House of Commons
Prayers
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Oral Answers to Questions
Mike Kane (Wythenshawe and Sale East) (Lab)
1. What representations he has received from local authorities on the local administration of the crisis loan and community care grant elements of the discretionary social fund.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government (Brandon Lewis)
Crisis loans and community care grants were abolished in the Welfare Reform Act 2012 because they were failing to help those most in need. The Department for Work and Pensions has passed the funding to councils to help provide assistance for vulnerable people in their area, and they have held numerous discussions about this.
Mike Kane
Manchester city council has stated that the removal of local welfare allowance funding by the Government in 2015-16 will disproportionately impact on the most deprived. It will also break the new burdens principle for local authorities. What advice would the Minister give to struggling families who rely on this vital lifeline?
Brandon Lewis
Some local authorities are in fact underspending this year. Centrepoint’s research, which is often referred to, shows that many authorities are spending less than half their allocations. The research does not say that anyone has suffered at any time as a result of the current situation.
Paul Maynard (Blackpool North and Cleveleys) (Con)
The Minister rightly points out that many councils are underspending, but I am sure he is aware that in councils such as Blackpool, this measure has driven efficiency and innovation in the provision of services to the most vulnerable. Deleting this line from the local government settlement risks ending that innovation and harming the most vulnerable in my constituency. May I ask him to think again about this change, please?
Brandon Lewis
My hon. Friend makes a good point about how councils are working efficiently to look at new ways of delivering. In doing that, they are transforming services to ensure that the most vulnerable are the most protected, through the wide range of support that is available through local authorities.
Kate Green (Stretford and Urmston) (Lab)
Trafford Council’s “Trafford Assist” programme has been very successful in bringing together sources of support and sources of advice, but the council is worried about how it will be able to sustain the service when the funding closes at the end of the year. Will the Minister have urgent conversations with the Department for Work and Pensions to ensure that the two Departments between them can make sure that this lifeline funding will continue?
Brandon Lewis
I have met various local authorities through the consultation on this year’s settlement, and I will meet them again next year. The DWP has also spoken to local authorities. We must ensure that we do not replicate the previous, poorly targeted system. There is a whole range of support out there, and local authorities are doing very well in pulling together that support to ensure that the most vulnerable have the right care for them.
Heidi Alexander (Lewisham East) (Lab)
2. What plans he has to increase the supply of social rented housing.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government (Stephen Williams)
We will deliver 165,000 new affordable homes in the three years from 2015. That will be the fastest rate of delivery of affordable homes for at least 20 years. This is on top of the 170,000 new affordable homes that we are on target to deliver by the end of this Parliament.
Heidi Alexander
I asked the Minister about social rented housing, not just affordable housing. The truth is that this Government do not want to build social housing; they want to decimate it. Will he tell me why the number of social rented homes being built in London last year was roughly one tenth of the number being built in the capital in 2009?
Stephen Williams
I am afraid that the hon. Lady is completely wrong. The last Government allowed the stock of social housing in both categories to dwindle completely. We will be the first Government to leave office at the end of a Parliament with a greater stock of affordable homes, including council houses, than there was at the start, including in the borough of Lewisham and many other boroughs around the country. Today the Secretary of State and my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary to the Treasury have published the prospectus allowing for £300 million of extra borrowing capacity for local government to build new homes.
Henry Smith (Crawley) (Con)
Will my hon. Friend join me in congratulating Crawley borough council which is building hundreds of social and affordable houses in the new Forge Wood neighbourhood? This is in stark contrast to what happened under the previous Labour administration.
Stephen Williams
I will certainly join my hon. Friend in congratulating Crawley council on its record. I stress yet again that this Government are committed to building new affordable homes, including social homes—[Interruption.] The hon. Member for Lewisham East (Heidi Alexander) shakes her head, but I remind her that the latest statement on housing policy from her own party says that it wants 100,000 new affordable homes, of which half would be shared ownership, 35% would be affordable and only 15% would be social rented homes. She should have a word with those on her own Front Bench.
Emma Reynolds (Wolverhampton North East) (Lab)
This Government’s first decision on taking office was to cut the affordable homes programme by 60%, and they have also watered down section 106 agreements for social homes. Was it a surprise to the Minister that last year they built the lowest number of homes for social rent for more than 20 years, or was that in fact the Government’s plan?
Stephen Williams
I do not recognise those figures. This Government are committed to a very ambitious programme of building affordable homes, including social homes, with 170,000 over the course of this Parliament and 165,000 already planned for the first three years of the next Parliament. That represents the fastest rate of building in 20 years. As for section 106 agreements, the hon. Lady well knows that they are a matter for local government to negotiate at local level, subject to local market conditions.
Emma Reynolds
It is a shame that the Minister does not recognise the Government’s own figures. The truth is that this Government are not building social homes: Labour councils across the country are out-building Tory and Lib Dem councils. Those Labour local authorities are being prevented from building even more social homes because one in four tenants affected by the bedroom tax is in arrears for the first time. Does he recognise that the bedroom tax is not only cruel but counter-productive? Is his party now against it? If this Government will not scrap it, we will.
Stephen Williams
There are several questions wrapped up in one there. The spare room subsidy is not a tax, although clearly there are a range of opinions on that issue. The housing benefit bill had reached £23 billion by the time Labour left office and that was an unaffordable forward commitment for any party, including the hon. Lady’s, which promised in its last manifesto to tackle overspending on housing benefit. All taxpayers would want to make sure that that money is spent wisely and not on subsidising spare bedrooms for people who do not need them.
Gavin Shuker (Luton South) (Lab/Co-op)
3. What assessment he has made of the effect on local authorities of recent changes in the proportion of local authority funding that comes from revenue support grants.
Mrs Emma Lewell-Buck (South Shields) (Lab)
7. What assessment he has made of the effect on local authorities of recent changes in the proportion of local authority funding that comes from revenue support grants.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government (Brandon Lewis)
Revenue support grant is provided to councils in addition to retained business rates. Authorities now keep nearly £11 billion in business rates, and a share of growth in business rates in their area. This provides a direct financial incentive to help deliver growth, in contrast to the old system.
Gavin Shuker
The Minister likes to talk about these changes in terms of benefiting councils, but the reality on the ground is that many local authorities find themselves losing out. His focus on spending power per dwelling hides the fact that many places have large families living in large occupancy dwellings. Will he explain why Luton borough council is having its spending power cut by a half?
Brandon Lewis
Let us look at the hon. Gentleman’s local authority directly. Average spending power per household in this country is £2,089 whereas in Luton it is £2,211. That is above the average, so I suggest to the residents of Luton that they elect a council that can run things efficiently and effectively.
Mrs Lewell-Buck
Despite having higher levels of deprivation, local authorities such as my own are seeing deeper cuts than those in the well-off areas. By 2016, spending per household in the north-east will have fallen by £296 compared with the average of £233. Does the Minister not recognise that that will mean that existing inequalities between the regions will be even worse?
Brandon Lewis
I dispute that directly, because the hon. Lady’s local authority’s spending power is £2,355 per household per year, which is well above the national average of £2,089, so it comes from a much higher position which recognises its local needs.
Andrew Bridgen (North West Leicestershire) (Con)
Will my hon. Friend confirm that despite cuts in central Government funding many Conservative-controlled councils, such as my own North West Leicestershire district council, have continued to freeze or indeed cut council tax?
Brandon Lewis
My hon. Friend makes a good point. Some excellent councils across the country have even cut council tax this year, and the council tax freeze means that those areas have, under this Government over the past four years, seen a real-terms cut in council tax of about 11%.
Stephen Mosley (City of Chester) (Con)
In the north-west, Cheshire West and Chester council is working with Labour councils such as those in Knowsley, Halton and Wirral to share services in order to reduce costs and improve the services offered to local people. Is working with other councils not one way in which some councils that we have heard about today can improve their services and reduce costs?
Brandon Lewis
My hon. Friend gives a very good example of how authorities can work together, and we are seeing that around the country. Another Labour authority in High Peak is sharing with Conservative-led Staffordshire Moorlands, under an arrangement set up under the Conservative administration. That is another one of many examples of authorities sharing management and sharing chief executives, and saving about £600,000 a year. That is a substantial percentage of the money for those local authorities and this is a good way forward. The transformation network and community budgets show that this can be done.
Andy Sawford (Corby) (Lab/Co-op)
Newcastle has four times as many looked-after children as Wokingham, but because of the unfair way in which this Government have distributed the cuts, even on the Minister’s own measure of spending power per household, Newcastle will have less funding than Wokingham by the end of this Parliament. How can he tell us that that is fair?
Brandon Lewis
I remind the hon. Gentleman that the 10% most deprived authorities have an average spending power of £3,026 whereas the figure for the least deprived 10% is only £1,952. That demonstrates clearly that the areas with the need actually have the money they need to look after their local requirements.
Nick de Bois (Enfield North) (Con)
4. What steps he is taking to help shops in England and Enfield with their business rate bills.
Stephen Metcalfe (South Basildon and East Thurrock) (Con)
10. What steps he is taking to help shops in England and South Basildon and East Thurrock with their business rate bills.
The Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government (Mr Eric Pickles)
We are providing a £1 billion business rates support package. This includes a £1,000 discount for smaller shops, pubs and restaurants, and a 50% discount for businesses taking on long-term empty shops. It also doubles small business rate relief for another year, helping more than 500,000 small businesses.
Nick de Bois
I very much welcome the Government’s attempts to ease the plight of those shopkeepers and high street businesses, but does the Secretary of State share my disappointment that rather than promote the availability of this scheme when sending out business rate bills, Enfield’s Labour council felt it wise to spend its time issuing press releases, trying to claim credit for the Government’s very welcome policy?
Mr Pickles
I suppose that is a kind of halfway house, which is a bit of shame because about 2,000 businesses in Enfield should benefit from the scheme. Clearly, if those businesses are not aware of the possibility and do not apply, they are shelling out money unnecessarily, and the people who will suffer will be the people of Enfield.
Stephen Metcalfe (Con)
I, too, welcome the support the Government are giving to small shopping centres such as Corringham in my constituency, which has set up an excellent traders and residents association to help develop local trade. Does my right hon. Friend agree that now that local authorities have some control over local business rates, they can be much more innovative in the way they support small town centres?
Mr Pickles
I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. One reason why it will be possible for more money to go into small shopping centres is the excellent campaign that my hon. Friend has successfully won, after a four-year struggle, for the Visteon pensioners. The whole House is grateful to him for the work that he has done there. We estimate that within South Basildon and East Thurrock, something in the region of 1,500 businesses will benefit from this support. It is a very welcome boost, and I am glad that my hon. Friend is making the point.
Alison McGovern (Wirral South) (Lab)
I am not sure how similar Wirral is to Basildon and Enfield, but I bet that our small businesses have all suffered similarly over the past three years. Will the Secretary of State therefore go further and properly tackle the burden of business rates, as Labour would?
Mr Pickles
I am very grateful to the hon. Lady for giving me the opportunity to say this. Labour’s policy has been described as robbing Peter to pay Paul. It has been attacked by the Institute of Directors, which says that the main corporation tax rate is paid by medium-sized businesses. As the hon. Lady is concerned about SMEs, she should not forget that the “M” stands for medium-sized businesses. The institute says that it is a dangerous move for Labour to risk our business-friendly environment in such a way.
Derek Twigg (Halton) (Lab)
Business rates are an important part of encouraging and maintaining shops. One problem is where town centres, such as Runcorn in my constituency, need to be reconfigured. The borough council needs extra resources to be able to do that. What are the Government doing to help local authorities reconfigure town centres and therefore to promote more shops?
Mr Pickles
As my hon. Friend the Planning Minister has reminded me, we are in the middle of a consultation to help with regard to the designation of certain planning use classes. If the hon. Gentleman wants to invite his council to make a contribution to that, it would be most welcome.
Mr Simon Burns (Chelmsford) (Con)
19. Will my right hon. Friend tell me how many businesses in Chelmsford will benefit from this rate reduction? Does he agree that it is a significant step forward in helping to regenerate businesses, cut unemployment by expanding the work force and encourage small businesses to thrive?
Mr Pickles
I reflect that truly the lamb will lie down with the lion, Mr Speaker.
About 800 businesses will potentially benefit from the change, which will make a significant difference to employment prospects. My right hon. Friend’s constituency, which borders on mine, is an excellent place to go to shop and this will help that process along.
Lucy Powell (Manchester Central) (Lab/Co-op)
There is no more innovative local authority than Manchester city council, as I am sure the Secretary of State will agree. As the MP for a city centre with many small businesses, I find that this is the single biggest issue raised with me. Business rates have gone up by more than £1,500 over this Parliament and are set to go up a further £270 this year. Would it not be much better if the Secretary of State were to freeze business rates for small businesses, as the Labour party has pledged to? That will help them stay in business, which many of them are unable to do at the moment.
Mr Pickles
It was always a matter of regret to me that Labour made rate relief very hard to claim for small businesses, but we have managed to remove some of the complex nature of the claims process. With enormous respect, I remind the hon. Lady that this package for the high street is worth more than £1 billion —and £1 billion, even in today’s money, is a lot of money.
Mr Stewart Jackson (Peterborough) (Con)
My “block the bookies” campaign in Peterborough, in which I encouraged Peterborough city council to use article 4 to prevent the proliferation of pawnshops and licensed premises used as betting shops, has been very well received. What support will Ministers give local authorities across the country to support independent retailers and prevent the proliferation of even more unwanted betting shops?
Mr Pickles
Article 4 has been remarkably successful in both protecting local pubs and regulating unwanted additional shops on the high street. I remind my hon. Friend that in the Budget the Chancellor announced that we will review use class and issue a consultation in the not-too-distant future. I hope that my hon. Friend will contribute to that consultation.
Natascha Engel (North East Derbyshire) (Lab)
5. If he will take steps to ensure that the views of local people are given priority in planning decisions on large-scale housing projects.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government (Nick Boles)
Every area of the country needs more housing, and the views of local people are crucial in determining where and how those needs should be met, not least through local plans.
Natascha Engel
We need new homes in North East Derbyshire. The issue is that local people want to have a say in where those houses go, but their opinions and the decisions of the local planning authority are being overruled by the Government’s planning inspector. This is the opposite of localism, so what is the Minister doing to make sure that local people’s concerns are not being ignored?
Nick Boles
The opposite of localism was the situation we inherited in 2010, when only 35% of local authorities even had a published draft local plan. Now 55% of local authorities have a sound local plan and more than 75% have published a draft plan. That is the way for local people to decide locally, rather than the regional strategies that the hon. Lady supported. That is the way to ensure that local decisions inform development.
Mr James Gray (North Wiltshire) (Con)
Although I understand what the Minister is saying, I, like the hon. Member for North East Derbyshire (Natascha Engel), feel that where there is no local plan in place, as is the case in Wiltshire, the Government planning inspectors tend to use the old figures and the old central procedures in such a way that opportunistic developers, such as those who are trying to get 350 houses and a Tesco store outside Royal Wootton Bassett in my constituency, are now lodging applications with them that they would not otherwise be allowed to lodge. Will the Minister therefore allow the emerging core strategy to be used as part of how the inspector decides whether such applications are allowed?
Nick Boles
In responding to concerns expressed by my hon. Friend and a range of honourable colleagues, the Government made it clear in the planning guidance that was finalised two weeks ago that when a local plan has been submitted to the Planning Inspectorate for examination, it can absolutely be grounds for refusing an application if that application is substantial in the context of the plan. I hope that that is a power that authorities will be able to make use of.
Mr Barry Sheerman (Huddersfield) (Lab/Co-op)
I am sure that the Minister will agree that local people should be consulted when planning will touch on their lives, but there is a danger, is there not, that in view of the dreadful housing and home shortage in our country, the views coming from Government Members this afternoon suggest a degree of complacency that is quite unbelievable. When will he get rid of the nimby influences in his party and start building homes?
Nick Boles
We are, of course, building homes at a faster rate having recovered from the most appalling recession which decimated our housing industry, but the hon. Gentleman is right to say that every area needs homes, and the right way for local people to express their opinions about development is by creating neighbourhood plans and local plans. Neighbourhood plans are the best possible way for local communities to express their views, and I am delighted that all 12 neighbourhood plans that have gone to a referendum have been passed, so local support for development can be won.
Miss Anne McIntosh (Thirsk and Malton) (Con)
18. With large-scale applications for such things as fracking, which presumably will not, by definition, be in local plans, at what point will local people have the chance to give their views, especially if there are to be large-scale lorry movements to take water in and out following the application?
Nick Boles
We recently published guidance setting out exactly how and when notification should be given of any proposal for fracking. Such notifications will ensure that local people know when there are proposals for fracking in an area so that they will have the opportunity to respond to the consultation.
Roberta Blackman-Woods (City of Durham) (Lab)
It is no surprise that the Planning Minister is getting grief from his Back Benchers about development being approved on greenfield and green-belt land. According to the Department’s figures, the amount of brownfield land changing to residential use has declined dramatically from 70% under Labour to just 53% under his Government. Does the Minister still stand behind his stated policy of using
“every inch of previously developed land to meet…housing need”,
and if so, what is going wrong?
Nick Boles
What is so puzzling about the hon. Lady’s question is that she cannot explain why every attempt that we have made to make it easier to convert existing property—offices, shops and agricultural buildings—into housing has been opposed by the Labour party. Labour Members cannot have it both ways: either they want to maximise the number of houses derived from existing property or they do not; but they cannot preach one thing and do the other.
Greg Mulholland (Leeds North West) (LD)
The community in the Headingley and Hyde Park area of Leeds was dismayed last week when councillors disgracefully voted in favour of the development of a supermarket and housing on a playing field, which could have been a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to secure the Olympic legacy. An asset of community value application was in place, so what advice can the Minister give the community on urgently challenging the decision and stopping the development going ahead until the ACV application has been heard?
Nick Boles
My hon. Friend will understand that I cannot comment on any particular application. Of course, I do not know precisely where that decision is, but he is always entitled to write to me or the Secretary of State to ask us to call in a decision, especially if it is more than locally controversial or challenges an important national policy area, such as the protection of playing fields.
Laura Sandys (South Thanet) (Con)
6. What estimate he has made of local authority revenues from the sale of recyclate in the last year for which figures are available.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government (Brandon Lewis)
We do not hold this information centrally, but there are clear opportunities for councils to make money from selling recycled materials. The industry is now worth about £11 billion, and this income could be used to keep council tax down or to support more regular rubbish and recycling collections.
Laura Sandys
Will my hon. Friend further encourage local authorities to declare on their council tax bills how much money they make from selling their recyclate, not only to incentivise more recycling but to get local authorities to be much smarter with their waste?
Brandon Lewis
My hon. Friend has rightly run a superb campaign to push this agenda, and she makes a good point. Councils can already declare on their council tax bills how much they make from selling their recyclate. Transparency can incentivise more recycling among residents when they see how their recycling is used, and encourage local authorities to seek better deals on recycling.
Grahame M. Morris (Easington) (Lab)
8. If he will grant additional planning protection for pubs that are listed as assets of community value.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government (Stephen Williams)
We have made it clear through the national planning policy framework that local planning policies and decisions should guard against the unnecessary loss of valued community facilities such as pubs.
Grahame M. Morris
The Minister has said that pubs are valued community assets and part of our national heritage, but even if a community has declared its support for a local pub by listing it as an asset of community value, the owners can still demolish it, or convert it to a supermarket or betting shop. What will the Minister do about that, because surely it is at odds with his localism agenda?
Stephen Williams
Various proposals are in place to give added protection to pubs, such as the scheme for assets of community value. If a pub is to change hands in a sale, that gives the community an opportunity to protect those assets. Local authorities can use the national planning policy framework to supplement their local plans, and Cambridge and the royal borough of Kensington and Chelsea are doing just that.
Meg Hillier (Hackney South and Shoreditch) (Lab/Co-op)
In my constituency, the Chesham Arms was listed as an asset of community value, but the owner tried to convert it into offices, just as my hon. Friend the Member for Easington (Grahame M. Morris) has described. When is the Department going to make sure that its policies do not clash in that ridiculous way to undermine what was a good policy on assets of community value?
Stephen Williams
I am glad that the hon. Lady has said that the assets of community value scheme is a good policy. Its purpose is to protect the community when there is a sale of a building of importance to the local community; it is not a planning policy to protect against change of use. Local authorities need to use the planning tools at their disposal for that, such as their own local plan or an article 4 directive, which several local authorities, including Lewisham and Camden in London, have done successfully.
Mary Macleod (Brentford and Isleworth) (Con)
9. What steps his Department is taking with the Department for Education to encourage the development of schools on former brownfield sites.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government (Nick Boles)
The national planning policy framework makes clear the importance of planning for new school development. We have put in place new development rights to make it possible to convert a range of existing buildings into schools without the necessity of applying for planning permission.
Mary Macleod
I thank the Secretary of State for visiting Commerce road in Brentford and the new ISIS housing development last week. Given that I represent a London constituency and one of the fastest growing boroughs where school places are desperately needed, will the Under-Secretary encourage the working partnership between the developer and Transport for London to try to create a new site for a primary school in Brentford?
Nick Boles
I know that my hon. Friend has been tireless in promoting this scheme and, indeed, has managed to secure a visit from one of the Mayor of London’s deputies to discuss the possibility of transferring a site from Transport for London for school use. I will absolutely back her in that, and I am sure that she will quickly make progress.
Mr Philip Hollobone (Kettering) (Con)
11. What assessment he has made of the wider applicability of the key elements of Kettering borough council's budget for 2014-15 which (a) freezes council tax, (b) cuts car parking charges and (c) maintains grants to the voluntary sector. [R]
The Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government (Mr Eric Pickles)
I commend Kettering, particularly for freezing council tax for four successive years. It proves that councils can run their services efficiently and encourage growth without increasing taxes on local people. Kettering is providing an example in this for other councils to follow.
Mr Hollobone
In these difficult times, when value for money is more important than ever and people are concerned about how far their household budgets have been stretched, is not Kettering borough council’s response exactly the right one— cutting waste to boost efficiency, cutting car parking charges to boost town centre trade, and freezing the council tax so that people can keep more of their hard earned money?
Mr Pickles
As I said, I think that Kettering is a splendid council. It is a place we should all pop in to see on any journey that we make, as it shows how local government should be run. May I particularly commend the council for its foresight on parking, not only reducing parking charges but introducing bays so that people can pop in and shop for a very limited sum of money? I should like to see that throughout the rest of the country.
Tim Loughton (East Worthing and Shoreham) (Con)
12. What discussions he has had with the Chancellor of the Exchequer on increasing the amount of housing accommodation by extending the scope and level of the rent-a-room scheme.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government (Kris Hopkins)
I meet ministerial colleagues regularly to discuss the Government’s policy on housing. The rent-a-room scheme allows hard-working householders to earn an additional £4,250 a year tax free. The average yearly rent for a lodger is below this threshold at £4,168.
Tim Loughton
I wrote to my hon. Friend recently about the usefulness of the scheme, which was introduced by the previous Conservative Government, in bringing more accommodation into general use. Does he agree that it is disappointing that the threshold has been increased only once from £3,250 in 1992 to £4,250, since when rents have gone up substantially? Will he agree to have a conversation with the Treasury specifically about making it more up to date?
Kris Hopkins
There is a challenge around the arguments that an increase in the threshold would raise rents for people in that area. I suggest that my hon. Friend and I meet, and perhaps together go to speak to the Treasury.
Jenny Chapman (Darlington) (Lab)
Will the Minister consider making it a legal requirement to install smoke detectors in all private rented accommodation?
Kris Hopkins
A consultation finished on 28 March to discuss that and carbon monoxide detectors. We will share our deliberations on the matter shortly.
Lorraine Fullbrook (South Ribble) (Con)
13. What estimate he has made of the average saving to families paying band D council tax from the Government’s council tax freeze policy.
The Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government (Mr Eric Pickles)
Our council tax freeze schemes could be worth up to £1,075 for an average band D household in England over the lifetime of this Parliament.
Lorraine Fullbrook
Despite the efforts of the Conservative administration in South Ribble, who have frozen council tax again for the fourth time in five years, my constituents are still facing a rise in council tax because of Labour-controlled Lancashire county council’s decision to increase its part of the council tax by a referendum-dodging 1.99%. Does my right hon. Friend agree that this rise is unjustified and that Labour politicians in county hall are the same old Labour, raising taxes for hard-working local people?
Mr Pickles
South Ribble deserves a lot of praise for freezing council tax four years on the trot. That is very welcome indeed. It is strange that a number of authorities, the majority of them Labour, have come in at 1.98% or 1.99%. In a way, that undermines their claim that local government funding is inadequate. If it was inadequate, I am confident that they would have gone for a larger increase in council tax.
Graham Jones (Hyndburn) (Lab)
Does the Secretary of State agree that it is a disgrace that the last authority, with a Conservative administration in county hall, is being investigated by the police? There has perhaps been a misappropriation of funds, which the police are looking into, and serious problems with the accounting at county hall. The Labour administration which has come in is having to pick up the pieces.
Mr Speaker
Very tangentially related to the question of a council tax freeze, but the intellectual ingenuity of the Secretary of State is such that I feel sure he can respond both pithily and in order.
Mr Pickles
I am grateful for that vote of confidence, Mr Speaker. That view might not always be shared throughout the House. Clearly, investigations are taking place, but that in no way undermines the enormous achievement of delivering a low council tax, improving many services and getting a lot of people off the dole during the four years that Conservatives ran that council.
Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab)
14. What recent estimate he has made of the cost to local authorities of their public health responsibilities.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government (Brandon Lewis)
English local authorities receive the public health grant, which is now £2.79 billion for 2014-15. Public health is a key part of the Government’s broader work promoting integrated health and care services, which includes the new £3.8 billion for the better care fund.
Kerry McCarthy
I trust the Minister is aware of a recent British Medical Journal report called “Raiding the public budget”. It reported that local authorities are diverting public health funds to meet shortfalls in other council budgets. Has the Minister discussed this with local authorities and with his colleagues in the Department of Health, and does he share the concerns of the former south-west director of public health that this is “robbing Peter to pay Paul”?
Brandon Lewis
Local authorities across the country know what this is about. They have a vested interest in getting it right, and some of the examples out there are a salutary lesson to every authority that such behaviour would not be tolerated.
Julie Hilling (Bolton West) (Lab)
16. What assessment he has made of the effect of recent changes in local authority spending on youth work budgets.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government (Stephen Williams)
Local government accounts for a quarter of all public spending, so it must clearly share the burden of reducing the deficit that this Government are trying to bridge. We expect councils to make sensible savings, such as cutting waste and bureaucracy, not taking the lazy option of cutting front-line services, such as youth work.
Julie Hilling
But youth services up and down the country are being destroyed, even though local authorities have a statutory duty to provide or procure youth work. So what is the Minister doing to ensure that local authorities fulfil their statutory duty?
Stephen Williams
I understand that several local authorities are being innovative in their approach to discharging that statutory duty—for instance, placing their youth service in a social enterprise, where it might be provided more efficiently, or working with volunteers. My Department has a multi-million-pound programme in place via Youth United to find many hundreds of volunteers who are needed to run many of the youth services that flourish in all our constituencies.
Mr Adrian Sanders (Torbay) (LD)
17. What steps the Government are taking to reform the private rented sector.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government (Kris Hopkins)
We are making significant reforms to the private rented sector. These include increasing supply through the £1 billion Build to Rent fund and £10 billion guarantee scheme, and providing £6.7 million to address rogue landlords.
Mr Sanders
The regulatory regime for private sector housing will go some way to protecting tenants, but also give investors in rented housing the confidence and security to invest. Will he provide an update on the consultation process and confirm that additional protections for landlords and tenants could be included if a well streamlined form of regulation could be found?
Kris Hopkins
First, may I reassure my hon. Friend that the £1 billion Build to Rent fund is over-subscribed by £2.8 billion? There is a confidence to participate in that, but it is right that the Government ensure that we protect both landlords and tenants. There is a redress scheme that will become law soon and a tenants charter, and we are really encouraging councils to go out there and pursue those rogue landlords, a small number of individuals, who are undermining this part of the sector.
Sir Andrew Stunell (Hazel Grove) (LD)
20. What further steps he is taking to increase the supply of social housing.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government (Stephen Williams)
As my hon. Friend will know, as a former Minister in this Department, the Government have one of the most ambitious programmes of delivery for affordable and social homes of any Government, and I pay tribute to his party in setting that programme in train.
Sir Andrew Stunell
I thank the Minister for that somewhat disarming answer. Will he join me in congratulating Stockport Homes on opening its 4 millionth social and affordable home for rent? Does he see that as a really stark contrast with the performance of the Labour Government in reducing the housing stock by more than 400,000?
Stephen Williams
I was delighted to join my right hon. Friend in his constituency just before Christmas to open a street of new social homes in Stockport. It is certainly the case that this Government, at the end of this Parliament in 2015, will be the first for generations to leave more social and affordable homes in stock than we found five years ago in 2010.
Nigel Adams (Selby and Ainsty) (Con)
21. How his Department is supporting self-build projects. [R]
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government (Kris Hopkins)
We support people who want to build their own homes. This includes £30 million for development finance, making more land available through the planning system, consulting on a new Right to Build, and providing £150 million to create up to 10,000 serviced plots throughout the country.
Nigel Adams
TV programmes such as Kevin McCloud’s “Grand Designs” have inspired many thousands of people to build their own homes, including me. The problem is that such people have to get their hands on a plot, which is not so easy. How many local authorities is the Minister aware of that have carried out an assessment of need for self-build in their local areas in accordance with the national policy planning framework?
Kris Hopkins
I have seen my hon. Friend’s house; it is quite spectacular, and I congratulate him on it. The Government do not record which authorities have come forward, but the National Self Build Association monitors which authorities have looked at self-build. There are 60 councils at this moment in time and there are lots more considering how to put self-build into their draft plans.
Mr Speaker
The hon. Gentleman has won ministerial plaudits for his talent and conscientiousness as a builder, and I am sure he will be deeply obliged to the Minister.
Justin Tomlinson (North Swindon) (Con)
22. What steps the Government are taking to support community pubs.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government (Brandon Lewis)
We are providing £200,000 of funding to help communities diversify and own their pubs through Pub is the Hub and the Plunkett Foundation, both of which do fantastic work. The Right to Bid also provides protection for pubs as community assets. We have doubled the small business rate relief until 2015, scrapped the previous Government’s beer and alcohol duty escalators and cider duty proposal, and reduced beer duty in successive Budgets for the first time.
Justin Tomlinson
Will the Minister join me in thanking Arkell’s Brewery for fully passing on the beer duty cuts to landlords and customers, helping to protect the 52 pubs and 1,412 jobs in my constituency?
Brandon Lewis
My hon. Friend makes an excellent point. Across the industry, that duty cut has been passed on to the consumer, and that is a really good thing for the industry to do. I encourage all people to visit their good local pubs and enjoy the benefits.
Bridget Phillipson (Houghton and Sunderland South) (Lab)
T1. If he will make a statement on his departmental responsibilities.
The Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government (Mr Eric Pickles)
On Friday I instructed inspectors to launch an investigation into the mayoral administration in Tower Hamlets. Local government has a proud record of probity, scrutiny and accountability, and that is a reputation worth protecting. There are allegations of mismanagement of taxpayer-funded resources, divisive community politics, and systematic undermining of vital checks and balances. Serious questions have been asked. Its residents deserve frank and honest answers, and I am determined to get to the truth.
Bridget Phillipson
From 2015, there will be no support from Government to local councils to fund their welfare assistance schemes. What advice would the Secretary of State offer to struggling families, women fleeing domestic violence, and homeless young people, who depend on this lifeline?
Mr Pickles
This fund, which is currently under-claimed, was there to give local authorities time to adjust in making the necessary savings. It is up to local authorities to fund the scheme, and most will do so excellently. As the economy improves as people find jobs, the savings will not only be justified but easy to fulfil.
Mr Tobias Ellwood (Bournemouth East) (Con)
T3. The Secretary of State will be aware that Bournemouth has been severely affected by river flooding and sea storms. Will he ensure that there are no delays in the funding that has been promised so that new flood defences can be in place before next winter?
Mr Pickles
The Environment Agency, with the help of the Army, now has a full set of flood defences that need attention. If my hon. Friend has a particular problem with regard to funding, I will happily meet him after questions.
Hilary Benn (Leeds Central) (Lab)
On Tower Hamlets, it is clearly in the public interest to establish the facts, so anyone who has any information should bring it forward, and of course the audit must be open and transparent to command public confidence.
It is reported in The Guardian that this week the Prime Minister intends to announce a clampdown on fixed-odds betting terminals, with a range of regulatory and planning powers to curb the clustering of betting shops. What planning changes is the Secretary of State considering to protect communities from too many betting shops and too many FOBTs?
Mr Pickles
I am most grateful for the right hon. Gentleman’s support with regard to Tower Hamlets. He is absolutely right: this has to be completely in the open. At a reception relating to flooding this lunchtime, I was approached by someone who had dealings with Tower Hamlets and is indeed handing over information. It is important that we get to the bottom of this.
With regard to fixed-odds terminals, it was announced in the Budget that we would be carrying out a review of use class, and we are about to start the consultation. The right hon. Gentleman, who has considerable experience in planning, is most welcome to make a contribution to that.
Hilary Benn
I thank the Secretary of State for that reply, but it sounds to me as though, once again, No. 10 has taken over responsibility for his policy. He says that there will be a consultation, but how open will it be? I ask because when we proposed that communities should be given more powers over fixed-odds betting terminals and the proliferation of betting shops, the Planning Minister, the hon. Member for Grantham and Stamford (Nick Boles), said he was against that, telling the House that
“we need no more planning changes to enable councils to do what they want to do to protect their local communities.”—[Official Report, 8 January 2014; Vol. 573, c. 412.]
Does the Planning Minister still stand by that statement?
Mr Pickles
The Planning Minister is absolutely right. [Interruption.] I beg your pardon—may I be allowed to reply? Article 4 is pretty adequate, but we have noticed that local authorities seem reluctant to use it. Why should electors suffer because of the inactivity of their local councils? We are looking most carefully at this, and it was in the Budget. The right hon. Gentleman was there—I saw him—and he should have paid attention to what the Chancellor said.
Gordon Henderson (Sittingbourne and Sheppey) (Con)
T4. A number of houses in my constituency were built by a small building company where serious breaches of building regulations have recently been discovered. This shoddy building work was signed off by independent building control inspectors over whom my local authority appears to have no influence. Will my right hon. Friend take steps to ensure that local authorities are given powers to force independent building control inspectors to ensure that there is proper compliance with building regulations?
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government (Stephen Williams)
Approved building inspectors do, of course, have that duty to inspect buildings as they are constructed, often through spot checks. If the hon. Gentleman has a specific allegation, I suggest that he write to me so that my officials can look at it and advise him on the course of action that may be available.
Graeme Morrice (Livingston) (Lab)
T2. Nine in 10 disabled people are cutting back on household bills in order to pay the bedroom tax, and many are now falling into rent arrears. If the Secretary of State were in their position, would he fall into debt or cut back on heating or even eating?
Mr Pickles
There is no evidence of any increase in arrears. A number of things can be considered, including taking in a lodger, obtaining a job and getting help from local authorities, which have, by and large, dealt with the issue in a reasonable way. The Labour party lumbered the taxpayer with an enormous bill as far as the growth in housing benefit was concerned, and it is entirely wrong to pretend that it would not have introduced similar constraints.
Mr Adrian Sanders (Torbay) (LD)
T5. Will the Secretary of State look at his policy to give powers to local authorities to help increase the number of family-owned small businesses and reduce the number of nationally owned betting shops and payday lenders in our town centres?
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government (Nick Boles)
This question gives me an opportunity to clarify, for the sake of the right hon. Member for Leeds Central (Hilary Benn), what the Budget made clear, which is that the Government are going to consult on the creation of a single retail use class in town centres that will not include betting shops or payday lenders. If the consultation is followed through, it will diminish the ability to convert units into betting shops or premises for payday lenders. That would, I hope, produce the kind of effect for which my hon. Friend is looking.
Ian Mearns (Gateshead) (Lab)
T6. Several weeks ago, I asked the Secretary of State if he was prepared to backdate the changes to the Bellwin scheme, to ensure that those who suffered flooding in the north in 2012 and 2013 are provided with the same support as those affected by flooding in the south this winter. Is he prepared to make those changes and end that double standard, or is there still no support for those in the north?
Mr Pickles
Those in the north affected by the tidal surge and other flooding that occurred this winter will, of course, receive exactly the same treatment as those in the south.
Nigel Mills (Amber Valley) (Con)
T8. Work recently started on a new crematorium in my constituency that was turned down by the local council but approved by the Government inspector. Is it not time to look again at when inspectors should be allowed to overturn local decisions and make it the exception rather than the rule?
Nick Boles
My hon. Friend has been a vocal advocate for his constituents on particular applications in his area. As a result, we have clarified in recent planning guidance the time that a plan can be deemed to be sufficiently advanced but not yet sound, in order to enable a local authority to make a decision to refuse an application even if it does not have a sound plan. We believe that that is a step forward that gives councils the ability to make those decisions in such circumstances.
Alison Seabeck (Plymouth, Moor View) (Lab)
T7. I recently visited Crownhill fire station and members of its watch would like a Minister to answer a question about the tapering arrangements for their pension scheme. One firefighter has served since he was 18 years old. He is now 39 and will miss out because the scheme starts for those aged 40, so he will have to work for 42 years rather than 30 years. The watch want to know whether any consideration has been given to the scheme in operation for the police, which takes into account length of service rather than age.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government (Brandon Lewis)
My understanding is that, at the time that arrangement was made with the police, the Fire Brigades Union did not go down that road. More firefighters are protected by the scheme we have put in place than any other scheme in the public sector, and conversations with the FBU remain ongoing.
Nicola Blackwood (Oxford West and Abingdon) (Con)
T9. This winter, my constituents struggled not only with the destruction of river flooding, but with the revolting effects of foul-water flooding and inadequate drainage. We have a severe housing shortage, so it is right that we should be building houses, but this must not make the situation any worse. What steps is the Minister taking to strengthen consultation with water companies during the planning process, and will he meet me and local representatives to discuss the matter?
Nick Boles
I am sure everybody in the House can imagine just how horrible it must be for their own home to be affected by their drains backing up. Of course it is important that every local authority consults, as they are statutorily required to do, with water companies when they draw up their local plans. I would of course be delighted to meet my hon. Friend and any of her constituents to discuss any particular case.
Jim Fitzpatrick (Poplar and Limehouse) (Lab)
The welcome written statement released today says Ministers “have long been concerned” about Tower Hamlets. Will the Secretary of State agree that Tower Hamlets was an improving and in many ways well-run council between 1994 and 2010, and confirm that the period under inspection is from 2010 and therefore that the concern of Ministers and others is a relatively recent phenomenon?
Mr Pickles
There have been some worries about the running of the council; the hon. Gentleman has raised them with me privately. Now that the investigation has started, it must be on the basis that everyone is innocent until the allegations are proved, so it is probably not sensible for me or others to speculate about the strength and nature of the claims until we receive the report at the end of June.
Sir Bob Russell (Colchester) (LD)
A few years ago, Essex county council grabbed highways maintenance from Colchester borough council. Today, we have potholed streets and broken pavements, and the street lights are turned off at midnight. Will the Secretary of State support me in getting highway powers restored to Colchester borough council?
Mr Pickles
It is always a pleasure to visit Colchester, and it is a double pleasure to visit my hon. Friend. I am sorry that the lights are being turned out in Colchester. If we talk together with our friends at the county council, I am sure that some kind of devolution could take place.
Rushanara Ali (Bethnal Green and Bow) (Lab)
On Tower Hamlets, local residents from all communities are deeply concerned that the actions of those under investigation do not damage the reputation of the area and its diverse communities, and they all want transparency and accountability in the use of public funds. Will the Secretary of State reassure me that swift action will be taken to restore public confidence, and will he explain what led him to decide to bring in investigators and refer files to the police?
Mr Pickles
I certainly listened very carefully to the views of the two Members of Parliament in Tower Hamlets with regard to what has been going on. A series of dossiers from whistleblowers made me decide that the allegations were so serious that they needed proper investigation. At the end of that process—I notice that the mayor has welcomed this investigation— I hope that we can move on constructively. Nevertheless, we cannot leave such allegations just hanging in the air.
Margot James (Stourbridge) (Con)
In a written answer, my right hon. Friend stated that 60 local authorities had used the powers available to them under the Localism Act 2011 and granted business rate relief last year. Those authorities included Birmingham city council, which granted relief of £438,000, but none of the four local authorities in the black country—just half a mile away—have used the powers. What can the Minister do to encourage local authorities to use the powers available to them to encourage local businesses?
Brandon Lewis
My hon. Friend makes a very good point, and in directly asking the question she has done a good job in highlighting this issue to such authorities. All local authorities have the power to do this: on top of the £1 billion business rate package put forward in the autumn statement and confirmed in the Budget, it is a good opportunity for local authorities to support local business and to develop local business growth, particularly around high streets and town centres.
Mr Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith) (Lab)
If a council gave planning permission for 2,600 homes on sites with a £10 billion development value and not one was an additional home for social rent, while selling off council homes on the open market when they became vacant, with more than 10,000 families in housing need in the borough, would that worry the Secretary of State?
Nick Boles
I would never presume to comment on a particular application, or the measures contained in a particular application, that a directly elected local council has seen fit to approve.
