betting shops pay the full levy while others based overseas, which do not have a voluntary agreement with British racing, do not pay a penny? This unfairly distorts competition. It is not the free market that we are talking about. I understand the frustration for racing of seeing the Government now acting to require overseas betting operators to comply with Gambling Commission regulation, to pay the social responsibility levy and subsequently to pay tax. The only area not to be harmonised is for them to pay the levy, which Parliament has already decreed they should. Perhaps the Minister can explain why the Government have not seen fit to act further and faster for racing.

The Bill does not make any provision in relation to racing or the horserace betting levy, meaning that the sport will not receive a return from remote betting activity even once it is licensed by the UK Gambling Commission. We have heard the very persuasive argument from my noble friend that any reform to the levy to capture revenues under a point-of-consumption licensing regime would constitute state aid. He and I know that the British racing industry strongly disagrees with this interpretation and, having read and heard the arguments, I am inclined to agree with the industry.

My noble friend also made reference to what I believe is a comprehensive ruling on this by the European Commission. A French parafiscal levy on online horserace betting has been approved, recognising racing’s special status and common interest with the betting industry. That sets a precedent and I know it is in the process of being reviewed by DCMS lawyers.

Like my noble friend, I am sure that the Minister may want to look at a more modern and commercial framework for the levy in the long term. Certainly, we have had many serious reviews of it, but very little progress. I know that the racing industry itself would support that—not just the owners, but the workers in the industry, who for a long time I have worked to support. Therefore, will the Minister reassure noble Lords and the racing industry that we are not going to wait several more years during which the racing industry will continue to lose out on this vital source of income—as I said at the beginning, £20 million a year?

16:00

Clearly there is a strong argument for further consultation—I hear the points made by my noble friend—and for further assessment of the implications of the European Commission’s ruling approving state aid. This amendment, and the reserve power it gives to the Government, will allow that to happen, giving the Government the opportunity to consult the Commission. When the work is complete, if this route is the right one, the Minister and the Government will be allowed to deal with it, without more years of delay. Even if there is not quite inter-party unity, there is an opportunity for cross-party unity on setting in motion a solution to this problem, and I look forward to the Minister’s response.

[Lord Clement-Jones (LD)]

My Lords, such was the clamour to sign this amendment that I was unable to put my name on it, but if I had been able to I would have done. As was intended by my noble friend Lord Falkland, an interesting debate has been raised today, and I hope the second intention—to produce a positive response from the Minister—will also be achieved as part of that.

I was extremely interested to hear what the noble Lord, Lord Lipsey, had to say. I do not think I have heard him speak quite as passionately on any subject since he defended his minority report on the long-term care of the elderly. He was no less cogent today than he was on that subject. However, I disagree with him on this matter as much as I disagreed with him about that report. He seems to believe that those involved in horseracing should do it for love not money, which seems an extraordinary position for an economist, because I cannot see, if there were no levy, where the industry would have the leverage to ensure that bookmakers made a contribution towards the welfare of the industry.

The welfare of the industry is an important part of our national life, considering not only how many people attend horseracing, but also the 85,000 people who work in the industry. I am not a socialist myself, but if I were my first consideration might be about the number of people employed in an industry. There is no doubt that the rise in betting operators licensed offshore over the years has contributed to a fall in revenue from the levy of about half between 2003 and today—a drastic reduction in support for the industry. There is only one major operator in the British market—Bet365—which is fully licensed for remote sports book operations by the UK Gambling Commission, and is therefore obliged to pay levy.

During the debate we have heard that a five-year deal was agreed with Betfair last year. There is also a four-year arrangement with William Hill, Ladbrokes, Coral and Betfred to make an additional voluntary contribution to the industry’s funding as part of the recent levy agreement. However, these are all voluntary arrangements, and legislative action is still required to provide a level playing field for all operators in the betting market in respect of their payments to British racing. Successive Governments—including the Labour Government—and Ministers have said that their preferred policy outcome is that all betting operators taking bets in Britain pay levy wherever they are located.

All amendments in Grand Committee are probing amendments. I hope that the amendment will elicit from the Government their views about the future of the horserace betting levy. The amendment would allow the Secretary of State to introduce a power. As was alluded to by my noble friend Lord Cavendish earlier, in discussions with the Minister that seemed to be an eminently sensible way forward: a power that would allow the Government to extend the levy to overseas bookmakers through a point-of-consumption licensing regime.

We have heard a considerable amount this afternoon about the ruling from the European Commission and the French power of fiscal levy; if I knew what a power of fiscal levy was, I would be far wiser than I am. Clearly, that set a precedent as far as the Commission was concerned. The noble Lord may be correct in saying that this is a permissible element of state aid rather than not constituting state aid; I am sure that he has a point there. Nevertheless, if we can get through the eye of a needle with the betting levy in this country on the precedent of the French power of fiscal levy, then surely we should be pursuing that.

What is the preliminary conclusion of the DCMS lawyers on that? Does the collection of levy from remote operators under a point-of-consumption licensing regime in their view constitute state aid or not? Is this a platform on which we can build a future levy? I hope that my noble friend the Minister can give us more information.

The reserve power is surely a way forward of which we could take advantage. It would allow us, as a number of noble Lords have said, to have proper consultation with the European Commission and other affected parties on the measure, and would allow the full implications of the ruling on the French power of fiscal levy to be assessed. Measures could therefore be enacted afterwards once the Government were satisfied of their legal position. What is not to like about that solution? I look forward very much to hearing what my noble friend the Minister has to say.

[Baroness Golding (Lab)]

My Lords, briefly, I share an office with my noble friend Lord Lipsey. We go to gambling meets together—horseracing and dog meetings—and share a great interest in it. I have never heard him say what he said today. I agree with every word that he said, and I wish to support him.

[Lord Gardiner of Kimble (Con)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Viscount for his amendment and the Government fully acknowledge the strength of feeling on this issue. I will therefore explain why we feel that we are unable to accept the current amendment, clarify the state aid position and explain what we are doing to address the issue of levy reform.

The problem with the amendment is that it is too narrow in scope to offer the flexibility we would need to reform the existing system. Much has been said about the current levy regime no longer reflecting modern betting and racing. We want to consider reform across the whole system and the amendment will not enable or facilitate this wider approach. If we accepted this clause and notified the European Commission of our intentions, it could come back, as it did in the case of the French levy, requiring us to make changes to the levy system which could be made only through primary legislation. For that reason, among others, the clause is too narrow in scope to cater for such an eventuality.

A number of your Lordships—the noble Lord, Lord Lipsey, and my noble friend Lord Cavendish in particular—referred to the state aid position. I hope it will help your Lordships to address some of the issues raised in the European Commission decision about the French levy. The Commission ruled that France’s levy on online horserace betting operators was a state aid compatible with the state aid rules. That confirms the Government’s position that the UK levy also is a state aid. Any substantive alteration to an existing state aid requires approval by the European Commission. The French decision does not mean that the UK would not have to seek separate approval for a substantive change to the existing system. Indeed, the French had to make changes to the proposal they originally notified to the Commission in order to gain its approval. As I have said before, the amendment does not provide any room for manoeuvre should the Commission seek changes to the levy system to maintain state aid compliance.

I move on to levy reform. I am particularly mindful of what the noble Lord, Lord Collins of Highbury, said about many of the other activities of the levy board. Training is one that I know something about. The recent figures published by the Horserace Betting Levy Board indicate that levy yields, including voluntary contributions from bookmakers, will rise in the next two years from £74.4 million in 2012-13 to an estimated £75.6 million in 2013-14 and an estimated £80.2 million in 2014-15. That is clearly good news—I think that the noble Lord, Lord Lipsey, described it as encouraging—but it does not mean that the Government are kicking levy reform into the long grass. The Government have said that they would like to see the levy replaced by a more commercial arrangement between racing and betting, but a workable replacement that is fair, sustainable, enforceable and legally sound has yet to emerge. We all wish to see a vibrant racing industry. I am very much aware of just how important that industry is in many parts of the country.

Some points were made by my noble friends Lord Clement-Jones and Lord Cavendish about why the Government do not take a broader power to reform the levy. The Government are rightly cautious before adopting broad reserve powers, but are thinking carefully about how such a power could appropriately be used to achieve levy reform.

I understand your Lordships’ desire to make progress. The Government want to make progress too and are giving levy reform current and active consideration. As an immediate next step, the department is initiating discussions about the state aid implications of reform with the European Commission this month. For the reasons I have outlined and in the circumstances, I very much hope that the noble Viscount will feel able to withdraw his amendment.

[Lord Cavendish of Furness]

Am I to understand that there is a possibility that a reserve power provision could be added at a later stage of the Bill?

[Lord Gardiner of Kimble]

I do not think I can confirm that. The Government are in thinking mode on that. For reasons I have described, a lot of work is going on more generally on the levy. I am really saying to your Lordships that the Government are cautious about adopting broad reserve powers. Many of your Lordships would be concerned about the Government reserving those powers, and we are cautious about doing so for those reasons—but we are thinking about it. I am sorry that I cannot be more exacting than that.

[Viscount Falkland]

My Lords, the Minister has responded in a very agreeable way, and I understand exactly what he is saying. Of course the amendment is probing. The Bill is primarily about taxation but gives us a good opportunity to discuss a number of matters that I imagine will have roughly the same kind of reaction from the Minister when he comes to them. So we are grateful for this assurance that the Government are thinking about what we have said, and we look forward to the future.

16:15

The noble Lord, Lord Lipsey, made an interesting speech—interesting in that he declared that he was not a socialist, which I am rather disappointed about, as I like to count him among my socialist friends in the House. In a way that rather accords with that, he has a sort of reactionary view of prize money. I remember years ago when we had a debate in your Lordships’ House—he may remember it; I am sure that he was there—and the Duke of Devonshire and I sat on the same Bench. He is a close relative of my noble friend Lord Cavendish of Furness, from a notable Whig family. He said, when we were discussing prize money, “I don’t know what all this prize money means to a lot of rich people who own racehorses. I own racehorses and am also a member of the Royal Yacht Squadron, but I don’t expect people to pay for my sails”. That was his view. His son, who was in the Gallery, and who later played a prominent part in various changes in racing, went puce—I turned round to watch him.

I say to the noble Lord, Lord Lipsey, as I would have said privately to the Duke, that of course racing was originally the sport of a number of very rich men, many of whom had made money in the plantations in Jamaica and elsewhere, who had bought land and wanted to breed horses and compete with their horses. They did not care terribly about prize money—they had matches with one another, but it was not a factor. However, when horseracing got taken up in the 19th century as a sport which engaged with ordinary people who wanted to bet on horses and with ordinary people who made some money and wanted to own horses, of course they did not have those resources. Nowadays a large part of ownership consists of groups of people who go together. In fact, the noble Lord, Lord Lipsey, and I were in a syndicate and owned a horse together—an unfortunate horse who did not live to fulfil his full potential. However, I am quite sure that the noble Lord will agree with me that unless prize money had been available, three of us in your Lordships’ House would not have gone into that agreement.

Quite frankly, owning a racehorse is an expensive business. However, as the noble Lord, Lord Collins, said, there is a lot more to it than that. Nowadays you need prize money to pay for all the things that surround racing. For instance, stable staff have to be looked after and paid a decent wage, trainers have to be able to survive, and so on, and they can do that only through prize money. Therefore times have changed. I do not know why the noble Lord should be so deeply immersed in the idea that prize money is wrong—although as a non-socialist, I can understand. Are we to deprive all those people of owning horses? They do not get very much back for owning their horses; they seem to get pleasure from losing all that money. I suppose that trainers get some benefit—certainly the people who transport horses around do. Will he deprive everybody in the modern world of having a chance to take part in racing, when the only way they can do it is through an improvement in prize money?

[Lord Lipsey]

I am sorry to interrupt the noble Viscount, especially as his point about the yacht-owning, horse-owning aristocrat made my point so much more eloquently than I did myself. Perhaps he has not entirely followed the full detail of my argument. I spoke as a socialist, not as a non-socialist—I am so sorry to disappoint him. I would have bought my share in Robber Baron had there been no prize money, just as willingly as I did when there was prize money. Anyway, we did not get anywhere near that prize money very often. I suggest not for one second that there should not be prize money, but that it should come about as a result of the commercial business of racing, supported by the bookmakers for commercial purposes, not by a compulsory tax on poor betting-shop customers.

[Viscount Falkland]

We shall discuss that outside the confines of this Room, I am sure.

The only other point I have to make is in answer to the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones. I have thought of a definition of “parafiscal levy”: I think it is a soft tax. Having said that, I thank everybody for their participation in this debate, which has been an interesting one, and I hope that over the coming months we can have further discussion on it. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 1 withdrawn.

Amendment 2

Moved by

[Lord Clement-Jones]

2: After Clause 1, insert the following new Clause—
“Facilities for remote gambling
(1) Section 235 of the Gambling Act 2005 (gaming machine) is amended as follows.
(2) In subsection (2), after paragraph (i) insert “, and
(j) a machine is not a gaming machine by reason only of the fact that it is remote gambling equipment (within the meaning of section 36) which is made available for use in a casino.”(3) After subsection (2) insert—
“(2A) The Secretary of State may by regulations provide for the maximum number of machines to which subsection (2)(j) applies that may be made available for use in a casino.””

[Lord Clement-Jones]

My Lords, under existing regulations, onshore casino operators can and do hold remote licences, which permit them to advertise their online products in their casinos. However, those licences do not allow operators to indicate that the product is available from any internet-linked computer within their casino or advertise their online site on or around a computer with internet access supplied by the operator. In other words, it is currently illegal for a casino to offer a customer access to its own legitimate online business if the customer is inside its bricks-and-mortar business.

Therefore, there is the anomalous situation that a customer is currently able to bring their own internet access device—iPad or smartphone—into a casino and play online, perhaps even on the casino’s own online site, but the operator is not able to offer that facility. It is totally illogical that the most rigorously controlled premises, intended by statute to be at the top of the regulatory pyramid, are not permitted the most up-to-date technological products.

The industry asserts that the opportunity to undertake research and player protection would be lost if the product were not to be available in terrestrial casinos, which are required by law to have the most rigorous control measures. It points out that all casino gaming staff are licensed by the Gambling Commission; that all staff, including all food and beverage and administration personnel, are trained annually in responsible gambling practices; and that effective policies are in place to protect the young and the vulnerable.

A UK terrestrial casino provides the only environment where online play could be monitored, observed and researched. During pre-legislative scrutiny, the Culture Media and Sport Select Committee made a cross-party recommendation to the Government to amend the Bill to allow British bricks-and-mortar casinos to offer their online gaming products within their own premises. The committee said, at paragraph 68:

“We see no reason why online gambling should be illegal in highly-regulated and inspected casinos. We recommend that a clause be added to the Bill to remove this anomaly”.

From the proceedings in the Commons and the responses of the Minister, Helen Grant, it appears that the Government have it in mind to allow this but only by means of secondary legislation. This route seeks to categorise an internet access device as a gaming machine, perhaps a category A machine, if it is offered for use in a casino. That would mean that someone playing in the bar on their own iPad was not playing a gaming machine but someone playing a device offered by the casino was.

If an internet access device is categorised as a gaming machine in these circumstances, it would become subject to machine technical standards regulations. These detailed regulations would overlay conditions as to how the device could be played in the casino that might be entirely different from those applied elsewhere. The outcome could be that a player accessing his or her online account from different devices with different IP addresses—one provided by the operator on the gaming floor in the casino, and their own device—might face different conditions of play. Customers would be able to use their own devices without restriction. This would be confusing for the consumer and unnecessarily bureaucratic, and does not meet either the industry’s aspirations or any measure of common sense.

The Minister in the Commons told both the CMS Committee and the House that she was confident that secondary legislation would give the industry what it wanted. But as can be seen, that is far from the case. By contrast, Amendment 2 clarifies that a remote gambling terminal provided in a casino is not a gaming machine, and provides for the Secretary of State to be able to make regulations setting the maximum number of such terminals which may be made available in a casino. This would allow the UK onshore casino sector to provide its customers with the same online gambling experience as the online sector. The devices would not be one-armed bandits; there would be no means of putting money into them; and a player would simply log on to an existing account or create a new one. That is a simple and transparent solution. The products that the casinos seek to offer through this amendment are not slot machines; the look or feel of British casinos would not fundamentally change.

Before the proposed new clause came into effect, the Government could consult on the desired maximum number of devices and appropriate measures to protect the public. These could include ensuring that players were over 18 years of age and ensuring that players were not “vulnerable” within the meaning of Section 1 of the 2005 Act. Players would benefit from the industry’s commitment to player protection, outlined in the playing safe statement of principles. The area concerned would be supervised by trained and licensed casino staff and be subject to casino surveillance measures. Social responsibility information would be available in accordance with guidelines. The terminals would be under the supervision of trained and licensed staff and covered by casino surveillance. A whole series of conditions could be applied for the operation of these terminals. A full audit trail for all transactions would apply in accordance with AML requirements.

This amendment received considerable support from MPs across party during the passage of the Bill through the Commons. It is clear that these proposals can be realistically achieved only through primary legislation. Seeking to introduce them via secondary legislation would add an unnecessary layer of complexity to the Bill. The amendment would give a clear definition to the changes. I hope that the Government will reconsider their position during the passage of the Bill through this House and introduce or support an amendment in support of this principle. I beg to move.

[Lord Flight (Con)]

My Lords, I support the amendment. I have not added my name to it, but it seems to me straightforward common sense. It is nonsense for it to be legal to play on one’s own personal device in the middle of a casino building but not to play on a device provided by that casino. I know that it is a somewhat shallow example, but you can imagine people coming in, one of whom has got their machine and the other who has not; the two want to play and one cannot. I just do not see the logic of that.

The amendment is before us largely because, when the Bill was passing through the Commons, there was the expectation that government was going to sort out the issue—indeed, that was what the Minister there implied—and to do it via secondary legislation rather than by primary legislation. However, it seems to me that the primary route is much simpler. The problem really arises because the Government still categorise internet terminals as gaming machines. The amendment clarifies that a remote gambling terminal provided in a casino is not a gaming machine, and provides for the Secretary of State to be able to make regulations setting the maximum number of such terminals which may be made available. The industry has added a whole list of what I will call morally correct undertakings in relation to this.

This is a silly anomaly which it is time to sort out. I hope that the Minister will be able to tell us either that the Government are willing to sort it out this way or that they have some better route.

[Lord Stevenson of Balmacara (Lab)]

My Lords, I start at a considerable disadvantage in that, having been nurtured in the far north-west of Scotland and led a very sheltered life, I have never been in a casino, although I have seen them on television or in films, which I suppose equips me to comment on matters as much as I am able to today. The Gambling Act 2005, which, as our founding document, has formed part of a lot of the discussion that we have had today, was very good and well respected for being what it is, but unfortunately technology has moved on and one therefore needs to think again about some of the regulatory arrangements.

I say that because it seemed to me that my good friend the noble Lord who moved the amendment was trying to lay a somewhat philosophical conundrum before us about whether or not, if you were in a place such as a casino but playing online on your own iPad, you would be in some way susceptible to the same sort of regulatory environment as you would be had you been playing on a machine, probably with the same internal workings and connections, supplied by a third party—presumably a casino. When the Minister comes to reply, I wonder whether he can be clear about where he thinks that we have got to in this process. I can think of many bad things we could do in reviewing the Bill, but the one thing we should try to do in this area is not to anticipate where technology might be taking us on this matter. We are at a point where things may change considerably.

16:30

The noble Lord waxed lyrical about the environment within which those playing on their own iPads in casinos, or on machines supplied by casinos, would be better protected; I think that he called it the pinnacle of the regulatory framework. I understand what he is saying, in a sort of Victorian way: that beautiful women in long flowing dresses and men in black tie, or even white tie, being swept around with carafes of champagne and being looked after by servants, give you a sense of the environment being the sort of thing that the noble Viscount, Lord Falkland, would be used to, I am sure. However, I find it very foreign, and I do not see how it fits with people sitting in bingo halls or the unmanned facilities now springing up in our high streets, where people are playing for very high stakes on machines that are so complicated and difficult, yet so small, that you could not possibly regulate them even if you could find them.

I am saying that the Minister needs to be very clear about this. If it is true that secondary legislation is the way forward, please may we have a clear indication of how that will go? If it is not, he has a challenge, which needs to be addressed, as to how these machines will interface with a much wider range of issues than were able to be addressed in the short debate that we have had so far.

[Lord Gardiner of Kimble]

My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lord Clement-Jones for his amendment. The argument has been made that if remote gambling can be played on portable devices in bedrooms and on trains, why can it not in the well regulated environment of casinos? Such devices can already be played in casinos and can indeed be, and already are, offered by casinos to customers, but within the limits of machine stakes and prize regulations. The debate is therefore about the ability of casinos to promote and encourage the use of their own devices outside of those controls.

Where casinos are promoting and encouraging gambling services to be undertaken on their own premises, the Government remain of the opinion that it is right to consider potential flexibility within the structure of existing machine stakes and prize regulations. The amendment would remove those controls, leaving those devices outside the existing stake and prize framework. That would be a potentially considerable relaxation of machine gaming policy if it were not addressed most carefully.

Parliament only last month approved an increase to the existing stake and prize limits for casino gaming machines. Parliament has approved regulations which will more than double the maximum stake for category B1 gaming machines, which are only available in casinos, from £2 to £5, and the maximum prize from £4,000 to £10,000 on a single machine. Casinos will also be able to offer a linked progressive jackpot of up to £20,000. These changes were predicated on commitments the casino industry has made in relation to player protections. The Government would like to assess the effectiveness of these player protection measures, and consider the issues of gaming machines and remote gambling provisions in casinos more generally, before considering any further changes. I can confirm that any legislative changes could be via secondary legislation.

In addition, if the principle is accepted through the amendment that remote devices should be outside of gaming machine regulations when offered in a licensed premises, it could—and, we predict, would—be argued by each and every sector, including betting shops, bingo halls and arcades, that they should offer similar unlimited stake and prize facilities in their own locations.

The second part of the amendment provides controls on the number of such devices, but there are no proposed controls on how they might develop. There is nothing to prevent casinos developing devices that are defined in law as remote, but could begin to look and feel like more regular gaming machines.

That said, the department is currently undergoing a programme of engagement with the casino industry and considering the sector’s flexibility and modernisation proposals. Such discussions will include an examination of the remote gambling flexibility measures that the industry is requesting. The department is part-way through these discussions, having held three meetings already, and intends to conclude these initial discussions by the end of March. The Government are therefore not rejecting the industry’s remote gambling proposals, but we want to complete these initial discussions with the industry. The issue of gaming machines and remote gambling provision in casinos should be reviewed, but must be progressed in a considered and balanced way, and it is for those reasons—that work is already in hand—that I ask my noble friend to withdraw his amendment.

[Lord Clement-Jones]

My Lords, I thank my noble friend for his response, and the noble Lord, Lord Flight, for his valuable support. I also thank the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, for his comments, although I think he has a slightly romantic view of casinos—perhaps we should go off together and I will introduce him to a casino or two.

The Minister took away with one hand and started giving back with the other, which I found interesting; his response seemed more negative at the beginning than at the end. The discussions which I hope are taking place are demonstrating that it is not sensible simply to address these issues within the framework of the current machines, stakes and prices structure. Therefore I take some comfort from what he said about the current discussions. The big issue is that they will not conclude until the end of March, and I suspect that this Bill will be well gone from this House by the end of March. Therefore, I urge the Minister to take reserve powers in this Bill to do what he expects to agree to, probably by the end of March—that would be a very satisfactory conclusion—otherwise I will be extremely worried that the opportunity for primary legislation will not return to this House for some years. In the mean time, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 2 withdrawn.

16:38

Sitting suspended for a Division in the House.

16:44

Amendment 3

Moved by

[Lord Browne of Belmont]

3: After Clause 1, insert the following new Clause—
“Consultation on and implementation of self-exclusion for remote gambling
The Secretary of State shall—(a) review and report to Parliament on the significance of the remote gambling market in relation to potential problem gambling;(b) within one year of this Act coming into force, consult on a system of standardised self-exclusion for remote gamblers; and(c) within two years of this Act coming into force and after the conclusion of consultation under this section, introduce a system of standardised self-exclusion for remote gamblers.”

[Lord Browne of Belmont (DUP)]

My Lords, I am pleased to speak to Amendment 3, which is in my name and those of my noble friend Lord Morrow and the noble Baroness, Lady Howe. By way of introduction, I apologise to noble Lords for my absence from Second Reading, which was unavoidably caused by illness and meant that I was unable to travel to London during that week. This was a matter of some frustration as I intended to speak and had a speech lined up which was given in my absence by my noble friend Lord Morrow. However, I have read the debate with interest, particularly the Minister’s response.

The reality of problem gambling is that it is a terrible blight on our society. The 2010 UK problem prevalence figure demonstrates a problem gambling figure of 0.9%, which may not sound very much on one level but equates to 461,000 people. However, to really understand the challenge, we need to remember that the actual figure is much larger if one includes the families who are associated with this problem. Indeed, in 2012, the Gordon Moody Association, which treats the most serious addicts, estimated that each addict,

“will have severely affected the lives of at least 15 others in order to support their gambling”.

Of course, we have to understand that gambling online has a significantly higher problem prevalence figure than gambling generally. Far from being 0.9%, the problem prevalence figure for online slot machines was actually over 9%, rising to over 17% on a monthly basis.

I am of course aware that a perceived drop in problem prevalence figures associated with the Health Survey for England is currently being used by some to mitigate the sense of urgency for implementing stronger social responsibility mechanisms. Lest anyone here should be attracted by such arguments, I will make three brief points. First, the Health Survey for England itself acknowledges that health surveys tend to report lower gambling problem prevalence figures than dedicated problem gambling research. Indeed, I understand that there was a relatively low response to the gambling section of the survey.

Secondly, notwithstanding the perceived lower overall gambling prevalence figure, that number does not tell us much at all in relation to this Bill. The Bill is about online gambling rather than gambling in general. What the Health Survey for England results do tell us is that problem gambling is particularly associated with young men aged between 16 and 24, an age group noble Lords will no doubt associate with mobile phone apps and the use of the internet. The health survey says:

“Among men aged 16-24, 11.7% were classified as low risk gamblers and a further 3.2% as moderate risk gamblers … When combined with problem gambling rates, 16.6% of men aged 16-24 experienced some type of difficulty with their gambling behaviour in the last year”.

That means that there is the potential for at least 16% of men in that age group to develop a very serious problem indeed.

Thirdly, the point should be made that you cannot compare the UK problem prevalence figures with the results of Health Survey for England questions on gambling, not least because they do not include the results from the equivalent Scottish Health Survey or figures for Wales and my very own Northern Ireland. Moreover, even if there was a drop in problem gambling of a few per cent from 461,000, it would still leave hundreds of thousands in need of help. This would be no cause to relax.

In making this point, I think particularly of the two cases that the noble Lord, Lord Morrow, mentioned at Second Reading: Lisa Carville, the accountant from Northern Ireland who stole £50,000 to feed her online gambling habit between March 2010 and September 2012; and Michael Garner, the financial adviser who stole almost £1 million from friends, a charity and investors to feed his online gambling habit between December 2011 and May 2012.

Having made these important introductory remarks about the sad reality of problem gambling, I now turn to self-exclusion. The principle of self-exclusion is not one that I have dreamt up. It is standard that is widely recognised, not least by the Gambling Commission codes for the purpose of helping problem gamblers and those who feel they are at risk of becoming problem gamblers. Put very simply, on a strong day someone who recognises that they have a problem, or are in danger of developing a problem, can visit each of the betting shops in their town—perhaps up to four or five—and self-exclude for a fixed period of time, such as six months. During that period the betting shops in question are not permitted to serve them.

By acting in this way, the problem gambler will effectively cut themselves off from the opportunity of terrestrial gambling in their home town for six months, during which time they can get help and try to put their lives back together. The problem with this protection from the perspective of today’s debate is that although online problem gamblers can self-exclude from an online provider, self-exclusion does not provide them with comparable assistance because it cannot cut them off from online gambling opportunities. They can self-exclude from four gambling websites, but there will still be hundreds if not thousands of online gambling providers that they can access without even having to leave the comfort of their own home. The reality of this failure is particularly problematic as online problem gambling has a higher problem prevalence figure than gambling generally. It is extremely ironic that in this context, where it is needed most badly, self-exclusion is most ineffective.

The good news is that a remedy is available. I suggest that in future, rather than trying to self-exclude from the hundreds if not thousands of online gambling websites that are out there, online problem gamblers should simply have to register their self-exclusion with the Gambling Commission. Any holder of a UK Gambling Commission licence should then be required to respect the terms of their self-exclusion.

When this was proposed in another place, the Minister did not appear to have any real arguments against implementation apart from the fact that it was complicated and she wanted to give the industry more time—although more time for what was not entirely clear. At Second Reading in your Lordships’ House the Minister also mentioned that implementing such a solution would be complicated. In my experience, most worthwhile endeavours require hard work. I am not suggesting that setting up such a system would be a walk in the park, but I am suggesting that it would be possible.

Indeed, Dr Sally Gainsbury, author of Internet Gambling: Current Research Findings and Implications, published in 2012 by Springer in the SpringerBriefs in Behavioral Medicine series, states that a significant limitation of self-exclusion is,

“the lack of collaboration between different online gambling sites and venues, so that excluded individuals may find it easy to gamble at another site or venue”.

She argues that the technology is available and points to its feasibility, particularly in the UK due to the current existing licence conditions and code of conduct upheld by the UK Gambling Commission. In demonstrating that a one-stop-shop facility is technologically entirely possible, Gainsbury highlights a programme called VeriPlay.com, developed by Bet Buddy, which allows the secure exchange of anonymous data. It enables operators to check whether a player is on a centralised list of players who have self-excluded. Gainsbury also argues that collaborative efforts would help to strengthen self-exclusion. Moreover, research presented to the Canadian-based Responsible Gambling Council in 2011 by the British-based GamCare and the University of Salford, along with Bet Buddy, endorses the proposal.

Within the past week I have been informed that both the industry and officials see no reason in principle why we should not embark upon such a project, nor why it should not work. Some might seek to argue that the difference of treatment meted out to online problem gamblers compared with that afforded to terrestrial gamblers is justified, because it is not possible to provide online problem gamblers with as robust a form of self-exclusion as that enjoyed by online terrestrial gamblers. That would constitute a legitimate defence if it was true but, as we have seen, it is not. In a context where we have the capacity to deliver online problem gamblers an equally credible form of self-exclusion to that afforded to terrestrial problem gamblers but choose not to, we practice discrimination. In this context, the basic question that we have to ask ourselves is: can we bothered, and do we have the will to do this?

17:00

The imperative for addressing this clear injustice would stand even if the Bill did not exist. The presence of the Bill, however, greatly compounds the already powerful imperative for action such that, to my mind, rejecting Amendment 3 is frankly unthinkable. First, and most importantly, the Bill would widen the scope for online gambling advertising. At present, only online gambling providers located in the European Economic Area and whitelisted jurisdictions can advertise in the United Kingdom. Under the terms of the Bill, the scope of gambling advertising will extend to any provider in any jurisdiction, so long as they have a UK Gambling Commission licence. The Bill would widen the scope for making people in the UK, including all the problem gamblers, more aware of online gambling opportunities—a form of gambling which, as we have seen, has a higher prevalence of problems. To me it is utterly inconceivable that we in this House should countenance doing such a thing without, at the same time, equipping online problem gamblers with the self-exclusion tools that can work at least as well for them as they do for the terrestrial problem gamblers.

The Bill provides in any event the perfect vehicle for addressing this injustice. I have heard it said that the Minister has suggested that the Bill is not really the place for introducing a credible vehicle for online self-exclusion. However, I cannot conceive of a better vehicle. It is a gambling Bill and so affords us the opportunity to address the discriminatory practice that I have highlighted. Not only this, it is also the first online gambling Bill that has ever come before your Lordships’ House. In this context, I cannot conceive of a better opportunity to correct this great wrong, nor can I conceive of a greater disregard for injustice and discrimination than were this obvious opportunity to be passed by. I hope that the Minister will accept this timely and important amendment. I beg to move.

[Viscount Falkland]

My Lords, I recognise the sincerity with which the noble Lord has introduced his amendment. Unlike the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson of Balmacara, who told us that he had led a sheltered life and had not seen a casino in his part of north-west Scotland and so on, I, unfortunately, did not have such a sheltered life and spent quite a lot of time in casinos, backing horses and so on. In fact, I had what I consider to be a gambling problem.

What I mean by a gambling problem is that it distracted me from my work. It made me have an overdraft which I should not have had. It caused family problems at home. It did not, so far as I know, do anything to destroy my health, but it nevertheless made me nervous and erratic from time to time. I am telling the Committee this because I think that the statistics are nonsense. The statistics are given to us by the Government, and they were given to us by the previous Government. I spoke to the Minister in charge and told him—which he agreed with; I was quite persuasive on that occasion—“What you are giving us is a figure which represents the number of people who are in treatment for a gambling problem”. That is just the tip of the iceberg because there are people like me who are on exactly the same drift towards a serious addiction.

I quite honestly do not think that self-exclusion, whether it is online or terrestrial, is generally the answer. Self-exclusion is rather like dieting. You can tell your wife not to buy any more ginger biscuits for six months and to stop you when you go to take double portions of a rather fattening dinner, but when she stops doing that you just go back. That is a characteristic of dieting. It is characteristic of heavy social drinking. You can stop it during Lent or make up your mind to stop drinking for a while but inevitably you go back. That is self-exclusion.

A self-exclusion agreement with an online company, a casino or anywhere else is the same. When the pre-legislative scrutiny committee went to France, it discussed this. France has tried self-exclusion in casinos and there is the same problem. A gambler, drinker or eater with a serious addiction can have a sincere wish one day to change their life but, unless they get proper treatment and get to grips with the problem, they will just go back to it. As I have said, a huge number of young men go to betting shops, for example. I have rather condemned the fixed-odds betting terminals to which these young men get addicted, as well as to all other kinds of betting. Often, they are young married men with small children. We got evidence of that on the pre-legislative scrutiny committee when we spoke to GamCare. Some young men have exactly the same characteristics in their addiction to gambling as people have with drugs or drink.

In a way, it happened to me, although it was not serious. I would say to my wife that I was going somewhere I was not going and I was going to a casino. That is what happens. You deceive yourself and other people. Self-exclusion may well play a useful part for some of the gambling population. However, the Government have to accept that the statistic they brandish and boast about as regards having one of the lowest levels of incidence of gambling in Europe—I think that that is the way in which it is phrased—is not true because they do not know about the vast bottom of the iceberg and the vulnerability of people. Fundamentally, before you get to the business of self-exclusion and other things, you have to recognise that some people have problems. They need to find a way of stopping their denial of their problems. It is not easy and I do not expect the Minister to give us much encouragement on this issue.

However, it is a recognised problem. Every day in every newspaper we read about people who have cheated their companies of vast sums of money. We read about accountants and all kinds of businesses, and about people who turn to shoplifting to feed their habit. I am very sympathetic to the concern of the noble Lord, Lord Browne, about gambling and he is quite right to be concerned about it, as should we all. However, we have to be able to detect it sooner. Families should be able to detect it from behaviour, as do the online companies. At Second Reading, I said that I am quite encouraged by online companies. They take great efforts to detect the behaviour of people, as now do, I think, casinos. They step in and say, “Look, you’ve got a problem and you should get it dealt with”.

Fundamentally, it is a deep problem. If you want to stop it or to reduce it, you cannot mess about with it. You must be prepared to spend money and resources on it, as we do with any other addiction, and take strong measures. There is nothing much that you can do about the real addicts except to get them into GamCare or Gamblers Anonymous. I know someone in treatment at the moment. I think I said at Second Reading that he told me that all the young men coming into his branch in Slough had become addicted to the machines, which used to be called slot machines. They are now very sophisticated and attractive pieces of technology.

The noble Lord, Lord Browne, is quite right that gambling online is more dangerous in a way because you are on your own. When you are on your own and there is no sociability attached to it, you are much more vulnerable. At least if you are playing roulette every week and people see you are losing a lot of money, they will come up and tell you to take it steady, but if you are online in your bedroom, no one is going to do that. Much more serious measures than self-exclusion have to be taken, and I will be interested to hear what the Minister has to say.

[Baroness Howe of Idlicote (CB)]

My Lords, I am very pleased to support the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Browne. I am not certain whether the noble Viscount, Lord Falkland, is in favour of it or against it. I was rather confused by what he was saying because he was almost indicating that we should do our best in these areas, yet doubting that that would have any effect for the better.

[Viscount Falkland]

Since the noble Baroness mentioned me by name—

[Baroness Howe of Idlicote]

Are you in favour of it?

[Viscount Falkland]

I am not in favour of it generally, no. It may well be a tool for some people, but a very small minority.

[Baroness Howe of Idlicote]

Okay, that gives a somewhat clearer impression that part of you thinks there might be some savings for life and family. Without doubt, the social problems we have heard about, including family breakdown, prison and suicide, are not only terrible personal tragedies for those involved but quite a considerable challenge for the state in terms of the cost of dealing with people with these sorts of addictions. If you can help them out of the scene earlier, I would have thought the sooner the better.

I am not going to repeat a lot of what has been said. But as we have been told, the academic Dr Sally Gainsbury has pointed out that Britain will be particularly well placed to introduce such a system through its Gambling Commission licence. Rather than having to register self-exclusion with each online gambling website, which is an impossible task, the problem gambler would simply have to register self-exclusion once to the Gambling Commission and all Gambling Commission licence holders would then be required to respect this as a condition of their licence.

If this is a possibility, let us get on with it. Let us try it. Can we be bothered to provide online problem gamblers with a credible form of self-exclusion? Are the Government and the Gambling Commission prepared to take action? Of course it will not be easy—no one is suggesting that it will—but surely now is the time to take some action and, where there are loopholes, to see if we can ensure that they are effectively closed.

[Lord Lipsey]

My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Browne, began his speech with a number of statistics about gambling. I do not want to speak about self-exclusion but I would like to take a minute or two, if I may, to speak to the Committee about gambling statistics.

In preparing for this afternoon’s debate, one of the most depressing things was to follow the various statistical claims made both by those who are generally pro-liberalism in gambling and those who want a crackdown and to see a degree of statistical distortion that I can rarely remember coming across. As my exhibit A, the Guardian says:

“According to researchers while the number of people addicted to the gambling”—

that means FOBTs—

“represents only 1% of the total number of gamblers, such is the extent of their habit that they contribute up to 50% of industry betting revenue”.

That must be false. There is a piece of research that governs how much they contribute, and it says that 23% of profits from FOBTs come from problem gambling, so the other 77% is not from problem gamblers, which knocks the Guardian’s statistic on its head without further help. However, that piece of research is itself a bit peculiar because it uses a sample of only 25 problem gamblers, and would be subject to orders of magnitude of error.

17:15

In saying these things, I speak as chair of the All-Party Parliamentary Group on Statistics, and am a great believer in the use of evidence for these things. Evidence is important, but must also be taken with due criticism and, where necessary, a pinch of salt. Our main source is of course the Gambling Commission’s British Gambling Prevalence Survey. I expect that this broadly measures the number of people who participate in gambling. It is not a good source for finding out about problem gambling for this reason. There are only 7,000 in the sample and, of those, only a small number are problem gamblers. You are therefore dealing with very small numbers of people, such as the 25 in the research I just cited.

In addition, surveys of that kind—this was essentially a telephone poll of the population—are not very good sources for information on something like gambling. As an analogy, we know that telephone surveys of drinking show that people say that they drink half as much as they actually do; it is quite easy to compare the two because we know how much people actually drink by taking the total consumption of liquor in the country and dividing it by the number of people. People halve the amount; some of us probably do it when we see our doctors each year. In the same way, I would not want to give a gold standard to the studies of gambling prevalence that rely on people’s answers when asked questions of this kind.

The answer to all questions is always more research. In the case of the gambling industry, the bookmakers would like that research to take 10, 20, 30 or 50 years without any action in the mean time. I simply say that we should be very cautious about citing statistics, and particularly cautious about citing statistics cited by others who are using them for campaigning purposes and not in order to state the truth of the matter.

[Lord Stevenson of Balmacara]

My noble friend Lord Lipsey has been strong in keeping us off the statistics, but whatever the figure actually is, there is no doubt about the testimony of the noble Viscount, Lord Falkland, for which I thank him very much. It brought a measure of realism into our debate. There is a problem here, and I am sure that what has been said in this Room will be picked up by the Minister and we will hear how he intends to take that forward.

It is interesting that some of the territories which are currently hosting a number of the operators who offer gambling services within the UK from without our territorial borders—the so-called whitelist—have procedures and systems in place which at least permit what is being suggested by the noble Lord, Lord Browne. There are some sensible things in that. It is therefore, by deduction, a bit strange that the Bill does not refer to it at all. When the Minister comes to respond, can he tell us the reason for that? Is it a general sense of hopelessness, as expressed by the noble Viscount, Lord Falkland? Is it more a general feeling that the nanny state should not be taking on these burdens through its appointed agency, the Gambling Commission? If either of those two is correct, I do not think that it meets the challenge laid down by those who have said that this is an addiction which needs some sort of approach, and we need as a sensible and responsible society to take into account those who are calling for help and must not let them down.

[Lord Gardiner of Kimble]

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for his amendment.

As your Lordships have reflected, problem gambling does serious harm, not only to an individual, but also to their friends and family, as the noble Lord, Lord Browne of Belmont, highlighted so strongly. As I said at Second Reading, GamCare has calculated that every problem gambler costs the state £8,000 every year, and we must never forget the distress and upset this causes to wider family members. That is why the Gambling Commission’s licensing conditions require operators to make a commitment to the identification and treatment of problem gamblers, and set out how operators will contribute to this. The Gambling Commission’s licence conditions and codes of practice already include the requirement for each remote licensee to have, and to put into effect, procedures for self-exclusion, which must include a register of those excluded with appropriate records, and the removal of access from those self-excluded persons found to have gambled or to have attempted to gamble on the facilities. This recognises that self-exclusion is an important tool for those individuals who have already recognised that they have an issue with their gambling and wish to address it.

As the noble Baroness, Lady Howe, noted at Second Reading, in principle the software exists to set up a central self-exclusion scheme, but there are wide ranges of practical and legal issues to be resolved. Those complexities include issues such as the compatibility of different operator systems for registering players; the range of self-exclusion options offered by different operators, which may vary in the length of time and range of activities covered; and how to ensure the wrong people are not prevented from gambling or “self-excluded” by third parties, not by themselves. Any comprehensive centralised system would require a trusted third party to run the central list and oversee the scheme.

The first step to resolving these complexities and achieving a system for self-exclusion is the enactment of this Bill, which will bring operators within the remit of the Gambling Commission. It will give the Gambling Commission direct access to information from operators to assess the most effective way of achieving a system for self-exclusion.

The noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, rightly wanted to know the Government’s view. Work is under way on reviewing the effectiveness of self-exclusion as a tool for managing problem gambling. The Gambling Commission asked its expert advisory body, the Responsible Gambling Strategy Board, to look at the effectiveness of self-exclusion as a tool and how it could be improved. Self-exclusion also forms part of the Responsible Gambling Trust’s work programme, and they are due to report their findings in March. Further steps will be developed once these findings have been considered and the remote operators are brought within the regulatory oversight of the Gambling Commission. The Remote Gambling Association also convened an industry meeting in November 2013, and this will be contributing to the process. What is more—and this is crucial to the amendment—under the Gambling Act 2005 a centralised self-exclusion system can be achieved in licensing conditions and does not require further primary legislation. For that reason, although I entirely understand the force of arguments about problem gambling and our mutual desire to assist as much as possible, I ask the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment.

[Lord Browne of Belmont]

My Lords, I am grateful to those who have participated in this debate, and for the Minister’s response. I am glad that he now seems to be engaging with this issue rather more than the Minister in the other place, and that he understands that the Gambling Commission and the industry are considering addressing this problem in various ways.

However, it is the state, through legislation, that proposes that the scope for British people, and therein all problem gamblers—I will not cite any statistics at this stage—should be widened, that they should be made more aware of types of gambling with a higher prevalence of problems than gambling as a whole. It is therefore only right that the state should, as a minimum, provide problem gamblers, through the same legislation, with equal and opposite protection in the form of a credible model of self-exclusion. To simply leave this to the industry is not acceptable. I should say that I would welcome self-exclusion from restaurants—it might help to improve my figure. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 3 withdrawn.

Amendment 4

Moved by

[Baroness Heyhoe Flint]

4: After Clause 1, insert the following new Clause—
“Licensing of remote gambling: conditions
(1) This section applies in any case where a remote gambling licence is awarded to an operator of sports spread betting.
(2) It shall be a condition of a licence to which this section applies that the operator shall report to the Gambling Commission and to sports governing bodies any activity (including financial transactions) which the operator considers suspicious in relation to sports spread betting (whether or not that information is relevant to any ongoing criminal investigation).
(3) The Gambling Commisson may require an operator to furnish any information to it if it considers that the provisions of subsection (2) may apply with regard to that information.
(4) The powers of the Gambling Commission under this section substitute for powers of the Financial Conduct Authority in respect of the provisions of this section.”

[Baroness Heyhoe Flint (Con)]

My Lords, this is a probing amendment. I fully support the general principles of the Bill. Not only will it create a level playing field—if that is not a well worn cliché in these surroundings—for all betting operators, regardless of whether they are located in the UK or offshore, but it will have a positive impact from a consumer protection perspective. Crucially, it provides a huge boost to the integrity of sport. Operators will be required to comply with the Gambling Commission’s licence condition 15.1 on information sharing, meaning that any suspicious betting patterns will have to be reported to both the Gambling Commission and sports governing bodies. Given the growing threat of match fixing and betting-related corruption, this is a very welcome development. The Bill has been endorsed by all major sports bodies in the UK, including the Sport and Recreation Alliance, formerly the Central Council of Physical Recreation, and the England and Wales Cricket Board, where I have to declare an interest, being on its board.

Spread betting is, for example, betting in what year England will next win a test match in Australia between 2014 and 2018, although that might be negated by the fact that the women actually won their test match yesterday in Perth, and long may that continue. To be slightly more serious, though, unfortunately the Bill fails to address the anomaly of spread betting. While traditional betting operators are regulated by the Gambling Commission, at present spread-betting operators are regulated by the Financial Conduct Agency. However, the FCA regulations do not contain an equivalent to Gambling Commission licence condition 15.1 on the sharing of suspicious information. The two companies that currently offer spread betting on sport in the UK have voluntary information-sharing agreements in place with the FCA, but spread-betting companies in totality are under no binding legal obligation to report suspicious activity. Herein lies the problem, because there is no statutory obligation for spread-betting companies to report suspicious activity. Sports bodies cannot be entirely confident that they are receiving all the available intelligence about suspected corrupt activity.

Indeed, the weakness of non-statutory agreements was highlighted by Jenny Williams from the Gambling Commission during the pre-legislative scrutiny stage of the Bill. Using the example of fixed-odds betting operators, she said that the Gambling Commission received one or two reports of suspicion a month from its online gambling licensees, who handled less than 20% of the market, but that from the 80% licensed overseas, which had voluntary agreements in place, the commission had received a total of about 10 since 2007. Jenny Williams suggested that it was “implausible” that so few suspicious transactions had been reported. That is one of the reasons why the Bill is before this House; it clearly makes little sense to introduce statutory arrangements for sports betting but not to do so for spread betting on sports.

The Government have assured us that the FCA is looking into the issue and, in turn, the FCA has confirmed that it will be issuing new guidance for spread betting. While this is a positive development, sports bodies are not satisfied that the new arrangements will be directly comparable to, or as effective as, the requirements set out for fixed-odds operators under licence condition 15.1. Specifically, sport has ongoing concerns over the quality of information that might eventually reach governing bodies, and the speed with which it will be made available. Furthermore, sports bodies are yet to receive confirmation on whether the new FCA guidance will even be made publicly available for them to see. Perhaps the Minister could offer some hope as to whether that confirmation is imminent or likely.

I gather that the reason for the non-confirmation is that the FCA says that its own statutes do not allow it to instruct spread-betting companies to share information directly with sports governing bodies. They also preclude it from publishing formal—on the record—guidance. Those are major problems, which is why I have tabled this amendment, for I feel that now we have the opportunity before us, we must seek to correct the primary legislation and use every weapon—or even cricket bat—at our disposal. As a member of the ECB I know how vital it is that sports bodies receive timely information when there is a betting concern, and that they do not pick up that information from revelations in the national media. If received in real time, this allows governing bodies such as us, the ECB, to warn the umpires officiating and the players involved, which acts as a great deterrent. I hope that all Members of the House will support me in looking to give these powers to sports governing bodies through the Bill.