Mark Garnier (Wyre Forest) (Con)
Last week, Malvern Hills district council approved planning for 67 homes adjacent to my constituency, despite objections from me, from Wyre Forest district council, from Stourport town council and from Astley and Dunley parish council. Those homes have a significant impact on resources for Stourport-on-Severn and Wyre Forest, yet section 106 payments and council tax will be going to Malvern Hills district council. Does the Minister share the frustration of Stourport residents? What steps is he taking to ensure that residents are properly heard when decisions are made that have asymmetric cross-border implications?
Nick Boles
I will be happy to meet my hon. Friend to discuss the matter, with any other representatives he would like to bring.
Nic Dakin (Scunthorpe) (Lab)
Does the Secretary of State share my disappointment that, despite North Lincolnshire Homes urging it to change its policy better to support tenants in difficulty, Conservative North Lincolnshire council has spent only 17% of its discretionary housing payments? Consequently, local people who have been hit by the Government’s bedroom tax and are unable to move continue to suffer.
Mr Pickles
Right across the piece, local authorities vary in how much they have used discretionary housing payments. I am surprised to see how underspent that particular budget item has been under both Labour councils and some Conservative councils.
Stuart Andrew (Pudsey) (Con)
The Minister said earlier that local plans and examinations can be considered as part of any appeal. Constituencies such as mine, however, are not quite at that stage. My council and local neighbourhood forum are still developing their plans, but they are seeing developers use this interim period to get permission on important strategic sites. What assurances can he give my constituents, who have put a considerable number of hours into this work, that their efforts will not be in vain and that they will not see important sites swallowed up on appeal?
Nick Boles
I know that my hon. Friend’s authority is working to deliver a very ambitious plan, which takes time and needs to be underpinned by the necessary evidence. No application should be granted if it is in conflict with the sustainability policies in the national planning policy framework. Even in the absence of a local plan, there are all the protections of the national planning policy framework on transport, environment and other sustainability issues to ensure that unsustainable development is not allowed.
Point of Order
John Mann (Bassetlaw) (Lab)
On a point of order, Mr Speaker. The Prime Minister said this morning that he is “very open” to suggestions on how to reform the system that some would describe as MPs regulating themselves through the Committee on Standards. I note that there is no ministerial statement so that the House can make suggestions for the Prime Minister and the Government to consider. What opportunities might there be for the House to discuss not the behaviour and actions of any individual Members but the principle of self-regulation of MPs by MPs?
Mr David Winnick (Walsall North) (Lab)
Further to that point of order, Mr Speaker. Undoubtedly these have been very bad days for the reputation of this House. My hon. Friend’s point on self-regulation is interesting, and of course it has been voiced by other Members and by people outside the House. Before the House rises on Thursday, what mechanism is there for us to discuss this important issue? I do not want to raise the particular case but the general question of how we regulate ourselves and recognise the amount of criticism, justified or otherwise, that has been expressed outside by many people, and by no means just the media, over the past few days.
Mr Dennis Skinner (Bolsover) (Lab)
Further to that point of order, Mr Speaker. This has just crossed my mind, and I thought I had better use it before you do: how do you solve the problem called Maria?
Mr Speaker
I am grateful to the hon. Members for their points of order, or attempted points of order. I am obliged to the hon. Member for Bassetlaw (John Mann) for what he said about not seeking to debate a particular case. I feel sure that he is well familiar with “Erskine May” page 396, which specifically stipulates that there cannot be debate on the conduct of an individual hon. or right hon. Member, other than on a substantive motion. No substantive motion is on the Order Paper, and therefore no such discussion can or should take place.
I simply say to the hon. Gentleman that Governments may make statements to the House when they wish. The Government have not chosen to make a statement today. It is perfectly possible for exchanges on the principles of the issue that concern him and others to take place between now and when we rise later this week. That might take the form of a question or a debate. I am very open to these matters being aired if right hon. and hon. Members wish to air them. However, it must be done in an orderly way. That is the sole responsibility of the Chair in this matter. I know his persistence and that of other right hon. and hon. Members. I am sure that they will use the opportunities that are available to seek to air their concerns at the earliest opportunity—concerns that, as the hon. Member for Walsall North (Mr Winnick) articulated, are shared widely by our constituents.
Justice and Home Affairs Opt-out
(10 years, 1 month ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mrs Theresa May)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered the UK’s 2014 justice and home affairs opt-out decision.
We return once more to the important issue of the United Kingdom’s opt-out decision in relation to justice and home affairs matters under the Lisbon treaty—an issue that not only raises important questions about the protection of individual rights, but directly affects our law enforcement agencies’ ability to work with their EU counterparts to keep British citizens safe. It is an issue in which a number of right hon. and hon. Members have taken a keen interest, and the Government are grateful to them for their work in this area so far, not least the Select Committees on Home Affairs and on Justice and the European Scrutiny Committee, before all of which my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Justice and I have appeared on a number of occasions.
Those Committees have produced many valuable reports on the 2014 opt-outs. Their most recent was a joint report that was published on 26 March, in which they expressed the view that the Government have not engaged properly with Parliament on this issue. We deeply regret that they take that view and respectfully disagree. The Government have strongly supported and, indeed, encouraged Parliament’s scrutiny of this important matter from the very start of the process. I made an initial statement in October 2012 because the Government considered it important to communicate their proposed direction of travel at an early stage to enable scrutiny of the position to take place. That was in line with standard practice on EU police and criminal justice matters.
Since then, the Government have invited the Committees to play their part in this important work and have supported them in doing so. Well over 12 hours of ministerial time have been committed to giving evidence before the Committees. The Government have also submitted written evidence to inquiries and corresponded with the Committees on a regular basis. In addition, we have answered more than 300 parliamentary questions on this matter.
None the less, we take the Committees’ disappointment seriously. In the light of their disappointment and the views of other right hon. and hon. Members, the Government have allocated time this afternoon for the House to debate this important issue once again.
Keith Vaz (Leicester East) (Lab)
It is very unusual for three Committees of the House to agree on every single word of a joint report, which is what we did. The point that the three Committees made—the Chairman of the European Scrutiny Committee is here and he can make his own points on this—was that it was important for Parliament to deliberate on this matter before the package was put in place, rather than afterwards, which would give Parliament very little time for proper discussion. That is why we felt that it was important to deal with this matter at the earliest opportunity. We are grateful to the Home Secretary for giving us this time.
Mrs May
I am grateful to the Chairman of the Home Affairs Committee for setting out the reason behind the joint report from the three Committees. I will go on to explain exactly where we are in the process. He talks about the package coming before the House before it is adopted. We have made it very clear that there will be another opportunity for Parliament to debate the matter and vote on it.
I should remind the House of the background and the stage in proceedings we have reached. Under the terms of the Lisbon treaty, which the Labour Government signed in 2007, the UK had a specific and limited period of time to opt out of roughly 130 justice and home affairs measures covered by the treaty. That opt-out—Labour negotiated it, but never made it clear whether it would use it—had to be exercised en bloc, and before 31 May this year. Last July, the Government informed the House that we intended to exercise the UK’s opt-out. After debates in both Houses, Parliament voted for us to do so.
Accordingly, on 24 July 2013, the Prime Minister wrote to the then President of the Council of Ministers, informing her that the UK had exercised its right to opt-out from all pre-Lisbon police and criminal justice measures. That decision is irreversible, and will come into effect on 1 December 2014.
Dr Julian Huppert (Cambridge) (LD)
Paragraph 85 of the Home Affairs Committee’s ninth report, which dealt with the matter, states:
“The Government should…be explicit on what would happen if the proposed opt-in could not be agreed”—
in other words, they should be explicit on what would happen if the negotiations failed. That did not get a substantive response. Will the Home Secretary be explicitly clear about what will happen if the Government fail to agree the opt-in terms?
Mrs May
I will refer to one or two specific measures in relation to that, but as I have just indicated to the House, the Government have exercised the block opt-out. It is open to us to seek to rejoin any of the individual measures covered by it. If we do not negotiate to rejoin those measures, we will no longer be part of them from 1 December 2014.
When I came to the House last July, I explained that my ministerial colleagues and I had concluded that a number of the measures subject to the opt-out decision added value in the fight against crime and the pursuit of justice, and that it would therefore be in our national interest to seek to rejoin them. We believe that there are only a limited number of such measures—we set those out in Command Paper 8671 for the House to see before it voted on our decision to exercise the opt-out.
They were always separate decisions, and the Government have always been clear that Parliament and its Committees should have adequate time to scrutinise both. To make that explicit, we listened to the concerns of hon. Members, and particularly to the Chairmen of the Committees to which I have referred, and amended the motion for last July’s debate to invite the European Scrutiny Committee, the Home Affairs Committee and the Justice Committee to submit reports before the Government opened formal discussions with the European Commission, the Council and other member states.
Mr William Cash (Stone) (Con)
I endorse what the Chairman of the Home Affairs Committee said with one qualification. It is not just a question of whether Parliament is given the opportunity to deliberate before decisions are taken behind closed doors, but a question of whether Parliament is, in effect, being asked to rubber stamp something that has already been decided in negotiations behind those closed doors. The problem is one of the matter therefore being hidden from the searching gaze of the public and Parliament itself.
Mrs May
Of course, by definition, the Government’s role is negotiating with the parties I have just indicated—the Council, the Commission and the member states—on those measures to which they agree it is possible for us to opt back into. That process, which takes some time, has been put in motion. I will describe where we are a little later but, by definition, the process must be undertaken by the Government. We have been clear that we will come back to Parliament, which will have the opportunity to debate and vote on the package of measures.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Mr Cash) is well aware, we have indicated the measures on which we wish to opt back in. The discussions are in place with the European Commission and the other member states as to their views—whether or not they wish the UK to opt back in—and any other matters they wish to discuss with us as part of that negotiation.
Jacob Rees-Mogg (North East Somerset) (Con)
To ensure the fullest engagement with Parliament, ought not it to be the case that we vote on every individual measure and not on a package?
Mrs May
The Government have always seen this clearly as a number of measures, some of which interlink and relate to one another. Therefore, they are part of a package in relation to our ability better to protect the public and ensure that our law enforcement agencies have the powers that we consider they need.
Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)
In what precise form will any vote be taken? Would it have legislative effect if the House added or took away one of the measures?
Mrs May
The Government will not bring forward legislation to the House on this matter, because that is not necessary. We will put before the House a package of measures that, following discussions with the European Commission, we believe we should be rejoining.
We responded to the Select Committees when they submitted their reports. I am sure that their work will inform the speeches we will hear in today’s debate.
I said that I would indicate what progress we had made in the negotiations. Everybody will of course understand that the nature of a negotiation is such that it is a poor negotiating strategy to reveal one’s hand in public while a deal is still being done. Detailed and constructive discussions are taking place with the European Commission and other member states. There are a great many processes and technical matters to discuss, but we are all keen to avoid the operational gap for our law enforcement agencies that will ensue if we have not settled the matter before 1 December, when, as I indicated earlier, the UK’s opt-out takes full effect. Our aim is therefore to reach an “in principle” deal well ahead of that date, and, as I have already indicated, to return to Parliament for a further vote before formally seeking to rejoin measures in the national interest.
Keith Vaz
I am most grateful to the Home Secretary for giving way a second time. Has she seen reference made to a note by the Greek presidency that was published by Statewatch—it was leaked; it was not published by the presidency—that the United Kingdom needs to have its re-opting list agreed by June 2014; in other words, before the parliamentary recess? Has she seen that note and is that the case? Do we have to get all our priorities ready by then?
Mrs May
I am aware of a number of reports in the press in relation to documents that, it is claimed, have been leaked as part of the discussions that have been taking place. The timetable I have set out is very clear. On 1 December, having exercised the opt-out, we will no longer be part of any of the roughly 130 measures covered by the opt-out protocol. If, before that date, we have not negotiated the package, had the parliamentary debate and vote, and been able to agree the formal terms for returning to those measures that we choose to opt back into, then we will be out of those measures. It is that date that sets an end-point for us on when we want to be able to ensure we can opt back in.
Chris Bryant
The Home Secretary is always very generous to me; I have never complained about her generosity and magnanimity. I just want to go back to the question I asked last time, because I do not think she understood fully what I meant. I understand that the motion before the House will not be legislation—it will not be an Act of Parliament or secondary legislation—so will it just be an amendable motion that the Government can then completely and utterly ignore?
Mrs May
It will be an opportunity for this House to debate on the basis of a motion that the Government will bring forward. By definition, we have not yet put that motion into place, so the hon. Gentleman may just have to wait and see the nature of the motion when it is brought before this House. The Government have been clear that Parliament should be able to exercise the opportunity to give its views on the discussions we have had with the European Commission and member states in relation to the measure that we choose to opt into. We have been clear throughout this process that Parliament will be given a vote on the final list of measures. I am happy to confirm, as I have done already on a number of occasions in the limited time that I have been speaking, that that will be the case.
While the negotiations continue, I realise that hon. Members want to debate and comment on some of the specific measures that the Government identified in Command paper 8671 as being in our national interest to rejoin. Chief among them is the European arrest warrant. I know that this measure arouses particular feeling in the House. We clearly need strong extradition arrangements in place to see criminals convicted and justice done, but when extradition arrangements are wrong, they can cause misery to suspects and their families, and risk miscarriages of justice.
The previous Labour Government had eight years to address the concerns that people raised in respect of the European arrest warrant, but they did nothing. Where they failed to act, this Government have legislated to implement new safeguards to increase the protection offered to those wanted for extradition, particularly British citizens. The concrete steps taken by the Government in the Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014 will tackle the operational deficiencies of the arrest warrant head on.
Our changes will protect the fundamental rights of British citizens by allowing arrest warrants that are issued for disproportionate offences to be refused; they will address the understandable concerns that many people had about lengthy pre-trial detention; they will help to ensure that British nationals will not be extradited when the prosecuting authorities are still investigating offences; and they will help to ensure that people cannot be extradited for conduct that takes place in the United Kingdom and is not against the law of this land.
Nick de Bois (Enfield North) (Con)
I am grateful to the Home Secretary for many of the changes that are being made, but, as she knows, I have specific knowledge as a result of the experience of my constituent Andrew Symeou, and I feel obliged to make a point that he made recently when being interviewed about the changes. Although steps have been taken to prevent people from being held for unnecessary periods when a case is not trial-ready, he is certain that the Greek authorities lied in his case, and that there is nothing to prevent them from doing so again.
Mrs May
My hon. Friend’s constituent has particular experience of the operation of the European arrest warrant, and my hon. Friend has been assiduous in drawing attention to that case and to the case for change. However, it will be possible for the process that determines whether a case is trial-ready to take place in the courts here in the United Kingdom, and for decisions to be made there. I am confident that proper consideration will be given to evidence given by the authorities in Greece or other member states concerning the preparedness of the case.
Sir Gerald Howarth (Aldershot) (Con)
My right hon. Friend has set out the safeguards that will apply to the European arrest warrant, which, as she knows, is of huge concern to many people in this country. One of the fears that we all have is that all the measures into which she wishes to opt will be subject to the European Court of Justice. How certain can she be that those safeguards will be upheld by the Court?
Mrs May
It is true that the measures that we opt back into will be subject to the European Court of Justice, but I take some confidence from the fact that other member states have already introduced measures that are similar to a number of the measures that we are introducing in our own legislation. It is noticeable, for instance, that some member states are more able to deal with the proportionality issue than we have been so far. I think it a pity that the last Government did not introduce such measures, but we recognised the extent of the concern that was being expressed and the fact that it was possible for us to act, which we have done. We made changes to the way in which extradition works—in the face of some resistance—in order to protect British citizens in respect of extradition to the United States, and we have now legislated to change the operation of the European arrest warrant in the UK and enhance the protections that British citizens enjoy. The Labour Government dithered, but we have acted to protect British citizens from injustice at home and abroad.
Mr Jim Cunningham (Coventry South) (Lab)
Will the Home Secretary say a little more about the extradition of British citizens to the United States? What improvement has she made in that regard?
Mrs May
I have made a number of improvements. The most obvious one is the introduction of the forum bar. That was not entirely popular on either side of the Atlantic, but we did it because we felt that it was right. I believe that it is an important safeguard in relation to the extradition of British citizens outside the European Union.
I believe that our reforms will make an important difference to the European arrest warrant. It is, of course, in our national interest to have an effective extradition system, and no other extradition system would be as effective.
Jacob Rees-Mogg
Before my right hon. Friend leaves the subject of proportionality, may I ask whether she has seen reports in today’s papers about a meeting of the Council of Ministers at which the French and Germans have indicated that they do not think that the proportionality test meets the requirements of European law?
Mrs May
I am aware of the report in today’s press, but I do not think that it referred to a Council of Ministers meeting. It may have referred to a document that possibly had been leaked from the European Commission. I say to my hon. Friend that, as I have made very clear, there are matters for discussion and matters for negotiation that we have to undertake as we go through this process, but other member states do have within their own systems a greater ability to deal with issues such as proportionality, and I think it is right that we have taken powers ourselves in our own legislation to do that.
Returning to my point, I think it is in our national interest to have an effective extradition system in place and no other extradition system would be as effective. We owe it to the victims of crime, and their families, to return the alleged perpetrators of serious crimes to this country and ensure that they face justice. There are many examples of that, of which I will cite only a few.
The arrest warrant recently helped the British authorities to secure the extradition and conviction of Francis Paul Cullen, a former priest who sexually assaulted seven children before spending more than two decades on the run in Spain. Thanks to the European arrest warrant, he will now swap the Spanish sun for a 15-year term in a British jail.
Our law enforcement agencies are clear that the arrest warrant has helped them to secure the return of dangerous criminals to face justice in the UK—criminals who under the old regime might not have been returned to answer for their crimes, including David Heiss from Germany and Florian Baboi from Romania.
David Heiss viciously murdered a British student, Matthew Pyke—originally from Stowmarket in Suffolk—in Nottingham in September 2008, stabbing him 86 times. Heiss was arrested on a European arrest warrant at his home in Germany a month after the offence and was surrendered to the UK the month after that. He has since been sentenced to a minimum of 18 years in prison. Before the European arrest warrant, Germany did not surrender its own nationals; indeed, there was a constitutional bar to its doing so, so it is clear that in this case the arrest warrant made a real difference.
Mr Dominic Raab (Esher and Walton) (Con)
In how many of the recent cases is the European arrest warrant making extradition quicker, rather than facilitating it when it would not have happened under existing arrangements? The Home Secretary has given one very powerful case, but quantitatively how many cases are we talking about because the argument has been made that actually we would face a cliff edge and just not get fugitives back rather than get them back a little bit slower?
Mrs May
The argument I make in relation to the European arrest warrant is on both those aspects of its operation. I have just cited a case where there was an issue of whether an individual would have been able to be extradited back to the UK had we not had the European arrest warrant. There are other cases where it is a matter of fact that the European arrest warrant has been able to be exercised more quickly on average than extraditions were before the EAW was in place. So it is not just that there are people who would not come back unless we had the EAW; it is that it also smoothes the process and makes this quicker and brings people here to justice quicker.
Mr Cash
The Home Secretary has given us a number of indications of concerns that have arisen in some member states. Is she conscious of the fact that the French have said the UK requirements risk imposing an undue burden on other member states, that the Germans raise serious doubts about compatibility with European law, that Spain says the Legal Service should give its opinion and that the Dutch have said that there are a number of fundamental and practical problems? Is it not all rather running into the sand?
Mrs May
No it is not, and I have to say to my hon. Friend that he is not party to the discussions that we are party to, but I am interested that he mentions Germany because it is one of the countries that has a greater ability to deal with the proportionality issue than the United Kingdom. As I say, there are other member states who have themselves already, either automatically because of their constitution or because they have taken powers, taken steps to ensure they can deal with the very issues we are dealing with in the Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act I referred to earlier.
Florian Baboi is a Romanian national who was returned to the UK from Romania under an arrest warrant to stand trial for the murder of David McArthur in Birmingham in August 2011. He was found guilty in May 2012 and sentenced to life in prison. That is another case where the EAW has helped to bring dangerous offenders to justice.
So it is unsurprising that the Association of Chief Police Officers’ evidence to the Home Affairs Committee made clear its view that the arrest warrant is an “essential weapon” in the fight against serious criminality. This view was echoed by the outgoing Director of Public Prosecutions, who was clear that the streamlined process of the arrest warrant makes it easier to bring serious criminals back to face justice. I agree wholeheartedly with those assessments.
Dr Huppert
The Home Secretary is absolutely right to highlight the huge importance of the European arrest warrant. I am constantly surprised by people who are so fanatically anti-European that they would jeopardise our safety by trying to opt out of it. Is she aware that, last Friday, the Daily Mail wrote about a case involving Magdalena Ferkova, who was brought back to this country using the European arrest warrant? If even the Daily Mail is happy about it, there must be something to be said for it.
Mrs May
Today’s debate has probably generated a first in parliamentary history: my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge (Dr Huppert) praising the Daily Mail in a debate in the House of Commons.
I want to turn now to some of the other important measures that the Government are proposing that we should rejoin. We are seeking to rejoin the European supervision order, which allows British subjects to be bailed back to the UK rather than spending many months abroad awaiting trial. My hon. Friend the Member for Enfield North (Nick de Bois) will be particularly aware of the benefits that this could have brought in the case of Andrew Symeou, to which he alluded earlier. I am sure that the whole House also wants to see foreign national offenders sent back to their own country. The prisoner transfer framework decision provides for non-consent-based transfers throughout the European Union, and the Government want to opt back into that measure and send criminals back home.
We also want our law enforcement agencies to be able to establish joint investigation teams with colleagues in other European countries. Hon. Members might ask why we want this to happen. I cite Operation Rico, the biggest-ever operation against so-called boiler-room fraud, which is precisely the kind of practical co-operation we want to encourage. Thanks to the excellent work of our National Crime Agency and its Spanish colleagues, there have been 83 arrests in Spain alone, and 18 in the UK. It is also quite clear that many other EU member states and their law enforcement agencies rely on measures of this sort to provide the necessary framework for practical co-operation in the fight against crime. In most instances, bilateral agreements would simply not work as effectively and our co-operation would suffer.
We therefore owe it to the victims of crime, both here and abroad, to ensure that such co-operation can continue unhindered. We owe it to the elderly who have been scammed out of their life savings, and to the hard-working people who have been conned into dodgy investments by fraudsters and had their hard-earned money shamefully spent on flashy watches, sharp suits and fast cars. I want to protect victims of crime, and I am determined to give our law enforcement the tools they need to do that.
The Government’s policy is clear. We have exercised the United Kingdom’s opt-out and are negotiating to rejoin a limited number of measures where we believe that it is in the national interest to do so.
Sir Gerald Howarth
I wonder whether the Home Secretary is going to mention any of the other 35 opt-in measures, including the European police college. Will she explain why it is necessary to have such a college when we have separate police forces in each of our sovereign states? What is the purpose behind it?
Mrs May
My hon. Friend is referring to CEPOL, which has been based at Bramshill in the United Kingdom in recent years. CEPOL is an organisation that encourages and facilitates cross-border co-operation between police forces. The European Commission recently proposed a measure to enhance and increase the ability of CEPOL to operate in relation to the training of individual police forces. The United Kingdom resisted that measure, as did other member states, and it is no longer going ahead.
As I was saying, this Government are very clear about the measures that we wish to rejoin, just as we have been clear about the opt-outs that we have exercised. Sadly, however, we are no clearer about the position of the Labour party. Some have called the Opposition’s policy inconsistent and incoherent, but I think it could be more carefully described as involving confusion and chaos. Labour signed up to the Lisbon treaty without giving the people of Britain a vote and without giving this House a say, and we must recall that the former Prime Minister, the right hon. Member for Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath (Mr Brown), flew in alone and under the cover of darkness to sign it. That tells us a great deal about his belief in it. That treaty contained an opt-out, but Labour never explained whether it would use it.
All the evidence suggests that Labour does not share the determination of this Government to reduce the control Brussels has on our criminal justice system. Because even after negotiating their opt-out, the last Labour Government signed us up, by way of unanimity, to another 30 or so measures. In fact, virtually all the measures covered by the Lisbon treaty and this opt-out decision were agreed by unanimity by Labour during its time in office. So are we to assume that it would rather we had remained bound by all 130 of them than exercise our opt-out and seek to rejoin the limited number we have identified? If not, why did it agree to the measures in the first place? But if so, why did it negotiate an opt-out? As I say, it is confusion and chaos.
Sadly, the Opposition day debate Labour called in June last year did nothing to clear up the mystery of Labour’s position, because the motion highlighted only seven measures the UK should “remain” part of. It was not clear whether that meant Labour would have exercised the opt-out and left all the measures other than those seven, such as Eurojust, a measure that the police and prosecutors deem vital to continuing our co-operation with our EU partners. Another such measure is the prisoner transfer framework decision, to which I have referred and which allows us to pack foreign national offenders back off home. I suspect that the Labour party would rather we did not know, unless of course the right hon. Member for Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford (Yvette Cooper) is going to reveal all in her response to this afternoon’s debate. Having negotiated an opt-out from all the measures the Labour Government signed our country up to in the first place, when this Government chose to exercise that opt-out, the right hon. Lady and her party voted against it—again, I say confusion and chaos.
I repeat that the position of this Government is clear: we have exercised the opt-out, we support the return of powers from Brussels to the UK and we support acting in the national interest by rejoining a limited number of measures that protect British citizens and the victims of crime. That is consistent with our approach to the European Union as a whole. The EU needs fundamental change, and under the Conservatives Britain is leading the way in delivering that change. At home, we have made the difficult decisions in the national interest to secure Britain’s economic future—now it is time to protect Britain’s interests in Europe. The Prime Minister has already taken tough action to stand up for Britain in Europe by cutting the EU budget, saving British taxpayers over £8 billion; vetoing a new EU fiscal treaty which did not guarantee a level playing field for British businesses; and refusing to spend British taxes on bailing out the euro.
Only the Conservatives have a credible plan to reshape Britain’s relationship with the European Union and to put this to the British people in an in-out referendum by the end of 2017. [Interruption.] The right hon. Lady may laugh, but the Labour party opposes this plan and will not give the British people their say. Labour has no policies and no ideas, and that is not the sort of leadership the United Kingdom needs in Europe. The leadership it needs in Europe is the leadership we are giving it, with the clarity we are giving to return powers from Brussels to the United Kingdom, but to take other decisions to opt back into measures that are firmly and clearly in our national interest.
Yvette Cooper (Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford) (Lab)
Today’s debate is one that the Home Secretary and Justice Secretary did not want to have. They have been forced into it by the three Select Committees because time and again they have tried to avoid coming to Parliament, avoid providing information to Parliament and avoid having a vote. The Select Committee on Home Affairs told them:
“we have been disappointed with the extent and timeliness of the Government’s involvement of Parliament”.
The European Scrutiny Committee described the Government’s approach as
“a serious omission as well as a missed opportunity to inform the debate in Parliament and beyond.”
The Select Committee on Justice summed up its report by saying
“we criticise the ‘cavalier fashion’ in which Parliament has been treated.”
The Home Secretary was in cavalier mode again today, because although she announced the opt-out in July last year and the Select Committees reports came out in October—we can presume that she has been negotiating since then—we had today no update on the progress of the negotiations, no sense of the timetable and no sense of when the vote will be called. We have to wonder what the Home Secretary has to hide. The truth is that she is hiding because this whole opt-out, opt-in is a massive con. She has done a U-turn again on the main measures, and is opting out and opting back in to them again. The only measures she is staying out of are ones that were largely redundant in any case, and what she is doing is a complex negotiation with our European partners, which is playing games with European security co-operation: “We’ll pull the arrest warrant out; we’ll put the arrest warrant back in. We’ll in out, in out, shake it all about. Play the opt-out hokey cokey, and you turn around. That’s what it’s all about.”
Yvette Cooper
I will give way to the hon. Lady, who is a member of the Fresh Start group and who, I am sure, must have been very disappointed with the Home Secretary’s conclusions.
Andrea Leadsom
Does the right hon. Lady regret the fact that the previous Government did not give the British people a say before they signed up to the Lisbon treaty, which created the muddle this Government have had to try to deal with?
Yvette Cooper
I must say to the hon. Lady that we do not think that it is a muddle to have co-operation with European police forces to bring criminals to justice and to provide victims with justice. I know that the Fresh Start group, of which she is a leading member, thought that we should replace all of this with a new international treaty. The Chair of the European Scrutiny Committee and many Government Back Benchers wanted to opt out and stay out of everything. The last time we debated the subject, a queue of Members stood up to say how much they wanted us to opt out and stay out of not just the European arrest warrant but all the major measures.
Mr Jim Cunningham
The Home Secretary has boasted a lot about giving the people a referendum, but up until the last general election, her party refused the British people a referendum, and we are the only political party that ever gave the British people a referendum on Europe.
Yvette Cooper
My hon. Friend has a point, but it is not just about referendums; those on the Government Front Bench do not even want this House to vote on the measures that the Select Committees have proposed.
Yvette Cooper
I cannot resist giving way to the hon. Gentleman, given that he and I ended up agreeing with each other the last time we debated this matter. Let us see whether I agree with him this time.
Jacob Rees-Mogg
I hope that the right hon. Lady will agree with me. Does she recall that the former Prime Minister, Tony Blair, in an answer to my right hon. Friend the Member for Hitchin and Harpenden (Mr Lilley) when reporting on the agreement of the Lisbon treaty, said that his reasons for not giving a referendum were that there was an opt-out to justice and home affairs, and an opt out to the charter of fundamental rights. As the latter opt-out is non-existent and the former opt-out is being given up, is it not now time for a referendum?
Yvette Cooper
The hon. Gentleman seemed to be opting out and opting in all over the place there. The problem with the opt-out that he wanted is that, by the time we have opted back in to the main measures, it will not really be there at all. Here is what the Prime Minister said about these measures. He described the European arrest warrant as “highly objectionable” and the Home Secretary’s package, which is before us today, as a massive “transfer of powers”.
The Home Secretary said that it was
“the first time in the history of our membership of the European Union that we have taken such a set of powers back from Brussels.”
She described it as
“something that should be celebrated by anybody who cares about national sovereignty, democracy and the role of this place in making the laws of our country.”—[Official Report, 15 July 2013; Vol. 566, c. 770.]
So what does she want us to celebrate today? The truth is that the Home Secretary now wants us to opt back into the important measures again—thank goodness. Finally she has listened to reason. I was delighted to hear her list many of the cases in which the European arrest warrant has been used—rightly used—and needed; in fact, they were many of the examples that Labour Members were putting to her 12 months ago when she was refusing to listen. Finally, she has listened to the police, who have said that many of the measures, if we opt out and stay out of them, would let criminals run free. She has listened to the victims who feared that they would be denied justice. Finally, she has listened on cases such as that of Jason McKay, who was extradited from Poland within two weeks for murdering his partner. Under the old extradition arrangements, it would have taken several years to get him back to face justice for a murdered woman. So yes, she has rightly done a U-turn on the European arrest warrant, joint investigation teams, Schengen information sharing and co-operation over online child abuse.
The Home Secretary is right to admit that we cannot go back to the days when it took 10 years to extradite a terror suspect to France, or when it took 11 years to get Ronnie Knight back from the costa del crime. She is right to support the deportation of thousands of foreign suspects to their home countries to face charges. I agree that co-operation is needed in a whole series of different areas. We are glad, too, that the Home Secretary has accepted the need for the exchange of criminal records, Eurojust, the co-operation to protect personal data and measures on football hooliganism. We cannot go back to the days when foreign criminal gangs were untouchable and criminals were able to seek sanctuary on the continent. I am glad that the Home Secretary has decided to ignore her Back-Bench colleagues and the Fresh Start group and to listen instead to Labour, the Liberal Democrats, the police and victims of crime.
What is left that the Home Secretary wants us to remain opted out from? What is the massive transfer of powers—the historic transfer, the repatriation—that the Home Secretary wants us to celebrate today? We will not be signed up to some joint proceedings on driving licences, but they are not in force and are out of date. We will not be signed up to a directory on international organised crime, but it was closed down two years ago. We will not sign up to the guidance on the payment of informers, but we will carry on following it. We will not sign up to guidelines on working with other countries on drug trafficking, but we will carry on doing that anyway. We will not sign up to measures on cybercrime and mutual legal assistance, because they have all been superseded by other measures to which we have signed up instead. We will not sign up to minimum standards on bribery, but we will still meet them because the Bribery Act 2010 is still in place. We will not sign up to measures to tackle racism, but we will still meet them because we have hate crime legislation in place. We will not sign up to measures on accession, because they never applied to us in the first place. And we will not sign up to receive a directory of specialist counter-terrorism officers, but someone will probably send it to us in the post.
That is it. That is the historic transfer of powers that the Home Secretary boasted about—the great liberation from Europe and the great cause for celebration that she promised us when we last debated these matters. We have the power not to do a whole series of things we plan to carry on doing anyway, the power not to follow guidance we already follow, the power not to take action we already take, the power not to meet standards we already meet, the power not to do things that everyone else has already stopped doing and the power not to do a whole series of things we want to do anyway. This is her historic moment. She said it would be a first in the history of our membership of the EU; she wanted it to be her Churchill moment. Churchill? Only if it is the nodding dog in the back of the car.
This is a political charade. Now that we are playing charades, will the Home Secretary at least reassure us that she is not doing any lasting damage? Can she assure us that, for the sake of a few opt-outs, the warrants will not be lost?
Mr John Redwood (Wokingham) (Con)
Does the right hon. Lady not understand that if we opt back in to many of the big and serious measures we are discussing, a future Home Secretary in this House would be impotent in large areas of criminal justice?
Yvette Cooper
I must say that I am baffled that the right hon. Gentleman could consider a bit of guidance on this and a bit of a directory on that to be a huge, powerful thing in relation to criminal justice—[Interruption.] Oh, he is talking about the European arrest warrant. On that point, I think that he and I simply disagree. He would like us not to be able swiftly to deport foreign suspects to their home country to stand charge. He would like us not to be able swiftly to bring back to this country those who are suspected of serious crimes and need to face justice. Before we had the European arrest warrant, we waited years to get back the people we needed to have charged with serious crimes.
Mr Redwood
Of course I do not want to deny us that right, but I want us to have that right in a way that is accountable to this Parliament and in ways that we can amend.
Yvette Cooper
Unfortunately, the right hon. Gentleman wants us to sign huge numbers of different extradition treaties when the extradition treaties and arrangements we had before the European arrest warrant took years. I do not think that that is fair on the victims of crime who want to see justice done.
Keith Vaz
On the European arrest warrant, is there not also an obligation on member states to consider their own legislation and ensure that they are not issuing such warrants for trivial matters? Poland, for example, issued 3,809 European arrest warrants, clogging up our courts. That is where we should be negotiating to ensure that member states also understand their responsibilities.
Yvette Cooper
My right hon. Friend makes an important point. We have said that we should argue within Europe for reforms to the way in which the European arrest warrant system works to make sure that it is properly proportionate. We must recognise that this is partly about the people we want to return to this country so that they can stand trial here. It is also about our not harbouring criminals from abroad who have come here and who should go back to their home country to stand trial. He is right that the system needs to work effectively, which means having that debate in Europe with other European countries about the reforms that we hope they will make. There has been considerable interest from many other countries in making such reforms. We need assurances from Ministers that we will have guarantees that we can immediately opt back into the European arrest warrant and important measures on 1 December, when the opt-out is given legal effect, and we want to know whether other member states have agreed to the plan.
Pete Wishart (Perth and North Perthshire) (SNP)
The right hon. Lady gave a useful list of the fluff and nonsense that we are opting out of, but one thing that we are not opting back into is the European judicial network, which is an important body that helps to prosecute European arrest warrant cases. Does the Labour party have any view about what we should do about that to ensure that we can opt back in?
Yvette Cooper
The hon. Gentleman points to a series of areas where the Government have proposed opting out or where it is not clear why they want to opt out and what the benefits are of doing so. We gather, too, that the Austrians, the Germans, the Spanish and the French have all called for the UK to opt into other measures as part of the negotiations. In addition to the list of 35 measures that the Home Secretary wants to opt back into, they list a further 13. The Home Secretary and the Justice Secretary should tell us whether they support those 13 measures or whether they will make them a red-line issue and call a halt to the negotiations if other countries insist on them so that a deal can be negotiated by 1 December.
The British head of Europol, Rob Wainwright, is worried about Britain opting out of some of the Europol regulations, because the new ones that the Home Secretary is prepared to support are not ready yet. He told the Select Committee on Home Affairs:
“I don’t think it is likely the new regulation will enter into force before December 2014 so there is likely to be a gap and, if there are not sufficient transitional measures in the meantime, then those accompanying eight measures would leave a gap, frankly, in terms of UK capability to carry out its work against international organised crime and terrorism.”
The Home Secretary should tell the House what she is doing about that, because it sounds serious and concerning. Has she put those measures back on her list to opt back into, and has she drawn up transitional measures?
We need to know, too, how much time and diplomatic resources the negotiation has taken up. For the remainder of the negotiating period, Italy will hold the presidency of the Council, and we understand that the Home Secretary is trying to persuade the Italian Government to make this a major priority and allow time for the European Council to negotiate. She should tell us if she really sees that as the top priority for the Council, and how many of her officials have to work on the issue, as opposed to the more substantial matters on which we should argue for reforms, such as changing the rules so that we do not have to pay child benefit and child tax credit for children abroad; or changing the rules on free movement for new accession states; or revisiting the posting of workers directive to strengthen protection for workers; or other things that would be worthwhile reforms in Europe. Instead, they are working on the power to opt out of a guidance document that we already follow. This is one of the most incredible examples of the gap between rhetoric and reality that the Government have come up with.
Andrea Leadsom
Will the right hon. Lady clarify for the benefit of the House whether the Opposition would invoke the opt-out or not?
Yvette Cooper
We debated this last year when we had the vote. We do not object to the opt-out in principle. We negotiated it so that Britain would have more time to look closely at the measures. We said last year that the most important thing was to be in the European arrest warrant. We said then that we would not exercise the opt-out without guarantees that we could opt back into the European arrest warrant and other measures.
In the end, this is about serious measures. Crime does not stop at the border, and criminals do not stop at the channel. Fighting crime and getting justice for victims depend on co-operation across our borders. Most people in Britain want our police and intelligence services to work with other forces abroad to share information, to track down dangerous offenders, to rescue abducted children and to stop online child abuse.
I want the House to hear the words of Beatrice Jones, who was the mother of Moira Jones, of whom I have spoken before in the House. She said:
“I have been appalled to read that a group of Tory MPs is putting pressure on the Prime Minister to use his right to pull out of EU crime and policing, including the EU arrest warrant. You may remember that my beloved daughter Moira Jones was assaulted, abducted, and savagely raped and murdered by an EU national who was allowed to come here . . . He fled the country but because of the dedication and determination of Strathclyde police, along with the cooperation of the Slovakian police, he was arrested and extradited back to this country. . . there is more cooperation and information between a much greater number of EU states . . . We want it to go much further so that another murder like Moira’s cannot occur . . . EU police cooperation is essential for the safety of all.”
That, in the end, is what this debate should be all about. The Home Secretary should be proud of that co-operation. The hard work of police forces across Europe and the commitment of victims groups working across Europe—that is what we should be celebrating and applauding today.
Mr William Cash (Stone) (Con)
Before I get into the substance of the arguments on the matter before us, I would like to refer to the letter that the Chairmen of the European Scrutiny Committee, the Home Affairs Committee and the Justice Committee received yesterday. It is addressed to each of us and it comes from the Secretary of State for Justice and the Home Secretary. It begins by saying that they would like to express their gratitude for the continued work of our Committees with regard to the 2014 opt-out decision. It then says:
“We have noted and considered your joint report. We deeply regret your collective view that the Government’s engagement has not been satisfactory on this matter. However, our view on the Government’s engagement with Parliament has not changed.”
There we have it. The letter goes on to say:
“As you will know, we intend to hold a general debate on Government time on 7 April”—
that is today. The letter continues:
“For the avoidance of doubt, we reaffirm our commitment to hold a second vote in both Houses of Parliament before making a formal application to rejoin any measures.”
However, it may be noted that that does not state that the second vote would take place before the negotiations have been finalised. I will come on to that in my subsequent remarks.
The difficulty that we face is that this matter has, to a very considerable extent, been a poor substitute for the debate that the European Scrutiny, Home Affairs and Justice Committees requested. This is the first time ever that all members of three independent, all-party Select Committees have unanimously agreed to a joint report on an unprecedented scale. The debate would give Parliament a genuine say and vote in determining which measures the Government should seek to rejoin before—I repeat, before—embarking on negotiations with the Commission and Council.
The motion that we are invited to support today merely refers to the consideration of the United Kingdom’s
“2014 justice and home affairs opt-out decision.”
That decision was considered in Parliament last July, when the Government secured a majority for their recommendation to exercise the UK’s block opt-out of around 130 pre-Lisbon police and criminal justice measures. The real question for us now, surely, is what the Government—a coalition Government who are largely taking account of considerations on EU matters which have been pushed forward by members of the Liberal Democrat party—will do about the 35 matters that are now up for rejoining.
The Prime Minister formally notified the Council of the UK’s decision to exercise the block opt-out on 24 July 2013. All the measures subject to that block opt-out will, as a result, cease to apply to the United Kingdom on 1 December 2014, unless, crucially, the United Kingdom submits a formal application to rejoin some of them.
Command Paper 8671, which was published merely a matter of days before the debate last July, includes a list of 35 measures that the Government say they seek to rejoin. I have to say, without prejudice to my differences of opinion with the shadow Home Secretary, that some of the cases that she put forward demonstrate that the issues are, in many instances, not quite as substantial as some might have imagined.
The motion that the Government wanted the House to approve last July would have endorsed the Government’s recommendation to enter into formal negotiations with the Commission and the Council on the list of the 35 measures, pre-empting any further consideration of the content and significance of those measures by the House and its Select Committees.
The Home Secretary came to the Floor of the House and I said at the time that I thought she was making the problem considerably worse by what she was saying. My intervention as Chairman of the European Scrutiny Committee, together with the Chairmen of the Home Affairs and Justice Committees, ensured that the House had the opportunity to consider the matter further, and was informed by the reports that all three Committees undertook to produce.
The need for further detailed consideration by Parliament cannot be doubted. The report by my Committee concluded that the list of measures was “incoherent”, and that it bore all the hallmarks of coalition politics rather than a serious analysis of the merits of each measure, or a careful balancing of the benefits of participation in extremely sensitive areas affecting fairness, liberty and justice, which are and should be accorded to individual United Kingdom citizens, and that the benefits of that participation should be set against the risks associated with accepting the jurisdiction of the European Court of Justice.
Mr Redwood
Will my hon. Friend confirm that this is a desperately serious matter, because if we opt in to any of these things, those subjects are no longer under the control of the House and the British people?
Mr Cash
Indeed, and not only that. Those people are no longer able to have recourse to our courts system in the same way that they would have done because the European Court of Justice, once it has made an adjudication and a judgment, binds our Supreme Court. Moreover, under section 3 of the European Communities Act 1972, it also binds this Parliament. That is why, with respect to the charter of fundamental rights, we said in a report that we published only last week that the situation was so serious. We voluntarily entered into the Act in 1972, and I emphasise the word “voluntarily” because what is entered into voluntarily can be adjusted later. Those two features led us to conclude, in respect of the conflict on the perception of the charter of fundamental rights, that the then Prime Minister, who specifically stated on 27 June 2007 that it was absolutely clear that the charter of fundamental rights was an opt-out, was wrong. Furthermore, he was not only wrong but, in effect, contradicted by the Attorney-General of the time when he gave evidence to us only a few weeks ago.
The consequence of this, which is extremely serious, is that we have an Act of Parliament that is covered in confusion, with some judges saying one thing and other judges saying another. As there is no doubt that the charter applies to the United Kingdom, the only way of dealing with this is not, with respect to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Justice, by having another legal challenge, as he proposes, but by amending the 1972 Act, because the situation is so serious that we have to bring in primary legislation in order to get it right in the interests of the people of this country. All the rights contained in the charter overlap with rights of the sort that people in this country, as citizens of the United Kingdom, would expect to be accorded to them. These are the kinds of matters that arise in respect of what we are considering as a result of the whole question of the 35 measures.
Chris Bryant
The hon. Gentleman is right. One of the key issues now is how many opt-ins there should be. I would probably err on the side of there being more than 35. He probably errs on the side of there being fewer than 35. The Commission might want to say that there have to be 53, or none. Who knows what the end result of all this will be? What I do not understand—perhaps he will be able to explain it, because he knows the Home Secretary’s mind better than I do—is why on earth the Government would not want an amendable motion to be presented to the House before they start the negotiation so that they know beforehand that they have Parliament behind them.
Mr Cash
I am rather attracted to the idea of an amendable motion. Indeed, in effect, I have just said so myself. If we have a vote beforehand, the coalition Government will know what Parliament thinks.
The Home Secretary clearly indicated that the Government must have a free hand in entering into these negotiations. In an intervention, I mentioned the complications involved in this and its rejection, or apparent rejection, by several countries. I referred to Spain, Germany, France and Holland, and there are others that say that the matter should be put to a referendum. The situation is so complex, and running so far into the sand, that it would be a good idea, in these very special circumstances, to discuss the question of a block opt-out. It is very important that Parliament should be given the opportunity to vote on an amendable motion before the negotiations are concluded. It is particularly important as we get down to discussing the finer detail of precisely what should be done in the interests of fairness, liberty and justice for individual citizens, who will be bound by these Court decisions against which there will be no appeal. Unless this is subject to an amendment of the 1972 Act, there will be no way of retrieving the situation to protect those citizens.
Sir Gerald Howarth
I am very exercised about the application of the role of the European Court of Justice. As my hon. Friend will know, I asked the Home Secretary to what extent the safeguards she has secured with regard to the European arrest warrant will be respected by the ECJ. Does he have a view on that?
Mr Cash
Yes, I am deeply concerned about the matters that my hon. Friend raises. Indeed, the whole question of the role of the European Court of Justice is a matter of great concern, not only in this country but in many other countries of the European Union. I will not go all the way down the route of discussing the role of the Court. However, there are issues about who is qualified to be members of the Court and whether members of our own Supreme Court are entirely satisfied with the nature of the decisions that come out of it, just as they are concerned about questions regarding the European Court of Human Rights.
The reports of all three Committees are tagged to today’s debate, as is a joint report castigating the Government for their refusal to allow Parliament a debate and vote on the measures the United Kingdom should seek to rejoin before negotiations begin with the European Union institutions.
Dr Huppert
I presume the hon. Gentleman would accept that it is much harder for someone to negotiate when their hands are tied. Will he reassure me that he is not trying to ensure that we leave everything by making all the negotiations so difficult that they simply cannot be brought home? Is that what he is trying to achieve?
Mr Cash
What I am saying is that voting in this House is a test of our democracy. We have already had ample opportunity to consider the ramifications of the block opt-out and we now know the 35 matters in question. Given the importance of those issues to UK citizens, those who represent their individual constituencies in this House should now have the opportunity to vote on them. That is a matter of principle and it is also a matter of democracy. Once the decisions become irrevocable, the reality is that they will be binding, through the European Communities Act 1972, in a way that would not be the case if this were a general debate about home affairs policy. This debate is tied to the role of the European Court of Justice, against which there is no appeal.
Why have the Government set their face against an open, transparent and informed debate and vote on these measures before negotiations are concluded? In the absence of any convincing explanation from the Government—I say with great respect to the Secretaries of State that we have not had one—we are compelled to conclude that the risk of unravelling a carefully crafted coalition deal weighs more heavily than the desire for democratic accountability. Such an approach is inimical to this House’s European scrutiny system, which is based on our Standing Orders and on early analysis and assessment of the legal and policy implications of EU policies and legislation so that Parliament has a genuine opportunity to influence not only the Government’s position in negotiations, but their outcome as well.
In this case, however, the position is reversed. As I said in an intervention, Parliament will simply be asked to rubber stamp the outcome of negotiations that are being held behind closed doors and hidden from the searching gaze of the public and Parliament. Negotiations are being held behind closed doors not only by the Council of Ministers and the European institutions, but by the coalition itself. We do not know the basis on which these decisions have been reached. It is a double whammy.
Pete Wishart
The hon. Gentleman needs to forget about the Liberals, because there is a big elephant sitting in the room and its name is Nigel. Does the hon. Gentleman think that growing support for the UK Independence party has been a factor in the way in which this process has evolved?
Mr Cash
I do not think so. The driving force behind the arguments being made by the Conservative part of the coalition from the Back Benches is based on objective analysis in the interests of democracy, transparency and accountability in Parliament. Mr Farage cannot deliver anything, because he does not have one Member of Parliament. He cannot change one word of legislation—he can do nothing about any of this. I know that the situation is uncomfortable for the Secretaries of State at this moment in time, but I know for a fact that they will agree emphatically that the United Kingdom Independence party can achieve absolutely nothing. They know perfectly well that Conservative Back Benchers can achieve something. As in relation to many other European matters, Conservative Back Benchers can, by doing what we are doing now—working towards, we hope, a listening Government and listening Secretaries of State—achieve the results that we need, in the interests of the country as a whole. I hope that that answers the hon. Gentleman’s very useful question.
Mr Cash
Let us be in no doubt about that, as my right hon. Friend and distinguished colleague says—and more power to his elbow.
Let us for a moment return to first principles and remind ourselves why the United Kingdom, alone among member states, has a block opt-out. In this context, it is worth remembering that we do not of course have a written constitution, and that gives us flexibility, unlike every other member state. We are not therefore insular or isolationist in taking such a view; as I know both Secretaries of State will appreciate, we are exercising our democratic right to express our views in a free forum—this House of Commons, to which we are elected to represent our constituents—and, as Chairmen of three significant Select Committees, we have worked together on an all-party basis to agree a view on a matter of such importance.
United Kingdom Governments of all political persuasions have been wary of extending the full jurisdiction of the European Court of Justice to EU police and criminal justice measures—that has been true of Governments of all parties—because they have recognised that conferring primacy on a court beyond the jurisdiction of the United Kingdom, and of our Supreme Court and of this Parliament, is a very profound and grave constitutional step.
Whatever views may be expressed in the debate—some will perhaps advocate opting back in to a far wider range of measures, while others will say, “None at all”; and when it comes to the vote, there may be splits and fragmentations in political parties on both sides of the House—I say to the Secretaries of State that surely we can all agree on the significance of the negotiations on which the Government are about to embark and the vital need for Parliament to have a genuine say and vote at the right time, before the negotiations have been concluded, on a matter of profound practical and constitutional significance, which bears very heavily on the liberty of the subject. What matters now is not what we have opted out of, but what measures we propose to rejoin. I ask my right hon. Friends to consider this very carefully: this is the time for the Government to think again.
On the basis of the leaks and information about the discussions that come through to us in various shapes and forms, I have referred to what has been happening in many countries throughout the European Union, and I understand that very little headway has been made in negotiations so far. My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary shakes her head. Perhaps she would like to get up and tell us that everything is going fine.
I trust that today’s debate will cause the Government to think again and allow Parliament to vote on these important measures before the negotiations are concluded. This matter of principle needs to be settled not after the horse has bolted, but now, so I tell my right hon. Friends that this is the moment. This serious matter is of grave concern to many of our citizens, and this is the time to think again.
Keith Vaz (Leicester East) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to follow the Chairman of the European Scrutiny Committee, the hon. Member for Stone (Mr Cash). I thank the Government for allowing us the opportunity to have this debate today, and I thank the Home Secretary for the way in which she began the process of constructing a dialogue with Parliament. The Chairs of the three Select Committees—myself, the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Sir Alan Beith) and the Chairman of the European Scrutiny Committee—met the Home Secretary when the process began, and we agreed what I thought was a timetable to enable Parliament to express its views on these important matters.
Both Parliament and the Government stuck to that timetable. The Home Secretary wanted parliamentary scrutiny through the Select Committees by the end of October. We did our best to ensure that our reports were agreed by then, and we presented our reports to the Government with the expectation—although I accept that there was no promise—that Parliament would be able to vote on the measures before the Government began their negotiations. The Home Secretary has strongly expressed her feeling that Parliament needs to vote on something. In other words, let her get on with the negotiations, let us see where we go, let us look at the direction of travel and, once the package is ready, Members may determine whether they support it.
The personalities of the three Select Committees, not just their members but their Chairs, are quite different. They are not people we can get together and expect agreement from on every word of every report, but all three Committees, and all three Chairs, agreed unanimously that Parliament should not only debate the matter but vote on it.
Only the usual suspects are here today, with the exception of my right hon. Friend the Member for Tooting (Sadiq Khan), who has taken time off from preparing for the London marathon next week to attend this marathon session. I suspect that if there was a vote at the end of these proceedings, we would have had a much better attendance and Members on both sides of the House would have come forward to express their views.
The Government have said that the three Select Committees have deliberated and produced reports. The hon. Member for Esher and Walton (Mr Raab) tabled 125 questions, so he ranks alongside the Select Committees as far as scrutiny is concerned. That is probably enough to enable the Government to know the direction of travel and to complete the negotiations, but I do not think it is enough, and neither does the Home Affairs Committee. We feel that a vote today would have been the best way to give the Home Secretary the mandate that she needs to go to the Council of Ministers and to other European Justice and Home Affairs meetings to discuss the measures that she does or does not want to opt into. I am sure she is a very strong negotiator. She is before the Home Affairs Committee tomorrow, and I am sure she will put up a robust performance, as she always does, but she would have given an even better performance before the Council of Ministers and her various European colleagues if she had had the backing of the whole House.
I was concerned to read the note that was recently issued by the current presidency of the Council of Ministers, to which I referred in my intervention on the Home Secretary. Statewatch has published what it says is a note from Greece, which currently holds the presidency:
“Due to national procedures with the UK Parliament, the Presidency is of the understanding that the UK Government would need to finalise its position on the re-opting list by June 2014, so that these national internal procedures can take place before the UK parliament’s summer recess. Therefore, it would be appropriate that the list of acts which will be subject to re-opting in be ‘politically’ agreed by June.”
Of course, that is not a note from the Cabinet or a leak from the Home Office. It comes, apparently, from the presidency. Perhaps there is a misunderstanding about the way in which we work. The Home Secretary has said today that she will get her list ready by December and that Parliament will then have an opportunity to vote. Given that Parliament is not usually given a great deal of time to deliberate such matters, I imagine that once the measures have been agreed, there will not be a huge amount of notice before Members come to the House and vote on these issues.
The Minister for Europe, in a written ministerial statement on 20 January, said:
“I hope that today I have conveyed to the House not only the Government’s full commitment to holding a vote on the 2014 decision in this House and the other place,”—
that has been re-emphasised by the Home Secretary today—
“but the importance that we will accord to Parliament in the process leading up to that vote.”
If there was a need to know the view of Parliament, it is contained in the joint report. The three Committees decided that the best course of action would be to have a good debate on the Floor and for individual Members to decide, in their own way, what they wished to vote on. I am quite certain that when this matter comes before the House, I will vote in a different way from some members of the Home Affairs Committee, because we have not taken a view on every single measure. One point that we have put before the House is that we think it vital, even if the Government decide to put the whole package before the House, that we have a vote on the European arrest warrant.
I do not believe that we have got it right with the changes to the European arrest warrant that the Home Secretary has announced. I support the European arrest warrant. I think, for the reasons given by both Front Benchers, that it is a vital tool when dealing with people who have committed terrible crimes. The Home Secretary mentioned one case in which somebody had stabbed someone 86 times. Of course it is right that we have a quick power that enables us to ask a colleague in the European Union to hand over someone who is suspected of committing a crime of that seriousness, and that that person should arrive as soon as possible. The shadow Home Secretary is absolutely right to support the European arrest warrant.
However, time and again Members of this House have raised worries, including in evidence to the Home Affairs Committee, that the European arrest warrant has not been used very well in a number of cases. The hon. Member for Enfield North (Nick de Bois) has spoken about the Andrew Symeou case. The Select Committee heard evidence from the constituent of the hon. Member for South Dorset (Richard Drax), Michael Turner, who was extradited to Hungary and incarcerated for month after month, but never faced any charges. We were therefore very concerned about the practicalities of what was proposed.
The Home Secretary said in her evidence to the Home Affairs Committee that she felt that she had made the changes that were necessary to deal with the concerns of Members of this House through the proportionality test. However, the evidence given by a number of individuals, some of whom were from Germany, indicated that that was not enough to protect a citizen who was the subject of a European arrest warrant that was issued for frivolous reasons.
Mr Redwood
I thank the right hon. Gentleman for the work that he is doing. Like him, I think that it is fundamental that the House has a vote on the European arrest warrant. It is a very flawed device. My big worry is that it is this House that must be the fount of our liberties and our criminal justice, not a foreign court.
Keith Vaz
That is a very important point. We need to be able to debate these issues and vote on them. The European arrest warrant is one such example.
The Government estimate that the unit cost of executing an incoming European arrest warrant in the United Kingdom is approximately £20,000. If we round up the 999 requests that were received in 2011, the estimated cost was £20 million. Some of the figures are extraordinary. Poland issued 3,809 arrest warrants. I had promised not to mention the arrest warrant issued for the man accused of stealing a wheelbarrow but cannot resist. Another example was a warrant for a man who absconded from a Polish prison while on day release. There was another warrant for someone alleged to have been involved in a minor drug offence. Another man subject to a warrant had given false details on an application for a £200 bank loan that, in fact, had already been paid off. They were all the subject of a European arrest warrant—there were 3,809 arrest warrants from Poland alone.
The number of surrenders from all countries to those 3,809 arrest warrants was 930. The UK issued 205 arrest warrants—we have a better surrenders record at 99. Germany issued 2,138 arrest warrants and had 855 surrenders. The total number of European arrest warrants received by member states is higher. Germany received 14,034 requests under the European arrest warrant scheme, the UK received 6,760, and Poland received only 296.
I travelled to Poland and met officials. I asked prosecutors why Poland kept issuing European arrest warrants for crimes that would not be regarded as very serious in our country—we would certainly not issue the EAW for such crimes. The prosecutors were very open, saying that issuing warrants was required by the law. If a judge issues a European arrest warrant in Poland, the Polish police are obliged to execute it, telephone the authorities in the UK, Germany or another country, and ensure that the warrants are executed. They were looking at ways in which they could limit the issuing of warrants. A much better use of the Home Secretary’s time would be to negotiate with some of those countries and tell them that they would make their cause much easier for us to follow, and make the European arrest warrant easier for us to defend, if they did something about their domestic law, as we have done. I am saying not that we are a model, but that we are doing extremely well in using the arrest warrants only for the most serious cases—those that the Home Secretary and shadow Home Secretary have described.
I would have liked the opportunity to vote on the Europol regulations. As the House knows, 3,600 internationally active organised crime gangs operate in Europe. We need Europol. We have a British head of Europol— Rob Wainwright. He was re-appointed by the Home Secretary and appointed by the previous Government. Mr Wainwright does an excellent job. We need to be in Europol and need to opt back in to that arrangement. That would enable us to be part of trying to deal with those very serious issues occurring all over Europe.
There are other examples, such as the measures dealing with the criminal records information system. We need to share such information but cannot at the moment because of the issues we are discussing. Members of the House would have liked the opportunity to discuss those matters and vote on them.
Although we will not be allowed a vote in the House tonight, I hope the Home Secretary will look again at the reports of the three Select Committees and allow hon. Members a vote as soon as possible. I hope that, when she winds up the debate, she will tell us whether the timetable set by the presidency is the right one—should we make our decisions politically by June, before the recess, and vote on them in December?—because that will give the House a clearer view as to how to proceed.
Mr David Nuttall (Bury North) (Con)
It is a pleasure, as always, to follow the right hon. Member for Leicester East (Keith Vaz), the Chair of the Home Affairs Committee. I do not agree with him on our membership of the European Union, but I agree with him that the British people should have a say on the matter. That is something I want to address this afternoon.
It is welcome that the Government have, for once, made available Government time—not Backbench Business Committee time—for a debate on the Government’s opt-out decision, and I welcome, and happily support, the Government’s decision to opt out of the 128 measures. I do not support the opting in side of it: we should just leave that where we are. We have opted out and that is good enough for me. I suspect that millions of our citizens will find it rather strange that, at a time when all the debate in the country is about pulling powers back from Europe, we are going to unilaterally, without anybody putting their arm up our backs, opt in to giving the European Union more powers over our affairs.
Those who voted for the Conservative side of the coalition Government back in 2010 will be particularly surprised by this decision. They will have voted, in May 2010, for a Conservative manifesto that had commitments relating to Europe that were largely based on the speech given on 4 November 2009 by the present Prime Minister, the then Leader of Her Majesty’s loyal Opposition, entitled “A Europe policy that people can believe in”. Of course, millions of people did believe in it. After calling for the repatriation of various powers to turn back
“the steady and unaccountable intrusion of the European Union into almost every aspect of our lives”,
the Leader of the Opposition, as the present Prime Minister then was, called for an opt-out of aspects of social and employment legislation, a complete opt-out from the charter of fundamental rights, and negotiations to return powers over criminal justice matters. He said:
“We must be sure that the measures included in the Lisbon Treaty will not bring creeping control over our criminal justice system by EU judges. We will want to prevent EU judges gaining steadily greater control over our criminal justice system by negotiating an arrangement which would protect it. That will mean limiting the European Court of Justice’s jurisdiction over criminal law to its pre-Lisbon level, and ensuring that only British authorities can initiate criminal investigations in Britain.”
That is the Europe policy that many people did believe in. They, like me, will be surprised that the Government are proposing to opt in to 35 of the 128 measures over which the Government have exercised their opt-out. Although that is significantly fewer than the 93 in respect of which the opt-out will remain, 41 of those 93 are essentially irrelevant to the United Kingdom, and the Government themselves admit that many of the other 52 will have very little impact on the UK.
So what is my perspective? Millions of people in this country have already decided, as I have, that the country would be better off outside the European Union, and many millions of others are biding their time. They are waiting to see what the outcome of the Prime Minister’s negotiations with our European partners will be. Back in the early 1970s, those who were around and old enough to be conscious of what was going on in the political world thought that we were entering into a free-trade arrangement with our European partners, and that is what they want us to return to. I suspect that the fact that we are now proposing to opt back into matters relating to justice and home affairs—an entire area of policy which they never dreamt would one day be subject to the control of a foreign body and a foreign court—will only add to the millions of people who have already decided that the United Kingdom would be better off outside the European Union.
I think that this decision should be made on a “policy area by policy area” basis. I know that that might mean 35 separate votes, but so what? I agree with the Select Committees which have said that the issue is so important to the affairs of our country that if that is what it takes, that is what our Parliament should be able to do. Whatever mechanism is used, however—whether it is a single, en bloc vote or a series of separate votes—I am absolutely sure that if the outcome is a decision to opt back into 35 of the measures, or some other number, many of our fellow citizens will decide that that is the final straw. They will note our irrevocable decision to cede to a foreign court powers that govern the lives of people in this country, and will conclude that the best thing that they can do is vote Conservative in the next general election, and then, when they have their say in a referendum in 2017, vote—as I will—for this country to leave the European Union.
Pete Wishart (Perth and North Perthshire) (SNP)
In the House, one always “follows the hon. Gentleman”, which often highlights differing views. It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Bury North (Mr Nuttall) on this occasion. He and I have almost diametrically opposite views when it comes to issues such as this, but I enjoyed his speech nevertheless.
In her opening speech, the Home Secretary produced a list of countries, some of which were of great interest to me, for it is always fascinating to hear about our bilateral relationships with some of our friends in Europe; but she did not refer to one nation that is a bit closer to home. My nation, Scotland, did not receive a single mention. Indeed, not one of the devolved Parliaments and Assemblies was considered important enough for the Secretary of State to mention. It should never be forgotten that we have our own judicial system in Scotland, and that we are responsible for the delivery of justice and home affairs there.
I think it reasonable to say—and I will say it to the Home Secretary, who is still present—that this opt-out is not particularly popular in Scotland. What it has in fact managed to do is unite the Scottish Government, the whole of Scotland’s legal community, all the police enforcement agencies and all the civil rights institutions in opposition. There is probably no issue that has managed to unite all those different and divergent sectors in Scotland ever before. That is how unpopular this opt-out is in Scotland. The bottom line is that we overwhelmingly do not want this opt-out in Scotland and we remain very concerned for the security and safety of our citizens in Scotland if this opt-out is pursued. We are very much concerned about the cavalier attitude of this Government in opting out of this chapter and their hope that they can selectively just opt back into the important measures that help keep people in our respective nations safe. We do not share the Government’s Eurosceptic agenda that informs this political decision and we despair at the self-defeating nonsense of all of this.
Even though we do not want this, however, and even though it is overwhelmingly opposed, Scotland will get it. That is just the way it works. The UK Government decide what they will do on behalf of the rest of the nations and Assemblies in the UK and that is what will happen.
Jacob Rees-Mogg
The hon. Gentleman does not seem to want any of these opt-outs, but is not the great argument for independence in the referendum in Scotland that it means Scotland will leave the EU and opt out of everything?
Pete Wishart
This is the difference between me and the hon. Gentleman: he wants to opt out of Europe and be a little Englander, all self-enclosed in a joyous new future he would propose for his nation, whereas we want to reach out—we want to share with the rest of our fellow citizens across Europe all the wonderful benefits of EU membership and EU entry. That is what we will secure in Scotland and thank goodness we will not be part of the rest of the United Kingdom, pulling in one direction under the UKIP-informed political orthodoxy that is starting to emerge here. We will do it in our own way and we will reflect our own particular political values when it comes to EU membership. I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for raising that topic.
We are going to get this measure in Scotland even though we feel it is not in the best interests of the communities we represent, but, as the hon. Gentleman alluded to, this will end soon when we have the referendum in September. No longer will we have our devolved responsibilities dictated by this Government. The Secretary of State will have seen the correspondence from the Scottish Ministers—the screeds of concerns, the evidence from the Scottish Parliament’s Justice Committee—but she will of course ignore them. That is what happens; we put forward our concerns and they are first ignored and then binned. This is what this Government still laughingly call the respect agenda.
Colleagues in the Scottish Government have stated repeatedly to UK Ministers the value we place on EU police and justice co-operation measures. We have pointed out that we have our own distinct legal system that needs to be dealt with differently, and we have our own processes of bringing serious criminals to justice and our own particular European partnerships for tackling growing levels of cross-border crime.
For us, the measures in the home affairs and justice chapter are extremely important. They are not something to barter in a game of Eurosceptic or Russian roulette with UKIP. They are measures that ensure that people accused of serious crimes are brought to justice quickly and efficiently. Unlike this Government, we very much support the sharing of information between police forces. We want to see improved joint investigations of cross-border crimes. We think it is a good thing to have better identification of people using false documents and the efficient transfer of criminals back to their own countries.
This has been done with no or little consultation. Scottish Ministers have repeatedly written to explain the possible implications of this decision on Scotland’s devolved justice system and to state clearly their very strong preference to remain fully opted into these measures, but the Government simply brought forward their intention to proceed with this opt-out without even a cursory discussion with the devolved institutions. That just is not good enough any more.
The lack of real discussion and the failure to listen to the devolved Administrations demonstrate this Government’s Eurosceptic arrogance at its worst. We all know why they are doing this. It is all because of the threat of UKIP at the polls, so they have got to be seen to be doing something—anything—about the big Brussels bogeyman.
It would be as well just to have Nigel Farage on the Front Bench trying to get this through. Of course UKIP has not got a Member in the House, but it pulls the strings in the House all the time, and this Government just respond by taking that agenda up. I do not know who will win the battle of the Eurosceptics, but it looks as though UKIP is going to win the battle of the European election polls in May. The point is that you cannot out-UKIP UKIP; they are the masters of Euroscepticism. This Government will never beat them in their race to the bottom to try and be harder on Europe and try to scare people out of Europe more and more. We do not do UKIP in Scotland—we barely do Tory; we have only one Tory Member of Parliament—yet we are going to be dragged into this Euro race to the bottom as the parties attempt to win Eurosceptic votes in the May elections.
The Government say that they are going to opt out of the home affairs chapter, only to opt back into the important stuff. The stuff that they will not opt back into is mostly dead and never used, as the right hon. Member for Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford (Yvette Cooper) said, but we could be put into a dangerous period of limbo—a gap during which the important stuff will not apply—that could diminish our security and safety. We have been forced to opt out of everything, including important measures for investigating cross-border crimes and bringing serious, organised criminals to justice.
Those measures include the European arrest warrant, which has been the focus of most of the debate today. Yes, the Government say that they will opt back into the European arrest warrant, but there will almost certainly be a lag period, and that is what concerns us the most. We know that there are those on the Tory Back Benches who do not like the European arrest warrant; we have heard from them today, and they remain disappointed that the Government will seek to opt back into the measure. For them, the warrant is a totem of EU badness—something that sums up Brussels, and must go—whereas to us, it is central to European justice and security, and to the safety of our communities. It has done a great deal to bring dangerous criminals to justice.
I suspect that opposition to the European arrest warrant is based on Euroscepticism, but our experience of it in Scotland is totally different. We have heard today of the example of Moira Jones. The European arrest warrant was instrumental in securing the conviction of her murderer, in that it allowed clothing and other property to be seized before it could be destroyed. That helped to lead to a successful prosecution. The speed with which extraditions take place is important, and long-drawn-out processes can be avoided only by using the warrant. We have none of the issues with the warrant that have been mentioned by other hon. Members. It has been particularly successful in Scotland, and it is something that all our law enforcement agencies welcome.
I shall give the House another example of how the European arrest warrant is working for us in Scotland. In January 2012, Grzegorz Gamla committed a violent attack and murder in Edinburgh. He was arrested within five hours of the issuing of the arrest warrant. That was achieved through the European arrest warrant system, but it was also facilitated by direct contact between Scottish prosecutors and the authorities in Poland under the European judicial network, which the Government say that they will not opt back into. Those two cases show how the ability to act incredibly swiftly using the arrest warrant allowed the criminal process to proceed much more quickly than it would otherwise have done.
There are other important Europe-wide security and policing arrangements from which we might find ourselves excluded for an unspecified period. We have heard about membership of Europol and Eurojust, for example, as well as practical police and judicial co-operation measures and joint investigative teams. The Government have said that they will opt back into most of the important stuff, but they are not seeking to opt back into the European judicial network, which underpins much of the good work of the European arrest warrant. We have been told by Scotland’s police and legal community that that network is invaluable to Scotland, but once again, the concerns expressed by our legal community have been overlooked.
This is all so unnecessary, and it represents a real threat to security and safety in Scotland. We do not share the ingrained Euroscepticism that now infects this Government at the highest level, and we refuse to have our political agenda determined by the threat of UKIP in the polls. The bottom line is that any gap between opt-out and rejoining has to be kept to a minimum. The longer the gaps and transition periods that have to be dealt with, the greater the likelihood of the problems that we have been discussing occurring.
Our preference would have been not to have the opt-out in the first place, but we are part of a UK that barely listens to us and that is pursuing an almost opposite set of political values and a different political agenda from ours. This will be resolved in September when we vote yes overwhelmingly in the independence referendum and Scotland gets what it wants on these issues, at which point we will secure our membership of the European Union on our terms.
Andrea Leadsom (South Northamptonshire) (Con)
I start by commending my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary for her courage in tackling this problem, which stems from the previous Government’s failure to give the British people their say on whether Britain should sign up to the Lisbon treaty. That were really the background to today’s debate: the previous Government negotiated, in the Lisbon treaty, the potential for Britain to opt out of the justice and home affairs measures, and that is what the Home Secretary made her announcement about last year. The problem is that, as with all EU matters, this goes to the heart of the democratic accountability of the EU and the issues relating to national sovereignty in Britain, which give people in this country so much concern today.
I am one of the co-founders of the Fresh Start project, which was established in 2011 to examine in detail what could make the EU more globally competitive, more democratically accountable and more flexible. The justice and home affairs question profoundly affects issues of democratic accountability and flexibility. We are in a halfway house where we have invoked our opt-out on pre-Lisbon-treaty measures and are now trying to opt back in to 35 of them which we consider very important for British national interests.
My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary said when she announced that she was going to look at exercising the opt-out that
“we will consider not just opt-ins and opt-outs but the other opportunities and options that are available.”—[Official Report, 15 October 2012; Vol. 551, c. 41.]
She has said:
“First, the Government could apply to rejoin measures within the scope of the 2014 decision”—
which is the block opt-out, and that is indeed what she is doing.
She continued:
“Secondly, the Government believes that in some cases it would be possible to rely on pre-existing Council of Europe Conventions or bilateral treaties….Thirdly, in some cases it may be possible to negotiate bilateral treaties with each Member State or with the EU that would effectively replace the instruments in question…. Fourthly, in some cases there may simply be no need for any such agreement to be in place in order for there to be cooperation.”
The difficult position the UK finds itself in relates to the block opt-out and what happens once we have signed back up to 35 measures. In written evidence supplied at the end of 2012 to the relevant Sub-Committees of the House of Lords European Union Committee, the Government stated that the “practical effect” of the ECJ “gaining full jurisdiction” in the areas of the “re-opted in” measures
“after the transitional period—
from 1 December 2014—
“is that the ECJ may interpret these measures expansively and beyond the scope originally intended. This concern is compounded by the fact that the ECJ has previously ruled in the area of Justice and Home Affairs in unexpected and unhelpful ways from a UK perspective. For example, in 2008 in the Metock case, the Court made a ruling which extends free movement rights to illegal migrants if they are married to an EEA national who is exercising free movement rights. Since the Metock judgment we have seen a steady increase in sham marriages involving EEA nationals.”
It should also be noted that the ECJ would start applying its human rights jurisprudence, drawing on the EU’s charter of fundamental rights, to the UK criminal justice system within the areas falling under EU policing and criminal justice laws that bind the UK. It is, therefore, extraordinarily difficult to decide what exactly Britain should do in its best national interest on these justice and home affairs measures. Of course the Home Secretary has decided that it is in our national interest to opt back in to 35 of them, and I suspect that she has decided that in great part as a result of the clear advice from the House of Lords European Union Committee, which said in 2012:
“We recognise the theoretical possibility for the United Kingdom to conclude multiple bilateral and multilateral agreements with the other Member States, in place of some existing EU measures, and that other Member States would have an interest in putting effective mechanisms in place. But this would be a time-consuming and uncertain process, with the only claimed benefit being tailor-made arrangements excluding the CJEU’s jurisdiction. In some cases new bilateral agreements would be dependent on the legislative timetable of the other Member States, which may accord them a low priority.”
It went on to say:
“We consider that the most effective way for the United Kingdom to cooperate with other Member States is to remain engaged in the existing EU measures in this area.”
Jacob Rees-Mogg
I am hugely enjoying my hon. Friend’s speech. Is she saying that the House of Lords, in its great wisdom, has come to the conclusion that it is better to sacrifice an important part of our constitution for the administrative convenience of our bureaucracy, because to address matters one by one would give it too much work?
Andrea Leadsom
Actually, yes, my hon. Friend is right. I made a similar point to members of the scrutiny Committee. He is right that there is an element of, “This is all too difficult, so we should not embark on it.” I have had such points made to me by other officials in this place, who seem to say that, as this is all so difficult, we should opt back in to existing measures. If that were the case, it would be entirely unacceptable.
Let me quote the European Union Committee:
“If the United Kingdom reverted to Council of Europe Conventions instead of the equivalent EU measures, this would raise legal complications, and could also result in more cumbersome, expensive and weaker procedures. It would also weaken the ability of the United Kingdom’s police and law enforcement authorities to cooperate with the equivalent authorities in other Member States regarding cross-border crime.”
In other words, it concluded that it would be easier and probably more successful for the UK to opt back in to JHA under the current terms, having opted out of all those other measures that Opposition Members have been keen to point out are not terribly important or relevant anyway. That is possibly the right step for the time being, but there are bigger issues at stake: democratic accountability to the British people, and flexibility.
Under the eurozone fiscal crisis, it became very apparent that eurozone members needed to move to greater fiscal integration, European banking union and, potentially, down the road towards a federal states of Europe. Opinion polls, discussions in this House and even Opposition Members have made it clear that Britain’s national sovereignty should remain intact, and that we do not intend at any time soon either to join the euro or to move on to the path of greater fiscal union or, indeed, a federal states of Europe.
With that thought in mind, it seems that the status quo in the EU is simply not an option. Right across the European Union, the democratic legitimacy of the EU is wafer thin. We will see in the European elections in May what European citizens—if there were such a thing, which there is not; it is merely shorthand for the citizens of EU member states—think about the ever closer union in the EU. I suspect that we will find that they also reject the concept of a federal states of Europe. That has profound implications for what we do here in this Chamber. When the Prime Minister comes to look at the fundamental reform that will be in Britain’s much better interest, he should look at the area of justice and home affairs with a view to considering whether we can undertake bilateral or multilateral agreements with EU member states or with the EU as a legal entity, which it is now under the Lisbon treaty. Of course, the advantage of having bilateral treaties with the EU rather than opting into justice and home affairs is that things would be easier for Britain as a uniquely different member state with common law practice rather than a written constitution, even if those agreements were worded in precisely the same terms as the European arrest warrant or the Europol and Eurojust directives, as the European Court of Justice would not have jurisdiction over them and they would not be able to be changed under qualified majority voting without the say so of this House.
The area of justice and home affairs goes to the heart of the democratic accountability of the European Union and ought to be a key focus for the Prime Minister’s review of how Britain can achieve a better settlement within the European Union once our party has won the 2015 general election.
Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)
That was a good joke at the end.
It seems to me that there are an awful lot of ironies in this debate. The biggest irony of the lot must be that last week the Deputy Prime Minister and the leader of the UK Independence party got themselves all in a lather about the European Union, as apparently the whole country is fixated on this issue, yet the attendance in the Chamber this afternoon is remarkably poor, considering that this is an issue that many have described as vital to British liberties and so on.
The second irony is that even as we are talking about democratic accountability, as the hon. Member for South Northamptonshire (Andrea Leadsom) just did, the Government have tabled a motion on the Order Paper which will mean that Mr Speaker cannot call an amendment to the Queen’s Speech. The hon. Lady may want to sign an amendment to that motion later today—[Interruption.] I am sure that the hon. Member for Bury North (Mr Nuttall), if he has not signed it yet—[Interruption.] He has signed it.
It is an irony, is it not, Madam Deputy Speaker—I do not expect you to answer this rhetorical question—that these two things are being debated at the same time? We are condemning Europe for not being an elected organisation and for the democratic unaccountability of the Commission and all the rest of it, even though we have Members of the House of Lords who have never put themselves up for election—except when they were Members of the House of Commons, before they went down there to take the Whip. We condemn the European Union for its lack of democratic accountability, and then the processes we use in this place to debate precisely what we should do about opting in or out of the justice and home affairs segments are put forward in a way that is wholly undemocratic and are used as a means of the Government trying to mask the fact that they cannot unite those on their Benches.
There is a third great irony that I have really loved. It is fascinating to watch so many Conservative Members of Parliament holding their noses throughout their speeches on the European Union. There is a permanent state of holding one’s nose exercised by Conservative MPs around the country. I was in High Wycombe last week, and the hon. Member for Wycombe (Steve Baker) held his nose magnificently throughout all the discussions of the policy on the EU. The first question was about whether there was any real chance of renegotiating the treaties with the EU, and he started off by saying, broadly speaking, “Well…um…it is…um…I support the Government’s policy—until such time as I shan’t.” As I understand it, that is basically the speech made by all the Conservatives who have spoken thus far, apart from the hon. Member for Bury North, who did not go that far. He is not even holding his nose; he is just announcing that there is a smell out there and that he does not support the direction the Government are going in.
I do not start from an ideological position on all this. It seems to me that there is a pragmatic question about whether it is in the interests of pursuing justice for the people of our country that we should associate and co-operate and to what degree we should do so with other countries in the European Union. That pragmatism must be informed by the fact that it is now far easier for people to travel abroad within the European Union. One in four Brits goes to Spain every year and one in six goes to Greece every year. The number of British people who come into contact with the criminal justice system of other countries within the European Union has therefore dramatically increased.
One statistic that is not often mentioned by Mr Farage is that the country with the largest number of its citizens living elsewhere within the European Union is not Poland, Germany or France, but the United Kingdom. Anything we can do to ensure that justice is available in other EU countries and that justice is secured for people in this country must be to their benefit.
Andrea Leadsom
The hon. Gentleman must accept that that argument does not stack up. Let us look at the number of people who travel to the United States or Mexico every year. Is he seriously suggesting that there ought to be some common justice system among those states as well? He is arguing from a weak position.
Chris Bryant
No, I am not. The hon. Lady complained that the Government and Members of the House of Lords advanced their argument on the European arrest warrant only because it was more convenient and practical. I am trying to suggest that convenience and practicality are three quarters of the point. In the end, it is in the interests of British people.
I shall take the American point as an example. When the new extradition treaty was agreed between the UK and the United States of America, despite the fact that the American Government—the President—had negotiated the treaty, it was a significant problem that the legislature had to put it in place. We moved much more quickly in this country to ratify the treaty than the Americans, and there was a period when the provisions were not perfectly equal between the two countries and when people such as the hon. Lady who argued that there was an imbalance were right. That is no longer the case, because both countries have implemented the measure.
My point to the hon. Lady is that long before we had the European arrest warrant, a Conservative Government under Mrs Thatcher were painfully aware of the problems of not having a proper extradition system across the whole European Union, where most British people do most of their travelling. That is why we had Ronnie Biggs and many others stuck on the costa del crime in Spain. Franco would not extradite anyone.
Chris Bryant
I shall give way to the 16th century in a moment.
I wholly support the European arrest warrant on the same basis that Mrs Thatcher supported the European convention on extradition.
Chris Bryant
I cannot give way to the hon. Lady because I have to give way to the 16th century.
Jacob Rees-Mogg
The hon. Gentleman is extremely kind. I was going to point out that Ronnie Biggs was in Brazil which, as far as I am aware, has not applied for membership of the European Union.
Chris Bryant
I realised that there might be some clever soul in the Chamber. The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right, but there were plenty of other British fugitives from justice who only had to go abroad to evade justice in this country, and we needed a better system of extradition to be able to get British nationals back to the UK to face justice and, for that matter, to do something similar for nationals of other countries.
I would say to Members who regularly say that this is about protecting British people from poor judicial systems in other European countries that, in the main, we bring non-UK citizens back to the UK to make sure that there is justice for families who have lost a loved one or who face some form of injustice. I wholly disagree with the ideological position adopted by some Government Members, because it is pragmatic to have a single system that works across the whole of the EU. I also think that it is a triumph that, despite the fact that the Napoleonic code and English common law are completely different systems, we can work, broadly speaking, in a united way.
Andrea Leadsom
My point was not that we should not be party to the European arrest warrant; nor was it about the convenience of being in or out of it. It was about the method by which we are party to it. In other words, do we do it via a bilateral treaty which, as the hon. Gentleman rightly pointed out, we have with the United States, or should we opt in to justice and home affairs, which come under the jurisdiction of the European Court and can be changed under qualified majority voting without any say-so from the House?