17:30

Those points of concern that I have just highlighted were raised by the Sport and Recreation Alliance and the England and Wales Cricket Board in a meeting which I attended last week with my noble friend Lord Gardiner and his officials. I sincerely thank them all for the time they spared for us. He assured me that the department will look into these lingering concerns and that it will continue to work with the FCA to ensure that the new guidance is as robust and effective as possible. However, I urge my noble friend—and I know that the DCMS Secretary of State takes this issue very seriously—that if he really wants to address the highlighted problems, it would be of enormous value to the integrity of sport to accept the amendment.

The easiest way to guarantee a level regulatory playing field between traditional betting companies and spread-betting companies would be to transfer responsibility for sports spread betting from the FCA to the GC, which is what the amendment does. It is carefully drafted—that sounds rather immodest, but it is—so that only sports spread betting is transferred and not the wider spread-betting industry, which would create many administrative difficulties. I therefore encourage my colleagues who believe in integrity in sport, and indeed integrity in life, to support this amendment for the reasons that I have set out. I beg to move.

[Lord Moynihan (Con)]

My Lords, I support my noble friend’s amendment. The amendment is important, because it goes right to the heart of integrity in sport, and the fight against irregular and illegal betting is critical if we are to maintain the integrity of sport, on which all international sport and indeed all sport depends. I declare an interest as a member of the working group of the International Olympic Committee, which has sought to define a common approach in the fight against irregular and illegal betting. The work we have done was touched upon in a number of speeches made in Grand Committee this afternoon, and fell into three distinct areas.

First, there is the importance of education, which is critical. In the context of sport that means the education of the athletes and the entourage around them, ensuring that they understand the impact of betting and in some cases what they can and cannot bet on. Secondly, it is vital to maintain the integrity of sport. We need to monitor and have first-rate intelligence and analysis. The global monitoring system that was introduced for the first time in London 2012 went a long way in the right direction, but we need to build on the work that was done in London. The third area is legislation and regulation. This legislation before us is important in that context. It is important because, as my noble friend has pointed out, there is a loophole here, which applies to sports and spread betting and which needs to be closed through her amendment either now or subsequently, in later consideration of the Bill.

In the run-up to the Olympic Games in London 2012 it was interesting that the president of the International Olympic Committee, at that time Jacques Rogge, opined that the greatest threat to the Games in London was illegal gaming. I take issue with that view, as I think the threat of doping in sport is currently a greater threat. Nevertheless, he was right that we need to be serious in our approach to suspicious betting patterns. If that does not happen then we challenge the integrity of sport, and that challenge will grow exponentially.

It is not just a matter of a small bet. I shall give the Committee an example. If you are a young athlete in Africa and someone comes along and says, “I’ll give you $10,000 if you come second or third in the race”, and you know that in that heat you will still manage to qualify for the final, then that $10,000 is a vast amount of money. That sum can then be multiplied in bets that can be made in the irregular markets and indeed in the legal markets, and they require very close monitoring. It is that type of example that can undermine sport and lead to widespread international movements of illegal gaming, the kind of gaming that can corrupt young people and, as in the amendment that we have just discussed, goes to the very heart of the integrity of, in this case, my noble friend’s subject: sport.

Compliance with the Gambling Commission’s licence condition 15.1 on information sharing is a really important step forward and I hope it is welcomed by all sides of the House, but it should be all-embracing within the industry and we should not leave a loophole here when it comes to sports spread betting. In this context, I strongly urge the Government to continue to work with all members of the sports movement to update their internal rules, to use legislation such as the Bill before us to remove any loopholes that exist and, in the case of government legislation, to ensure that we combat irregular and illegal sports betting.

We need effective regulations, we need sanctions and we need to combat all forms of cheating linked to sports betting, including spread betting. We co-operated well for the first time in London and I think that all those involved in that work, particularly within the IOC, can be proud of the fact that there was greater co-operation than we have ever seen at a sporting event. It was not just the UK experts who were brought together; it was the industry, working with the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime, the UNODC, and of course Interpol was critically important. This cannot be seen in the domestic or European context; it has to be seen in a completely international one.

I hope that my noble friend gets a fair hearing on this. If that requires further consultation and discussion between now and the latter stages of the Bill, I for one would welcome that.

[Baroness Golding]

My Lords, a number of years ago the All-Party Betting and Gaming Committee did a very short inquiry into suspicious betting in sports. We took evidence from a number of sporting organisations, which was very freely given. We published the results of it and there was quite a bit of talk about it at the time, but nothing has happened. I should say to the noble Baroness that the area of most concern was cricket, and this was before any big scandal arose. The report was put on the shelf and left there. I hope that with the noble Baroness’s help we will bring this to a greater audience. It is a real problem, and something needs to be done. I hope that the Minister will help give the amendment a favourable reply.

[Baroness Grey-Thompson (CB)]

My Lords, I must apologise for not being present at Second Reading but I am not an expert in gambling, although I visited a casino once. As ever, it is a joy to be here today in your Lordships’ House; it truly is an education. I congratulate the noble Baroness on tabling the amendment because of how it refers to sport. She has put forward a very strong case for what needs to be done in this area so I will not repeat it, and of course I defer to the extensive experience of the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, in this area.

The area that I would like to pick up on is around the sharing of information, which is vital. Every time we see a story in the press about match fixing or dishonourable behaviour, it affects the wider public perception of sport and raises further doubts and gossip. Ultimately, it affects how parents think about that sport and how they encourage their children to be involved in it, and how people engage in that sport. It does a great disservice to the wonderful parts of sport that we all know. I think that national governing bodies and international bodies would welcome all the support and help that they can receive, not just to tackle ongoing cases but to put measures in place for the future. Governing bodies cannot always be two steps behind, as they are now. With drug-testing in sport, much more information is shared and we are able to look at it intelligently, to track patterns and see how we tackle it. This is such an important issue that I hope that the noble Baroness continues to press it at further stages of the Bill.

[Lord Stevenson of Balmacara]

My Lords, this is one of the most important of the amendments that we are discussing today, and it has been good, but short, debate. At the heart of it is the concept of what sport is and how we regard it. It is clear that it has to be fair competition; it has to be between participants who are playing under the same and agreed rules; and it is vital that all participants are competing to win and not following some agenda and that the officials are honest and are seen to be so. Therefore, there are a number of very important moving parts in any event like this. Sport is important also, as has been said, because it seems to be part of our culture, particularly in Britain. It is important for how we stand in the world and how we operate that our sports should be run effectively and are above reproach and suspicion.

If that is to be the case, it falls to the governing bodies—the international bodies, as we heard from the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan—to police what is happening and to make sure that conduct is appropriate. This Bill is remote from that, because those governing bodies have an unavoidable duty and should be held to task for it. However, the growth in the number of betting services has meant that there is a surrogate way of checking out what is happening on the ground. Where strange events in betting are happening, which are often seen, and when there are strange outcomes that can perhaps be looked at in retrospect, it is important that they are properly investigated and any criminality or other bad behaviour taken account of.

We need to make sure—and this is the point of the amendments—that the structures of regulation match the aspirations that we have for our sport and for those who operate within it. It may well be true that match fixing is not the most important threat facing sport—it was suggested that it is drugs—but the points made by Jacques Rogge and the International Olympic Committee are important in this context. In response to that, the DCMS set up its own review, the Rick Parry review of sports betting integrity, which suggested that a specific risk was posed to sports integrity as a result of the current licensing regime. If that is the case—and the Minister must speak his feelings about it—surely the present situation does not match up to the aspirations that we have for our sport. To split responsibilities for spread betting from those of the Gambling Commission is clearly going to lead to trouble. It is interesting that the three amendments in this group give a range of options, a pick-and-mix, as to how to do it. One could leave things as they are, with two bodies responsible, but it would then be necessary for the Government to ensure that arrangements for reporting—as picked up by the noble Baroness—were exactly the same, so that both the Gambling Commission and the FCA could ensure that irregular patterns were reported to the authorities as quickly as possible. That would be one approach.

The second approach would be to make the Gambling Commission fully responsible for all aspects of gambling activity, which would have a clarity that is lacking in the present arrangements. In that way, licence condition 15.1, which is generally accepted to be very good, could be applied to all areas. In that situation—and this is the third option—you could keep the general responsibilities for spread betting within the FCA, but licence condition 15.1 in relation to gambling operations would have effect within that. There are therefore three options for the Minister to consider. It is important that we get some clarity on this. If we cannot get some movement, we will need to come back to the matter on Report and at later stages.

Could the Minister respond also on the question of whether we have sufficient legal power to deal with match fixing? There is some concern that the UK does not have a specific law to deal with the offence of cheating or match fixing in sport. The current arrangements, set out in the Gambling Act 2005, were deficient in relation to the recent case of the Pakistani bowlers; I defer to the noble Baroness, who is nodding vigorously, so it seems I am correct on this. It seems perverse to have had this piece of legislation in place and yet to have discovered that the way in which they were eventually prosecuted was through the Fraud Act, not the Gambling Act. This was clearly an offence in terms of match fixing. If we do not have sufficiency in legislation, could we not take this opportunity to bring ourselves up to date?

There has been a core reaction here by the European Parliament, with its action plan on organised crime, corruption and money-laundering, which recommends that member states should make sports rigging a criminal offence in order to strengthen the fight against illegal sports betting. I hope that the Minister will consider that.

17:45

[Lord Gardiner of Kimble]

My Lords, I am most grateful to my noble friend for her amendment and, indeed, for raising the important issue of reporting suspicious betting patterns by spread-betting operators. It provides me with an opportunity to update your Lordships on the work that is already under way.

We all expect and seek integrity in sport. We could have no better ambassadors here than my noble friend Lord Moynihan and the noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson, on these matters; that is clearly important. What my noble friend Lord Moynihan said about education is also extremely important.

The Government are clear that all gambling operators, whether they provide spread betting or fixed-odds betting services, should be subject to obligations to report suspicious market activity of the sort which is set out in licence condition 15.1. The Government confirmed in the other place that the FCA would issue guidance to the sports spread-betting firms operating in the United Kingdom regarding how they report suspicious betting transactions under the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000. So far as is possible, it will be aligned to those requirements on the fixed-odds betting operators licensed by the Gambling Commission under licence condition 15.1. This is an important development that will strengthen the existing arrangements, and allow for greater consistency in the way that suspicious activity is reported. I am pleased to be able to confirm that work on this has been progressing. Officials from the FCA met the representatives of sports governing bodies and the Gambling Commission on 5 December 2013. The FCA is now in the process of drafting the guidance, and I understand that it hopes to be in a position to issue a draft to operators in early February. The department will continue to explore the provision of draft guidance with the FCA.

Concerns have been raised about whether compliance with the FCA guidance will be just voluntary. Compliance will indeed not be voluntary. Real consequences can flow from a failure to follow the guidance. Failure to comply could result in the FCA determining an operator has breached FCA rules, which would put the operator at risk of enforcement action by the FCA. In parallel to the FCA guidance, the Gambling Commission has just completed consulting on changing licence condition 15.1 to make it clearer that the Gambling Commission expects operators to report all information about suspicious betting patterns in its knowledge to the Gambling Commission and sports governing bodies, whether or not those occurred on their Gambling Commission-licensed bets. This would include information about suspicious betting patterns in its spread-betting operations. Those changes will be made as part of other changes being made to the licence code and conditions in anticipation of the new licensing requirements.

This is an important part of the picture, because the vast majority of sports spread betting is covered by the two operators that are also licensed by the Gambling Commission for fixed-odds betting. The commission has found the operators co-operative in responding to inquires about spread betting on specific events, and willing to volunteer such information. However, if contrary to the commission’s experience of working with them, its licensees breach the licence condition, it would be open to the commission to consider an appropriate sanction, which can include financial penalty, imposition of licence condition or, in extremis, licence revocation. The commission therefore already has the powers suggested in Amendment 11.

Amendment 12 raises the question of whether sports spread betting should be transferred from the FCA to the Gambling Commission. As I have said, the integrity of sport is absolutely paramount. The public has to be confident that what they are seeing in front of them is true and fair. However, the Government do not believe that at this stage there is a case for fundamental change to the existing arrangements or that non-legislative options for strengthening sports integrity have been exhausted.

Given that the FCA regulates and supervises spread-betting firms more generally, only two of the spread-betting operators relate to sport out of 26. There are advantages to ensuring that responsibility for the regulation of sports spread betting remains with the FCA, in that it allows for a consistent approach to the regulation of all spread betting—both sports and financial spread betting. The Government believe that that is the right approach and that regulation of spread betting in all its forms should remain with the FCA. Enshrining licence conditions in primary legislation also limits the flexibility to amend this position should that be necessary in future.

Obviously, the Government acknowledge the importance of ensuring that there is consistency in the way that suspicious activity is reported between sports spread-betting and fixed-odds betting operators licensed by the Gambling Commission. The Government believe that the FCA guidance and work being done by the Gambling Commission will create that consistency without the need for legislative intervention.

The noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, mentioned a new offence of cheating at sport. My understanding is that in response to proposals from the Council of Europe for a convention on sports integrity, the Government reviewed the case for a specific match-fixing offence. They concluded that it was not needed as any non-betting match fixing, as well as betting-related match fixing, already was covered adequately by existing legislation. The “cheating at gambling” offence under the Gambling Act 2005 is deliberately wide to extend its applicability and we would not want to lose that flexibility.

Only last month, the Secretary of State brought sports and the Gambling Commission together to work to combat match fixing. We believe that this is the right forum in which to consider further action to safeguard the integrity of sport. Clearly, I understand that this is a matter of concern to your Lordships. Obviously, as with meetings we already have had, I am always interested in hearing issues that may be alive on this matter. However, on the basis of the reasons I have outlined, I ask my noble friend to withdraw her amendment.

[Baroness Heyhoe Flint]

My Lords, first, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Golding, and our finely tuned athletes the noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson, and my noble friend Lord Moynihan, for their contributions. If the noble Baroness, Lady Golding, would like it, I will put her into the “finely tuned athletes” bracket. I feel so passionately about this amendment, which has so many implications for sport not just in this country but globally. Who better to speak on that than my noble friend Lord Moynihan with his experience throughout the world of the Olympics and the noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson, with her level of participation? I sincerely hope that this issue is revisited and is given consideration later during the passage of the Bill.

The noble Lord, Lord Stevenson of Balmacara, mentioned the Sports Betting Integrity Panel report led by Rick Parry. That was in 2010, since when there have been four years during which we still have concerns about matters relating so deeply to sport. We had the wonderful presentation of the Olympic Games in this country. However, had one betting incident occurred, all those memories and the kudos brought to this country from staging such a memorable event would have been erased. That is probably why, more than anything, I hold this concern about protecting the integrity of sport.

I have received assurances from the Minister. We will keep an eye on this issue. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 4 withdrawn.

Amendment 5

Moved by

[Baroness Howe of Idlicote]

5: After Clause 1, insert the following new Clause—
“Credit and financial institutions must not accept payments to and from unlicensed remote gambling organisation
In Schedule 7 to the Counter-Terrorism Act 2008 (terrorist financing and money laundering)—(a) at the end of paragraph 1(4) insert—“(4A) The fourth condition is that the Treasury reasonably believe that one or more people or organisations who do not hold a remote gambling licence are advertising unlawful gambling.”
(b) at the end of paragraph 2(6) insert—“(7) “Remote gambling licence” means a licence under section 67 of the Gambling Act 2005.””

[Baroness Howe of Idlicote]

My Lords, I am pleased to speak to my Amendments 5, 6 and 7, each of which highlights the lack of a proper enforcement mechanism in the Bill, and proposes a remedy.

As I said at Second Reading, on any view of it, the Bill is all carrot and no stick. In providing the offer of advertising to UK Gambling Commission licence holders, the Bill certainly provides a carrot, but what of a stick to protect UK consumers from accessing unregulated websites? On that the Bill makes no provisions. When pressed about this at Second Reading, the Minister said that,

“the Government and the Gambling Commission are confident that action can be taken through existing enforcement mechanisms to disrupt and stop unlawful gambling. These include action on illegal advertising, player education and, ultimately, prosecution”.—[Official Report, 17/12/13; col. 1252.]

I will take each of those provisions in turn.

First, taking action against illegal advertising will not prevent unregulated providers accessing the UK market but will just prevent them from advertising. Moreover, while the Department for Culture, Media and Sport says that advertising is enough of an incentive for companies outside the current whitelisted and EEA jurisdictions to apply for a UK licence, that is an untested assumption. The current experience is that providers located beyond whitelisted and EEA jurisdictions happily access the UK market even though they cannot advertise. Our current law has not prevented them from accessing our market. Is that not the principal consumer safety argument for the Bill before us today?

As if this was not enough, in a conversation I had with the industry last week I heard that remote gambling customers are incredibly price-sensitive and, in a very rapidly changing market, increasingly find online comparisons of the odds available from providers much more useful than advertising. Those customers do not rely on traditional advertising to find the best odds but rather use price comparison websites and odds-checkers. This development makes the Bill’s dependence on advertising even more problematic.

Secondly, while better player education is obviously fine, it is no substitute for the state preventing unregulated online gambling providers getting to UK consumers. We do not find the state relying on better education in other areas to compensate for the lack of enforcement. Finally, we come to the only mechanism of the three that really pertains to preventing unlicensed operators accessing the UK market: enforcement—namely, prosecution. However, by the Government’s own admission, this is a deeply problematic mechanism when having regard for a multiplicity of small providers spread across the world.

In its 2010 remote gambling consultation DCMS says:

“In the event of detecting an unlicensed operator believed to be actively targeting British consumers, a straightforward test purchase exercise would assist the Commission in determining whether an offence was being committed. Though we recognise that without extra-territorial extent, it will be difficult to actually pursue the offence through the Courts if the operator is located outside Britain”.

How right the department is. The truth is that large numbers of relatively small online providers located beyond the UK make prosecution a woefully inadequate mechanism for addressing the problem of unlicensed operators accessing the UK market. The operators in question know that the UK Government cannot possibly devote the necessary resources to chasing them through the courts of foreign jurisdictions. They know that the chances of them ever getting convicted are absolutely tiny, and many will be quite happy to take any risk.

18:00

None of these provisions delivers credible enforcement in the sense of protecting UK consumers from unlicensed providers accessing the UK marketplace. In this context, the suggestion that the Bill is all about consumer protection gets into real difficulty. It is just not credible to argue that the Bill is about better regulation if it simply allows a whole new group of providers to advertise online gambling opportunities for the first time, without at the same time preventing companies without a UK Gambling Commission licence accessing the UK market. In this context, the principal change secured by the Bill is that more people can advertise in the UK. Unregulated providers will be able to continue to access the market as before. As such, rather than looking like a Bill that has at its heart a desire to provide better consumer protection, the Bill looks more like the online gambling licensing liberalisation Bill, in the context of which the suggestion that its primary concern is taxation revenue looks much too credible.

Of course, none of this would be true if it were not for the fact that credible enforcement mechanisms exist, in the form of financial transaction and ISP blocking. Let me begin with ISP blocking, the subject of my Amendment 7. If this provision were in place, it would be possible to block websites providing access to price comparison sites and odds-checkers that involve odds from unlicensed online gambling providers. It would, of course, also be possible to block the sites of unlicensed gambling providers.

I would certainly like to see ISP blocking as one important mechanism in the available toolbox provided by the Bill. On the basis of my research, however, if I were restricted to one mechanism, I would choose financial transaction blocking, the subject of my Amendments 5 and 6, which will be the focus of the remainder of what I am going to say. Amendment 5 would introduce financial transaction blocking, investing relevant powers in the Treasury, while Amendment 6 would introduce financial transaction blocking, investing relevant powers in the Gambling Commission.

The Government have been clear that they have not ruled out financial transaction blocking but say that the evidence is mixed, on which basis they suggest that they do not want to make provision for financial transaction blocking in the Bill. However, I still do not find this persuasive, for four reasons. First, I know that financial transaction blocking is not 100% successful. Few public policy solutions are, but that does not mean that they should be rejected. As I said at Second Reading, even if something is just 50% successful, if we want to seize every opportunity to protect British consumers when we can, we should surely seize hold of this opportunity on the basis that it is 50% better than nothing.

Secondly, the truth is that financial transaction blocking has been deemed to be sufficiently useful to be employed as a tool to protect consumers from unregulated online gambling providers in Belgium, Estonia, France, Hungary, Israel, Malaysia, the Netherlands, Norway and the United States. Thirdly, financial transaction blocking is actually likely to be more successful in the UK than in many other jurisdictions, both because as a relatively open market, blocking will not need to be employed to the same extent as in a relatively closed market, and because open markets are highly competitive so there will not be the same incentive for punters to try to evade the financial transaction blocking that exists in closed markets. The online gambling industry has been at particular pains to stress the success of financial transaction blocking in the United States. Fourthly, if the Government are concerned about solutions with mixed results, why are they entertaining the possibility of solutions that are likely to demonstrate far more mixed results; namely, prosecution, the efficacy of which is seriously called into question by their own consultation?

The fact that financial transaction blocking may not work all the time is not a real reason not to introduce it in this Bill. If the Government did so, and accepted Amendments 5 and 6, they would surely restore integrity to their proposed legislation, making what I regard as their half-Bill into a whole Bill, and making it clear that this Bill is indeed about consumer protection, and not just liberalising, advertising or promoting tax receipts.

In the past week I have been lobbied from radically different quarters about the urgent need for these amendments. On the one hand, I have been lobbied by the online gambling industry, which is very concerned that this Bill will allow many small unlicensed providers to access the UK market with impunity and without having to embrace the same regulatory costs as licensed operators. Paddy Power, Sky and Ladbrokes have all expressed their support for my financial transaction blocking amendments. On the other hand, I have been lobbied by charities which are deeply concerned that without credible enforcement this Bill will leave UK problem gamblers in a very vulnerable position.

When such an unusual and broad cross-section of support for a change emerges, perhaps it ought to be taken much more seriously. I very much look forward to hearing what the Minister has to say.

[Lord Morrow (DUP)]

My Lords, I am pleased to support Amendments 5, 6 and 7, and the noble Baroness, Lady Howe. She has explained very clearly why it is simply not credible for the Government to present us with half a Bill—a Bill that, as she rightly says, is all carrot and very little stick, if indeed any stick at all.

If this Bill does not provide a credible enforcement mechanism to protect British consumers from unlicensed providers, its integrity will be in doubt. Neither cracking down on illegal advertising nor player education will prevent unlicensed operators from accessing the UK market. Moreover, the notion that prosecution will do so is simply not credible, for the reasons eloquently set out by DCMS in its remote gambling consultation. The provision of an enforcement mechanism is thus imperative.

Like the noble Baroness, Lady Howe, I would like to see the integrity of this Bill restored and, as she said, have it returned to being a complete Bill, with both carrot and stick. To this end, I would very much like to see the Bill amended to make provision for both financial transaction and website blocking. Given that the noble Baroness, Lady Howe, has concentrated on financial transaction blocking, I will focus my comments on the blocking of websites.

The first point is that we already use ISP blocking to protect intellectual property. The Prime Minister’s newly appointed intellectual property adviser in the other place, Mike Weatherley, the MP for Hove, has threatened fresh legislation against broadband ISPs that,

“knowingly facilitate illegal downloading practices”

and do not take steps to stop it. If there is such an appetite in parts of government to get ISPs to help protect intellectual property, why not use the same tool to protect UK customers from accessing unregulated gambling websites?

My second point is about the nature of ISP blocking within the context of gambling in the United Kingdom. ISP blocking of unlicensed gambling websites will be much more successful than ISP blocking to prevent copyright infringement. Only last October the trade body, BPI, brought a successful case at the High Court, which issued injunctions to ISPs in the UK to block 21 websites that infringe copyright. In 2012 it successfully ensured that ISPs had to block The Pirate Bay, a website also associated with copyright infringement. The Motion Picture Association of America also brought cases against seven websites successfully in the last months of 2013. They are now being blocked by ISPs. In both cases, the websites that are being blocked by ISPs are diverse websites that allow or facilitate copyright infringement. They offer either peer-to-peer file-sharing for music, films or TV, connecting people through the so-called torrents, or direct access to streamed content such as the BBC iPlayer or the ITV and Channel 4 equivalents.

The law that is used to effect the ISP blocks is the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988, amended by the Digital Economy Act 2010. As I understand it, this is also the basis of the wording of the new clause before us now. In an article published on the BBC News website, a spokesperson for the BPI said that it felt that the blocks currently in force had,

“significantly reduced the use of those sites in the UK”.

The veracity of that claim has of course been challenged but it is safe to say that, for the casual user who is able to access free or nearly free legal content, the block acts as a significant deterrent and points users towards legal content. In the context of gambling websites, however, the evidence suggests that blocking would be even more effective. The remote gambling sector, unlike the copyright piracy sector, requires money to be spent. That increases the incentive for the person who will be spending that money to do so in a responsible way, or at least in a way that will ensure that the money does not go missing if they win a sum and then the irresponsible website does not pay up.

While I take the point that gamblers seek out the best odds that they can find, I also think that there is a desire for them to seek out odds on websites that they know are properly regulated and thus accountable in any dispute over payout and financial security, or indeed disputes about proper player protection. So while it may be possible to get around ISP blocking if one has the requisite know-how, it is unlikely that punters will seek to do this in the same way as illegal file-sharers. Moreover, if ISP blocking were to be combined with a warning page provided by the Gambling Commission that informed users that the website in question was not regulated and operated illegally in the UK, the likelihood of a person then trying to circumvent the ISP block should drop significantly.

The Minister in the other place made the point that ISP blocking for remote gambling websites has seen mixed results in other jurisdictions but it is hard to compare the UK to other jurisdictions because of how open and free the market is in the UK. This means that while there will be websites that operate in the UK without a licence, there will be fewer websites that operate without a licence here than, for example, in Italy. While blocking illegal websites accessing the UK will be very important, therefore, there would be significantly less blocking to do here than in closed markets that use blocking as an enforcement mechanism. Given that the threat of ISP blocking to a potential revenue stream is real, it would act as an incentive not only for players to gamble on regulated websites but for unlicensed websites to seek a gambling licence and come under regulation. After all, the market here is completely open.

We need to think creatively. We already ask ISPs to block certain content. Let us apply the same mechanisms to remote gambling, where almost certainly the use of such blocks, for the reasons that I have set out, will be more successful than they are in relation to other forms of online content and in other jurisdictions. I very much hope that the Government will back Amendments 5, 6 and 7 and thereby restore integrity to the Bill.

18:15

[Lord Stevenson of Balmacara]

My Lords, the case that has been made is very powerful. We need consumer measures to make a reality of some of the aspirations in this Bill, and it is wrong for government to will the ends of policy without also willing the means.

If the Government’s intention is to rely on a prosecutorial approach to this, they are bound to be frustrated. We are talking about a black market emerging which will be located offshore—very much offshore in some cases—in territories that will not recognise British prosecutorial intentions and in which the possibility of bringing people to justice will be very remote indeed. What will provide the stick to ensure that these measures are effective and to root out those who would operate in a way that is counterproductive to UK interests?

The two suggestions in our amendments, which shadow closely those put down by the noble Baroness, Lady Howe, reflect the two possibilities that are realistic. They are to try to find a financial way of squeezing out those who are operating out there—if they cannot make money out of it, they certainly will not continue; it is also possible to think in terms of IP.

There is a sense in which the fact that these powers exist will probably be more effective than the use of them. I say this in full understanding of the wider context—that shutting down people’s access to operating in an open economy is generally a bad thing—but there will be cases where it is necessary to do that, and we would support that if it were required.

These proposals have wide agreement. There is obviously going to be a considerable issue here, which needs to be addressed by the Government. It is up to the Government, via the Minister, to respond to the powerful case made by the noble Baroness, Lady Howe.

[Lord Clement-Jones]

My Lords, a strong case has been made by the noble Baroness, Lady Howe. It is rather nice to see the rebirth of Section 17 of the Digital Economy Act, which I had the honour of being instrumental in inserting into that Act during its passage through this House. As a result, I was nominated as the “internet villain of the year”.

As it happens, I need to correct the noble Lord, Lord Lipsey: it is not that particular section that is used in order to block ISPs where copyright infringement is being demonstrated; it is actually Section 97A of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act, which has proved extremely effective. In a way, it demonstrates that you do not need such a complicated clause. That is neither here nor there, but it does show that site-blocking is perfectly effective. Indeed, as the noble Lord, Lord Lipsey, demonstrated, the BPI has been very successful in defending copyright owners in that respect, contrary to the views of Ofcom, which were expressed in 2010 and are the reason why Section 17 of the Digital Economy Act has not been brought into effect.

When I read the evidence of the Gambling Commission to the DCMS Select Committee, I really do not know what kind of universe it is living in. Its conclusions seem rather extraordinary. It is worth reading out the paragraph that deals with its rationale for why it did not recommend to the Government the introduction of site-blocking or financial measures of the kind the amendments in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Howe, deal with. It says:

“We have also followed carefully the experience of gambling regulators in other parts of the world with site and payment blocking, which suggests in the gambling market such measures have achieved only limited disruption and deterrent effects”.

Actually, a lot of jurisdictions have adopted those, as we have heard today. The commission goes on to say:

“However this may be because they were tried primarily in markets where the legal offering was severely constrained and the tax rates high”.

I am not sure about that. It continues:

“In the case of UK gambling there is no equivalent to the copyright owners to seek injunctions nor any statutory power for the Commission at the moment to seek such injunctions. We came to the conclusion that, given all the other measures at our disposal and the very open and attractive legal opportunities for those licensed by the Commission, seeking additional powers in the Bill to enable the Commission to seek injunctions blocking illegal operators’ sites or use of payment processors would not be proportionate to the likely risks and would, if obtained, risk consuming disproportionate Commission resources to achieve limited disruption and deterrent effect”.

That argument seems to me to be saying, “The carrots are absolutely fantastic and that will mean that there will not be too much of an illegal market”. There are going to be illegal markets; there are going to be unlicensed operators; and the commission is more or less saying that the only stick of some kind at its disposal, and we have heard about the flaws in that, are on the advertising front.

The commission did say, however, that,

“we did not rule out the option of seeking such powers at a later date if our assessment of the small size of the illegal market proved wrong and of course there are continuing discussions on the wider government front and in the European Commission in relation to combating misuse of the internet and illegal remote gambling provision”.

It is very odd for a regulator of this kind not to be looking at the precautionary aspects of all this. At the very least, taking reserve powers for site blocking in these circumstances would make great sense. I hope that, even if the Government cannot bring themselves to say that they will introduce and implement this kind of measure, they will at least take a reasonably pessimistic view that a number of unlicensed operators will still be knocking around who need a considerable amount of stick to make them comply with the new regime after the passing of this Act.

[Lord Gardiner of Kimble]

My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for raising through her amendments the subject of enforcement and for initiating this interesting debate. Enforcement is central to the achievement of the consumer protection purposes of the Bill.

The Bill will mean that overseas operators which are required, but fail, to obtain a required Gambling Commission licence will be committing an offence. The full set of regulatory powers available to the Gambling Commission under the 2005 Act will be at its disposal to take appropriate action against illegal overseas operators. The commission also has powers under the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000.

The amendments assume that the existing powers will be insufficient to enforce the Bill. This is not a view shared by the Government: we and the Gambling Commission are confident that the Bill can credibly be enforced. We are therefore not convinced that there is evidence of a problem which requires a legislative solution.

Amendment 5 would make an offence of accepting payments to or from unlicensed operators. If adopted, the amendment would have far-reaching and uncertain implications for banks and across the financial sector. Therefore, very careful consideration and consultation should occur.

Amendments 6, 7, 13 and 15 relate to financial transaction and ISP blocking. The evidence of the effectiveness and proportionality in respect of both ISP blocking and financial transaction blocking is mixed—I of course take the point made on this by the noble Lord, Lord Morrow. A European Commission report in 2012 stated:

“The implementation of payment blocking systems entails substantial costs for the payment service provider and other financial institutions”.

The Norwegian Gaming Authority’s evaluation report found that,

“the prohibition against processing payments to foreign gaming companies was less effective than intended”.

On ISP blocking, a comprehensive 2010 Ofcom report found that:

“All techniques can be circumvented to some degree”.

I raise these comments to mark the card that there are a number of issues that we need to consider and resolve. Further, however, there are wider factors which would need proper consideration and assessment, such as the impact on financial institutions and internet service providers.

I assure your Lordships that we are not, and will not be, complacent about the issue of enforcement. We will keep this under continuing review. The Gambling Commission is working with a range of organisations that have a shared interest in not knowingly facilitating illegal activity.

Amendment 14 would require a consultation on the existing use of IP and financial transaction blocking. Should Ministers consider a consultation necessary, they already have the powers to undertake that. The Gambling Commission continues to build links and share information with regulatory bodies across the world. The Gambling Commission and the FCA are working together to tackle the issue of British financial transactions with illegal operators.

The Government do not want to rule out the use of blocking tools in future; should they become appropriate, necessary and demonstrably effective, that may well be a route. Until such a time, we do not consider that it would be appropriate to seek those powers. I can assure your Lordships that we are keeping these important matters under review. However, the Government remain rightly cautious when it comes to taking reserved powers. Should we consider such powers to be appropriate, necessary and demonstrably effective, it is right, as I said, that Parliament has time to scrutinise those fully as part of the primary legislation process. However, for the reasons I have outlined, I very much hope that the noble Baroness will withdraw her amendment.

[Baroness Howe of Idlicote]

My Lords, I am very grateful indeed to all noble Lords who have participated in this debate: to the noble Lord, Lord Morrow, and perhaps particularly to the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, who made some very interesting points and produced some additional evidence. However, of course I am particularly grateful to the Minister, who very kindly met some of us earlier last week to discuss these issues. He will of course realise that I am still very disappointed by what he had to say. Referring to my rather hard talk about half a Bill rather than a whole Bill, I sadly feel that if only he could have moved quite a long way in the direction we were proposing, it would have been very much a relevant and full Bill. However, I am reassured to some extent by his assurances that genuine enforcement mechanisms will be considered very carefully when rather more evidence has been gathered together on that issue. However, as we know, it is far too much carrot, and we are lacking on the stick side of the argument.

Again, I thank everyone, and I hope that we will continue to look hard at this area. I wish only that the Government could have delayed, done a bit more research and then come to the conclusion that would have satisfied us all rather more than we have been by what he has said. However, in the mean time I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.

Amendment 5 withdrawn.

Amendments 6 and 7 not moved.

18:29

Amendment 8

Moved by

[Baroness Jones of Whitchurch]

8*: After Clause 1, insert the following new Clause—
“Licensing powers in relation to Category B gaming machines
(1) In Part 8 of the Gambling Act 2005, after section 166 insert—
“166A  Review of licence
(1) A licensing authority may, at any time after the granting of a remote operating licence in conjunction with a betting premises licence, review the terms of the licence and—
(a) revoke it with regards to Category B gaming machines; or(b) reduce the number of Category B gaming machines that the licence authorises the holder to make available to use.(2) In exercising its discretion to review a licence under subsection (1), the licensing authority may have regard to the views of those in the local community.”
(2) In Part 10 of the Gambling Act 2005, after section 240 insert—
“240A Circumstances of use for Category B gaming machines
(1) The Secretary of State shall make regulations controlling the circumstances in which a B gaming machine is made available for use in accordance with the provisions of a remote operating licence in conjunction with a betting premises licence.
(2) Regulations under subsection (1) shall, in particular, make provision to—
(a) increase the minimum time between plays on category B gaming machines;(b) require category B gaming machines to display information constituting a warning about the amount of time the machine has been used by the user and the aggregate amounts paid to use the machine, including amounts won and lost as prizes;(c) require category B gaming machines to enforce breaks between periods of play; and(d) require that where category B gaming machines are made available for use, at least two members of the licence holder’s staff are present on the licensed premises while machines are in use.””

[Baroness Jones of Whitchurch]

My Lords, Category B gaming machines are otherwise known as fixed-odds betting terminals. I very much hope that, following the example given by the noble Viscount, Lord Falkland, today, raising this issue is not going to land me on the front page of the Daily Sport.

The massive expansion of these machines in high street betting shops has been a cause for concern right across the political spectrum. For example, last week at Prime Minister’s Questions, in response to a Question on this issue from Ed Miliband, the Prime Minister said:

“I absolutely share the concern about that issue … There are problems in the betting and gaming industry, and we need to look at them”.—[Official Report, Commons, 8/1/14; col. 294.]

I also understand that taking action on FOBTs is Lib Dem conference policy so I hope that we can have a cross-party response to this today. We have therefore tabled these amendments linking this question to the issue of remote gambling licences as an opportunity to debate this issue and to probe whether the Government are taking sufficient steps to curb the unwelcome growth of these machines.

Our amendment would effectively give new powers to local licensing committees to prevent betting shops providing these machines or to reduce their number, taking into account the views of the local community. It would also allow for regulations to make provision for increasing the minimum time between plays; requiring the machines to display a warning of overuse; building in enforced breaks between plays; and requiring at least two members of staff to be present when such machines were in use.

These protections are essential to protect local communities from the clustering of high street betting shops in areas of high social and economic deprivation. Regrettably, betting shops are becoming increasingly reliant on the income from these machines rather than from traditional forms of betting, and it seems that this income is being drawn from poor and often desperate individuals who can least afford to gamble in this way. Meanwhile, local councils from around the country report that they feel powerless to prevent the expansion of these shops, even when they are opposed by the local community. Indeed, a Local Government Association survey in 2012 found that 68% of people wanted the planning laws changed to address this issue.

These machines are the source of some of the worst examples of gambling addiction. It is possible to lose up to £100 every 20 seconds, which is £18,000 an hour. The speed of play is faster than a roulette table and it can happen without any staff contact or intervention. All this is happening on high streets in a fairly unregulated way. I do not think that anyone foresaw that betting shops would be dominated by these machines when the Gambling Act was passed in 2005. Our responsibility is to provide greater consumer protection from the magnet of compulsive gambling that these machines represent. This is not about imposing a blanket ban but about enabling local communities to have a greater say in what should happen on their high streets and, if necessary, to limit or reduce the preponderance of these machines.

There are other steps that would help. Extending the time between each play would allow the user more time for reflection between games, breaking the spell of compulsive behaviour and allowing staff members to intervene if they had become concerned about the amount of time that a player had been spending on the machine. It would also set more sensible limits on how much time could be spent and lost in a given timeframe. A requirement for the machines to interact with the player, to give warnings about addiction and about the cumulative sums being spent, might also break the addictive cycle. Requiring more than one member of staff to be available is an essential feature of staff safety, as there have been a number of violent incidents involving punters who have lost large sums of money on these machines. It would also enable a staff member more effectively to supervise the use of these machines, and there is an added need for better staff training in this respect.

There is a separate issue about the level of stakes and prizes. I rehearsed these arguments with the noble Lord, Lord Bates, in November when we were considering the latest gaming regulations. At that time, the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, who contributed to the debate, made the important point that local sports clubs quite often rely on the income from these machines. However, here we are talking very specifically about the regulation of betting shops on local high streets—which, if you like, are walk-in betting shops—rather than about the provision in local sports clubs. I continue to feel that the Government should have used the triennial review to act on the high stakes offered by these machines.

At that time, the Minister referred to the review being carried out by the Responsible Gambling Strategy Board, which is due to report later this year. However, there is a concern that this report will not give a decisive lead on the issue. There is rather a history of inconclusive reports in this sector, which in the past seem to have been used as an excuse for doing nothing to intervene. I agree with my noble friend Lord Lipsey that the evidence base is rather difficult to decipher—noble Lords will note that, for that reason, I have not quoted a great deal of statistics on the scale of the problem—but there is enough anecdotal evidence to show that there is a significant problem here which needs to be addressed.

I hope that the Minister is able to reassure us that the Government are planning to get a grip and to act to regulate the sector more effectively following the example shown by the leader of the Labour Party, who has already made it clear that he will take action to sort out this problem. I look forward to hearing what the Minister has to say.

[Lord Lipsey]

My Lords, like the noble Viscount, Lord Falkland, I do not very often have a bet these days. I, too, am a problem gambler, except that my problem is that my horses lose more often than they win. But I am not anti-gambling in any sense. I declare an interest as a member of the Starting Price Regulatory Commission. I have been involved in all four racing disciplines—greyhounds, harness racing, point-to-pointing and National Hunt racing. Indeed, I have written a whole novel about betting, Counter Coup, which is out this spring. Please queue to buy it; price to be fixed.

Having said that, I admit that I am not very keen on FOBTs. If horserace betting is the full sexual intercourse of the betting world, FOBTs are a form of masturbation. It is a solitary activity about which people do not chat in the shops or have a communal experience. They just go on on their own in a way which I think is rather dehumanised.

Having been involved in the discussions on the 2005 Act, I do not think for a moment that Parliament would have considered allowing these machines if it had known that they would, as they do now, account for around half of betting shop turnover. The deal is now shrouded in history but basically they were supposed to be a little top-up revenue for the bookmakers in return for which the bookmakers would put extra resources into some good things, including tackling problem gambling. Instead, they have become the dominant product in betting shops, which I regret. It is tempting to go on from that and to say “Ban the bloody things” but we in this House should be very wary about banning things that people like doing even if we disapprove of them doing it. We found that with the Hunting Act, which has proved to be such a tragic mistake. The noble Viscount, Lord Falkland, is not here to appreciate me saying yet again “as a socialist”, but I add as a socialist that it would be a great pity if a great fuss was made about fox hunting, which is basically a sport for people wearing pink jackets and uniforms, and an activity much liked by people who wear cloth caps was banned simply because no one was standing up for it.

18:39

Sitting suspended for a Division in the House.

18:48

[Lord Lipsey]

As I was saying when I was rudely interrupted, I am quite pro-gambling and quite anti-FOBTs, but I would not ban them.

The third thing I wanted to say was that—and I have had good friends in and good relations with the bookmaking industry for many years—I am frankly disappointed with its reaction to the increasing social concern at the rise of FOBTs. I make no secret of the fact that I have had a number of meetings with bookmakers at which I have pressed on them the desirability of making a concession voluntarily—my preference would be to reduce the £100 limit on bets—as a sign that they are genuinely concerned about this. I know there has been a bit of flapping about with measures to deal with self-exclusion.

Overall, and it pains me to say this, I have been reminded rather of the tobacco industry in its dying days, except now we are all alert to the tactics that it used. I do not think that the bookmaking industry is helping itself, and I very much hope that even at this late stage it will come forward, more positively recognising the scale of the problem that it faces, recognising the political consensus that now stretches from David Cameron to Ed Miliband that something has to be done about it, and working positively in a way that enables a solution to be found without more conflict.

The amendment is designed—I hope—to be probing. It is a long way from clear yet that a local authority-based scheme for licensing is the only way of tackling this problem. I have a considerable concern about what happens when you have one local authority that allows, let us say, eight FOBTs per betting shop while the authority next door allows none. That will lead to a huge proliferation, beyond anything that we have seen so far, in the “Come here and fill our slots” borough and none at all in the one run by the Liberal Democrats.

This needs further looking at. Local authorities’ planning powers, which are not covered by this amendment, also need looking at in order to find a robust policy. A measure of localism has a great deal to be said for it. It is also necessary that any scheme that we eventually come up with also embodies a strong measure of statutory guidance that sets the basis of the argument.

Most of all, I hope to see the consensus that exists now in the political class and among politicians spread more widely to the bookmakers, to the betting industry and among the public. I hope to see even more concentration on methods to exclude those who abuse this form of gambling. I also hope to see a frank recognition of the reality and not just a single-minded focus on short-run profits, because if the bookmakers focus entirely on short-run profits they will find in the long run that they make much less money.

[Lord Clement-Jones]

My Lords, I am glad we are having this short debate today. It is quite interesting that this has become a topic of current debate. I followed closely the debate that took place last week in the Commons on the subject.

I notice, and indeed I regret, that the noble Baroness herself does not express any regret for the legislation that was passed in 2005. After all, it was the Labour Government who introduced these FOBTs, and now we have had the proliferation of what appear to be highly damaging and addictive gambling machines in our high streets. Prefacing remarks along those lines would have been quite useful, because they were clearly introduced by that legislation.

However, I share her concerns about these machines. Indeed, it is all very well for the noble Lord, Lord Lipsey, to say what he said, but we have been warning of the dangers of these machines ever since the passing of the 2005 Act because we thought that it would lead to the proliferation of these high-stakes machines. I will come on to the level of stakes in a minute because that is one of the key issues surrounding them.

Even though there is, in a sense, a cross-party view about the impact and danger of FOBTs, there is a level of disagreement because some of us feel that the evidence is already there that they are addictive, and that something should be done in the very short term. I am not going to adumbrate all the research that is out there but it includes that from GamCare, the Salvation Army, the National Problem Gambling Clinic, the Campaign for Fairer Gambling, Professor Gerda Reith at the University of Glasgow and even the European Journal of Public Health—a series of different reports can be prayed in aid to show that these machines really are a source of problem gambling, and that the problem is rising over time.

Clearly, the evidence is disputed by the Association of British Bookmakers; I am sure that we have all had its briefing, which heavily disputes some of the points that are being made about FOBTs. The association questions the validity of the evidence put forward by the British Gambling Prevalence Survey, for instance, and so on. The Government did not have much of a choice other than to say, “Right, let’s remit this to the Responsible Gambling Strategy Board and see what comes out of that”. I very much hope that that will be conclusive on the matter and lead to further action, although probably not through this Bill because I do not believe that any of this needs primary legislation. I do not believe that it is the planning system that is essentially at fault here. We heard during the Commons debate last week that Southwark Council is employing perfectly proper legal means to restrict the further spread of FOBTs and betting shops in its borough, and that sort of remedy is open to other councils to adopt.

I do not think that it is about that side of things; a lot of this problem boils down to stakes and prizes—something that can be remedied very straightforwardly by political will through secondary legislation, through regulations and through altering the stakes. At the moment you can put in £100, which is a huge amount of money for these machines in the high street. Some of the campaigns are saying that this should be reduced to £2—I think that that is somewhat drastic—but I certainly hope that when the Responsible Gambling Strategy Board reports it will make a recommendation about the appropriate level of stake that should be the limit for these machines. That will go a long way towards making sure that they are no longer as addictive as they currently are, and will also mean that bookmakers have to think very carefully about the profitability of their premises and we do not have the kind of proliferation that we appear to be having as a result of the ability to install these FOBTs. I appreciate the subject having been raised and I share the noble Baroness’s concerns but, ultimately, I hope that quite soon we can adopt a remedy by secondary legislation that could be relatively straightforward.

[Lord Gardiner of Kimble]

My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for her amendment, which gives us a timely opportunity to set out what the Government are doing. The Government acknowledge the harm that gaming machines cause for some people and have set out clearly what we are doing to address this. As part of our review of gaming machines last year, the Government looked very closely at the available evidence about category B2 gaming machines—FOBTs. The review found that there are real concerns about these machines and that some players have experienced considerable harm from using them. However, it is currently not clear that a reduction in stake or prize would be effective in reducing gambling-related harm.

The Government therefore concluded that the future of these machines was unresolved. We are undertaking urgent work to establish how these machines can be made safer, especially to those individuals who may be at the greatest risk of harm. Enhanced player protection measures will be introduced from 1 March, and research is under way by the Responsible Gambling Trust to identify where there is robust evidence that consumers may be experiencing harm. The Prime Minister confirmed last week that the Government will report on this issue in the spring. The Government will take whatever action is necessary to make these machines safer, and have very clearly set out our evidence-based approach to determining their future.

Amendment 8 raises a number of important points about the controls on gaming machines. I assure the Committee that the existing legislation already provides licensing controls on the provision of gaming machines as well as technical requirements about their operation. The amendment calls for new powers under which the Secretary of State may make regulations about the speed of play on a gaming machine, the messages that must be displayed and breaks in play.

Technical matters in relation to gaming machine operations are rightly a matter for the Gambling Commission and are controlled by the commission’s technical standards. These standards specify the minimum speed of play, which is twenty seconds for a FOBT, and also make clear what information must be displayed on the machine itself, or on screen, to enable players to keep track of their gambling.

19:00

It is right that technical matters about the operations of gaming machines are dealt with by the Gambling Commission. However, the Government already have reserve powers to require the imposition of licence conditions, and indeed have direct regulation- making powers that could cover messaging. In the meantime, the player protection measures being introduced from 1 March include enhanced responsible messaging and pauses in play, and the Government have demanded that the industry demonstrates the effectiveness of these as soon as possible. The Government do not rule out reducing the speed of play but it is not clear that such a change would have an impact on problem gamblers. It could simply make machines less attractive to occasional players who are in control of their gambling.

Amendment 8 also calls for powers which would allow a licensing authority to review and revoke a betting premises licence. The amendment also proposes that a minimum staffing level of two people be required where category B gaming machines are available. Licensing authorities already have powers to control gambling in their areas, including the provision of gaming machines and the number of staff in betting shops. Local authorities can reject an application for a gambling premises licence, or grant one with additional conditions, should that be necessary. These powers allow licensing authorities to tackle problems in local communities. In making these conditions the licensing authority must—quite rightly—demonstrate why the conditions are necessary to uphold the licensing objectives of the Gambling Act 2005. It is important that the obligation on licensing authorities to build an evidence-based case is not undermined by legislation which removes requirements on them to justify their action.

There are very good examples of licensing authorities imposing conditions which are necessary and justified to control gambling in their areas. The Government urge licensing authorities to utilise fully the powers at their disposal to tackle issues of problematic gambling in local communities.

I want to emphasise that the Government take concerns about category B gaming machines very seriously and are prepared to introduce precautionary measures to make them safer, if necessary. Work is in hand. It is a very good thing that there is, I hope, not too much of a divide among parliamentarians on this matter, because it is very important for local communities that this work is in hand. I hope that, in the circumstances, the noble Baroness will withdraw her amendment.

[Baroness Jones of Whitchurch]

My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lord Lipsey and the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, for their comments and support. I say to Lord Clement-Jones that I said in my opening comments that no one foresaw what was going to happen to fixed-odds betting terminals, and that was also acknowledged in the debate in the Commons last week. We accept that we have learnt from that experience. No one had envisaged that we would be where we are now, so I think he is being a bit ungenerous in not accepting that learning experience.

I said, too, that this was a probing amendment. I do not think that we got the wording exactly right; there is obviously more work to be done. I heard what the Minister said about existing licensing regulations but I therefore do not understand why local authorities up and down the country are saying that they are finding it impossible to get a grip and to control the number of betting shops and fixed-odds betting terminals on the high street. There is a challenge that we need collectively to address.

My concern remains that the Responsible Gambling Strategy Board will produce an inconclusive report; there is a tendency for that to happen. It has been set quite a challenge in being asked to show the relationship between the use of fixed-odds betting terminals and compulsive gambling, and I am not sure that it is going to be able to produce a coherent piece of work between now and the summer that proves that one way or the other. The last thing we want is for further work to be necessary—for everyone to say, “It is inconclusive and we need more research”—when we can all see what the problem is and the issues that need to be addressed.

My only other comment is that if the Gambling Commission has drawn up the rules that are in operation so far, which I think is what the Minister was saying, we should be saying to the commission that it needs to go away and have a rethink. The speed of play, the levels of stakes and so on are disproportionate and somebody needs to take action to reduce those.

I very much welcome the opportunity to have this initial debate, and I hope that we can carry on with it. This is an important issue. In the mean time, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 8 withdrawn.

Amendment 9

Moved by

[Lord Collins of Highbury]

9: After Clause 1, insert the following new Clause—
“Review of connection between non-paying social networking media gambling activities and use of licensed remote gambling operations
The Secretary of State shall conduct a review into whether and how the existence of non-paid for gambling activities on social networking media interacts with use of licensed remote gambling operations, and whether such non-paid for activities can act as an inducement to participate in paying activities.”

[Lord Collins of Highbury]

My Lords, I will preface my remarks by repeating what my noble friend said in an earlier discussion, which is that the answer to all questions is more research. That is basically what this amendment is saying.

I will be really brief. It is widely believed among the public and people in public health and gambling regulation that online gambling represents the greatest challenge to be faced in the next few years in the prevention of problem gambling. As we heard earlier, problem gambling is often how you get started, how you become addicted—it is not necessarily the money; it is the addictive nature of the gaming system.

Of course, nowadays online gambling is not a social activity. It is not even about being in your own home; you are on the tube. When I am travelling on the tube I am struck by the number of people playing a certain game on their system. That is particularly true of young people but I confess that even I have the app on my iPad: Candy Crush Saga. There was a really interesting article in the paper last week by Mark Griffiths, director of the International Gaming Research Unit at Nottingham Trent University, who described it as,

“a bit like chocolate. You say you’ll just have one chunk, and you end up having the whole lot. So you say I’ll just play for 15 minutes, and you end up still there four or five hours later”.

Unbelievably, Candy Crush Saga has been downloaded 500 million times. Although it is possible to play this game for free, 40% of players pay for add-ons. As Mark Griffiths said, there is an overlap between online games that allow players to spend money on virtual accessories, or to access higher levels, and gambling. He said:

“It’s a psychological masterstroke that people pay money to buy virtual items. The next step is for gambling firms to say, maybe you could win back some of the money you’re spending”.

That is the hook, the encouragement, and it is young people who are doing this. They are doing it on the move on their mobile phones—God knows what their phone bills are like. Mark Griffiths also said:

“Children who play these free games are more likely to gamble and more likely to develop problem gambling behaviours. These are gateway activities that can lead people down the gambling road. When you start winning, you start thinking that if I was playing with real money I could be doing quite well”.

I tend to share his view that there is nothing wrong with kids playing gambling-type games. I am not in favour of legislating or banning things all the time but we must accompany the use of these games with education. We must be much more aware of the consequences, and certainly children need to be much more aware of them.

Something that struck me on daytime television—which I do not watch a lot but occasionally I do—is the constant advertising by bingo companies. Bingo is no longer a social activity. It was something that people went to do once a week to meet people. Now they are being encouraged to do it in their own home in isolation and, what is worse, they are being told: “Have £10 or £20 free”. Actually, nothing is free; they have to lodge £30 or £40 to get that £10.

I would like the Minister to address this issue. Surely we need to better understand how these games interact with gambling. I urge him to look into this issue in more detail. I beg to move.

[Lord Gardiner of Kimble]

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for his amendment and indeed for raising the emerging area of social gaming. The Government fully understand and share the concern about the possible use of social media by gambling operators to attract new players to real-money gambling by offering them “free to play” gambling-like activities on sites such as Facebook. The noble Lord, Lord Collins, expressed particular concern for young people, and the Government also have concerns about the possible impact on underage users of social media who may become habituated to gambling-like activities and may start to pay, in effect, for more time—the so-called premium social gaming business model—or be tempted into real-money gambling as soon as they are able.

The Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport already has the power to conduct such a review and the Gambling Commission has already started the process. It has commissioned and published a review of what was known of the potential risks from social gambling on social media and has been working with the Responsible Gambling Strategy Board and the providers of social gaming, some of which are licensed gambling operators, to analyse the data on players and assess the potential impact in relation to problem gambling-type risks. This approach should help us to decide whether there are elements of social gaming that need to be addressed by either the Government or the regulator. We believe that to legislate on this issue at this stage would be premature.

However, the Bill will enable the Gambling Commission and/or the Secretary of State to impose any improved protection measures on all overseas operators that wish to engage with British consumers. I hope that the Committee will understand that work has already started on some of this process and we await more reporting on it. For those reasons, I hope that the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw his amendment.

[Lord Collins of Highbury]

In the light of the Minister’s comments, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 9 withdrawn.

Amendments 10 to 15 not moved.

Amendment 16

Moved by

[Baroness Jones of Whitchurch]

16: After Clause 1, insert the following new Clause—
“Dormant accounts
(1) The Secretary of State shall consult on appropriate ways to require licensed remote gambling operators to disclose (as a condition of their licence) the amounts held by them by way of—
(a) winnings of UK customers unclaimed for a period of more than one calendar year, and(b) sums in dormant accounts of UK customers.(2) A dormant account shall for this purpose be an account which has been inactive for at least one calendar year.”

[Baroness Jones of Whitchurch]

My Lords, this amendment concerns the issue of dormant accounts and the use of the money that resides within them. There are currently millions of pounds tied up in accounts that represent unclaimed winnings or, for example, bets placed on horses that do not run but are never reclaimed. However, the actual sums involved are difficult to express accurately because it has never been in the interests of the industry to disclose them. The amendment would introduce a greater level of transparency about the sums involved by requiring disclosure as a condition of the licence. This could be a prelude to an agreed plan to use the money more constructively. When this was discussed in the Commons, it was reported that Don Foster had produced a report in 2011 identifying the levels of funds involved and that on the back of that an attempt was made to reach a voluntary agreement with the industry but, perhaps unsurprisingly, this was unsuccessful.

Meanwhile, there is considerable scope for this money to be put to good use—for example, into research on treatment for problem gambling, or perhaps to invest in the development of grass-roots sports—so these investments could in turn prove to be to the benefit of the industry in the longer term. This strategy would be consistent with the policies of this Government and the previous Government for the use of dormant accounts in other sectors. For example, dormant bank accounts and unclaimed lottery winnings are used to support good causes.

Our amendment is a reasonable first step to identify the sums involved. Obviously, there would need to be further dialogue with the sector about how the sums were identified prior to putting into action a plan to use the funds for good use, which is why our amendment would require the Secretary of State to consult on the arrangements. This is very much a first step.

When this was discussed in the Commons, the Minister, Helen Grant, argued that such an amendment was not necessary because she would be considering Don Foster’s proposals after the Bill was passed. That statement does not fill me with confidence. If Don Foster’s report was received in 2011 and it is now 2014, one could ask why it has taken the Government quite so long to get around to considering it. It seems that the Government need some encouragement to act, which is precisely what our very modest amendment hopes to achieve. I beg to move.

19:15

[Lord Gardiner of Kimble]

My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for her amendment reflecting dormant accounts. While in the Government’s view there is no need for further primary legislation to enable the Government to undertake a consultation, we have already said that we will consider the recommendations of the Foster report after this Bill has been enacted. The Bill will make significant changes to the regulation of a large number of betting accounts, so it is right that we consider the report’s recommendations after the implementation of our remote gambling proposals.

The Government already have the power to impose a specific licence condition to gather information if we choose to do so following appropriate consultation. I am happy to confirm that if in due course we consider it necessary to progress the report’s recommendations, we would act to gather this information. On that basis, I hope that the noble Baroness will withdraw her amendment.

[Baroness Jones of Whitchurch]

My Lords, I very much thank the Minister for that contribution. On the basis of the further work that is taking place, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 16 withdrawn.

Amendment 17

Moved by

[Baroness Jones of Whitchurch]

17: After Clause 1, insert the following new Clause—
“Remote gambling licensees and customer protection
Holders of licences for remote gambling operations shall be required to participate in a programme of research into and treatment of problem gambling in accordance with arrangements to be determined by the Secretary of State in regulations in the form of a statutory instrument approved by both Houses of Parliament, and a levy for that purpose may be imposed under section 123 of the Gambling Act 2005.”

[Baroness Jones of Whitchurch]

My Lords, we have already touched on the lack of research, particularly into problem gambling. I want to make a couple of quick points in support of our amendment. We have said that there is not enough research, which I think we all have acknowledged. It also seems that the industry is spending relatively small sums of money on research. At the moment, the amount of money paid by the sector is disturbingly small. It is estimated that the industry as a whole is worth some £6 billion a year, yet the amount available to the Responsible Gambling Trust through the voluntary levy is just over £5 million a year, with only 10% of that being spent on research.

When this was debated in the Commons, my colleague the Shadow Minister, Clive Efford, pointed out that when he looked on the Responsible Gambling Trust’s website, a lot of its activity seemed to be involved in fundraising. That is all very worthy but you would think that there was enough money around in the sector that it did not have to spend its time fundraising to pay for its activities. There should be a firmer way to fund this through a more consolidated levy. More work needs to be done. We need that research and we need to ensure that the funding is available. I beg to move.

[Lord Gardiner of Kimble]

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness for her amendment. I entirely agree that the gambling industry should play its part in contributing to the research, education and treatment of problem gambling. The Government believe that the best solution is for the industry to recognise its responsibilities voluntarily. The industry must continue to help to tackle problem gambling. The current voluntary arrangements were revised only in 2012 and the Government are satisfied that the system is working as was intended in the Budd report of 2001, which recommended the arrangements.

As the noble Baroness said, at present the voluntary industry funding scheme provides around £5 million a year, 80% of which goes to bodies like GamCare, the Gordon Moody Association and the Soho clinic to provide advice and treatment. This funding has supported the introduction of a free-to-use national telephone helpline and the development of GambleAware, a general gambling information website. Useful work has been done in this area by the Responsible Gambling Trust and its predecessor body with local clinics or advice centres, to see how those developing problems can be identified and helped. In addition, the Soho clinic has piloted ways in which the NHS can help those with severe problems. The Responsible Gambling Strategy Board and the Responsible Gambling Trust are also considering how best to capture evidence of the actual harm from gambling to strengthen the case for greater support from local government, from NHS resources and, importantly, from the industry.

I hope that the Committee will be reassured that problem gambling and research into its prevention and treatment continue to be high on the agenda for the Government and the Gambling Commission. The Government will continue to monitor the effectiveness of the voluntary arrangements, and will of course take appropriate action if necessary. On that basis, I very much hope that the noble Baroness will be prepared to withdraw her amendment.

[Baroness Jones of Whitchurch]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for that. We have identified that there is not enough money available for research and for helping those who have an addiction and problems with gambling. I understand what the noble Lord is saying about the voluntary levy. We think that our suggestion for a compulsory levy is still worthy of merit and would like to lay that on the table for further consideration. However, in the mean time, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 17 withdrawn.

Amendment 18 not moved.

Clauses 2, 3 and 4 agreed.

Amendment 19

Moved by

[Baroness Howe of Idlicote]

19: After Clause 4, insert the following new Clause—
“Review of social responsibility provisions of codes of practice
(1) The Gambling Commission shall review the social responsibility provisions of the codes of practice and technical standards of—
(a) EEA states, and(b) the places to which section 331(2) of the Gambling Act 2005 has applied,insofar as they relate to remote gambling.(2) The Commission shall amend the codes of practice and technical standards issued in pursuance of section 24(2) of the Gambling Act 2005 so that the code and technical standards reflects the strongest social responsibility provisions identified in subsection (1).
(3) In this section, “social responsibility provisions” means a provision of the code identified as—
(a) ensuring that gambling is conducted in a fair and open way,(b) protecting children and other vulnerable persons from being harmed or exploited by gambling, and(c) making assistance available to persons who are or may be affected by problems related to gambling.”

[Baroness Howe of Idlicote]

My Lords, the Bill proposes widening the scope for advertising online gambling in the United Kingdom. Henceforth, not just operators based in the European Economic Area or whitelisted jurisdictions will be able to advertise. Any provider anywhere in the world will be able to advertise in the UK, so long as they get a UK Gambling Commission licence. As such, the Bill will make problem gamblers more aware of opportunities to gamble and of opportunities to gamble associated with a higher problem gambling prevalence figure.

It would be quite wrong for us to sanction such a Bill without at the same time comparing our own codes and technical standards with those of other whitelisted and EEA jurisdictions to identify where ours fall short and to make good the difference. We should not countenance exposing British consumers to yet more gambling advertising without first making sure that the protections we offer problem gamblers are second to none. This is the purpose of the proposed new clause, which I introduce today for two principal reasons.

First, the proposed new clause would prevent the Bill having the effect of eroding protections that some UK consumers have come to enjoy since 2005. To understand the possibility of an erosion of protections flowing from the Bill one must first recognise that it is part and parcel of a Treasury initiative to correct a perverse tax incentive created through the Gambling Act 2005, which resulted in all but one online gambling provider leaving the UK for a whitelisted or EEA jurisdiction, from which they could continue to access and advertise in the UK market without paying UK tax. The Treasury very understandably wants to correct this by requiring all companies accessing the UK market to pay tax. The Bill provides them with a basis for doing so by stipulating that all holders of UK Gambling Commission licences must pay UK taxes.

In this context, there is a real possibility that companies that were previously based in the UK and relocated for tax purposes to EEA or whitelisted jurisdictions will now return to the UK. In any event, they will definitely be subject, as far as their UK consumers are concerned, to a UK regulatory framework. This will result in erosion of protections for those UK consumers who have depended on the regulatory frameworks of whitelisted and EEA jurisdictions where those frameworks are better than those offered by the UK, unless of course the UK protections are brought into line with the best whitelisted and EEA protections.

Secondly, the proposed new clause is important because the UK, especially since the 2005 Act, has rightly aspired to have the very best regulatory framework in the world, one which other countries would desire to emulate. In this context, there is every reason to review our codes and technical standards internationally to check that our regulatory framework, especially as it relates to the vulnerable and the care of problem gamblers, is as good as the very best framework of any whitelisted or EEA jurisdiction.

In the other place, the fact that regulatory frameworks with respect to problem gambling are weaker than those of the best whitelisted and EEA jurisdiction was called into question, but such questioning simply does not stand up to scrutiny. Let us consider the evidence.

I want to begin by considering a whitelisted jurisdiction, Alderney. People who gamble on websites licensed in Alderney can request that any number of limits be put on their accounts. Crucially, this is currently not the case in the UK, where the technical standards specify that software operated by a licensee should allow players to set some limits, but the technical codes do not specify, as the law does in Alderney, that a player may choose how, when and in what way those limits should be set. The UK technical standards documents set out examples of financial pre-commitment such as deposit limits, spend limits or loss limits, but it does not require all these examples to be part of the financial pre-commitment of the software.

The Gambling Commission told the Committee in the other place that the UK technical standards require giving players the opportunity to pre-commit to the amount of time spent gambling. They may have meant the amount of money spent in a given period, but that is not the same as pre-committing to an amount of time spent gambling. The amount of time that a person gambles can also be part of the problem. We need to arm problem gamblers or at-risk gamblers with real solutions.

There is a very real risk that British consumers buying access to online gambling from Alderney will experience an erosion of consumer protection when Alderney providers are subject to the weaker UK regulatory framework. Surely it is not acceptable that this Bill should contain such a potentially retrograde step. We need to plug this loophole through the new clause proposed in Amendment 19.

Next, I want to consider an EEA jurisdiction, Sweden. In so doing, I want to make it clear that, since no online providers accessing the UK market are located in Sweden, there can be no question of British consumers experiencing an erosion of the protections that they have come to enjoy, as in relation to operators based in Alderney.

The point I am making here is that those jurisdictions provide us with regulatory frameworks which exhibit better care for problem gamblers than our own. Considering them thus provides us with an opportunity to raise our game such that we can sustain the claim that we provide a regulatory framework that is among the best in the world, which is incumbent upon us at a time when we are introducing legislation that proposes making problem gamblers more aware of gambling opportunities with a higher problem-prevalence figure than gambling on average.

In Sweden, players are given the option of using technology called play scan. Play scan is a programme that uses behavioural analytics which, when implemented, will prompt a player about behavioural change indicating that a problem might be developing. The prompts give them information about how to limit their gambling or where to find help, but this is not the only social responsibility measure in place in Sweden. If the gambler wants to play online poker, they need to apply for a membership card, which has a specific number associated with it and is linked to the player’s bank account. The gambler authorises the transfer of funds from a linked account to a card and any winnings are paid automatically into the gambler’s account. To play, customers are required to set time and money limits. The setting of limits is the main function of the card but it also offers play management features, including a summary of player history for the previous 12 months; allows for time-out periods; and offers risk assessment features on an opt-in basis.

I am not trying to argue that the UK’s code and technical standards are worse than all whitelisted or EEA jurisdictions—far from it. My point is simply that the Bill should not have the result of effectively eroding protections on which some British consumers have come to depend, nor should it miss the opportunity of enhancing our protections so that they are as good as the best whitelisted or EEA jurisdictions. I submit that this is vital if we are with integrity to propose widening the scope to advertising, a form of gambling with a significantly higher problem prevalence than average. I beg to move.

19:31

Committee adjourned for a Division in the House.

19:40

[Lord Browne of Belmont]

My Lords, I am pleased to speak in support of the proposed new clause in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Howe. The new clause is important because since 2005 a significant number of online gambling providers have moved outside the UK to European Economic Area and so-called whitelisted jurisdictions, from which they can continue to access the UK market and advertise but, crucially, avoid paying tax. The Bill, in tandem with the Treasury initiative, will plug that loophole, resulting in British consumers having to depend once more on British regulation.

In that context, the proposed new clause is vital for two reasons. First, we need to be sure that no British consumer will experience an erosion of the protections that they have come to rely on as a result of coming under UK regulation, at least so far as UK consumers are concerned. Secondly, we should always be working to ensure that the protections that we afford consumers, especially in relation to problem gambling, are the very best.

As the noble Baroness, Lady Howe, has explained, Alderney is particularly important because it is a jurisdiction to which a number of UK operators have relocated. The better protections provided for problem gamblers in Alderney, in terms of the setting of limits, are certainly something that we should look at and maybe amend our codes and technical standards to emulate.

I would like to look at two EEA jurisdictions, Finland and Denmark, which in some important respects provide better regulation and consumer protection than we do here in the UK. Finland’s regulator has implemented a mandatory daily loss limit and a monthly loss limit, as well as setting a maximum amount of euros that can be in a gambling account of €5,000. The maximum daily loss is set at €500. Innovatively, they have also produced an actual boundary, something that is so often lacking in online gambling. Transfers from bank accounts to a gambling account cannot be made between midnight and 6 am. This creates a natural boundary that is similar to betting shop opening and closing times. Implementing such a provision would create a level playing field across the industry in general, and would help to protect people from unhelpful and impulsive all-night gambling sessions.

The responsibility codes go further in Finland. On marketing, there can be no registration bonuses, deposit bonuses or activation bonuses, and no rewards can be given based on gaming volume. Indeed, payment using credit cards is forbidden. It is possible in every game to activate a short 12-hour gaming ban that covers all games. This short self-imposed gambling ban can be activated by pressing a panic button that is located in the bottom half of the screen. Given that problem gambling is often associated with impulse, the provision of a button like that would help many people tremendously.

The Danish model of regulation, meanwhile, requires gambling companies to obtain information about the customer’s intended gambling volume at the same time as the customer provides identification information by opening an account. Players are allowed to set daily, weekly and monthly limits, and all three options must be given to the player. If a player chooses to self-exclude permanently, they must be given the option to be added to what in Denmark is referred to as the register of self-excluded players. This is a central list, much like the proposed one-stop shop for self-exclusion. If a player chooses to be added to that list they will not be able to gamble on any website that has a Danish licence, since every company, before allowing a player to gamble or open an account, must check the list to see if that person has entered their name to the register. To this end, as I have already explained, Amendment 3 is vital.

I very much support the proposed new clause. I hope that the Government will warmly endorse it, and I particularly look forward to hearing what the Minister has to say about the protection that is afforded in Alderney, Sweden—as we have heard from the noble Baroness, Lady Howe—Finland and Denmark, compared with those provided in the UK.

[Lord Gardiner of Kimble]

My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for her amendment. The Government are confident that the British regulatory system is a model of international best practice and that the Gambling Commission’s requirements are robust and of the highest standard. It is the commission’s job to ensure that the British regulatory system is the best that it can be, and to that extent always has its licensing conditions and technical standards under review. As the noble Baroness will be aware, the commission has just concluded its consultation into its licensing conditions and codes of practice, and we await its response. It is fair to say that the commission is internationally respected and continues to disseminate best practice, extensively engaging with overseas regulators. I am most grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Browne of Belmont, for illustrating what is happening in Finland and Denmark.

In preparation for the new licensing regime, the commission has had a series of meetings with regulators in Gibraltar, the Isle of Man and the States of Alderney to establish ways to minimise duplication. It will be using the recently developed multijurisdictional business form for those applying for remote operating licences, which enables operators to provide and update information, once in a form, that can be provided to multiple jurisdictions without duplication.

The commission continues to explore the scope for expanded collaboration. It also has memorandums of understanding in place with several regulators, including Alderney, for the sharing of information between regulators. This will enable the commission to use any licensing, compliance and enforcement information to determine the suitability of an operator to hold, and continue to hold, a British licence. Neither the Government nor the Gambling Commission is complacent about these matters, and should either feel that such a review would be appropriate, sufficient power already exists under the 2005 Act to enable that to take place. For that reason I ask the noble Baroness to withdraw her amendment.

[Baroness Howe of Idlicote]

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Browne, for his comments and of course to the Minister for what he has said and his assurance about the effectiveness of the powers that both the Government and the Gambling Commission already have.

I would like to know whether the Minister has a date for when the report that is under way will be published. That would give us a clearer idea of whether we will have further information by Report and so on. If that is not available at the moment, perhaps he could write to all of us in the Room and bring us up to date. It is quite important, because it will clearly help to inform whatever stance we take on Report. In the mean time, I thank noble Lords for having taken part and beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 19 withdrawn.

Amendment 20 not moved.

Clause 5 agreed.

Bill reported without amendment.

Committee adjourned at 7.47 pm.

House of Lords

Tuesday 14th January 2014 Lords Chamber

Tuesday, 14 January 2014.

14:30

Prayers—read by the Lord Bishop of Newcastle.

Public Health Responsibility Deal

Tuesday 14th January 2014 Lords Chamber

Question

14:37

Asked by

[Lord Sharkey]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what progress they have made in persuading further fast food chains to sign up to the Public Health Responsibility Deal pledge on calorie reduction.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health (Earl Howe) (Con)]

We are working hard to persuade other fast food chains to join the wide range of food businesses which have already signed up to the public health responsibility deal calorie reduction pledge and to sign up to other food network pledges. Eleven fast food partners are signatories of the responsibility deal and are taking action in a range of areas including calorie reduction. These partners cover most of the food sold in the fast food sector.

[Lord Sharkey (LD)]

I think the Minister will agree that these public health responsibility deal pledges are very useful. Given the dangers of excessive sugar in our diets, will the Minister consider adding a specific sugar-reduction pledge to the current list—with specific targets, as is already the case for salt—and will he help reduce sugar consumption by following the latest advice of Dr Susan Jebb, chair of the department’s public health responsibility deal food network, and removing fruit juice from the five-a-day recommendations?

[Earl Howe]

My Lords, I shall take my noble friend’s final question back with me. We will certainly look at it. However, I stress that our current emphasis is on overall calorie reduction, of which sugar can form a part. The scope for a reformulation to reduce sugar levels varies widely depending on the food and a reduction in sugar levels does not always mean that the overall calorie content is reduced—for example, when sugar is replaced by starch or other ingredients. The Scientific Advisory Committee on Nutrition—SACN—is currently undertaking a review of carbo- hydrates and is looking at sugar as part of that. Its report will inform our future thinking.

[Lord Palmer (CB)]

Is the Minister aware that one supermarket chain has announced today that it is going to remove all sweets from its checkout tills? Would it not be a good idea for the noble Earl to invite other supermarket chains to do exactly the same?

[Earl Howe]

My Lords, we are talking to the supermarket chains about those very matters, and I welcome the action that has been taken. The noble Lord may like to know that, as part of the responsibility deal calorie reduction pledge, Coca-Cola has reduced calories in some of its soft-drink brands by at least 30%, Mars has reduced its single chocolate portions to no more than 250 calories and Tesco has reduced by more than 1 billion the number of calories sold in its own-brand soft drinks.

[Lord Foulkes of Cumnock (Lab)]

My Lords, will the Minister help the House by publishing a list of meetings which Ministers, special advisers and senior civil servants have had with fast food companies in the past year?

[Earl Howe]

My Lords, I shall take that request away and write to the noble Lord.

[Lord McColl of Dulwich (Con)]

Does the Minister approve of the letter, which will shortly be sent to all Members of this House and of another place, asking them to measure their waist and to ensure that it is less than half their height? That would apply to quite a few Members opposite, who are clearly eating too much of the gross national product.

[Earl Howe]

My Lords, we should welcome any measure that encourages us all to improve our diet, to reduce physical inactivity and to be aware of what we need to do to keep our weight under control. I do welcome that letter.

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)]

My Lords, I hope that the noble Earl will encourage his own noble colleagues to look at themselves in the mirror in the light of that unwarranted attack on my own Benches. Perhaps I can just refer the noble Earl to the report of the National Obesity Forum yesterday, which suggested that, on one of the worst-case scenarios, more than half of the population of this country will be obese by 2050. Does he not think that the volunteer approach may no longer be appropriate? Do the Government not have to take a greater lead on this?

[Earl Howe]

My Lords, there are certainly no grounds for complacency on obesity levels throughout the nation. However, the current data do not support the claim by the National Obesity Forum. In 2007, the Foresight team projected that, based on data from 1993-2004, more than half the population could be obese by 2050 if no action is taken. An analysis based on recent data suggests a flatter trend than the one projected by the Foresight team. I do not agree that we should belittle the responsibility deal. It has many worthwhile achievements to its credit and they are being added to month by month.

[Lord Elystan-Morgan (CB)]

Although appreciating this scurrilous attack on rotundity, does the noble Earl recollect the immortal words of Shakespeare in “Julius Caesar”:

“Let me have men about me that are fat; … Yond Cassius has a lean and hungry look”.

[Earl Howe]

I am sure my noble friend Lord McColl would agree that one can go too far in that direction.

[Lord Tebbit (Con)]

My Lords, do the Government not accept that people ought to know that if they stuff themselves silly with high-calorie rubbish foods they will get fat? It is their responsibility. All the forums and other nonsense are merely trying to divorce people from the consequences of their own stupid actions.

[Earl Howe]

My noble friend is absolutely right to place his finger on a central point that, in the end, it is up to individuals to take responsibility for their own state of health.

[Lord Brooke of Alverthorpe (Lab)]

My Lords, if individuals are required to take responsibility but they do not know what they are consuming because the manufacturers or producers do not let them know, or indeed the Government are complicit in not pressing those manufacturers to let people know what they are consuming, should there not be a responsibility on the Government? For example, no one knows the calories in alcohol. There has been no change since this responsibility deal was introduced and there is no change in prospect.

[Earl Howe]

My Lords, under the responsibility deal, 92 producers and retailers have committed to having 80% of bottles and cans in the UK displaying unit and health information and a pregnancy warning by the end of last year. That is a worthwhile step forward. As regards the calorie labelling of alcoholic drinks, that, as the noble Lord will know, is an EU competence. It is subject to discussion at this time, but most large retailers include the calorie content of alcohol products on their websites, and that information is also available elsewhere.

National Savings and Investments

Tuesday 14th January 2014 Lords Chamber

Question

14:45

Asked by

[Lord Naseby]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the impact of the introduction of a new computer system at National Savings and Investments.

[Lord Newby (LD)]

My Lords, National Savings and Investments has been moving customer accounts and investments to a new banking system. That follows a major review which concluded that upgrades were necessary to modernise and simplify NS&I products. It will enable products to be managed online, by telephone or post and ensure long-term customer satisfaction. NS&I recognises that a small number of customers may be frustrated, as is often the case during any such period of change, and has taken measures to ensure that customers understand the reasons for its actions.

[Lord Naseby (Con)]

My Lords, will the Minister explain why the NS&I cannot be like every other investment house and send to investors, without asking, a half-yearly statement which lists their holdings and the value of those holdings, plus such transactions as have taken place in the previous six months, and eventually produce a total value of all their holdings?

[Lord Newby]

My Lords, I think the correct analogy with NS&I is with a bank or building society, where common practice—this is what NS&I is moving towards—is that people get a statement on the anniversary of when they took out savings and that customers are able to look online for a comprehensive statement of all their various policies and holdings.

[Lord Lamont of Lerwick (Con)]

My Lords, although we all appreciate that exceptionally low interest rates have been necessary to shore up the finances of borrowers, particularly mortgage holders, does my noble friend recognise that this has been an extremely difficult time for savers? It is a great pity that during a period in which, until today, inflation has been above the Bank of England’s target, National Savings has withdrawn the inflation-linked savings certificate. Will the spokesman encourage National Savings to help to end that misery for savers and, at least for small savers, introduce some new products with rather better rates of interest?

[Lord Newby]

My Lords, as the House is aware, when we have very low interest rates, which have been necessary in the economic circumstances in which we have found ourselves, that helps very many consumers, households, mortgage holders and businesses and is on balance, in our view, beneficial to the economy. The downside, as the noble Lord mentions, is that savers get a lower rate of interest. I think it is unrealistic to expect NS&I to promote products with a higher rate of interest than market rates, because its remit is to get best value for money for the Government, but I am sure that the noble Lord and the whole House will welcome the news that inflation is down to 2%, which is the target level.

[Lord Davies of Oldham (Lab)]

My Lords, returning to the original Question, surely the noble Lord, Lord Naseby, is right: NS&I ought to be an exemplar of good practice in informing its investors rather than apparently seeking to catch up.

[Lord Newby]

My Lords, NS&I needs to be able to compete effectively with best practice across the financial services sector. The truth is that NS&I has been behind the curve. It is undertaking a major programme to get all its customers online. Bear in mind that NS&I has 25 million customers in this country. That is a massive operation. When it is finished, it will be able to give information to the standard that people expect from the best of the other high street brands.

[Lord Forsyth of Drumlean (Con)]

Did my noble friend really say that it was the role of National Savings to get the best return for the Government? Surely its role is to provide a safe haven—as it advertises— for savers. Are not the savers getting a poor return because the Government are indulging in quantitative easing, which is a transfer of money from those who have done the right thing to those who have borrowed?

[Lord Newby]

My Lords, the Government are not doing quantitative easing, the Bank of England is. On the rate payable on National Savings, as the noble Lord will know, the role of National Savings is to contribute to the Government’s funding requirements. In doing that it has to operate in line with market rates because otherwise the Government are paying more for their money via National Savings than through the gilts market.

[Lord Barnett (Lab)]

My Lords, does the noble Lord’s answer to the noble Lord, Lord Lamont, mean that the Chancellor is advising the Governor of the Bank of England that if he has early plans to increase interest rates the Chancellor will use the reserve powers given to him under the Bank of England Act to stop it?

[Lord Newby]

My Lords, the reserve powers in the Bank of England Act are to be used principally when inflation is outside the target level. That is not the case at the moment. The question of interest rates is very much a matter for the Bank of England. It has adopted a new policy that incorporates forward guidance, which was agreed with the Chancellor in the middle of last year, and that is the basis on which it is operating.

NHS: Essential Services

Tuesday 14th January 2014 Lords Chamber

Question

14:51

Asked by

[Baroness Wheeler]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government, in the light of the Dr Foster Hospital Guide 2013, how NHS England is monitoring access to essential services and how it intends to address variations in access to and provision of services at clinical commissioning group level.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health (Earl Howe) (Con)]

My Lords, to help reduce variations in access to health services, Professor Sir Bruce Keogh, the medical director of NHS England, is working with the medical royal colleges and others to ensure that the NHS is clear about the evidence base for common types of surgical interventions. For example, it will produce guidance for commissioners to help ensure that consistent eligibility criteria are used to access surgical services and so minimise the scope for variation at a local level.

[Baroness Wheeler (Lab)]

I thank the Minister for his response. Dr Foster’s report shows that the number of knee and hip replacements and cataract removals has fallen to its lowest level in four years, meaning that more than 12 million people now live in areas where the number of these operations has substantially declined. This is despite our elderly population continuing to rise over the same period and these common surgical procedures being vital to ensuring that older people can regain their mobility, keep active and stay living in the community. Does the Minister agree that these are essential treatments? What pressures will be placed on NHS England to ensure that CCGs actually provide them and also that they fulfil their legal obligation to issue guidance to local communities, revealing what their policies are on providing medicines, surgeries and therapeutic interventions?

[Earl Howe]

My Lords, I should first tell the noble Baroness that we cannot reconcile our own figures with those of Dr Foster. We believe that there has in fact been a significant increase in the number of cataract and knee and hip replacement operations since 2009-10 and not a drop. Regardless of that, I suggest to her that the absolute numbers of operations taking place do not tell us anything about possible rationing or the absence of it. That question can be answered only with the benefit of fuller data. The key to consistent access to these treatments is a common understanding among commissioners of the evidence base in each case. That is exactly what Sir Bruce Keogh is working towards and will provide guidance on in due course.

[Baroness Manzoor (LD)]

Can the Minister state which local NHS services NHS England has deemed to be essential? If an independent provider of these services gets into financial difficulty, who will provide and pay for those services—NHS England or the clinical commissioning groups?

[Earl Howe]

My Lords, from April this year, CCGs and NHS England will begin to identify formally those healthcare services that they consider essential to protect in the event of the financial failure of their providers. They will be required to designate such services as commissioner requested services. In doing so, they must have regard to Monitor’s published CRS guidance. Should an independent provider of CRS get into financial difficulty, then Monitor will work with the provider and relevant partners to determine the right solution.

[Lord Turnberg (Lab)]

My Lords, what safeguards are in place to make sure that CCGs do not have a conflict of interest when they contract for services in which they may have a direct involvement?

[Earl Howe]

The noble Lord will, I am sure, remember from our debates on the Health and Social Care Bill that NHS England has published guidance for CCGs on managing conflicts. There is also a duty placed on CCGs to have regard to such guidance and CCGs set out in their constitution their proposed arrangements for managing conflicts of interest.

[Baroness Finlay of Llandaff (CB)]

How are the Government able to monitor how CCGs are commissioning background diagnostic services and imaging services, which are essential for accurate diagnosis in surgical emergencies and will determine whether a patient should be taken to theatre, given that two-thirds of consultants have expressed concern about the level of care of patients at the weekend? I wonder what levers there are for the Government against those clinical commissioning groups which do not ensure that adequate diagnostic facilities are available.

[Earl Howe]

My Lords, the CCG assurance framework sets out how NHS England will ensure that CCGs are operating effectively to commission safe and high-quality sustainable services within their resources. Underpinning assurance are the developing relationships between CCGs and NHS England, which should not be overlooked. One key source of evidence is the national delivery dashboard, which provides a consistent set of national data on CCG performance. In addition, there is the CCG outcomes indicator set, which will be an important wider source of evidence from 2014-15 onwards.

[Baroness Pitkeathley (Lab)]

My Lords, I know that the noble Earl has disputed the figures but if the volume of operations such as knee and hip replacements and cataract removals is declining, does he accept that this is likely to cause further problems in the social care sector? If older people do not receive timely treatment that will transform, as these operations do, their mobility and ability to manage at home alone, surely they will continue to need more support in the community, which we know is under pressure because of shortages in local authority funding. We may call these operations non-essential—we often do—but they are not non-essential if you are an older person with mobility problems.

[Earl Howe]

I fully agree with the noble Baroness and her point about mobility is very well made. However, NHS England has stated to me explicitly that the assumption that there should be a rising trend in the number of operations proportionate to the rise in the number of elderly people may not necessarily be right, so we have to be wary of using a statistic in isolation to prove one thing or the other.

[Lord Walton of Detchant (CB)]

My Lords, can the Minister say whether it is still government policy that clinical commissioning groups should accept the recommendations of the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence in relation to the availability of expensive drugs in the NHS? What sanctions are available for those that do not comply with those recommendations?

[Earl Howe]

The noble Lord is right that when NICE gives a positive appraisal on a medicine, whether it is for a rare or a common disease, the funding for that medicine must be available through CCGs or NHS England. If a patient is denied the drug, contrary to the instructions or wishes of their clinician, then there is a route of appeal through either the clinical commissioning group or NHS England.

Housing: Underoccupancy Charge

Tuesday 14th January 2014 Lords Chamber

Question

14:58

Asked by

[Lord McKenzie of Luton]

Lord McKenzie of Luton to ask Her Majesty’s Government, in the light of reports of anomalies in the operation of the underoccupancy charge, whether they have any plans to amend housing benefit regulations.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Work and Pensions (Lord Freud) (Con)]

The housing benefit regulations will be amended in March 2014 to ensure that all working-age social sector tenants who underoccupy their homes are subject to a reduction in their eligible rent, regardless of the length of their tenancy, unless they fall within one of the limited exceptions. The exceptions include certain excluded tenancies, shared ownership tenancies, mooring charges for houseboats, rent for caravan sites, temporary accommodation and supported exempt accommodation.

[Lord McKenzie of Luton (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply, but is not what has happened just another example of the incompetence that surrounds the Government’s welfare reforms, and their careless approach to people’s lives in introducing it? The upshot is that there are thousands of people who are being hit illegally with housing benefit reductions, and thousands of people who are unnecessarily caused undue stress because of the effect of this tax. I would like to ask the Minister how the Government are going to rectify matters for individuals who are denied their full benefit entitlement to date, whose rent arrears may have affected their credit rating, who have moved house in response to the tax and given up their security of tenure, or who have fallen into the clutches of private sector landlords who are now intent on evicting tenants claiming housing benefit? Is not this mess a further reason to scrap this wretched tax?

[Lord Freud]

My Lords, I can tell the noble Lord that the numbers involved in this anomaly are small and the amounts are modest. We have put guidance out to local authorities and we intend to regularise the matter through regulations in March.

[Lord Paddick (LD)]

My Lords, the legislation agreed by this House includes the requirement for a full review of the underoccupancy charge. Would my noble friend the Minister tell the House what progress has been made in putting this review in place, and will he confirm that this important process will include not only the impact of the policy but the methods of implementation?

[Lord Freud]

My Lords, we have an elaborate review, about which I have given full information to this House in the past, that is coming out in two stages. We have the interim report coming out later this year, and we have the final report coming out in 2015.

[Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Lab)]

My Lords, the numbers may be small, but it is people’s lives that have been affected, and I do not think the noble Lord the Minister actually answered my noble friend’s question about what will happen to them. Could he please answer it now? Also, it is quite likely that many of these people will have got into debt as a result of this. Will the Government pay compensation to cover the interest payments on that debt?

[Lord Freud]

The reductions in housing benefit will of course be repaid as we correct the anomaly for this period, so people will be made whole.

[Lord Greaves (LD)]

My Lords, when the repayments have to be made by local authorities, will they be reimbursed by central government, since it is clearly not the fault of local authorities that this cock-up has occurred?

[Lord Freud]

Yes, my Lords, the payment will of course go through as housing payment in the normal way.

[Lord McAvoy (Lab)]

My Lords, what a catalogue of disasters: the bedroom tax applied illegally to thousands of people; refunds that will be demanded and quite rightly paid; thousands paid a discretionary housing allowance by mistake and not obliged to repay the cash; and people forced to move house from areas they have lived in all of their lives. The Minister boasted of his role in introducing this tax. Will he now admit his personal responsibility in this disaster, and admit that it is a financial and a social disaster?

[Lord Freud]

My Lords, I will not. The department is engaged in a massive programme of reform. We have successfully brought in a benefit cap, and we have launched PIP, the universal credit and housing benefit reform, to name just a few.

[Lord Martin of Springburn (CB)]

My Lords, will the Minister acknowledge that in circumstances where couples are required to leave underoccupied houses, it is not necessarily the case that the house that is vacated will be easily re-let?

[Lord Freud]

My Lords, the position is that we have got a large number of overcrowded social homes; we have got a very long waiting list, stretching out to 2 million people; and the job of local authorities is to make sure that available homes are matched with the requirement of people who have larger families.

[Lord Christopher (Lab)]

My Lords, what plans do the Government have to deal with the problem, before it gets widespread, of the growing number of private landlords who have decided not to let any properties to people on benefits?

[Lord Freud]

My Lords, there are always flows between private landlords coming into the market and coming out of it. The underlying statistics are that, since we introduced the local authority housing changes, the number of people in private rented accommodation has gone up.

[Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton (Lab)]

My Lords, would the Minister undertake to read after this Question Time the questions that have been put to him and which he has not yet answered? For example, there was a question about people who have lost secure tenancies as a result of the Government’s errors. What are the Government going to do to help them?

[Lord Freud]

My Lords, as I made clear, the regulations that will come in in March will go back to the position that was intended, so people at that stage will have to make adjustments where they need to. So there is a timing issue, but not an underlying one.

[Lord Grocott (Lab)]

My Lords, will the noble Lord acknowledge that this House is often not a bad barometer of whether a policy is going well or badly? Could he note, as I have certainly noted, that there has been quite an absence of enthusiasm on his Benches for this policy, and for asking him helpful or even supportive questions? Could he just report that back to the department?

[Lord Freud]

My Lords, I am pleased to remind the noble Lord that the survey conducted on this policy by Ipsos MORI a couple of months ago found that 78% of people thought that it was important to tackle this problem, and 54% thought it was fair to have this kind of reduction.

[Lord Hughes of Woodside (Lab)]

My Lords, the Minister said that the regulations would be brought forward in March, which is two months from now. What will happen between now and then to the people who have suffered the difficulties that have been described, and how long after the amendments have been made will they take effect?

[Lord Freud]

I am not quite sure that I got that question. We have put out guidance to local authorities to make it clear that people in that position should not have a reduction in their benefits until the regulations have been introduced in a corrected form.

National Insurance Contributions Bill

Tuesday 14th January 2014 Lords Chamber

Order of Consideration Motion

15:07

Moved by

[Lord Newby]

That it be an instruction to the Grand Committee to which the National Insurance Contributions Bill has been committed that they consider the bill in the following order:

Clauses 1 to 3, Schedule 1, Clauses 4 to 15, Schedule 2, Clauses 16 to 21.

Motion agreed.

Ministry of Defence: IT Systems

Tuesday 14th January 2014 Lords Chamber

Statement

15:08

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Defence (Lord Astor of Hever) (Con)]

My Lords, I shall now repeat in the form of a Statement an Answer given in the other place to an Urgent Question. The Statement is as follows:

“The Army entered into a partnering contract with Capita in March 2012 to manage recruitment of regular and reserve soldiers. This is an Army-led initiative designed to free up military personnel from recruitment-related administrative tasks and to improve the quantity and quality of Army recruits; it will play a key role as we transition the Army to the new Army 2020 structures.

I should make it clear to the House that the Army has not outsourced its recruitment; it remains in overall charge of recruitment and will continue to play a major role in attraction and mentoring of recruits. Capita’s role is to manage the supporting processes by which a would-be recruit becomes an enlisted regular or a fully-trained reservist.

As I have explained to the House previously, there have been initial difficulties with this recruiting process as we transition to the new recruiting arrangements with Capita and, in particular, we have encountered difficulties with the IT systems supporting the application and enlistment process. The decision to use the legacy Atlas IT platform was deemed at the time to be the quickest and most effective way of delivering the new recruitment programme. An option to revert to a Capita-hosted solution was included in the contracts as a back-up solution.

I was made aware last summer that the Army was encountering problems with the integration of the Capita system to the Atlas platform. Since then we have put in place a number of workarounds and mitigation measures to the old IT platform to simplify the application process, and we have reintroduced military personnel to provide manual intervention to support the process.

Having visited the Army’s recruitment centre in Upavon on 30 October, it was clear to me that, despite the Army putting in place measures to mitigate these problems in the near term, further long-term action was needed to fix the situation. It was agreed in principle at that point that the Atlas system was not capable of timely delivery of the Capita-run programme and that we would need to take up the option to revert to Capita to build a new IT platform specifically to run its system, which will be ready early next year.

In the short term, we have already taken action to bring in a new range of initiatives that will make it progressively easier and quicker for applicants, both regular and reserve, to enlist. As I informed the House in December, we have already taken a number of actions, including: the introduction this month of a new front-end web application for Army recruitment; a simplified online application form; more streamlined medical clearance processes; greater mentoring of recruits by local reserve units through the application, enlistment and training process; and the reintroduction of reserve unit recruitment targets and the provision of recruitment resource to reserve unit commanding officers. With an improved Army recruitment website, streamlined medicals and an increase in the number of recruiting staff, recruits should see a much improved experience by the end of this month.

As we move forward, we are looking at further ways of improving the management of the recruiting process in the intervening period before the introduction of the advanced IT system now being developed in partnership with Capita, which is expected to be deployed in February 2015. We have just launched a new recruitment drive for the Army, both regular and reserves, which will remind the House and the public that the Army is always recruiting and continues to offer exciting and rewarding careers in both the Regular and the Reserve Forces”.

15:12

[Lord Rosser (Lab)]

I thank the Minister for repeating the Answer to the Urgent Question asked in the other place earlier today. This is another example of things not working out as planned in the Ministry of Defence under this Government’s watch, following the Joint Strike Fighter U-turn, the defence procurement competition with a distinct lack of competitors and now this with the online IT recruitment scheme. The story has broken in today’s Times newspaper of a report by an IT research company on the costs and consequences of this flawed IT system. It is a pity the Secretary of State was not prepared to tell Parliament the details himself, bearing in mind the fact that he has been aware of the difficulty since early last summer.

What impact has this failure had on recruitment for both regulars and reserves, and how far behind schedule is the recruitment partnering project? What is the Government’s total figure for the additional costs that have been and will be incurred as a result of the flawed IT system, and how many Armed Forces personnel have had to return to or remain in recruitment posts as a result of this failure?

15:13

[Lord Astor of Hever]

My Lords, we acknowledge that there have been difficulties, and the Army is working with its partners to put things right. As the noble Lord knows, the previous Government had their share of IT problems, and we in the Ministry of Defence are gripping the problem.

In the short term, the Army is freeing up to 1,000 soldiers to help with recruiting on the front line. As the response to the Urgent Question said, we are improving the online experience. The application form is being simplified and there is a streamlined medical clearance process and greater mentoring of recruits by the local units. We want to make the whole process much more user friendly.

Much work has gone into addressing recruiting and a new campaign was launched last weekend. Noble Lords may have seen it. Given the target set out in the Written Ministerial Statement before Christmas, we are confident that this can be achieved. We are changing the shape of the British Army to reflect financial reality and the needs of the 21st century. We need to build up reserves with much more specialist roles.