Chris Bryant
I understand the point that the hon. Lady makes, but the problem for her argument is that that option is not available. For that matter, why would we want to say that members of the European Union, which includes two members of the Commonwealth, can all sit around a table and discuss the European arrest warrant, but we will only be able to sign up to it on a bilateral basis? That makes no sense and it is not a system that other members of the European Union will sign up to.
There is a further point, which is my concern about the process that the Government have adopted: we may get to December and not have any new agreed system in place. I know many members of the European Commission want a new system. Some countries in Europe are so profoundly irritated by the way the United Kingdom has been playing its hand over the past few years and are so concerned about the long-term direction of Conservative members of the Government in particular that they would quite like to punish Britain. I fear that we will not have the opt-ins in place by the time the opt-outs have come into force, and as the hon. Member for Perth and North Perthshire (Pete Wishart) said, we may well have a substantial period when there is nothing in place. That could raise very significant legal issues about how we would subsequently resolve that, and it would also put us in the difficult and embarrassing position of having to say to our citizens, “We’re sorry. We are not able to extradite back to this country because we opted out and we have not managed to get the opt-in back in place.”
Jacob Rees-Mogg
The treaty provides for transitional arrangements if an opt-in has not been agreed, so the fear that the hon. Gentleman proposes is not a real one.
Chris Bryant
The provisions on opting back in are not very clear. The one thing that is clear is who has to pay, which is the United Kingdom. That is the one thing that is absolutely clear. We do not even get to decide how much—the costs are decided by the European Commission.
My anxiety is that the Commission could well say, and has effectively said in some of its public pronouncements thus far, “Well, it’s very interesting that you are interested in 35 opt-in measures, but those 35 are contingent upon at least 18 others”—some of which have been listed in the Home Affairs Committee report. The European Commission may at that point come back to us and say, “We’re sorry. It’s 53 or nothing.” Then we will face a difficult problem, especially as we enter a general election.
The main point that I want to make is about process. As I said, it is somewhat ironic that many Government Members have, for understandable reasons, argued the issues surrounding democratic accountability. The problem is that I do not know what the Government are going to allow us to vote on. The Secretary of State said that it would not be legislation, so we know that it is not going to be a Bill that goes through two Houses, and it is not going to be a statutory instrument either. I do not think it is going to be a treaty, unless she brings us a treaty that has already been signed, but that seems extraordinary to me. I therefore presume it will be some kind of motion.
We have already seen what the Government are trying to do in relation to the Queen’s Speech by not allowing the House to consider an amendment other than one tabled by the Leader of the Opposition. I presume that is largely because any other amendment that was tabled might relate to the European Union and a referendum. I am suspicious about what the Government are going to present to us and the timeliness of that.
There is probably broad agreement about the number of measures that we would like to opt back in to. It is probably slightly bigger than the Government’s list—about 45 or 50—but the House should take a view before the Government start their negotiations. The worst of all possible situations would be the Government coming forward with an unamendable motion which we simply voted on, almost like a statutory instrument. That would unite both ends—the people who would like to see more opt-ins and those who would like to see no opt-ins. In a sense, that is exactly what happened after the American war of independence, when the Earl of Shelburne lost the treaty negotiations on the preliminaries for the treaty with the Americans. My anxiety is that then the Government do not have a leg to stand on in their negotiations with the European Union.
I hope that the Government will make it clear that we will have a debate in the House before the summer recess in plenty of time for them to negotiate with the European Union. That would not tie their hands. They should make sure that the motion is amendable, so that if people want to vote on whether the European arrest warrant is in or out, they can do so, or on any of the other measures, perhaps packaged in some way—I do not mind. A clear list should come out of the House. How can we possibly preach to Europe about democratic accountability and the importance of what happens in this House if we have not done properly in this House what we should have done in the first place? I will vote for a longer list than the hon. Member for Bury North. I may vote for the same list as the Lord Chancellor—I am not sure—but certainly for a shorter list than the shadow Lord Chancellor. But in the end that should be a decision for the whole House. It should not be stage-managed and organised in backroom deals by the Whips so that the House cannot make a proper decision.
Dr Julian Huppert (Cambridge) (LD)
It is a pleasure to be called to speak, after a characteristically entertaining contribution by the hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant). I agreed with a lot, though not quite everything, of what he said. It is also interesting to speak after the hon. Member for Perth and North Perthshire (Pete Wishart), who made a fantastically strong case for the benefits of staying inside larger organisations. It was an excellent case for why Scotland should remain with the United Kingdom. I congratulate him on making such a strong case here, and I look forward to hearing it elsewhere.
It is good that there is general agreement among the three Front-Bench spokesmen of the three main parties, and indeed the Scottish nationalists and others, that the UK needs to remain opted in to many of these measures—the most significant ones. That is very important and I am pleased to have seen it. I pay tribute to both the Home Secretary and the Lord Chancellor for resisting some of the siren calls from their Back Benchers. They understand the importance of these measures and it is important that they stick with that.
I have a number of fears about where we might head. One, which I hope can be addressed, is the fear of a gap—that there may be a pause between us pulling out and going back in—and the consequences that that would have. This was mentioned earlier. There are some provisions for temporary measures and so on, but what would happen to the head of Europol, who is a Brit? Can he continue as head of Europol if we are outside, whether for a minute or a month? Would that cause problems? Would anybody agree to temporary transitional arrangements if that meant that the person in charge came from a country that was not part of Europol? That is a big worry.
The bigger worry, however, is that we might accidentally fall out of all these measures without that being the intention of the vast majority of the House. That could be because negotiations fail and we simply cannot reach an agreement—there was much in what the hon. Member for Rhondda said about the concern that many of our European partners have about our attitude to European co-operation. What happens if someone tries to cause trouble and we cannot close the negotiations? That also applies to other suggestions. If we have a formal, fixed vote before negotiations, that will make it incredibly hard to have a proper negotiation. There are a number of core measures. There are also a number of peripheral measures. If this House says, “These are the absolute lines,” it makes it very hard to create a proper negotiation—actually to have a discussion with the European Union. That could lead us to falling out unintentionally.
I am aware of what happened in the House on the issue of military intervention in Syria. There was a proposal from the Prime Minister to have military intervention without UN approval, and there was a proposal from the Leader of the Opposition to have military intervention without UN approval. There was a small group across various parties—about 50 of us—who did not want intervention without approval, but because neither side would agree with the other’s version of the wording, our small band won. I am delighted about that, but I would not want the small band of people who want us to be out of all these measures to win because of a disagreement between the two sides.
Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Con)
On a point of clarification, I thought that the Syria vote was on the option to keep a military option on the table, not an option to go to war.
Dr Huppert
My hon. Friend is right on the technicality that there would have been a second vote, but the principle ensconced in both was to have military intervention without the UN approval that some of us wanted. However, that is not the subject at the heart of this debate.
I share the concerns expressed about whether the whole effort has been worth while. The shadow Home Secretary is not in her place. I do not always agree with her, but I did agree when she said that the things we will not remain opted in to are, generally speaking, the less important ones. They are the ones that do not matter; they are more trivial. That is by design, but it also means that the entire balance will not have been changed as a result of this. The Home Affairs Committee agreed unanimously that if the Government proceed with the option as proposed, it will not result in any repatriation of powers. Some of us think that is a good thing—that collaboration and co-operation are worth having—but others have concerns. Has it been worth the huge amount of parliamentary, ministerial and official time and effort in negotiating with partners to achieve what will probably—hopefully—be a very small effect?
It is important to highlight why this matters. We have had a great deal of discussion about process, but we should remember why it is important. Our work with our partners in this area of policing and criminal justice is one of the great benefits of European Union membership. There are other benefits—on trade, free movement and a stronger voice on the international stage—but that ability to share information to catch UK criminals on the run and to bring them back to face justice at home, and to fight international terrorism and crimes such as child abuse, come from our participation in the European Union’s justice and home affairs measures. Europol is an incredibly important element in the fight against organised crime. We would suffer badly if we lost that. Cases such as Operation Rescue involved huge co-operation with 12 other countries, with Europol playing a critical role in intelligence and analytical support which resulted in the safeguarding of at least 230 children worldwide, 60 of whom were in the United Kingdom, and the arrest of more than 180 offenders, 121 of whom were arrested in the UK. That is the sort of thing that would be put at risk by those who are simply allergic to anything that mentions the word “Europe”, and there are a number on the Conservative Back Benches, though fortunately not on the Front Bench. We do take that lead. It is not a coincidence that the head of Europol is a Briton.
Mr Cash
The hon. Gentleman raises the question of those people for whom the word “Europe” evokes all kinds of spectres. [Interruption.] Well, he got very close to it. He is only repeating Bismarck in the late 19th century, when he said, “Whenever anybody uses the word ‘Europe’, I then realise what they are up to.”
Dr Huppert
I thank the hon. Gentleman for that enlightening quote. He can choose to describe himself how he likes.
It is strange that the Home Office, while trying to stay within Europol, has created ambiguity about the relationship with Europol by, for example, not opting in to other measures. I want the Government to have flexibility on these things so that they can take many of the other Europol measures and not be bound too tightly by the exact details of a vote here. It will make it very strange. As the Home Affairs Committee highlighted, that runs contrary to the logic of the Government’s stated policy.
We get huge benefits from the European arrest warrant. The Association of Chief Police Officers—it nears the end of its career but it continues for now at least to speak for senior police officers—has highlighted that relying on alternative arrangements to the European arrest warrant
“would result in fewer extraditions, longer delays, higher costs, more offenders evading justice and increased risk to public safety.”
That is what has to be set against the allergy that many have to this issue.
Keir Starmer, former Director of Public Prosecutions, said that failure to opt in could lead to an
“uncertain, cumbersome and fragmented approach, which is likely to have a damaging impact on the prosecution of crime in England and Wales.
That is what has to be addressed by those who want us just to leave the EAW. I am glad that Ministers have taken a sensible line on this. We need to reform the European arrest warrant, but we are better off for having it. For example, the Government’s Command Paper highlights that an extradition now takes on average three months, whereas it takes about 10 months for countries that are not covered by the EAW. That is a substantial change, and some people would not be extradited at all. Those who want to go back to the old framework would slow down the process of justice in some cases and stop it in others.
Of course, we need to make some changes to the EAW, and I pay tribute to the principled stance taken by the hon. Member for Esher and Walton (Mr Raab), who I do not think is allergic to this. He has some detailed, thought-through concerns about a number of aspects, and I hope we will hear thoughtful comments from him later.
Changes have been made. For example, the Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014 made some changes to extradition to ensure that our courts can take greater account of these matters, and the judge will have to consider the seriousness of the offence and the likely sentence. Changes are also happening within Europe to try to make the situation better and to deal with cases where people might face a long period of pre-trial detention. Many of our Members of the European Parliament have been working on this. In particular, Sarah Ludford—Baroness Ludford—has been successful in securing a majority in the European Parliament for a package of EU-wide reforms of the European arrest warrant. These recommendations are important. They propose the inclusion of an EU-wide human rights safeguard clause preventing miscarriages of justice, and measures to improve standards of detention, specifically pre-trial detention. I hope that the European Commission and this Government will make sure that these reforms happen by coming up with proposals to enact them that we then get into law.
If we want to benefit from these tools and change them so that they work for Britain, we obviously have to be there at the table leading the negotiations. If we walk out, we give up on any chance of doing that, leaving our citizens vulnerable at home or when they go holidaying or working in Europe. Crime crosses borders and so must we. That means co-operation, information exchange, and justice systems that match our own high standards. We should opt in to these measures and make sure that we do not accidentally walk out, because that is the key to achieving this effectively and efficiently. I hope that the Home Secretary and the Lord Chancellor will successfully conclude these negotiations, and that my fears of our sleepwalking out of them do not come to pass, because that is the best thing for Britain.
Jacob Rees-Mogg (North East Somerset) (Con)
The hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant), who speaks extremely interestingly on these matters and sometimes challenges the Eurosceptics, was, as always, on good form. However, he made a mistake in not wanting to talk about ideology and principles, because we need to start with first principles—what we think of as the idea of the state and the sovereignty that that state has.
For me, the very essence of a state is its ability to maintain law and order. From that, it follows that its justice system and policing are at the heart of what it means to be an independent nation state, and that when those things are given away, the country involved is becoming part of a larger state and no longer maintaining its independence. That is why these opt-ins and opt-outs are of such considerable importance to the sovereignty of this nation and, indeed, to the credibility of the Conservative party as a party that considers itself to be Eurosceptic. They are also important in relation to the promises given in the coalition agreement, which said that
“no further powers should be transferred to Brussels without a referendum”
and that
“we will ensure that there is no further transfer of sovereignty or powers over the course of the next Parliament.”
We now have an area on which we are going to transfer very substantial powers to Europe. There is a debate to be had about what is the status quo as regards the opting out and then opting in. The current situation, however, is that what we have agreed to is not justiciable in the European Court of Justice, nor can enforcement action be taken by the European Commission. Those two important qualifiers mean that what we have agreed to is not part of the acquis communautaire but is a matter entirely in the hands of this country. Under the Lisbon treaty, we had an opt-out from all these measures that has duly been exercised. The Government have argued that the exercise of that opt-out was, in itself, a repatriation of powers, but that is wrong, because in fact these powers had not been ceded. Tony Blair, the Prime Minister who agreed to Lisbon, though he did not sign it, was quite clear about that in the statement that he gave when presenting the treaty to this House. I have already quoted the answer he gave to my right hon. Friend the Member for Hitchin and Harpenden (Mr Lilley) when explaining that a referendum was not necessary as we had not ceded justice and home affairs powers because they were subject to an opt-out, as was the charter of fundamental rights. Therefore, at the point at which Lisbon was agreed to, he was clear that these powers remained vested in the United Kingdom, and it is only with the opting back in that they are being transferred.
What the Government propose as regards opting back into these 35 measures is a clear breach of the coalition agreement and entirely contra to Conservative party policy. I would go further and say that any effort to renegotiate looks faintly absurd if we are arguing for the repatriation of powers from Europe, and intend to put that to the vote through a referendum, yet immediately before beginning the renegotiation process we have decided that we will cede a major part of our powers to the European Union. As I said at the outset, the heart of the matter is that justice and home affairs—law and order—are part of the vital structure of a state, and if one is not in control of the vital structures of one’s state, one does not have sovereignty.
Bob Stewart
Is my hon. Friend suggesting, or in agreement, that we might give some power to Europe provided that that power enhances our sovereign law?
Jacob Rees-Mogg
If we opt into any of these measures and they are justiciable by the European Court of Justice, we are, through that act itself, ceding sovereignty to the European Union, because it is part of building up a single state.
What does a state have that makes it a state? What is the essence of a state? At least one important part is the ability to control law and order. We are opting back into the things that are most clearly creating the powers of a federal state of the united states of Europe—a single state that is the European Union. That will mean that we are no longer a member of an international organisation like any other, such as the United Nations or NATO, from which it would be easy to withdraw, should we wish, although I am not suggesting for a moment that we do so.
Of the 35 areas that we are asking to opt back into, three illustrate the fundamental importance of the sovereignty issue. The first of those is the European arrest warrant. The decision over who can arrest a nation state’s citizens must be an essential right of that nation state in determining this exceptional power that it gives to its police officers. In our case, the power that constables who hold the Queen’s warrant have to restrict somebody’s freedom comes directly from the Crown as part of the expression of the power of the state. To decide that an arrest can be determined abroad without any of the necessary British legal procedures involved is a move very firmly towards a federal state. Crucially, the question of who is or is not arrested will no longer be determined by a British court but by the European Court of Justice, over which we have no absolute control. We may have one justice there, but it is not a court to which we send ambassadors; it is a court that is independent in its exercise of European law as opposed to British law.
Sir Alan Beith (Berwick-upon-Tweed) (LD)
The hon. Gentleman has fallen into uncharacteristically misleading language. Over what court does he think we do have control? We send to the European Court of Justice judges just like those we have in our own courts, and we do not purport to control them from this House.
Jacob Rees-Mogg
My right hon. Friend is fully aware that Parliament can overrule any court in this country by an Act of Parliament. That is how our constitution works; it is the absolute essence of our constitution and our democracy. He, of all people, must know that. We have in this House, and together with the House of Lords, the ability to change the law if there has been a judgment that is alien to our understanding of how the law should be enforced. That is simply not the case as regards the European Court of Justice. It is a court that is outside the control not of Parliament but of the people of the United Kingdom, whose rights are being given up. The arrest warrant would be handed over as part of the creation of a state.
Tied in with this is Europol. Europol, in its current form, is limited, but once we have signed up to this measure, its development will be subject to the qualified majority vote. Europol exists to provide support and assistance to member states in the fight against organised crime and drug trafficking. What are we doing in this regard? Are we setting up the very beginnings of a federal bureau of investigation? Are we starting to say that we will have a police force in Europe with a power that goes across national borders? Are we therefore saying that British subjects may be subject to a law that this country has not agreed to—indeed, we may even vote against it—and that has emanated from a judicial system that is not controlled by the democratic will of the British people?
That ties in with Eurojust, which is about creating mutual legal assistance to aid investigations and prosecutions and how judicial action in a cross-border case should take place. What is happening? We are creating an arrest warrant, the beginnings of a European police force and Eurojust, which will allow co-operation in a judicial and prosecutorial capacity. That is not a million miles away from creating a European public prosecutor, which for some reason is singled out as the one thing that is a bridge too far and that we must never have without a referendum, but everything that is being put in place makes that the next logical step. If we do this, it would be no surprise if a future Government said, “We have the arrest warrant, Europol and Eurojust, so surely we don’t need a referendum to have a public prosecutor, because that is the next thing we should do.” This is further evidence of the creation of a European federal state.
The argument in favour of this measure is that it will help ensure that criminals get caught. Everyone is in favour of that: of course we want criminals to be brought to justice. Is there not, however, an ancient view of British justice that it is better for 100 guilty men to go free—I say “men” deliberately, because women very rarely commit crimes that get them sent to prison, much less so than men, and I do not want to upset any hon. Ladies—than for one innocent man to go to prison? That seems to be at the essence of our understanding of justice. This is about risking our belief in justice for the convenience of the Administration.
Is it not that the worst argument of all that their noble lordships have produced a report saying that public officials are too idle to do their jobs properly for us to have a system of bilateral negotiations? I know that our public officials are among the greatest and hardest working people in the land. When one sees them arrayed in front of us, one knows that they would be willing to burn the midnight oil and act in the nation’s interest to ensure that we have those bilateral agreements. Although it has not yet been done, there is nothing in European law to prevent a member state from having an agreement with the body of the European Union. The European Commission does not want that to happen, but that is a very different question from whether or not it is legal. It could easily be done by a relatively simple treaty change, if it is not provided for in the current treaties.
Mark Reckless (Rochester and Strood) (Con)
If we were to take that path, would the resulting international agreement be judiciable in The Hague rather than in the integrationist Court in Luxembourg?
Jacob Rees-Mogg
In my view, it would be judiciable in our own courts and, like any other international agreement, we would be free to withdraw from it. It would not come under the European Communities Act 1972. I do not wish to cede power to the European Court of Justice, because that would be the means by which we would give up our independence as a nation state. If it is not our judges—who are subject to our democratic control—who make decisions, we will not be able to run our own affairs.
I want to continue with the point I was making about the United Kingdom’s understanding of justice. I think we get too tied up with the convenience of the law enforcement bodies. Of course, the views of the police should be taken very seriously, but they ought not to be writing the law of the land—they should be enforcing it as it is determined by this House and their lordships. One of the measures that the Government wish to opt back into is that of mutual recognition of judgments given in absentia. Page 57 of the European Scrutiny Committee’s report notes the Government’s view that the
“Framework Decision ensures that fewer criminals will be able to evade justice by arguing that their conviction was unfair”,
but what if their conviction was unfair? Surely we should not be depriving our fellow citizens of the right to argue that a conviction in absentia was unfair when it could have been. That must be an essential protection for the state to provide its nationals, and to take it away would be a fundamental error.
What we have and have not opted into is a relatively random collection of parts. I agreed with the shadow Home Secretary, the right hon. Member for Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford (Yvette Cooper), in her mocking of some of the measures we are not opting back into. On the opt-ins, including that of taking account of convictions in EU member states in the course of new criminal proceedings, page 53 of the ESC’s report notes:
“The principle of taking into account overseas convictions in the same way as domestic ones exists in UK domestic law”
already, and:
“The mutual recognition principle it sets out is already recognised in statute and common law in the UK. Opting back in to this EU measure would introduce full Court of Justice jurisdiction into this area of UK criminal law, with unpredictable results.”
What is happening here? We are opting into something that already happens and that can continue to happen. All we are changing is that other European countries do not have to take into account our decisions, but they may if they want to—they are not prevented from doing so. Crucially, however, we are bringing the European Court of Justice into it. Therefore, if a judge were to pass sentence on somebody who had committed a crime abroad and the European Court of Justice deemed that it had not properly taken into account the previous conviction, sentencing in the United Kingdom could end up being a matter for the European Court of Justice. Does Her Majesty’s Government realise that, although some of these things appear superficially to be unnecessary and broadly irrelevant, they are agreeing to major transfers of sovereignty to the European Union?
My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary said in her introductory speech that several hundred questions have been tabled. I am delighted that my hon. Friend the Minister for Security and Immigration has just come into the Chamber, because he, poor man, had to reply to the many dozens of questions that I tabled. I thank him for the diligence with which he replied to my questions about the measures that the Government decided not to opt back into. Of those 95 measures, 43 were irrelevant, so there was no point asking any questions about them. I asked about the remaining 52, of which 24 turned out to be implemented already without any change; 11 had been de facto implemented with no change; two had been implemented and never used; and two had not been implemented. As the shadow Home Secretary rightly said, most of what we are not opting back into is, effectively, unimportant and irrelevant and cannot honestly be described as a reclaim of British sovereignty, because, as I said in my opening remarks, that sovereignty was never ceded in the first place, because the matters remained entirely under the jurisdiction of the British courts, the British House of Commons and their lordships.
I will quote the details of one of those matters in order to give a flavour of what is going on. Council decision 2005/387/JHA on the information exchange, risk-assessment and control of new psychoactive substances has been implemented to the required standard by the UK and, according to the response I received from my hon. Friend the Minister for Security and Immigration:
“Co-operation and information exchange with other member states and EU bodies will not change as a result of opting out of this measure.”—[Official Report, 17 October 2013; Vol. 568, c. 823W.]
That has been broadly true of the overwhelming majority of the measures we have opted out of.
We therefore have this opt-out—the previous Labour Government, in a desire to get away from a referendum, negotiated it—which fortunately came to the benefit or aid of this coalition Government, who have used it. They looked at it, but they undoubtedly had a political problem. One part of the coalition is made up of Europhiles red in tooth and claw—although my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge (Dr Huppert) does not necessarily look red in tooth and claw, he adopts that position on the European Union—who want an enlarged European organisation. They may quibble with me about whether it is a single state, but they want to see powers with Europe, because they believe that that is an advantage to the nation. They met the Conservative view—it has now been the Conservative view for a long time—that we do not want more powers to be ceded to the European Union. It was negotiated in the coalition agreement that no further powers would be passed to the European Union.
The time came to exercise the opt-out—it had to be exercised before the end of this year, 1 December 2014—and last year it was duly exercised. We are therefore in the happy position, the paradise, of no longer subscribing to any of the measures. That would be a happy place to stay, but the Government, throwing away the coalition agreement and abandoning what unites the Tory party, have decided to give away the things that most certainly create, build up and advance the federal European state that so many of us wish not to see. That contradicts the Prime Minister’s effort of renegotiation, as well as past statements by Conservative Ministers and politicians throughout the Front and Back Benches. It would be a grave error to opt into all 35 measures. It is against the national interest, and to do it for administrative convenience—because we cannot get officials to do the work—is a shameful way to treat our hard-working and admirable officials, who would all be delighted to do the work to preserve the independence of our country.
Sir Alan Beith (Berwick-upon-Tweed) (LD)
I must first explain to the House that I had to leave during the middle of this debate, after the opening speeches, to speak in a discussion upstairs about a statutory instrument that directly affects my constituency.
I have the pleasure of following the hon. Member for North East Somerset (Jacob Rees-Mogg). It is a pleasure because of his eloquence, but eloquence and judgment do not always walk together, and on some matters he is simply wrong, including about the European arrest warrant. My belief is that if 100 criminals go free in the absence of the European arrest warrant, that would be an extremely bad state of affairs for our constituents. That is entirely separate from the question of ensuring that no innocent person is convicted in our courts. Long may we strive to achieve that second objective.
Mark Reckless
In response to the right hon. Gentleman’s first point, how many of our own citizens—who had done nothing wrong and been convicted of no crime—is he prepared to see detained in foreign prisons in return for those 100 people going free?
Sir Alan Beith
One measure that we are opting into ensures that people do not have to be detained in foreign prisons, but can be returned to the United Kingdom to serve under bail conditions in the United Kingdom. That is another reason why I think that we should look at the measures individually and decide which are in the national interest and beneficial to our citizens because they afford some protection to our citizens abroad or because they help to protect our citizens in this country from criminals who flee elsewhere having done terrible harm.
Sir Alan Beith
I want to make a little progress.
I want primarily to speak about the Justice Committee’s work on this matter, but I cannot forbear to mention that the Government have handled their relationship with Parliament very badly in this regard. This debate is a somewhat belated and limited response to the view of the three Committees that there should have been an early opportunity to debate and vote on the measures so that the Government knew the House’s views, with that being supported by impact assessments at an early stage—we still have not had any—and a much earlier indication of the Government’s intentions.
There have indeed been intensive discussions. The hon. Member for North East Somerset implied that they took place at a table with all the Conservatives on one side and all the Liberal Democrats on the other. I know that it was more complicated than that on several issues, as I am sure the Justice Secretary is well aware.
I want to turn to the measures for which the Ministry of Justice is responsible, and on which the Justice Committee reported. Of the total of 16 such measures, the Government propose that the UK should rejoin seven. Our report examines the case for and against rejoining all 16 measures, and we concluded in broad support of the Government’s approach. There are six mutual recognition measures—on financial penalties, previous convictions, prisoner transfer, probation measures, judgments in absentia and the European supervision order, to which I referred a moment ago—and the Government propose to rejoin them all, except for the probation measures framework decision.
We agreed that the Government was right, in the national interest and in the interests of effective cross-border co-operation in criminal justice, to seek to rejoin five of the measures. The Government support particularly strongly the UK’s participation in the prisoner transfer framework decision, stating that a top priority is to reduce the number of foreign nationals in UK prisons, while the decision is also an important part of the overall reform package of the European arrest warrant. My support for the European arrest warrant is accompanied by the belief that it was right to take active steps in various areas to try to reform it and make it better serve its purpose.
One of the five measures, the European supervision order, enables a defendant or suspect under non-custodial pre-trial bail or other supervision to be returned to their home member state to await trial there. It would not of course apply to people granted unconditional bail, who would be free to return to their home member state in any case. We urged the Government to implement the measure without further delay, and their response stated that they intended to do so as soon as practicable.
On the probation measures framework decision, which provides a basis for mutual recognition and supervision of suspended sentences, post-custodial licences and community sentences, we noted the Government’s concerns about its practical operability, but we stated:
“In view of the potential value of the Framework Decision we consider that the Government should pursue the matter in their negotiations on the opt-in list to see whether these concerns can be dealt with. We would not wish to rule out participation in the measure if concerns about its drafting can be overcome as part of the forthcoming negotiation process or at a later stage.”
In their response, the Government spelled out in more detail their objections to the measure, including that it falls within the jurisdiction of the European Court of Justice, while saying that they support the measure in principle. I still hope that they will make some effort to deal with some of the practical difficulties, because the measure may be of real benefit.
There are six minimum standards measures, which set out EU-wide minimum penalties and sanctions for corruption involving officials, counterfeiting of the euro, fraud and counterfeiting of non-cash means of payment, and corruption in the private sector. Two of the measures will be replaced by a new directive, covering counterfeiting of the euro, which the UK has decided not to opt into. The Government do not propose to rejoin any of the remaining four measures. They pointed out that we already at least meet the minimum standards, and rejected the arguments that were put to us in evidence that leaving the measures could cause reputational damage. We stated that
“the arguments for opting into the…minimum standards measures are primarily symbolic, and our view is that those arguments do not outweigh the disadvantages of bringing wide areas of criminal justice in the UK unnecessarily into the jurisdiction of the Court of Justice of the European Union.”
The remaining four measures under the aegis of the Ministry of Justice comprise one on data protection in police and judicial co-operation, one on a data protection secretariat, a Schengen agreement on road traffic offences and a measure on conflicts of jurisdiction. The Government propose to rejoin the first two, but not the last two. We broadly agreed with the Government’s line, although we stated that the arguments were finely balanced as to whether the UK should rejoin the framework decision on settlement of conflicts of jurisdiction, because it provides a framework of guidance for member states to put in place to protect against parallel legal proceedings on the same matters being taken in different member states. The Government’s position, which they maintained in their response, was that it had no additional practical value because best practice arrangements are already in place.
Our broad conclusion was to support the Government’s choice of opt-ins on Ministry of Justice measures. The Government closely coincide with our views. Those views are on the record for the consideration of the House to which we report, and it remains a matter of regret to me that we were not able to register our views in the House earlier and in a more concrete way. However, this debate has been a useful means of reminding the Government about where it has support, where there are differences of view and, in particular, where the Select Committees charged with such responsibilities have looked carefully at the measures and given their advice.
Mr Dominic Raab (Esher and Walton) (Con)
It is a pleasure to follow the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Sir Alan Beith). We have not reached the same conclusion, but I pay tribute to the work of his Select Committee, and indeed to the work of all the Select Committees that have provided the reports that have invaluably informed this debate. I agree with the point that has been consistently made on the critical role of parliamentary scrutiny in all of this. Whatever our view on the measures and the direction that Britain should take, the measures are clearly substantive and important.
I welcome the Government’s exercise of the block opt-out, which is critical. I am surprised by the great lengths that Opposition Members, so few of whom remain in their place, have taken to trash the opt-out that they negotiated and to highlight all its flaws. Time and again, rather than setting out their position on the substance, they are at pains to point out their failure to negotiate, and to rubbish the product of their negotiations before the previous election.
It is important that we scrutinise the substance of this area of UK-EU relations, both because of its effect on policy and because the public care about it. For all the slavish pro-EU noises that we have heard from Labour and Liberal Democrat colleagues, their argument is clearly not taking effect with the British public. A ComRes poll for Open Europe towards the end of last year found that crime and policing is the fourth most important area that the British public want renegotiated with Europe. The top area is immigration, so two of the top four measures for renegotiation, according to the British public, who we know overwhelmingly back renegotiation, are justice and home affairs measures. If Conservative Members are just a bunch of crazies and are missing something, other Members must struggle to explain why they have failed to win over public opinion. Why do the public so strongly think that justice and home affairs is an area that needs to be reconsidered? It is important that we look at the package as a whole and at individual measures through the cold, hard lens of the British national interest.
My opening point is that the lack of proper empirical evaluation of the effectiveness of many JHA measures has been an endemic problem across successive Administrations, but particularly under the previous Government. In comparison with the way in which UK policy and legislation works, whether we are for or against the measures, we do not have a proper understanding of how the measures operate in practice. The right hon. Gentleman referred in a rather cavalier way to hundreds of criminals going free if we do not sign up to the European arrest warrant. I will take an intervention if he can explain where that figure comes from, because I do not think it is based on concrete evidence.
Sir Alan Beith
I was referring to the remarks of the hon. Member for North East Somerset (Jacob Rees-Mogg), who used the rather tired saying that it is better for 100 individuals to go free than for one innocent man to be convicted. My argument is that it would not be acceptable for 100 people to go free because we do not have the European arrest warrant, but we should also ensure that innocent people are not convicted.
Mr Raab
I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his intervention. He is the Chair of the Justice Committee, which has investigated the measure, but I am still not clear on the public protection shortfall, in empirical terms, if we do not sign up to the European arrest warrant and instead look for alternative arrangements, which I know would be slower. The Home Secretary referred to a case relating to the German constitution, but what is the empirical evaluation of the quantitative size of the public protection shortfall for which the European arrest warrant caters? I am none the wiser. I appreciate that the police would love to have fast-track extradition, but I will not nod police powers through the House that have been requested by the Association of Chief Police Officers, or by anyone else for that matter. In the same way, I would happily join forces with Liberal Democrat colleagues to face down police requests for things such as ID cards or extended powers of pre-charge detention. We need to consider the merits of each proposal.
ACPO’s evidence to the House of Lords European Union Committee has been regularly cited, and that evidence recommends that it is vital to opt back in to only 13 of 135 EU crime and policing measures. I do not suggest that we should take that at face value, but it is extraordinary that only 13 measures are regarded as being of any tangible law enforcement value. That highlights the unthinking way in which the previous Government signed up to EU measures, and they are now saying that the current Government are proposing only to opt out of trivial measures. The real question is why the previous Government signed us up to stuff that is trivial, redundant and irrelevant, not least because the trajectory of EU justice and home affairs is, sooner or later, going to encompass the jurisdiction of the European Court of Justice, which we know can turn seemingly irrelevant or peripheral measures into something damaging for national democracies. At the other end of the scale, it shows how much pointless legislation comes out of the EU if the police, who are regarded as the most zealous advocates of EU crime and policing, are advocating that we opt back in only to such a small proportion of the measures covered by the Lisbon treaty opt-in.
I pay tribute to the 21st report of the European Scrutiny Committee. I agree with all the points on the risk of giving jurisdiction to the European Court of Justice, because we would end up doing for crime and policing what the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg has done for deportation powers and prisoner voting and is looking to do for whole-life tariffs. We should be very cautious about that.
The Home Affairs Committee’s ninth report contains some important analysis of the European arrest warrant, which it describes as “fundamentally flawed.” It is worth noting that that backs up the evidence from Britain’s most senior High Court extradition judge, Lord Justice Thomas, to the independent Baker review of extradition. Lord Justice Thomas said that the European arrest warrant has become “unworkable.” I will read out in full some quotes from Britain’s most senior extradition judge, because this is not a right-wing excursion or some rabid anti-European ideology; it is from someone who considers such cases week in, week out. In his evidence to the Baker review, Lord Justice Thomas said:
“Looking at the 27—I’ve said this to many people—this system becomes unworkable in the end… politically there is a huge problem. There is quite a lot of strong judicial feeling on this subject”—
the European arrest warrant—
“in northern Europe that both the judges and politicians in other countries need to put the resources into their systems to bring them up to standard… We’re all agreed there’s an undoubted problem, as the cases sent in by Fair Trials International illustrate. If you talk to anyone, there’s obviously a problem… One of the problems with the way in which a lot of European criminal justice legislation has emerged is that it presupposes a kind of mutual confidence and common standards that actually don’t exist.”
That is Britain’s most senior extradition judge.
Previous speakers, particularly my hon. Friend the Member for North East Somerset (Jacob Rees-Mogg), spoke about considering not only a snapshot of current co-operation but the future vision of where EU justice and home affairs co-operation is heading. I entirely agree with that analysis. We need to think of the long term, not just the short term. I know that many hon. Members are rightly fixated on the time lag and the time gap, whether we have enough time to do anything else and whether we will find ourselves, having opted out, not opting back in to measures, but at this juncture we ought to look to a long-term settlement of Britain’s relationship with Europe in the important area of crime and policing.
I fear the creeping supranationalism that is undoubtedly coming. We cannot read the text of the regulations, whether on Europol or Eurojust, not to mention the wider remit of the European Court of Justice, without seeing that that is happening. We would have to be blind not to accept that. There is a new draft regulation that would strengthen Europol’s power to demand that national police forces initiate investigations by whittling away the national right to say no. There is similar strengthening of powers to demand data from national Governments with less ability for those Governments to say no. There is increasing supranational management of the running of Europol. Of course, if we opt back in, all of that is subject to the overriding jurisdiction of the European Court of Justice, rather than the British Supreme Court. I always find it fascinating that Opposition Members, including the shadow Justice Secretary, who set up the British Supreme Court, are now so willing and eager to give away its right to have the last word not only on matters affecting law enforcement and public safety but on matters affecting British citizens.
Jacob Rees-Mogg
I very much agree with what my hon. Friend is saying. Of course, the matter would also become subject to qualified majority voting and we could therefore be overruled on any future developments.
Mr Raab
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. I was going to come on to the other areas of creeping supranationalism.
The same is true of Eurojust. Although Britain will not opt in to the European Public Prosecutor’s Office—I very much welcome the fact that Ministers have made that clear—if one looks at the fine print, which the Deputy Prime Minister always encourages us to do, the new Eurojust regulation encourages close co-operation with the EPPO through the back door. If we opt back in to the Eurojust regulation, we will therefore have a close relationship of support for the EPPO. That is something else that needs to be looked at.
Even here at home, outside the political arena, we have had a timely warning from the High Court, and from Mr Justice Mostyn in particular, about the risks of creeping supranationalism. The last Government, to great fanfare, negotiated the British opt-out from the charter of fundamental rights. However, we found out from a case in the High Court in November 2013 that that counts for nothing. Again, so that I cannot be accused of spinning the language, I will refer directly to what Mr Justice Mostyn said. In respect of the opt-out he said:
“it is absolutely clear that the contracting parties agreed that the Charter did not create one single further justiciable right in our domestic courts. The assertion in the…protocol that no new rights are created seems to me to be a misleading product of political compromise because on any view the Charter enunciates a host of new rights which are not expressly found in the European Convention on Human Rights signed in Rome in 1950.”
He continued:
“However, my view that the effect of the seventh protocol is to prevent any new justiciable rights from being created is not one shared by the Court of Justice of the European Union in Luxembourg.”
He went on to say:
“The constitutional significance of this decision can hardly be overstated.”
That is a timely warning from another senior British judge about what is actually happening.
If we listen to our colleagues, partners and friends in the European Union, they are telling us the same thing loud and clear. Viviane Reding, the vice-president of the European Commission and the Justice Commissioner, made it very clear in a speech in Brussels on 4 September 2013 that the EU wishes to acquire the powers of a nation state in the rule of law area. She said explicitly that the EU needs a formal justice Minister and stronger powers to police national criminal justice systems, including
“detailed monitoring and sanctioning powers”.
We must not only look at the snapshot of measures that are before us now, but ask whether in five or 10 years’ time we will find ourselves enmeshed in a common pan-European justice system over which we have lost substantial democratic control. On the evidence, the answer is almost certainly yes.
I want to talk about the European arrest warrant in particular because, between the two poles of UKIP, which suggests that we should just opt out en masse, and our Labour and Liberal Democrat colleagues in this House, who suggest that there is nothing wrong with it, there is a common-sense—dare I say it—third way or at least a middle course. That is to have binding treaty relations on extradition, but to ensure that we have safeguards in place to protect British citizens. We must not make the Faustian bargain that was debated by the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed and my hon. Friend the Member for North East Somerset of sacrificing a few innocent people to snag a few guilty fugitives.
If one looks at the data, one finds that the number of European arrest warrants that are received by the UK has trebled since 2004. The latest figures on warrants issued from the first quarter of 2013 showed that the UK receives 33 warrants for every one that it serves. A number of colleagues on the Liberal Democrat and Labour Benches have talked about the lop-sided nature of UK-US extradition, but that is nothing compared with the European arrest warrant, empirically and factually. One cannot take issue with the lack of reciprocity in our extradition relations with the US and not see the same problem in the European arrest warrant. One Briton is surrendered each week. That is up from five per year in 2004.
I accept that we needed a more streamlined process than existed before. I accept that we need a treaty basis for that. We ought to get to a stage where we can talk about reform of the European arrest warrant. I do not think that we will achieve that if we opt back in at this stage.
Mr Nuttall
I agree with many of the points that my hon. Friend is making. Will he clarify whether, in his opinion, it would be possible to reach such an arrangement, with a separate treaty, if this country were outside the EU?
Mr Raab
Of course it could be reached. I was a Foreign Office lawyer for six years. I would love to obsess, fixate and opine on all the legal niceties, but this is about political will. Ultimately, these issues come down to political will.
Many Members have quoted ACPO’s submission on the importance of the European arrest warrant. I accept that it has been very clear about that. However, as I said earlier, it has not been able to assess how many fugitives would go free if we did not opt back in to the European arrest warrant, but went down an alternative route. That is the Achilles heel in its argument. In fairness to ACPO, if one reads on from the statement that the hon. Member for Cambridge (Dr Huppert) read out, it says:
“That said, extradition did exist before 2004 and so it could operate without it”—
that is, without the European arrest warrant—
“as it does with non-EU states.”
The idea that we would face a cliff edge and that fugitives would go free left, right and centre—we have the tabloid scare stories about terrorist suspects and paedophiles—is nonsense. The only way in which that could happen would be if the EU was prepared to cut off its nose to spite its face and refuse to have any extradition relations with us at all. What possible interest would it have in doing that?
I listened carefully to the police evidence, as I think has been borne out by my comments today. I also want to look at the non-police evidence. Fair Trials International has given evidence at length about the miscarriages of justice that have taken place. The appalling miscarriage of justice in the Andrew Symeou case, in terms of both the incompetence of the Greek system and the gruesome jail conditions that he ended up in, are passed by very glibly by those who suggest that we should opt straight back in or that we should opt back in and then somehow reform the system without having the leverage that we have now.
I have the constituency case of Colin Dines, who is subject to a European arrest warrant that alleges his involvement in a mass telecoms fraud involving the Mafia back in Italy. No evidence has been presented of his links to that crime. No attempt has been made to come to the UK to interview him, to get his side of the story or to see if the matter can be straightened out. In the process, with the stress and the strain, he has suffered a stroke, only to find out that the case is crumbling and that the substantive charges look very likely to be dropped or, at least, that a face-saving way out will be found by the Italian authorities. There are other cases, such as those of Edmond Arapi and Deborah Dark.