Regarding the noble Lord’s specific questions, on additional cost the £15.5 million mentioned is what we have spent so far getting the system to work on the Atlas platform. Of that £15.5 million, £6.7 million has been spent on doing work that is now of no utility—in other words, that £6.7 million will need to be written off. Another £4.4 million is needed to make the interim programme work in terms of extra manpower and so on. This means that the total of £6.7 million plus £4.4 million, which equals £11.1 million, is the extra cost of this announcement. The overall cost of the programme remains within the financial allocation of £1.36 billion covering the period from March 2012 to March 2022.

This is a long-term issue that deserves cross-party support. I will be going down to Upavon, where the recruiting group, including Capita, is based, and I would like to extend an invitation to the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, my noble friend Lord Palmer and the noble Baroness, Lady Dean, or a representative from the defence group, to accompany me to see what the Army and Capita are doing to sort this problem out.

15:16

[Lord Palmer of Childs Hill (LD)]

My Lords, first, I thank my noble friend the Minister for that offer, which I am happy to accept. When the decision was made to recruit online, was it not premature to cease to use the well tried manual systems, which have been used successfully over the years? I understand the need to move into the next century, but in business you do not introduce a new IT system and throw away the old system until you have proved that the new system is working. Can we be reassured that that will be looked at in the future?

[Lord Astor of Hever]

My Lords, obviously, we will look at that very closely. It is very easy to be wise with the benefit of hindsight.

I failed to answer various questions asked by the noble Lord, Lord Rosser. He asked me how many Armed Forces personnel will return. I think that I answered that—the Army will be sending in 1,000 regulars to help on the ground with recruiting both the regulars and the reserves. He asked what the effect would be on recruitment, which is a question that I myself asked; the answer is that it is too early to say. How late will the project be? There will be a two-year delay before the full operating capability of the new programme is reached. The IT is due to be up and running in February 2015.

[Lord West of Spithead (Lab)]

My Lords, surely the fundamental, terrible error was, as the noble Lord, Lord Palmer of Childs Hill, said, to stop using the old system. We took out the people who actually make young men and women want to join the Army. They want to see a bluff NCO with a chest full of medals talking about the Army, not some Capita or “Crapita” person talking to them from behind a computer. As I understand it, 800 regulars who were doing that job were removed and now we are putting 1,000 back in. Does the Minister agree that that was the fundamental error?

[Lord Astor of Hever]

No, my Lords, it was not. The whole idea of this was to try to relieve manpower to enable soldiers to go back to the front line as well as reducing cost. However, I point out to the noble Lord that this is not the first IT project to go on. In 1998, Labour announced a programme to reform the way that the NHS used IT. It was originally intended to cost £6.2 billion, but costs later doubled to almost £13 billion. In 2011, the Government axed that project and replaced it with a cheaper, locally led system. The National Audit Office slammed the original scheme, saying that it did not represent value for money, so this is not the first time that there have been problems with IT.

[Lord Ramsbotham (CB)]

My Lords, that is exactly the point that the Minister has made. This is not the first time that an IT system has gone wrong. As the noble Lord, Lord West, has said, this trial was going completely against the traditional methods of recruiting. Will the noble Lord tell the House whether it was adequately tried out before it was forced on what I understand was a very reluctant Army?

[Lord Astor of Hever]

The noble Lord is probably better informed on that than I am. We want to get the best of both worlds. The Army is not losing control of recruiting—it was always going to be in control of recruiting—but we want to use the very best software to help it do the job properly and get recruits into the reserves and into the regulars.

[Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean (Lab)]

My Lords, does the noble Lord not accept that my noble friend Lord West made a very important point about soldiers inspiring young people to want to join the Armed Forces? In the same way, you could say that excellent doctors or lawyers have a role in inspiring young people to join the medical or legal profession. Surely it was a mistake to cut out that role from the Army and Armed Forces and simply give it to an organisation like Capita.

[Lord Astor of Hever]

The noble Baroness makes a very good point, but, as I said, the Army will not lose control of this whole process and there will be soldiers helping with recruiting. This concept was designed not only to cut costs but to enable soldiers to go back to the front line. The initial gateway business case was accepted back in July 2008 by the previous Government.

[Lord Brooke of Sutton Mandeville (Con)]

My Lords, in addition to what my noble friend referred to in 1998, does he also recall that there was a massive reduction in the Territorial Army during that period? Some of us who were then sitting in the other place had to defend not one but two Territorial Army bases in our constituencies in order to prevent them from being closed. The situation that we are now dealing with would not be so acute if the Territorial Army had had a more stable period.

[Lord Astor of Hever]

My Lords, my noble friend makes a very good point. When the previous Administration took office in 1997, the Territorial Army was more than 50,000 strong; by the time it left office in 2010, that figure had halved. That pattern of decline has now been arrested and the strength has been stabilised.

[Lord Dannatt (CB)]

My Lords, the regular Army is losing 20% of its strength, which means 20,000 trained soldiers over the next few years over and above the normal annual outflow of trained soldiers. The initiative to increase the strength of the Territorial Army, as it was previously called, is—to be generous about it—struggling. Can the Minister assure the House that the IT system that is in place is good enough to track the regular Reserve—that is, the soldiers who have served and have been recently discharged—and that, in extremis, there is the IT capability there to recall them to the colours as ex-trained regular soldiers?

[Lord Astor of Hever]

The noble Lord makes a very good point about officers and soldiers who have left whom we might need at some point in the future. The best of my understanding is that we can track them. If that is not the case I will write to the noble Lord.

Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Bill

Tuesday 14th January 2014 Lords Chamber

Report (2nd Day)

15:24

Clause 69: Power to issue closure notices

Amendment 61A

Moved by

[Baroness Smith of Basildon]

61A: Clause 69, page 41, line 25, at end insert—
“( ) that the use of particular premises has resulted, or (if the notice is not issued) is likely soon to result, in a sexual offence against a child,”

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

My Lords, our amendment adds a new ground for the issuing of a closure notice that would allow premises to be closed in cases of sexual offences against a child. It is largely a preventive measure but would be an important extra tool in tackling this problem. No one could have failed to be distressed and horrified by the reports late last year of groups and gangs of men who abused young and vulnerable girls. They did so by a cold, calculating and sinister grooming process, sometimes involving drink and drugs, which allowed them to sexually and physically abuse these children. So cleverly warped are these groomers’ tactics that the children—and vulnerable adults—may not even realise at the time that they are being abused and exploited.

We have an opportunity in the Bill to provide more ammunition for those trying to prevent this shocking and evil crime. I hope noble Lords will allow me to put on record my gratitude to those who brought this matter to my attention: Tony Lloyd, the police and crime commissioner for Greater Manchester; Colin Lambert, leader of Rochdale Council; and Jeanette Stanley, Rochdale’s safety community manager. They have given me some hugely important and useful evidence. I know they have been in contact with Home Office Ministers as well. Their experience and knowledge of what works in tackling such crime and where the gaps are in legislation is invaluable. I know that the Minister shares my concerns on this issue and I hope that the Government will share my view of the suggestions that these people brought forward to try to tackle this problem.

They are seeking an immediate closure power where there is a safeguarding threat. Greater Manchester Police has evidence of properties that are unregulated and unlicensed being used in a variety of ways to prey on vulnerable adults and sexually exploit children “behind closed doors”. Yet the only powers the police have—and will have in legislation if the amendment is not passed—is to close premises on anti-social behaviour grounds. Now that the police have evidence of the shape and extent of this problem, that is no longer enough. In Rochdale, they have been able to use the current anti-social behaviour closure order power on a number of occasions to good effect because they also had sufficient evidence of recent and repetitive anti-social behaviour incidents. However, the main reason for obtaining a closure order was because of safeguarding concerns involving children and young adults. That power allows a short-term disruption to the abuse while the police can then take longer-term permanent action.

Norman Baker, as Home Office Minister in the other place, has responded to the suggestion outlined in our amendment that closure powers exist under the Sexual Offences Act 2003. He is absolutely right—they do—but they apply only to prostitution and pornography, not to protecting children and vulnerable adults. The powers do not allow for the swift action that is needed. However, perhaps the most serious problem with that approach is that to use a sexual offences order, evidence of a criminal offence is needed. The grooming method of such gangs is quite sophisticated in a warped way, and many victims of child rape and sexual abuse do not complain. They may even believe that their abuser is their boyfriend and that they have sex with his friends to please him. While in the clutches of these men, the victims cannot even recognise that they are being abused.

This is a simple amendment. It obviously does not solve all the problems but it will make a difference. Tony Lloyd and Councillor Colin Lambert first wrote to Minister Jeremy Browne on 4 October last year seeking this help to tackle the problem. I put on record my thanks to the noble Lord, Lord Taylor of Holbeach, as Minister, for his willingness to discuss these issues with me. I really hope that the Minister can accept this amendment but I would be happy for him to take it away to consider further, and for us to bring something back at Third Reading. I beg to move.

[Baroness Hamwee (LD)]

My Lords, the noble Baroness raises a hugely important matter. I was glad to hear her say that she would welcome the Minister taking the matter away, but I have to say that my reaction would be to wonder whether, as she says—and I am not doubting what she says—there are gaps in our legislation that mean there are problems for the authorities. If that were the case, I should have thought it necessary to make changes to the Sexual Offences Act. I question whether the changes should be made in this Bill, given that the offences she is talking about are of a very different order from the nuisance and disorder that this part of the Bill is addressing.

There is also the difficult issue of taking steps to prevent something that might be a criminal offence—we are talking about something rather different in this part of the Bill—without having gone through prosecution and so on. I have not had a discussion with the Minister —he might be about to take the ground completely from under my feet—but it seems that we are talking about something very important but rather different.

15:30

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Home Office (Lord Taylor of Holbeach) (Con)]

My Lords, sexual offences against children are a serious crime and one of the utmost concern to the Government. I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, for tabling this amendment to allow the House to debate this important issue today.

The Government are determined to do everything they can to protect the public from predatory sexual offenders. The United Kingdom has some of the toughest powers in the world to manage the risks posed by sex offenders, but we are committed to ensuring that the police and other enforcement agencies have the right powers to protect the public from sexual harm.

It may be useful to noble Lords if I outline some of the powers already available to the police to tackle the sexual exploitation of children. As the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, has said, in particular, the Sexual Offences Act 2003, already gives the police and the courts the power to close premises on a temporary basis where there are reasonable grounds for believing that they are being used for certain sexual offences involving a child and that closing the premises is necessary to prevent the commission of those offences.

Under that Act, service of a closure notice by the police will prevent anyone entering or remaining on the premises, unless they regularly reside in or own the premises, until a magistrates’ court decides whether to make a closure order. If the court is satisfied that the relevant conditions are met, it can make a closure order for a period of up to three months. An application can be made for the closure order to be extended but the total period for which a closure order has effect may not exceed six months. The Sexual Offences Act closure notice and order therefore operate similarly to the closure power in the Bill, although they are targeted specifically at sexual crimes against children, which are listed in Sections 47 to 50 of that Act. These crimes all relate to the abuse of children through prostitution or pornography. In addition to their duty to investigate criminal offences, the police have a statutory duty to safeguard and promote the welfare of children, and have powers to enter premises and remove children to ensure their immediate protection if they believe they are at risk of significant harm.

I recognise—the noble Baroness is correct to draw this to our attention—that there are concerns that the powers in the Sexual Offences Act do not go far enough. As the noble Baroness has indicated, Home Office Ministers have been in recent correspondence with the police and crime commissioner for Greater Manchester, Tony Lloyd, on this issue. Tony Lloyd has pointed to cases where takeaways and other premises could be used for grooming children.

As I have said, the closure powers in the 2003 Act relate only to premises used in connection with prostitution or pornography, so there may indeed be a case for extending their reach. As my noble friend Lady Hamwee has pointed out, I believe the 2003 Act rather than the closure powers in this Bill, which relate to anti-social behaviour, is the proper place to address this issue.

I suggest to the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, that if she would be prepared to withdraw her amendment, I will undertake to give the matter sympathetic and urgent consideration in advance of Third Reading. I cannot, at this stage, as noble Lords will understand, give any commitment to bring forward a government amendment at Third Reading. However, I will let her know the outcome of our further deliberations in good time so that she can, if necessary, retable her amendment, or something similar to it, at that stage.

We all want to ensure that all possible action is taken by the police to protect children at risk of sexual exploitation. I share the noble Baroness’s determination to get to the bottom of this issue and, as speedily as possible, to plug any confirmed gap in the powers of the police in this regard. I hope that on this basis she will be content to withdraw her amendment.

[Baroness Smith of Basildon]

My Lords, I am extremely grateful to the Minister for his response in this regard. It contrasts quite starkly with the comments from the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, who seemed to be much against taking action in the Bill. However, his response—

[Baroness Hamwee]

My Lords, I apologise to the House if I was not clear. I was entirely sympathetic with the thrust of what the noble Baroness was seeking to do but was suggesting, precisely as the Minister has said, that the Sexual Offences Act might well be the place to do it.

[Baroness Smith of Basildon]

It came over rather more negatively than that, but the Minister’s response was very useful and I think it showed a clear determination to take action on this. I am very happy to enter into discussions with him and we should be able to find a way to bring this back at Third Reading. It is an urgent issue: children are being abused today and will be abused tomorrow and the day after, and we have a real opportunity here to make a difference. I am grateful to the Minister for seizing the opportunity and I look forward to our further discussions.

Amendment 61A withdrawn.

Amendment 62

Moved by

[Baroness Hamwee]

62: Clause 69, page 41, line 37, leave out “habitually”

[Baroness Hamwee]

My Lords, I shall speak also to Amendments 71, 72, 73, 74 and 75. These amendments are concerned with people who are affected, and how they are affected, by closure notices and closure orders. Amendment 62 addresses those who “habitually”—that is the term in the Bill—live on the premises and their entitlement to access. The subsequent amendments deal with the clauses relating to temporary orders and their extension and discharge, and appeals, as well as the extent of the building which may be the subject of an appeal.

I am concerned about the employees who live on site. Pubs, hotels and other leisure establishments often include accommodation for junior staff and not just for the managers. When I raised this at the previous stage, the noble Lord, Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon, said that closure notices could be,

“tailored to the appropriate circumstances”.—[Official Report, 2/12/13; col. 14.]—

we were talking about security and safety—but that the Government considered that the exception should be limited to residents who are habitually resident and, in the case of an appeal, to those who have an interest in the premises, meaning a financial or legal interest.

The draft guidance, which we have seen, seems to consider these issues only to the extent of the police or the local authority, allowing discretion for the retrieval of items left on the premises. My concern goes wider than that. A young person employed in the sort of situation to which I have referred may well be living a long way from home and quite suddenly lose the place where they are living, if not habitually at that point. I am not suggesting that this may be a widespread situation but, for those affected, it will be very significant and I wonder whether my noble friend on the Front Bench can give me any more assurances. I am simply not confident that the legislation allows for enough to go into the guidance to cover the points that I am making. I beg to move.

[Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)]

My Lords, as my noble friend Lady Hamwee has explained, these amendments relate to the closure powers in Chapter 3 of Part 4 of the Bill. She has also indicated that her particular concern is to protect the interests of employees—such as caretakers, for example—who may live on premises subject to a closure notice or order. Amendment 62 relates to the use of the term “habitually” in the context of Clause 69(4). That subsection provides that a closure notice cannot prohibit access by a person who habitually lives on the premises. The term “habitually” in this context means those who routinely or regularly live at those premises. It could, for example, cover students who live away from the family home for part of the year but routinely return to the family home as their main residence or those who spend the majority of the week living at the pub in which they work.

The term is commonly used in legislation setting out entitlement to social security benefits, such as the Income Support (General) Regulations 1987. It is also used in the family law context when a court decides cases under the Child Abduction and Custody Act 1985, where it is often relevant to decide in which country a child habitually resides. When approaching this test in each context in which it has arisen, the courts have said that it is essentially a question of fact to be determined by reference to all the circumstances of a particular case. We expect the police and local authorities to follow the same approach in this context and assess each circumstance on a case-by-case basis. However, it is important to retain this word so that we exclude persons who may only occasionally live on the premises: for example, a friend of one of the residents who may just be spending time there over a weekend or at a sleepover.

Amendments 71, 72, 73 and 75 all seek to extend certain rights—for example, the right of appeal against a closure order—to persons who live on the premises concerned. Such rights already apply to persons on whom a closure notice has been served and on persons who have an interest in the premises. The Government are satisfied that these existing provisions are wide enough to protect the position of employees who may reside on the premises.

In Committee, I explained that the reference in the Bill to a person having an “interest” in the premises covers those who have a financial or legal interest. I would fully expect that any employee who has been furnished with accommodation as part of his or her employment would have their entitlements to such accommodation set out in either their contract of employment or an associated tenancy agreement. That being the case, I am satisfied that in any such formal relationship between an employee and the owner or occupier of any such premises subject to an application for a closure order, the employee will be a person with an interest in the premises and therefore already covered by the provisions provided in Clauses 74 to 77.

Finally, Amendment 74 seeks to clarify the circumstances in which an appeal against a decision to make or extend a closure order may be made. Of course, I understand that my noble friend has in mind the situation where an appellant may wish to challenge the extent of a closure order in terms of those parts of a building or structure which are covered by the order. Again, I can assure my noble friend that the provisions in the Bill as drafted allow for this. Clause 77(6) enables the court hearing an appeal to make whatever order it thinks appropriate. This would include varying the terms of a closure order so that it applies to a more limited part of the building or structure in question. Therefore, an employee living on-site could use the appeal to argue that a closure order should not include his or her living area. I hope that, in the light of the explanation that I have given, my noble friend is reassured and will be content to withdraw her amendment.

[Baroness Hamwee]

My Lords, in the Minister’s explanation of “habitually”, which I understood from the previous stage, the example he used of a student whose real home—if I can put it that way—was somewhere else actually confirmed exactly what I was worried about. That part therefore did not reassure me, but I am helped by his more extended explanation of the term “interest”. I know when I am beaten, so I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 62 withdrawn.

Clause 72: Service of notices

Amendments 63 to 70

Moved by

[Lord Taylor of Holbeach]

63: Clause 72, page 43, line 39, leave out “an employee” and insert “a representative”

64: Clause 72, page 43, line 41, leave out “employee” and insert “representative”

65: Clause 72, page 43, line 45, leave out “employee” and insert “representative”

66: Clause 72, page 44, line 2, leave out “employee” and insert “representative”

67: Clause 72, page 44, line 7, leave out “employee” and insert “representative”

68: Clause 72, page 44, line 11, leave out “employee” and insert “representative”

69: Clause 72, page 44, line 12, leave out “employee” and insert “representative”

70: Clause 72, page 44, line 14, at end insert—
“( ) In this section “representative”, in relation to a local authority, means—
(a) an employee of the authority, or(b) a person, or employee or a person, acting on behalf of the authority.”

Amendments 63 to 70 agreed.

Clause 74: Temporary orders

Amendment 71 not moved.

Clause 75: Extension of closure orders

Amendment 72 not moved.

Clause 76: Discharge of closure orders

Amendment 73 not moved.

Clause 77: Appeals

Amendments 74 and 75 not moved.

Amendment 76

Moved by

[Lord Taylor of Holbeach]

76: After Clause 83, insert the following new Clause—
“Guidance
(1) The Secretary of State may issue—
(a) guidance to chief officers of police about the exercise, by officers under their direction or control, of those officers’ functions under this Chapter;(b) guidance to local authorities about the exercise of their functions under this Chapter and those of their representatives (within the meaning of section 72).(2) The Secretary of State may revise any guidance issued under this section.
(3) The Secretary of State must arrange for any guidance issued or revised under this section to be published.”

Amendment 76 agreed.

Amendments 77 to 80 had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.

15:45

Clause 91: Offences connected with riot

Amendment 80A

Moved by

[Lord Taylor of Holbeach (Con)]

80A: Clause 91, page 61, line 41, leave out “a person” and insert “an adult”

[Lord Taylor of Holbeach]

My Lords, Clause 91 introduces a new discretionary ground for possession for offences connected with a riot. The existing grounds for possession for anti-social behaviour are discretionary and require that the anti-social behaviour must have occurred in the locality of the property. This means that thuggish behaviour committed against neighbours or in the immediate vicinity of a tenant’s home may currently be a basis for eviction.

However, similar offences likely to have a devastating effect on whole communities such as looting, or other riot-related criminal activity, committed by tenants further from their homes would not usually be taken into account. I do not think that that is right. It is important that people who wreck other people’s communities through riot-related offences should face the same consequences that they would if they carried out such behaviour in their own neighbourhoods.

It is not just the Government who are of this view. Following the 2011 riots, the e-petition entitled “Convicted London rioters should lose all benefits” received over a quarter of a million signatures, the second greatest number of signatories for any e-petition that has been submitted to the Government to date. That is strong evidence that the public want tough action to deal with rioters.

This clause seeks to make sure that that is the case by adding a new ground for possession into the Housing Acts 1985 and 1988 in respect of secure tenants and assured tenants respectively. Under the new ground, landlords will be able to apply for possession of a tenant’s property in England where the tenant or a person living in the tenant’s property has been convicted of an offence committed at the scene of a riot which took place anywhere in the UK.

Following concerns raised in Committee and by the Joint Committee on Human Rights, we gave a commitment to consider the amendments tabled at that stage by my noble friends, Lady Hamwee and Lord Greaves, which proposed that the new ground would apply only where the tenant and not a member of the household has been convicted of a “serious offence”, rather than any offence, as currently drafted.

Recognising the concerns that have been expressed, government Amendments 80A to 80F provide further reassurance that the new ground will apply only to the more serious cases of riotous behaviour. Amendments 80A, 80C, 80D and 80F provide that landlords would be able to seek possession under the provisions of Clause 91 only where the tenant or an adult member of their household has been convicted of an offence at the scene of a riot.

We have retained the application of the ground to the convictions of adult members of the household as we do not believe that adult perpetrators of serious anti-social behaviour or criminal activity should be able to escape consequences for their home simply on the basis that the tenancy is not in their name.

In addition, to address concerns relating to the possibility of minor offences triggering possession under this ground, Amendments 80B and 80D would restrict the application of the new ground to “indictable offences” instead of any offence committed at the scene of a riot as currently drafted. This means that convictions for less serious offences such as common assault and obstructing a police officer in the execution of his duty will not trigger possession under this ground. However, I emphasise our commitment to ensuring that we send a strong signal: if you get involved in a riot, whether it is near your home or not, there may be consequences for your tenancy.

With regard to the concerns raised by the Joint Committee on Human Rights that the ground amounts to a double punishment and may disproportionately affect children, it is important to note that the new ground is discretionary and that the court can grant possession only where it considers it reasonable to do so. This means that the court can take into account the circumstances of the tenant and other family members, including children, when deciding whether to grant possession. I should add that available evidence also indicates that landlords resort to eviction only as a last resort. In addition, these government amendments would provide additional safeguards in the Bill to ensure that whole families are not evicted under the new ground for the actions of a child during a riot. I would reassure the noble Baroness, Lady O’Loan— I am pleased to see that she is in her place—and the noble Baroness, Lady Lister, who have tabled Amendment 80G to remove Clause 91 from the Bill, that we expect the impact of the provision and the number of evictions, including those of families, to be very small over time. That is especially as I hope that we will not see any future occurrences of the disgraceful looting and rioting across England that we saw in the summer of 2011.

I hope that the House will agree that these government amendments respond positively to the concerns that have been expressed about this provision and that your Lordships will support the retention of Clause 91 in its amended form. I beg to move.

[Baroness O'Loan (CB)]

My Lords, Clause 91 as originally drafted added a new ground for possession under Schedule 2 of the Housing Act 1985 and Part 2 of Schedule 2 to the Housing Act 1988 so that, as the Minister has said, a landlord might apply for possession where someone living in the property has been convicted of an offence committed at the scene of a riot which had taken place anywhere in the United Kingdom. The Joint Committee on Human Rights, of which I am a member, has consistently stated that this clause should be deleted from the Bill. In the first instance the committee stated that it was unnecessary and disproportionate. It was also concerned about the potentially serious implications of this clause for family members and considered that it may disproportionately affect both women and children. The committee said that it amounted to a punishment rather than a genuine means of preventing harm to others.

I wish to set out absolutely the aggravated nature of riot offences. Living in Northern Ireland, I have long experience of the fear and the horror of riots. People who commit criminal offences must be pursued under the criminal law. To allow an offence committed anywhere in the UK, even if the conviction were to be on indictment only, to be grounds for eviction where there is a tenancy, is certainly to impose a second punishment on a limited group of people who do not own their own home and who have committed no offence, since the other members of the household have committed no offence. I should like to thank the Minister for meeting with me in December to discuss this issue, and for giving me the opportunity to articulate again the difficulties with this clause.

I note the amendments that the Government have now tabled and the fact that they make in effect two changes. The clause will apply only where an adult member of the household—someone living in the house—has been convicted of an indictable offence. That is to be welcomed because it limits the effect of the clause. It relieves from the threat of eviction the families of young people who may have fallen into bad company, but who have been dealt with for their criminality under the criminal law. However, that still leaves tenants and their householders subject to a possible double punishment for a crime committed either by a tenant or someone else who lives in the rented property, and no such double punishment can be applied to a private householder. The family of such a household will be put through the stress, fear and expense of fighting an eviction application. It will go on for months, and while they may well win at the end of the day, there will still have been serious disruption and expense and, above all, distress to the family. Can the Minister tell me whether there is a time limit on the use of a conviction as a ground for eviction? If a person was convicted in 2013, could that conviction be used in 2014? If he was convicted 2011 as a result of the London riots, could it be used in 2014?

Clause 91 would create the curious circumstance in which someone convicted of a riot offence in Edinburgh, Glasgow or even Belfast could be evicted in England and Wales but a person convicted in England and Wales could not be evicted in Scotland or Northern Ireland. The Government have offered no justification for this measure, nor is there any necessity for it, even in its amended form. In the Minister’s letter to the Joint Committee on Human Rights, the explanation for the Government’s amendments is that, in light of the Lords Committee stage debate, they concluded that it would be appropriate to place further safeguards on the face of the legislation. However, the Minister repeats the Government’s position that “this provision is intended to deter the sort of deplorable ‘riot tourism’ that we witnessed in summer 2011”. The Joint Committee on Human Rights states:

“In our view it is the job of the criminal law, not the civil law, to deter riot-related offences and to administer sanctions when such offences are committed. Nor do we consider the existence of judicial discretion to be a satisfactory answer to our concern about the disproportionate impact of eviction on other members of the household who have not engaged in such behaviour. We maintain our recommendation that clause 91 be deleted from the Bill”.

The justification for the current position under the Housing Act is that those convicted of rioting in their locality pose a threat to their local community and that, in order to protect that community, the person must be removed from it. This justification cannot cover the proposed extension of the ground for eviction—there is no link between the crime and the local area. As the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, a former deputy assistant commissioner of the Metropolitan Police, stated in Committee,

“the provision to order possession of a property when the offence has absolutely nothing to do with protecting neighbours, for example, from anti-social behaviour, is a step too far. It is politically motivated and is not driven by the needs of justice. Therefore, it should be no part of this Bill”.—[Official Report, 2/12/13; col. 62.]

The Government have sought to justify their proposals by stating that the threat of eviction is intended to deter those considering engaging in riot-related behaviour —but that is the purpose of the criminal law.

In Committee, the noble Lord, Lord Faulks, who is soon to take his place on the Front Bench, stated that he could not endorse the clause. He did not qualify that in any way:

“The courts have sufficient powers to deal firmly with offenders caught up in a riot … The criminal justice system—some would say ‘for once’—in general responded very well to what occurred”.

He also said:

“Those who committed offences during the riot on that occasion were dealt with speedily and firmly”.

He stated that he did not think it was “necessary or appropriate” to legislate in this manner,

“given all the other powers that exist elsewhere in the Bill”,

and concluded that,

“this clause is a step too far”. —[Official Report, 2/12/13; col. 60.]

In 2011, Wandsworth Council threatened to evict a Liberty client, Maite de la Calva, and her younger daughter, if her son was convicted of a crime committed during the riots in 2011. Her son had been arrested and charged during the disorder. He had moved out of his mother’s property earlier in the year, but she was still served with a notice by Wandsworth Council seeking possession, which stated that she was likely to have breached her tenancy agreement. The authority vowed to apply for a possession order evicting her and her daughter if her son was convicted. This was despite her contribution to the local area over the past three years: she was described as a credit to her housing estate by neighbours and spent her spare time volunteering with a youth charity and working with domestic violence victims. She had committed no crime herself and would not have faced that threat had she lived in a mortgaged house. Liberty represented her in challenging Wandsworth Council’s attempt to punish her and her daughter for her son’s conviction. Eventually the council was persuaded to back down, but not before considerable anxiety and suffering had been inflicted. If the eviction powers set out in the Bill are enacted, even as modified by the present government amendments, there will be many more cases just like this one and it is unlikely that the outcome in all of them will be as positive.

Removing a person and their family from social housing is unlikely to lead to less, rather than more, crime and anti-social behaviour. Dispossession will shift the problem elsewhere, creating new and greater problems for the individuals concerned and their families. Private housing may be unavailable and private sector rents are rising, partly as a consequence of the welfare reform measures. Temporary accommodation does not deal with the issue: it splits up families; it disrupts education and social cohesion; and the end result may well be that alternative accommodation becomes unaffordable for many families, leading to increased homelessness and destitution.

I ask the Minister to consider again the fact that the Joint Committee on Human Rights has consistently said that this clause is neither necessary nor proportionate; that it is not about protecting a local area; that it discriminates against those in public housing; and above all that it will create significant distress to people who have committed no crime.

16:00

[Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Lab)]

My Lords, I am pleased to speak in support of Amendment 80G—to which I added my name as a member of the Joint Committee on Human Rights—and to follow the noble Baroness, Lady O’Loan, who has moved the amendment so powerfully.

I apologise for not being able to be present during the Bill’s Committee stage, but I have read the debate. It was striking that no noble Lord other than the Minister, of course, spoke in support of Clause 91. The noble Baroness, Lady Berridge, who is also a member of the Joint Committee on Human Rights, called it an unhelpful precedent. The noble Lord, Lord Faulks, lately of the Joint Committee on Human Rights, and the noble Lord, Lord Paddick—who have both already been quoted—called it a step too far. To the Minister’s credit, he has taken note and come back with government amendments. In my view, however, his amendments are a step not far enough. They do not meet the concerns of the Joint Committee on Human Rights which have been voiced in two reports on the Bill and lie behind Amendment 80G. The noble Lords who serve on the JCHR said in Committee that Clause 91 smacks of punishment rather than serving as a means of preventing harm. As the noble Baroness, Lady O’Loan, said, it would create a double punishment. The Minister talks about tough action, but tough action was taken after the riots, as the noble Lord, Lord Faulks, argued strongly in Committee. Moreover, in many cases the punishment will be applied to people who are totally innocent of the behaviour in question. The noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, talked about the clause creating new victims.

In response to the JCHR’s concerns on this point, the Minister tried to reassure your Lordships that the power would be discretionary and the courts would have regard to what is reasonable before granting a possession order. He also argued in Committee that it is an established principle of tenancy law that a tenant is held responsible for the behaviour of members of their household. Surely tenancy law concerns behaviour that affects the accommodation and/or contravenes a condition of the tenancy and not behaviour that could have taken place hundreds of miles away. Indeed, the Minister himself has dubbed it “riot tourism”. That is not a phrase that I would use but it underlines the fact that we are talking about behaviour that has no implications for the neighbours of those concerned, and nor does it affect the landlord.

Research into existing discretionary anti-social behaviour powers reveals how, in practice, women are often held responsible for the behaviour of sons and/or male partners. Reporting on this research in an article in the Journal of Social Welfare and Family Law, Caroline Hunter and Judy Nixon note that two out of three complaints of anti-social behaviour against women heads of households concern the behaviour of teenage children—mainly sons—or male partners or boyfriends. The article states:

“Regardless of the difficulty and in some cases, the impossibility women experienced in controlling the behaviour of their teenage sons or boyfriends, they were deemed responsible for the behaviour and were as a result evicted from their homes … while the lack of fault on the part of the women in many of these cases was striking and in some cases acknowledged by the judges, this was not a sufficient factor to prevent the women from being punished and evicted from their homes”.

So I am not reassured by what the Minister said about this being discretionary and about the reasonableness of the judicial system.

Subsequent analysis of more recent Court of Appeal cases found a similar pattern, in particular in relation to the behaviour of male partners—not underaged children but partners. Limiting the operation of Clause 91 to cases where a riot-related offence is committed by an adult member of the household, as under the government amendment, in practice makes little difference. In many cases, it will be adults, probably males, sons or partners, who are the perpetrators.

The phrase of the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, was striking: we are creating new victims here. Those innocent victims who will lose their homes will disproportionately be women and children. The Minister also tried to reassure us by saying that the impact will be small, there will not be that many people affected. What about every woman and child who loses their house, their home, because of this provision? Surely that is not just; that is not fair.

[Lord Hylton (CB)]

My Lords, I am sure that nobody wishes to condone rioting or the serious damage and intimidation that it can cause. Most of us are grateful to the Government for bringing forward their amendments. Nevertheless, they do not deal with the discrimination against, for example, owner-occupiers, because they touch only on secure and assured tenants. There is the further point that the Bill, even as amended, is very likely to punish the innocent. Unless the Government can come back with a very much better defence of the clause, I shall certainly support the noble Baroness and my noble friend if they wish to press the amendment to a Division.

[The Earl of Lytton (CB)]

My Lords, first, I should like to clarify a point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Lister of Burtersett, and reinforce what she said about the Landlord and Tenant Act issues under secure tenancies.

The legal situation, as I understand it from my profession as a chartered surveyor, is that tenants are responsible for the actions of those living with them only to the extent of the lease terms and the demise concerned. It does not and never has extended to liability for the wider actions of members of a tenant’s household elsewhere. Even general paving clauses such as “immoral or illegal activity” have, as I understand it, been pleaded in vain. I put that clearly. The noble Baroness, Lady O’Loan, has raised a valid point here. The whole of Clause 91 looks like being a knee-jerk reaction that would go beyond what is necessary and desirable.

I would like to ask one or two questions for clarification. What about the whole question of the rehabilitation of offenders? When somebody has been indicted, put into prison, served their sentence and comes out, what are the circumstances in which a court will grant this further period of indefinite rustication, if you like, from any sort of enjoyment of a place that they can call a home and to which they can naturally relate? What are the safeguards? Is this the default position, or does it concern the second or third strike after the event? We do not know and I invite the Minister to clarify the position.

Moreover, what about the selective post-sentence treatment of rioters as a particular species of offender under the Bill—as opposed to, say, murderers or other offenders? Very large numbers of offences are anti-social, and virtually all have a victim class of some sort who would naturally look, under the terms of the overarching principle of this Bill, to some sort of rebalancing. I worry about the singling out of this class of offender. Maybe the Minister can explain how that works. This provision could result in a class of persons without rights to occupy anything that they could call a home of their own. That needs to be circumscribed and contained in some way because the circumstances of the offence will not necessarily be replicated. If there is no risk of replication, what is the court being instructed to do? The justification is rebalancing towards the interests of victims—for them to feel that justice has been done. Would Clause 91 achieve that rebalancing? I am not clear that it would.

[Baroness Hamwee]

My Lords, the term “knee-jerk reaction” was used. I think we are all clear—let me use a synonym—that it was an immediate reaction to the riots of 2011. I am never comfortable with using legislation to give a message. At the previous stage I proposed amendments that were replicated in what we have today because I recognise the political realities of the situation and the circumstances in which that message had been given.

I was horrified when I looked at Hansard to see that I was on record as saying that I was happy with the clause. Hansard now knows that I was not happy with the clause and is correcting the record from Committee stage. As I say, I recognise the strength of feeling and where we might well end up. Knowing how the two Houses work and that this clause has been considered by the Commons, I went straight to what I hoped might be a way of ameliorating the situation, which was to suggest that it be limited to serious offences. That is a very significant change and taken with the other safeguards—that is how I look at them—which the Minister has listed, I am perhaps somewhere between where Hansard said I was and where I was. I am not happy but I am not nearly as unhappy as I might have been.

I was interested to know what had happened in Wandsworth after the 2011 riots and checked with the council. I understand that that council—presumably this is not the case with every local authority—has specific tenancy conditions covering the behaviour of tenants and it considered the criminal activities as coming within those conditions. The housing professional from whom I have heard talked about the double jeopardy term being used as a criticism but said, however, that the ground relating to possession for a serious conviction has existed since 1985. In essence, if the new ground meant that a tenant living in one borough could be pursued if convicted in connection with rioting in another borough I can see the attraction but I doubt whether the courts will agree. I am grateful to the Minister for bringing forward the amendments today.

16:15

[Baroness O’Neill of Bengarve (CB)]

My Lords, I wonder whether the Minister could address the case of the adult child of a tenant who is away at university but whose place of permanent residence remains the family home and who gets involved in a riot—a serious matter—in or near the university. Would it be the case that in those circumstances the parent stands to lose their tenancy?

[Lord Elton (Con)]

If your Lordships will permit a latecomer—almost an interloper—to ask just one question, would my noble friend be kind enough to tell me what exactly is the definition of the members of a household? I take it that it includes anybody who has been given or lent a room at the time. Would it include anybody who is paying the tenant for a room? It would obviously not include anybody who was paying the landlord for a room. In other words, is there any necessity for there to be a familial or emotional connection, or any other close connection, with the other members of the household?

[Baroness Butler-Sloss (CB)]

My Lords, I regret that I was not able to be present for the Committee stage of the Bill. As the House knows, there were various clashes of other important Bills at the same time, so I come new to this issue. It seems to me that what the Government are trying to do here is to give an additional power to the courts. That point has not yet been made by anyone, other than the Minister. It is of course a matter entirely for the court whether or not such an order is made. I see that Clause 91(1) refers to,

“grounds on which court may order possession … if it considers it reasonable”.

It seems to me that if a university student, who is almost certainly over 18, goes AWOL and behaves extremely badly in university precincts but has a mother and three young siblings living in the house, the mother will have absolutely no control over the young man at university. She probably does not even have any financial control these days. The court would be certain to look at the hardship of the situation and this would be a circuit judge in the county court. I am not particularly keen on this addition to the powers of the court but I would find it difficult to believe that a court would act other than justly and with mercy in situations that would require it.

[Baroness Lister of Burtersett]

Before the noble and learned Baroness sits down, does she accept that the research which I quoted suggests that the courts have perhaps not always been reasonable in their application of anti-social behaviour legislation and that lone mothers, in particular, have been evicted because of the behaviour of men in their household who they simply were unable to control?

[Baroness Butler-Sloss]

I understand the point and I would hope that there would be an appeal system so that at some stage this issue would come before the Court of Appeal, which would deal with it appropriately.

[Lord Paddick (LD)]

My Lords, I am very grateful to my noble friend the Minister for accepting the amendment suggested by my noble friend Lady Hamwee which excludes offences committed by young people and excludes minor offences as well. However, I share other noble Lords’ concerns about this additional sanction. As I said in Committee, in the aftermath of the riots a couple of years ago, the courts clearly showed how seriously they took offences committed during a riot—far more seriously than if those offences had been committed at some other time. It does not appear to be necessary to have a further sanction in order to deter rioters. The noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, said that this is a power given to the courts. I am a great believer in the courts and in the fact that they will make the right decisions. But I fail to see why we need this power. I cannot think of circumstances where a court would allow such an order to be made. Therefore, I see this power as being superfluous.

[Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab)]

My Lords, I want to repeat a point I made briefly at Second Reading, following up on the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, about Wandsworth Borough Council. I, too, checked with serving councillors regarding what happened subsequent to the 2011 riots. It is my information that the council did not pursue the repossession of its property. Although it had the powers, the council decided that it was not in its interest or that of the tenants to pursue the matter. Therefore, I agree with the points that have been made by the noble Lord, Lord Paddick. One has to question the motivations of the Government for pursuing this legislative change when a council which sees itself as a flagship of the Conservative Party has not pursued the avenues that were open to it.

[Lord Rosser (Lab)]

The noble Baroness, Lady O’Loan, and my noble friend Lady Lister of Burtersett, have already made a strong case for deleting Clause 91. The Government, of course, have put down amendments that make some changes to that clause, but do not address the basic objections, which have also been expressed for a second time by the Joint Committee on Human Rights, about the disproportionate impact of eviction on other members of the household who have not engaged in such riot-related behaviour. The Joint Committee on Human Rights was not moved by the references to judicial discretion, so clearly it did not rate very highly in its thinking as a safeguard. The Joint Committee also expressed the view that it was the job of criminal law, not civil law, to deter riot-related offences, and to administer sanctions when such offences were committed. As has been said, courts when sentencing, quite rightly, already take a much more serious view of offences committed as part of a riot, and under cover of a riot, as was shown by the sentences given to those convicted following the riots in 2011. Many people were sent straight to prison when they probably would not have been given such a sentence if the offence had not been committed in association with the riots.

Clause 91 does not just relate to offences in the locality in which the offender lives, but covers such offences anywhere in the United Kingdom. It is clearly seen as an additional punishment by the Government, and it is not related to the experience of victims in the locality in which the offender lives. The Government are seeking to make some amendments so that Clause 91 would not apply where under-18s are convicted of a riot-related offence or in respect of the most minor offences. However, that still means that, since Clause 91 relates to repossession where a person residing in the dwelling house has been convicted of a riot-related offence, the penalty of eviction affects everybody else in the house. People who are guilty of no crime, such as pensioners with a son or daughter living at home, or children whose older brother or sister, aged 18 or over, has been convicted, are the innocent victims of Clause 91.

It will certainly act as a deterrent to a member of a household reporting another member of the household to the police for rioting if they know that the effect of such action, which surely we should encourage not discourage, would be to find themselves evicted as a result, under the terms of the clause. Why do the Government take the view that riot-related offences justify repossession and eviction when they do not take that view over equally serious or more serious offences? In addition, why do they think that those who commit riot-related offences away from their own locality and who own their own home or live in a house that is owner-occupied should face no further penalty other than the sentence of the court for the crime that they have committed but that those who live in rented accommodation should not only receive and serve the sentence of the court for the riot-related crime that they have committed but face eviction from the house in which they live in their own locality, along with other members of the household, who could include the tenant, who have committed no riot-related offences—indeed, no offences at all—and will be made innocent victims of Clause 91? The Government say that the Bill is about victims, but this clause creates victims.

The amendment to delete Clause 91 is in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady O’Loan, and my noble friend Lady Lister of Burtersett. It is that amendment that we will support if a vote is called.

[Baroness Hamwee]

With the leave of the House, just to pursue the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, the information that I had from the chief executive of Wandsworth was that, in that borough after the 2011 riots, 12 notices of seeking possession were served, which is the first step in eviction proceedings. That resulted in an outright possession order and subsequent eviction in one case; seven others resulted in possession being granted but suspended on terms or an undertaking being given to the court. That, of course, supports what the noble and learned Baroness said about the court’s position.

[Lord Taylor of Holbeach]

This has been a good debate on an important subject, and I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady O’Loan, for bringing it to us today. However, I reiterate that, as with the existing discretionary grounds for possession, the legislation has always contained important safeguards—not least the discretion of the court, at the end of the day. However, this has been recognised by the Government in our amendments, reflecting the key concerns, if not all the concerns, of the Joint Committee on Human Rights.

A lot of noble Lords have spoken in this debate, including the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, the noble Baroness, Lady Lister, the noble Earl, Lord Lytton, my noble friend Lady Hamwee, the noble Baroness, Lady O’Neill, my noble friend Lord Elton, the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, my noble friend Lord Paddick and the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby. A number of points have been made, all working on a theme.

To put the debate in context, I remind the House that the Housing Act 1996 already provides for a ground of possession where a tenant, a member of their household or a visitor has been convicted of anti-social behaviour or a criminal offence in the locality—there is the difference—of their property. Many of the issues that noble Lords have pointed to are already familiar to those who have to make the decisions. The noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, referred to the debates in Wandsworth, and I am grateful to my noble friend Lady Hamwee for giving us the figures there. Such decisions have to be made by housing authorities and landlords over time in any event, and the courts themselves have to consider the impact not only on the perpetrator of the crime but on the family. This is familiar ground.

16:34

The noble Earl, Lord Lytton, asked why it was necessary to introduce a special ground for riot-related offences but not for other offences. As I have explained, it is indictable offences concerning a riot that are covered; in general, within the locality, the specific riot-related element is absent. We think it is right that eviction should be an option only where the crime has a direct impact on those living where the offender lives. However, the particular characteristic of looting and rioting is that they can wreck whole communities, which may be distant from where the rioter or perpetrator lives. That makes these crimes a particular case.

The noble Lords, Lord Hylton and Lord Rosser, pointed out that eviction is not tenure-neutral—that it discriminates in favour of owner-occupiers at the expense of those who live in homes under a tenancy. A tenancy presents a contract between a landlord and an individual, and includes obligations on both the landlord and the tenant. One of those obligations is that the tenant must ensure that they and members of their household do not behave in an anti-social way. No such contractual understanding applies to owner-occupiers, so provisions around possession cannot apply in the same way. As I have said, conviction for an indictable offence in the locality of the property already constitutes a ground for possession.

The noble Baroness, Lady O’Loan, asked about the time limit. For future rioting there is no time limit, but this legislation is not, of course, retrospective as regards the 2011 riots; I think noble Lords will understand that. If a person were convicted of a riot-related offence in future years, it could be pursued over time. The courts will consider whether it is reasonable for it to be pursued. Indeed, reasonableness lies at the bottom of the court’s discretion in all cases.

[Lord Elton]

Forgive my ignorance, but it is important to get this right, and I am left in doubt. The noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, said that this was a power given to the court, but earlier the Minister spoke as if the discretion lay with the housing authority. Who actually makes the decision in such cases?

[Lord Taylor of Holbeach]

The court does not initiate the action; the housing authority does. The court makes the decision as to whether the action is reasonable. That is the difference. I think all noble Lords would understand that, and I hope I have not confused anybody by any of the ways in which I have described the decision-making process. The point is that there are checks and balances in such a process. Housing authorities live with them all the time.

I was specifically asked about adult children at university, not living at home and therefore being largely out of the control—or rather, beyond the influence—of their parents, because of the distance involved. The key word is “reasonableness”. It seems to me very unlikely that a landlord would seek possession in those circumstances, and I doubt very much that any court would grant possession on that basis.

I think it would be a mistake to remove Clause 91 altogether. We in this House have a duty to remember victims: the families whose homes are wrecked and whose jobs are lost. The noble Baroness said the fact that an action has taken place 100 miles away makes no difference. I disagree with her. The consequences of these actions affect people in their homes and in their work. It is important that we make people aware of their responsibility to others through the law and that potential rioters bear in mind that there may be consequences for their tenancy wherever they choose to wreak havoc. This clause does that. It should serve as a deterrent and shows that the public’s views on this issue are not being ignored by the Government. I beg to move.

Amendment 80A agreed.

Amendments 80B to 80F

Moved by

[Lord Taylor of Holbeach]

80B: Clause 91, page 61, line 42, after “an” insert “indictable”

80C: Clause 91, page 61, line 44, after “Ground” insert “—
“adult” means a person aged 18 or over;
“indictable offence” does not include an offence that is triable only summarily by virtue of section 22 of the Magistrates’ Courts Act 1980 (either way offences where value involved is small);”

80D: Clause 91, page 62, line 7, leave out “a person” and insert “an adult”

80E: Clause 91, page 62, line 8, after “an” insert “indictable”

80F: Clause 91, page 62, line 10, after “Ground” insert “—
“adult” means a person aged 18 or over;
“indictable offence” does not include an offence that is triable only summarily by virtue of section 22 of the Magistrates’ Courts Act 1980 (either way offences where value involved is small);”

Amendments 80B to 80F agreed.

Amendment 80G

Moved by

[Baroness O'Loan]

80G: Clause 91, leave out Clause 91

[Baroness O'Loan]

My Lords, I had expected to have the right to respond to the Minister on the previous amendment. I do not think that the relevant measure has been shown to be necessary, proportionate or in the interests of innocent victims. I beg to move. I wish to test the opinion of the House.

16:36

Division 1

Ayes: 215

---

Labour: 148
Crossbench: 51
Independent: 4
Bishops: 3
Plaid Cymru: 1

Noes: 248

---

Conservative: 149
Liberal Democrat: 71
Crossbench: 18
Independent: 3
Democratic Unionist Party: 2
Ulster Unionist Party: 1

16:53

Clause 93: The community remedy document

Amendment 81

Moved by

[Lord Taylor of Holbeach]

81: Clause 93, page 64, line 28, at end insert—
“( ) consultation with the local authority for any part of the area,”

Amendment 81 agreed.

Amendment 82 had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.

Amendment 83

Moved by

[Lord Taylor of Holbeach]

83: Clause 93, page 65, line 3, at end insert—
“local authority” means—
(a) in relation to England, a district council, a county council for an area for which there is no district council, a London borough council, the Common Council of the City of London or the Council of the Isles of Scilly;(b) in relation to Wales, a county council or a county borough council;”

Amendment 83 agreed.

Amendment 84 had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.

Amendment 85

Moved by

[Lord Rosser]

85: After Clause 97, insert the following new Clause—
“Proxy purchasing of tobacco products on behalf of children
(1) A person commits an offence if he buys or attempts to buy a tobacco product or cigarette papers on behalf of a person under the age of 18.
(2) A person guilty of an offence under subsection (1) is liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding level 5 on the standard scale.”

[Lord Rosser]

My Lords, this amendment was also moved by my noble friend Baroness Thornton in Committee, so I do not intend to repeat all the points that were so powerfully made at that time. Needless to say, we were not happy at the Government’s response, which was basically that, because the measures proposed in this amendment would not solve all the problems in relation to young people in the purchasing of tobacco products, it should not be adopted. The amendment has the support of the Association of Convenience of Stores, which represents 33,500 stores, the majority of which sell tobacco products. The ACS welcomes these proposals as a further measure to help to restrict youth access to tobacco products.

It is illegal to sell tobacco products to anyone under the age of 18, but it is not an offence for someone to buy tobacco products on behalf of a minor. There is, thus, a gap in the legislation which this amendment seeks to close to bring the position more into line with the provisions of the Licensing Act 2003, which has made it an offence to proxy purchase alcohol. Proxy purchasing is one means by which young people gain access to tobacco products. A recent survey has shown that, in 2012, 8% of pupils had asked somebody to buy cigarettes on their behalf and nine out of 10 were successful at least once. We are not saying that tobacco proxy sales are the only means by which children receive their supply of cigarettes—there is a variety of means for this—but we are saying that it is one of the predominant ways, hence this amendment.

Issues were raised in Committee by my noble friend Lady Crawley concerning the need for proper enforcement and adequate surveillance if moves were made to tackle proxy sales of tobacco. That comes down to providing adequate resources, including for local authority trading standards organisations. However, we are talking about sales that adversely affect the health of young people and we should be prepared to act, as they have in Scotland, where there is an offence of proxy selling tobacco. That has the support of the Tobacco Manufacturers’ Association, which has said:

“Scotland introduced regulation criminalising the proxy purchasing of cigarettes, where adults purchase cigarettes on behalf of children in April 2011. The TMA and its members supports this legislation. Proxy purchasing was identified in NHS data as one of the most common sources of tobacco for young people”.

The Minister said in Committee that the Government had an open door on this issue, and my noble friend Lady Thornton invited them to think further on this matter before Report stage, which we are at today. I hope that the Minister will be in a position to give a more positive response to this amendment than he was able to do in Committee. I beg to move.

[Baroness Finlay of Llandaff (CB)]

My Lords, my name is added to this amendment, which I feel is very important. We know that when young people start smoking, their addiction potential and the long-term harms are very great. There is good evidence that children get cigarettes by proxy either, particularly in the case of younger children, by stealing from their own families or by purchasing single cigarettes from other children at school. However, a cohort in the older, middle-teens bracket seems to obtain cigarettes more through proxy purchasing. Quite often, with a very small incentive added to the cost of the cigarettes, they use a drug abuser or somebody else to do the purchasing for them. The retailers—the small shops—which sell cigarettes find themselves in a really difficult position. Rightly, they are not allowed in law to sell directly to the youngster, yet they are aware that there is no lever in terms of proxy purchasing, although it is they who would be prosecuted rather than the person doing the proxy purchasing.

It is important to bring the law into line with legislation on alcohol purchasing. The harms from tobacco are in a different group from those relating to alcohol, but they should not be underestimated.

[Lord Faulkner of Worcester (Lab)]

My Lords, I intervene only briefly. This is the first occasion on which I have spoken on an amendment supported by the Tobacco Manufacturers’ Association.

It seems to me self-evident that the arguments made by my noble friend Lord Rosser and the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, just make so much sense. It is entirely sensible to bring the law into line with that governing the proxy sale of alcohol and to follow the practice which has been adopted in Scotland with regard to the proxy purchase of tobacco. Persuading young people not to smoke is something to which we in this House have devoted a lot of attention. When we return to the Children and Families Bill at the end of the month, we will have an opportunity to do something on the standard packaging of cigarettes and on smoking in cars where children are present. This is also an important measure, which will make it more difficult for youngsters to start—and thus become addicted to—this terrible, dangerous habit.

17:00

[Baroness Hamwee]

My Lords, it seems that in Scotland the provisions which are in force have not been as effective as one would have hoped. I am not sure that the laws against proxy purchasing of alcohol have been terribly effective. I would be concerned if bringing in a further measure which failed to achieve what we wanted to see was a deterrent to anything more effective. Is the Minister aware of what the police think about this? After all, enforcement is what matters when one is introducing a new offence.

[Lord Taylor of Holbeach]

My Lords, when we debated this issue on 4 December, we agreed that, because smoking is largely an addiction taken up during childhood or adolescence, reducing the availability of tobacco to young people is important if we are to succeed in reducing overall smoking uptake. This new clause seeks to create a new criminal offence of an adult purchasing, or attempting to purchase, tobacco products on behalf of a child or young person under the age of 18. This act is commonly known by the phrase, “proxy purchasing”.

While smoking prevalence among young people has declined considerably in recent years, there are still each year around 300,000 young people in England under the age of 16 who try smoking for the first time. As a starting point, we must continue to take action to encourage adults to quit smoking. If smoking is seen by young people as a normal part of everyday life, they are much more likely to become smokers themselves. The Government’s Tobacco Control Plan for England is clear that, to promote health and well-being, we will work to encourage communities to reshape social norms, so that tobacco becomes less desirable, less acceptable and less accessible. We aim to stop the perpetuation of smoking from one generation to the next.

We need to think carefully about whether creating a proxy purchase offence would have an impact on how accessible tobacco is to children and young people, and whether it would have a meaningful impact on reducing smoking rates among young people. Obtaining cigarettes from retailers is just one of many avenues by which young people access tobacco. We know that children and young people obtain their cigarettes from a wide range of sources. Some young people take tobacco from their parents, from other family members or from older friends. In such circumstances, no proxy purchase has occurred. Introducing a new proxy purchase offence would not tackle that particular way of getting tobacco.

I understand that introducing a proxy purchase offence for tobacco is supported by some retailer organisations, including the Association of Convenience Stores and the National Federation of Retail Newsagents. Let me be clear that I recognise the important role played by retailers in ensuring that tobacco products are sold in accordance with the existing age-of-sale legislation. I also want to recognise the important work that retailer organisations have played in recent years to support their members in meeting age-of-sale requirements.

I realise the difficulties that some retailers face, and I understand why some feel that it should be an offence to buy tobacco on behalf of under-18s. I also understand that the creation of a proxy purchasing offence has the support of the tobacco industry—as the noble Lord, Lord Faulkner, said. However, I am sure that noble Lords will agree that the creation of effective and practicable legislation should be informed by evidence. In the area of proxy purchasing, the Government’s current view is that we want to see evidence that a proxy purchase offence would be effective both in reducing young people’s access to tobacco and in having a deterrent effect on those adults who are prepared to buy cigarettes on behalf of children and young people.

In fact, I am concerned that some of the evidence that is currently available suggests that creating a proxy purchasing offence would have only limited benefit. For example, a Scottish study published in August 2013 looked at how young Scottish smokers living in disadvantaged communities obtained their cigarettes. The study concluded that the introduction of a proxy purchasing offence in Scotland had had little discernible impact.

Nevertheless, that is not to say that evidence does not exist, and I encourage those who support this amendment to provide evidence of the likely public health benefits of creating a proxy purchasing offence to the Department of Health for further consideration. Proxy purchasing of tobacco is an area that the Department of Health is keeping under review, and any further evidence that is provided will be carefully considered. I assure noble Lords that I will draw the attention of my noble friend Lord Howe to the debate we are having on the subject this afternoon.

As the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, said, those in support of a proxy purchase offence point to Scotland, where the offence was introduced in April 2011. While I understand that a light-touch approach has been taken on enforcement and that the legislation has been in place only for a few years, I note that only one fixed penalty notice has been imposed since the offence was introduced, and that there have been no convictions. Furthermore, whether the legislation has had any deterrent effect is also not clear.

The statistics for the similar offence of the proxy purchase of alcohol show that convictions are few and far between in that area, too, in no small part because of the burden of proof required. Furthermore, the alcohol offence includes a defence that the purchaser had no reason to suspect that the individual they bought the alcohol for was under 18. This amendment does not address that point.

Whether local authorities want the creation of a proxy purchasing offence is not at all clear at the moment. After all, they rather than the police would be responsible for enforcement. The Minister responsible for public health made it clear during a debate on this issue in the House of Commons in October that the Government would be happy to hear the views of local authorities on the potential for effective enforcement, or to hear of good examples of existing local measures to reduce access to tobacco by young people. I also call on those in the public health community to provide this sort of evidence for the creation of a proxy purchasing offence. I want to be clear that we are not rejecting the creation of a proxy purchasing offence outright, but we need to give the matter further consideration.

While we understand the views of retailers and the tobacco industry on proxy purchasing, the Department of Health will continue to work with local authorities and the public health community to understand their views. I want to reassure your Lordships that the Department of Health will also keep under review relevant evidence and experience from elsewhere. I again encourage those with evidence to make it available; I cannot reiterate that enough.

[Lord Avebury (LD)]

My Lords, if the evidence is supplied, how will the Government deal with it? If we do not agree the amendment, the Minister would have to wait until further primary legislation was brought forward. Would the Government consider implementing a clause of this kind by order rather than placing it in the Bill?

[Lord Taylor of Holbeach]

I think that I can answer that best by saying that if the evidence were provided and the Government were persuaded that creating this offence was a practical and effective way of dealing with a policy issue that I am sure all noble Lords in the Chamber agree with, they would wish to see it introduced through primary legislation. However, I am not in a position to be definitive in my answer, and I think that my noble friend will understand the reasons for that. I can assure noble Lords that we are committed to reducing the availability of tobacco to children and young people. However, our actions must be guided by evidence and effectiveness. On that basis, I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, will be prepared to withdraw his amendment.

[Lord Rosser]

I would be grateful if the Minister would first clarify what he has just said. One interpretation is that the Government do not really intend to do anything further themselves but are urging anyone else who thinks that there is any evidence to put it in front of them. I am not sure whether that is what the Minister is saying. Obviously, if anyone else does have evidence on this issue, of course they should submit it to the Government—but are the Government themselves seeking to do anything to ascertain or produce evidence? The Robinson and Amos study of 2010 looked at how young people’s sourced cigarettes and attempted to circumvent underage sales. It concluded that there was a problem, and one suggestion was that regular national smoking surveys should include questions that would capture more accurately the nature and extent of proxy purchases. What I am asking the Minister is whether it is now purely up to other people to put the evidence in front of the Government, or are the Government, through the Department of Health, actually doing any work themselves to seek to ascertain evidence of their own?

The amendment that I moved would be a key tool by which the authorities would know that there was a problem in a particular location because of evidence that proxy purchasing was taking place. Again, is the noble Lord’s response that it is basically up to everyone else to provide the Government with evidence, or is he saying, “If you have any evidence, provide it to us, but we are also”—whether it be through the Department of Health or anyone else—“seeking that evidence ourselves”?

[Lord Taylor of Holbeach]

Perhaps I may respond to that point. The Government are determined to try to stamp out smoking as a habit, particularly among young people, so they are being proactive. However, what I am saying on this particular issue and this particular amendment is that the advocates of proxy purchasing as an offence—the noble Lord, Lord Faulkner, drew attention to the wide number of people who are, and I said it myself in my speech—will be helped in their advocacy if they can provide the Government with the information they need to make sure that if at a future date they choose to implement such a policy through legislation, they will have the information on which to base that decision.

[Lord Hope of Craighead (CB)]

My Lords, I want to make a point about the evidence. It may be my fault, but I am not entirely clear what evidence the Minister is looking for. It is quite difficult, until such a measure is in force, to know whether it will be effective. Of course the Scottish experience is there as an example, and it may be that the noble Lord is relying on that, but the fact is that until the measure is actually put on to the statute book, you cannot be absolutely certain one way or the other that it will be effective. On the other hand, there is certainly evidence, which has been referred to, that people with knowledge of the way these things work are asking for the measure. Is that not evidence to justify putting the measure on to the statute book, taking the view that it may do some good and would certainly do no harm?

[Lord Taylor of Holbeach]

I have always been cautious about taking the latter point that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope of Craighead, has made. I always appreciate the noble and learned Lord’s contributions, but just putting something on the statute book because it might work is probably not a particularly good way of going about things.

Having said that, the Government are serious about evaluating this issue. We know that it has been rather disappointing in Scotland—I think the noble and learned Lord would know that from his own experience—and I gave some illustration of that. It may not be the solution, but it is certainly a possible solution, and I urge the House to allow the Government to evaluate that in a proper fashion.

[Lord Berkeley of Knighton (CB)]

My Lords, if I may make one small point—

[Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon]

I remind the House that we are on Report and that, after the Minister has spoken, unless it is a point of clarification or elucidation, normal convention is that there are no further interventions.

[Lord Rosser]

I note what the Minister has said about the situation in Scotland. I do not know whether that means he has had further information since we discussed it in Committee, but the Government said then:

“The Scottish Government, who we have talked to about this issue, say they do not currently hold any information about the numbers of convictions or, as yet, any evaluation of the effectiveness of the new offences”.—[Official Report, 4/12/13; col. 279.]

It appears from what the Minister has just said that, since 4 December, the Scottish Government have now said to the Westminster Government that the provision is not working. I do not know whether the Minister has had that information since we discussed it in Committee.

[Lord Taylor of Holbeach]

I do not want to give that impression. I am not prejudging this and I simply gave an evaluation. The results are disappointing because there have been no convictions and just one offence has been reported.

[Lord Rosser]

That is slightly different from what was said in Committee, when the noble Lord, Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon, on behalf of the Government, referred to the fact that, as far as the Scottish Government were concerned, there had been no evaluation of the effectiveness of the new offences. However, I will leave it at that and do not intend the pursue the issue any further.

I would like to think that the Government’s view is that they will play a part in seeking to evaluate the evidence for the measures set out in this amendment and that it is not simply up to other people to provide it to them. I hope that is what I can draw from what the Minister has said. I might have drawn the wrong interpretation, so I will not say that I will withdraw the amendment on that basis, but, in the hope that that is the correct interpretation and that the Government in fact intend to take an active role in evaluating the evidence and not simply rely on others to provide it, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 85 withdrawn.

Amendment 86 not moved.

Amendment 86A

Moved by

[Baroness Gale]

86A: Before Clause 98, insert the following new Clause—
“Dog control notice
(1) Where an authorised officer has reasonable cause to believe that a dog is not under sufficient control and requires greater control in any place, as a preventative measure to protect the public, the dog itself, or another protected animal, he or she may serve on the owner, and if different, person for the time being in charge of the dog a written control notice which—
(a) states that he or she is of that belief;(b) specifies the respects in which he or she believes the owner, and if different, the person for the time being in charge of the dog is failing to keep the dog under sufficient control;(c) specifies the steps he or she requires the owner, and if different, the person for the time being in charge of the dog to take in order to comply with the notice;(d) specifies the date by which the terms of the notice must be complied with; and(e) specifies the date that the notice expires which will not be for a period which exceeds six months.(2) In a control notice pursuant to subsection (1)(c) an authorised officer must require a dog to be microchipped (if not already done) and the owner, and if different, the person for the time being in charge of the dog, register the dog with a microchip database, and may require the following steps, where appropriate, but not limited to—
(a) keeping the dog muzzled as directed; (b) keeping the dog on a lead when in public or under control as directed;(c) requiring the owner, and if different, the person for the time being in charge of the dog, to seek and implement expert advice about training and behaviour for the dog;(d) having the dog neutered where appropriate; and(e) keeping the dog away from particular places or persons.(3) Failure to comply with the steps required in a control notice within the time period specified, to the satisfaction of the authorised officer may lead to a complaint to a magistrates’ court under section 2 of the Dogs Act 1871.
(4) The provisions of section 2 of the Dogs Act 1871 shall have effect if the owner, and if different, the person for the time being in charge of a dog fails to comply with the steps required in a control notice within the time period specified in accordance with subsection (3) as they would apply if a dog was dangerous and not kept under proper control.
(5) An “authorised officer” is a person that has been appointed by the local authority or police for the purposes of this Act.
(6) A “protected animal” is one that is commonly domesticated in the British Islands, is under the control of man whether on a permanent or temporary basis, or is not living in a wild state.”

[Baroness Gale (Lab)]

My Lords, Amendment 86A has been tabled in my name and that of my noble friend Lady Donaghy, who is unfortunately unable to be here this evening. I spoke to a similar amendment in Committee and wish to raise the matter of dog control notices once again.

My main reason for doing so is that organisations involved in this field still feel very strongly that dog control notices, rather than what is proposed in the Bill, are the best way forward. Those organisations include the RSPCA, the Kennel Club, Battersea Dogs & Cats Home, the Dogs Trust and the Communication Workers Union, as well as individual campaigners, many of whom have suffered as a result of attacks by dogs and, in some cases, have seen their loved ones killed in dog attacks. They have consistently argued that community protection notices will not work as well as dog control notices and strongly feel that we need dog control notices rather than the community protection notices which the Government propose.

The Government believe that community protection notices will be sufficient to address a range of anti-social behaviour problems including dangerous dog attacks and the need to promote responsible dog ownership. The use of a CPN, in conjunction with an acceptable behaviour contract, is meant to have a similar impact to issuing a dog control notice. The Bill states that CPNs will address issues of,

“a persistent or continuing nature”.

In practice, however, CPNs will be issued only after an attack has taken place and a written notice has been issued. A CPN requires that there be an existing complaint about a detrimental impact on a community’s quality of life, and it could involve a costly, painful and bureaucratic prosecution and investigation process for victims as well as for local councils.

Dog control notices directly target irresponsible ownership and will be pre-emptive. The preventive measures they contain address both repeat offenders and one-off attacks which affect individuals, not just communities, much earlier on. I believe that DCNs would be a better approach and the RSPCA’s statistics fully support that conclusion. In 2012 the RSPCA issued more than 12,000 informal advice notices—which in practice are similar to DCNs—in England and Wales. The compliance rate was 93%, an extremely high figure which was maintained at around that level for a number of years. The numbers show that DCNs not only work but work well.

In 2012, dog attacks cost the NHS more than £9.5 million. I said in Committee that 17 people have been killed by dogs since 2005, including nine children, but that figure has now increased and, sadly, 19 people have been killed. It is estimated that more than 200,000 people are attacked every year, with more than 6,000 injuries treated by the NHS in 2011-12. One in six of those attacks were on children under 10.

The issue of dog control cannot be dealt with under this catch-all policy. Many charities and organisations have spent much time and effort trying to educate the public about responsible dog ownership and many dog owners have responded to that. Most dog owners do their best to care not just for their dog but also about their dog’s behaviour. Owners must be held responsible for dogs that cause problems.

In Northern Ireland, the use of dog control orders in conjunction with dog licensing has been very successful. Has the Minister looked at how it works in Northern Ireland, and can we learn lessons from that experience? Can he say why he is so adamant on this point? He has listened to the campaigning organisations, but why has he failed to impress on them a belief that CPNs are better than DCNs? The individuals and organisations which have been campaigning are the experts in this area, and the individuals concerned have strong personal reasons for campaigning on it. If community protection notices rather than DCNs are included in the Bill, can the Minister say what sort of publicity and additional funding will be provided to ensure that we have the best possible outcome in reducing the number of dog attacks and safeguarding people against dog attacks in future? We are all aiming to achieve that objective in this Bill and the orders. I beg to move.

[Lord Redesdale (LD)]

My Lords, I feel a little torn, having read the amendment, because I would heartily support it. In fact, I proposed two Private Member’s Bills which set out many of the provisions in the amendment. I would support the amendment, but we are where we are, with the Government having proposed the legislation. I have been working with organisations such as the Dogs Trust, the Kennel Club, Blue Cross and others for four or five years now, so I know their commitment to dog control notices. I believe that the Government have taken on board a large number of the arguments put forward. The department should be commended for the amount of work it has done to listen and to propose amendments to deal with some of the concerns raised about the Bill as drafted.

The noble Baroness, Lady Gale, has a very good point. It would be wrong not to say that I think in my heart that dog control notices would be an excellent idea. However, I believe that the Bill will now go a great deal of the way to meeting many of the assessments that we set out. It sets out to defend assisted dogs for the blind. It sets out to deal with the issue of dog attacks in private residences. It sets out clearly in the guidance how the local authority should try to deal with many of the issues.

Obviously, this is a complicated piece of legislation and we are changing 11 other pieces of legislation to fit it in. I would have preferred a separate piece of legislation on dogs. However, that was met with hostility from all sides of the House when I raised it a number of times—

[Baroness Smith of Basildon]

Not from me.

[Lord Redesdale]

Of course not; the noble Baroness is quite right, we did not clash on that occasion. I believe that the Government have listened and the position has moved forward. I know that many organisations would have preferred dog control notices. However, the work that the Government have put in to making the guidance a readable and understandable document and the flexibility of the department in ensuring that it is a workable document, should—this is, of course, the aim—reduce the number of dog attacks. It should also go some way to addressing the real problems introduced by the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991 in causing animal welfare issues for so many dogs and so many problems for a lot of owners throughout the country.

[Lord Trees (CB)]

My Lords, I shall speak to Amendments 86B and 86C, which propose to extend and strengthen the protection to any protected animal. As Amendment 86A also refers to “any protected animal”, it is reasonable to group the three amendments, but I make the point that even if dog control notices are not accepted, there is still a case under the Bill to extend protection to animals in addition to assistance dogs; I should like briefly to make that case.

The Bill has the commendable aim of seeking to encourage responsible dog ownership and management in a preventive way to reduce attacks on and injury to humans. It extends protection to assistance dogs, which is welcome, presumably on the grounds that they are very important to their owners and perhaps also because such attacks may be indicative of a lack of control of those other dogs which might ultimately present a hazard to humans. I would argue that those same points apply to any pet, and especially dogs and cats.

The social benefit of pets to their owners is well known and acknowledged. Attacks on dogs or cats by a particular dog may well indicate a lack of control on the part of that dog owner and may presage serious attacks on humans.

17:30

There are no accurate figures for the numbers of dog-on-dog or dog-on-cat attacks. It is reasonable to presume that there are many hundreds of dog-on-dog attacks, with serious consequences for at least one of the dogs, and I am informed by Cats Protection that in 2013, 101 attacks on cats were reported. That number is undoubtedly an underestimate, but of those 101 attacks, 89% were fatal. Those attacks are extremely distressing to the owners.

Although it might be argued that various existing laws can be used to tackle this problem, it is simply not happening, for a variety of reasons inherent in the limitations of the laws. As a result, in its evidence to the EFRA Select Committee, the Association of Chief Police Officers indicated the limitations of current legislation, saying that enforcers were,

“without adequate legislation to deal swiftly, and proportionately, with attacks by dogs on other animals”.

Moreover, in its report, the EFRA Select Committee recommended that the Government should consider the potential to extend the law to any protected animal. Indeed, the RSPCA, the BVA and Cats Protection have jointly called for such wider protection. I ask the Minister to give this amendment serious consideration. Will he commit to taking this away for further thought?

[Baroness Smith of Basildon]

My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend Lady Gale and the noble Lord, Lord Trees, for bringing these issues before us for debate. We had a fairly lengthy debate on dogs in Committee. It was quite illuminating at certain points and also helpful in outlining the extent of the problem we face. Even since that debate took place there have been several quite dreadful attacks on people, with some serious consequences, which shows the need for strong action.

In Committee I acknowledged the seriousness of the problem and reported on the scale of the attacks. I do not intend to repeat all the figures. They are on the record and, in any event, they will have increased in the past couple of months. However, they are truly shocking, and, given that 23,000 postal workers have been attacked in the past three years, I wonder how many suffered delivering our Christmas mail.

Something the Minister said in Committee gave me cause for concern. I have no doubt that he is convinced that the Government’s actions will work. I was very pleased that in Committee he committed to reviewing the effectiveness of government measures, and I trust he is willing to confirm that review in your Lordships’ House. I think the noble Lord, Lord Redesdale, would also welcome a report back on how the Government’s measures are working if no amendment is agreed.

The Minister also said in Committee:

“I hope the Committee will agree that it is better for a dog owner to address the problem themselves rather than to be compelled to do so under the terms of a notice”.—[Official Report, 02/12/13; col. 106.]

It is precisely because some dog owners do not address the problem themselves that there is the need for a dog control notice. If every dog owner could be trusted to take the necessary action, no notices would be required. It is because so many owners are negligent in that regard, and dogs are able to attack people—or, as we have heard, other dogs or animals—that there needs to be further protection and further action. I believe that dog control notices are the way forward.

When a dog attacks a person or another dog, it may not be malicious on the part of the owner. I think I stressed that. It may be a lack of awareness, but the consequences are the same in either case. Dog control notices provide the ability for local authorities to take action to prevent such attacks. A wide range of organisations supported the introduction of dog control notices—the RSPCA, Battersea Dogs & Cats Home, the British Veterinary Association, the pet charity, Blue Cross, the Communication Workers Union and the Association of Chief Police Officers. I hope that the Minister will consider bringing this forward solely to try to address what I know he and the House regard as a serious problem. I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Gale, that we hope to have a better response from the Minister and that he will give some ground on the issue of dog control notices. If not, can he indicate that the review he referred to in Committee will be reported to your Lordships’ House so we can judge the effectiveness of the existing legislation?

The noble Lord, Lord Trees, brings his professional expertise to this debate—for which we are grateful—with his Amendments 86B and 86C. I was shocked at the number of attacks he referred to on other animals and cats. I was not aware that it was so great. I think it reinforces the need for preventive measures and, undoubtedly, prevention is the preferable way forward. His amendments are helpful and I will be very interested to hear the Minister’s comments on them. The suggestion that he take them away and consider them and bring them back if he thinks there is merit in them and they can improve the Bill is very helpful and wise.

[Lord Taylor of Holbeach]

My Lords, this has been a useful debate. I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Gale, for bringing it back for us to consider, having had this debate in Committee. In a number of instances we are going over ground we have discussed before, but it is important that we try to set the Government’s position in some context. As noble Lords will know, I was a Minister in Defra—and, indeed, had quite a lot to do with some of the early talks about how to deal with dogs and the dangers that out-of-control dogs present not only to postmen and people visiting houses but to people going about their daily lives.

While it is true that some organisations, as mentioned by the noble Baroness, support dog control notices, it is similarly true that some do not—and it is by no means the case that the scales are weighted on one side of the argument. That aside—it is history really—the animal welfare organisations have all agreed to suspend their campaigns for dog control notices and to work with us to ensure that the same aims may be achieved through the community protection notice.

I very much welcome this constructive approach from the sector. It is a genuine partnership, working with the Government to ensure that measures may be as effective as possible. That really answers the noble Baroness’s point as to how the facilities offered by the community protection notice will be publicised and how it will be implemented. It will be implemented with the co-operation of the dog charities, and I expect this dialogue to continue after implementation; I know my colleagues in Defra will listen to these organisations on the question of how effective the implementation is.

The noble Baroness, Lady Smith, suggested a report for Parliament. I am sure that this House will readily take to a debate on this subject a few years hence, when the new regime has had a chance to have an impact. I am confident that it would be a positive debate; I would like to think so.

As I said, Defra officials are in regular contact with the national policing lead on dangerous dogs, as well as other units involved in this work, so that the new measures may be as useful and as user-friendly as possible in cases of irresponsible dog ownership. Reference has been made to the guidance that has been produced for practitioners. The Local Government Association, representing those who will be using the measures—they are likely to be the enforcers—has been consistent in its message that it does not see the need for an additional power specifically in relation to dogs.

The Government agree with the underlying aim of the amendment: to hold irresponsible dog owners to account and, more importantly, to change their behaviour. However, we have already provided the necessary powers in the Bill, so it remains the case that we cannot support the amendment. Effective use of the provisions in the Bill should see an increase in responsible dog ownership and a reduction in the number of dog bites and dog incidents.

I make it clear that the community protection notice can do all that the dog control notice proposed in the noble Baroness’s amendment can do. In fact, I will be so bold as to go further and say that it can do more, because it avoids the prescriptive nature of issue-specific notices and allows practitioners to respond to all manifestations of behaviour that negatively affect the community. Focusing on the impact of the behaviour ensures that dog owners are not unjustly penalised and that communities are protected from existing, as well as new, forms of irresponsible dog ownership.

The community protection notice provides a mechanism so that officers faced with a case of irresponsible or anti-social dog ownership may decide on the most effective way to stop and prevent future recurrences of that behaviour. It may be by requiring the dog to be on a lead in certain areas, fixing inadequate fencing, attaching a letterbox guard or requiring the owner to attend training classes. The officer, in consultation with welfare experts where necessary, may use the notice to educate owners and increase responsibility.

It may be helpful to provide an example to noble Lords of how the CPN could work in practice. Many noble Lords will have heard about terrifying and unacceptable incidents in which postal workers have been attacked or regularly have to face the unpredictable and, at times, out-of-control behaviour of dogs at certain properties. Clause 98, in amending the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991, corrects the current legal lacuna and will ensure that the Crown Prosecution Service can take forward prosecutions where postal workers and others are injured, or indeed fear injury, by a dog while on private property.

However, let us suppose that the threshold is not met; perhaps the dog is out of control but not dangerously so, as defined by the 1991 Act, but is nevertheless barking excessively at the postal worker or jumping up at the letterbox. I think that all noble Lords have had enough doorstep delivering experience to know exactly what we mean. Under the new powers we are introducing, the postal worker may alert the authorities and report the behaviour. I should take a moment to congratulate Royal Mail on its sophisticated reporting and logging systems for these incidents, which have proved useful in tackling such irresponsible ownership.

The local authority may investigate and, if it is satisfied that the test for the community protection notice has been met, serve a written warning that such behaviour is evidently detrimentally affecting the quality of life in the locality—in this case, that of a postal worker, although other people may be affected. An officer from the authority may wish to visit the address and discuss the issue with the owner, or may simply post the order as a warning to the owner. The warning would state that the officer considers the threshold to have been met and would detail the offending behaviour. It would make clear that the officer will serve a community protection notice should the behaviour not change or stop, and that, over time, this may result in prosecution and a criminal record.

For many owners, this level of intervention will be sufficient, and the engagement from an officer will encourage the owner to consider the opportunities for better education and training. However, if the warning is not heeded, a community protection notice could be served, which may make a number of requirements of the owner: for example, that they attend dog training classes with their dog and/or attach a letterbox guard or similar item, as I have already illustrated. The owner will be provided with the opportunity to become more responsible and the postal worker will be better protected. Should the owner attend training classes, the dog’s welfare may also be improved. All this can be achieved with a community protection notice, fully negating the need for an additional power in the form of a dog control notice.

17:44

I hope that on further reflection the noble Baroness, Lady Gale, will agree to give the existing provisions in the Bill a chance to show that they can be used effectively to address this issue. We shall, of course, keep their effectiveness under review. I am sure that the noble Baroness and others will be keeping a watchful eye on the implementation of the Bill.

Perhaps I might reassure the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, that we will keep all new powers in Parts 1 and 4 of the Bill, including the CPN, under review. We are committed to post-legislative review of this Bill, as for all others, and we will ensure that the review looks specifically at the effectiveness of CPNs in dealing with dog-related issues. I am mindful of the debates that we have had on this topic. As I have said, I am sure that the House will want to consider and debate the outcome of such a review.

I turn to Amendments 86B and 86C in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Trees, which relate to dog attacks on protected animals—in other words, animals kept largely as pets. I am conscious that a number of organisations in the charitable sector would support an amendment of this kind to provide a specific offence in the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991 for a dog attack of this nature. However, the Dangerous Dogs Act is a public safety measure; it is not about providing protection for animals more widely. These amendments would see police forces, and in some cases local authorities, potentially having to investigate reports of dogs chasing other dogs, cats and, for that matter, any of the many other animals kept as pets, to ascertain whether an offence has been committed under the Act and whether a prosecution should be forthcoming. I do not believe that this is the best way of tackling the problem of dog attacks on other animals.

I recognise the concern of pet owners with regard to dog attacks. I have seen for myself the horrific reports where animals have been injured or killed as a result of dog attacks. Such incidents are abhorrent and can be indicators of wider problems with the dog, such as a lack of socialisation with other animals. However, I suggest to noble Lords that the Dangerous Dogs Act is not the appropriate vehicle for taking cases forward with regard to attacks on protected animals. Rather, I would maintain that the solution lies in existing legislation that is better suited to addressing this type of incident, and in the anti-social behaviour provisions in the Bill.

While many of us regard our pets almost as members of the family, in law pet animals are defined as property. As such, where a cat or dog has been injured or, I dare say, killed as a result of a dog attack, then it would be possible to bring forward a prosecution against the dog owner under Section 1 of the Criminal Damage Act 1971. This covers the intentional or reckless damage or destruction of another person’s property and carries a maximum sentence of 10 years’ imprisonment on indictment and a maximum of six months’ imprisonment or a £5,000 fine, or both, when tried summarily.

There are also some circumstances in which Section 3 of the Dangerous Dogs Act applies to dog attacks on other animals. I am aware of a recent case in Manchester where an Akita attacked and injured a miniature Yorkshire terrier so severely that it had to be put down. The owner of the Akita was prosecuted under both Section 3 of the Dangerous Dogs Act and Section 1 of the Criminal Damage Act. The owner was ordered to pay compensation and court costs and complete unpaid work. Thus the existing legislation has been seen to apply in the case of a dog-on-dog attack.

One of the reasons why this sort of case can succeed is that the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991 applies where there is reasonable apprehension of injury to a person. It is not necessary for injury to be caused to a person for an offence to be committed. It is likely that, where a dog attacks another animal, the nature of the aggression shown by the dog means that people in the vicinity would have a reasonable fear of injury to themselves. In such a situation, the police and the Crown Prosecution Service are well placed to determine whether a prosecution meets the public interest and evidence test. In all cases, where a dog attacks another animal, criminal proceedings may also be brought under the Animal Welfare Act 2006 for causing unnecessary suffering to the animal that has been attacked. This carries a maximum penalty of six months’ imprisonment, a £20,000 fine or both.

Moreover, should the case not meet the threshold of any of the other offences to which I have referred, but the incident poses concern—as an attack on a pet is likely to do—both members of the public and the authorities may make a civil complaint to a magistrate under Section 2 of the Dogs Act 1871, where the dog has been out of control. Based on the balance of probabilities, a court may order the destruction of the dog or impose conditions to mitigate the risk posed by it, such as keeping the dog on a lead or muzzled at certain times. There are many cases where the courts have taken action in this way.

I hope I have demonstrated that this is not an area where legislation has been deficient. With the arrival of the community protection notice in the Bill that we are seeking to enact at present, we have an opportunity to ensure that responsible dog ownership is a feature of people undertaking the responsibility of having an animal in their care.

[Baroness Gale]

My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have taken part in this short debate and the Minister for his reply. When I spoke to my amendment, my noble friend Lady Donaghy was not able to be here. I am very pleased to see that she is now in her place; I know that she supported the amendment. I also thank the noble Lord, Lord Redesdale, for his contribution. I agree with him that we need a separate piece of legislation on dogs, but we will not go down that road tonight. I also thank the noble Lord, Lord Trees, for his contribution on protected animals, and my noble friend Lady Smith for her contribution and her support on this matter. She spoke about the need for a review, and in his reply the Minister said that we could perhaps have a debate in a few years’ time. I am not quite sure whether he meant that that would be the review or that there will be a review and we can then debate it.

[Lord Taylor of Holbeach]

If I could just explain, there will be a review of all this legislation; we are committed to post-legislative scrutiny of this Bill. I am suggesting that if the House wished to focus particularly on dog issues, I am sure that would be considered a suitable subject for debate by the usual channels.

[Baroness Gale]

I thank the Minister for his reply. I am sure that we will have a debate on this matter. He said that he believed that the community protection notices would be as effective as, or even more effective than, the dog control notices. We all hope that they will be as effective as the Minister hopes they will be. It is good to know that the campaigning organisations will now be working with the Minister to improve the legislation and ensure that it works. With that, I think we made our case strongly. I am sorry the Minister was not able to accept it, but we want the new Bill and the community protection notice to work effectively. As we cannot have what we wanted, I ask the Minister to work with the organisations, and work together now, to make sure that it will work. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 86A withdrawn.

Clause 98: Keeping dogs under proper control

Amendments 86B and 86C not moved.

Amendment 86D

Moved by

[Baroness Smith of Basildon]

86D: Before Clause 100, insert the following new Clause—
“Firearms licences: assessing public safety
(1) The Firearms Act 1968 is amended as follows.
(2) After section 28A (certificates: supplementary) insert—
“28B Assessing public safety
(1) When assessing the threat to public safety under section 27, 28, 30A, 30B or 30C, the Chief Police Officer must ensure that a range of background checks are performed.
(2) Where these checks uncover substantiated evidence of violent conduct, domestic violence, or drug or alcohol abuse, the presumption is that the Chief Police Officer should refuse the licence application unless exceptional evidence can be brought forward by the applicant as to their suitability to possess a weapon.
(3) When assessing public safety within this section, the Chief Police Officer must follow any guidance issued by the Secretary of State.”
(3) After section 113(1) (power of Secretary of State to alter fees) insert—
“(1A) Before making an order under this section, the Secretary of State must consult chief police officers to ensure the level of fees collected by the police under sections 32 and 35 are appropriate after considering the costs they incur through the administration and assessment of firearms’ licences made under this Act.””

[Baroness Smith of Basildon]

My Lords, in moving this amendment I say first that we welcome the measures that the Government have already taken in the Bill on firearms, as far as they go. That is why I have brought forward to your Lordships’ House today a slightly different amendment from that which I proposed in Committee. I understood the concerns that were raised then in relation to mental health; although it still needs further discussion, the comments made were fair.

Our amendment calls for greater effectiveness in background checks when considering applications for firearms licences. The specific reference and concern we have relates to cases of domestic violence. The amendment seeks to amend the Firearms Act 1968, so that where there is substantiated evidence of a history of,

“violent conduct, domestic violence, or drug or alcohol abuse,”

it would provide a presumption against being awarded a licence unless evidence could be provided that there were grounds for exemption.

I provided statistics in Committee, so I do not intend to repeat those. However, I feel that many noble Lords and the public would be quite shocked that someone, where there is substantiated evidence of a history of domestic violence or violent conduct, can gain legal possession of a firearm. The Government have issued guidance on this, which the noble Lord repeated in his response to the Committee. As welcome as this guidance is, it is not legislation, and it therefore carries an element of discretion which makes it very difficult for the police.

I gave an example in Committee of the case of Michael Atherton. He was convicted of the murders of his partner Susan McGoldrick, her sister and her niece. Michael Atherton had a long history of domestic violence, but was still allowed to own four shotguns. The licensing officer who first examined his application made comments on it. These comments are quite chilling. The licensing officer said:

“4 domestics—last one 24/4/04—was cautioned for assault. Still resides with partner & son & daughter. Would like to refuse—have we sufficient info—refuse re public safety”.

In the end, amazingly, Durham Constabulary came to the conclusion that it did not have sufficient grounds to refuse.

We all know that public authorities, such as the police, often have to take the safe decision in line with legal advice, because they cannot afford the cost of legal challenge. Many of us will be aware of cases, particularly in local authorities, where councils wish to take one decision, but are advised that if they do that it could be challenged, and they cannot afford a challenge. So sometimes decisions are taken, not because those taking the decision believe it is the right thing to do, but because they are frightened of the cost of defending it. Too often, the police find that when they refuse a licence, that decision can be overturned by the courts. Last year the deputy chief constable of Hampshire Police attempted to prevent a man keeping shotguns after a series—not just one—of allegations of serious sexual crimes, including against a 17 year-old girl. That was just one of a string of licensing refusals that Hampshire Police made that were overturned, each one costing thousands of pounds.

The IPCC investigation into Michael Atherton’s case recommended that new legislation was needed alongside guidance. In 75% of the cases where women have been killed by guns, it has been classed as a domestic incident. In 2009, 100% of female gun deaths were in domestic situations. The evidence suggests that the overwhelming majority of these deaths involved legally held weapons. How many lives could be saved by this amendment?

On the fees element of the amendment, I still do not understand the Government’s position. The noble Lord tried to enlighten me in Committee and failed. Why are the Government so reluctant to introduce full cost recovery in firearms licences? They do so in so many other areas. We want to see better and more effective checks and better support for the police when they have reasonable concerns for public safety if they were to issue a licence. We recognise that more effective checks would cost money; there would be an additional cost. That is why this is so important, especially when we are seeing such large cuts in police budgets. At present, the Government are subsidising firearms licences at the cost of around £18 million a year—and you have to ask why. If the Minister cannot accept our amendment, will he answer this one question? How do the Government justify such a huge subsidy for firearms licences?

18:00

These are very important issues, and I believe that these measures could save lives. I cannot think of anything more important for a government flagship Bill on crime than measures that have the ability to save lives. I am grateful to the Minister for briefly discussing this issue with me. He is always prepared for, and open to, discussions. I hope that he can accept the amendment. If he cannot accept it today in its entirety, can he look specifically at the issues relating to domestic violence? Surely those victims deserve our support and protection, and when the checks undertaken by a chief police officer in an application for a firearms licence uncover substantiated evidence of violent conduct, domestic violence or drug or alcohol abuse, the presumption should be that the licence application will be refused, unless exceptional evidence can be brought forward by the applicant of their suitability to possess a weapon. It would be helpful if the Minister could have discussions before Third Reading on that specific aspect of the Bill, and if we could make progress before then.

The discretion that the police have now fetters them, because they are not really able to use it, as I have outlined. We have a situation whereby people with a history of violence can obtain a licence even though the police want to refuse but do not really have the powers to do so. I hope that the Minister can accept my offer of further discussions in the spirit in which it was made. I beg to move.

[The Duke of Montrose (Con)]

I do not envy my noble friend the Minister having to deal with this issue. The points that the noble Baroness, Lady Smith of Basildon, have brought up are very much ingrained in the minds of anybody who comes from my part of the world, in Scotland. It was the very same thing with a certain Mr Hamilton, who had been found guilty of sexually assaulting children and then went on to carry out the Dunblane massacre of primary school children. The net effect of that was the passing of the Act banning handguns, which does not address the issue of whether the police will bring charges when they see the seriousness of a situation, or understand that there is a risk in issuing a licence to someone who might appeal and cost them a lot of money. Of course, the banning of handguns has been counterproductive because nowadays, if you go around anywhere in the UK, the only people who have handguns are criminals, who know very well that, if they go into any situation, they will not be in danger of meeting someone with a handgun.

[The Earl of Lytton]

My Lords, I have an interest to declare as the holder of a firearms licence. I understand very well what the noble Baroness was saying in introducing her amendment, but we must be clear about what is already happening. The amendment refers to the necessity of performing background checks, but I believe they already are being performed. I speak with some experience of dealing with firearms officers in different parts of the country, which I hasten to admit is by no means necessarily a representative sample. None the less, these checks are being dealt with with a good deal of thoroughness. They have access to the police national computer, and the National Firearms Licensing Management System, the domestic violence unit and others are all sources of information. In addition to that, every applicant for a firearms licence must have a sponsor, who has to make a positive statement that they know of no reason, under a whole list of criteria, why that person should not hold a licence.

Furthermore, there is another element: the applicant must have permission from a landowner on whose land they are going to shoot, or be associated with a club where they are shooting and have the countersignature of the person who is the secretary of the club. So there are a considerable number of safeguards here. However, I am bound to admit that in the Atherton case, as in the Dunblane case and the Hungerford case that went before it, licences were given by the police for weapons, which, in the more historic cases, it was totally inappropriate for any private citizen to have possession of. The result of that was that these awful offences occurred.

With regard to the substantiated evidence of violence, there is already a duty on a police officer not to grant a licence to anyone who is a danger to public safety or the police, or to those of intemperate habits. As I say, there are safeguards. I double-checked with the British Association for Shooting and Conservation, which very kindly responded to my inquiry for this afternoon. I am not a member of BASC, but it provides the secretarial back-up for the All-Party Parliamentary Group on Shooting and Conservation, at whose meetings I am an occasional visitor. With regard to public safety, the chief officer must follow guidance issued by the Secretary of State. Guidance, of course, means just what it says; each case has to be considered to a degree on its merits. I do not really see how it can be any other way. As I see it, firearms officers in the various police forces are taking their responsibilities extremely seriously.

On the question of full cost recovery, which the noble Baroness has raised before, the difficulty with any cost is that it is potentially a blank cheque of some sort. It takes no cognisance of the police efficiency with which the matter is dealt, nor of wider public safety issues that may lie outside and beyond the specific application. The costs incurred could be very high if the system is not effective. The question then arises—I do not have an answer to this—of how much society should pay for the protection that licences afford, as opposed to costs being recovered from the individual. There are many different walks of life where similar situations apply, such as whether the cost of a driving licence or the grant of a passport covers the full cost of the scrutiny. There are certain things that are done in the name of society and for its protection when it is not considered appropriate to recover the full costs. I made the point in previous dealings on a similar amendment at an earlier stage, and I think that it is probably fair to say, that the present level of the firearms licence fee looks quite low. However, that is a different matter; it is a matter for making an order as to what the fees are, which is rather separate from the question of amending the legislation and the framework for how things are dealt with.

There are issues about the fact that, notwithstanding all the guidance that is in place, licences for firearms have been granted to people who were patently unfit to receive them. I do not know any way to ensure infallibly that that can never happen in future. It may be impossible to devise a means for the number of people in the country who could be affected by these things, whether they are people with firearms licences who are resident, on a visitor’s permit or whatever. It will be extremely difficult to legislate out all possibility of that sort of thing, although one must always be vigilant—and, of course, they are terrible things that we should strive to prevent happening. However, I am not sure that the amendment would advance things materially as the noble Baroness suggests.

[Lord Deben (Con)]

My Lords, although the amendment is entirely good hearted—I quite understand the reason for it, and the problem it seeks to address is a serious one—I fear that I follow the noble Earl, Lord Lytton, in thinking that the difficulty with which we are faced is a belief that, somehow or other, by passing laws we can solve every problem. That is the kernel of this issue.

The vast majority of people who hold any kind of firearms licence—I declare an interest, as I am one of them—are law abiding and go to huge trouble to ensure that the firearms do not get into the wrong hands, that they are properly locked up, and so on. Already, the very considerable time spent on checking people who have never given any reason for complaint is a source of irritation—although combined with some understanding—to large numbers of people. We must recognise that we already have a very significant amount of regulation in this area.

We have to ask whether any further regulation of this kind, any further step taken in this direction, will do what is intended. I fear that I come to the conclusion that it will not. One of the difficulties is that those with bad intent seem to be much more able to acquire the means to put that intent into action than we would expect, if that is not our way of life. We rather naively sit here thinking that if we write the right legislation, somehow or other it will corral such people.

I have great sympathy with my noble friend who has to answer this debate, but I say to him that we have a long history of doing things because we feel that “something must be done”, even if what is done is not helpful but causes considerable expense and further aggravation. I ask him to be extremely careful and to make his response very balanced. We all have sympathy with the intentions of the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, but I suspect that this is not the answer to the problem.

[Lord Hunt of Chesterton (Lab)]

My Lords, the worrying thing about the remarks made by my noble friend Lady Smith is the idea that the police decide whether to prosecute on the basis of their chances of winning or losing some court case. That is extremely worrying. It means that the law as put into practice depends on someone’s estimate of whether the police should deal with somebody who might sue them, and who has a big enough legal budget to be able to do that. This seems to call into question the whole legal basis of the way we operate. I very much hope the Minister will explain the situation and say that decisions are not being taken according to the chances in the law court. That seems a complete negation of how we are supposed to operate our society.

[Lord Lucas (Con)]

My Lords, when my childhood friend murdered her husband, she did so with a kitchen knife. It has always been my impression that people who get into that sort of situation domestically use whatever weapon is to hand. I would be very interested if the Minister could provide some evidence as to whether people who hold firearms licences or shotgun licences—I hold both—are more or less likely to murder someone than people who do not hold such licences. Do we actually have a problem here, in the general sense? Looking at things in the round, are we being effective in issuing licences, as we ought to do, to people who are generally less likely to murder someone—or are they more likely to murder someone? What are the statistics for the country as a whole?

If, as I rather suspect, we find that people who are issued with such licences are generally much more law-abiding than the population as a whole, perhaps the amendment does not address a real problem. Or rather, it addresses not a problem that exists in the round, but a particular problem with how the police are assessing individual cases—when, perhaps, they have evidence that someone is not suitable, and are not taking action on that evidence.