I respect the Liberal Democrat position on the European arrest warrant, but when I heard the Deputy Prime Minister, in the Farage-Clegg debate, dismissing the Symeou case as “fantasy”, it was deeply disappointing. It was right that he subsequently corrected his position on the Symeou case. As someone who has met the family of Mr Symeou and the other victims to whom I have referred and who still sees the Dines family, who continue to suffer from the European arrest warrant, I find the glib dismissal of a civil liberties issue by the Liberal Democrats difficult to reconcile with their supposed advocacy of British freedom.
John Hemming
I just want to say that I do have concerns about the individual cases involving the European arrest warrant.
Mr Raab
I am glad that I took that intervention. The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right.
We need to work out the best way to reform the European arrest warrant through national legislation and by renegotiating the EU framework decision or, better still, by opting out and pursuing a bilateral treaty, which would mean that the British Supreme Court had the last word on the fate of British citizens. We ought to have a sensible debate about all of that.
I note that the Liberal Democrats’ answer to the problems of the European arrest warrant is another EU directive on the rights of the accused. A Liberal Democrat would say that, the answer to defects in EU law is always more EU law, but we must consider the systemic lack of judicial capacity and the lack of standards in some countries—I have mentioned Italy and Greece, which are not new EU member states, so heaven help people if they end up in the Romanian or Bulgarian justice systems or, worse still, in one of their jails. I welcome the hon. Gentleman’s intervention, but I do not understand how swiftly the Liberal Democrats have sold the freedom and civil liberties of British citizens because of their slavish adherence to EU dogma and the idea that ever more EU integration must be a good thing. We should not accept the Faustian bargain whereby we sacrifice a few British citizens to lock up a few extra criminals. That is not my idea of British justice. It is not what millions in this country fought for in world wars. It is not the tradition of this country dating back to Magna Carta.
We have options—that is critical—whether falling back on the Council of Europe conventions, which are not foolproof, or taking advantage of the legal personality of the EU to negotiate bespoke legal arrangements that do not fall within the ECJ jurisdiction. Hon. Members have referred to transitional arrangements, which could buy us some time. All of those are the common-sense middle ground we should be aiming for. There is absolutely no reason why a single serious criminal fugitive would go free if we considered such arrangements. To suggest otherwise is ridiculous scaremongering.
I have one final point to make on the European arrest warrant. There are reports in The Daily Telegraph today that Spain and France will not even countenance Britain adopting a proportionality test in UK law, even though the framework decision allows that. What chance would we have of renegotiating the framework decision after we opt in if they object to that now? Our leverage is at this point in time. We should take full advantage of it to achieve the best deal for British citizens.
The case I want to make is for operational co-operation with our EU friends without ceding democratic control. Britain has—by far, overall—the finest intelligence and law enforcement assets in the EU. The EU has legal personality, so it is much easier to negotiate justice and home affairs agreements. I have asked parliamentary questions on this. The EU has countless, by which I mean a good 10 or dozen, justice and home affairs international agreements with third countries. We have the precedent of Frontex—we are not a full member but co-operate on an administrative basis, which works incredibly well. We need to avoid the creeping supra-nationalism of the EU in justice and home affairs.
For all the talk of EU justice and home affairs safeguarding British law enforcement, the raw fact is that EU JHA has severely undermined our power to protect the British public by removing or deporting serious criminals. That will only get worse in the years ahead.
Bob Stewart
I seek clarification from my hon. Friend. Interpol has a red arrest warrant. Is that in any way connected, because I have been arrested on a red warrant in the Crimea?
Mr Raab
I want to be very careful in not passing judgment about any arrest warrant on my hon. Friend that may be pending, not least with the Select Committee on Defence hustings looming, but my understanding is that the Interpol red notice is more of an alert than a binding warrant for surrender.
We need to look not only at what is going on within the EU. It is suggested that EU law provides best practice, and yet one might get a different view if one asks a senior Swiss diplomat, as I did recently at the Fresh Start project, which was organised by my hon. Friend the Member for South Northamptonshire (Andrea Leadsom). I asked the senior Swiss diplomat: “When you look at the whole area of EU justice and home affairs and at crime and policing, is there anything that you miss or want?” He said, “Absolutely nothing. The reality is that good law enforcement is done by the phone—by good operational contacts. It is a question of how you make things work in practice. It is not done by hyperactive legislation.” I then asked a senior US diplomat whether the US would ever consider sacrificing so much democratic control over law enforcement in its relations with any neighbour in north or south America, and whether the US would ever go down that route if it is such a great idea for the EU and Britain. They said: “Absolutely no chance.” No other region of the world is remotely thinking about enhancing the integration of law and ceding democratic control in justice and home affairs.
I understand that the crude political tendency is to dress up Euroscepticism, or any substantive critique or analysis, as the product of an insular, little-Englander mentality, but when we look globally, we see that no one else is going down that route. Why is Britain not taking into account the best practice from around the world, including in our Commonwealth partners such as Australia and New Zealand, and in the US and Canada? Why are we not looking at our excellent law enforcement relations with those countries? Why is the EU always presented as having the best law enforcement relations in the world when that does not seem to be based on any empirical evidence?
We should take advantage of the power we have in the Lisbon treaty to reform our relationship with the EU in the vital area of justice and home affairs. This is an important strategic crossroads for Britain. If we do not reform justice and home affairs now, using that important treaty lever, when will we do so? We always have promises of jam tomorrow. Such a reform would be an important precursor and complement to the wider EU negotiation that the Prime Minister has very wisely said Britain needs.
It is incredibly important that we take this opportunity to stand up for the liberty of British citizens, and for the democratic prerogatives of the House and the people who send us here. If we cannot have operational co-operation without ceding democratic control, we should have the courage of our convictions and say no. I want strong law enforcement and operational co-operation with our EU partners, but not at any price.
Mark Reckless (Rochester and Strood) (Con)
It is a privilege and an honour to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Esher and Walton (Mr Raab). He spent six years as a Foreign Office lawyer and has a family back story that is perhaps more exotic than that of many on the Government Benches. Over the past half hour, he has, with his searing intellect, differentiated the small print, which he understands as well if not better than anyone in the House, from the key principles, which he enunciated. In particular, he concluded that we can achieve outside EU structures, albeit slightly more slowly in a few instances, what we can achieve within them, but without the downsides to liberty and democracy that are implied if we remain within those structures. He has done us a great service.
My hon. Friend spoke of the European arrest warrant. I felt that he spoke from the current centre of gravity within the Conservative party. He mentioned that the Home Affairs Committee, on which I sit, concluded that the EAW was “fundamentally flawed”, but did not mention that the Liberal Democrat member of that Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge (Dr Huppert), voted to remove the word “fundamentally” from our report. I am delighted that Conservative members voted that proposal down unanimously.
It was instructive to hear from my right hon. Friend the Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Sir Alan Beith). I intervened on him to ask how many people he would be prepared to see kept in custody wrongfully in order, supposedly, to bring 100 guilty people to justice, but he did not answer. He has great hopes that there will be some new EU directive that will stop all those bad things happening and properly protect everyone’s rights: as long as we legislate, people will be protected in practice and we need worry ourselves no more. However, we also heard from my hon. Friend the Member for Enfield North (Nick de Bois), whose constituent, Andrew Symeou, came to the Home Affairs Committee. My hon. Friend said that the proposals will not work and cannot be trusted, and that they will be judiciable by the European Court of Justice and subject to the proposals of the European Commission. As my hon. Friend the Member for Esher and Walton said, the problems that have been seen in the old member states may be not just replicated but worse in the new member states. How many people would the Liberal Democrats be prepared to see wrongfully imprisoned to get 100 crooks bang to rights? Alas, there are no Liberal Democrats here to answer my question. They tell us that they believe in the civil liberties of the British citizen, but when it comes down to it they always put the European Union and their belief in Europe, right or wrong, before the liberties of the British citizen.
Today, we debate a motion on an opt-out. We have heard an awful lot of discussion on what we might opt into, but the motion actually reads:
“That this House has considered the UK’s 2014 justice and home affairs opt-out decision.”
It is important to understand that the opt-out has been agreed. Parliament has voted to exercise the opt-out. All this talk about opt-ins is speculative. We may or may not opt back into some, any, or none of these measures—that remains to be seen. The status quo ante is that we have opted out, we have exercised it and that we have that great repatriation of powers. We will have to see whether it will be undone, or whether it will be maintained.
The great worry of my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge, who is not in his place, is that we may sleepwalk, or accidently fall, out of the measures he would like to be in. I think he underestimates the degree of planning that went into delinking the two matters. A number of motions and draft motions were put on the Order Paper, and others were discussed between the coalition parties. Ultimately, the motion we voted on was to exercise the mass opt-out. There has been no decision by the House to approve any measures to opt back in. I pay tribute to my right hon. Friend the Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed, because the amour propre of Select Committees was also involved. The result of the decisions to which my right hon. Friend the Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed and my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge signed up was that the mass opt-out and any opt-ins were delinked. Crucially, one came before the other.
My hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge seemed to be concerned that there might not be agreement in this House on what we might opt back into. One fear was that, as he sees it, the Labour party might play political games and that it would like us to opt back into more than the Government might wish. If, as with the Syria vote, Labour Members vote for their own motion or amendment, rather than voting for the Government motion, and it fails, there might be no agreement on any set of measures to opt back in to. The Home Secretary told us about her negotiations with her European partners and the Commission. Have there been negotiations with those on the Opposition Front Bench on whether they will support the package the Government put before the House, or does she believe that she has enough votes from Government Members to drive through measures to integrate this country into the European Union in a way that we have not seen before?
My hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge worries that this may come unstuck if the Government cannot reach agreement on what the measures should be. There has been discussion and there may be understanding but, as the Home Secretary rightly says, we do not know what we will be able to negotiate until we go through the process. We read in The Daily Telegraph today the concerns of a number of our partners about even a very modest proportionality test for the European arrest warrant. There will have to be further discussions between Conservatives and Liberal Democrats on whether an agreement can be reached in the coalition on what the Government want to opt back into and what is put before this House as a motion.
Those discussions and any decisions are likely to come after 22 May, when we consult the electorate in the European and local elections. That is when our constituents will have their chance to pass judgment on politicians, and, in particular, on the self-proclaimed “party of in”, which has made great play of these supposedly co-operative measures. The president of ACPO is quoted, and reference is made to whatever the police want. I remember the previous Prime Minister Tony Blair saying that if the police ask for something, there is nothing that any responsible Prime Minister can do except to give it to them. That, surely, is the definition of a police state.
We hear about the ACPO evidence, but I understand that people in ACPO have been fighting to avoid this portfolio. When Sir Hugh Orde talks about the ACPO position on EU matters—he may continue doing so for at least the next few months—it is not because the police consider them to be so terribly important that Sir Hugh must talk about them, but, I fear, it is because other chief constables have learnt the lessons from the noble Lord Blair. If they intrude into politics and tell the public and politicians that they have to vote a certain way so that they can lock people up for 90 days without charge—to say nothing of police vans festooned with “Vote Labour” stickers—there will be a backlash, because the police should not get involved in politics to that degree.
Unfortunately, with the European investigation order and the new statute for Europol, we have the prospect of our police being ordered what to do by politico-judicial structures in other EU countries where the separation of politics and operational policing is not what it is in this country. Do we, as a country, want to make a trade-off that allows British citizens to be arrested on the say-so of magistrates in Greece or Bulgaria and locked up for many months, if not years, in prisons that do not meet the standards that we in this country consider to be acceptable? Fundamentally, that is a matter for us as politicians, not the police.
Mr Cash
Many examples have been given of perceived injustices as a result of the European arrest warrant being applied in other countries. For example, is my hon. Friend aware that, under the European arrest warrant, a man from a neighbouring Staffordshire constituency was convicted in Italy, in absentia, for a murder that he could not have committed, because he was serving in a restaurant at the time, and sentenced to 15 years? It is definitely not just a one-way street.
Mark Reckless
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for drawing that example to the attention of the House. It goes to show that in principle we cannot sign up to the European arrest warrant, because we do not have a sufficient degree of trust in the similarity and protections of all EU 27 judicial and policing systems to allow us to do that. People in our country deserve and have had, over centuries, protections that are greater than those now offered within the European arrest warrant. It is for that reason that I hope and believe it is still possible that we will choose not to opt back into it.
The Home Secretary has given her view, but there are many views in the Conservative party. Those views are held not just on the Back Benches, but, I know, deep in the most senior levels of Government. I ask that we listen to the electorate. Once the electorate, on 22 May, passes its judgment on the “party of in”, and on how weak their arguments are, with the Deputy Prime Minister just recycling arguments he has picked up without giving any liberal thought as to what they are or what the principles should be, we will see that this is not what the people in this country want. Ultimately, we still have the right to make a different decision. What we have seen with the opt-out we have already made is that the opt-ins are still to come. One analogy that Members, at least in my party, may find instructive is with regard to what happened over the AV referendum and the boundary changes. We agreed, in good faith, to give the Liberal Democrats their referendum on AV. In return, they agreed to later give us boundaries that would give fair representation across constituencies. They banked their AV referendum, and then did not give us the boundaries that there was, at the very least, an understanding that they would give.
I would argue that the mass opt-out equates to the AV referendum in that analogy. I do not think that we would have any more reason to agree later to opt in to matters in which we do not believe because of that opt-out than the Liberal Democrats had to give us our boundaries because they secured their AV referendum; and I think that after 22 May, we will be in a different political situation.
Jacob Rees-Mogg
Does my hon. Friend agree that this issue is of such constitutional importance that it might be better to delay it until after a general election? If we did not exercise the opt-ins, and if the Liberal Democrats left the coalition and we had an early election, there would be no great harm in that.
Mark Reckless
My hon. Friend has made a very sensible point. I think that, as we get nearer to the election, we need to differentiate between what we believe in as Conservatives and what we have been forced to agree to by the need to be in harness with the Liberal Democrats. Given that they have not fulfilled their promises to us, and as we discover in the course of our negotiations with our European partners that we may not be able to secure protections in every area in which we would like to secure them, we shall have to consider, in those new circumstances, the balance of the opt-ins that are proposed, and decide whether we, as Conservatives, wish to agree to them.
Mr Cash
There is yet another example. The Liberal Democrats and the Labour party agreed to allow the European Union (Referendum) Bill, presented by my hon. Friend the Member for Stockton South (James Wharton), to complete its passage in the House of Commons, but when it reached the House of Lords, those same two parties made certain that it would not be passed, and we now understand that the Liberal Democrats are refusing to allow a money resolution to be tabled in respect of any future Bill that may be subject to the Parliament Acts.
Mark Reckless
I think the Liberal Democrats will ultimately find that as we act to others, so they will act to us.
Pete Wishart
The hon. Gentleman is becoming awfully exercised about the Liberal Democrats, but the party about which he should be most concerned is UKIP, because it will probably trounce the Conservatives in the European elections. What will the Conservatives do in that event?
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)
Order. We do not want to speculate on what will happen in the European elections. We do not want to speculate on whether they will be won by the Liberals or by UKIP. I think that we want to hear about the point of the debate.
Mark Reckless
The debate is about the opt-out, Mr Deputy Speaker, and other Members have spoken at length about what we might opt back into. I merely suggest to the House that, having opted out, we should not opt back into anything. A number of arguments support that view, but I believe that the most important argument is that anything that we opt back into will be judiciable by the European Court of Justice, and will be subject to the decisions and the enforcement of the European Commission. It is for that reason that the Home Affairs Committee concluded unanimously:
“If the Government proceeds with the opt-in as proposed, we note that it will not result in any repatriation of powers. Indeed, the increased jurisdiction of the ECJ may result in a net flow of powers in the opposite direction.”
We in the Conservative party, at least, have set our face against that, because we believe in bringing powers back from the European Union and, ultimately, putting the choice to the British people in a referendum. It would be entirely inconsistent with that if, having exercised this opt-out, we sought to push through opt-ins as a result of which the European Court of Justice and the European Commission took charge of areas that had previously been intergovernmental.
In 1990, our party negotiated the pillar structure of the European Union, but the Lisbon treaty puts an end to those pillars, becoming the “tree” that has stemmed from the earlier Dutch draft. We said that we would change Europe, and that there would be subsidiarity and intergovernmental pillars, but that will end if these opt-ins take place, and the European institutions and integrationists will have won. We have already voted to exercise the mass opt-out. We should leave things as they are, and then let the British people decide.
Sadiq Khan (Tooting) (Lab)
We have had a very good debate, which has lasted for nearly four hours. We heard 11 speeches from Back Benchers, most of them parliamentarians who take their role as members of the legislature very seriously. They hold the Executive of today to account, they held the last Executive to account, and I dare say that they will hold future Executives to account as well. Three of them were Chairs of Select Committees, and I shall say more about their important contributions shortly.
Keeping the citizens of our country safe is one of the biggest challenges that any Government face. Increasingly, in the modern world of mobile populations and ever-changing technology, criminals take no notice of national boundaries. That is why cross-border co-operation is becoming ever more crucial in the fight against crime, and why today’s debate has been so serious. What we have been discussing is the extent to which we, as a country, believe that co-operation with our European partners is in the best interests of the fight against crime.
Unfortunately, what was already a complex debate on justice and home affairs issues is being made more complex by the Government’s deep-rooted anxieties about all things European. What should be a cool, calm and rational debate about measures designed to help the fight against crime risks being overshadowed by the Conservative party’s wider palpitations about the European Union. Nevertheless, today’s debate has been good-humoured, and many serious points have been made. I trust that the Government will respond to them, as they surely must.
Labour Members have made it clear that we do not oppose the principle of opt-outs. That is why we negotiated the power in the first place. The various Select Committee reports have confirmed that some of the original measures are redundant in any event, and that it would make no difference whether we were in some of them or not. My right hon. Friend the Member for Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford (Yvette Cooper) listed a number of those measures.
Mr Cash
Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that on 27 June 2007—the very day on which he handed the reins of power to his successor—the former Prime Minister Mr Tony Blair stated that it was absolutely clear that we had an opt-out from the charter of fundamental rights, and also from justice and home affairs? What he did not mention was the fact that the overall system contained a power to rejoin.
Sadiq Khan
I thank the hon. Gentleman for reminding us all of his excellent memory of historical facts and dates. I am afraid that I cannot comment on that particular remark by Tony Blair, although I can comment on most of his remarks.
There is clearly concern about the way in which the Government have gone about seeking—or rather not seeking—the views of Parliament, and the lack of votes on this matter. Today we heard from three Select Committee Chairs: the hon. Member for Stone (Mr Cash), the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Sir Alan Beith), and my right hon. Friend the Member for Leicester East (Keith Vaz). I shall not repeat the unprecedented criticisms of the Government’s approach by not one but three Select Committees, namely the European Scrutiny Committee, the Home Affairs Committee and the Justice Committee. The hon. Member for Perth and North Perthshire (Pete Wishart) expressed concern about the lack of consultation with the Scottish Government, and a number of other Members in all parts of the House referred to the lack of scrutiny being given to the decisions on which the Government are embarking.
Labour Members will approach the substance of the issues on the basis of what will help us in the fight against crime, rather than what will help us to ensure that our Back Benchers are soothed and reassured, which has been the Government’s approach. I wait to hear what the Justice Secretary has to say on the issues that have been raised today, but I live in hope that, rather than hearing the usual EU-bashing or ECHR-trashing, we shall hear a considered response to the important issues raised by Government Back Benchers and, indeed, by other Members in all parts of the House.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford has already described in detail our views on many of the measures that the Government are proposing to opt back into. Let me now touch briefly on some of the measures that fall into my own area of responsibility. They were dealt with in the Justice Committee’s report, and, today, in the excellent speech of its Chair, the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed.
The Government propose to opt back in to five of the six mutual recognition measures, which we welcome. On the financial penalties framework decision, it is right that member states collect financial penalties regardless of which country the offender lives in. There should be no hiding place for offenders just because they live in a different country from where their crime was committed. The measure has been used considerably over the last few years. The Justice Committee confirmed that in just the short period between June 2010 and September 2012 we received penalties collected by other member states of £90,000 and collected for other members £50,000 in penalties.
On the previous convictions framework decision, courts must take account of a defendant’s previous conviction in other member states. Even the Justice Secretary has conceded that this measure was needed and is not part of a Europeanisation of our justice system, but is in fact central to our efforts in fighting crime. This is a key tool in helping us to fight crime and allowing our courts to have access to information from other member states on previous convictions.
Prison transfers are a massive issue, and not only within the European Union. Just last week Jamaica refused to ratify a transfer agreement with the UK which would have seen many of the Jamaicans behind bars in our jails sent back home to serve their sentences. We know it costs around £40,000 a year to keep someone in a UK prison, and with more than 10,000 foreign nationals behind bars—1 in 8 of the whole prison population—that represents a cost of £400 million a year to keep foreign criminals in British jails. If for nothing else, for purely financial reasons we should be doing more to send back to their home countries those foreign nationals who have committed crimes on our soil. The Prime Minister made big and wild promises back in 2010 personally to intervene to send back tens of thousands of criminals, but that is yet another broken promise to add to the long list. Since then, only a handful have been returned to their home countries.
To be fair, I accept that there are difficulties in negotiating prisoner transfer agreements with other countries. The setting up of the EU prisoner transfer framework, signed in November 2008 and brought into force in December 2011, was not a walk in the park, and I sympathise with the problems all Governments have had in negotiating these agreements. However, with about one third of all foreign nationals in our prisons being from the EU, this ought to make a difference to the numbers behind bars. I note that the Justice Committee reports that more needs to be done, and the Justice Secretary might want to tell us about some of the problems he has been having in negotiating these agreements in relation to the opt-in.
It would also be useful if the Justice Secretary were to tell us what else he is doing to make sure other member countries are stepping up to the plate on this issue. To date, too many are not playing a full part in the scheme, meaning that the scheme as originally planned and the agreement that has been signed have not borne the fruit we all would have liked to see.
The Government also propose to opt back into the judgments in absentia framework decision and the European supervision order, both of which play a key role in stopping criminals evading justice and allowing citizens to be returned to their home country for a period of non-custodial pre-trial supervision. Out of the mutual recognition instruments, the only measure the Government have chosen not to opt back into is the probation measures framework decision, but from reading the explanation given by Ministers it is clear that there is not a principled objection to this framework decision; there is rather a concern about how it might operate in practice. Will the Justice Secretary tell us more about his views on where the concerns may lie in practice rather than in principle?
Michael Connarty (Linlithgow and East Falkirk) (Lab)
Unfortunately, I did not have time to give notice that I would participate in this debate; we only got notice of it yesterday.
I have a constituent whose father went to the courts in this country under the European arrest warrant and was told that the EAW was not to be enacted here and it was not valid. He thought he was free and he travelled to the Netherlands with his wife, but was arrested on arriving there. He is now in Poland. He is a seriously ill man in hospital, but it would appear that the Government have not put in place measures to allow the courts of this country to make a decision on an EAW and then to make it clear to other countries that they do not believe it to be valid. It gives people in this country the odd feeling that they are not likely to be arrested throughout Europe under an EAW which can then still be enacted elsewhere.
Sadiq Khan
My hon. Friend gives one of the many examples of how there can be problems operating the EAW in practice. We hope that during the course of the negotiations on the changes to which the Home Secretary referred, some of the problems that have been shown in real time are addressed.
The Government have chosen not to rejoin all six of the minimum standard measures. They cover corruption involving officials; counterfeiting of the euro—there are two on this; fraud; counterfeiting of non-cash means of payment; and corruption in the private sector. In these cases, the Government argue that UK law is already of a sufficiently high standard to meet or exceed the requirements. My right hon. Friend the shadow Home Secretary went through some of the other areas the Government have chosen not to opt back into, which are redundant because of the progress made over the past few years.
The Chairs of the European Scrutiny Committee, the Home Affairs Committee and the Justice Committee reminded us that for the first time in history three Select Committees have come together with a joint report, all expressing unhappiness with how the Government have approached the process of the opt-out and opt-in. I am not going to rehearse the points they made. They have concerns about the lack of impact assessments, the fact that there is no motion that can be amended let alone voted on, and the fact that colleagues in the House of Commons will not get a chance to debate and vote on the measures the Government decide to opt into or out of until it is too late.
The hon. Member for Bury North (Mr Nuttall) made an honest and refreshing speech about the different perspective he has from those who speak on behalf of his party in government. He explained his support for the opt-out and not the opt-in. His speech was followed by the most different speech we could have heard. The hon. Member for Perth and North Perthshire explained his unhappiness about the fact that the Government had not consulted the Scottish Government. He lives in hope that the referendum in September may lead to a different perspective for the people of Scotland, but he also, in a weird part of his speech, sought to argue that we are better together with the EU but that Scotland was not better together with the rest of the UK. That was an interesting argument.
The hon. Member for South Northamptonshire (Andrea Leadsom) made a very interesting speech, too. She is one of the founders of the Fresh Start group and expressed concern about the lack of democratic accountability and flexibility, and referred to the House of Lords scrutiny Committee. I agreed with her when she said that the status quo with the EU is not an option, however. She made a useful speech.
My hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) was scathing in his critique of the Government, which is nothing less than we would all expect. He talked about his concerns about the priorities and processes by which we got to where we are, and he repeated the question he posed in the Home Secretary’s speech about what Parliament would be allowed to vote on and when. He referred to the options the Government have—primary legislation, a statutory instrument, a treaty or a motion with the ability for it to be amended or not.
I am not sure whether the Home Secretary and the Justice Secretary should be worried that the hon. Member for Cambridge (Dr Huppert) said he agreed with and supported the approach they were taking. He mentioned his concerns about the impact on Europol in particular if there was any time lag, and also about the benefits of co-operation.
The hon. Member for North East Somerset (Jacob Rees-Mogg) will not thank me for saying this, but I thoroughly enjoyed his speech. He said he was speaking up for the authentic voice of the Eurosceptic Conservative party, and he reminded us of his analysis of whether the opt-in would be a transfer of power and why in his view that demands a referendum. He argued that, because the European Commission and the ECJ were now in play, that should involve a transfer of power. I am sure that the Justice Secretary will respond directly to that point.
I also enjoyed the speech from the hon. Member for Esher and Walton (Mr Raab), who used his six years’ experience as a Foreign Office lawyer to explain why he felt that these matters were more about political will than about the advice given by civil servants. He gave examples of some of the real-life cases that had been challenged as a consequence of the European arrest warrant. I hope that we can seek improvement now that we have that empirical evidence. He challenged all of us to provide empirical evidence to persuade the British public of the need for better co-operation with our European partners. That is a challenge that we all need to take up, especially in the light of the Deputy Prime Minister having been trounced by Nigel Farage in their two recent debates. We need to have the facts at our fingertips when we have this debate.
The hon. Member for Rochester and Strood (Mark Reckless) also made an interesting speech. He reminded us of what I am sure he will not mind me calling the miscarriages of justice in the past few years as a consequence of the European arrest warrant. He was scathing in his attack on the approach to the European Union taken by his friends, the Liberal Democrats. I am sure he will not mind me saying that we expect nothing less from him.
We have had a good debate, which has lasted just over four hours. A lot of questions have been asked, and I look forward to hearing the answers from the Justice Secretary over the next 15 minutes. Let us hope he can finally answer them.
The Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice (Chris Grayling)
I should like to start by expressing my thanks to all those who have spoken in the debate today. I shall address some of the points that they have raised, but I should first like to make a couple of observations.
My views on matters European are well known. British justice is the envy of the world, and I will not countenance any attempt to replace it with a pan-European justice system. It would be entirely wrong for Britain to hand over control of Justice and Home Affairs entirely to the European Union or its Court of Justice and, under this Government, that is not going to happen. Those who were here for the debate a couple of weeks ago on the three recent proposals from the Commission will have heard us putting forward this Government’s intentions loud and clear on matters that we all believe would be an unnecessary and unwarranted intrusion on our justice system.
Mark Reckless
The Secretary of State says that he does not want to hand over powers over Justice and Home Affairs to the European Union entirely. Is he happy to hand them over in part?
Chris Grayling
If I may, I shall answer that question by setting out for my hon. Friend where we stand.
The House will be aware that more than 130 justice and home affairs measures were due to come under the jurisdiction of the European Court of Justice in December 2014, as a result of the Lisbon treaty signed by the previous Government. It is important to point out to my hon. Friends that this Government have secured the opt-out. Had we not been able to reach agreement on that, we would have been required under the terms of the treaty to participate in all those 130-plus measures. The opt-out has been a significant step—[Interruption.] I hear chuckles from the Opposition Benches, but I have to say that, although we have heard complaints and criticism from them this afternoon, it was the Labour Government who set up the process. They negotiated the opt-out, but they now appear to be trying to disown what they did, and to claim that the process we are now going through is nothing to do with them. It was they who negotiated the process, and it was they who set out the way in which we would have to address these issues. Their arguments on this are therefore completely bankrupt.
The Lisbon treaty clearly paved the way for the creation of a European justice area, and that system is now beginning to take shape. The European Commission is pushing ahead, with the latest justice scorecard just one signal of its intent. My hon. Friend the Member for Esher and Walton (Mr Raab) talked about some of the things that the Commissioner had been doing recently. She was explicit earlier this year when she said:
“We need a true political union. To me this means that we need to build a United States of Europe”.
She has set out her ambition to have a common justice area by 2020. Let me be clear: that is not something I want, it is not something the British people want, and with the Conservatives in government, it is not something this country will ever sign up to. Indeed, I trust that no future Government of any political persuasion would take this country down that route, despite the Opposition’s rather mealy-mouthed answers today on where they stand on these matters.
That is why it was important that the Prime Minister exercised our opt-out in July last year to ensure that Britain did not become part of a common European justice system, and that is why we continue to assert our right to opt out when Brussels brings forward new legislation in this area. This Government are protecting our national interest and standing up for Britain, whereas Labour typically just ran up the white flag over many years.
Jacob Rees-Mogg
I am grateful to my right hon. Friend the Lord High Chancellor for giving way, not least because we are relying on him, as the last bastion, to stop this happening. The problem seems to be that we have opted out of 98 things that do not matter, and that some of the 35 things that we are opting back into matter enormously. To call that a repatriation of powers is terminological inexactitude.
Chris Grayling
I set out clearly to the House at the start of this process where I believe we stand. We are absolutely set against the creation of a European justice area and against the Europeanisation of our laws, but we also have a duty to our citizens to fight international crime, and I do not want us to be outside the battle against it. Earlier, my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary set out clearly the message that she has received from groups involved in fighting organised crime about the need to take the necessary measures to do so. She has clearly and robustly set out what she believes to be in the UK national interest on that front.
The shadow Justice Secretary, the right hon. Member for Tooting (Sadiq Khan), talked about the challenge posed by foreign national offenders, and I want us to be part of pan-European arrangements to return foreign national offenders as quickly as possible. He said that he hoped I was not going to give the House what I think he called another rant against the ECHR. I would simply draw the House’s attention to one or two recent Court decisions taken under the European Court of Human Rights framework that have actually prevented us from sending prisoners back to other countries. I hope that that situation will change very soon.
Mr Cash
My right hon. Friend might recall giving evidence to the European Scrutiny Committee in respect of the charter of fundamental rights, which has a significant overlap in relation to the rights of the citizen and which, of course, relates indirectly to the European convention on human rights. This is very special, however, because Labour actually wanted to prevent the charter of fundamental rights from applying in the United Kingdom and took what the then Prime Minister described as a clear opt-out. However, my right hon. Friend knows that we now have an Act of Parliament saying one thing and a Court of Justice ruling saying another. What is he going to do about that? Is he going to adopt our proposal to amend the European Communities Act?
Chris Grayling
Let us be clear: what the last Government said about the charter of fundamental rights was simply an untruth. There are many quotes in which they clearly talked about an opt-out from the charter, but that opt-out does not exist. We on the Government Benches have our differences on aspects of human rights law, but there is unity across the coalition on the role and presence of the charter of fundamental rights. None of us wishes to see it become part of UK law, and none of us wishes the ambitions of some in Brussels who talk about it being extended into national law come to pass. We will resist that absolutely. As my hon. Friend knows, we are testing the current legal position in the courts, and I have no doubt that I will be giving further evidence on this subject to his Committee in the near future.
Michael Connarty
I am sure that we will debate the charter of fundamental rights report, which divided the European Scrutiny Committee when it was finally read. To return to a question I asked earlier: why are the Government still in the situation where a UK court can decide that a European arrest warrant is not valid and that the person does not have to return to the country demanding their return—in the case I am interested in, that country is Poland—but when they leave the UK to go on holiday elsewhere in Europe, it appears that the Government have not put in place the ability to have that judgment recognised in other countries. I have a constituent whose father is very ill, and who is now in Poland, having been arrested in the Netherlands—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dawn Primarolo)
Order. We have got the point. Let us not make these interventions too long.
Chris Grayling
I say to the hon. Gentleman that it would not be right for me to deal with a constituency case at the Dispatch Box. I suggest he write to the Home Secretary about that. I am still confused as to what he wants, however. He appears to be expressing scepticism about the European arrest warrant, but his party’s policy is to rejoin it. I am confused about what the Opposition really want. We have set out a clear view for Parliament, but we still do not know where the Labour party stands on all this.
I am grateful, too, for the excellent work done by the European Scrutiny Committee, the Justice Committee and the Home Affairs Committee, not only through their extremely thorough and thought-provoking reports, but through the contributions their members have made on the Floor of this House. Their work has been and will continue to be important in informing the Government’s view as this process proceeds. May I express my particular thanks to the Chair of the Justice Committee for his analysis of the decisions we took earlier? Extremely important issues are involved and we gave them careful thought, and I am glad that his report recognised the process we have gone through and that he felt we had reached the right decisions in that area.
Let me touch briefly on the issue of the amount of time provided to this House, which a lot of right hon. and hon. Members have raised today. Last summer, we gave this House a clear opportunity, which it took, to support the Government’s decision in principle to exercise the opt-out, and I am grateful to the House for giving us that support. We will come back to the House at the conclusion of the negotiations with the Commission and the Council to offer the House the further opportunity to endorse or reject what we are doing. If this House rejects what we are doing, clearly it will not be possible for us to return to the Commission and simply override the view of this House. We will of course give this House an opportunity to vote and decide what should happen, but I do think the House needs to give the Government the opportunity to negotiate unfettered by a fixed mandate, because these are complex issues and we need to reach the right decisions in the interests of this country. That is what we are seeking to do.
Sadiq Khan
The Justice Secretary just said that he would give the House a chance to “endorse or reject”, but will he give it the chance to amend?
Chris Grayling
We will discuss the detail of that motion in due course, but of course we will give the House the opportunity to express a very clear view on the conclusion of the negotiations that we have reached. That is what we said at the start and it is what we will deliver.
We have been through detailed discussions both with the Select Committees and within the Government. We are now going through detailed discussions with the Commission and we will return with the conclusions in due course.
Pete Wishart
There is one group the Justice Secretary has not had any discussions with: the devolved Parliaments and Assemblies. Given that this has such a significant impact on our delivery of devolved services, why has he not listened to the Government in Scotland and the devolved Assemblies in Wales and Northern Ireland?
Chris Grayling
With respect, what the hon. Gentleman says is simply not right. We have had extensive discussions with the devolved Assemblies. The Minister for Security and Immigration has had detailed discussions with the devolved Assemblies, I have been involved in detailed discussions with the devolved Administrations and I believe the Home Secretary has had discussions. We have had extensive discussions and will no doubt continue to do so. We discuss issues with our counterparts in Edinburgh and in Northern Ireland all the time, and we will continue to do so.
Let me deal with the specific issues raised in this debate. The shadow Home Secretary began for the Opposition, and I am still at a loss to know whether Labour supports the list of 35 measures: whether Labour supports what we are putting forward or wants to see a different list. It is absolutely unclear what the Labour party’s view is; we heard a long diatribe from her and a long list of accusations, but no clear policies from the other side. We heard much the same from the shadow Justice Secretary, but I give him credit for picking out one or two measures on the Justice side that he did support, although he did not say whether he supported the minimum standards measures decision we had taken. One way or another, at the end of this debate we have little idea what the Opposition stand for.
My hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Mr Cash) made a typically knowledgeable contribution. He talked about the importance of the issue of European Court of Justice jurisdiction and about the charter of fundamental rights, which is doubtless an issue he and I will return to and discuss extensively. We share the aspiration, aim and absolute clear goal that the charter will not become part of national law in this country. We heard from the Chairman of the Home Affairs Committee, who is no longer in his place. He talked about the timetable as we work towards 1 December. We need to be very clear that a timetable is already set out for us, as envisaged in the treaty signed by the previous Government, and we are working towards that date of 1 December. We need time to complete the negotiations and, on the back of those, formally apply to the Commission to rejoin the measures. That is precisely where we stand; that is the approach we are taking and it is the approach envisaged in the agreement reached by the previous Government.
My hon. Friend the Member for Bury North (Mr Nuttall) does not want to opt in to any of these measures. I would simply remind him that we secured agreement to exercise the opt-out in the first place. Were we not in that position, we would now face the situation of opting in to all these measures or remaining in all of them. The hon. Member for Perth and North Perthshire (Pete Wishart) set out his concerns about the issue of discussions with the devolved Assemblies, mentioning them again a few moments ago. He made a strong statement, which I suspect had a little more to do with certain campaigning taking place in Scotland than with this debate. The bit I did not understand was that he was talking about the risks he alleged this Government were taking with our relationships within the European Union, yet he and his party are going down a route whereby it is far from clear that if they are successful—heaven forbid—in September, they will even be a part of the European Union. I do not understand how he possibly squares that circle.
We heard a thoughtful speech from my hon. Friend the Member for South Northamptonshire (Andrea Leadsom), who has done valuable work in the Fresh Start group. I understand her concern about the ability of international courts to extend their jurisprudence. She also made the point about the charter of fundamental rights, and it is very important that we keep a close watch on that issue and resist any attempts to extend its remit. We know that there is a divide in opinions between the Government and the hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant), and he made an impassioned speech about the need for more and more integration. He set out clear differences between us and him, although he could not tell the difference between Spain and Brazil in his comments. It was a typically robust contribution that highlighted to us why there remain some significant divisions across the Floor of the House on Britain’s future in the European Union.
The hon. Member for Cambridge (Dr Huppert) expressed fears about a gap between the discussion taking place now, what happens after 1 December and the continued provision in areas such as the European arrest warrant. I would simply remind him of what Professor Steven Peers said about the issue of the time frame for the next few months in evidence to the Home Affairs Committee on 10 September:
“There certainly ought to be enough time. I would say it would not be the Government’s fault if there is no decision in time by December next year. It would be some kind of political difficulty that the Council and the Commission have dreamed up.”
I am confident, as is the Home Secretary and those involved in the negotiating team, that there is time, will and a desire on the part of other member states to ensure that there is a smooth transition and we can get this done without the gap that the hon. Gentleman is afraid of.
My hon. Friend the Member for North East Somerset (Jacob Rees-Mogg) rightly again highlighted the issue of the ECJ at the centre of the debate, and I suspect that we will have further lively discussions about it as the months go by. The right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Sir Alan Beith) had examined the issue of justice measures and talked about probation, as did the shadow Justice Secretary. There are genuine issues relating to the drafting of the probation directive which make it difficult for us to consider at this moment the concept that we would release this to the jurisdiction of the European Court. I have no intention of going forward with an opt-in under the current wording, as that could cause all kinds of complications for our rules on deportations, in respect of somebody deported to another country who then had to be repatriated because their probation conditions were breached. At the moment we believe the measure is flawed and we have therefore decided it cannot be in the list of things to opt back in to.
My hon. Friend the Member for Esher and Walton gave a thoughtful contribution in which he talked about the “cold, hard lens” of national interest. That is certainly what has guided us, particularly in respect of the discussions the Home Secretary has had with law enforcement bodies about the need to say that there are things they believe need to be in place in order for us to ensure we can provide proper protection for our citizens. Some strong recommendations have been made by those organisations, which she articulated clearly in her remarks this afternoon. Lastly, my hon. Friend the Member for Rochester and Strood (Mark Reckless) was clear about his views about opting in to these measures. I simply remind him that we have opted out already and the decision to exercise the opt-out is a major step forward for the country; otherwise we would have had no option but to end up with 133 different measures.
So, for reasons of policy, principle and pragmatism, the Government have exercised the opt-out in the national interest. We have decided that it is in our national interest to co-operate in measures that help combat cross-border crime and keep our country safe. That is what we are negotiating for in Brussels and it is what we aim to deliver. It is a coherent package that we aim to bring back to Parliament for a vote before the UK formally makes any application to rejoin later this year. It is very much in that national interest that my hon. Friend the Member for Esher and Walton talked about. It has guided us in these discussions and in discussions across the coalition.
Chris Grayling
We have had long discussions across Government about how best to shape the right package for the country. Inevitably, we have had those discussions. We now have a package that provides a sensible balance between a number of different factors and different interests, which is why we have brought that package to the House for consideration. It is why we brought it to the House last summer and why we have set it out in our negotiations on the future of our participation in these measures.
Jacob Rees-Mogg
I am grateful to the Lord Chancellor for giving way once again; he is being enormously generous. The Deputy Prime Minister has said that in coalition the issue of collective responsibility has to be treated differently. Accepting that as a new constitutional principle, which I would not normally do, but for these purposes accepting it, will the Lord Chancellor give us his own personal view?
Chris Grayling
Madam Deputy Speaker might deem me to be out of order if I followed too far down that route tonight. No doubt we can have that discussion over a beer some time.