It is difficult to see what, under subsection (2) of proposed new Section 28B of the Firearms Act, the police could do to get more evidence than they already have as to the suitability or unsuitability of someone to hold a shotgun licence. What is,

“substantiated evidence … of domestic violence, or drug or alcohol abuse”,

if not the records and evidence that the police already hold? Surely they are not going to go casting around for rumours, because such evidence would not be substantiated. It does not seem to me that one could mount a quasi-criminal investigation without any evidence of a crime, merely to see if one could entrap a rumour or two. I do not know what could be done under the amendment that, as the noble Earl, Lord Lytton, said, is not already being done as part of the process.

However, if there is a step in the process whereby the police have evidence but feel frightened to act on it—this seemed to be the idea emerging from the way in which the noble Baroness, Lady Smith of Basildon, addressed her amendment—perhaps we should take the action suggested. But first, as I said earlier, I would be interested to know whether we are dealing with a real problem, or whether this is something of a rarity.

18:16

[Lord Hunt of Chesterton]

My Lords, we have heard one story about a knife, but I have a good friend in America and his wife took a gun to him. It does happen with guns too.

[Lord Lucas]

But if one weapon were not to hand, do people not tend to use whatever is to hand? I suspect that we will find that people who own guns are rather less likely to murder people than those who do not.

[Lord Harris of Haringey (Lab)]

My Lords, we are in danger of having a slightly false debate on this subject. Let us start from the simple fact that firearms and shotguns are, very easily, potentially lethal weapons. What is more, they are lethal weapons that can operate at some distance. They are therefore dangerous items. It has been decided by Parliament, quite properly, that there should be a licensing regime—that checks should be applied to individuals who hold them.

The amendment is not about comparing the population of those who are licensed firearms holders with those who are not; it is about a very specific sub-category. This is not an amendment that will stop, or is intended to stop, armed robbers. It is not about people who start off with malign intent. It is about the nature of the checks, and how they should be used, in very restricted circumstances. It is about people who would set out to acquire a firearm not because they want to rob a bank, but probably for sporting purposes; that is, I assume, the reason why the noble Lords who hold such licences apply for them, and use firearms.

The amendment suggests that, as part of the checks, if there is a history of the individual concerned having been involved in incidents of,

“violent conduct, domestic violence, or drug or alcohol abuse”,

the presumption should be that that person will be denied a licence. This is not about the application of open discretion by police officers. It says that the presumption will be that that individual will not be allowed a weapon.

This is nothing to do with people who acquire weapons illegally, and nothing to do with people who are trying to acquire weapons for other purposes; it simply says that if people with that particular sort of history apply to legally hold a lethal firearm, the presumption should be that they will not be allowed to do that. I would have thought that was eminently sensible. I find it almost unthinkable that that is not the starting point that will be adopted in your Lordships’ House.

What is being proposed by this very carefully worded amendment is that, in those cases where there are prima facie reasons that people may lose control and not use the weapons for the purposes for which they have sought a firearms licence—for example, they may murder or attack their partner or be so inebriated or under the influence of drugs that they would use a firearm against another person—the presumption should be that they are not allowed a licence.

No doubt the noble Earl, Lord Lytton, and others will say, “Hang on, the chiefs of police have discretion in those cases”. However, the point that my noble friend Lady Smith of Basildon made was that, given that there is discretion and given the way in which it operates, that is not sufficient. By passing this amendment, we would give those chief police officers not just a discretion, as we would be saying, “The presumption is that you do not put a lethal firearm in the hands of somebody who has committed domestic violence or has a history of alcohol abuse or drug abuse”. Surely, that provision is sensible, is a safeguard and is something on which we can all agree.

[Lord Marland (Con)]

My Lords, no one bows more than I do to the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, as I had the pleasure of engaging in debates with her for two and a half years, but I agree with my noble friend Lord Deben that we are in danger of overkill here and I disagree with the comments of the noble Lord opposite. It is clear that we have to generate public confidence and this amendment makes a very good stab at trying to establish it, which is absolutely fundamental.

However, the process through which people have to go in applying for a firearms licence is incredibly rigorous. The checking process is rigorous, as is the storage process, but there will always be people outside that process who will abuse it, as my noble friend Lord Deben said. The problem with the amendment is that it leaves out a whole range of people who should be included in the category we are discussing. That is why I have drawn the conclusion that legislating for the sake of legislating to tighten regulation that is already tightly drawn is not the answer. Like noble Lords on the opposition Benches and those who support the amendment, I understand that public confidence has to be of the utmost. We have to let the police ultimately decide who is able to hold a firearms licence—they, and they alone, should decide that.

[Lord Taylor of Holbeach]

My Lords, I am very grateful to my noble friend Lord Marland for that speech. This has been a useful debate, in which noble Lords have cast around a bit and have perhaps extended the debate beyond the terms of the amendment proposed by the noble Baroness, Lady Smith. It may help if I explain how the current regime operates, because we have to consider the amendment in the light of what is already being done to deal with these matters.

As the noble Baroness has explained, the first part of the new clause she proposes seeks to create a presumption that, if an applicant for a firearm certificate or shotgun certificate meets one of the stated criteria in her amendment, the police should not grant such a certificate. The stated criteria include violent conduct, evidence of domestic violence and drug or alcohol abuse.

I share the noble Baroness’s concern about firearms being possessed or accessed by unsuitable persons. However, under the provisions of the Firearms Act 1968, the police already have the ability to take these factors into account when assessing the risk to public safety. The Firearms Act 1968 specifies that, before a licence can be issued, the police must be satisfied that the applicant can possess a firearm or a shotgun without danger to “public safety or the peace”. That is the basic test, so the law is sound in this respect and there is no need to change it.

I understand that there are concerns in particular about domestic violence and abuse. The police do take domestic violence and abuse very seriously. If they are called to a domestic violence and abuse incident and they suspect that a person is in immediate danger, they are able to seize any firearms immediately under powers in the Firearms Act 1968, the Firearms (Amendment) Act 1988 or the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984. The police would also complete the domestic abuse, stalking and “honour”-based violence risk identification checklist, which asks them to consider the abuser’s occupation and interests and whether this could give them unique access to weapons. It also ensures that the police ask victims whether weapons have been used to hurt them before.

Moreover, in response to concerns, last July we published new guidance on this issue which provides greater detail on how the police should handle such cases. The guidance makes it clear that, although each case must be considered on its merits, evidence of domestic violence will generally indicate that the application should be refused.

Furthermore, revised firearms guidance, published fully in October, specifies that the police must take seriously intelligence falling short of a conviction and information when assessing a person’s suitability to possess firearms. It also states that forces must have procedures in place to monitor any activity of certificate holders or their associates which has come to the notice of the police, and that following a domestic violence incident an immediate review of the suitability of a certificate holder should take place. These recent changes—they are recent changes—underline how vital it is to ensure that those in possession of firearms do not pose a risk, and they serve to make the firearms licensing system stronger.

The proposed new clause also seeks to introduce a requirement that the police must follow any guidance issued by the Home Secretary when assessing public safety. I understand the argument being made here. However, I do not consider that this would be the right approach. The law provides the police with discretion in recognition of their responsibility for public safety in local areas, so it is right that chief officers have discretion to assess applications for firearm and shotgun certificates, taking into account the merits of each case and the published guide.

I say in response to the remarks of the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, and, indeed, those of the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Chesterton, who was concerned that the procedures might be deficient, that the test the police must apply in deciding whether to grant a certificate is whether the applicant can be permitted to possess a firearm without causing danger to public safety or the peace. An applicant has a statutory right of appeal to the Crown Court against the police’s decision to refuse a certificate. Therefore, the police will want to be satisfied that they have a rational, cogent and well evidenced justification for a decision to refuse a certificate to enable them to justify their decision in the event of an appeal. While the police may consider the possibility of a successful appeal in deciding whether to refuse a certificate, this factor is not part of the statutory criteria for the decision to grant or refuse a licence and therefore will not be part of the process, which will be based on the test of not endangering public safety or the peace.

18:30

This Government have sought to foster decision-making at a local level and to make it a local responsibility wherever possible. That is what localism means. I would not want to undermine this. Nevertheless, national action can still have a role and can support local decision-making. Accordingly, we are working with the national policing lead for firearms licensing to ensure that the police have a more detailed awareness and understanding of the Home Office guide.

The police are also taking steps to improve consistency and promote high standards across police firearms licensing departments. The College of Policing will be publishing authorised professional practice on firearms licensing, which will complement and cross-reference Home Office guidance. In order to assess standards, Her Majesty’s Inspectorate of Constabulary has carried out a scoping exercise on how firearms licensing is conducted in practice and is considering whether the findings point to the need for further work to help drive up consistency across the country. Much is being done and this is very much an issue that is part and parcel of everyday activity at this moment.

The second part of the proposed new clause seeks to introduce a legal requirement for the Secretary of State to consult all chief officers before revising the licence fees, so that they achieve an appropriate level of cost recovery. The noble Earl, Lord Lytton, mentioned this particular factor. I can assure noble Lords that consultation with the police is integral to the fee-setting process. We fully accept the need to consider the impact of licensing on police resources. However, until we have driven out the inefficiencies in the current approach to the licensing function, it would not be appropriate to raise the fees significantly.

The current fees and licensing structure have remained the same for well over a decade and we accept that it needs to be reviewed. We want the cost and system of licensing firearms to be proportionate and fair. Work will continue to ensure that this happens. This includes the introduction of e-commerce for policing beginning this summer. This IT initiative for police transactions will see much of the licensing process move online, thereby reducing the administrative burden and cost of the current paper-based system.

I hope I have addressed the issues and the challenge which this amendment presents. I am very happy, of course, to talk to the noble Baroness on any subject which concerns our responsibilities to this House, but I am not persuaded that further legislation is needed on this matter. However, if she feels that she needs a decision, she should press this issue at this stage.

[Baroness Smith of Basildon]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for the attention to detail he has given and for responding so fully to what has been an interesting debate. I am intrigued by some of the comments. My noble friend Lord Harris of Haringey perhaps hit the nail on the head in trying to bring the debate back to the intent of my amendment.

In some ways, I agree with the noble Lords, Lord Deben and Lord Marland, that you cannot legislate out crime, but I am not pretending for one second that by passing this amendment there would never be another incident. You could make that argument for any provision in the Bill. You could argue that you should not have legislation on anti-social behaviour because that will not get rid of it or that you should not have legislation to evict people for riot offences because that will not stop all rioting. That is not an argument for not bringing forward legislation that can make a difference.

The noble Duke, the Duke of Montrose, hit the nail on the head. You have to legislate with facts—not in haste. What we are seeking is to ensure the police have the powers they need. I take the comments made by the noble Earl, Lord Lytton, and the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, about the importance of background checks. Yes, we understand that, and we know that background checks are made. I made this point very clearly in my comments on Michael Atherton’s application, where the licensing officer would have liked to refuse because of evidence of domestic violence—he had received a caution. The licensing officer would have liked to refuse, but for various reasons the police may come back and say, “We do not think we can”. When we read that it has cost Hampshire police thousands of pounds when licences have been challenged, we realise that there is a case here.

The noble Earl, Lord Lytton, said that a decision must be taken on its merits, and that is exactly what the police are seeking to do. They want to take decisions on their merits, but there is a fear of legal action. The amount of discretion offered means they could be challenged. In the Michael Atherton case, three people were murdered with a legally held shotgun despite a previous caution for—and therefore substantive evidence of—domestic violence. It is worth nothing that after this case the IPCC said that there has to be legislation alongside guidance.

I do not accept the Minister’s comments. It is not a matter of having evidence but of giving the police the tools they need to act on the evidence they have. That is what the legislation at present does not do. I am grateful to the Minister for his comments, but I do not share his confidence that there is no legislation that could be brought forward to protect the public. The public will be absolutely horrified to know that, where there is evidence of violent behaviour or domestic violence, people can be legally allowed to have firearms. That is quite shocking and I am surprised that it is being defended by noble Lords.

I am sure that when checks were undertaken on the noble Lords, Lord Lucas and Lord Marland, and the noble Earl, Lord Lytton, no evidence was found of violence in their backgrounds, so they were happily given a licence. But there are many people who are not like the noble Lords and who do need to have some checks and balances.

[Lord Deben]

The noble Baroness has not mentioned me among those who said that but I should like her to include me within the list, otherwise it would be incomplete.

[Baroness Smith of Basildon]

I am very happy to include the noble Lord in the list, unless he tells me otherwise. However, the point is valid. The checks are being done now but the police are clear that there are cases where they have felt obliged to issue a licence although the evidence has told them that they should not. On the issue of subsidy—

[The Duke of Montrose]

My Lords, I am not quite clear about whether the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, is not trying to tackle two problems in her amendment—the question of the police’s powers to refuse licences, and fees. Is she trying to do too many things? We might not agree on all these things.

[Baroness Smith of Basildon]

Perhaps I am trying to do too much in one amendment. I have included the fees issue in the amendment—and I am surprised that the Minister defended the £18 million with which the public are subsidising firearms licences—because there will be an extra cost for the additional checks that the police may need to undertake in these cases.

As I said to the Minister, I was happy to come back and specifically discuss with him a way that we could ensure that people with a history of violence are unable to get a firearms licence. He has rejected that offer. In the interests of public safety, there is no alternative but to press the amendment and test the will of the House.

18:38

Division 2

Ayes: 172

---

Labour: 134
Crossbench: 26
Bishops: 3
Democratic Unionist Party: 2
Independent: 1
Ulster Unionist Party: 1
Plaid Cymru: 1

Noes: 227

---

Conservative: 141
Liberal Democrat: 62
Crossbench: 17
UK Independence Party: 1
Independent: 1

18:50

Amendment 87

Moved by

[Lord Foulkes of Cumnock]

87: After Clause 104, insert the following new Clause—
“Assault on workers in public facing roles
(1) A person, being a member of the public, who assaults a worker—
(a) in the course of that worker’s employment, or(b) by reason of that worker’s employment, commits an offence.(2) No offence is committed—
(a) under subsection (1)(a) unless the person who assaults knows or ought to know that the worker is acting in the course of the worker’s employment;(b) under subsection (1)(b) unless the assault is motivated, in whole or in part, by malice towards the worker by reason of the worker’s employment.(3) In this section—
“worker” means a person whose employment involves dealing with members of the public, to any extent, but only if that employment involves—
(a) being physically present in the same place and at the same time as one or more members of the public; and(b) interacting with those members of the public for the purposes of the employment; or providing a service to either particular members of the public or the public generally,“employment” in this context means any paid or unpaid work whether under a contract, apprenticeship, or otherwise.
(4) Evidence from a single source is sufficient evidence to establish for the purpose of subsection (1) whether a person is a worker.
(5) A person guilty of an offence under this Act is liable, on summary conviction, to imprisonment for a period not exceeding 12 months or to a fine not exceeding level 5 on the standard scale.”

[Lord Foulkes of Cumnock (Lab)]

My Lords, having dealt with important amendments regarding dangerous dogs and even more dangerous firearms, we now come to deal with an equally important matter: assaults on workers who deal with the public. It is in the spirit of the shared basic values and the common sense of this House that I am again tabling the amendment that I tabled in Committee, which I hope will command the support of all Peers, regardless of party.

The amendment sets out to tackle the shocking rate at which our shopkeepers, bus drivers, teachers, nurses and catering staff, to name but a few, are assaulted at work—in their workplace—every year. In 2012, there were 120,000 attacks against retail staff across the United Kingdom, with 51% of retailers reporting being victims of verbal or physical abuse in the past three months. Incidentally, one in five Asians work in shops, so a particular community faces these kinds of assaults.

These assaults are perpetrated against ordinary workers, who are often paid the minimum wage and are carrying out extraordinarily important tasks, such as looking after our old people, transporting our workforce or teaching our children. Such assaults can be particularly traumatic, as victims have no choice but to return to the workplace, unlike the general public. They return to the precise location and to the circumstances of the ordeal they faced. That results in increased anxiety and the understandable fear of such attacks and assaults recurring.

I shall give one example. Kim, a store manager, was attacked by a prolific shoplifter. After her attack, she described how she had,

“no end of sickness because of the stress. I have worked for five years and never had a day off, but now I am asking myself whether it is worth carrying on”.

Our current legal system, however, does not do enough to provide people like Kim with the protection they deserve. Too often, instead—the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, raised this in the previous debate—offenders go virtually unpunished, either receiving a small fine or a suspended sentence.

In order to remedy this, my amendment creates a specific offence of assaulting someone who works with the public in the course of their employment. At present, doing so is simply one of 19 aggravating factors. Currently, the Code for Crown Prosecutors states:

“A prosecution is also more likely if the offence has been committed against a victim who was at the time a person serving the public”.

The Government insist that that helps to ensure that most of these cases are brought to court. Unfortunately, that simply is not the case.

Instead, in far too many instances, because of the laws currently governing assault in the workplace, the police and the CPS seem to be deciding in advance that it is not worth proceeding with these cases of common assault, which is how they are usually categorised, because assailants could end up with as little as a £50 fine. What is the point in pursuing a case if that is the result? Even then, when the CPS does decide to prosecute, it is very rare, in the reported cases that we have, for the aggravating factor that I described earlier of assault on a public-facing worker even to be mentioned in the proceedings.

My amendment would increase prosecutions and help to ensure that sentencing reflects the seriousness of the crime. It would do so by making the assault of a public-facing worker a separate offence, which would consequently elevate the seriousness of the crime in the sentencing guidelines above that of common assault. This in turn would make the range of penalties for offenders higher, thus encouraging a higher number of prosecutions.

I should now like to deal with the criticisms that were levelled by the noble Lord, Lord Taylor, in Committee, although I gather that there has been a change of Ministers—I am not sure whether this is good or bad news, whether I have a softer or harder Minister on this occasion, and only time will tell. First, it was claimed that, due to the existing range of offences relating to criminally violent behaviour, my amendment would further complicate the law and make prosecutions more complex. I must say, in making this argument, the Government totally ignore the existing complexity of the laws governing common assault, an offence which has three categories of harm and culpability and—I do not have 11 fingers—11 factors reducing seriousness. In contrast, my amendment would simplify matters, as a separate offence for assaulting public-faced workers would be easier to determine.

Secondly, in our previous debate, the noble Lord, Lord Taylor, stated:

“I do not consider the proposed changes would mean more prosecutions”.

In making this claim, the noble Lord, Lord Taylor and the Government ignored—I know that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, and others who are interested in Scots law will be particularly interested in this—the impact of similar protective measures for emergency workers in Scotland, which have led both to a decline in such incidents and to more than 1,000 prosecutions. Scotland has shown the way, not on such a wide range as the offence there deals particularly with emergency workers, and has shown that introducing this kind of provision actually works.

Thirdly, the noble Lord, Lord Taylor, asked why such workers should be afforded special protection as opposed to members of the general public. He went on to argue in relation to the special protections rightly given to police officers by the criminal justice system:

“We do not ask of people in their normal employment that they place themselves in positions of danger in dealing with potentially violent incidents. We do ask that of the police”.—[Official Report, 4/12/2013; cols. 259-260.]

That is wrong. For a start, public-facing employees are placed in danger. That is the whole point. They are legally obliged to be there. We expect shopkeepers to challenge under-age purchasers of cigarettes and alcohol—an instruction which, when implemented, results in 30% of all violent and abusive incidents faced by retailers. We make the law saying that under-age people should not be given alcohol and tobacco. Shopkeepers have to implement it, and many of them get assaulted when they are doing so. You can imagine the 15 year-old thugs going into those shops. They may be under age as far as the law is concerned, but they can certainly be very violent towards the retailers.

A further 15% of such incidents occur when shoplifters are challenged—again, when enforcing a law that we have implemented, and a law which the police would enforce if they were there but they are not, so the shopkeeper has to do it. Transport staff are expected to place themselves in harm’s way by challenging all manner of anti-social and illegal behaviour. Noble Lords who travel on London buses, as we do, will know that this happens from time to time.

19:00

In other words, contrary to what the noble Lord, Lord Taylor, said, public-facing workers, like the police, often have to put themselves in potentially violent situations. As with the police, it is their duty to uphold laws and regulations. This responsibility not only imposes a greater financial burden on small businesses such as bars and clubs—according to the Association of Licensed Multiple Retailers, they spend more than 11% of their turnover on security staff—but imposes an even greater physical and psychological cost on employees, who deserve greater recognition and greater protection.

If the new Minister, the noble Lord, Lord Ahmad, repeats what the noble Lord, Lord Taylor, said on the previous occasion and the Government do not accept such a reasonable amendment—and I hope that, unusually for me, I have put it in a reasonable way—to give the workers whom I have described the peace of mind that they deserve, I sincerely hope that this House will put aside any party prejudice or party views and that, as a revising Chamber, we will consider correcting what the Government have unfortunately decided to refuse. I hope that I have persuaded the Ministers, particularly the new Minister, but, if I have not done so, I hope that this House will give public-facing workers the kind of protection they deserve.

[Lord Davies of Coity (Lab)]

My Lords, I spent 28 years representing people in the retail sector and I support this amendment. In the main, the people we are talking about are women and girls under the age of 18. They are the ones who face up to the criminals who enter the stores and do damage to individuals, who are frightened to death doing their job. As I said, in the main we are talking about young girls and women in the retail sector in this country. We are not talking about big, bruising men who can handle the situation but women and young women who are frightened to death in carrying out their work. I expect the Government to do as the amendment suggests and protect the people who are being damaged by villains and criminals who enter stores up and down the country.

[Lord Hope of Craighead]

My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Foulkes, was kind enough to mention me, and perhaps I may add a footnote to what he said about Scotland and the measure that deals with emergency workers. Of course, an assault, in both the law of Scotland and the law of England, is a crime, and in a sense you could say that it was not necessary to pass that measure at all because any court when presented with evidence of an assault would pass an appropriate sentence if the individual was convicted.

However, the value of the measure, which got a lot of publicity, was its deterrent effect. After all, the last thing that one wants is to have the assault committed. The Government in Scotland were trying to reduce the very unfortunate crescendo of assaults on emergency workers—firemen, ambulance people and so on—and to some extent the measure appears to have had that effect. Therefore, the deterrent effect is as valuable as any sentencing. As I said, in an ideal world, if something was a crime, the individual tempted to do the act described as criminal would refrain from doing it. It is because of the deterrent effect that I think there is a good deal of force behind the amendment.

[Baroness Hamwee]

My Lords, I thought that at the previous stage the noble Lord, Lord Condon, had it right when he said he feared that,

“the real mischief they and we might seek to address is not the absence of suitable offences but the absence of action”.—[Official Report, 4/12/13; col. 255.]

I asked questions of my noble friend about sentencing, the aggravating nature of that type of offence and so on, and I am afraid that I have not changed my mind about those two aspects.

I am interested in the definition of “worker” in the noble Lord’s amendment. One qualifies, as it were—that is not quite the right term but he will know what I mean—only if one is “physically present”. Reading that, I wondered how that works with his requirement for malice in subsection (2) of the proposed new clause. When I saw the word “malice”, I thought that he had in mind, for example, someone who—possibly for very personal reasons—does not like people who work in jobcentres but then discovers that his neighbour works in a jobcentre. Is that malice towards all such people for that sort of reason or are we talking about something very personal? Does it mean being in the workplace or in the sort of situation that I have suggested, hanging around until one’s neighbour comes out of the house and having a go at him for that reason?

I was also interested in subsection (4) of the proposed new clause. If I remember rightly—I have not gone back to check—I think that on the previous occasion the noble Lord talked about “evidence from a single source”. That seems to be a matter for the courts. We should not tell the courts how to assess evidence. If he is saying that there is some restriction on the way they are working at the moment, it may be a different matter—but, again, that made me wonder where the noble Lord was going with this.

On the aggravating nature of the offence, we have to be careful not to devalue the importance of that approach to sentencing. This, of course, is not the only aggravating factor for the courts, but the Sentencing Council does a very important job in identifying appropriate aggravating factors.

[Lord Rosser]

My Lords, my noble friend Lord Foulkes of Cumnock very eloquently made the case in support of this amendment. It is really about supporting victims of assault by a member of the public in the course of their employment and in the course of earning their livelihood. I suppose that the question is whether one feels that the matter should be dealt with by regarding that kind of assault as one of a great many aggravating factors in an assault case, or whether it should be regarded as a separate offence. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope of Craighead, referred to the impact of the new offence in Scotland in relation to assaults on emergency workers.

It is worth looking at some of the figures that have emerged. Those from the HSE’s Crime Survey for England and Wales show that there were nearly 650,000 reported incidents of violence at work and that workplace violence comprises some 31% of all reported crimes of violence. The HSE found that the occupations at greatest risk were those that involved working with the public. That is hardly a surprise, but nevertheless it was confirmed by the HSE.

Reference has been made to the position of shop workers. USDAW, the union that represents them, undertakes members’ surveys, which show that in the past year 4% of retail staff were attacked at work—which is equivalent to some 120,000 assaults—and 34% were threatened with violence. In addition, 17% of those attacked did not report the offence—and we can all speculate as to why that might have been the case.

People at work—in their employment, in the course of earning their livelihood— are in a different situation from most other people. The reality is that an assault on somebody at work can be quite traumatic. It can lead to a situation where somebody is reluctant or fearful to go back to their place of work and be in exactly the same situation that they were in when they were attacked, facing a constant stream of strangers, any one of whom could become violent. One can also find cases of people assaulted by a member of the public in the course of their employment where the assault leads to them actually losing their job and their livelihood, because they are so traumatised that they are no longer able to return to the same job at the same location and to carry on with that employment. Those are among the victims who feel that sentencing probably does not reflect the effect that that kind of assault can have on their lives.

As has already been said, many people in the course of their employment are actually put in the way of danger by their work. They are the kind of people who have already been mentioned: public transport staff, fire workers, security staff, emergency service workers and shop workers. They often have to deal with people who are aggressive, drunk or attempting to break the law. Those workers are the kind of people who can be working late at night, sometimes on their own and in areas of anti-social behaviour which most people voluntarily avoid for their own safety. Workers in that situation do not have that particular option.

Some staff in the course of their employment dealing with the public have an obligation to seek to enforce the law. Those, for example, who serve alcohol are required to obtain proof of age from the purchaser. They are required to refuse to serve someone who is drunk and they are required to refuse a proxy sale of alcohol—although not of tobacco, as we were discussing earlier. Those kinds of actions are all major triggers for assaults on staff, and reference has already been made to the situation in that regard. In the USDAW survey, some 30% of assaults arose from challenging age-restricted sales, and some 15% related to people who appeared to be committing theft.

Those actions, carried out by people in the course of their employment who are required to seek to enforce the law, place workers at risk. If they are not undertaken—particularly in relation to refusing to serve people with alcohol when they are under age, or refusing a proxy sale of alcohol—staff can be liable for prosecution or for action to be taken against them for failing to carry out their duty to seek to enforce the requirements of the law where it applies.

There are, therefore, differences in the position of people who are assaulted in the course of their employment. They cannot run away; they cannot move somewhere else; they have to go back to their employment after an assault and be in the same situation in exactly the same circumstances as they were, facing members of the public and probably fearing that the same kind of thing might happen again. In some cases, it can cost them their jobs because the experience has been so traumatic that they feel they cannot carry on. Many are put in danger by the nature of their work or the kind of job they have to do; many are required to enforce the law as part of their work.

Like my noble friend Lord Foulkes of Cumnock, I hope that we will get a more sympathetic response to this amendment. There is a case for having a separate offence of assault on a person in the course of their employment by a member of the public, and for not regarding it as simply one of a large number of aggravating factors for the offence of assault.

19:15

[Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon]

My Lords, much has been made of the change of Minister, but let me assure the noble Lord—perhaps this will disappoint him—that we represent the same Government and the same department. Whether my line is softer or harder I will leave him to determine—but it will be is consistent with that of my noble friend.

When we debated this issue in Committee, the noble Lord drew our attention to the problem of assaults on individuals who work with the public. He quoted extensively from research—research we also heard about tonight—from the Union of Shop, Distributive and Allied Workers about attacks on retail staff in particular that shows that such assaults are sadly all too common. We have heard further such evidence in the debate today. We all agree that assaults on people who come into contact with the public as part of their work are totally and utterly unacceptable. They are a matter which both Parliament and the Government take very seriously and on which we are all agreed. No one should be expected to face violence in the course of their work, particularly when they are serving the public.

I think that the noble Lord referred to the Asian community in particular when he talked about the staff of small shops. There has been consistency across the board in our cities: quite often, shops are run by particular members of the community, often 24 hours a day, seven days a week. By definition, that opens them up to greater levels of assault and crime, which do take place; when we look across the country, it is of course the case. Staff of small shops are particularly vulnerable in this respect because they may need to stay open longer hours to make the profit needed to keep their business going, often as a family business with minimal staff. In Committee, my noble friend Lord Bradshaw also drew our attention to the position of public transport workers—as did the noble Lord, Lord Foulkes, today.

It is paramount that the criminal justice system should treat violence against these essential members of society adequately, but the Government do not agree that a new offence is the right way to address the problems that the noble Lord highlighted. The noble Lord, Lord Condon, is not in his place today, but, as my noble friend Lady Hamwee pointed out, when we debated this issue in Committee, he said:

“Apart from the important symbolism of saying, ‘Here is a new offence’, I fear it would not add practically to improving the situation overall”.—[Official Report, 4/12/13; col. 256.]

I agree with him. As my noble friend Lord Taylor explained in Committee, there is already a range of offences that criminalise violent behaviour and these are supported by guidance that ensures that any assault against workers in public-facing roles is regarded as serious and is dealt with appropriately. This view is shared by the Director of Public Prosecutions.

All cases referred to the Crown Prosecution Service by the police are considered under the code for Crown prosecutors. Under the code, prosecutors must first be satisfied that there is sufficient evidence to provide a realistic prospect of conviction. In every case where there is sufficient evidence to justify a prosecution, prosecutors must then consider whether a prosecution is required in the public interest. The section of the code giving guidance on this public interest test states:

“A prosecution is also more likely if the offence has been committed against a victim who was at the time a person serving the public”.

If the evidence is there and the code is satisfied, the CPS will prosecute.

Sentencing guidelines specify that where an assault is committed against someone providing a service to the public, be that in the public or the private sector, it is an aggravating factor and should result in a higher sentence within the current maximum. The Sentencing Council has also made clear in its guidance that that includes those who work in shops and in the wider retail business—a point well made by my noble friend Lady Hamwee.

I do not accept that a new offence would have additional deterrent value. The law already provides for what this amendment is intended to achieve. Fundamentally, we all know that assaulting anyone, regardless of their profession or circumstances, is wrong.

I listened very carefully, as I often do—always do.

[Noble Lords]

Oh!

[Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon]

A Freudian slip there perhaps. Maybe I was honest in my first assessment. Nevertheless, I listened very carefully to the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, when he talked about victims. In my own life serving the public in local government, quite often I came across a victim of crime—we are not talking about someone who serves the public, but any victim of crime. The noble Lord painted a scenario about that person having to return to their place of work. If someone has been assaulted in their own house, on the way to work, catching a train, at a bus stop or a station, there is equally a sense of great trepidation when the person has to return. It is important when we look at these issues that we put them into context. Ask any victim of crime, particularly serious crime, and the trepidation and fear that they feel in overcoming those challenges are intense.

Of course I acknowledge what the noble Lord is saying. When we face public life where does it stretch? The noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope of Craighead, contributed with his experience of the judiciary. Often, the judiciary are in the front line when they have to sentence people. There is an issue to be tackled there. Here, we sit in the Lords and many have served in representative office. Politicians put themselves in the front line when they face the public and indeed there have been instances where they have been assaulted in their own offices.

We argue that the degree of seriousness depends on the particular facts of the case. Why should it be worse, for example, or more traumatic for someone to be assaulted at work rather than on the bus going to work, or for that matter when locking the front door when leaving for work, or as a result of an intrusion into the home? The simple truth is that every case is unique and may have aggravating and mitigating circumstances that should be taken into account. That is where the judiciary comes in. We rely on the judiciary, guided by sentencing guidelines, to do just that.

Specific issues and questions were raised by the noble Lord, Lord Foulkes, and others on issues vis-à-vis the police. First, assaults against people whose work brings them into contact with the public should receive the same sentence as an assault on a constable. That is already the case. With regard to the offence of an assault on a constable, we accept, as my noble friend Lord Taylor said previously, that the police do occupy an important role in society and a slightly different one by virtue of the role that they have to perform. But that does not mean that an assault on someone else, while being a distinct offence, carries a different maximum penalty. Both offences, be it on the police constable or anyone else, carry a maximum penalty of six months’ imprisonment or a fine not exceeding level 5 on the standard scale currently set at £5,000.

The noble Lord, Lord Davies of Coity, also raised the issue of young women. Again, I would say, as the noble Lord, Lord Foulkes, said about the Asian community, that there are particular circumstances that have to be looked at. We maintain that the current law provides protection. He mentioned the case of Kim and I listened very carefully. It is a great concern that there are harrowing experiences of victims of assault and noble Lords have shared those with the House today and in Committee. As I have already said, there are lasting consequences from these attacks. It is down to the individual and how they deal with it. It is the role of government, community and society to provide the support and protection they need. It concerns me greatly that individuals are not reporting serious crimes because they believe that nothing will be done. But we believe that having a new offence will not make a difference to that issue.

The noble Lord, Lord Foulkes, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope of Craighead, pointed to the experience in Scotland. I take the point on board about the higher number of people being charged. It may well be that offences are currently being prosecuted under the legislation protecting emergency workers as an alternative to common assault. But I will certainly take their comments back, make inquiries with the Scottish Government and write to them in that regard if I may.

In closing, I assure the House that the Government are committed to improving things for victims of crime. Since 2011, the Ministry of Justice has provided—and continues to provide—more than £50 million in funding per year to diverse victims’ organisations, including a £38 million per year grant-in-aid agreement with Victim Support. My noble friend is not in her place, but I remind noble Lords of the appointment of my noble friend, Lady Newlove, as Victims’ Commissioner. As noble Lords know, she has personal experience that she brings to bear to protect and help others and ensure that we can tackle these issues with people who have tragic experience in this regard. I pay tribute to her work.

The new victims’ code recently came into force. It explains what victims should expect from the criminal justice system, who to request help from and how and where it should be provided. The code also holds those in the criminal justice system to account, makes victims their priority and gives victims a clearer means of redress if they are not given the support they deserve. We all believe that victims need to know that the criminal justice system will work as hard as possible to deliver justice for them and help them recover and move on with their lives. As I said, ask any victim of crime; that is exactly what they want to do. Indeed, often we hear that they do not want to be known as victims of crime: they want to know that they are survivors of crime because they have moved forward with their lives.

The noble Lord is a man whose contributions I am sometimes amused by and often entertained by. They often add to the spirit, detail and diversity of debate and discussion. Moreover, they add to the quality of debate we have in this House. I hope that, with the reassurances and explanations I have given, he will be minded to withdraw his amendment.

[Lord Rosser]

The Minister sought to argue when I said that staff working with the public and facing assault were to some extent different from others. He sought to say that that was not the case. Does that mean that it is the Government’s view that in offences committed against those working in the public sector or providing a service to the public that should not even be an aggravating factor?

[Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon]

The noble Lord is being somewhat disingenuous with the comments I made. The parallel I was drawing was with victims of crime. Of course, there are aggravating circumstances and the Government take them into account. But I was trying to highlight to the noble Lord and to the House that if you ask any victim of crime they will tell you that in the circumstances that he was painting about somebody having to go back to their place of work that the same is true of someone who has been assaulted in the street or at the bus stop. It is our belief that people should be treated according to the law in a fair and just system. I believe that the current law does just that.

[Lord Foulkes of Cumnock]

My Lords, I am genuinely grateful to the Minister for his eloquent and comprehensive reply. It was equally as good as that of the noble Lord, Lord Taylor, on the previous occasion—and very consistent, as the Minister said it would be. I am not questioning his sympathy or the sympathy of the noble Lord, Lord Taylor, in relation to this, but what I am questioning is his unwillingness to act. I suspect that it is because of the bureaucrats rather than because of Ministers. They do not want the bother of all the change that would be necessary.

Perhaps I may deal with the point raised previously by the noble Lord, Lord Condon, which the Minister mentioned. The police are treated separately when dealing with criminals. In education we use the phrase “in loco parentis”, but in this case teachers are acting “in loco custodia”; that is, in place of the police in that they are acting on behalf of the police, and so they should be treated in the same way. I would also say to the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, that the question of who is the worker is absolutely clear. The only point in relation to the single source is that the single source is needed to describe a worker. I do not think that we need corrobation in terms of who is a worker in these circumstances.

I have been really encouraged by the support that I have received from the Labour Front Bench. My noble friend Lord Rosser, who has tremendous experience in the transport field, knows and understands the kind of problems that transport workers face. My noble friend Lord Davies of Coity has huge experience as General Secretary of the Union of Shop, Distributive and Allied Workers, and he knows exactly what people face. I welcome particularly the support of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope of Craighead, who pointed out that the introduction in Scotland of a special offence in relation to workers in the emergency services has increased the prosecution rate and resulted in a decrease in such offences. Those are powerful arguments from people who have worked in the field and from a former judge in Scotland. I hope that if I have not convinced the Minister, I might have convinced other Members of this House and Members opposite.

The key and most important thing of all is that while of course the general public face dangers—that is incontrovertible—they do not have to return day in and day out to the scene of the crime. These workers do. They have to go back to where the offence took place. That is why they are a special case and it is why we as a House should give them special treatment. It is also why I am moving this amendment today.

19:31

Division 3

Ayes: 137

---

Labour: 116
Crossbench: 12
Democratic Unionist Party: 2
Independent: 2
Plaid Cymru: 1

Noes: 195

---

Conservative: 121
Liberal Democrat: 53
Crossbench: 13
Bishops: 1
UK Independence Party: 1
Independent: 1

19:43

Consideration on Report adjourned until not before 8.43 pm.

[Lord Bates (Con)]

My Lords, it might be helpful if I remind noble Lords that there are a number of speakers in this debate and the time limit is three minutes. The noble Lord, Lord Soley, has 10 minutes, my noble friend Lady Warsi has 12 minutes to wind up and remaining speakers have three minutes. I remind noble Lords that when the clock shows “3”, time is up.

Middle East Peace Settlement

Tuesday 14th January 2014 Lords Chamber

Question for Short Debate

19:44

Asked by

[Lord Soley]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what role the European Union is currently playing in efforts to reach a wider Middle East peace settlement.

[Lord Soley (Lab)]

My Lords, two themes underpin this very short debate, and I shall try to keep my remarks very brief, to assist others. First, and very obviously, the Middle East poses a major threat to world peace. There are appalling conflicts there at the moment and the humanitarian disasters are great. The second theme relates to the activities of the European Union, which have been growing in significance and are extremely important. One of the things that I want to suggest today is that we must use the influence of the European Union to get involved in some of the other disputes that trouble us in that region. The noble Baroness, Lady Ashton, as the High Representative for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy, has played a particularly important role, and this House owes her a debt of gratitude as she has certainly put us on the map in that way.

In theory, the European Union does not have a foreign policy or a defence policy. What has been happening, particularly in the Iranian talks, is that you have the five permanent members of the United Nations Security Council, plus Germany and Iran, but with the European Union playing a very significant role in those negotiations, precisely because it has enormous economic power. With economic power in a unified market, as some of us have been saying for some time, you inevitably get drawn into foreign affairs and security policy because you cannot run a single economic market without having a profound influence on the world. It is, by far, the most powerful economic bloc in the world and is therefore going to have a wider influence. That is important. With such economic power, I would argue, states are born. They may be very diverse and loosely knit ones, and it is hard to call the European Union a state, but it certainly has some aspects of a state.

The European Union’s role in the agreement emphasises that economic power, because it was as a result of those talks, and the noble Baroness, Lady Ashton, chairing them, that she was also able to deliver relief on some of the sanctions imposed on Iran, such as some of the nuclear ones, some of the financial ones affecting the insurance of the oil industry and so on. You could see economic power translating into political power by saying to Iran: “If you co-operate, we will move, as will the other states representing the United Nations Security Council, and Germany as an individual state with great interest in the area”.

Those facts are true also for the Palestine-Israel dispute. I could spend some time—I will not because of the shortage of time—listing what the European Union has already done for both parties in the Israeli-Palestinian dispute. Both parties have benefited from European Union involvement, which has been progressively growing. People will have noted that, if there is a final status agreement, the European Union has already promised a very significant economic and political package to try to underpin that agreement. Again, this is enormously important. It offers an attractive option for both parties to find a settlement and underpins the efforts by the United States to create that agreement. We ought to recognise that this is powerful.

Events outside the Middle East, which I would like to talk about at some other stage, also indicate this growing influence. When French troops went into the Central African Republic, fairly soon afterwards—indeed only the other week—the European Union asked its members to provide additional troops in that area. The reach of the European Union is becoming wider: it is not just the Middle East, although that, to my mind, is by far the most important area and the one where we can do the most at the moment.

It is my contention that we have gone so far in using the European Union as a tool of our foreign and security policy that we ought to think through additional ways in which we can use our influence within the European Union. We are a very influential player in it and by evolving a greater coherence on foreign and security policy we can have great influence. I stress that this does not mean that we have to rush to create a European army or a European Foreign Secretary, and I am sure the Minister will not be rushing to the Dispatch Box to say that that is what we want to do. However, there is a delicate but incredibly important balance where we can actually increase our influence in that way and develop it in a way that really benefits the whole region and enables us to act as though we had a foreign policy, but without actually creating the problems that would exist within the European Union if we tried to set that up formally. It is the informal but very co-operative approach that the European Union takes with its members that enables that to work.

I ought perhaps to put this into context as I was in the House of Commons when there were terrible problems in the former Yugoslavia. There was a growing desire to intervene in that situation as ethnic cleansing reached horrendous proportions. Eventually we did intervene, led by Prime Minister Tony Blair. It was done by NATO but, significantly, nearly all the military assets were those of the United States. The vast majority of the air power assets—more than 85%—came from the US Air Force and US Navy. That brought home to Europe the fact that if it could not deal with ethnic cleansing in its own continent, what other threats could it not face down around the edges of its continent? That was a very important lesson and one that is continually being learnt.

I am a member of the International Institute for Strategic Studies, which recently produced a very useful paper pointing out that it was incredibly frustrating for people in the defence industry and the defence world generally to see that the European Union did not have such a policy because it was increasingly marginalising the European Union forces as the world power balance shifts and new powers emerge—Brazil in aircraft production, and China, India and Russia will all come back into play in due course. Those factors are incredibly important and ought to be looked at in due course.

I want to focus on the Middle East and where it goes forward from here. The role of the noble Baroness, Lady Ashton, in the Iranian talks is very important. I note that she is now being invited by Iran to visit the country. That invitation was issued the day before yesterday, I think. Perhaps the Minister can tell us whether she has accepted that invitation. I think that there is a strong case for doing so not least because the discussions should widen as my Motion indicates, towards talking about resolving the dispute in Syria as well as the dispute with Iran over the nuclear weapons issue. There is a very real chance of the European Union playing a crucial role here. If the Iranians recognise, as I know they do, that the European Union is a different entity from the United States and from the individual great powers which it has dealt with so far, and if the noble Baroness, Lady Ashton, does visit, the EU might find it a very useful way of seeing what role it can play.

It is difficult for the United States and others to accept that Iran should be present at the table when the discussions take place on Syria. I have doubted for some time whether those discussions will take place, as the Minister will know from other questions that I have asked her in the past. If we can get that conference going then there is a case that Iran should be there, subject to certain limitations. Perhaps the European Union can be helpful in that regard. Even if it does not work out that Iran is present then the European Union can act as a conduit between that conference and the Iranians. If the Iranians do not co-operate on a settlement within Syria, the problem will continue to trouble us, and the horrendous sights of what is happening in Syria that we see on our televisions will continue unhindered.

I said that I would keep my remarks as brief as possible but I have one final, important point, particularly for the Eurosceptics. The European Union magnifies our influence; it does not diminish it.

19:54

[Lord Carrington of Fulham (Con)]

My Lords, I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Soley, on this extremely timely debate, and on his work in bringing Arabs and Jews to a better understanding via his Arab-Jewish Forum. This debate comes at a time of mourning for the life of General Sharon. His life in some ways is an exemplar of the problems that have bedevilled attempts to find a solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. He moved from freedom fighter—terrorist to some—to being a successful general, to being accused of war crimes and to becoming a hard-line Prime Minister who removed the settlements from Gaza. His was a life that many, including me, would like to interpret as a progression from a belief that the conflict could be solved through violence to a realisation that the only solution is through compromise, negotiation and magnanimity.

Finding that compromise and magnanimity is the problem. As some of your Lordships may know, I have spent much of my working life outside politics doing business in the Middle East, often with devout Muslims. I am also a strong supporter of Israel and its right to exist, and to do more than exist: to prosper as a beacon of enterprise and democracy in an otherwise very challenged part of the world.

In this dispute, sadly, facts and truth often do not matter and perception is everything. Among many devout Muslims who believe in the teachings of the Prophet, which are peaceable and loving, the perception is that American and—perhaps to a lesser extent—EU support for Israel is absolute, and as too often in the region “my enemy’s friend is my enemy”, it is hard for either to act as an honest broker in any negotiations.

It would be wrong to say, as some Arab commentators claim, that the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is the root of all the problems in the Middle East. However, the conflict is certainly not divorced from the Sunni-Shia war and the persecution of Christians in some Arab countries. Without a solution to the Israeli-Palestinian problem, it is impossible to see how the other conflicts in the region can start to be resolved. I would like to think that the European Union role, or the American role, in the negotiations could be seen to be benign and impartial—but, sadly, that is impossible.

The Middle East desperately needs a fair solution to this problem in the short window in which a two-state solution is still possible, but there can be no honest brokers and possibly not even guarantors. The two sides have to come to a realisation that neither one has any alternative to a fair two-state solution. Once that is agreed, we will have the best chance that the men of violence will lose support and that peace will become a reality. The role of the EU has to be to support and put pressure on the Americans, and to make it clear to both the Israelis and the Palestinians that only a two-state solution is possible and that no other solution will be acceptable if money, technology and arms are still to flow to the region.

19:57

[Lord Palmer of Childs Hill (LD)]

My Lords, I will first echo my noble friend Lord Carrington’s comments about Ariel Sharon; I shall not dwell on the matter more than that. I will address the question raised by the noble Lord, Lord Soley, and perhaps flesh out some of the things he did not have time to go into in his speech.

The EU Foreign Affairs Council announced in December that in the event of a peace agreement it would offer both Israel and a future Palestinian state a special privileged partnership with the EU, including increased access to European markets, closer cultural and scientific links, facilitation of trade and investments, promotion of business-to-business relations and enhanced political dialogue and security co-operation.

The council also said that the EU would,

“contribute substantially to post-conflict arrangements for ensuring the sustainability of a peace agreement. The Council will work on concrete proposals, including by building on previous work undertaken on EU contributions to Palestinian state-building, regional issues, refugees, security and Jerusalem.”

We constantly hear a lot about what Israel must do to reach a peace settlement, such as stopping the expansion of settlements—the list of actions that Israel should take goes on. I have no problem with some of these demands, but demands should also be made of the Palestinians as, without give and take on both sides, no progress will be made.

The UK Government and the EU frequently endorse a key Palestinian demand with regard to the 1967 lines being the basis for a territorial agreement. They have not acknowledged one of Israel’s key concerns: namely, that an agreement must be along the lines of two states for two peoples, as my noble friend Lord Carrington outlined. It is important to set realistic expectations for both sides regarding the end game, and in particular to reassure the Israelis that a peace agreement will secure, not threaten, Israel as the only state in the world with a Jewish majority.

What does Israel see? The glorification of terrorism and violence in the Palestinian Authority and Hamas media, along with a denial of the Jewish connection to the land and any right to statehood. That sends out a very negative message to Israel about Palestinian intentions regarding a negotiated two-state solution, which we all want. Israel’s public support for talks is high, but faith in the Palestinian partner is, sadly—whether correctly or incorrectly—very low. This is a considerable source of concern, particularly when there seem to be continued Palestinian attacks on Israelis.

Given the role of the EU as a financial supporter of the PA, to which the noble Lord, Lord Soley, rightly drew the attention of the House, could it not do more to pressurise the Palestinian Authority to address that problem? Will Ministers consider strengthening public statements regarding the glorification of violence against Israel in the Palestinian media? That is the way forward to the two-state solution that we all want.

20:00

[Baroness O'Loan (CB)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Soley, for securing this debate. We meet at a time of terrible difficulties in the Middle East. The Geneva II Middle East peace conference is due to start on 22 January. It is to be hoped that it will lead to disarmament, ceasefires, reintegration et cetera.

However, I want to talk about displaced people. The United Nations says that there are about 6 million people now displaced inside Syria, with more than 2.3 million registered refugees living across the region in countries such as Lebanon, Turkey, Jordan and Iraq, all of which are struggling to cope with the number of refugees. About 20% of the refugees live in camps; the rest are in other communities, often living in profoundly difficult circumstances.

Last autumn, I visited a refugee camp for Syrian refugees, Camp Zatary in Jordan. It has a population of between 125,000 and 145,000. It is difficult to know how many there are because people come and go with such fluidity. Some people think that those camps are used by the Syrian fighters for R&R. As refugee camps go, Camp Zatary is a model location. It has a paved street, three hospitals and many shops—you can buy a washing machine or a television—and electricity is available, but it is still a refugee camp, and only Syrians can go there.

However, there are many refugees from Syria who are not Syrian. I think in particular of the Palestinians, about whose plight there has been so much international comment, effort and so on, but which still remains unresolved. It is important, as the parties move to attempt to change the situation in Syria and other parts of the Middle East, that we do not forget the plight of those who have been living for decades in various Middle Eastern countries as displaced people without refugee status and with no proper access to life.

When I was in Jordan, I visited a Gaza camp at Jaresh, a long drive from Amman, perched on the side of a barren mountain in the desert. It has been there since the people fled from Gaza in 1967. They are not recognised as refugees; they are displaced people. The only body that helps them is UNRWA, established in 1967 to care for them. It has very limited resources. In 40-plus years, it has not been able to achieve as much as the UNHCR has achieved at Zatary. The people cannot go back to Gaza: they have no identity, no right to work in the public service or, really, in the private sector, no homeland, no ability to travel and no experience of the world.

There are more than 5,000 children in the school in that camp, educated to a limited degree. They cannot go to university because, apart from a very small number of them, they have to pay international fees. The teachers try to teach them. When we met the children, they told us what they want. We met the girls, and I should like to tell noble Lords what these beautiful, bright, articulate young women, living out their lives on a bleak mountainside, told us. They said that they want to be recognised as human beings with rights, not as people with no identity who are helpless. They want the right to own property. They want to be able to work. They want an education but they said, “If we can’t get an education, we’ll study”. Above all, they want to be happy. They said that everything is about grieving. Even when there might be some happiness, there is still sadness for all that is lost. They want to make a contribution.

The European Union and those who support it could make a difference to those young lives. They could encourage funding to allow those bright young people to take their place in the world. They could conduct an audit of conditions in those forgotten camps. Above all, the United Nations could be facilitated and encouraged by the European Union and its international partners to recognise the responsibilities it has to those forgotten people. UNRWA is not enough. Something needs to be done to improve conditions and bring hope to those displaced Palestinians.

20:04

[The Lord Bishop of Worcester]

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Soley, for securing this debate, because reaching a wider Middle East peace settlement is crucial to the entire world.

I want to focus my short remarks on what Christians refer to as the Holy Land and the welfare of its peoples, in which I have a long-standing personal interest. I have visited regularly for 25 years. At this time last year, I was in Israel, the West Bank and Gaza, visiting projects run by Christian Aid with two other bishops. I shall be there again very shortly with a pilgrimage from the diocese of Worcester.

I should declare my position. I would describe myself as a pro-Palestinian Zionist, wholeheartedly committed to the right of Israel to exist securely, and equally committed to the right of the Palestinian people to a viable state in which they can flourish. Reaching that is crucial to a wider Middle East peace settlement.

The EU can bring great influence to bear, as has already been pointed out. One example of the influence that it can bring to bear is in the new EU guidelines on Israeli settlements in the West Bank. I believe that they are a good development, which is why I have asked Written Questions about their implementation. I do not believe that they change the relationship of the EU to the State of Israel, as has been claimed by some; they simply draw practical, if uncomfortable, conclusions from long-standing EU policy. With this in mind, I was pleased to read of the agreement reached between the Israeli Justice Minister and the EU High Representative, the noble Baroness, Lady Ashton, on the EU Horizon 2020 programme.

When I was in Israel and the Occupied Palestinian Territories this time last year, at the same time as the Israeli election, I was saddened by the way in which a two-state solution seemed to be more remote than ever, with the prospect of building on Zone E1, close to Jerusalem, which would render a contiguous Palestinian state well nigh impossible. I am delighted that John Kerry, the American Secretary of State, has made such good progress in the past few months, although sad that he left the Middle East recently without an official framework agreement between Israeli and Palestinian negotiators. I also regret what has been reported since about substantial building plan announcements for settlements on the West Bank and in east Jerusalem.

Mr Kerry is reported as saying that what matters is a settlement, not lots of settlements. However, the expansion of settlements will not help progress towards a lasting and just peace settlement. That was acknowledged by the Israeli Finance Minister, who was reported this week as remarking that the announcement “complicated” the peace settlement and was a “mistake”.

I hope that, as well as continuing to do all that it is, the EU will expand its efforts to be of help in securing a lasting peace settlement. Although the EU has not been involved to date in the settlement negotiations, I hope that more will be made of the promise, which has already been mentioned this evening, of financial and other incentives in the event of the reaching of a peace settlement.

In short, as a pro-Palestinian Zionist, I hope that the EU will do everything in its power to enable a just and lasting settlement for the Middle East in general.

20:09

[Lord Weidenfeld (CB)]

My Lords, Europe is confronted by three worsening, interpenetrating crises in the Middle East, demanding a new measure of watchfulness, partly because of the somewhat undulating nature of President Obama’s foreign policy of withdrawal and return. The descent of established, although perhaps malgoverned, countries into dysfunctional and even failed states is epitomised by the Syrian tragedy, but Libya, Yemen and now notably Egypt also give cause for great concern.

As regards Syria, the agreement brokered between Putin and Obama might have spared deaths from poisonous gas, but it has left Assad free to continue his mode of warfare unhindered by foreign military intervention or the supply of arms to his opponents. In Egypt where, to some of us, the two brands of authoritarian rule may be anathema, there is little doubt that the military junta gives greater chances for advocating transition to fairer government than the Brotherhood, a fanatical movement with unpredictable aims.

That even the self-assured Turkish regime is now experiencing some turmoil shows how brittle the structure of states in the Muslim world has now become. The violent sectarian Shia and Sunni strife, which has gripped Iraq and threatens Lebanon, is one in which the West must not be seen to interfere. Yet it must be firmly watched for it penetrates the third—and in its way the most immediately dangerous—phenomenon: the coalescing of disparate fanatical jihadist movements into solid fronts. Under al-Qaeda’s inspiration, fanatical militants operate not only in the heart of the Middle East but in Africa and, indeed, in the very heart of the Atlantic world. It is there where Europe has no choice but to fight implacably, systematically and purposefully, for the lives of its citizens are at stake. Moreover, the indoctrination of non-Muslim young people gives cause for concern.

There is one issue where Europe could play an important and, if I may say so, healing part: the settlement of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Having just returned from Israel I believe that the initiative of the US Secretary of State, John Kerry, holds greater promise than many previous ones because he has clearly hit it off with both Palestinians and Israelis. He has had more than 20 meetings with President Abbas and he has a very good relationship with the hawkish Foreign Minister of Israel, Avigdor Lieberman.

The lacerated psyche of both nations needs considerable tact and respect on Europe’s part. Pinpricks from Brussels, such as trade boycotts and academic and other cultural ostracism, inflame only one party. When Israel released a third batch of 26 imprisoned Palestinians, it included a man who killed a woman in the ninth month of pregnancy, three further children and an Israeli soldier trying to prevent this crime; he was hailed by President Abbas as a national hero and a model for Palestinian youth. No doubt, Palestinians could point to deeply offensive incidents allegedly committed by Israelis and, of course, there is the tremendous problem of the settlements.

Let me pause and consider the fact that the total area of settlements in Palestinian land is less than 2%. From talking to various people, I believe that, in a final settlement, a great deal could be done by land swaps and ingenious ways of dealing with this terribly vexed problem.

In conclusion, tact and compassionate understanding for the two sides are very important and where Europe can really do a great deal, and I hope that this House will continue to have important meetings discussing the progress of this issue.

20:14

[Lord Leigh of Hurley (Con)]

My Lords, I draw your attention to my entry in the register of interests, which includes board membership of the Jerusalem Foundation, where I had the honour to serve for a short time with my noble friend Lord Weidenfeld.

Despite having only a few minutes allocated to me, it would seem appropriate to echo the words of my noble friend Lord Carrington and pass condolences to both the State of Israel and the family of the late Ariel Sharon. There is a lot we can learn from his life which, while controversial, nevertheless included taking some enormous steps to promote peace in the region, such as agreeing the road map and the withdrawal from Gaza, despite facing enormous pressures internally and externally. I hope that his passionate and determined pursuit of peace towards the end of his life will encourage others to follow his example.

This debate refers to a wider Middle East peace settlement and there is often a tendency in such debates to focus just on the Israel-Palestine conflict, which is not necessarily the main cause of regional instability. However, in my opinion, economic prosperity for all the parties in that region is one of the keys for peace. This debate is focusing on the efforts made by the EU, and quite rightly, as since 1994 the EU has provided more than €5.6 billion in assistance to the Palestinian people. The United Kingdom has been a very large contributor to this sum. Between 2008 and 2012 it was the third largest contributor of direct financial support after Holland and Sweden, with the United Kingdom’s contribution being about 10% of member states’ specific contributions.

Some of this direct funding has gone to support the rehabilitation of the private sector in Gaza, which must be very welcome. However, the recent European Court of Auditors’ Special Report No. 14, which was published in 2013, draws attention to some very worrying observations, such as that a “considerable number”, in its words, of civil servants in Gaza were being paid without going to work or providing any public service. Furthermore, it is now clear that a significant proportion of the Palestinian Authority’s budget, in part financed by the EU Pegase programme, is used to pay a salary to Palestinian prisoners in Israel, many of whom have been convicted of terrorist activities. This now runs at a rate of nearly £3 million per month and, perversely, the longer the sentence, the greater the salary. While Israel has commendably started to release prisoners, as the noble Lord, Lord Weidenfeld, said, the president of the Palestinian Authority has publicly called such convicted terrorists “heroes”. This does not bode well for changing the mood in the region towards peace. The EU would do well to heed the warnings by listening to the concerns in its own auditors’ report and further reflect on whether it should allow its—and our financial—support for Palestine to be used, in effect, for prisoner salaries.

The EU could do much more to promote peace in this area. Specifically, the funds would be much better used in following the example of the Portland Trust, based here in the UK, and using our resources further to promote Palestinian economic growth, which did in fact achieve an impressive 4.25% in 2013. It is by promoting the prosperity of the region that the EU will enhance the peace process.

20:17

[Lord Anderson of Swansea (Lab)]

My Lords, I warmly congratulate my noble friend Lord Soley and will raise only a few headlines. First, on the context, there is turmoil throughout the Middle East and north Africa region, much of it interconnected. No one can now plausibly blame Israel for that turmoil, with Israel itself being an oasis of stability. Nevertheless the current Israeli Government, with their settlement policy, are surely placing obstacles in the path of a two-state solution, just as the Palestinians raise their own obstacles to peace, as the noble Lord, Lord Palmer, emphasised.

Secondly, the EU’s interests and those of its member states are directly involved throughout the region, not just because of refugees and terrorism. We have a clear interest in seeking to stabilise the region on democratic lines.

Thirdly, I recall the US jibe against Europe: “We do the cooking; you, the Europeans, do the washing-up”. There is surely an element of truth in this. It is Secretary Kerry who has taken the lead, both on the Middle East peace process and over Syria. Yet it is fair to say that the noble Baroness, Lady Ashton, is playing a key role on behalf of the European Union in the rapprochement with Iran, and not just because of the EU sanctions. Is the main strategic political role always to be led by the US and does the EU mainly have a secondary role in institution-building and humanitarian aid? Even if this is inevitable there is surely a key, if subordinate, political role for the EU, not only over Iran but over the quartet and the Syria problem. We should also not decry the washing-up or soft power role. For example, the EU and its member states have spent more than €1 billion in funding Syrian refugees. The EU has also offered attractive carrots to the Palestinians.

Finally, perhaps the Middle East is a test case for the new European External Action Service after its apparent success in Kosovo. By using all its available instruments, the EU has a serious role. There has been real progress on the immediate humanitarian side. In the longer term, there is much EU experience in the building of viable civil society institutions, the rule of law and human rights. This is particularly seen now in Tunisia, the cradle of the Arab awakening.

Back to Palestine: the EU is the largest provider of development aid to the Palestinian territories yet there is surely insufficient conditionality for all the money which is given. Last December, the European Court of Auditors concluded that EU assistance to Palestine has been reasonably effective but it highlighted many areas of concern. I have two final questions. Will the Government press for these to be addressed and, generally, will they seek to make the EU’s political weight in the region more commensurate with our financial contribution?

20:20

[Baroness Nicholson of Winterbourne (LD)]

I add my voice to the praise and thanks to the noble Lord, Lord Soley, for giving us the opportunity today to debate his Question for Short Debate on what role the European Union is playing in the wider Middle East peace settlement. I suggest to the noble Lord that the European Union herself is in fact a centre of peace and stability in a turbulent Middle East and north Africa neighbourhood, and that the European Union can look back with pride on a tremendous historic sweep of achievements. She is today the largest donor to Palestine but, at the same time, has been an absolute determinant in ensuring the best possible two-state solution terms.

The European Union runs a constant and well managed European observation set of missions to some of the more difficult countries in the region: Yemen, Lebanon and Egypt, for example. From the European Parliament’s Iraq permanent standing committee, one member of our earlier grouping is now the United Nations representative to Iraq. A second member of the committee is the EAS representative. In Iran, high activity has been taking place recently but in fact that has been going on for very nearly 15 years now. In Egypt, the European Union has a massive influence. It is perhaps the only constant influence in trying to diminish the horrific female genital mutilation. That rose up to 90% according to the EU ambassadors, including that of the UK, and the US ambassador under the unlamented President Morsi.

Who better to promote women’s rights throughout the region, ranging from Morocco right up to Afghanistan, and who has continued to promote them? The European Union has. I suggest that the very basic structure of the European Union—its strength—is enabling some of the southern nations which are member states to cope with these enormous influxes of refugees.

Of course, it should be no surprise to us that the European Union is so powerful in the region. From the beginning, the aim of the EU was to create a peaceful wider neighbourhood. That is well stated in the first preferential agreement with the Maghreb nations in 1969, followed by the global Mediterranean policy of 1972, with bilateral agreements in the region, and leading on to the third agreement for Mediterranean countries and the famous Barcelona process of 1995. The purpose of the Barcelona process is built on the earlier declaration through,

“a comprehensive partnership between the European Union (EU) and twelve countries of the Southern Mediterranean”,

to create,

“a common area of peace, stability and prosperity through the reinforcement of political dialogue, security, and economic, financial, social and cultural cooperation”.

The Euro-Mediterranean Parliamentary Assembly of 2004 adds the democratic dimension, with 280 members embracing more than 40 nations.

The enlargement, of course, of the European Union, has brought us ever closer to Russia, one of the modern main players, and also, from the beginning, to Turkey. I suggest therefore that the impact on the Middle East of the European Union is enormous, but the impact on member states is also large, no longer fighting each other for funding, power and territory in the Middle East, but working together to forge a lasting peace. I urge Her Majesty’s Government to do more in the European Union and to foster the culture of the European Union being the centre of peace.

20:24

[Baroness Tonge (Ind LD)]

My Lords, I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Soley, on securing this debate. I make no apology for confining my remarks to the peace process between Israel and the Palestinians. The length of time that this has all taken has been one of the main factors in destabilising the Middle East. However, when the final whistle is blown on the talks taking place at the moment, the latest attempt to broker peace, I am not optimistic that we shall have very much to celebrate, and I have not met many people who are. At that point, I contend that the European Union, I hope supported by the United Kingdom, will suspend the EU Israel Association Agreement, depending as it does on Israel respecting the human rights of Palestinians.

John Kerry himself, as reported in Haaretz this week, has warned of moves to delegitimise Israel. He talked of a “boycott campaign on steroids” should talks fail, a point referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Weidenfeld. This boycott campaign is already happening. Settlement goods are being banned from some supermarket chains. Soda Stream, Ahava cosmetics, G4S and Veolia have all been suffering because of association with Israel. The largest water company in the Netherlands has stopped its collaboration with the Israeli water company Mekorot, Romania has banned its workers going to Israel from working in the settlements, and we know that universities here and in South Africa are increasingly calling for academic boycotts. Do we really want that? I certainly do not. Israel will become isolated from the international community and that would be a tragedy.

I want briefly to address an issue which has already been mentioned by the noble Lords, Lord Leigh and Lord Anderson. That is the question of the amount of aid that we pour into the Occupied Territories to support the administration and the police and the general civil service there. The ambassador here has often said that his people want to be free of aid and the occupation in order to run their own economy, the World Bank has pointed out recently that Palestinians could do just that if they were free of Israel’s iron grip on their resources, and, as the noble Lord, Lord Anderson, referred to, there has to be an investigation into corruption among the Palestinian administration. There is no question of that. Our aid money must be spent wisely.

Finally, if talks fail, we must insist that if Israel wants to go on occupying Palestinian land, it should pay for that occupation itself and not rely on the international community, especially the European Union, to foot the bill. We cannot let this injustice continue for another four decades.

20:27

[Lord Mendelsohn (Lab)]

My Lords, I would like to congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Soley, on securing this debate, and associate myself with the very positive comments he made about the role of the noble Baroness, Lady Ashton. I would also like to associate myself with the words of the noble Lords, Lord Leigh and Lord Carrington, in relation to the passing of former Prime Minister Ariel Sharon.

Like many others, I am very encouraged by the discreet and effective initiative led by Secretary of State Kerry and the progress that has been made towards final status. That has clearly changed the dynamic and created both the political space and the political will for progress to be made. I think that there is a role for Europe in not just supporting this progress but starting to work on looking at how to underpin it.

If this current attempt to reach agreement is to work, three external conditions need to hold. First, regional relationships need to be encouraged that provide confidence to the Palestinians and that support Israel’s security. That means work to deepen ties between Israel and its neighbours. Secondly, the region will need to be ready to open trading relationships with the Palestinian economy and to support development and a shift away from aid dependency. Thirdly, during the peace talks, the parties need to be left to find a solution themselves, with the international community helping to limit distractions and being prepared to support the longer-term relationship necessary between both parties and their neighbours.

In support of the latter point, there are clearly certain things that Europe should not do. Most importantly, it should not undermine the current talks by adopting positions that alter the balance of advantage during negotiations. On the positive side, there is an obvious role for the EU and its member states. In this regard, the comments made by the Foreign Secretary last week—regarding the EU’s package of security, political and economic support that would be ready to support a final status agreement—are very welcome indeed.

Any agreement will not make peace overnight. The hard job of establishing peace will take a generation and strong engagement. It is a long commitment to hard and difficult work, and it is what we in Europe can do better than others.

20:30

[Lord Bew (CB)]

My Lords, I, too, thank the noble Lord, Lord Soley, for securing this debate. In his fine book, surveying the EU’s role in the Middle East since the Six-Day War, Professor Rory Miller of King’s College London argued that here was the classic example of Willy Brandt’s famous dictum about the EU—that it was an “economic giant” but a “political dwarf”. That book was published in 2011. It might be argued that we are now at a different moment, thanks to the work of the noble Baroness, Lady Ashton—and this debate has been inspired by the sense that we are to a degree at a different moment. But I will add just a small word of caution.

The United States, whoever the President might be, still remains the key player, rather than the EU, in the Middle East. It is quite clear that, for Iran, the key development is the long-term, back-channel discussions with the United States. I would also ask a question of the EU’s current role in another significant aspect of what is going on in the Middle East: namely, the changing relationship between Israel and the Arab Gulf countries. Again, it is not clear precisely what the EU’s role is.

In saying that, I am not endorsing the dismissive attitude of the Israeli elite towards the EU over quite a period of time, which I think has been a mistake. However, I am saying that the EU has never found a consensus on using its economic power to gain political concessions from Israel, and so far its strategy has not worked. I would argue that, instead, the EU should focus on what it does well—state-building and creating an environment in which Israelis and Palestinians feel comfortable in engaging with each other in areas of mutual benefit, such as water and energy. The EU currently funds the Palestine Academy for Science and Technology, and could do even more to help the high-tech companies and thousands of technology graduates in the Palestinian territories.

Like the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Worcester, I was glad to see the compromise reached by the EU and the noble Baroness, Lady Ashton, with Tzipi Livni, on the subject of the Horizon 2020 programme, which will enhance Israel’s scientific co-operation with Europe. I would like to stress not only that this is to the benefit of Israel, but that it is not in the EU’s interests to drive Israel towards China and India. We have important interests of our own in ensuring the utmost co-operation with Israel’s scientific community.

20:32

[Lord Triesman (Lab)]

My Lords, I, too, thank my noble friend Lord Soley. It is obviously true that the EU’s efforts have been a significant element in the involvement that has been conducted jointly with others, not least the quartet, and with the United States—whose role, as we have just heard, is still vital. Most importantly, all those groups are committed to a two-state solution, as are we. There has been a massive, unsung effort in development and co-operation provided by the EU over many years—in particular in the programmes of the past five years, many of which were directed at young people, with many important initiatives in the universities. I have emphasised that it is essential to engage the next generation positively, and the EU has tried to do so. It is this generation that, as my noble friend Lord Mendelsohn said a few moments ago, will have the work to do.

The EU’s work on the economy of Palestine, with direct financial support, and efforts to improve the role of law, trade and water infrastructure, represents what can be done only at scale—hence the importance of the EU’s role. The disaster programme is of huge importance, and I strongly endorse and was very pleased to hear mentioned the funds referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Leigh, and his endorsement of Sir Ronnie Cohen’s work with the Portland Trust. Of course, much of the work has not succeeded.

I have set myself, in these few moments, a very simple question—the same question, essentially, that was asked by the noble Lords, Lord Kerr, Lord Jay, Lord Hannay, and my noble friend Lord Giddens, last Friday. The EU’s contribution to peace is fundamental, is it not? That was said again today by the noble Baroness, Lady Nicholson. The House has rightly spoken with pride of the efforts of the noble Baroness, Lady Ashton, in respect of Iran, and all the wider implications for the region. Could she have had the same impact if she had spoken simply for the United Kingdom? It is inconceivable.

The EU is a huge political block, comprising major world players acting as one. It is a huge economic entity of 500 million people, where the economic prospects for a peaceful Middle East may well be realised in the arrangements that will subsequently be made. The EU has a responsibility to help, but it also has a responsibility to criticise—to criticise illegal settlements, and also to criticise rocket attacks. Those are all parts of our political responsibility. The Cathy Ashton story is a story about the huge leverage for good created by the European Union. Her success is testimony to its success, and I believe that it is likely to be of deep significance when we reach 22 January.

20:35

[The Senior Minister of State, Department for Communities and Local Government & Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Baroness Warsi) (Con)]

My Lords, I begin by thanking the noble Lord, Lord Soley, for giving us the opportunity for what has been a well attended and wide-ranging debate. As my right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary said in the other place, it is impossible to overstate the challenges and the gravity of the threats in the region if current openings and opportunities in Iran, the Middle East peace process and Syria are not brought to fruition. The UK is working closely with international partners to drive forward progress.

The question today is specifically about the European Union’s contribution to these developments, and I shall now focus on that issue. I endorse the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Triesman, and my noble friend Lady Nicholson of Winterbourne, about the fact that the EU’s leverage and stability allow it to play the positive role that it does in international disputes.

I shall start with Iran. As the Foreign Secretary announced yesterday, the first stage deal reached between the E3+3 and Iran in Geneva on 24 November will come into force on 20 January. This is the first time an agreement has been reached with Iran that halts all elements of Iran’s nuclear programme and, in some cases, rolls it back. UK negotiators worked tirelessly with their E3+3 counterparts and the European External Action Service to achieve this breakthrough. EU sanctions, agreed by all member states, were a significant factor in the success of our policy of pressure, coupled with a readiness to negotiate. I, like other noble Lords, pay tribute to the tremendous work of the noble Baroness, Lady Ashton. Once the six-month period for implementing the Geneva agreement begins, the E3+3 and Iran will enter into intensive negotiations on a comprehensive agreement. We will continue to work closely with the EU and the E3+3 towards a comprehensive solution that addresses all our proliferation concerns.

The noble Lord, Lord Soley, asked about the role that Iran could play in relation to Syria. The Foreign Secretary discussed the need for peace in Syria with Iranian Foreign Minister Zarif in New York last September. He made it clear that Iran could play a constructive role in Syria, including by supporting the Geneva I communiqué. Unfortunately, at this stage that has not been endorsed, but we continue to ask questions, as did the Prime Minister in a letter to Dr Rouhani, about the positive role that Iran could play in relation to a peaceful resolution of the Syria crisis.

The noble Lord, Lord Weidenfeld, spoke of concerns about extremism in Syria. It is not a choice between a tyrant and terrorists in Syria. We must stand with the majority of Syrians, who want peace and freedom, and ultimately require political solutions to what is now an intense humanitarian challenge. That is why we support the attendance at Geneva of the opposition regime too.

The issue of the Middle East peace process was raised by a number of noble Lords. We welcome signs of growing momentum in the Middle East peace process and the continued commitment of Israel and the Palestinians to reach a peace agreement. The EU is a leading trading partner for Israel and the Palestinians and can play a vital role in encouraging progress in the talks. As the noble Lord, Lord Soley, said—the noble Lord, Lord Mendelsohn, referred to this too—on 16 December the EU Foreign Affairs Council agreed conclusions setting out an unprecedented package of European political, economic and security support to both parties in the context of a final status agreement. We are working with the European External Action Service to develop a firm offer in the coming months.

My noble friend Lord Leigh of Hurley spoke about the EU’s financial contribution. The EU is the leading multilateral donor to the Palestinian Authority and provided $2.2 billion of support to the Occupied Territories between 2007 and 2013. This assistance in helping strengthen state institutions, law and order and the provision of essential services in the West Bank and Gaza is essential. In other words, it is helping the Palestinian Authority to build the foundations for a sovereign and viable Palestinian state, which I think the noble Lord, Lord Bew, mentioned. I assure my noble friend Lord Leigh that the UK and EU are working to build the institutions of the Palestinian Authority but accountability and transparency are important goals in strengthening governance.

The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Worcester spoke about settlements. We have repeatedly condemned Israel’s announcements to expand settlements in the Occupied Palestinian Territories, including east Jerusalem. As well as being illegal under international law, settlements undermine the possibility of a two-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and those working for a sustainable peace. We are advising British businesses to bear in mind the British Government’s view on the illegality of settlements under international law when considering their investment and activities in the region. Like my noble friend Lady Tonge, the British Government opposed calls to boycott Israel, but we do not recognise the Occupied Territories, including the settlements, as being a part of Israel. We understand the concerns of people who do not wish to purchase goods exported from Israeli settlements in the Occupied Palestinian Territories. It was in order to enable consumers to make a more fully informed—

[Baroness Tonge]

I thank the Minister for giving way, but I must correct something that she said. I do not oppose calls to boycott Israel; I said that it would be a tragedy if that is what had to happen.

[Baroness Warsi]

My Lords, I stand corrected.

We understand the concerns of people who do not wish to purchase goods exported from Israeli settlements in the Occupied Palestinian Territories. It was in order to enable consumers to make a more fully informed decision concerning the products they buy that in December 2009 the UK introduced voluntary guidelines to enable produce from Israeli settlements in the Occupied Territories to be specifically labelled as such. The EU-wide guidelines on the labelling of settlement produce would be an important step to ensure correct and coherent implementation of EU consumer protection and labelling legislation, which is in fulfilment of our previous commitments and is fully consistent with long-standing EU policy in relation to Israeli settlements in the Occupied Palestinian Territories.

The noble Lord, Lord Carrington of Fulham, spoke about the EU-US role in talks. The EU is working closely to support US efforts. There are serious negotiations under way and we urge both parties to make compromises for peace.

The noble Lord, Lord Palmer of Childs Hill, spoke about Palestinian incitement in the media. We have regularly urged both parties to act against incitement and strongly believe that Abbas is a partner for peace. Now is the time to resolve conflict and move forward.

I turn briefly to the worsening conflict in Syria. As my right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary has said, a negotiated political transition in Syria is the only way forward. The Geneva II peace process will start on 22 January and will bring together, for the first time since the conflict began, the regime and opposition in direct negotiations. EU political support for this diplomatic effort to date has been important. We will do all we can to maximise the chance of Geneva II succeeding.

We continue to play a role in the humanitarian effort. The UK has already committed £500 million to Syria. At tomorrow’s UN pledging conference in Kuwait, we will announce a further major funding commitment. We look to the EU and others to do the same. I will write to the noble Baroness, Lady O’Loan, in relation to Syrian refugees—I have those details here but I think that I shall run out of time.

On the wider role that the EU plays, we have helped to secure the EU designation of Hezbollah’s military wing. The EU has also played an active role on Egypt and on the issue of human rights activists. The noble Baroness, Lady Ashton, has visited Cairo on a number of occasions since July, most recently in October, and has met with a range of interlocutors in Egypt.

In conclusion, achieving a wider Middle East peace settlement is one of the big challenges of our time. Diplomatic progress in Iran, the Middle East peace process and Syria would bring major benefits for the UK and the world. I can assure noble Lords that the UK will continue to work closely with the EU and our international partners and spare no effort to promote peace in the Middle East.

Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Bill

Tuesday 14th January 2014 Lords Chamber

Report (2nd Day) (Continued)

20:45

Clause 105: Sexual harm prevention orders and sexual risk orders, etc

Amendment 87ZA

Moved by

[Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon]

87ZA: Clause 105, page 76, line 37, after “80” insert “to 85, 86”

[Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)]

My Lords, the amendments in this group—namely Amendments 87ZA to 87ZY, 94F, 96A, 96B and 100—make a number of essentially technical and drafting amendments to the provisions in Part 9 of the Bill. These provisions, particularly those to be found in Schedule 5 to the Bill, provide for two new civil orders designed to protect the public from sexual harm, namely the sexual harm prevention order and the sexual risk order.

The substantive amendments relate to three matters. First, youth courts deal with applications for sexual harm prevention orders and sexual risk orders in respect of persons under 18. The amendments to Schedule 5 provide for all such applications to be heard in the youth court. As noble Lords may be aware, the youth court provides a more appropriate setting for juvenile defendants. The magistrates receive specific training and are encouraged to engage in conversation and use plain language with the young person, who is encouraged to respond.

The House has already agreed amendments to Part 1 of the Bill, which enable linked application for an injunction involving respondents aged under 18 and others aged 18 or over to be heard together in the youth court. Amendments 87ZS and 87ZW make like provision in respect of sexual harm prevention orders and sexual risk orders. As in Part 1, the detailed provision will be made in the rules of court and the same test, namely the interests of justice, will apply to the court’s consideration of an application for two or more linked cases to be heard together. This will ensure the effective administration of justice while also allowing cases to be heard in the most appropriate setting.

Amendments 87ZS and 87ZW also make provision for rules of court in relation to individuals who turn 18 after proceedings for an application for an order have begun. The amendments allow rules of court to prescribe circumstances in which proceedings may or must remain in the youth court, or to make provision to transfer the proceedings to the magistrates’ court.

In addition to these amendments, the Bill includes provision for statutory guidance on the new orders and, in developing this, we will continue to work with the police, the Courts Service and others to ensure appropriate guidance on the application of the orders to under-18s is included. This will help to ensure that cases relating to under-18s are treated with the specialist consideration and sensitivity needed.

The second issue addressed by these amendments is to confer powers on the courts in Northern Ireland to vary a sexual harm prevention order or sexual risk order. The new civil order regime will extend to England and Wales only, whereas the relevant provisions in the Sexual Offences Act 2003 currently apply throughout the United Kingdom and will continue to operate in Scotland and Northern Ireland, where they relate to devolved matters. The Bill allows for the prohibitions contained in the new orders to be enforceable in Scotland and Northern Ireland, and for breaches to be prosecuted in the courts in those parts of the United Kingdom.

We have been liaising closely with the devolved Administrations in relation to cross-border enforcement. Amendment 87ZX will allow the court in Northern Ireland to vary a sexual harm prevention order or sexual risk order made in respect of a person who, following the making of the order in England or Wales, now either resides in or intends to come to Northern Ireland. This will be in response to application from the chief constable of the Police Service of Northern Ireland or the defendant. The court may vary an order to impose additional prohibitions if it is necessary to do so for the purposes of protecting the public in Northern Ireland and/or children or vulnerable adults abroad from sexual harm. As in England and Wales, the defendant has a right of appeal against any such variation. Finally, these amendments make consequential amendments to Armed Forces legislation in respect of the operation of the new sexual harm prevention order by the service courts.

Amendment 87ZY enables the service courts to impose a sexual harm prevention order at the point of conviction in respect of an individual who has been dealt with by that court. Under the current regime, service courts may apply sexual offences prevention orders at the point of conviction. This amendment ensures that service courts have the power to impose a sexual harm prevention order where the court considers this necessary for the purposes of protecting the public in the UK, or children or vulnerable adults abroad, from sexual harm.

As with orders imposed by the civilian courts, the defendant may appeal against the making of a sexual harm prevention order to the Court Martial Appeal Court where the order was imposed by the court martial. Where such an order was imposed by the service civilian court, the defendant may appeal to the court martial.

Amendment 87ZY also allows the service court, on application from a provost marshal or the defendant, to vary, renew or discharge a sexual harm prevention order in respect of a defendant who is subject to service law or service discipline at the time of the application. In line with the approach in the civilian court, a service court cannot discharge an order without the consent of the defendant and a provost marshal. Applications to vary, renew or discharge an order may be made by the defendant or a provost martial.

I trust that noble Lords will agree that these are all sensible refinements to the provisions in Part 9 and, on that basis, I beg to move.

Amendment 87ZA agreed.

Amendments 87ZB to 87ZY

Moved by

[Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon]

87ZB: Clause 105, page 76, line 38, leave out “136ZB” and insert “136ZD”

87ZC: Clause 105, page 76, line 41, leave out from “Sections” to “extend” and insert “85A, 96A, 96AA, 110, 117A, 119 and 123 to 129 and Schedule 3A”

87ZD: Clause 105, page 77, line 3, after “80” insert “to 85, 86”

87ZE: Clause 105, page 77, line 9, at end insert—
“(3C) The references to section 96A in subsections (2A) and (3A) are references respectively to—
(a) the section 96A inserted by the Criminal Justice Act (Northern Ireland) 2013, and (b) the section 96A inserted by the Police, Public Order and Criminal Justice (Scotland) Act 2006.”

87ZF: Schedule 5, page 154, line 32, leave out “this Schedule” and insert “paragraphs 2 to 6”

87ZG: Schedule 5, page 156, line 7, leave out “whose commission area” and insert “acting for a local justice area that”

87ZH: Schedule 5, page 156, line 13, at end insert—
“( ) Where the defendant is a child, a reference in this section to a magistrates’ court is to be taken as referring to a youth court (subject to any rules of court made under section 103K(1)).”

87ZJ: Schedule 5, page 160, line 7, at end insert—
“( ) In subsection (5) “the public”, “sexual harm”, “child” and “vulnerable adult” each has the meaning given in section 103B(1).”

87ZK: Schedule 5, page 160, line 20, leave out first “a” and insert “an adult”

87ZL: Schedule 5, page 160, line 20, leave out second “a” and insert “an adult”

87ZM: Schedule 5, page 160, line 23, after first “any” insert “adult”

87ZN: Schedule 5, page 160, line 23, leave out “whose commission area” and insert “acting for a local justice area that”

87ZP: Schedule 5, page 160, line 25, after “order” insert “and the defendant is under the age of 18”

87ZQ: Schedule 5, page 160, line 28, leave out “whose commission area” and insert “acting for a local justice area that”

87ZR: Schedule 5, page 160, line 29, at end insert—
“( ) where a youth court made the order and the defendant is aged 18 or over, an adult magistrates’ court for the area in which the defendant resides or, where the application is made by a chief officer of police, any adult magistrates’ court acting for a local justice area that includes any part of the chief officer’s police area.In this subsection “adult magistrates’ court” means a magistrates’ court that is not a youth court.”

87ZS: Schedule 5, page 163, line 10, at end insert—
“103K SHPOs and interim SHPOs: supplementary
(1) Rules of court—
(a) may provide for a youth court to give permission for an application under section 103A(4) against a person aged 18 or over to be made to the youth court if—(i) an application to the youth court has been made, or is to be made, under that section against a person aged under 18, and(ii) the youth court thinks that it would be in the interests of justice for the applications to be heard together;(b) may, in relation to a person attaining the age of 18 after proceedings against that person by virtue of section 103A, 103E, 103F or 103G(6) or (7) have begun—(i) prescribe circumstances in which the proceedings may or must remain in the youth court;(ii) make provision for the transfer of the proceedings from the youth court to a magistrates’ court that is not a youth court (including provision applying section 103F with modifications).(2) A person’s age is treated for the purposes of sections 103A to 103J and this section as being that which it appears to the court to be after considering any available evidence.”

87ZT*: Schedule 5, page 163, line 34, leave out “whose commission area” and insert “acting for a local justice area that”

87ZU: Schedule 5, page 164, line 36, at end insert—
“( ) Where the defendant is a child, a reference in that section to a magistrates’ court is to be taken as referring to a youth court (subject to any rules of court made under section 122K(1)).”

87ZV: Schedule 5, page 166, leave out lines 29 to 34 and insert—
“(a) where an adult magistrates’ court made the sexual risk order, that court, any adult magistrates’ court for the area in which the defendant resides or, where the application is made by a chief officer of police, any adult magistrates’ court acting for a local justice area that includes any part of the chief officer’s police area;(b) where a youth court made the order and the defendant is under the age of 18, that court, a youth court for the area in which the defendant resides or, where the application is made by a chief officer of police, any youth court acting for a local justice area that includes any part of the chief officer’s police area;(c) where a youth court made the order and the defendant is aged 18 or over, an adult magistrates’ court for the area in which the defendant resides or, where the application is made by a chief officer of police, any adult magistrates’ court acting for a local justice area that includes any part of the chief officer’s police area.In this subsection “adult magistrates’ court” means a magistrates’ court that is not a youth court.”

87ZW: Schedule 5, page 169, line 41, at end insert—
“122K Sexual risk orders and interim sexual risk orders: supplementary
(1) Rules of court—
(a) may provide for a youth court to give permission for an application under section 122A against a person aged 18 or over to be made to the youth court if—(i) an application to the youth court has been made, or is to be made, under that section against a person aged under 18, and(ii) the youth court thinks that it would be in the interests of justice for the applications to be heard together;(b) may, in relation to a person attaining the age of 18 after proceedings against that person by virtue of section 122A, 122D or 122E have begun—(i) prescribe circumstances in which the proceedings may or must remain in the youth court;(ii) make provision for the transfer of the proceedings from the youth court to a magistrates’ court that is not a youth court (including provision applying section 122E with modifications).(2) A person’s age is treated for the purposes of sections 122A to 122J and this section as being that which it appears to the court to be after considering any available evidence.”

87ZX: Schedule 5, page 171, line 26, at end insert—
“136ZC  Variation of sexual harm prevention order by court in Northern Ireland
(1) This section applies where a sexual harm prevention order has been made in respect of a person who now—
(a) is residing in Northern Ireland, or(b) is in or is intending to come to Northern Ireland.(2) An application may be made to the appropriate court in Northern Ireland—
(a) by the defendant, or(b) by the Chief Constable,for an order varying the sexual harm prevention order.(3) An application under subsection (2) may be made—
(a) where the appropriate court is the Crown Court, in accordance with rules of court;(b) in any other case, by complaint.(4) Subject to subsections (5) and (6), on the application the court, after hearing the person making the application and the other person mentioned in subsection (2) (if that person wishes to be heard), may make any order varying the sexual harm prevention order that the court considers appropriate.
(5) An order may be varied so as to impose additional prohibitions on the defendant only if it is necessary to do so for the purpose of—
(a) protecting the public in Northern Ireland, or any particular members of the public in Northern Ireland, from sexual harm from the defendant, or(b) protecting children or vulnerable adults generally, or any particular children or vulnerable adults, from sexual harm from the defendant outside the United Kingdom.(6) An order as varied under this section may contain only such prohibitions as are necessary for the purpose of—
(a) protecting the public or any particular members of the public from sexual harm from the defendant, or(b) protecting children or vulnerable adults generally, or any particular children or vulnerable adults, from sexual harm from the defendant outside the United Kingdom.(7) The defendant may appeal against the making of an order under this section, or the refusal to make such an order—
(a) where the application for such an order was made to the Crown Court, to the Court of Appeal in Northern Ireland;(b) in any other case, to a county court in Northern Ireland.(8) On an appeal under subsection (7)(b), the county court may make such orders as may be necessary to give effect to its determination of the appeal, and may also make such incidental or consequential orders as appear to it to be just.
(9) In this section—
“the appropriate court” means—(a) where the sexual harm prevention order was made by—(a) the Crown Court, otherwise than on appeal from a magistrates’ court, or(b) the Court of Appeal, the Crown Court (in Northern Ireland); the Crown Court (in Northern Ireland);(b) where—(a) the sexual harm prevention order was made by a magistrates’ court, or by the Crown Court on appeal from a magistrates’ court, and(b) the defendant is aged 18 or over,any court of summary jurisdiction in Northern Ireland;any court of summary jurisdiction in Northern Ireland;(c) where—(a) the defendant is aged under 18, and(b) paragraph (a) does not apply,any youth court in Northern Ireland;any youth court in Northern Ireland;“the Chief Constable” means the Chief Constable of the Police Service of Northern Ireland;“sexual harm”, “child” and “vulnerable adult” each has the meaning given in section 103B(1).136ZD  Variation of sexual risk order by court in Northern Ireland
(1) This section applies where a sexual risk order has been made in respect of a person who now—
(a) is residing in Northern Ireland, or(b) is in or is intending to come to Northern Ireland.(2) An application may be made to the appropriate court in Northern Ireland—
(a) by the defendant, or(b) by the Chief Constable,for an order varying the sexual risk order.(3) Subject to subsections (4) and (5), on the application the court, after hearing the person making the application and the other person mentioned in subsection (2) (if that person wishes to be heard), may make any order varying the sexual risk order that the court considers appropriate.
(4) An order may be varied so as to impose additional prohibitions on the defendant only if it is necessary to do so for the purpose of—
(a) protecting the public in Northern Ireland, or any particular members of the public in Northern Ireland, from harm from the defendant, or(b) protecting children or vulnerable adults generally, or any particular children or vulnerable adults, from harm from the defendant outside the United Kingdom.(5) An order as varied under this section may contain only such prohibitions as are necessary for the purpose of—
(a) protecting the public or any particular members of the public from harm from the defendant, or(b) protecting children or vulnerable adults generally, or any particular children or vulnerable adults, from harm from the defendant outside the United Kingdom.(6) The defendant may appeal against the making of an order under this section, or the refusal to make such an order, to a county court in Northern Ireland.
(7) On an appeal under subsection (6), the county court may make such orders as may be necessary to give effect to its determination of the appeal, and may also make such incidental or consequential orders as appear to it to be just.
(8) In this section—
“the appropriate court” means—(a) where the defendant is aged 18 or over, any court of summary jurisdiction in Northern Ireland;(b) where the defendant is aged under 18, any youth court in Northern Ireland;“the Chief Constable” means the Chief Constable of the Police Service of Northern Ireland;“harm”, “child” and “vulnerable adult” each has the meaning given in section 122B(1).”

87ZY: Schedule 5, page 171, line 26, at end insert—
“Service courts(1) Section 137 of the Sexual Offences Act 2003 (service courts) is amended as follows.
(2) In subsection (2), for “104(1)” there is substituted “103A(1)”.
(3) For subsection (3) there is substituted—
“(3) Where the court making a sexual harm prevention order is a service court—
(a) sections 103A(3) to (8), 103F and 103J do not apply;(b) sections 103A(1) and (2), 103B to 103E and 103G to 103I apply—(i) subject to paragraphs (c) and (d), and(ii) as if they extended to the whole of the United Kingdom;(c) in relation to an application under section 103E in respect of a defendant who at the time of the application is a person subject to service law or a civilian subject to service discipline—(i) the application may be made only by the defendant or a Provost Martial, and must be made to the Court Martial;(ii) consent under section 103E(6) must be the consent of the defendant and a Provost Martial;(iii) an appeal against the making of an order under section 103E, or the refusal to make such an order, must be made to the Court Martial Appeal Court;(d) in relation to an application under section 103E in respect of a defendant who at the time of the application is neither a person subject to service law nor a civilian subject to service discipline— (i) the application must be made to the Crown Court in England and Wales;(ii) an appeal against the making of an order under section 103E, or the refusal to make such an order, must be made to the Court of Appeal in England and Wales.”(4) In subsection (4)—
(a) for “section “service court” means” there is substituted “section—“civilian subject to service discipline” has the same meaning as in the Armed Forces Act 2006 (see section 370 of that Act);“service court” means”;(b) at the end there is inserted—““subject to service law” has the same meaning as in the Armed Forces Act 2006 (see section 374 of that Act).”(5) After subsection (5) there is inserted—
“(6) Paragraphs (c)(i) and (d)(i) of subsection (3) have effect, in relation to a sexual harm prevention order made by the Court Martial Appeal Court, as if the reference to a service court in that subsection included a reference to that court.”

Amendments 87ZB to 87ZY agreed.

Clause 109: Offence of forced marriage: England and Wales

Amendment 87ZZ

Moved by

[Baroness Thornton]

87ZZ: Clause 109, page 79, line 41, at end insert—
“( ) A person also commits an offence under the law of England and Wales if he or she causes another person to enter into a marriage and that other person lacks the capacity to consent to that marriage.”

[Baroness Thornton (Lab)]

My Lords, before I speak specifically to my amendment, I should like to mention a broader aspect of the discussion about forced marriage.

In Committee, my noble and learned friend Lady Scotland raised her serious concerns in detail with the Minister and, since that time, has had a meeting with him and his colleagues. She is unable to be with us today due to urgent family business and is disappointed not to be here because she believed that this matter would be discussed next week on Report.

Today, I have received a letter from Dr Aisha Gill, Sumanta Roy from Imkaan, and Hannana Siddiqui from Southall Black Sisters registering their opposition to the Government’s proposals to introduce a specific crime of forced marriage. I suspect that the Minister has received the same correspondence. On behalf of my noble and learned friend, I should like to put on the record, as I said in earlier proceedings on the Bill, that the route that the Government have chosen for this matter did not receive uniform support. I mention the Southall Black Sisters, the Ashiana Network, Imkaan, Rights of Women and the JAN Trust by way of counterbalance to the seemingly singular narrative that has been advocated for the victims of forced marriage. I know that the Minister this week intends to meet the stakeholders who share these concerns, and I therefore wonder if he will be taking their views into account over how we might do that at this late stage in the Bill.

I turn to the amendment and the issue that we discussed in Committee. This is a hidden problem. In cases of the forced marriage of a vulnerable adult, the violence, threats or coercion to which the Bill specifically refers are often not necessary to force a person to marry, due to the lack of capacity of the victim. Deception is not necessarily a factor and, consequently, the amendment seeks to make it an offence if a person forces another person to marry when that person lacks the capacity to consent to the marriage.

It is worth noting why forced marriages of people with learning disabilities happen. Marriage can sometimes be seen as a means of providing a carer and continuing support. Parents may be the primary carers and, as they get older and less able to provide support; they may view marriage as a means of ensuring continuing care for their son or daughter with learning disabilities. Marriage can be seen as a means of improving the chances of getting a visa to the UK. A person with learning disabilities may be seen as easy to deceive or coerce into such a marriage and then act as the visa sponsor. Families may believe that the marriage will cure the learning disability or allow a person with learning disabilities to lead a normal life.

It is difficult to find the figures for people with learning disabilities involved in forced marriages. The Forced Marriage Unit estimates that 115 of the cases it has received involve people with disabilities, but it is not clear whether they have learning disabilities or lack of capacity. I have seen an estimate of 50 in 2012. However, the Ann Craft Trust believes that this is the tip of an iceberg and that hundreds of adults who lack capacity are being forced into marriage. Mencap believes the same; its chief executive says:

“People with a learning disability can be particularly vulnerable to forced marriage … People with a learning disability have a right to express their emotions and sexuality, and to develop personal relationships, just like anyone else. The issue here is that incidences of forced marriage can involve people with a learning disability who are unlikely to have the capacity to consent to such a relationship”.

The guidelines that have been reissued recently are excellent in the way that they describe this problem and how to deal with it. It is the words in the Bill that concern me. On this side of the House we are still not convinced that they cover somebody who lacks capacity.