We have a sensible package. We have sought to operate in the national interest and to reflect the views of the law enforcement community about what it needs to fight organised crime. I am clear that I do not want, and will not tolerate, the idea of us becoming part of a Europeanised justice system. I will continue to pursue that in my dealings with the European Union—in our interactions over things such as the justice scorecard. Equally, it is important to understand the task that the Home Office faces in dealing with international crime and in ensuring that it can combat organised crime. I am talking about some of the most abhorrent offences, such as human trafficking, that are a real challenge to all of us across the whole of Europe. We need to have enough protection to enable us to take part in genuine international collaboration on those issues. That is why we have placed this package before the House.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered the UK’s 2014 justice and home affairs opt-out decision.
Business without Debate
Worksop Magistrates Court
(10 years, 1 month ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
John Mann (Bassetlaw) (Lab)
“British justice is the envy of the world,” said the Government in the previous debate. Elizabeth I, James I, Henry III, Henry VIII, Richard I, Richard II, Richard III, Mary Queen of Scots and many, many more monarchs of this country have rested overnight in Bassetlaw. In 617, King Edwin defeated Aethelfrith of Northumbria in a battle that established some of the initial boundaries across the country that we now call England. During the reign of King Alfred, England was divided into shires and counties and then subdivided into hundreds of wapentakes, one of which was Bassetlaw. It was reinforced and confirmed in the Domesday Book when the modern geographic area of Bassetlaw was granted by William the Conqueror to Roger de Busli, a well known northern baron. Why is that relevant to British justice today? Well, the basis of law—the law that the Government say is the envy of the world—is precisely this geographical, political, social and economic history that has meant that, as an entity, Bassetlaw has existed in the concepts of law in this country for 1,000 years.
The local courts, which determined where residents could graze their lands and the rights of tenants under the dukes who resided there, have gone on for the past 1,000 years. Bassetlaw has been the home of many great dukes, including Norfolk, Newcastle, and Portland who, as landowners, administered justice in disputes on their land. Following the dissolution of the abbeys during the reign of Henry VIII—soon after he had visited the great priory of Worksop—the Earl of Shrewsbury was granted the land in Bassetlaw that used to belong to the great priory abbey. The local records note that Gilbert, the new Earl of Shrewsbury, had to pay a tax of 100 shillings to the court when his father died in what was known as knight’s duties. He became a Privy Counsellor to Elizabeth I and was also made a knight of the garter. He gave to the monarch, on behalf of the manor of Worksop, the gloves that were held in the right hand of the monarch in every coronation for many hundreds of years.
It is important to remember that while common law was only introduced in Bassetlaw during the reign of Henry III, canon law had been administered at the local abbeys by monks who were trained to try cases involving the Church. That is how justice in this country was developed—how it originated. Bassetlaw was there at the beginning of English justice. All the way through—be it through the canons or the dukes—justice has been administered in Bassetlaw, by Bassetlaw, for Bassetlaw. The Social and Economic History of Nottinghamshire says that
“summary justice in Nottingham was mainly administered in these local courts”—
such as in Retford and Worksop—
“to which the tenants almost always made suit. The majority of the lords possessed the rights of the gallows, the pillory, the tumbrel…together with the assize of bread and ale.”
All that history and the basis of justice are now threatened for the first time in 1,000 years by the cutbacks of this Government. It is this Government now, in this year, who are proposing a single site for youth work. They are not talking about Bassetlaw, or Retford court, which was closed by the previous cuts of the previous Secretary of State. They are talking about youth work going to Mansfield, with the new single family courts. Worksop is being offered only as an occasional court, “as an overspill”.
New criminal work will never be commenced again in Bassetlaw, shifted to Worksop. There will be no listings of trials at Worksop any more because under this Government and their police cuts the cells at the court room, run by the police, have been mothballed. What does that leave for justice in Bassetlaw in the Government’s consultation document? TV licence offences, while at the same time the coalition Government are consulting on decriminalising TV licence offences. That leaves local taxation enforcement, to quote from the consultation document, “for the time being”.
This is the death of the last remaining court in Bassetlaw—Worksop court—through a thousand cuts. Bit by bit, justice has been stripped away; so have 1,000 years and so has the basis of the law we gave to the rest of the world, which this same Government claim is the envy of the rest of the world—although not for long, if the principle of local justice administered by local people is stripped away from the very place where it was founded.
What are the practical implications? In their document, the Government suggest a small journey—a 30-mile round trip—failing to recognise the geographical size of Bassetlaw. It takes more time, to pick an entirely random comparison, to journey across Bassetlaw by car than it does to journey from this place to Basingstoke. It takes more time to get into Worksop from the villages of Bassetlaw than it does to get from Worksop to Mansfield by public transport. If a person is lucky and buses are available, they could potentially get to Mansfield and the courts in three hours but not in time to turn up for the start of court. Having got there, they would not be able to get back home. That means that magistrates, the basis of local justice, will no longer be able to be recruited from Bassetlaw. Witnesses wishing to appear in court who do not have access to their own transport will not be able practically to make a return journey and, if they do, on the one train they could take from Worksop that gets to Mansfield in time they would be sitting in the same carriages as those they were giving evidence against.
What kind of justice system is that, that we say is the envy of the world, when the Government, through their measly cutbacks, reduce to nothing 1,000 years of justice in Bassetlaw? How will those who are not financially well off, those without access to transport, those who are infirm and those who are unable to drive, either because they no longer have a licence or have not yet acquired one, be able to get the courts and get back? The real hidden cost will be in police officers chasing youths who have failed to turn up in time in court over the 550 square miles of Bassetlaw, an area bigger than the whole of Greater London. Police resources will be wasted on people who have failed to turn up in court when charged with small offences.
Once the Government have cut to ribbons what is left, stripped out criminal trials in Bassetlaw and denuded it of any real opportunity in the field of justice, the last little bits will be taken away because the next cut will be the final cut: the closure of Worksop court. What will that mean when that happens, which will be a matter of months if the consultation goes through? The area that helped create British justice and produced MPs such as the Earl of Liverpool, the last Prime Minister and MP before my good self to live in Bassetlaw while representing Bassetlaw, or Gladstone, who was not an MP for Bassetlaw but spent four years living there—that is what is being thrown away, but this is far greater than that.
Where did the Great Reform Act, which eventually led to this country exporting the universal franchise and the current system of democracy to everywhere in the democratic world, come from? It came from Bassetlaw and the great reformer John Cartwright. Because of the rotten borough of Retford, the Great Reform Act, when it was written, was inspired by events in Bassetlaw. Legal brains from Bassetlaw led to the Great Reform Act and created the model of democracy that this country gave the world, but this is about more than that.
The essence of democracy and the fact that there was so much local democracy in Bassetlaw also led to the confidence that meant that the people who became the pilgrim fathers nearly 400 years ago—the anniversary is in 2020—and formed the United States of America could create the ethos behind the constitution of the United States. Those people were brought up, bred, schooled, educated and churched in Bassetlaw. The history of local justice inspired them to be the ones who dared to go out and have the vision that led to the United States. World democracy was exported by this country. British justice, to quote the Government in the previous debate, is the envy of the world. That 1,000-year-old system of local people in the local area administering local justice is now being kiboshed by this Government and their penny pinching cuts.
My demand is that the Minister should tear up the consultation, reject the death by a thousand cuts of the final court in Bassetlaw, Worksop court, and say to the world that British justice will in the future be the envy of the world and that we will have the principle of local justice administered by local people in the local area. If it has been good enough for 1,000 years in Bassetlaw, it is good enough for a number more years to come. I demand that the Government withdraw these proposals and guarantee the future of Worksop court.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Mr Shailesh Vara)
I congratulate the hon. Member for Bassetlaw (John Mann) on securing this important debate. I am sure that historians in years to come will want to look at his historical analysis of Bassetlaw eagerly, because it certainly was very interesting.
Let me make something absolutely clear at the outset: I want to assure the hon. Gentleman that the consultation is not a consultation on court closure.
I want to make three things clear. First, no decisions have yet been made. The local area is conducting a consultation on the proposal to reduce the number and type of court sessions listed in Worksop and I would not want to prejudge the outcome of that consultation.
Secondly, the consultation relates to proposed changes to the type of work that will be allocated to Worksop magistrates court in light of the facilities available there and the overall requirements of the Nottinghamshire local justice area. It is not a proposal to close the court at Worksop. If that were proposed it would be subject to a separate consultation that specifically said it was about possible closure.
Thirdly, the maintenance of appropriate arrangements for the deployment of the judiciary of England and Wales and the allocation of work within courts is the statutory responsibility of the Lord Chief Justice, not the Lord Chancellor. Together with, and supported by, the justices’ clerk through the judicial business group, local judiciary ensure that there is sufficient court time available to meet demand, and that the right facilities are provided for the particular types of cases that come before them. That includes reviewing the sitting programmes of magistrates courts within their area.
I should explain that judicial business groups comprise a magistrates liaison judge nominated by the resident judges in each clerkship, up to two district judges from magistrates courts, up to three bench chairs from benches within the clerkship areas, a justices’ clerk, a representative from the Magistrates Association, and a senior regional official from Her Majesty’s Courts and Tribunals Service. In line with other areas, Nottinghamshire reviews its performance and sitting programme on a monthly basis to ensure that it is properly aligned with the workload. There has been a steady reduction in criminal workload across Nottinghamshire, which reflects a national trend, and the forecast is for further reduction. By contrast, family court work has increased slightly in the area, and it is right that local arrangements are made to accommodate that at Mansfield, Nottingham and, where necessary, Worksop.
The low volume of criminal cases, particularly in rural areas, means that some courts are not fully occupied, and the steps taken by the judicial business group in Nottinghamshire to consolidate similar types of business are designed to help make the best use of the estate, accommodate a growing family and tribunals workload, and reduce the inconvenience to court users caused by sitting patterns changing at short notice.
The proposals seek fully to utilise judicial sittings and to reduce the amount of judicial time wasted when cases collapse at short notice. The combining of resources in fewer venues will increase flexibility and afford more resilience when listing the criminal, civil and family case load. That in turn will provide the judiciary with more opportunity to use skills acquired and to expand on those that have been little used while sitting in courts where listing has been restricted, as experienced in Worksop.
The proposals are subject to a wide stakeholder consultation in the local area. It closes on 30 April 2014, and I hope the hon. Gentleman will contribute to it. The responses to the consultation will be given thorough consideration and the judicial business group will meet to discuss them. The final decision on how to arrange business within this area will rest with that group. A response to the consultation paper will be published in June.
The consultation has been designed to draw out specific impacts on various groups, and they will be considered carefully by the judicial business group, which will also give proper consideration to the public sector equality duty before implementation. The justices’ clerk for the area and bench chairman have held meetings with local defence advocates and a representative of the Legal Aid Agency better to understand their concerns. The judicial business group will consider carefully the impact on magistrates’ rotas. Those considerations will take into account the need to balance travel time and costs against maintaining their competencies and sittings across the range of work.
I understand the concern that some of the changes may result in increased travel for victims and witnesses in the north of the county, which is why the criminal justice system is looking at ways to overcome that, especially by making the most of video technology. That would mean that victims and witnesses may, in some instances, be able to give their evidence from the local police station or local court via a video link. The increased use of video technology in the courts is a key part of the Government’s modernisation plans for the criminal justice system, and I, for one, welcome its use for those purposes.
It is important to remember that the proposals for Worksop magistrates court will serve to benefit all court users while improving performance and service delivery, and creating better value for money. Worksop has the lowest effective trial rate in the area. In 2013, 34.6% of trials that were listed actually went ahead as trials. In the same year, in 20% of trials, the defendant changed their plea to guilty at the court door, causing the trial to collapse. As only one court operates at the site, when a trial collapses, the court has no other work to do. Conversely, if more than one listed trial is ready to proceed, there is no scope for that trial to be heard elsewhere in the building, as there is only one operational court. That happened in 10% of trials listed at Worksop in 2013, and it is the highest instance of ineffective trials in the area. When that happens, the trial has to be adjourned and relisted for another day, leading to further delay. Proposals in the consultation seek to make better use of court time for magistrates and court users while improving performance and service delivery. That will be brought about by combining resources in one building, thus providing increased flexibility to dispose of the work load in a more efficient manner.
Criminal business in magistrates courts has reduced nationally. We have a duty to court users to deliver an efficient and effective service across all parts of our business, and we believe the proposals will help to do both. I reiterate that this is a local initiative, which is being appropriately managed through the consultation paper. Local justice is about visible and continual engagement with communities. It is working with local criminal justice agencies to understand the issues that affect those communities and what can be done to resolve them.
Local justice does not mean providing a courthouse in every town or city that hears every type of business. Quality, speed and efficiency of the service that is provided, and a safe, comfortable environment for court users that commands respect for the justice system, are much more significant to the delivery of effective local justice across communities. The lay magistracy serves as a vital link connecting the criminal justice system to local communities, and it is important to ensure that magistrates continue to play a central role in the system of summary justice.
We will continue to work closely with the judiciary and other key stakeholders as we consider how best to harness the potential of the magistracy through our wider reform programme. I hope that that reassures the hon. Gentleman that the Government are serious about working with magistrates and the judiciary to improve the local and regional administration of justice in the county of Nottinghamshire, and nationally. Again, I congratulate him on taking the opportunity to put on record in the Chamber his views, and I very much hope that my response has given him some comfort that the consultation is not about closure.
Question put and agreed to.
Ministerial Correction
(10 years, 1 month ago)
Ministerial CorrectionsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Taxation: Rebates
(10 years, 1 month ago)
Ministerial CorrectionsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
John McDonnell
To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many tax refunds were made in the tax years (a) 2009-10, (b) 2010-11, (c) 2011-12 and (d) 2012-13 for (i) income tax, (ii) value added tax, (iii) corporation tax and (iv) national insurance; and what the total value of refunds was in each such category in each such year.
[Official Report, 31 March 2014, Vol. 578, c. 479-80W.]
Letter of correction from David Gauke:
An error has been identified in the written answer given to the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) on 31 March 2014.
The full answer given was as follows:
Mr Gauke
The figures shown represent the value of repayment figures as included in the accrued net revenue figures in the Statement of Revenue, Other Income and Expenditure which are published in the Annual Report and Accounts. We hold only the total value not number of repayments made by tax type.
HOD | 2009-10 | 2010-11 | 2011-12 | 2012-13 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Income Tax | 9,703,600,140.60 | 11,062,294,029.42 | 12,032,623,916.28 | 12,452,181,005.78 |
VAT | 52,098,844,904.82 | 65,208,522,155.96 | 75,332,913,101.11 | 74,730,895,023.43 |
Corporation Tax | 8,993,368,840.74 | 5,012,774,914.88 | 6,999,305,350.27 | 4,619,517,414.07 |
National Insurance Contributions | 381,775,025.34 | 359,560,830.57 | 233,269,374.25 | 749,910,875.73 |
The correct answer should have been:
Mr Gauke
The figures shown represent the value of repayment figures as included in the accrued net revenue figures in the Statement of Revenue, Other Income and Expenditure which are published in the Annual Report and Accounts. We hold only the total value not number of repayments made by tax type.
HOD | 2009-10 | 2010-11 | 2011-12 | 2012-13 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Income Tax | 9,703,600,140.60 | 11,062,294,029.42 | 12,032,623,916.28 | 12,452,181,005.78 |
VAT | 52,098,844,904.82 | 65,208,522,155.96 | 75,332,913,101.11 | 74,730,895,023.43 |
Corporation Tax | 8,993,368,840.74 | 5,012,774,914.88 | 6,999,305,350.27 | 4,619,517,414.07 |
National Insurance Contributions | 381,775,025.34 | 359,560,830.57 | 233,269,374.25 | 303,536,267.13 |
Petitions
The Proposed Closure of Crown Post Offices in Anglesey (Ynys Môn)
Rural Fair Share Campaign
Rail Services in Bolton
Written Statements
Higher Education (Student Support)
The Minister for Universities and Science (Mr David Willetts)
Today I am announcing measures to modernise the disabled students’ allowances which are available to higher education students from England.
Disabled students’ allowances (DSAs) are non-repayable grants that assist with the additional costs that a disabled student incurs in relation to their study in higher education. DSAs currently provide a range of support. This includes the purchase of laptops and specialist equipment, provision of support workers and assistance with additional travel costs. The support is not means-tested and is available for eligible full-time and part-time students, studying at undergraduate and postgraduate level.
In 2011-12 DSAs provided over £125 million of additional support for over 53,000 full-time undergraduate higher education students, compared with £91.7 million awarded to 40,600 students in 2008-09.
I announced earlier this year that maximum grants for full-time, part-time and postgraduate students with disabilities will be maintained at 2014-15 levels in 2015-16.
I am announcing a number of changes aimed at modernising the current system, subject to the equality impact assessment. This will ensure that the limited public funding available for DSAs is targeted in the best way and to achieve value for money, while ensuring those most in need get the help they require.
DSAs have been available since 1974, with the four separate allowances being introduced in 1990. The current arrangements do not recognise technological advances, increases in use of technology or the introduction of the Equality Act 2010. It has been almost 25 years since the DSA scheme was reviewed, unlike other areas of student support.
The proposals outlined below look to rebalance responsibilities between Government funding and institutional support. We will look to HEIs to play their role in supporting students with mild difficulties, as part of their duties to provide reasonable adjustments under the Equality Act. These are partly anticipatory duties and we expect HEIs to introduce changes which can further reduce reliance on DSAs and help mainstream support. We will be consulting with specialists in the sector to ensure that specific learning difficulties (SpLD) students understand the type of support they can expect to receive and who will provide it.
We recognise that students will continue to need support. However, we believe that HEIs are better placed to consider how to respond in many cases, including giving greater consideration to the delivery of their courses and how to provide support. The need for some individual non-medical help (NMH) may be removed through different ways of delivering courses and information. It is for HEIs to consider how they make both anticipatory reasonable adjustments and also reasonable adjustments at an individual level.
The key changes are set out below:
We will pay for higher specification or higher cost computers where a student needs one solely by virtue of their disability. We will no longer pay for standard specification computers or the warranties and insurance associated with them. We will no longer pay for higher specification and/or higher cost computers simply because of the way in which a course is delivered. We are changing our approach to the funding of a number of computer equipment, software and consumable items through DSAs that have become funded as “standard” to most students.
Students with specific learning difficulties will continue to receive support through DSAs where their support needs are considered to be more complex.
We will fund the most specialist non-medical help. HEIs are expected to consider how they deliver information to students and whether strategies can be put in place to reduce the need for support workers and encourage greater independence and autonomy for their students.
The additional costs of specialist accommodation will no longer be met by DSAs, other than in exceptional circumstances.
We are also clarifying a number of policy changes. We will define disability in relation to the definition provided by the Equality Act 2010, for the purposes of receiving DSAs. We will also introduce a requirement for registration for those providers offering DSA study needs assessments and DSA assistive technology service providers.
The changes will ensure DSAs provide support where it is needed the most.
The changes in this statement will apply to all full-time, full-time distance learning, part-time and postgraduate students applying for DSA for the first time in respect of an academic year beginning on or after 1 September 2015. This provides sufficient time for us to work with institutions and stakeholders to ensure the changes are introduced effectively.
Existing DSA students and DSA students for 2014-15 entry will remain on the current system of support for 2015-16.
London Borough of Tower Hamlets
The Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government (Mr Eric Pickles)
It is a matter of public record that Ministers have long been concerned about a worrying pattern of divisive community politics and alleged mismanagement of public money by the mayoral administration in Tower Hamlets.
My Department has now received certain documents which make serious allegations about poor governance and financial management at the council. Having considered these carefully, on Friday 4 April, I exercised the powers granted to me by Parliament under the Local Government Act 1999 (as amended by the recently commenced Local Audit and Accountability Act 2014) to appoint PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP (PwC) to carry out an inspection of the authority’s compliance with its best value duty. A file has also been passed on to the Metropolitan police for consideration.
The inspectors arrived at the council on Friday morning. They will be speaking to the council and to external sources.
The matters to be covered initially by the inspection will in particular relate to: the authority’s payment of grants and connected decisions; the transfer of property by the authority to third parties; spending and decisions of the authority in relation to publicity, and the authority’s processes and practices for entering into contracts. The inspection will cover the period from Monday 25 October 2010 (when the mayoral form of governance was implemented in Tower Hamlets) to the present.
I have asked PwC to report their findings to me by 30 June 2014, or such later date as the inspector agrees with me.
I hope this decision sends a strong signal that robust processes are in place to investigate allegations of failures in financial management and governance in local government, under the new regime introduced by the Local Audit and Accountability Act which replaces the Audit Commission.
I hope hon. Members will appreciate that we cannot be drawn into more detail while investigations are ongoing. Once the inspection team has completed its work, I will carefully consider the inspection report before taking any further action. Should it be necessary, I have powers to intervene in a council under section 15 of the 1999 Act.
This action is not undertaken lightly, but localism requires local transparency, scrutiny and accountability, and these vital checks and balances must be upheld.
Boundary Commissions (Triennial Review)
(10 years, 1 month ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Deputy Prime Minister (Mr Nick Clegg)
I am today announcing the start of the triennial review of the Boundary Commissions for England, Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales. Triennial reviews of non-departmental public bodies (NDPBs) are part of the Government’s commitment to ensuring that NDPBs continue to have regular challenge on their remit and governance arrangements.
The review will be undertaken by the Cabinet Office.
In common with all such reviews the following will be undertaken:
to provide assurance on the continuing need for these NDPBs—both their functions and form; and
to review their control and governance arrangements to ensure that they are complying with recognised principles of good corporate governance.
The aim will be to complete the review in the summer.
Bailiffs
(10 years, 1 month ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice (Chris Grayling)
The Government have implemented new laws, effective from yesterday, to deliver their commitment to provide protection against aggressive bailiffs in England and Wales while ensuring that debt can still be collected fairly.
Enforcement action is necessary for both the economy and the justice system and the Government recognise that bailiffs carry out a difficult role in challenging circumstances. While the majority operate in a responsible and proportionate manner, a significant few use unsafe, unsound and unfair methods of collection, casting a shadow over the reputations of respectable individuals. We are clear that this is unacceptable. At the same time we are also clear that legitimate creditors should be able to collect the money that is owed to them in a fair and responsible manner. The measures contained within these new laws strike this balance between the rights of debtors and the rights of creditors.
We have swept away the antiquated and confusing laws which can thwart effective and proportionate enforcement and have introduced in their place new laws which are fit for today’s society. The reforms tackle the root causes of aggressive bailiff action by clarifying the law so that all parties are aware of their rights and responsibilities.
The use of force against an individual has been banned. We have also prevented entry to properties late at night, without first seeking permission from the court, or where only children are present. The enforcement process and procedure has been defined clearly in legislation setting out how bailiffs can enter a property, what goods can and cannot be seized for sale, and crucially, what costs a bailiff can charge. These changes are set against effective and targeted regulation which will ensure that bailiffs are fit to carry out this work by introducing certification for all bailiffs which will involve mandatory training and competence requirements.
These much needed reforms ensure that individuals, businesses and bailiffs will all benefit and will help strengthen our economy and justice system.
Grand Committee
Arrangement of Business
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Skelmersdale) (Con)
My Lords, the Grand Committee is now in session. If there is a Division in the House, which I am told is extremely likely, the Committee will adjourn for 10 minutes, as recorded by the Annunciator.
Durham, Gateshead, Newcastle Upon Tyne, North Tyneside, Northumberland, South Tyneside and Sunderland Combined Authority Order 2014
Baroness Stowell of Beeston
That the Grand Committee do consider the Durham, Gateshead, Newcastle Upon Tyne, North Tyneside, Northumberland, South Tyneside and Sunderland Combined Authority Order 2014.
Relevant documents: 24th Report from the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Communities and Local Government (Baroness Stowell of Beeston) (Con)
My Lords, the order we are considering this afternoon, if approved, will bring about the establishment of another combined authority in another major area of our country—this time across the area of Durham, Northumberland and Tyne and Wear.
The order is very similar to those that the Grand Committee considered on 24 March, and I am happy to report that the combined authorities for the areas of greater Merseyside, South Yorkshire and West Yorkshire were established on 1 April. Noble Lords may also recall that I explained to the Committee then that the establishment of the combined authority enables the councils and their partners to work together more effectively and efficiently to promote economic growth, to secure more investment and to create more jobs.
The establishment of this combined authority opens the way for more effective collaboration between the councils and their partners to pursue more efficiently economic development and regeneration. Crucially, all the drive and initiative for establishing the combined authority has to come from the places involved. It is a process where the first steps are taken by the councils involved—what we sometimes call bottom-up.
As with the others, this combined authority will be responsible for economic development, regeneration and transport across the functional economic area. The combined authority will take over the transport functions currently exercised by the Tyne and Wear Integrated Transport Authority, which will be abolished when the combined authority is established. The combined authority will also undertake similar transport functions currently exercised by Durham County Council and Northumberland County Council. The seven councils within the area have agreed that the combined authority will be able to exercise their functions on economic development and regeneration.
By taking on those functions, the combined authority will be central to delivering the outcomes envisaged in both the Newcastle City Deal and the Sunderland and South Tyneside City Deal, the latter of which the Government have recently agreed. The combined authority will also provide the governance needed for any future growth deals drawing on resources of the local growth fund.
As I set out to the Grand Committee the other week, the Government’s approach to combined authorities is one of localism, which reflects our belief that residents and their representatives are best placed to decide what happens in their area. Where councils come forward with a proposal for a combined authority that commands wide local support and we consider that the statutory conditions have been met, we invite Parliament to approve a draft order to establish the proposed combined authority.
If in future local councils decide that changes are in the area’s best interest—perhaps another council joining, or one leaving—and statutory conditions have been met, we would bring a new order to Parliament for approval to enable the change to take place. What is important here is the area’s best interests.
We have considered the particular circumstances of this proposed combined authority, as made by the councils, against the statutory conditions, as the law requires, making sure that the proposal: is likely to improve the exercise of statutory functions relating to transport, economic development and regeneration in Durham, Northumberland and Tyne and Wear; is likely to improve the effectiveness and efficiency of transport in Durham, Northumberland and Tyne and Wear; and is likely to improve the economic conditions in Durham, Northumberland and Tyne and Wear. The Government consider that the tests are unambiguously met. The Government have also had regard to the need to reflect the identities and interests of local communities and to secure effective and convenient local government. Further, we are clear that the combined authority would command wide local support—from local businesses, other public bodies, and local people and their democratically elected representatives.
The draft order specifies the formal, legal name for the combined authority to be the Durham, Gateshead, Newcastle Upon Tyne, North Tyneside, Northumberland, South Tyneside and Sunderland Combined Authority. All those councils have consented to that legal name but, as we discussed previously, how that authority will brand itself, including the use of any brand name, will be entirely a matter for the combined authority. That was an important point that we debated the other week, and I am sure it will be raised again by noble Lords in the discussion that follows. The draft order makes provision: for the abolition of the Tyne and Wear Integrated Transport Authority; about the transport and economic functions that the combined authority will have; and about its membership and constitutional arrangements. The combined authority will be for a larger area than that currently covered by the Tyne and Wear Integrated Transport Authority, reflecting the functional economic area. Accordingly, the combined authority will also have some of the transport functions currently exercised by Durham County Council and Northumberland County Council.
The combined authority will be governed by its members and subject to scrutiny by one or more committees with a membership drawn from members of the councils concerned, to hold the combined authority to account. As we discussed previously, good governance practice will mean that such committees will be politically balanced, enabling appropriate representation of councils’ minority parties in the governance of the combined authority. I am pleased to inform the Grand Committee that, following my exchange with my noble friend Lord Shipley during the debate on the other combined authorities, the Government have now written setting out the good practice guidance, and a copy of that letter is being published on the Government’s website. We, of course, intend to write to this combined authority in similar terms.
Noble Lords may have seen that the councils concerned with the combined authority have already confirmed that its constitution will be formally adopted at its first meeting and provides for a politically balanced overview and scrutiny committee of two members from each constituent authority, in line with good practice. Combined authorities are also subject to the same transparency and audit requirements as local authorities, so the combined authority will be audited by an external, independent auditor. Meetings of the combined authority and its committees are open to the public and minutes of the meetings are made publicly available, in the same way as for local authorities. In future, people will have the right to film and use social media to report on council meetings; that applies equally to meetings of combined authorities as it does for local authorities. Again, noble Lords may have seen that the councils have confirmed that the meetings of both the overview and scrutiny committee and the combined authority will be open to the public and their minutes published.
This draft order will enable the seven councils concerned and their partners to work together more effectively to deliver economic growth across their areas. Establishing the combined authority is what the councils and their partners in these areas want, because they believe that it is the most effective way for them to do what councils across the country should be doing: putting the promotion of economic growth at the heart of all that they do. That is a priority for them, and a priority for the Government. I commend the draft order to the Committee, and beg to move.
Lord Adonis (Lab)
My Lords, I strongly support the order and I commend the noble Baroness for the extremely able way in which she introduced it—though, taking up her point about the title, it is one of the greatest mouthfuls in the history of mouthfuls. I am sure that the authority will rapidly come to be known as the north-east combined authority, which is the right thing.
Two years ago I was privileged to chair the North East Independent Economic Review. My fellow commissioners included the then right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Durham before he was translated—or as some in the north-east think, demoted—to become the most reverend Primate the Archbishop of Canterbury, and the noble Lord, Lord Curry of Kirkharle. The key recommendation of that review was for a combined authority, broadly as proposed in this order, uniting seven authorities of the region, together with the local enterprise partnership, with a mission to improve transport, infrastructure, skills and economic development in the region.
I pay tribute to the chair of the local enterprise partnership, Paul Woolston, and his team, and to the leaders of the seven local authorities for embracing this agenda, which has led to the order before us today. I also congratulate Simon Henig, the leader of Durham County Council, on his election as chair-designate of the combined authority, and I am also very glad to see that all seven leaders of the local authorities within the north-east region are taking constructive leadership roles within the new combined authority.
This order is about the legal structure and mechanisms of the combined authority. However, it cannot be stressed too much that the combined authority is a means to an end. The report of the independent review highlighted five priorities in particular, on which we very much hoped the combined authority would focus. First, we hoped that it would champion North East International, promoting the region at home and abroad as a magnet for trade, talent, tourism and inward investment. The north-east is doing very well on inward investment. It is the only region of the country with a positive balance of trade. Nissan is one of the most successful exporters in the country, and I am delighted that recently another major Japanese exporter, Hitachi, has also invested in the north-east. It is creating upwards of 700 jobs and is at the moment constructing its new factory in the north-east. However, much more can be done. As those companies have said, they are sure that the north-east could do even better in attracting inward investment and using it as a basis for exporting to the continent. I am glad to see the noble Lord, Lord Wrigglesworth, the former chair of the Port of Tyne in his place. The ports in the north-east are excellently placed for exporting to mainland Europe. The potential for using the north-east as a platform for significant further exporting industries is huge with the right economic infrastructure in place.
The second priority that we identified for the combined authority was doubling the number of youth apprenticeships to tackle the evil of low skills and high youth unemployment, alongside higher skill standards and an increase in the proportion going on to higher education. The north-east needs a further skills revolution. It will not be able to compete successfully without higher skill levels. Regrettably, it has a lower than national average proportion going on to higher education and fewer than one in 10 of 18 year-olds goes on to an apprenticeship. That situation needs to change radically if the north-east is to be able to compete. A focus on a really significant improvement in skill levels by the combined authority is important.
The third priority we identified is the development and strong innovation in growth clusters, stimulating universities and their graduates, existing companies and public institutions to create and finance new high-growth enterprises and jobs. The north-east has four outstandingly good universities that are all strongly committed to economic growth and regeneration within the north-east, and the combined authorities of which their representatives would also be members through the local enterprise partnership could make an important contribution there, too.
The fourth priority identified was the need for big improvements in transport infrastructure and services to overcome the relative national and international isolation of the north-east, and to improve connections within the north-east so that people can get to and from work more easily. It cannot be emphasised too strongly that transport connections and improvements in national and international connectivity are crucial for the future of the north-east. The west coast main line has significantly improved in recent years, which has brought Manchester and the north-west relatively closer to London. The journey times on the east coast main line have regrettably slowed down over the period. Despite the debate that we had within the north-east economic review about what we hoped was the imminence of a transatlantic flight starting from Newcastle Airport, that still has not happened, and improving transport connections will be important. Within the region, there is significant room for improvement in the ITA’s activities but it has done good work. However, this order also brings County Durham and Northumberland within the ambit of the combined authority, and that could be very beneficial for improving transport connections within the region.
Fifthly and finally, we identified the need for the creation of stronger public institutions, including the location of key national institutions in the north-east. In the report we identified the British Business Bank as a possible candidate for location in the north-east. I regret to say that that opportunity was passed by, but there are many other candidates that we ought to review. In what noble Lords think was one of my more quixotic moments, I even suggested that your Lordships’ House might be relocated, and I cannot think of a better location for it than the north-east. However, I mainly offer that as an illustration of the possibilities that might be available.
Lord Shipley (LD)
My Lords, I, too, strongly welcome the draft order. I agree with every word that we have heard from both the Minister and the noble Lord, Lord Adonis. It is a tribute to the noble Lord’s leadership—this was one of the five key recommendations that arose from the north-east economic review—that we are in the position that we are today. There has been a lot of discussion on the way, and I hope that discussion is now at an end; as the noble Lord has said, the combined authority is a means to an end. It has to achieve real outcomes, and for that it has to work with a clear understanding of its remit, with clear joint working with the local enterprise partnership and with the support of all parts of the north-east combined authority area, both rural and urban.
I thank the Minister for what she said and particularly for having issued guidance on the issue of transparency and membership, following the discussion that we had about greater Merseyside, West Yorkshire and Yorkshire. I am particularly pleased about the specific draft order because it represents another step in the gathering pace of devolution and decentralisation in England, and because combined authorities provide a structure within which that devolution and decentralisation can be achieved. There are now several combined authorities in place deriving from the legislation of 2009, and I am really very pleased that that has been achieved. It is very welcome because, as so many local authorities now realise, sharing power can drive faster and more sustained growth, both in the functional economic area that they are part of and in their own council area.
I shall not repeat here some of the things that I said about greater Merseyside, West Yorkshire and South Yorkshire, except to say this: I think it will be important for this combined authority to demonstrate clearly its capacity to cover rural as well as urban issues, to work very closely alongside the LEP and to include opposition political parties at every level in what must be an open decision-making structure. This is because we know that councils working together will achieve more than if they just compete with each other. Investment and risk can be shared and co-ordination can be more effective.
More broadly, I have every confidence that combined authorities will prove a success in taking on greater powers. That leads me to suggest two ways in which further devolution might start to be considered.
First, once they are working effectively, the next step for combined authorities might be to secure London-style powers in transport and strategic planning, among other areas. It is hard to see why London should have a different set of powers from other cities or why the combined authorities may have slightly different powers and responsibilities from each other. The right way forward seems to be to move towards a common approach.
Secondly, other major natural sub-regions do not have a combined authority and could benefit from having one, or at least a more formal structure for collaboration. I hope that the Government will now encourage this as we move on from the combined authority orders that we have had in recent weeks.
I will make one final, important point. In all that I have said, the role of the local enterprise partnerships will be essential to the success of the combined authorities. They must have a clear strategic purpose and a clear leadership role, and they must remain at the heart of delivering economic growth in their areas.
As in Greater Manchester, the LEP and the combined authority each has a key role to play in driving jobs and growth. The same can be true in the other combined authorities, in particular in this one, and I wish it every success. As the noble Lord, Lord Adonis, made absolutely clear, a combined authority as a structure is a means to an end, but not the end in itself.
Baroness Quin (Lab)
My Lords, I, too, believe that what we are considering today is a very significant and welcome development, and echo the comments that were made on this by both previous speakers.
This combined authority brings together authorities of a distinctive part of the country, which have a common heritage. In many ways it is the core of the north-east and, if we go back even further, of the kingdom of Northumbria, although that covered a much wider area. It has a very strong industrial vocation, which it has had since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution, and still has a manufacturing and industrial vocation today, as well as many of the related skills of those sectors. Certainly the area covered has an economic coherence, which is important when we are talking about a combined authority, one of the main objectives of which is to be the promotion of economic development.
This move can also be very significant as regards transport, which was mentioned by my noble friend Lord Adonis. To pick up on a point made by the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, it is good that in the combined authority we are bringing together urban and rural areas, particularly on transport issues. The authority will be able to make a success of bringing closer to the Tyne and Wear conurbation, through transport infrastructure, what we think of as the outlying areas of the old Durham and Northumberland coalfields, which are perhaps not classically rural, but which have become semi-rural today. There is a real need for people there to be able to access easily and successfully the conurbation itself.
The authority is an excellent basis for co-operation with the economic forces within the area. Certainly the authorities concerned are used to working with both industry and representatives of employees’ trade unions. It was the area where the regional development agency was the most successful and where good relationships, despite the change, have already been established with the LEP to try to promote the economic development of the area as positively as possible.
I very much echo what my noble friend Lord Adonis said about the excellence of universities in the area concerned. Again, they have a tradition of working together and of working with the wider community, in particular as regards research and development, looking for advantages for the local and regional economy as well as the wider economy.
I, too, echo what was said about the welcome investment we have seen, particularly the recent announcement about Hitachi. My only slight reservation here is that while I am delighted that Japanese investors have seen the potential of the north-east, I still urge British investors to look closely at the region, perhaps more than they have done. There is still a bit of a psychological north-south gap in that respect. It always seems to me that British investors do not fully appreciate what a great place the north-east is in which to live and work, and the fact that it has a positive trade balance and great economic assets and potential which need to be exploited.
I am glad that the council with which I have been most associated in my career, Gateshead Council, is a key part of this organisation. I always like to pay tribute to it at every possible opportunity; I happen to think that it is the best council in Britain. It has a proud record as a public entrepreneur, working with private industry and being very outward-looking in order to promote the regeneration of the region. I believe that the combined authority, too, will be able to work alongside the private sector and make a very successful public/private partnership. Very often, we see these two things as opposites, but I know from my experience that it makes huge sense for these sectors to work closely together for the future benefit of the region.
I conclude by again wishing this project every success. I hope that it will co-operate with neighbouring areas, both to the south on Teesside and to the north in Scotland—where I hope it will be able to continue to do so following a successful no vote in the Scottish referendum later this year. I am sure that, given the outward-looking nature of this enterprise and of the councils and the people involved in it, it will have every success. I think that this debate today, with the warmth of the tributes that have already been paid to the project, is strong evidence that that will be the case.
Lord Walton of Detchant (CB)
My Lords, I shall speak very briefly because I have to confess that local government is not a matter which usually brings my interest to the attention of your Lordships. However, the order gives me the opportunity to make one or two personal remarks. I was born in a little place called Rowlands Gill, the son of a schoolteacher and the grandson of a miner. I went then to a little school at the Hobson colliery near Burnopfield in Durham county and later to a grammar school in Spennymoor, County Durham, before moving to the medical school in Newcastle, which was then part of Durham University.
I feel a great loyalty to the north-east of England, which has meant a great deal to me throughout my life. I now live in north Northumberland, but I spent much of my professional life in Newcastle. I am greatly honoured by the fact that, in 1980, 34 years ago when I was dean of the medical school in Newcastle, I was one of eight people honoured to become an honorary freeman of the City of Newcastle. I know that the noble Lord, Lord Beecham, played a part in that particular decision. Five of the eight honorary freemen were former lord mayors; the other four were Colonel George Brown of Newcastle Breweries, Cardinal Hume—whose father, Sir William Hume, was professor of medicine at Newcastle and taught me briefly as a medical student in wartime—and then Jackie Milburn and me. I shall never forget that, in his speech of acceptance on behalf of all the honorary freemen, Cardinal Hume said that it was the greatest day of his life—because it was the first time that he had an opportunity of meeting Jackie Milburn. That was his remark, which I have always remembered since that time.
I come to the reason why I am so enthusiastic about this new organisation. Its name is not exactly characterised by brevity, but it seems to me nevertheless to be the proper name for it because some of us look back upon the ill fated Tyne and Wear authority of many years ago. What that authority did was to impose an additional layer of bureaucracy on local government throughout the north-east. Within a few years, seeing that everybody had to recognise that almost every decision had to be stamped by the Tyne and Wear authority and discussed by it, even if it should have been made at local council level, that authority had to be dissolved. This is why I am glad that the new authority will not be called the Tyne and Wear authority, which I think would bring back to many people unhappy memories.
It is good to know, according to the information we have been given, that this new combined authority will use a light touch in its relationship with the local authorities. As such, it will continue nevertheless to have an extremely powerful voice. I am very glad that it is going to exercise its authority in collaboration with the local enterprise partnership. This means that it will probably bring back and be able to implement many of the policies which were, I think, effectively carried out by One North East. This should be greatly welcomed. It is good to know that the combined authority will have an overview and scrutiny committee made up of members across the parties, thereby increasing transparency and accountability. As a proud Northumbrian, I welcome the establishment of this new authority.
Lord Wrigglesworth (LD)
My Lords, it gives me great pleasure to support the comments that have been made by other noble Lords during the debate and to support the draft Order.
I think everybody these days is in favour of extending resources and power to the people and decentralising power. Many of us have been in favour of it for a very long time. Getting government to do it is another thing. I can think back very many years and the resistance of Whitehall departments to devolving people, power and resources to the regions. It is therefore a very welcome step today to see the combined authority being established and I hope that the united support of the region will enable it to get the resources and enhanced powers that my noble friend referred to in the future.