Another problem is the lack of facilities, experience or support for people with learning disabilities who are involved in forced marriage. I gather that there is one refuge that is equipped to deal with forced marriage victims who have learning disabilities. Asha Jama, the manager of Beverley Lewis House, a refuge in east London, says that there is a terrible lack of options for people with learning disabilities who are escaping abuse and forced marriage. She says that the problem is compounded by social care cuts and that statutory authorities are placing the victims in supported living service or care homes, which are not services geared to provide the specialist support needed to address the abuse that these people have faced.

The amendment seeks to add a third point to Clause 109 which recognises:

“A person also commits an offence under the law of England and Wales if he or she causes another person to enter into a marriage and that other person lacks the capacity to consent to that marriage”.

We think that provides completeness to this part of the Bill.

Finally, I ask the Minister how the Government intend to respond to what looks like an increasing incidence of people who lack capacity being forced into marriage. Can we have some assurance about monitoring and reporting the effectiveness of the legislation in dealing with this particular issue? I beg to move.

[Baroness Tonge (Ind LD)]

My Lords, I wish to make a brief intervention in support of the noble Baroness, Lady Thornton. Her remarks about forced marriage when someone lacks capacity are entirely right. We should be very concerned about this. I think there is evidence from the medical profession that many of these cases occur and could be on the increase, although I would not know that.

Secondly, on the debate about whether forced marriage should be a criminal offence, the noble Baroness listed organisations that were against that happening. I can list organisations that are in favour of that happening—Girls not Brides and the Iranian and Kurdish Women’s Rights Organisation, to give two examples. We discussed this issue in great detail in A Childhood Lost, the report from the All-Party Parliamentary Group on Population, Development and Reproductive Health, which I chair.

20:59

[Lord Harris of Haringey (Lab)]

My Lords, I declare an interest as chair of the Freedom Charity, which works to provide education and support for individuals who may be at risk of forced marriage. The noble Baroness, Lady Tonge, is right to highlight that many organisations believe that the Government are correct in trying to make forced marriage a criminal offence. The Freedom Charity is precisely one of those organisations and, in my view, the Government’s approach to this is right.

However, the amendment moved by my noble friend Lady Thornton, as opposed to the general principle which seems to have been aired, raises another, separate and extremely important issue—the circumstances in which an individual who has been forced into marriage lacks proper capacity to consent to that marriage. I have no doubt that we will be told by the Minister that somehow that is covered by the phrase at the end of Clause 109(1)(b) about a person entering into a marriage,

“without free and full consent”.

I understand that argument, but it seems to me that nothing is lost and rather a lot is gained by specifically highlighting the problems of those who may not have the capacity to consent to a marriage.

I am in no doubt that there are instances where young people, or not so young people, who have limited capacity are being forced into marriages, perhaps from benign motives—that is, to protect or support them—but perhaps also from less benign motives. Forced marriage is pretty abhorrent in itself, but the implications of forcing into marriage somebody who does not even understand what is happening to them seems to me particularly vile and is something that I hope this legislation will address.

That is why the amendment moved by my noble friend Lady Thornton is important, and I hope that the Government will be prepared to accept and support it. As I said, I understand that they will no doubt say that,

“without free and full consent”,

covers the point but, unless it is highlighted and unless the particularly vulnerable state of people with limited capacity is made clear, a great opportunity is being lost. Making it a specific and separate criminal offence is important, and I hope that the Minister will be able to accept the amendment.

[Baroness Hamwee (LD)]

My Lords, when I first saw the amendment, I thought that, as the noble Lord, Lord Harris, has just said, it was covered by Clause 109(1)(b). However, I realised that it is not, because paragraph (b) comes into play only if paragraph (a) applies. Therefore, my question to the Minister is: what does “coercion” in paragraph (a) mean? If the argument is that it is covered, I think that we need to understand the extent of coercion and whether that covers the situation that the noble Baroness has set out.

While I am on my feet, perhaps I may say that I hope my noble friend Lady Tonge will seek the leave of the House to speak to her amendments in this group. She got so carried away with enthusiasm for the noble Baroness’s amendment that she forgot to cover them. I am intrigued by my noble friend’s amendments. We were all left floundering somewhat listening to the debate on their predecessor amendments in Committee, knowing that there were good intentions behind them but not quite finding the means to support them because we were rather doubtful about them. These amendments are much more comprehensible.

[Baroness Tonge]

My Lords, with the leave of the House, I should like to carry on with my remarks, as I had intended to introduce Amendments 87A and 87B. They seek to make it an offence under the law of England and Wales if someone is,

“the parent or guardian of a child, and … gives consent for that child to enter into marriage before the age of 18 unless the written consent of both parties to the marriage has been obtained”.

The reason we have tried to clarify this is due to a lot of experience from all around in our all-party group. I must emphasise that we also want these provisions to apply to marriages contracted abroad, not just in this country. I must apologise for not being present at Committee stage; I was abroad at another conference so my noble friend Lord Rea spoke on my behalf.

We have good laws in place to make forced marriage illegal and these are strengthened by this Bill. I would like to commend the excellent work being done by the Forced Marriage Unit at the Home Office, which really is commendable. These amendments seek to close a loophole which I think still exists concerning children between the ages of 16 and 18. In general, not every forced marriage is a child marriage, but every child marriage is usually forced; hardly any take place with the agreement of the participants, who are often tricked into marriage by their families on the pretext of going on holiday or some treat or other.

According to the international Convention on the Rights of the Child, to which the UK is a signatory, a person is a child until the age of 18. I notice that in Committee some noble Lords felt that, if children could vote at 16 and join the Armed Forces at 18, they should be allowed to marry at 16 with the consent of their parents. However, I would contend that marriage is a very binding contract indeed, from which it is very difficult to escape. A young person can leave the Armed Forces and can refuse to vote, but they cannot easily get out of a marriage that was contracted sometimes without their consent.

If young people want to have, hopefully protected, sex—which many do; I was not born yesterday—they can do so legally after the age of 16. If they want to live together in many cultures now, they can do so legally after the age of 16. So what is wrong with asking them to delay the legally binding step of marriage until they are 18? That, however, is not the point of my amendment, but I had to say that because I feel very strongly about it. I know that noble Lords rejected that in Committee.

At present, any parent who wishes to force a marriage on their son or daughter can do so by claiming that consent has been given if the child is between 16 and 18. In Clause 109(1)(b), the Bill mentions the “full and free consent” of the individuals concerned. However, it does not specifically mention this group between 16 and 18, who can marry with parental consent. I think this needs clarifying. We must make as certain as possible that children involved have given their consent too.

I was horrified years ago, when I worked among Indian and Pakistani communities as a doctor, at how many of my patients were whisked away from school and married as soon as they were 16 years old. I remember two girls in particular, who were twins, who had done absolutely brilliantly in their O-levels. They were crying as they told me that it was now time to go back to the subcontinent to be married to men whom they had never seen, one of whom was illiterate. All their hopes of university and a career were dashed by parental consent to their marriage.

I thought the practice had nearly died out until the all-party group which I chair produced a report called A Childhood Lost. We heard from many witnesses who related their stories of being taken abroad for a holiday, only to be shut away on arrival until their marriage to an unknown groom had taken place. There were others whose religious marriage had been contracted during early childhood on a holiday and then was ratified with parental consent as soon as they were 16 years old. All of this happened with total disregard of the wishes of the young people concerned.

We know that marriage as early as 16 is a public health issue as well as a violation of human rights. It takes away opportunity for education and economic independence; it is associated with violence, rape and sexual abuse; it contributes to higher rates of maternal morbidity and mortality and contributes to poor child development. We know that around 5,000 to 8,000 young people are at risk of being forced into marriage in this country every year, based on research done by our Government in 2011. A higher number may not have been counted because they were over 16 and it will be argued that the parents have not forced the marriage but have given their consent.

This is my last ditch attempt to try to strengthen this Bill. I ask the House to support these amendments that I have put forward, which apply to Scotland as well, as an attempt to ensure that consent to marriages has also been given by the two children to be married in that age group. I think that the consent should be given verbally and in writing.

[Lord Hope of Craighead (CB)]

Before the Minister replies, perhaps I could say a word about Amendment 87B, which, as the noble Baroness has just explained, applies to Scotland. I am sure that it is very well intentioned and I hope that I will not alarm the noble Baroness too much when I say that there is an error in the way that these two amendments are presented. They assume that the law of Scotland is the same as the law of England. It is not.

The law of Scotland—which may alarm the noble Baroness—is that anyone over the age of 16 is free to marry, and parental consent is not required. That was common law for generations and is written into Section 1 of the Marriage (Scotland) Act 1977. It is actually one of the reasons why Gretna Green attracted attention. People could elope over the border to Gretna Green, establish residence in Scotland and marry without parental consent, provided they were over 16 and there was no other impediment to marriage.

That is a bit of history; the point is that the amendment as worded does not really fit in with Scots law. If the amendment were to attract Minister’s sympathy, I respectfully suggest that it would have to be altered. Proposed new subsection (2A)(b) would have to say that a person commits an offence if he or she,

“gives consent for that child to enter into marriage”,

that requires parental consent,

“unless the written consent of both parties to the marriage has been obtained”.

It is perfectly possible that two people living in Scotland want to contract a marriage somewhere else where parental consent is needed. In that situation, indeed, if the amendment is reworded it would have some force. But as it is put, it would seem to completely revolutionise the law of Scotland as a whole. That is not really appropriate because of the existing statutory position in Scotland. An amendment as radical as that would need the consent of the Scottish Parliament, which I do not think has been obtained. If the wording was changed, as I suggest, to remove the words,

“before the age of 18”,

and to add, “which requires parental consent”, it would fit exactly with what the noble Baroness intends.

[Baroness Tonge]

I thank the noble Lord for his advice. I was aware of the situation in Scotland, but I was not aware that we could not actually alter the amendment in the way that I intended. However, I thank him for his advice.

[Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon]

My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who participated in this debate. I am particularly grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, and my noble friend Lady Tonge for setting out the case for their amendments. The noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, talked about the general issue of forced marriage. In Committee, full discussion took place with the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Scotland, who I regret is unable to be with us today. My noble friend Lord Taylor of Holbeach and I had several meetings with her on this issue. I want to put on record my personal appreciation, and that of the Government, for the sterling work that she did in her various capacities as a government Minister, particularly her role in establishing the Forced Marriage Unit. I know that she comes to this issue with great expertise and knowledge, which have been a useful and extremely important part of the debate that we have had.

As was said by the noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, and by my noble friend Lady Tonge, whichever way you look at this particular issue, we are all agreed that coercion in marriage and forced marriage are things that need to be tackled. The previous Government took the issue forward in positive ways, and I fully acknowledge that in the course of our considerations and debate, and in our discussions both in Committee and outside the House, opinions have been expressed on all sides of the argument.

I have heard the reservations, and the noble Baroness mentioned the meetings that my noble friend Lord Taylor of Holbeach will be having in this regard. We hope that all organisations, wherever they stand on the issue of criminalisation, will support and work with the Government to ensure that the implementation of these proposals is effective and—what is most important—will help support those who are the vulnerable victims of this terribly tragic and heinous crime. There is no better way of explaining what this issue is.

21:15

As I said in Committee, after considering everything, we believe that the issue of marriage without consent or without the capacity to consent—I will come on to the specific proposals in a moment—is totally unacceptable. By making forced marriage a criminal offence, we believe that we will send out a clear and unequivocal message that this brutal practice will not be tolerated in the UK. The Government are clear that we want to capture forced marriages where someone does not or cannot consent.

I turn now to Amendment 87ZZ. The noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, explained that the amendment seeks to ensure that the Bill considers an individual’s ability to consent to marriage. The noble Lord, Lord Harris—again, I commend him on his work in this regard—also mentioned that this would be the Government’s response. We retain our position that we believe that Clause 109 provides that a person commits an offence if he or she,

“believes, or ought reasonably to believe, that the conduct may cause the other person to enter the marriage without free and full consent”.

A person who lacks capacity to enter a marriage is of course incapable of giving free and full consent to it. While I appreciate the intention of the noble Baroness, I am not persuaded that the amendment is necessary. I am satisfied that the definitions in the Bill are adequate and already capture the intended effect of the proposed amendments. Multi-agency practice guidelines have been in existence since 2010 to support practitioners tasked with tackling forced marriage involving victims with a learning disability. Where necessary, the Forced Marriage Unit works closely with adult social services to ensure that a capacity assessment is carried out to determine whether the individual does indeed have the capacity to consent to marriage. As I indicated, I share the noble Baroness’s wish to see all instances of forced marriage comprehensively dealt with, particularly in the case of vulnerable adults.

I shall refer briefly to the guidelines mentioned by the noble Baroness. I acknowledge and appreciate her specific comments on them. They provide step-by-step advice for those who work with people with learning disabilities. After all, they may have only one chance to speak to the potential victim and therefore only one chance to save a life. This means that all professionals working in the statutory agencies must be aware of their responsibilities when they come across suspected forced marriage situations. I fully acknowledge that this is even more important for people with learning disabilities. There is an even greater onus on the practitioner to recognise the warning signs. We hope and intend that the guidance will ensure that all practitioners working with people with learning difficulties are aware of their responsibilities and will not let one chance to save a victim be lost. In this regard, after the passing of the legislation, we hope to revisit the guidelines to further strengthen the hand of practitioners and to increase awareness of this issue.

I turn to some of the specific questions that were raised. The noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, talked about how we will review the legislation and take it forward. We regularly take NGO partners’ views into account, as demonstrated by our public consultation on criminalisation. Let me assure the noble Baroness as well as your Lordships’ House that all views were considered and all shaped the way the legislation has come together. The quarterly meetings of the forced marriage NGO partnership board are the forum for reviewing current and future guidance documents, and membership of this group comprises a number of key organisations that are both in favour of and, indeed, against the introduction of criminalisation. These include organisations such as Southall Black Sisters, mentioned by the noble Baroness.

My noble friend Lady Hamwee referred to Clause 109(1) and to how the two paragraphs might be used. The Government’s view is that the clause, taken as a whole, provides protection for such vulnerable individuals, and that the definition of coercion that my noble friend asked for, in this context, means the application of pressure. The phrase,

“any other form of coercion”,

is deliberately drafted very broadly—we have discussed this with legal counsel across government—so as to encompass a wide range of behaviours. For example, I am sure that many noble Lords have come across a situation where various pressures are put on people who find themselves in this situation. The pressures could be financial, emotional or—

[Baroness Thornton]

I thank the Minister for allowing me to press him on this point. Actually, the point is that there will be no coercion. There does not need to be any coercion as the person lacks capacity. Therefore, they cannot consent, or withhold their consent, because they do not know that they can do either of those things. The parents concerned may think that they are doing exactly the right thing for that son or daughter, whether a young person or not. In other words, the Bill as drafted does not cover that point. No coercion is being used, and no coercion is needed, as the person lacks capacity. I do not think the definition of coercion that the Minister has mentioned at previous points in the Bill covers that.

[Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon]

Again, I totally understand and respect the noble Baroness’s position. She is correct in saying that, often, the people who may be forced into a marriage would be unaware of the situation. The point she raised about parents is also well made. However, as the legislation stands, they would not have given their “full” consent, which means that they had the capacity to give that consent. I see that the noble Lord wishes to speak.

[Lord Harris of Haringey]

The point here is not the consent but whether coercion has taken place. The noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, put it very clearly: for an offence to be committed, both paragraphs (a) and (b) have to apply. It is not a question of whether consent has been given or not under paragraph (b) but a question of whether or not there has been coercion. This will not necessarily be coercion. It may simply be suggestion, which I do not think counts as coercion. The context is that you have to do both (a) and (b), so there has to be either the use of “violence” and “threats”—which does not necessarily have to happen—

“or any other form of coercion”.

However, this will not necessarily be coercion. I will carry on explaining the point to allow assistance to come from the Box. It is an extremely important issue.

There is the question of coercion, which leads to somebody entering into a marriage, and the question of consent. I think we all agree that people with limited capacity will not be able to give consent. However, that, in itself, does not create an offence, because they may not have been coerced. A highly suggestible person with learning difficulties may simply have been told, “This is going to be nice, you are going to enjoy this and this is going to be fun. So-and-so is going to look after you and take you to the cinema”. I do not know what the form of suggestion might be, or how it might be put, but that is the context in which it would happen. It is not the same as coercion—that is the difficulty. As far as I can tell—the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, put it very clearly—you need both coercion and the failure to consent before you have committed an offence. That is why my noble friend Lady Thornton’s amendment is so important.

[Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon]

I thank the noble Lord and the noble Baroness for their interventions and will return to that point before I conclude my comments. The point is well made and understood, but I will continue while I await clarification. My understanding on this issue is that any person taking part in a marriage would have to give their consent. The view is that, if no consent is given, it would not be deemed to be a valid contract. However, as I said, I will clarify that point in a moment.

I turn to Amendments 87A and 87B tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Tonge. I shall explain that these amendments relate to the process by which a young person aged 16 or 17 may consent to the marriage. Following the Committee stage, I have had the opportunity to meet the noble Baroness and I welcome the opportunity again to discuss this important issue today. These amendments would make it an offence for the parent or guardian to consent to a marriage of a person or persons before the age of 18 unless the written consent of both parties to the marriage has been obtained. The offence would also extend to marriages contracted outside the UK.

I understand that the noble Baroness is concerned that under the current law parents may give consent to force marriage on a 16 or 17 year-old who may not wish to marry. However, I do not believe this amendment is necessary because the law already provides adequate safeguards for children who are aged 16 to 17 and are entering into marriages.

The law in England and Wales, as contained in Section 2 of the Marriage Act 1949, provides that if a marriage, be it civil or religious, is solemnized and either or both of the parties is under the age of 16 that marriage will be void. If the child is aged 16 or 17, Section 3 of the Marriage Act 1949 requires the consent of the child’s parents or guardians, unless the child is a widow or a widower.

I appreciate that Amendment 87A seeks to add additional safeguards to the current law rather than preventing the marriage of 16 and 17 year-olds outright. However, I consider that the additional need for the written consent of parties is unnecessary. If any person is forced into a marriage without their consent, the provisions in this Bill which will make it a criminal offence to seek to force someone to marry will apply regardless of the age of the party concerned. In addition, any forced marriage would be voidable under Section 12(c) of the Matrimonial Causes Act 1973 on grounds of lack of valid consent.

If someone is being forced into marriage, it is foreseeable that they could be forced to provide written consent. Therefore, I do not believe that this provision would achieve the noble Baroness’s desired effect of preventing forced marriages. However, I understand totally the noble Baroness’s concerns and I share her desire to ensure that we do everything we can to protect 16 and 17 year-olds—as well as others—from forced marriage. In regard to the points made by the noble Baroness, I will keep the provisions in the Bill under review and, as we have previously discussed, consider the issue of how the legislation is currently drafted to see whether there is something more that we can return to at Third Reading.

Turning to the application of such a provision to marriages contracted outside the United Kingdom, there is no legislation in England and Wales on this issue and matters of recognition of such marriages in England and Wales are for the courts to determine. However, I consider that the courts already have the necessary powers to provide adequate safeguards for children entering into marriages outside the UK. Generally speaking, the validity of a marriage contracted outside the UK will be governed by the law of the country in which it was contracted. However, if there were questions as to the capacity or age of one or both parties to such a marriage, the courts in England and Wales could refuse to recognise the marriage for the purposes of England and Wales law.

I therefore consider that the need for the written consent of parties is unnecessary in respect of marriages contracted outside the UK. We also do not believe that applying this sort of provision to marriages contracted outside the UK would be practical or appropriate. For example it would, in our view, be extremely difficult to enforce.

Finally, I turn to Amendment 87B, which seeks to make identical provision to Amendment 87A in respect of Scotland. This is a devolved issue, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope of Craighead, underlined.

Perhaps I may turn to the issue just raised on Section 109. The Forced Marriage Unit carried out a full review of the cases dealt with in relation to victims with learning disabilities and mental health issues and could not find any cases in which there was no element of coercion. Where there is an element of coercion, we do not wish to criminalise the behaviour concerned. Rather, the appropriate recourse is for the individual to apply to the court for the marriage to be declared void under Section 12 of the Matrimonial Causes Act.

[Baroness Thornton]

This House has a reputation for dealing with issues to do with mental capacity. We have spent many months discussing the issue of capacity and how best to protect people who lack it. We have a great body of legislation which protects people who lack capacity. I ask the Minister to look again as to whether this really protects people who lack capacity as people in this House believe that it does not. It would be awful if we found, further down the track, that we got this wrong and we were not protecting people who lack capacity.

21:30

[Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon]

Hearing what the noble Baroness and, indeed, the noble Lord, have said, with the leave of the House, I will return to this issue. I will consider its practical application with my noble friend. When the noble Lord, Lord Harris, was speaking, I was listening attentively but, as he rightly said, I was waiting for inspiration from the Box. This is too important an issue to deal with in a non-comprehensive way so, as I said, I would like to return to it.

[Baroness Hamwee]

My Lords, when the Minister is considering this with his advisers, on the point about an application to the court, will he consider both the practicality and the legal capacity of the people we are concerned about to make that application?

[Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon]

That is a valid point. I have had discussions with officials on the issue of ensuring assistance. If someone has not had the mental capacity to consent, would they have the mental capacity to take up the issue? That is a point understood and well made.

I hope that, based on the assurances and clarification that I have given that we will look at the issue again, at this juncture the noble Baroness will be prepared to withdraw her amendment.

[Baroness Thornton]

I thank the Minister for his usual comprehensive and comprehensible response. I am very grateful for the fact that the Government have agreed to think about this again and, of course, we will be very happy to help them to do so. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 87ZZ withdrawn.

Amendment 87A not moved.

Clause 110: Offence of forced marriage: Scotland

Amendment 87B not moved.

Amendment 88

Moved by

[Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon]

88: Clause 110, page 81, line 21, leave out “2” and insert “7”

[Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon]

My Lords, Clause 110 creates two offences of forced marriage in Scotland that mirror the offences in Clause 109 for England and Wales. The Scottish Parliament is currently considering the necessary legislative consent Motion. The amendment relates to the penalty on conviction on indictment for the new offence. Initially, the Scottish Government opted for this to be imprisonment for a period not exceeding two years, as that was in line with similar penalties in Scotland. The Scottish Government have given further consideration to the issue and concluded that if we are providing consistency across the UK by criminalisation, we should seek to extend the consistency by applying the same maximum penalties on indictment. The maximum sentence of seven years has been set to cover the most serious behaviour imaginable under the offence. We have looked closely at other existing offences, international comparators and related maxima in proposing the new maximum sentence. I beg to move.

Amendment 88 agreed.

Amendment 89

Moved by

[Lord Marlesford]

89: After Clause 110, insert the following new Clause—
“Part 10AForeign enlistmentOffence of participation in armed conflict against a foreign state at peace with Her Majesty
In the Foreign Enlistment Act 1870, after section 5, insert—“5A Participation in armed conflict against a foreign state at peace with Her Majesty
(1) It shall be an offence for a British citizen or British subject, without the licence of Her Majesty, to—
(a) participate as a combatant in armed conflict against any foreign state at peace with Her Majesty, or(b) induce any other British citizen or British subject to participate in armed conflict against any foreign state at peace with Her Majesty. (2) It shall be a defence for a British citizen or British subject charged with an offence under this section to—
(a) notify the Secretary of State in the Foreign and Commonwealth Office before such participation in such armed combat, or(b) prove that they acted in self-defence.(3) A notification under subsection (2)(a) must be made in writing, and the sharing of any information therein by the Foreign and Commonwealth Office with other organisations is permitted notwithstanding any requirements of the Data Protection Acts.
(4) A person guilty of an offence under this section shall be punishable by—
(a) fine and imprisonment, or either of such punishments; and(b) forfeiture of any United Kingdom passport held by the person, or(c) deprivation of citizenship under section 40(2) of the British Nationality Act 1981.””

[Lord Marlesford (Con)]

My Lords, I apologise for detaining the House rather late on a quite different subject from that which we have been discussing in the past hour or so. Let me first explain why I am moving Amendment 89, to add a new section to the Foreign Enlistment Act 1870 to make it an offence to participate as a combatant in armed conflict against a foreign state without the licence of Her Majesty. My purpose in doing so is to defend the realm, which is the first duty of any British Government.

As the world recovers from six years of financial crisis, the determination of the expanding Islamic jihadist factions to wage terrorism in the West is a growing threat to the stability and future of our citizens. The growth of Islamist jihad is now as dramatic as anything that has been seen since those decades of expansion that followed the death of the Prophet Muhammad in 632 AD. This now includes persecution of Christians in many Muslim countries, particularly Pakistan, Iraq, Nigeria, Egypt and now Syria, which was once an oasis of religious tolerance. It is reminiscent of Stalin’s description to Beria of the Bolsheviks as,

“a sort of military-religious order”.

The brutal ferocity, using a combination of guerrilla warfare and terrorism, with which jihad is being pursued by a relatively small number of fanatical Islamists is hard to counter. The Islamist challenge is the one issue on which the five permanent members of the UN Security Council share a common interest.

Components of the disorder that has followed the Arab spring include: a desire for freedom; an aspiration for better living standards; hope for democracy; tribal conflicts; revenge on oppressors; incitement to new human rights abuses and other activities—all of which are overlaid with the historical and tragic hatreds between Sunni and Shia, which are reflected both nationally and regionally. Both Sunnis, led by Saudi Arabia, and Shias, led by Iran, struggle for hegemony. Over that hovers the shadow of the Islamist Wahhabi agenda, of which the new generation al-Qaeda is the guardian and choreographer for a world-scale jihad to install Sharia law under a Sunni caliphate in as many countries as possible.

In Libya, the operation of various militant groups has now raised the risk to a level where international construction companies are starting to withdraw their personnel from major development programmes. In Iraq, the ferocity of the Sunni backlash against the Shia majority has led to rapid escalation of sectarian terrorism with a massive death rate. With the establishment of al-Qaeda-dominated Islamist factions in Yemen, the Government are struggling to maintain control over the country.

It is now clear that American and European policy towards Syria has been a disaster. Western moral support with implied crucial military backing for the rebellion against Bashar Assad sustained and expanded the struggle to a point where the brutality of Assad’s resistance outraged international opinion. Then in August, plans for the imminent military action by the US, Britain and France to achieve regime change in Damascus were aborted after the British participation was voted down by Parliament. By then, the Islamists had taken control of the rebel forces and any hope of democracy in Syria was replaced by the wholly unacceptable prospect of an al-Qaeda-dominated Islamist state perhaps even worse than the present Government.

The Islamist influence is spreading rapidly inside Africa. In Nigeria, a particularly vicious form of hostage-taking terrorism by al-Qaeda is prominent. In Mali, the French have intervened against al-Qaeda. Similar intervention by French forces is taking place in the Central African Republic. In Somalia, 6,000 mulitnational Sunni militants of al-Shabaab, another al-Qaeda offshoot, are fighting 17,000 African Union troops, who are attempting to defend a weak Somali Government. In predominantly Christian Kenya, al-Shabaab is expanding its attacks, for example with the September attack on the Nairobi shopping mall.

During 2013, more British citizens were killed by terrorism overseas than in the previous seven years combined. In Pakistan there is almost total anarchy, with the army appearing ambivalent about the fight against Islamist extremists. A real indicator of the hold that the Taliban fundamentalists have over Pakistani thinking is the way in which the schoolgirl Malala, who in December 2012 was shot in the head by the Taliban for demanding education for girls, has now been demonised in certain parts of Pakistan.

All that is the backdrop to my amendment, so let me now come to the specific risks. In this, I have been guided by the evidence given on 7 November 2013 in a rare public meeting of the Intelligence and Security Committee of Parliament by the director of GCHQ, Sir Iain Lobban, the director-general of the Security Service—MI5—Mr Andrew Parker, and the chief of the Secret Intelligence Service—MI6—Sir John Sawers. They outlined some aspects of the direct threat to this country from British jihadists who go to fight overseas.

The head of MI6 said:

“The threat comes from those countries which are either secretive states, where there is ungoverned territory where terrorists can operate … the Middle East, South Asia, Africa”.

If there is a terrorist there, he said,

“it is important for our security, in the UK, that an eye is kept on him, that he is surveilled, that he is monitored. Maybe he needs to be detained and arrested at some point”.

The head of MI5 said:

“A very important strand of the threat we face is the way in which there is interaction between people who live in this country, who sympathise with or support the Al-Qaeda ideology and they travel to areas where they meet these Al-Qaeda groupings, either Al-Qaeda itself in South Asia or some of these other groupings … they meet British citizens who are willing to engage in terrorism and they task them to do so, back at home where they have a higher impact in this country”.

He went on to say that the threat,

“has grown recently and is growing … because of Syria. Syria has become a very attractive place for people to go for that reason”.

He referred to:

“Those who support or sympathise with the Al-Qaeda … message … We have seen low hundreds now of people from this country go to Syria for periods and come back, some large numbers still there, and get involved in fighting”.

He went on to say,

“the vast majority of the plots come from people who live here. There are several thousand individuals in this country who I would describe as supporting violent”,

terrorism or being “engaged in it”. I hope that I may have convinced your Lordships of the threat.

My amendment, which builds on earlier legislation, discriminates against no one. It merely means that any British passport holder who takes part in armed conflict as a combatant against a foreign state with which we are not at war, or who induces any other British citizen to do so, will be subject to penalty unless he has informed the Foreign Secretary before doing so. There could be three penalties according to my amendment: a fine or imprisonment; the forfeiture of a British passport; or the deprivation of citizenship. It would send a clear message to those considering taking part in armed jihad. It would necessitate HM Passport Office being aware of the details of other passports that British passport holders have. This is something that I have urged for a long time, as part of the better methods of defending our national borders, and I hope that my noble friend the Minister will at least be able to tell me that that is now in place.

I should perhaps add that there are already substantial powers to deal with terrorism. Indeed the Supreme Court, in R v Gul in 2013, emphasised that while there is no internationally agreed definition of terrorism in international law, in British law terrorism is very widely defined. My amendment is therefore neither needed nor intended to deal with terrorism per se; it is intended to control actions which, according to the heads of our intelligence services, could lead to people becoming terrorists. It is therefore a preventative measure, and one with sufficient sanction to deter those who might be led into terrorism by military adventure overseas.

Finally, it is because the jihadist threat is a new threat that I believe this is necessary. There was in days past a tradition of British citizens going to fight in other people’s battles with which they identify—the Spanish civil war is an obvious example—but this is quite different. In any case, the opportunity as well as the need, in effect, to get consent from HMG before becoming an overseas combatant, would ensure that no one need fear victimisation for their political or religious convictions. I believe I would have the support of the great majority of the British people in raising this issue today. I beg to move.

21:45

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Home Office (Lord Taylor of Holbeach) (Con)]

My Lords, I am very grateful to my noble friend Lord Marlesford for tabling this amendment, not least because it provides your Lordships with an opportunity to consider the Foreign Enlistment Act 1870—not something that we do every day, or night. The Act prohibits British nationals from fighting in the armed forces of another state, against friendly states. The new clause would go further by creating a new offence of participation in armed conflict against any foreign state at peace with Her Majesty. My noble friend’s amendment raises an important and topical issue: that of people from the United Kingdom seeking to engage in combat abroad in so-called “theatres of jihad”, such as the civil war in Syria, to which my noble friend referred.

Although the issue of British nationals fighting abroad is not a new one, or one specific only to Syria, it is something that the Government take very seriously. Syria is now the number one destination for jihadists anywhere in the world, and there are currently thousands of foreign fighters in Syria, including a large number of Europeans. We judge that more than 200 UK-linked individuals have travelled to Syria to join the fighting. Of course, not all individuals who travel to Syria are extremists. Many simply want to support humanitarian efforts. However, those who do travel there are putting themselves and innocent Syrians in danger, and we know that a number of Europeans have already been killed in the conflict. Moreover, we know that some individuals travel to Syria—or other places such as Yemen or Somalia—to engage in fighting with terrorist groups.

The Government are working with the police and security services to disrupt travel by individuals of concern. Your Lordships will understand why I am unable to provide specific details of all of the actions that are being taken to this end—but rest assured, we support the use of the full range of available measures. In particular, where there is evidence that individuals are planning, promoting, funding, facilitating or participating in terrorist activities overseas—including terrorist fighting—the police and Crown Prosecution Service will look to prosecute them, before they go or on their return. A very wide range of offences already exists on the statute books to capture such activity, not least in the Terrorism Acts 2000 and 2006, which provide extraterritorial jurisdiction in relation to certain activities. Although my noble friend’s amendment seeks to add a further offence to the disruptive arsenal, I fear that this amendment, as drafted, entails a number of drawbacks that would undermine its effectiveness.

Firstly, the amendment recognises that, while the 1870 Act already deals with fighting for another state’s armed forces, many modern conflicts involve an array of non-state actors and irregular militias. However, like the 1870 Act, this amendment deals only with,

“armed conflict against a foreign state at peace with Her Majesty”.

Hard distinctions of war and peace made sense in 1870; Tolstoy’s masterpiece had been published just the year before. But the bases for modern conflicts are no longer so binary. The UK has not been in a declared condition of war since the defeat of the Axis forces in 1945. Today we are at peace with all states, at least in the classical sense of international law.

Secondly, the defence of notification to the proposed new offence has the potential to severely undermine the disruptive utility. Whether it was my noble friend’s intention I do not know, but the amendment as drafted gives the Secretary of State no additional power to prohibit a person who gives notice of their intention to fight overseas from going. A number of existing powers might be used to prevent such a person from travelling—and, of course, the Bill augments these by providing powers to seize passports cancelled on public interest grounds. But the amendment adds nothing to these powers. Indeed, the proposed offence bites only when a fighter who previously failed to notify returns to the UK. Anyone who does notify the Secretary of State would be completely free from the sanctions which this amendment seeks to put in place.

Thirdly, any offence that hinges on such a notification regime is likely to raise significant difficulties in enforcement. A committed jihadist is unlikely to inform the authorities of his travel plans for fear of disruption, either before or after the fact. Evidence that a person has engaged in fighting abroad would be extremely difficult to obtain, so the evidential difficulties in securing a prosecution may be no less than for the other relevant offences available.

Fourthly, although self-defence has a well understood meaning in relation to ordinary offences against the person, how it would apply in the context of overseas conflicts is unclear. Many jurisdictions have laws to deal with the use of defensive force in situations of immediate danger, and we expect British nationals to comply with local laws wherever they are. But the idea of participating in armed conflict as an act of self-defence is a difficult matter. We must take care not to legitimise the wrong-headed extremist narrative that paints so-called jihadists as fighting a war of self-defence on behalf of Muslims internationally.

Finally, the amendment proposes sentences for the new offence that could include forfeiture of a passport and deprivation of British citizenship. As noble Lords will recall from our discussion in Committee of what is now Clause 138, passports are issued under the royal prerogative. The Home Secretary already has the power to refuse or withdraw passports where she believes that a person’s activities—past, present or proposed—are so undesirable that the grant or continued enjoyment of passport facilities is contrary to the public interest. The British Nationality Act gives the Home Secretary powers to deprive persons of their British citizenship when she is satisfied that deprivation is conducive to the public good, provided that the person is not left stateless as a result. As such, these sentencing options would not be necessary.

I thank my noble friend Lord Marlesford for raising the issue of British nationals fighting overseas. I assure your Lordships that this is something that the Government take extremely seriously. Nevertheless, for the reasons that I have set out, I do not believe that the amendment would be the right way to proceed and I ask my noble friend to withdraw it.

[Lord Marlesford]

My Lords, I am most grateful to my noble friend for having raised so many points so clearly and in such detail. I hope very much that there will be action under the present provisions of the law to ensure that, wherever possible, British citizens who have engaged in jihadism overseas, will be prosecuted on their return to this country—as he said that they already can be under the existing law. I hope very much that the removal of passports—and, if appropriate, of British citizenship—will take place.

This is a very serious subject. The evidence given by the security chiefs to Parliament was chilling. I had no idea what a serious situation we face, and I am delighted that the Government have stated that they are well aware of it and are dealing with it. I therefore beg leave to withdraw my amendment.

Amendment 89 withdrawn.

Amendment 90

Moved by

[Lord Harris of Haringey]

90: Before Clause 111, insert the following new Clause—
“Local community safety plans
In section 6 of the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 (formulation and implementation of strategies) after subsection (1A) insert—“(1B) In exercising functions under subsection (1), each of the responsible authorities for a local government area must set out their approach to making use of the powers conferred by Parts 1 to 5 of the Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014.””

[Lord Harris of Haringey]

In moving Amendment 90 I shall also speak to Amendment 91. These two amendments are intended to be entirely helpful to the Government. I am surprised that that suggestion provoked hilarity from the Government Front Bench, because that is genuinely the case. If the Minister has in front of him a brief from his officials suggesting that he should oppose these amendments, I hope that by the time he has finished listening to what I have to say he will realise that that advice is perhaps an example of civil servants approaching amendments to a Bill as if not a tiny hair of its precious head should be interfered with, because obviously it is an object of complete perfection. I hope that by the end of my speech the noble Lord will realise that I am trying to improve the Bill and make it fit more coherently with other legislation on policing and anti-social behaviour.

Amendment 90 requires that each of the responsible bodies in a local community safety partnership should set out its approach to using the anti-social behaviour powers in the Bill. As part of the production of a community safety plan, the various relevant organisations —the local authority, the local police commander, and possibly the health bodies and so on—should set out how they will use the powers given to them by the Bill.

Amendment 91 requires that police and crime commissioners should include in their policing and crime plans objectives for the use of the anti-social behaviour powers in the Bill. Before the Minister assumes that I must have had some sort of Damascene conversion to the concept of police and crime commissioners, let me tell him that this is nothing of the sort. I am simply trying to make this legislation that the Government are trying to get through consistent with other legislation that Parliament has already passed. I am not saying that previous legislation is perfect or does not need changing; I am simply trying to make this legislation consistent with it.

The aim of the amendments is to integrate what is in the Bill with other legislative requirements. They would ensure that plans were made for how the various powers—the new injunction powers, the dispersal order powers and so on, which we have spent many happy hours debating—would be used in any local area. The requirement that the intentions of the various responsible authorities be set out in the local community safety plans and the force-wide policing and crime plans will ensure that there is public consultation on the approach to be taken. It will also require buy-in from all the local partners to the approach being taken. Above all, we are trying to ensure that some sort of coherent strategy for the use of Parts 1 to 5 of the Bill is articulated. At the moment, that is not an obligation for those who will enforce it.

In my view, local community safety plans are the building blocks of local collaboration. The 1998 Act that created them, and the subsequent amendments of the law that have strengthened and added elements to them, are the mechanism by which, at local level, the police service, the local authorities and other relevant parties come together to decide on the best way of dealing with what, in the original formulation and language used, was called crime and disorder. In this context, that would include anti-social behaviour. What is the best way of addressing that? My amendment would involve the local authority sitting down with the police and identifying the circumstances in which they can both make a difference, so it is about the sort of collaboration that the Minister, in responding to a number of provisions, has talked about as being the sine qua non of what the Government are trying to achieve with the Bill. Therefore, the amendment follows the principles set out by Ministers but provides a framework in which they will be discussed at local level by the relevant parties. The amendment would also provide coherence and enable the relevant intentions to be set out clearly. It sets out a mechanism for this to take place and a mechanism for partnership around what the Government want to see achieved at local level with regard to anti-social behaviour. It also sets out a mechanism whereby those approaches can be agreed.

The amendment would deliver transparency at local level with regard to how the measures in Parts 1 to 5 are to be used—without the amendment, I am afraid that the Bill simply does not have that—and introduce a much clearer system of local accountability as the local objectives in regard to the use of Parts 1 to 5 would be set out. It would also provide a mechanism to achieve consistency of approach in the way that the powers in Parts 1 to 5 are used within a force area and even within a local authority area. Above all, it would institutionalise effective collaboration. I cannot see what there is in these amendments for the Government Front Bench not to like. As I say, they are genuinely put forward in a spirit of trying to be helpful and make this piece of legislation consistent and compatible with other legislation that requires collaboration and working together to protect local communities against anti-social behaviour. I beg to move.

22:01

[Baroness Hamwee]

My Lords, I entirely agree with what lies behind these amendments but have one concern about them, with which the noble Lord may be able to help me. We heard in an earlier debate on the Bill that a number of police and crime commissioners are already dealing with anti-social behaviour as one of their objectives. I assume that, as they are doing that, they are able to do so. Therefore, I wonder whether it is necessary to refer specifically to this Act, as it will be, in the second of the noble Lord’s amendments in this group.

Given that we already have a requirement under new subsection (1A) of the relevant Act for each of the responsible authorities to have regard to the police and crime objectives, I am not sure whether the proposed new subsection (1B) is necessary. We often hear that things are not necessary but it is helpful to be clear about them. However, my real concern is whether, by referring specifically to the Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act, there might be a suggestion that it should have priority over other legislation which could be listed among the objectives. The relevant police reform Act, the obligations of the police and crime commissioners and the police and crime plans use wide and general terms. The Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act, as it will become, will not be the only legislation to which all responsible authorities need to have regard, so I am concerned about knock-on effects outside what we are considering at the moment.

[Lord Taylor of Holbeach]

My Lords—

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

I understand the noble Lord’s eagerness to accept this, and it may have something to do with the hour, but, just occasionally, I have a few words to say on the proposals put forward by my noble friend Lord Harris of Haringey. I must admit that when I first looked at these amendments I had a slight concern about the role of the community safety partnerships and their responsibilities. My own CSP has seen a massive cut in its budget and its capacity to deal with some of the issues before it. But when resources are short, planning is most essential. It would be extremely useful to have the kind of co-ordination function that is laid out in the amendments.

I am sorry that the Minister laughed when my noble friend said how helpful he was trying to be. He has been accused of many things during the course of proceedings on the Bill. He was accused of being mischievous when he was trying to be helpful. He put on record that he is trying to be helpful now and there was hilarity from the Benches opposite, which I genuinely think is most unfair. This is the kind of amendment that sets in place how the objectives of the Bill can be achieved by those responsible for implementing it.

There are new powers in this Bill. It is important that all the partners understand their role and the expectations. I give one example. The noble Lord will recall that I proposed amendments in Committee on dispersal orders. One of the issues is that there is no longer a responsibility on the police to consult the local authority when issuing dispersal orders. The new orders that the Government are proposing are wider and can last longer than the ones in place at the moment. There is also no obligation to consult the local authority, but the guidance says—I cannot remember the exact phraseology—that there is the opportunity to discuss or that that is expected or is likely. Before any dispersal orders were issued, would it not be helpful if discussions took place within the community safety partnership about what the expectations would be when it came to the point of issuing one? It is fitting to have that kind of co-ordination, to know what the expectations and responsibilities are, to ensure that the legislation being put forward by the Government has an impact, that it does not disappear into the ether somewhere but can be worked on. I would expect that this is the very least that the Government would expect—to have this way of taking the new legislation into the existing framework.

I certainly accept my noble friend’s comments that he is seeking to be helpful. It is a very helpful amendment. I trust that the Minister will be able to take that on board.

[Lord Taylor of Holbeach]

I thank the noble Baroness for that comment. Indeed, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Haringey. I am quite prepared to accept that he has a helpful side to his nature. I am very grateful that he has presented these amendments. I sense the spirit in which he has tabled them. My noble friend Lady Hamwee is always helpful. I am grateful for her contribution to this debate.

I will talk about the issue in general and then talk about how it happens specifically. This is about how police and local councils will use the powers running right through Parts 1 to 5 of the Bill. I will deal with Amendment 90 first and then I will come on to Amendment 91. I have listened to the noble Lord’s comments on the amendment. Although I appreciate the helpful intent behind the amendment, I do not believe that it is necessary. As the noble Lord will be aware, Sections 5 to 7 of the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 already require local authorities and the police to co-operate with each other and other local agencies in formulating and implementing strategies to reduce crime and disorder. The noble Baroness, Lady Smith, is absolutely right. The Government expect local authorities and the police to co-operate together. The formulation and implementation of those strategies would manifestly include a consideration of anti-social behaviour. I am sure that the noble Lord will be aware of the London Borough of Haringey’s current community safety strategy which identifies six outcomes, one of which is to:

“Prevent and reduce acquisitive crime and anti-social behaviour”.

It is in implementing such strategies that it goes almost without saying that the responsible authorities will take full account of the new powers in Parts 1 to 5 of the Bill, as well as existing less formal interventions, to tackle such behaviour.

As a result of our extensive consultation on the new powers with local authorities—the Bill has been drafted with local authority consultation as its backbone—as well as other agencies, I am confident that they are fully aware of the importance in ensuring that the use of the powers is underpinned by a coherent strategy and good partnership working. Indeed, local authorities have played a major role in shaping the new powers and would no doubt be keen to ensure that they work effectively in their areas. Moreover, along with their individual strategies and the Government’s statutory guidance, local authorities will issue their own guidance to front-line professionals on the use of the new powers and their approach to them. This is what they do with their existing powers and I see no reason why that practice would not continue.

I turn to Amendment 91. I will repeat the point that I made in Committee. The election of police and crime commissioners put the public back at the heart of our drive to cut crime, thereby giving them a greater say in how their local area is policed by these directly elected representatives. I admit that it will be a great day when I can get the noble Lord, Lord Harris, to admit that the policy has achieved that objective—but that task is not beyond us.

Under the provisions of the Police Reform and Social Responsibility Act 2011, PCCs are required to issue and publish a police and crime plan for their local area and must consult with their chief constable in drawing up the plan. Such plans must include objectives for reducing crime and disorder. As I indicated in Committee, 30 of the police and crime commissioners have put tackling, preventing and reducing anti-social behaviour as one of their key priorities in their plans. Another eight have put reducing the impact and keeping people safe from anti-social behaviour as one of their individual priorities; and the remaining three commissioners want to encourage the reporting of anti-social behaviour.

Perhaps I may give the noble Lord an example. London’s Police and Crime Plan 2013-2016 states that,

“tackling anti-social behaviour … or quality of life crime, is critical to addressing perceptions of disorder in a neighbourhood, and although MOPAC”—

the Mayor’s Office for Policing and Crime—

“is setting no explicit targets for the police in this area, ASB is one of the three priorities for the London Crime Reduction Board, chaired by the Mayor”.

It is obvious that the successful implementation of this and other police and crime plans when it comes to tackling anti-social behaviour will necessarily involve an assessment of how the new powers in the Bill can be put to best use.

This was reflected by Sir Graham Bright, the Cambridgeshire police and crime commissioner, who said about the Bill in October last year:

“Police and Crime Commissioners have been closely following the progress of the Anti-Social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Bill. We want the police to be given effective powers to tackle anti-social behaviour that provide better protection for victims”.

Sir Graham went on to say:

“It is also important to have a multi-agency approach to tackling anti-social behaviour as the police are only one part of the solution. By working with local authorities, housing associations and other agencies we can effectively combat anti-social behaviour and empower victims and communities”.

In short, the police, local authorities and other agencies recognise the importance of understanding how to use the new powers in the Bill effectively to protect the public from anti-social behaviour. The statutory guidance provided in the Bill will undoubtedly help them in this regard.

In practice, I believe that on this issue there is little between the Government and the noble Lord, Lord Harris. We are at one in recognising the importance of partnership in working to tackle anti-social crime and anti-social behaviour, and of this being reflected in local crime and disorder strategies and police and crime plans. This is what the Government expect local authorities to do.

In implementing such plans, in so far as they relate to tackling anti-social behaviour, we would clearly expect the police, local authorities and other agencies to make effective use of the new powers in the Bill. While we seek the same outcome, I do not believe that these amendments are needed to achieve it. I therefore invite the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment.

22:15

[Lord Harris of Haringey]

My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for his courteous endorsement of my intention to be helpful on this occasion. I suggest that my espousal of the current arrangement for police and crime commissioners will have to wait for another occasion; we are certainly not going to get there tonight.

I have some difficulty with his response. It is very useful that he set out for the record the Government’s commitment that the use of the powers under the terms of the Bill should be very much part of local planning in terms of the preparation and delivery of community safety plans and in terms of police and crime commissioners setting out their objectives. The reality is that most police and crime commissioners have said, “Yes, this is one of our priorities”. They have not—partly, of course, because the legislation has not been passed—specified exactly how they intend to approach these issues. But of course, at the moment, there is no obligation on them to refer to the content of the Bill. That is what would be changed.

My noble friend Lady Smith talked about the dispersal order powers. This is one example of where we beg to differ on the subject of whether there should be prior consultation with local authorities. If there was at least a formal agreement and protocol on the circumstances in which both sides will expect those powers to be used, that would be helpful to the legislation and might avoid some, although I fear not all, of the problems that were identified when we talked about this on a previous occasion.

I do not think that the Bill requires the sort of collaboration that I think is necessary and that the Minister thinks is necessary. I think it is unfortunate that the Bill is so silent on how this fits in with community safety plans and police and crime plans, but I am at least grateful to the Minister for what he has said on the record today. In the light of that—I will read the debate carefully to make sure that he has not left too many gaps—I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 90 withdrawn.

Amendment 91 not moved.

Consideration on Report adjourned.

House adjourned at 10.18 pm.