However, the region is undoubtedly facing many challenges. I want to refer to the central challenge for this organisation and others in the region in the years ahead. Before doing that, I will say a word about what I think is of absolutely crucial importance: the relationship between the combined authority and the LEP. They both have the job of building up the economy of the north-east, which is central to the interests of the region, the people who live in it and the national economy. That can be done only if those two bodies work harmoniously and closely together.
As well as being chairman of the port, to which the noble Lord kindly referred, I have spent the past 25 years—I declare a continued interest in this—building industrial estates and offices around the north-east. I think I have probably done more to regenerate the north-east in that capacity than I ever have done in Westminster. I have certainly created a lot more jobs. However, I have seen it from a worm’s-eye view in relation to local authorities and other bodies that are responsible for development. As a developer of industrial estates and offices, I can tell you that it is sometimes a nightmare dealing with so many different bodies in the region that are dealing with the same thing. I see this happening with the LEP and with the local authorities. That is why I say that they have to work harmoniously together. They have to do it also in relation to inward investors. I was a director of the Northern Development Company and we had a very good routine which we had worked out with the local authorities so that they each got a turn when an inward investment came along. Those of us who were involved will recall that the debates over where Nissan was going to be placed within the region were extremely difficult but were resolved, successfully. The task of doing the job with inward investors, developers and other investors is crucial.
I assume each local authority is going to continue with its own economic development department. How are they going to relate to each other? Seven economic development departments—that is a pretty big number of people and a big budget—and the LEP will be doing very similar things. I am not going to prescribe how it should work; I just want to flag it up as one of the crucial issues if this new arrangement is going to succeed. If there is a will, it will succeed. I hope that the economic development departments of the local authority, because of the success of the LEP and because of the whole thing, will gradually wither away and will not be seen to be as necessary, as they have often been in the past by individual local authorities.
I have those reservations but, to me, the crucial issue for the region and for the development of its whole economy is not to do with the physical infrastructure; it is to do with our people. The reason we have a millstone around the economy of the north-east is that we have too many people who do not fulfil their great potential. Look at the LEP economic plan: it has highlighted that as one of the most important issues facing us. I hope that the combined authority, the LEP and everybody in the region will do whatever they possibly can to help all the Easingtons and the Benwells—we know the places in the north-east—that have people leaving school without qualifications of a high enough standard to be able to get them into the labour market. That is the challenge above all for the north-east.
The substantial growth of apprenticeships has been one of the most encouraging things that one could have imagined. I checked the figures: we have 61,000 apprentices in the region, a tremendous number. That brings hope to those many young people who get training of that sort, but there are many other skills that they have to get—computer skills and all sorts of modern skills to deal with the businesses expanding in the region today. Look through the names of all those businesses that have had money from the regional growth fund: what a wonderful roll call of high-tech, pharma, engineering and other businesses. They are just the sort of businesses that we all want to see, many of them exporting products throughout the world. However, to work in those businesses, you need qualifications.
The focus of all of us in the region, and of the organisations in the region, must be on those people who have not been able to achieve their full potential and will not be able to in the future unless they are given the tools to get the jobs available to them. I very much hope that the new combined authority will work well; it certainly has my best wishes, and I am sure that we in this House will do everything to support it. The whimsical comment about this House possibly moving to the north-east would no doubt please many people in the Room today. I would only say that if any whimsical person should come along and take it seriously, there is a wonderful county hall becoming available in Morpeth. It has a wonderful chamber and lots of administrative facilities. We could move there overnight, almost. That would make up for the bank that we did not get to which the noble Lord, Lord Adonis, referred. I wish the organisation well and look forward to seeing it operating.
Lord Scott of Foscote (CB)
My Lords, I have a short point about the order, which came in front of the scrutiny Select Committee of which I have the honour of being a member some weeks ago; I made the same point there. It relates to the name of the new combined authority. It will of course be a corporate authority in its own right. It may sue and be sued in its proper name. My recollection of the wording of the order is that it states that the combined authority shall be “known as” and then sets out the name. I said on the previous occasion—I repeat it—that it is an absurd name for a corporate entity. It would be easy for somebody to make a slight slip and get the name wrong, upon which the lawyers might go to town and deny the proposition that action has been properly brought or defended, as the case may be. In the Select Committee, I suggested that a provision be added to the order to say that the new combined authority may sue or be sued as the “north-eastern combined authority”. I do not know whether that has been done; I imagine that it has not, but if it has not it really ought to be.
Baroness Armstrong of Hill Top (Lab)
Part of the problem is that the new combined authority does not cover the north-east. I am sure that the Minister replying will want to—I am sorry; I thought that the noble Lord from Teesside was replying. However, this problem is where we are and I am very supportive of what we have got.
However, I must be getting old. We have been around these houses time and time again. When I was first elected to Parliament in 1987, my good friend and neighbour, now my noble friend Lord Radice, brought forward a Private Member’s Bill to establish a north-east assembly. Governments have responded to these proposals, but the next Government then want to unpick everything that has been done and we start again. I do not want to bear a grudge today, but the Government have taken us around the same sort of territory yet again. We will do it, because what we in the north-east want more than anything else is for our region and the people living in it to have every possible opportunity. I am sorry that the region has now almost been split in two. It is not a large region, and the region as a whole should be coming together and acting together. However, that was undone in the first years of the coalition, and we are not going to get back to that, even though folk like me get a bit worried about it every now and again.
I pay tribute to my noble friend Lord Adonis. He did a magnificent piece of work for the north-east LEP—as it is called, even though it does not include Teesside. He did a really good job of getting people who were fed up with what was being done to them from London around the table to think about the future and what the priorities should be. In his report he identified the key priorities for the region. I looked on it as an exemplary piece of work from a member of the Opposition working in a cross-party way and making sure that the Government knew exactly what was going on. We in the region owe him an enormous debt of gratitude.
I did not have quite the same view of Tyne and Wear met as the noble Lord, Lord Walton. Apart from anything else, the one good, important thing that it did—even if it did nothing else—was to identify and secure large pieces of land for development. I suspect that Nissan would never have come to the north-east if it had not been able to get permission on such a large site with the potential for further development. You needed a large organisation, working across authority boundaries, to come up with those sites. That has been important in our development. I hugely welcome Hitachi coming to Newton Aycliffe with the promise of many more jobs.
As the noble Lord, Lord Wrigglesworth, said, that also really heightens our focus on getting skills. This morning I was with people from Sunderland and the chair of the university council, Paul Callaghan, who was for a short period chair of the regional development agency until, two weeks later, the Government had a different idea about them. He runs a significant global IT company. He has just opened his offices in Australia and is now looking to four other countries; he has them already in America and goodness knows where else. That is a Sunderland-based company that is at the absolute forefront of IT. He chaired a conference a couple of weeks ago on bringing together IT companies in the region, and said that while they do not have problems with premises or local authorities, the one thing they have problems with is getting a suitably skilled and educated workforce. That was from about 70 local companies. This needs addressing, and the combined authority is really going to be pushed to come together to address this across the board. It is a real challenge to our universities. We have good universities in the region; Sunderland has been acknowledged as the university that does most in the country about widening access, and that is very important in our region because we still have the lowest proportion of young people going into higher education.
Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)
My Lords, I apologise for arriving late for the Minister’s introduction. As one of 10 leaders who worked in the Greater Manchester authorities in the lead-up to the formation of the combined authorities, I welcome the order today.
The backdrop to this is that nearly 30 years ago in Greater Manchester we had something called the Association of Greater Manchester Authorities, which was, if you like, a voluntary combined authority. We worked together because we wanted to. The combined authorities will have a great ability to strengthen leadership, but will not necessarily create it where it is not there. However, it will give a real opportunity for a strategic approach among those combined authorities that have been set up, and that is the first step towards devolution.
I will comment on a couple of things that the noble Baroness, Lady Armstrong, said about transport just before she finished. It is no great surprise or coincidence that Greater Manchester has been allocated to high-speed stations or that it was so successful as regards the Northern Hub. I declare an interest on both those topics. House prices have seen the greatest increase in Manchester, which has been named the second city. I know that some people would like to think that Hebden Bridge is the second city, but it is in fact Manchester. Manchester Town Hall features so much in television dramas on the Houses of Parliament that if the administrative centre is to be moved, it should be moved to Manchester. I thank noble Lords for indulging me.
Lord Beecham (Lab)
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness for making a contribution from outside the north-east today. We have heard from seven speakers from the region and, but for the fact that he is a Whip, I dare say that the noble Lord, Lord Bates, would have been contributing to the debate. We are very glad that we have a Minister from the north-east in the Government, at least for the next year. I hope that during that time he will continue—as I am sure he does quietly behind the scenes—to advocate our cause.
It is also a particular pleasure for me that the noble Lord, Lord Walton, contributed to this debate. He has contributed an enormous amount to the region and its reputation. Like him, I very well remember the occasion when the freedom of the city was conferred upon him and others, including Cardinal Hume. I had the pleasure of nominating them all at that ceremony, and well remember the cardinal’s remarks at that time. Perhaps he might have a celestial word with the powers that be in favour of the team which at least the noble Lord and I support, and perhaps also in favour of the team which the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, supports, which is a little further away in Sunderland. We can certainly do with some divine intervention at the moment. I hope that the noble Baroness will receive some of that benefit this evening.
I also thank my noble friend on my left, Adonis to the north-east’s Venus, as it were, whose report was clearly very influential in promoting the cause of the region.
Like those who spoke in last week’s debate—by the way, there were not as many from those four combined authorities as there have been speaking today for just this one—I extend a very warm and unreserved welcome to this order and congratulate the seven local authorities and the Government on this important measure. It follows the creation of the Greater Manchester combined authority some years ago, currently chaired by my noble friend Lord Smith of Leigh, under the auspices of the Labour Government’s legislation. It is right for us in the north-east to thank the local authorities in Greater Manchester for successfully blazing the trail for this new approach to sub-regional co-operation and development. I am glad that one of the leaders of Greater Manchester at that time is with us today.
Even in the closest families, sibling rivalry is often present, and elements of such tribalism in the north-east have existed, and perhaps always will. Thirty years ago, I circulated anonymously, via the then leader of Northumberland County Council, a paper calling for the creation of a north of England councils association, to speak for the region. The association, now the Association of North East Councils—since Cumbria was subsequently hived off to the north-west—survives to this day. I fear it would have been still-born if its paternity had been revealed at the time.
Happily, however, the seven local authorities in today’s order have now come together. They encompass five metropolitan authorities and two counties, with a rich history and culture, fine cities and attractive coastline and countryside. It is not quite the desolate and underpopulated area described by one of the Minister’s colleagues last year in some remarks about fracking. The region’s coalfields, shipyards and engineering works have made a huge contribution to the UK economy, and its people yearn to do so again. As we have heard, overseas companies such as Nissan, Hitachi and Siemens recognise what the region has to offer. However, as my noble friend Lady Armstrong has pointed out, sadly British business has too often overlooked its potential, though in Sage and other companies operating in the fields of high-tech and the biosciences, there are companies able to compete in world markets.
Welcome though the new authority and the two City Deals which have been negotiated are, we have to recognise that the region comprising both the combined authority and Teesside has been ill served by the abolition of the successful regional development agency, the closure of the government regional office, and particularly by the appalling cuts in local government funding, still to reach their estimated total of 40% of local council budgets. The local authorities comprising the combined authority have demonstrably suffered from an increasingly unfair distribution of government grant and a skewed allocation of infrastructure investment to other better-off areas. Even as we hear of the HS2 programme, which will not reach the area for decades, we learn that the vastly expensive Crossrail line is to be extended to Reading, another example of the much higher infrastructure investment per head in London and the south-east.
The combined authority, the LEP and its business partners will undoubtedly seek to use their powers to maximise investment in skills, infrastructure and business support. To do that they will need a fair allocation of resources to, for example, improve transport links within the region and sub-region and to the conurbations of Yorkshire and the north-west, and, I hope, to see the dualling of the A1 to Scotland.
However, other resources need to be harnessed. As we have heard, there are four very good universities in the area of the authority, and several FE colleges. They need to be involved in developing the skills of the area’s young and linked ever more closely with industry, translating research into production, as so often our economy has failed to do.
Similarly in health, education, the environment, culture, leisure and welfare there needs to be strategic co-operation within the combined authority area across the public sector, together with the private and voluntary sectors. The Labour Government proposed the concept of Total Place, seeking to look at the totality of public expenditure across an area rather than from the perspective of service or departmental silos. Will the Government revive what seems to be a flagging concept in the combined authority area, and play their part in ensuring local accountability and locally driven programmes to achieve major strategic goals? In this way, we can better meet the social and economic needs of an area and its people suffering from high unemployment. At the same time, through a drive to share services, efficiency savings can be engendered.
Baroness Stowell of Beeston
My Lords, first, I join the noble Lord, Lord Beecham, in welcoming so many noble Lords with genuine knowledge of the area that we are debating today. I certainly welcome the support of my noble friend Lord Bates alongside me today, although he does not have a speaking role, and noble Lords will have to settle for me instead.
I join the noble Lord, Lord Adonis, in congratulating those in the area who have worked hard together on the proposal for the combined authority. I also want to acknowledge at the start how positive, inspiring and exciting I found all the contributions today—until, perhaps, the noble Lord, Lord Beecham, just now. It is important that we all focus on the opportunities for the north-east and the people who live there.
The noble Lord, Lord Adonis, my noble friend Lord Shipley and, perhaps most powerfully of all, my noble friend Lord Wrigglesworth, talked about the importance of the combined authority being an effective collaboration between the councils, the LEP and all the different interested parties in the area. My noble friend Lord Wrigglesworth said that what is really important is the focus on people—that was echoed by all noble Lords who spoke today—and on making sure that the skills are available in the north-east to take advantage of new inward investment. The point was not lost on me. I certainly share that view and am pleased to be part of a Government who are making a great deal of effort to improve the skills of our young people and promote apprenticeships.
I think that it was the noble Baroness, Lady Armstrong, who mentioned the university technical college proposed for that area. She and others referred to the recent commitment of Hitachi to move its global rail HQ to the UK. It is already planning to build a factory in Newton Aycliffe. It is worth noting that Hitachi is one of the key employers supporting a UTC bid which, sadly, failed its first submission but will be resubmitted for the next round, led by Sunderland University. The college, to be based on the Newton Aycliffe business park, would open in September 2016. I very much hope that we will be able to celebrate that soon, because, like other noble Lords, I feel very strongly about the importance of the arrival of UTCs and their role in our education system.
Many noble Lords referred to the name of the new combined authority. The noble Lord, Lord Adonis, mentioned that it was a bit of a mouthful and somebody else said that it did not trip off the tongue. There are a few important points to make about the name of the authority. First, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Scott of Foscote, queried whether the name would create any legal difficulties. The name has been formally consented to by all seven councils, so I think that we can be confident that there will not be any legal difficulties. As the noble Baroness, Lady Armstrong, mentioned, while the councils concerned asked for “north-east” to be included in the name of the combined authority, in response to the consultation some neighbouring local authorities and the Tees Valley local enterprise partnership asked the Government not to include “north-east” in the name for risk of confusion. So we went for the approach that was signed up to by all the local authorities; that is, to list the names that are in the order. However, as I said in my opening remarks and am happy to restate now, it is very much up to the combined authority to decide what it wants to call itself and how it markets itself to the rest of the country and the rest of the world. That is a matter for it.
The noble Lord, Lord Adonis, said that he expected the authority to be called the north-east combined authority. That is a matter for it, but one of the reasons why the Government were keen not to offer that as a name in the order was that we did not want to imply that there is an additional tier of government. I can reassure the noble Lord, Lord Walton, who gave us an important history lesson, that it is certainly not a repeat of what he described. What we are looking for from this combined authority is for those existing local authorities to collaborate and not to introduce a separate, independent layer of government. To the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Beecham, I say that it is most definitely not a replacement for the RDA; it is not a new tier of government.
My noble friend Lord Shipley asked about more powers for combined authorities. Certainly, we would be interested to hear from combined authorities about what more they believe could be done to empower them to deliver economic growth—from today’s debate, we know of the real commitment from people in the area to get behind that clear strategic objective. However, we should be careful as well not to rush to give new or additional powers to combined authorities before they have been able to exercise what they have already been given, so I would not want to commit to something more prescriptive in addition to what exists already.
My noble friend referred also to other areas having a combined authority. As I said earlier, it is very much for local councils to come forward with their proposals for a combined authority. If they do that, we will consider it carefully against the framework that exists.
The noble Baroness, Lady Armstrong, was clear in the points that she raised about transport being a key part of this new entity’s responsibilities. I agree that transport is a key issue and the combined authority will improve the area’s ability to make the case for transport improvements. Overall, though, it is safe for me to conclude that we are in general agreement that establishing this combined authority will support these councils to drive their commitments to deliver growth and prosperity for their area, a priority which should be at the heart of everything that councils across the country do.
We have already made reference to Hitachi. I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Quin, that it should not just be foreign firms that are looking to invest in the north-east. I hope that that will not be the case, and that there will be greater investment from national organisations as well.
I am not going to comment on the House of Lords moving to the north-east, but I will commit to a visit to the north-east myself. I regret that I will not be able to do so on HS2, because it would clearly be a long wait before I got there. However, HS2 will bring benefits to the north-east, and I am told that the rail service patterns have not yet been developed but indications to date suggest that HS2 services going on to the north-east will improve connectivity. I look forward to visiting.
I am grateful to all noble Lords for their support and contributions today.
County Court Remedies Regulations 2014
(10 years, 1 month ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Faulks
That the Grand Committee do consider the County Court Remedies Regulations 2014.
Relevant document: 24th Report from the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments.
The Minister of State, Ministry of Justice (Lord Faulks) (Con)
My Lords, this statutory instrument revokes and replaces the County Court Remedies Regulations 1991—the 1991 regulations. A draft was laid before Parliament on 10 March 2014 and is also being debated in the other place today. Subject to your Lordships’ consideration, the real change that will be made by this instrument concerns the county court’s jurisdiction in respect of applications for freezing orders. A freezing order is an interlocutory injunction that restrains a party in civil proceedings from disposing of or dealing with their own assets before judgment can be obtained or enforced. They are usually sought before proceedings are issued when the claimant fears that the defendant is likely to dispose of assets before proceedings are issued. However, a freezing order may be sought at any time during the course of proceedings and after judgment has been obtained.
The purpose of this instrument is to remove the current limitations that restrict the county court from issuing freezing orders. It will enable the county court to make freezing orders in all cases and enable claimants to make their applications for a freezing order in the court where their substantive cases are being heard. This may be at the High Court or, from 22 April, a county court hearing centre. The Committee will note, however, that the draft regulations do not lift the restrictions that prohibit the county court from granting a search order, which is an order—often known as an Anton Piller—requiring a party to admit another party to premises for the purpose of preserving evidence. The draft regulations therefore retain the current prohibition placed on search orders. The aim of the reform is to rebalance jurisdiction between the High Court and the county court and to make optimum use of judicial resources by widening, where appropriate, the jurisdiction of the county court, while enabling High Court judges to focus on cases that require a greater level of expertise.
Before setting out further details about this instrument and why the Government are taking this action, I will briefly explain some background to the reform. In March 2011, we set out our policy to reform the structure of the civil courts in a series of proposals in the public consultation document, Solving Disputes in the County Courts: Creating a Simpler, Quicker and More Proportionate System. Those proposals were based on some of the recommendations made by Sir Henry Brooke, a retired Lord Justice of Appeal, in his report Should the Civil Courts be Unified?, published in August 2008. The recommendations, which included permitting the county court to grant pre-judgment freezing orders, were aimed at improving the administration of civil justice and providing a more efficient use of judicial resources. In endorsing that recommendation, the Judicial Executive Board, which was chaired by the then Lord Chief Justice, Lord Judge, commented that it would introduce flexibility and obviate the need for technical transfers between the High Court and the county courts. The instrument under consideration today accordingly reflects Sir Henry’s recommendation in this regard.
I will now set out the problem with the current jurisdiction of the courts in relation to freezing orders and why the Government are taking this action. Currently, under the 1991 regulations, the county court’s jurisdiction to make freezing orders is limited to making orders for the purpose of preserving property that forms or may form the subject matter of proceedings, or to preserve assets following judgment, but prior to execution of that judgment.
Those limitations do not apply if the order is made by a Court of Appeal judge or a judge of the High Court sitting in the county court or a mercantile judge in respect of proceedings in the Central London County Court mercantile list. Save in those circumstances, the county court is prohibited from making pre-judgment freezing orders. In all other cases, if a freezing order is required in county court proceedings, the application must be made to the High Court, even though the substantive case is being heard in the county court.
The result is that in county court proceedings where a claimant wants to apply for a freezing order to prevent the defendant from moving or disposing of his assets, the claimant will have to apply to the Chancery Division of the High Court at the Royal Courts of Justice in London, the London Mercantile Court or the nearest local district registry. In doing so, the county court would have to transfer the case to the relevant court to consider the freezing-order application. Once the application is determined, the court will transfer the case back to the county court.
The implication of the current procedure is that claimants—for example, estate agents suing for small amounts of unpaid commission—have either to inundate the mercantile courts with applications for pre-judgment freezing orders or to apply to the Chancery Division of the High Court or a local district registry. That increases the workload of the High Court, which is unnecessary, particularly as the High Court should not be the point of entry for comparatively low-value claims for what could be a simple and straightforward case. Also, those transfers often result in delays not only in dealing with a particular freezing-order application, but in dealing with all cases promptly.
The Government are committed to providing an effective and efficient civil justice system with a flexible judiciary that is deployed in the most appropriate way. In view of the time and costs associated with issuing and allocating freezing-order applications in the High Court and the time taken to transfer the substantive cases, consider them and then transfer them back to the county court and the potential costs to parties, the Government considered that the jurisdiction of the county court to grant freezing orders ought to be extended. It was on that basis that the Government consulted on the proposal in its 2011 Solving Disputes consultation paper. Ninety per cent of respondents, who included legal practitioners, members of the judiciary, judicial bodies and regulatory bodies, were in support, on the basis that only suitably experienced and qualified circuit judges of the county courts should be given the jurisdiction.
In view of that overwhelming support, the Government announced their intention to enable the county court to grant freezing orders in all cases under its jurisdiction. The jurisdiction will be extended to circuit judges who have been nominated by the Lord Chief Justice. Consequently, the statutory instrument before us today gives effect to that commitment by revoking the 1991 regulations and, in doing so, removing the current limitations, to enable the county court to make freezing orders in all cases.
The changes brought by this statutory instrument support the Government’s commitment to an effective and efficient civil justice and courts system. We consider that the current position is disproportionate and that unnecessary costs are incurred. It follows that the current restriction on the county court’s jurisdiction to grant freezing orders constitutes a restriction on access to justice for court users. Consequently, it is our intention to lift those restrictions to broaden the county court’s jurisdiction in this regard to improve access to justice while optimising the use of judicial resources. That would mean that court users can have their freezing-order applications considered in the court where their substantive cases are being heard.
Invariably, this should contribute to a reduction in the volume of transfers from the county court to the High Court and the number of applications considered in the High Court. It would thereby provide efficiency benefits for the courts, since less time and fewer administrative and judicial resources would be needed to allocate these applications and transfer the substantive cases to the High Court. For the same reasons, court users could experience a more streamlined service and a reduction in transfers. As one respondent pointed out:
“Any power to help enforcement is a good move. Having to apply to the High Court often many miles away or in London can be wasteful in costs and time. There is no reason for a Circuit Judge not to deal with these applications”.
I therefore commend these draft regulations to the Committee. I beg to move.
Lord Beecham (Lab)
My Lords, I had anticipated that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Scott, would speak, which would have made me even more the lowest-ranked member of the legal profession to have spoken today, but I defer in any event to the Minister’s legal knowledge and expertise. As already indicated, I have no particular problem with this instrument.
However, it is ironic that the title of the response to the public consultation, which is not in itself a very brief title, is Solving Disputes in the County Courts: Creating a Simpler, Quicker and More Proportionate System. It is ironic because the original report on which the regulations are based was, as the Minister pointed out, published in 2008. It has taken three years from the publication of the response to bring forward the proposals before us today. This seems to be an example of the Bleak House style of legislation: you take an eternity to produce a response. That is not the fault of this particular Government; it seems to me characteristic of the way, perhaps in particular in legal affairs, matters take an inordinate time to be resolved. One thinks of the length of time it takes for any Law Commission report to come forward in the form of legislation. It is something perhaps that the Government could look at.
On the substance of the order, there is no particular problem, but I have just one question to ask about it. To begin with, it struck me that, even if there was an argument about the decision that might be taken by one of the newly appointed circuit judges as opposed to a High Court judge, there is of course in any event a right of appeal, so that those decisions can be challenged. However, I notice that, just four days ago, it was announced that the Supreme Court, following a hearing in the Court of Appeal, will now hear the case of Ablyazov, where the assets frozen amounted to some £40 million—this is not freezing a vehicle or goods; it is a very substantial sum of money. I wonder whether any consideration has been given to a threshold above which it might be expected that a case will still go to the High Court. I am not saying that circuit judges would be incapable of dealing with cases involving £40 million or more, but there might be some questions to be asked about that. Of course, even if people were dissatisfied with an order made by such a judge, there would still be the right of appeal, but I wonder whether consideration was given to some threshold above which a higher court judge might in the first instance be asked to make a determination. That is an aspect that might be kept under review. Subject to that, we would not quibble with the instrument before us.
Lord Faulks
My Lords, I am grateful for the observations from the noble Lord, Lord Beecham, who, as ever, is far too modest about his skill and expertise. On consultation, there was quite a hiatus following the original publication of the Brooke report. The consultation was deep and wide, involving all the appropriate parties—judicial and legal bodies, regulatory bodies, representative bodies, such as civil court users, local authorities, mediation and mediation advocates, academics, citizens advice bureaux, financial organisations, government departments and members of the public. It took a little time for the Government to produce their response, which was published in 2012, but since that time they have taken forward the Brooke recommendations to implement the single county court in the Crime and Courts Act 2013. In the light of the changes being made to the county court as a result of that legislation, we considered that it was appropriate for this and other Brooke recommendations to come into force on the implementation of the single county court.
On the second point made by the noble Lord, Lord Beecham, I think that he may have somewhat misunderstood the purport of this instrument. Of course, it extends the jurisdiction of the county court, but if it is attached to a money claim, the ceiling is £100,000, so that his scenario of £40 million would not come within the county court’s jurisdiction. It is always alarming to freeze a sum of that nature but, if there is a freezing order, as he will know, it may be ex parte originally, but there is always the possibility of the respondent coming back to court to modify, discharge or vary it or to apply exceptions to the order. Therefore, it is not as draconian a remedy as it seems, but it is an essential remedy sometimes to stop the dissipation of assets. The purpose of this extension of jurisdiction is to make sure that that valuable remedy exists whether the claim is £40 million or a much more modest sum. It allows there to be convenience for court users and it gives judges, who will have the necessary training, as wide a jurisdiction as required to enable those who seek to ensure that their assets, which they have a reasonable and proper expectation of recovering, are not frittered away and dissipated without justification. I hope that that satisfies the noble Lord.
Public Bodies (Abolition of the Committee on Agricultural Valuation) Order 2014
(10 years, 1 month ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord De Mauley
That the Grand Committee do consider the Public Bodies (Abolition of the Committee on Agricultural Valuation) Order 2014.
Relevant documents: 34th Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee, 22nd Report from the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Lord De Mauley) (Con)
I welcome this opportunity to introduce the order. It may be helpful if I explain why the Government have proposed to remove the Committee on Agricultural Valuation. The origins of the committee go back more than 60 years to the Agricultural Holdings Act 1948. On repeal of the 1948 Act, the committee’s existence was continued by the Agricultural Holdings Act 1986. The role of the Committee on Agricultural Valuation is to give advice to Ministers about provisions to be included in regulations on tenant-right matters and the amount of compensation for improvements to be paid to tenants at the end of an agricultural tenancy in England and Wales. Ministers are not obliged to take account of the advice of the committee.
There are no current members of the committee and the last time members were appointed was in 1990. It has not functioned for more than 20 years, hence the committee exists in legal name rather than reality. The Tenancy Reform Industry Group, known as TRIG, has provided advice to the Government on agricultural tenancy issues since 2003. TRIG is a non-statutory body, which comprises representatives of the main industry and professional organisations, such as the National Farmers’ Union, the Tenant Farmers Association, the Country Land and Business Association, the Farmers’ Union of Wales, the Central Association of Agricultural Valuers and the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors.
TRIG has not replaced the Committee on Agricultural Valuation and provides advice on a non-statutory basis across the range of tenancy matters, rather than just on end-of-tenancy compensation provisions. However, the existence of TRIG means that it is no longer necessary to retain the legislative provisions for the Committee on Agricultural Valuation to give specific advice on end-of-tenancy compensation matters.
As noble Lords know, the Government have made a commitment to reduce the number of unnecessary public bodies. In July 2010, my right honourable friend Caroline Spelman, then the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, announced proposals to reform a number of departmental public bodies; these included the Committee on Agricultural Valuation. The Public Bodies Act 2011 provides the legislative mechanism for the Government to carry out reform of public bodies. The Committee on Agricultural Valuation is listed in Schedule 1 to the Act. This enables the Minister to lay an order under the 2011 Act to abolish the committee.
In accordance with the requirements of the Public Bodies Act, a consultation was carried out in England and Wales last autumn. Having carefully considered the consultation responses, it is now proposed to repeal the legislation which provides for the Committee on Agricultural Valuation by an order under the Public Bodies Act.
Welsh Ministers have given their consent to the abolition of the committee. A legislative consent Motion was agreed without debate in the Welsh Assembly on Tuesday 1 April. The abolition of the committee has no impact on the ability of agricultural tenants to claim compensation at the end of a tenancy. As the committee is already effectively moribund, its abolition will have no impact on jobs, nor will it result in any savings for the Government. However, it will remove an unnecessary public body from the legislative framework.
I should probably disclose the fact that I am a landlord and have a tenant. I hope that this explanation has been helpful.
Lord Grantchester (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for his explanation of the order. I will make a declaration of interest as a farmer, but I have no tenants.
The Minister can relax and be assured that we are happy to endorse the order. He will forgive me if I delay the Committee for a few moments to ask a few questions for clarification. I appreciate that the committee has not met for over 20 years and that the term of the last appointments to the committee expired in 1993. Its abolition will have no impact on the functioning of agricultural tenancy legislation, especially as most new tenancies are now farm business tenancies under the Agricultural Tenancies Act 1995, for which different legislative arrangements apply for end-of-tenancy compensation.
We also have TRIG, as the Minister explained, set up by my noble friend Lord Whitty, to provide advice to government on agricultural tenancy matters as a non-statutory advisory body. Can the Minister confirm that there have been no costs from this committee’s dormancy and that, therefore, there are no savings to be achieved through this abolition.
In the explanatory document, the results of the consultation on this order were summarised. Notably, the Tenant Farmers Association made comments that the abolition should follow the enactment of the amended Agriculture (Calculation of Value for Compensation) Regulations 1978 agreed by TRIG, which have been with Ministers for some time and need urgent attention. I have no doubt that the Minister would want to bring this forward with any further amendments to the compensation regulations as part of the wider package of tenancy reform to ensure that legislative changes are complementary.
In the consultation, the chairman of TRIG also stated that abolition was supported, provided that TRIG’s proposed amendments to the Agriculture (Calculation of Value for Compensation) Regulations 1978 were enacted. I therefore ask the Minister whether the TFA gave any reasons in its consultation response as to why it felt that abolition should follow enactment of the new regulations. Was it consequential in any way or does it merely reveal frustration that these regulations have not been amended since 1983? Does the Minister have a timeframe in mind for bringing forward these amended regulations?
The Minister has already updated us on the situation in Wales, for which I thank him. Finally, I want to widen our consideration to include understanding the current position of his department under the Public Bodies Act 2011. There was some debate in the other place on this point, but no discussion concerning the money saved, which I understand was to be the main justification for the great burning of the quangos. While this order is a tidying-up exercise, no money will have been saved from the committee’s abolition. Will the Minister update this Committee on how much dead wood has now been burnt, how much has been saved by his department and what further savings may be expected?
I should be happy to receive an answer in writing listing the full names with commensurate cost implications of the quangos that have been abolished or reconstituted as a committee of experts, which are being retained and which are still to be reckoned with. We can then judge what percentage have been burnt and how successful the Public Bodies Bill 2011 has been in its contention to save public money. An outline today would be most appreciated, provided that the Minister will confirm that he will write with a full assessment of the Public Bodies Act on his department. With that, I am content to agree to the order today.
Lord De Mauley
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Grantchester, for his comments, and for his general support of the order to remove the Committee on Agricultural Valuation. As I said, this order removes what is effectively a moribund body that has not met for more than 20 years. Its removal will have no impact on the relationship between agricultural tenants and their landlords. Qualifying tenants will still be entitled to claim compensation at the end of a tenancy, in accordance with the current legislative provisions.
Following recommendations from the Tenancy Reform Industry Group, we will shortly be consulting on changes to the Agriculture (Calculation of Value for Compensation) Regulations 1978, with a view to updating them as part of measures for wider reforms of tenancy legislation. That partly answers the noble Lord’s question, which I shall come back to in a moment. This will ensure that the compensation regulations and other tenancy legislation are brought up to date to provide a modern framework for the future.
The noble Lord asked various questions, the first of which was about savings. I can confirm that there are no savings. This measure is about not savings but tidying-up. Returning to the issue of the order of the various reforms, the abolition of the Committee on Agricultural Valuation is not dependent on amending the compensation regulations. As part of the agriculture theme of the Red Tape Challenge process, my department will be consulting on a number of changes to reform agricultural tenancy legislation. It was felt that it would be more sensible to take forward amendments to the Agriculture (Calculation of Value for Compensation) Regulations 1978, which were proposed by the Tenancy Reform Industry Group, as part of this wider package of tenancy reform. This will ensure that the proposed legislative changes complement one another.
We will be consulting on all proposed amendments to agriculture and tenancy legislation in 2014 with a view to making the changes in this Parliament where the legislative timetable permits. Moreover, as the legislation currently stands, we would be required to reconvene the Committee on Agricultural Valuation to make changes to the compensation regulations. As there are no current members of the committee, it would be time-consuming and would require a public appointment exercise, which would not be cost-effective. We took the view that abolition of the committee should not be delayed but should take place as soon as possible.
The noble Lord asked a more general question about progress on reform of public bodies. We have made good progress on the major reforms. We have been working to reduce the number of bodies from 92 in 2010 to 36 by 2015. So far, we have abolished 50 non-departmental public bodies. There are now only a few bodies still to be abolished and these are mainly defunct or non-operational. We are also making progress on 120 bodies that were due to be retained and substantially reformed. The vast majority of these are internal drainage boards, for which reforms are under way. Substantial reforms have already been made to the Environment Agency and Natural England. On his detailed questions, I will take advantage of his invitation to write to him.
Lord Grantchester
Has the Minister any idea on cost savings to his department under the Public Bodies Bill to date? That would be most helpful.
Lord De Mauley
May I include that in the letter? On that basis, I commend this order to the Committee.
Dogs: Electric Collars
(10 years, 1 month ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what action they intend to take with regard to electric dog collars following the conclusion of their research on the effect of pet training aids.
Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer (LD)
My Lords, I shall concentrate my remarks today on dogs. This issue has quite some history. The last time that this House addressed it substantially was in 2006 with the Animal Welfare Act, when I tabled some amendments. At that time we took a lot of evidence from the police and other serious dog trainers, and none of those serious dog trainers, such as the police, had a good word to say for electric shock collars as a training method, and no force would use them. Nor would any of the other organisations training dogs as help animals, whether for the visually impaired or for the deaf. Nevertheless, after strenuous lobbying from the electric dog collar manufacturers, the then Government resisted a ban.
A few things have changed since 2006. Public support for a ban has grown even stronger; 79% of people would now like to see these things banned. I accept that it might be a bit different in your Lordships’ House, having just had a lively debate over tea with a number of colleagues, but nevertheless 79% of the general public would like to see them banned. Since 2006, Defra has commissioned and completed the research on this issue, on which I congratulate it, and I will mention the conclusion shortly. Since 2006, I have become a dog owner again after a long break. That is relevant to this debate in so far as our dog Beano was the runt of the litter for whom food was of no interest, which made her especially difficult to train.
Why do I see a severe problem with England continuing to allow such things to be used and misused as training aids? As dogs are both the most faithful and the most useful companion animals to man, we feel that we can make great demands on them when it comes to training. Every day in your Lordships’ House, for example, the spaniels are at work keeping us safe as sniffer dogs, while guide dogs guide some of our noble friends. As I mentioned, none of the trainers who train these dogs would dream of using this device. They want and need well trained dogs, that result from positive training and dogs that have a really high level of trust with their handler.
There have been a number of academic studies on this subject. I could quote the 2004 study by Schilder, who found that there were many signs of stress. His conclusion was that the dogs learn that the presence of their owner announced the reception of shocks even outside the normal training context. That demonstrates a lack of trust between dog and handler. I saw for myself a vivid example of the confusion of a dog subjected to an electronic training aid. A small terrier, on the beach where we were walking our puppy in the winter, was attracted by our young puppy and ran towards her. Each time the small terrier approached, his owner zapped him. He screamed and jumped. It was quite clear that he did not understand whether it was our puppy, us or the sea that was the problem but I am sure that he lives in fear of his owner.
In 2006, the arguments against a ban seemed to have two main elements. First, there were livestock concerns. Indeed, the worrying of sheep concerns all of us, and I am as concerned as anybody about that. If we were to think of a real country of sheep in the UK, we might think of Wales. It may surprise your Lordships to know that the Welsh Government banned electric shock collars in 2010. There is no evidence that the Welsh regret this ban. One of the results has been dogs on leads, properly under control—as they should be around sheep. If you imagine the hills of Wales and a dog with an electronic collar on the other side of a hill, it will not even be within range of the zapper. It needs to be on a lead.
Another argument was that a ban would endanger dogs as some owners use collars that prevent the dog leaving their property—say, on to a busy main road. The ban I am suggesting is for manually controlled devices only, not “proximity collars” for those activated by the dog passing a virtual fence line. I agree that the latter have a place and, just as livestock in a field will learn not to approach an electric fence, the dog will learn not to approach that place of danger, such as a road.
The Defra-funded research studies published in 2013 greatly favour the Kennel Club’s and Dogs Trust’s electric shock collar campaign. The first Defra project concluded that there was great variability in how electric shock collars were used on dogs and showed that owners worryingly tended neither to read nor to follow the advice in the manuals. The main conclusion was that there were significant negative welfare consequences for some of the dogs that were trained with electric shock collars in that study. The second study—interestingly, and imaginatively on Defra’s part—was designed with the Electronic Collar Manufacturers Association to make sure that it was fair. It followed all sorts of designs which that association put in place. Yet it concluded that there was still a negative impact on dog welfare.
My noble friend the Minister may say that action following the research is impractical because owners can still get collars from the internet, through the post. That argument does not hold much water because, as I am sure my noble friend will agree, anything that is banned or controlled—whether drugs, firearms, and so on—is rightly banned. Just because you could get them through the post is not a reason for neither controlling nor banning them. Then again, the Minister may feel that guidance to owners is enough already, but the evidence is that many owners are already not reading the manual. Guidance is not amenable to enforcement. You cannot make somebody read a manual; that is really impossible to police and enforce.
I hope that the Minister will be tempted to take some further action following Defra’s research. He may envisage a number of options, and I look forward to hearing them—from an outright ban, for example, to a minimal collar that would allow only a low-grade shock and not something up to six or eight volts. In researching this, I looked up some of the adverts for these collars. You buy the same collar for an extremely small terrier as for a Rottweiler; you simply alter the size of the neck. It gives the same level of shock which, to a small dog, is going to be severe, but I am not arguing that they should continue in any case. Given that the Defra research showed that most people do not read or follow the instruction manual, what does the Minister suggest regarding guidance? With misuse the dog may show absolutely no visible sign of physical hurt. However, given that the Government have declared parity between physical and mental health, and given the Defra research that says that a dog becomes psychologically damaged—and, I contend, in many cases very fearful and cowed—is that an acceptable method of training a dog?
In conclusion, I strongly urge the Government to take action on this. At least two Bills in the other place have called for a ban, both with cross-party support. Such collars are now banned in Germany, Norway, Switzerland, Denmark, Austria, some states of Australia, and, as I mentioned, Wales. Such a ban has widespread public support. There is no argument for their continual use, as we can see from professionals such as the police, who train dogs properly. The Kennel Club and the Dogs Trust, which represent thousands of dog owners, see the efficacy of properly run dog-training classes which result in the sort of effects that owners are trying to get. I therefore hope that this Government will take further action in a positive spirit.
In the end, a decision will not be technical. It will be a political decision based on informed judgment, although at the end of the day it will be a moral decision, such as those taken by those countries that have already chosen to put this ban in place. I therefore hope that the Minister and his colleagues will shortly be able to make a decision on further action.
Lord Scott of Foscote (CB)
My Lords, I regret that I can see no case for any further action being taken with regard to these collars. I declare an interest. I have two dogs; one is a small border terrier, who does not enter into this discussion at all—it has never had a collar put on him and does not need one. The other is something of a cuckoo in the nest. It is the result of a piece of enterprise on the part of one of my granddaughters, who saw an advert in the newspaper which sought a home for a dog. She asked her father—my son; he and she live in Leicester—who said, “No; we’ve got no room”. She then rang us and asked if we would have this dog, and we replied, “No. We’ve got the room, but we don’t want this dog”.
Being a self-willed girl, she then got on the bus, got the dog and brought it home to Leicester. It came down to visit us in north Buckinghamshire; we have lots of room and a largish garden, and it was quite a nice dog, although nothing special. It went back to Leicester with the family, and began to get bigger and bigger—it was a bitch—and eventually, out popped five little puppies. Goodness knows what the father was. The bitch herself was a big mongrel, and the puppies were of a parentage undiscoverable. However, puppies are always lovely, so all the puppies came down to spend weekends with us, and eventually my enterprising granddaughter sold four of them, for £80 each. She is 18 years old and is obviously on her way to becoming an entrepreneur of some sort. They kept the final puppy, which grew and grew, and got bigger and bigger. They could not possibly have it in Leicester as they live in a house in the middle of the town and the puppy needed space. We have the space, so it came down to us as a puppy and stayed with us, and has stayed with us ever since.
It is a very big dog indeed. It has a head and jaws like a Rottweiler, the coat and the demeanour of a Rhodesian Ridgeback, massive feet which suggest that it has mastiff ancestry, and it is a lovely dog with people. It is a beautiful dog, admired whenever anyone takes it for walks by people, who say, “What a lovely dog”. However, the problem is that it is very aggressive towards other dogs. We have consulted dog psychiatrists, who say, “The trouble with your dog is that he regards all dogs, particularly ones that yap at him, as potential prey”. So he deals with them as he would deal with any prey—rabbits are fair game and every now and again he has caught one, though not very often—and when he gets in the way of these little—what is this?
Lord Scott of Foscote
I have had a note that says “One minute left”. I am afraid that I am going to ignore it. This debate is scheduled for an hour.
Baroness Northover
You are speaking in the gap, which is time-limited to four minutes.
Lord Scott of Foscote
I am going to continue with my speech unless I am instructed by the Chair to sit down.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Andrews) (Lab)
I am afraid I have to instruct you, my Lord. It is a rule of the House that speeches in the gap are limited to four minutes.
Lord Scott of Foscote
Well, the upshot is that this dog is controllable by an electric collar. We have an electric wire going around the house and he wears an electric collar that means he gets a bit of a shock if he goes out into the garden, so he does not. That works.
When we take him out for a walk we take that off and put another collar on him. We have a little zapping instrument, and if he shows signs of aggression towards other dogs, which he has done—he has damaged dogs severely, and I have paid vets’ bills for the owners of these dogs that now run into four figures—we start using this collar, which works. He is learning, and is becoming a manageable and controllable dog because of the collar. He is intelligent enough to know that when he gets zapped, he gets zapped. He is beginning to leave other dogs alone now. He is only two years old and a lovely dog, and the notion that I would have to have him put down because of some idiot proposition that any use of collars is bad I find repulsive. I quite agree that any excessive use or misuse is serious, and that would be a criminal offence, but when they are properly used they can render a dog controllable and avoid it being put down.
Lord Geddes (Con)
My Lords, I was delighted that my noble friend Lady Miller excluded the wiring of gardens. It is on that subject that I want to speak, and I will continue so to do, to dissuade my noble friend from ever bringing in a ban on such electric fencing, if I can call it that.
Like the noble and learned Lord, I also speak from personal experience. We have a four year-old working cocker spaniel on whom we put one of these electric collars when she was about nine months old. Our garden is small and is totally ringed, with the exception of one gate, which is relevant to something that I shall say in a minute. It took only about two hours to train her, and no distress whatever was shown. When we take her on a walk, we take off the collar. We have just one gate on to the road that she will go through. The interesting point, and the reason why I mention it, is that the dog will not go near going through the main gate into our property, which is wired—it is for vehicular access—even without the collar on. Four anchors go down and she just stops rigid. It is amazing what training does. That is without the collar on—she has never tried it with the collar on.
The alternative of, let us say, perhaps one or two slight shocks in this very short training period is for a dog to go, as I have written down here, AWOL—absent without leave—causing death or injury to the dog concerned and indeed to others. I illustrate that with my son’s Labrador, some 30 years ago at a different house. Unfortunately, the postman left the gate open when he came to deliver the post. The dog escaped and was hit by a car and fatally injured, causing injury to the driver of the car, not to mention £1500 of damage to it. That just shows what can happen when a dog can get out. As far as I am concerned, the trade-off is between the electric collar to keep the dog in or the risk of injury to the dog and others in a serious accident on a busy road.
Lord Grantchester (Lab)
I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Miller of Chilthorne Domer, for bringing the subject of man’s best friend before us today for debate. I am grateful for the further contributions from the noble and learned Lord, Lord Scott, with his particular experience, and the noble Lord, Lord Geddes, to whom I listened with interest, as I once lent my daughter electric fencing equipment from my farm when she was living in Battersea to keep waif and stray cats from using her garden as their toilet, at great detriment to her children. I listened with interest to the noble Lord’s comments about boundary fencing with that in mind.
I am also grateful to the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals and the Kennel Club for their assessment of the use of electronic training devices. The RSPCA strongly opposes the use of electric collars to train and control dogs and believes that the Government should follow the lead of the Welsh Government and prohibit their use. As the noble Baroness clearly stated, the RSPCA argues that applying the use of aversive stimuli to suppress unwanted behaviour carries a number of risks: most notably, increasing the dog’s fear and anxiety about the situation in which it is used, associating other coincidental events with a fear-provoking event and decreasing its ability to learn. Dogs’ experience of the electronic shock will be affected by their temperament, previous experiences, frequency of application, location of shock, thickness of hair and the level of moisture on the skin.
The Kennel Club has also been campaigning for the ban of electric shock collars, which it believes is a barbaric method of training dogs. Since 1997, electronic shock collars have not been allowed at Kennel Club-licensed events. The Dogs Trust is also against the use of electric shock collars. Instead, it argues that every dog should be trained using kind, fair and reward-based methods.
In her opening remarks, the noble Baroness, Lady Miller, outlined the results of scientific studies. She is correct that numerous studies indicate that electric shock collars can cause a dog to develop behavioural problems, especially increased aggression, and certainly found an association between the use of aversive training techniques and the occurrence of undesired behaviour in dogs.
Electronic collars can pose health risks. There have been reports of physical lesions on the necks of animals caused by high intensity shocks as well as burning and skin irritation. Defra’s code of practice for the welfare of dogs in England specifically states that dog owners should:
“Only use positive reward-based training. Avoid harsh, potentially harmful or frightening training methods”.
Defra-funded research found inconsistencies between manuals included with the purchase of such collars, that there was generally not enough information provided for the inexperienced and that point-of-sale material did not allow sufficient comparison to be easily made between different products.
Currently, no national legislation or regulation covers electronic dog collars. However, in March 2010, under Section 12 of the Animal Welfare Act providing for regulations to promote welfare, passed by the Labour Government in 2006, the Welsh Assembly prohibited the use of electronic collars designed to administer an electric shock to cats and dogs. Defra’s research, conducted in two studies that ended in 2010 and 2011, concluded that the use of such collars can lead to a negative impact on the welfare of dogs.
The noble Baroness is right to press the Government for a response. They have spent £500,000 of scarce resources on research that they initiated. Will the Government now take action to curtail or ban the use of electronic collars? Will they take further steps to encourage dog owners to undertake more positive, research-based incentive training rather than negative e-collars? Have the Government made an assessment of the long-term effects of using such devices on dogs? The Minister may want to comment on the Welsh experience since they brought in their ban in 2010. Perhaps the Minister could also give the Committee an indication of the size of the market in electronic collars and whether there have been further discussions with the Electronic Collar Manufacturers Association.
In 2006, the Labour Government brought forward the Animal Welfare Act. Section 4 says:
“A person commits an offence if an act of his, or a failure of his to act, causes an animal to suffer …and the suffering is unnecessary”.
Section 9 says:
“A person commits an offence if he does not take such steps as are reasonable in all circumstances to ensure that the needs of an animal for which he is responsible are met to the extent required by good practice ... An animal’s needs shall be taken to include its needs to be protected from pain, suffering, injury and disease”.
I quote this at length, because I would like to ask the Minister whether his department has made any assessment of whether the use of electronic dog collars conflicts with this legislation. What considerations have the Government given as to whether suffering could reasonably be avoided or reduced should the use electronic collars be prohibited?
Police dogs, Armed Forces dogs and assistance dogs are never trained using electronic shock training devices. Will the Government now take action on these devices to enforce best practice?
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Lord De Mauley) (Con)
My Lords, I thank my noble friend for securing this debate. Before I get into the detail, it is worth reminding your Lordships, as did the noble Lord, Lord Grantchester, that it is an offence under Section 4 of the Animal Welfare Act 2006 to cause any unnecessary suffering to an animal.
In declaring my interests, I should say that I have been a dog lover all my life. My wife and I now have a particularly wonderful rescue dog which is reputed to be a cross between a poodle and a shih tzu—I leave it to your Lordships to suggest a name for that combination. One of the great pleasures of my current role has been to become well acquainted with our wonderful dog charities, which do such wonderful work.
I will return to the Animal Welfare Act. If anyone has evidence that an animal has suffered as a result of the inappropriate use of an electronic collar, a prosecution under the Animal Welfare Act can be taken forward by any person or organisation; the act is what is known as a common informers Act. My noble friend set out very eloquently her concerns and the concerns of others about the general availability and use of such devices and their potential effect on dogs. These concerns are what motivated my department to commission research into their use and the effect they have on the dogs, because we take dog welfare, like all animal welfare, extremely seriously.
I understand the strength of feeling some people have about the use of such devices, but before introducing a blanket ban on their use, the Government would need to be satisfied that such a ban was in the public interest and could be supported from an animal welfare point of view. The research was published last year and concludes that electronic training aids had a negative impact on the welfare of some dogs, but not all.
Based on the research, we do not believe that the evidence is strong enough to introduce a legislative ban on e-collars. Furthermore, the fact that such training aids are no more effective than other training methods is not a reason to introduce a ban or impose any restrictions. The Government recommend that people use positive methods in the first instance, then consider using these devices when other methods of training have failed, having taken professional advice, for example, from their vet.
I was taken by the argument of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Scott, that without his collar, his dog might have to be put down. I agree with him that it would not be difficult to envisage a situation where a reasonable and sensible person owns a dog which is a danger to no one but itself, for example, because of a tendency to act erratically but not dangerously, which but for its collar would have to be put down.
However, we need to ensure that e-collars are used responsibly and manufactured to a high standard. The reports showed that there is variation in the design and operation of e-collars. Noble Lords may be interested to hear that I have done my own rather unscientific research of these devices, which bore this out. I borrowed two of them and tested them on myself. While one gave me a minor shock which I would certainly not describe as painful, the other when turned up to maximum power certainly gave me quite a jolt. We have asked the industry to work up standards for their design and manufacture to reduce the likelihood of their causing unnecessary suffering due to manufacture or misuse. We are also working with the Electronic Collar Manufacturers Association, which is drawing up guidance for dog owners and trainers advising how to use e-collars properly.
I acknowledge that some owners do not read the instructions, as my noble friend said, and that some electronic training aids can be obtained over the internet from overseas. That is why it is important to get the message out to unwary dog owners who are considering purchasing one of these devices to make sure that they obtain one from a reputable manufacturer, rather than a cheaper alternative which may not be safe or operate properly. Our position is consistent with the 2012 report from the Companion Animal Welfare Council, entitled The Use of Electric Pulse Training Aids in Companion Animals, which concluded that there was no evidence to justify a ban on welfare grounds.
Once again, I thank my noble friend for introducing this debate and conclude by reminding the Committee that under the Animal Welfare Act 2006, it is an offence—the noble Lord, Lord Grantchester, said this—to cause unnecessary suffering to a dog through the use of an electronic collar, or any other means and could be punishable by a fine of £20,000 and/or six months’ imprisonment.
Wales: Economy
(10 years, 1 month ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Morgan of Ely
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what is their assessment of the prospects for economic recovery in Wales.
Baroness Morgan of Ely (Lab)
My Lords, historically Wales has languished economically behind the rest of the UK for generations. Following the boom years of the coal era, harsh reality struck in the 1970s and 1980s when communities across the country were devastated by the loss of big industry—coal and steel, in particular. Wales has taken a long time to readjust to the new world, but at last we are seeing really positive signs of growth. That growth is currently outstripping the rest of the UK thanks in large part to a completely different approach in Wales using direct intervention—good, old-fashioned Keynesian economics by the Welsh Government. We moved to plan B rather than sticking to Osborne’s plan A for as long as he did and we are reaping the rewards quicker.
Rather than declaring a war on Wales the Conservatives should be looking to emulate the success of the Welsh Government on the economy. Unemployment rates in Wales have been tumbling, with the unemployment rate in Wales now lower than in England, Scotland and Northern Ireland. Can you believe it?
Lord Thomas of Gresford (LD)
What does the noble Baroness mean by a war on Wales? Who is supposed to be waging a war on Wales?
Baroness Morgan of Ely
It is pretty clear that there have been attacks and noises coming from Ministers, such as Grant Shapps, for example, who visited Wales and said that the Government are using Wales as a battering ram ready for the next general election.
Plan A by the UK coalition Government in large part has cut and cut public services white crossing their fingers in the hope that the private sector will take up the slack. The Welsh Government have deliberately taken a different approach and intervened in stimulating economic growth through a number of measures, standing by the struggling private sector in maintaining jobs through the tough times of the recession, stimulating economic activity through maintaining Welsh Government investment in infrastructure, and developing an aggressive approach to stimulating inward investment and boosting an export drive.
These measures are now paying off, which is, I suggest, the main reason why Wales is coming out of the recession quicker than other parts of the UK. The unemployment rate in Wales is now 6.7%, lower than the UK average of 7.2%, a 20% reduction in the past year. Despite the fact that there has been a 31% cut in real terms to the Welsh capital budget between 2009 and 2016, the Welsh Government have reserved £1.3 billion of investment in capital funding to improve Welsh infrastructure—more money for transport, housing and flood defences.
Wales will be one of the first countries in the world to ensure superfast broadband for 96% of properties. In England the figure is 90%. Upon completion, Superfast Cymru will make Wales the most connected country in Western Europe. Inward investment in Wales has increased by 200% and produced 7,000 new jobs. Who knows, though, what impact the ambivalent attitude of the Tory Government towards EU membership will have on inward investment in future?
One of the first things that the coalition Government did on coming to power was to scrap the Future Jobs Fund. Wales reacted by creating its own Jobs Growth Wales plan, which has created 11,000 job opportunities for unemployed 16-24 year-olds in Wales. However, while I think it was right for the Welsh Government to concentrate on unemployment because it is the key to better health, better education and better outcomes overall, we are still struggling in terms of wealth. Wales is still poorer relative to the UK as a whole, but the Welsh economy is growing at 1.6%, one of the fastest rates in the UK. The problem is that we are starting from a low base.
We need to continue our focus on driving up GDP levels, a much tougher task. This is about what kind of jobs we have in Wales and encouraging the export of Welsh goods. The Damocles sword hanging over the Murco oil refinery could reduce our export figures significantly. The oil refineries in Milford Haven are critical to the Welsh economy. The Valero refinery alone is responsible for 25% of all Welsh exports. So the closure of any refinery would not just have a devastating impact on employment in the area, but would have a disproportionate impact on Welsh GDP figures. I know that the Welsh Government are doing everything in their power to try to save the refinery. What is the Secretary of State doing to help to find a buyer for the plant? The Welsh Government have developed a programme of support that identifies and helps to build companies’ capacity to export. This is already paying dividends, with an increase of 11% in exports compared with a rise of just 0.4% for the rest of the UK.
Central to improving GDP is the need to build the skills of the Welsh people and to upskill the workforce, ensuring a good stream of graduates. Despite the fact that some Conservative MPs have suggested that applications to universities from people living in Wales are down, the truth is that when the Tory-led Government trebled tuition fees there were 42,000 fewer applications from English students while in Wales there was a fall of just 100. That was because the Welsh Government stood by students from Wales, capping the fees at £3,000. Welsh apprenticeships have seen completion rates rise from 54% in 2006 to 85% in 2012, beating England’s 73% completion rates. Some 90% of these have gone on to find sustained employment or engage in further learning.
There needs to be a particular focus on developing skills in the engineering sector, which will be key to the economic growth prospects of Wales in future. The Royal Academy of Engineering has suggested that there are 95,000 Welsh people who declare themselves as being engineers; 30% of those are over 50 years old and yet only 1,500 applicants were accepted on to engineering courses in 2012-13.
Given the profile of the engineering workforce in Wales, there are not enough young people coming through the system to replace the ageing workforce. That will ultimately result in skills shortages and we will have to recruit from outside Wales. A deliberate focus on that and on driving up the pool of those able to enter the field through better results in maths in school is imperative. Again, the Welsh Government’s focus on numeracy in schools should help with that.
The gap between Wales and London has now become a gulf. Although that has certain advantages in terms of the costs of living in house prices and childcare costs in Wales compared to London and the south-east, the coalition Government need to demonstrate to the country that they are in touch with the pressures that are still being felt outside the M25. We have not seen much evidence of that. The measures that they have taken to stimulate the economy have exacerbated the situation rather than helped it, as evidenced by research by the Centre for Cities, which recently suggested that for every public sector job created—yes, created—in London, two have been lost in other cities. The Help to Buy scheme has undoubtedly helped to cause a housing bubble in London, causing huge resentment outside the capital, where people watch as those who have already bought watch their wealth grow with no effort. That is not help for hard-working people; it is the luck of the draw on where and when you bought a property. It is also unsustainable in the long term.
In December, the UK Government announced their £375 billion infrastructure spending plan for the next two decades. If Wales were to get its 5% share, we should see £18.7 billion of investment coming to Wales. We know that the Wales Office boasts of £2.5 billion of investment that will come to Wales, but I ask the noble Baroness where and when we will see the rest of it and what we can do to speed up spending of the investment already promised. Will we see any of the infrastructure promised by the UK Government delivered during this Parliament?
Wales is absolutely on the right track in terms of the prospects for economic recovery, but more needs to be done to ensure that the two arms of government at UK and Welsh level co-ordinate their efforts to reduce the gap between Wales and London. That means more economic intervention from the UK Government and a more proactive regional approach further to stimulate the Welsh economy and to cool down the overheating that is occurring in London. I ask the Minister to ask her Government to stop the war on Wales and engage in more constructive politics with the Welsh Government. England could learn from Wales on the economy; and, yes, on aspects of education and health, Wales could and should learn from England.
Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth (Con)
First, I congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Morgan of Ely, on securing this important debate. I agreed with some of what she said, although I must say that she often exemplifies a creationist approach to politics, as if nothing had ever happened before the Conservative victory and the alliance with the Liberal Democrats in 2010. There were, of course, deep historic problems with the Welsh economy well before 2010. We can understand the challenge only if we consider the historic position of Wales. Wales has had problems of poverty, particularly in west Wales and the valleys well before 2010. Nor is it just about employment, important though that is.
Let me say something about GVA, because that has been an historic problem in west Wales and the valleys, in particular. It has been falling for some time. It was falling well before 1997 and continued to fall until the present. That remains a massive problem with the loss of heavy industry. We have seen the growth of the service sector, which is significant, with employers such as Admiral Insurance, which is in the FTSE 100—our only FTSE 100 company. That is concentrated in south-east Wales. There is Moneysupermarket in north-east Wales, and there are iconic brands, such as Airbus. Much is going on in Wales that is very good.
It is true that the position on employment in Wales is healthy. Unemployment is falling fast and we have a good story to tell. Of course, the noble Baroness did not say that that is also true of England, Scotland and Northern Ireland: it is falling there too, despite the predictions of the Labour leader that we would have 1 million extra unemployed through the recession. We are no longer in a recession; it is not that Wales is coming out of the recession more quickly than elsewhere; we are all out of recession. That is an important point to make. It is the position in the whole of the United Kingdom that unemployment is falling and continues to fall. Nor are the economic levers just with Wales; they are also with Westminster. One thing that was stressed in Silk II—I declare an interest as a member of the Silk commission—was the importance of partnership between Westminster and Wales. I think that we would all subscribe to that, because there are things that have to be done together.
I think that it is fair to say that this coalition Government have pushed things forward where they were not pushed forward by the previous Government. For example, rail electrification, announced first to Cardiff and then to Swansea, had not been tackled by previous Governments—and certainly not by the previous Labour Government under either Prime Minister Blair or Prime Minister Brown at a time when we had more resources. That project is very good news. I know from first hand that the Prime Minister took a great personal interest in it, not least because he travelled to Swansea and recognised the difficulties of that journey and how important it was for Wales to improve on it.
Let us look at the recent Budget. There are many things that successive Budgets have done to help Wales. Successive Budgets from the coalition Government have seen 155,000 people in Wales taken out of tax altogether. In the most recent Budget, which I think has been widely welcomed, the cost of energy has come down, which is good news for Wales.
The noble Baroness mentioned, and I agree with her, the problems at Murco—I declare my interest as chair of the Haven enterprise zone, which includes Murco as our second most significant employer after Valero, also mentioned by the noble Baroness. That situation exemplifies the need for a partnership between Westminster and Wales to save those vital jobs. They are vital for Pembrokeshire, but the whole of that plant is vital for the United Kingdom, as the noble Baroness rightly said. We have lost Coryton. Given the problems of energy security, which have been exemplified and thrown into high relief by the situation in Ukraine, we need concerted action from both Governments to save those jobs. I have contacted the Department of Energy and Climate Change, which would perhaps be more central to this matter even than the Wales Office, to see what it is doing. I look forward to what the Minister has to say in that regard.
So, much that has been happening in Wales is good. There are historic problems and there is some good news that has been brought forward by this Government. I also welcome the news on Wylfa B and look forward to hearing what the noble Lord, Lord Wigley, has to say on that, because I think that he would take a personal interest in it, being from north Wales. I think that all parties, notwithstanding perhaps some difficulties on their policy stance on nuclear energy, have got behind that project and said how important it is. That, too, is something for which the Government deserve credit.
It has not been a question of waging war on Wales; I do not recognise that. That is certainly not the way in which the Prime Minister and the Chancellor have approached Welsh issues. From the referendum held in 2011, which I think was successful from all our points of view, to the commitment to look at Barnett when circumstances make that easier to tackle and a general approach to devolution and other issues in Wales, this Government have a lot to be proud of. Yes, there are historic issues that need addressing, but that is best done in a spirit of partnership. We would do well to recommend that approach to others in another place and at the other end of the M4—a phrase I hate, but it seems to exemplify the correct wording in this regard.
Baroness Gale (Lab)
My Lords, I congratulate my noble friend Lady Morgan of Ely on securing this debate. Since the advent of devolution in 1999, Wales has seen many changes. One big change was the election of so many women—it was the first time in the history of Wales that such a number had been elected—with women Cabinet members holding important portfolios and providing good role models for the women of Wales.
How does this have an effect on the economy of Wales, with women being generally lower paid than men and more likely to be working part time, and with so few women at the top table? Women in all walks of life in Wales are undervalued. The recent report from the Equality and Human Rights Commission in Wales, Who runs Wales? A Lost Decade—No Change shows that Wales remains a country where those taking the major decisions that impact on everyone in Wales are overwhelmingly men. What is needed is better representative decision-making in all walks of life, at both the Wales and the UK level. Organisations, especially business and industry, are not using all the talents of Wales. There are so many women who could, if they were allowed, play a big role in driving the economy of Wales.
I was therefore pleased to see that the Welsh Assembly has recently established a cross-party group which will consider new research on women and the economy. It will be looking at several things, such as gender segregation, career progression, the under-utilisation of women’s skills in the Welsh economy, the under-representation of women in business, and modern working practices. That is really important if the aim is to use all the talents that we have in Wales. Women can, and want to, play their full part in the economic life of Wales. The findings of the group will, we hope, find a way forward for women and for Wales. Are any similar initiatives being carried out by the UK Government?
I will now consider some of the measures that the Welsh Government are carrying out to improve the economy of Wales, despite the fact that the cuts made by the UK Government have put the brakes on economic growth in Wales. Those unprecedented cuts mean that, by 2015-16, the Welsh budget will be nearly £1.7 billion lower in real terms than it was in 2010-11. To combat that, the Welsh Government have made the Welsh economy their top priority. As the First Minister, Carwyn Jones, said at the Welsh Labour Party Conference in Llandudno recently:
“There is now unquestionable evidence to show that as a direct result of Welsh Labour policies and intervention and our drive to sell Wales to the world—the Welsh recovery is well underway and in Wales, we are now well placed to take full advantage of any economic upturn … Wales is good place to do business … That is why Wales beat competition from England and Scotland to host the first Pinewood Studio outside London—an investment that will help bring 2,000 new jobs to Wales—recognition that we are now world leaders in creative industries”.
The new 180,000 square-foot studio facility in Cardiff is set to generate an estimated £90 million spent on Welsh business.
Another initiative that my noble friend mentioned is Superfast Cymru; she gave all the figures on that. It should reach completion by spring 2016. That would be a further boost to efforts to attract inward investment.
Unemployment is now lower in Wales than in the UK, and that is to be welcomed. Youth unemployment is also below the UK average, with a 22.5% reduction in the number of 16 to 17 year-olds without work in Wales over the past year, compared with a drop of just 1.2% in the rest of the UK—figures that clearly evidence that the Welsh Government’s policies are working for Wales and that they are stronger than in the rest of the United Kingdom. The Welsh Government have a good record of using all the economic levers at their disposal to encourage economic growth and support opportunities for inward investment and job creation in the Welsh economy
Wales is a small country with big ideas. The Welsh Government are working hard with business and industry to improve the lives of Welsh people. It would be good if the United Kingdom Government could stop criticising Wales and perhaps work in a more constructive way than they have been recently. Working together in partnership would be to the benefit of Wales and the whole of the UK. Perhaps we would then see an even better improvement in the economy of Wales.
Lord Thomas of Gresford
My Lords, I, too, congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Morgan, on obtaining this debate. Perhaps it is a good thing that it is limited to the Welsh economy, because it would be dangerous for her to refer, for example, to the National Health Service in Wales. The noble Baroness, Lady Gale, has just referred to the Welsh Labour Party conference in Llandudno. In his speech to that conference the First Minister, Mr Carwyn Jones, said that there were “difficult truths” about the NHS in Wales, and that examples of poor care in Welsh hospitals were unacceptable. He conceded that there was complacency at the top of local health boards, and said that Labour Ministers must “hold up” their,
“hands and say, yes we could have done better”.
We sometimes seem to be living in a different country when I hear the Welsh Government praised. The debate might also have been about the state of Welsh education, on which topic in the same speech Mr Jones had no answers but said that the schools system had “coasted” for too long. We once thought we led Britain in educational attainment, but the reality today is that we have fallen too far behind.
What was the First Minister’s answer to these criticisms? To declare that any criticism of his Government was the work of a Tory elite waging war on Wales. Labour, he said, was on the front line of the war on Wales. How pathetic is that, and how disappointing to hear that empty rhetoric, that newspaper headline, being used in this House? I have to say that it causes me great dismay.
The Welsh economy is in need of serious overhaul. The Welsh Labour and Labour-Plaid Administrations in Cardiff Bay have not placed enough emphasis on equipping Wales with the infrastructure and the skills necessary to compete globally. The economy has serious longstanding structural problems. There was a time when Wales attracted inward investment from foreign countries on the basis of low labour costs and low land costs, but that was not sustainable and it is no longer a unique selling point for Wales, nor should it be.
Transport infrastructure is of course crucial. In government, the Liberal Democrats pressed for the electrification of both the Great Western main line as far as Swansea and the totality of the valley lines. The decision has now been taken with the support of the Prime Minister, as my noble friend said. However, it now appears that the Welsh Labour Government are reneging on their financial undertakings to support that development.
What about the rest of Wales? Money is certainly promised for a new line for the M4 motorway across the Gwent levels and relief for the Newport tunnels, but in north Wales, plans to dual the railway line between the two vital business hubs of Chester and Wrexham and their surrounding industrial areas have been scrapped, while we can whistle for the electrification of the north Wales rail line, which carries freight to Ireland. That line is not part of the strategic freight network at all.
An excellent survey was published last weekend by the Welsh policy unit of the Federation of Small Businesses. It accepts that the British economy is recovering: 14% fewer of its Welsh members identify the economy as a barrier to growth than in its previous survey in 2011. However, the comparison in the survey between the views of their members in Wales and those of their members in the rest of the UK is revealing. Significantly, more businesses in Wales are concerned about the cost of finance, and indeed of obtaining finance at all, to expand and develop their enterprises and create more jobs. We would look for a creative solution to that from the Welsh Labour Government, but there is none. Businesses, it appears, are hit by higher business rates than in England, which, with falling rental values, leads to the dereliction of so many of our towns across Wales, as we know as Welsh people.
There is also great concern in the business community about the provision of fast and reliable broadband access. Our digital infrastructure, which should allow business to grow and compete in a global market, is not developed in Wales. We have languished at the bottom of the UK league tables for broadband speeds for years, and we have suffered with a lower proportion of households able to access broadband than any other part of the UK. I wait to hear what is the new initiative to which the noble Baroness, Lady Morgan, referred, to see what it produces or whether the Welsh Government will be holding their hands up again on that issue.
Many employers are concerned about the low skill levels in Wales, which affect productivity and are a source of competitive disadvantage. Basic skills attainment is lower in Wales than across the United Kingdom as a whole and 4% lower than in Scotland. Higher skills attainment is 3% lower than across the United Kingdom and 7% lower than Scotland. Wales is lagging behind. Where is the wonderful improvement to which the noble Baroness, Lady Morgan, referred?
Taking the point of the noble Baroness, Lady Gale, Labour is allowing Wales to fall behind with regard to childcare. It has been said that 1 million women are missing from the United Kingdom workforce, because it does not make sense financially to go back to work. That is even more so in the case of Wales. The Family and Childcare Trust’s annual childcare survey of 2014 showed that childcare costs in England are falling in real terms for the first time in 12 years, while in Wales the cost of nursery care for under-twos has increased by nearly 12%. So there is a massive agenda—
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
The noble Lord’s time is up. This is a time-limited debate to 60 minutes. We can have a brief intervention, but my noble friend needs to conclude his remarks.
Baroness Morgan of Ely
Will the noble Lord comment on the fact that average costs of childcare in Wales are 10% lower than in England in every segment of care from under-twos to after-school clubs. So there is propaganda in his comments that is absolutely not true.
Lord Thomas of Gresford
I am quoting the Family and Childcare Trust’s 2014 survey. In conclusion, there is a massive agenda for the Welsh Government to tackle, but the truth is that the Labour Administration is failing not just the Welsh people but the whole concept of devolution for which we fought.
Lord Wigley (PC)
My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Morgan of Ely, for facilitating this debate. I share many of her concerns, particularly those regarding European Union uncertainty. However, I admit that I do not recognise other aspects of the Wales that she describes.
The economy of Wales is still, sadly, the poor relation of the UK. Back in the 1960s Wales had a GDP standing at 92% of the UK average. The GVA per head, today’s measure, has Wales down at 72.3% of the UK—the lowest of any nation or region in the UK. London has a GVA of more than £37,000 per year, Wales under £16,000 per year. This decline is a devastating indictment of the failure of public policy over that period.
Before any noble Lord rushes in to castigate our National Assembly and the Welsh Government, I will point out that much of this decline occurred before 1999 and most of the economic tools are in the hands of the UK Government. Under successive Governments this decline has sadly continued. Incidentally, many of us in Wales are indeed getting sick to the back teeth of some Tory politicians, and the right-wing London media in particular, constantly talking Wales down. The truth is that the polarisation between the haves and have-nots among the UK nations and regions has worsened over recent years. The most recent years for 2012 show the GVA of south-east England increasing by 2.5% and that of Wales, as has been mentioned, by only 1.6%. So the gap is still widening.
The main factor in the GDP or GVA disparity a generation ago was the low activity rates in Wales. Wales was then some 6% behind the UK average. This has changed over recent years and that is to be welcomed. Wales now has an employment rate of 71%, closing in on the UK’s level of 72.3%, yet, sadly, the youth unemployment figures, if one looks at the past three years, not just the past year, have risen five-fold in Wales. That is not acceptable.
In Wales, the inactivity rate has decreased to 23.7%—again, something to be welcomed—lower than the north-east, the north-west and the East Midlands of England and of Northern Ireland, yet still our GVA figures are low. The explanation is the poor quality of so many of the new jobs in Wales. Too many are at the rock bottom of wage levels and many are part-time, zero-hour contracts. This is as much a problem in rural Wales as it is in the old industrial valleys. The two worst blackspots in terms of average wages being below living wage levels of £7.65 an hour are Dwyfor Meirion in north-west Wales, with 39.9% of its workers below a living wage level, and the Rhondda at 39.7% below a living wage level.
Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth
My Lords, against that background we have perhaps all been overcritical of politicians here, so does the noble Lord welcome the fact that the Secretary of State is hosting a job summit in west Wales, talking to local government and local employers to see what the Wales Office can do to help?
Lord Wigley
I welcome initiatives taken by anyone to improve the situation in Wales. To that extent, it is not a party political question; it is a crisis facing all the people of Wales, particularly those on low incomes.
In total, 23% of Welsh workers are below the living wage level. Surely all working people in Wales should receive a living wage. We need to generate jobs paying top-level salaries and wages, not just at the bottom, and public policy must be geared to achieve that. To my mind, one of the worst decisions in recent years was that of Rhodri Morgan to abolish the Welsh Development Agency. I very much regret that that was supported by all parties in the National Assembly, including my own, and including by the noble Lord, Lord Bourne. Even if the WDA cannot be re-established, the Government of Wales should look seriously at the proposal put forward last month by Plaid Cymru, and endorsed by the Federation of Small Businesses, to establish a private sector-led body to identify investment opportunities for EU funds. There is a real danger of EU strategic funds being squandered by successive Governments on projects that do not produce self-regenerative economic growth.
There is a pressing need for much higher capital investment projects, and in that context I include Wylfa—very much so—the M4 link road and the electrification in the south of Wales but also through to Holyhead. Given the Assembly’s limited borrowing powers at present, it is to be welcomed that there is a development in the legislation coming before Parliament but it will be years before it is fully developed if we have to wait for yet another referendum for it to be approved. It is ridiculous that the limited tax-varying powers in the Government of Wales Bill should need a referendum. Why can the Government not take such decisions without running for a plebiscite cover on the most trivial change? If the Government justify themselves on the basis that the Silk recommendations called for that, why ignore the Silk proposal to break free of the lockstep constraint on those tax changes? We also need a public sector development bank in Wales, as they have in Germany, to support small businesses that are neglected by the high street banks.
To secure economic recovery, Wales needs a business-friendly Government with a commitment to the specific needs of Wales, who are not driven either by a statist bureaucratic dead hand or by the perennial prerequisite of protecting the City of London at every turn. The domination of the UK economy by London has gone on for too long. For the sake of Wales, and indeed many regions of England, we need new thinking on that matter, and we need it urgently.
Lord Griffiths of Burry Port (Lab)
My Lords, I, too, am grateful that this debate is being held. I came into the House of Lords 10 years ago and shared an office with the noble Lord, Lord Leitch. I did not see much of him for the first three years of the co-use of my office because he was fronting some research for the then Chancellor of the Exchequer into our skills base and the need for skills appropriate for the evolution of our economic needs over the next 10 years. The Leitch report was published shortly after that.
Skills have been mentioned in the debate, and I am sure that any improvement in the Welsh economy will depend on our having a skills base that is equal to the task. One contributing body to the improvement of skills that I prize almost above all others is the realm of higher and further education. Since the secession of Cardiff from the University of Wales and the break-up of the university as I knew it when I was a student there, the fragmentation of provision in the realm of higher education is to be regretted. I am fearful that Wales will replicate England in having a capital city in the south-eastern corner, hoovering unto itself much of the energy and resource that should be spread more widely across the Principality. As I look at what is left after we take Cardiff out of the equation, I see a little constellation of higher education institutions: in Denbigh, which I believe is struggling, and in Bangor, Aberystwyth and of course Swansea. However, my interest is particularly focused on south-west Wales. The need to take a look at Wales as a whole and to see the needs and interests of people across the Principality is essential in any view that one takes of economic development in Wales.
I commend something that is happening in the realm of further and higher education in west Wales. What was that region left with after the fragmentation of the University of Wales? There is St David’s College Lampeter, Trinity College Carmarthen and little else, although they happen to be the two most ancient higher education bodies in Wales. I myself once taught at the university at Lampeter and am now a fellow there. I have watched with great interest the successive efforts to put something together in the south-west corner of Wales that might respond to present-day needs. I see that it is now called Trinity St David—its name changes every other year, but I think I am up to date at the minute—with a campus in London for the study of business and related subjects. I visited it and talked to the people there with great interest. However, from August of last year, in addition to Trinity College Carmarthen, which was a teacher-training college, and the old liberal arts university at Lampeter, Swansea Metropolitan University joined, as did Coleg Sir Gâr. That brings together further education, a range of vocational qualifications and curricular studies, which makes the whole thing a very exciting body—in potential, at least. Across the two previously differentiated sectors of further and higher education, it can bring together and harness cross-fertilisation from engineering, beauticians and agriculture. It has a large farm, with lots of livestock and so on. The college no longer appoints a principal but appoints an entrepreneurial businessman. That is what is happening in higher education across the board, as survival becomes the name of the game.
As I look at south-west Wales, I think to myself, “That could be a sort of panic move to hold on to something at all costs and to cobble together something that might not work”, and that remains a possibility. However, at the same time it could be an innovative thing. Under the genius of Dr Medwin Hughes it could be a suggestion that provides a model of good practice that could be replicated elsewhere in the United Kingdom—bringing these sectors together, having them capable of looking to each other’s interests and developing each other’s skills. I therefore see in south-west Wales the possibility of providing skills in close communion with the local employment agencies, bodies and personnel, which I find very welcoming. I now know that we owe the electrification of the rails as far as Swansea to the Liberal Democrats. I urge them to use whatever authority they have, or imagine they have, in the Government to get the electrification taken further into west Wales, because that would help greatly. Infrastructure simply has to be provided now so that those welcome developments can flower and contribute materially to the well-being of the region in question.
I therefore just hold up the model of good practice, or at least I hope it will turn out—I really do—to be a model of good practice for south-west Wales. I urge Her Majesty’s Government to do all that they can, in the partnership that we heard spoken of in Silk 2, to contribute to the well-being of a distant part of the Principality, but which is as important to a view that we take of Wales as any other.
Lord Rowe-Beddoe (CB)
My Lords, I, too, thank the noble Baroness, Lady Morgan, for this debate. I wish to place on record my regret that at times it lapsed into political partisanship. In my opinion, the topic that we are debating is far too important to have snide political fights about. I declare three interests that have significant economic impact. One is the Welsh Millennium Centre, the second is the Royal Welsh College of Music and Drama and the third is Cardiff Airport.
In Wales, as we have heard, unemployment is lower than the UK average, at 6.7% versus the UK average of 7.2%. The private sector is growing, youth unemployment is falling and the Welsh economy as a whole is growing. However, there is still much ground to make up because, as has been mentioned today, what we are seeing is all coming off an unacceptably low base. Wales is still bottom of the UK GVA table and, given my passion and commitment to our country—and the same goes for all noble Lords in this Room today—I say that we have to climb that table, and fast. Let us not forget that we have done so in the past.
In many ways, the opportunity and challenge at the macro level is mirrored at Cardiff Airport, which will be the focus of my contribution today. In my current role there, I have witnessed over the past 12 months the enormous potential that exists at the airport as part of a strong and vibrant aerospace enterprise zone, and it will play a significant role in the economic recovery in Wales. We have seen growth in passenger numbers—a mere 9% in the first 12 months but, like the Welsh economy, that started from a low base.
The impact of the airport on the regional economy is multifaceted and complex. First, the airport is a major employer in its own right. Taking into account the world-class British Airways maintenance, repair and overhaul facility, the airport supports over 1,600 full-time equivalent posts. Incidentally, that decision by British Airways to locate in Cardiff was taken in the early 1990s by the late Lord Marshall of Knightsbridge, and British Airways has never regretted it. Yet this direct employment is just the first part of the story. The second is that with the indirect and induced employment across a range of sectors, when combined with the direct employment, evidence now suggests that the airport has a total operational impact of 2,600 jobs. This equates to an overall GVA impact in excess of £90 million.
There is a third part of the story. When we look beyond the perimeter of the airport fence, we can see that it has a wider, catalytic effect on the regional economy. While this is much harder to quantify, the evidence suggests that inbound tourism alone adds a further £50 million to the Welsh economy when its own indirect and induced factors are taken into account. All this from an airport that carries only 1.1 million passengers—fewer than 10 years ago, when it carried over 2 million.
The final part of the story is where there is potential for the airport, as it grows, to contribute significantly more: the enterprise zone. We have already seen examples across the UK, such as in Manchester and Newcastle, of airports now serving as mini-cities and economic hubs in their own right. This potential exists in Wales. We are fortunate to have the St Athan-Cardiff Airport Enterprise Zone, which is already attracting investment and new jobs. The zone has a vision for Wales to truly establish itself as a global leader in the aviation and aerospace sectors. This is no pipe dream. Many noble Lords know about BAE, GE engine maintenance, BA avionics and so on. We have a vital supply chain in the aerospace industry but I never hear anyone talk about it. It is a very strong part of Wales, and these are not low-paid jobs. In the north and the south, this industry is operating and growing effectively and there is much more to be done.
I will say two more things before I sit down. I am sick to death of the Barnett formula. I sat on your Lordships’ Select Committee under the previous Government. We have underfunded Wales for 30 years. The noble Lord, Lord Barnett, if he came into this Room, would say exactly the same, but it is always kicked off into the long grass. Now we wait for something else. Whichever Government are in power, we never get our fair share.
Finally, war has a few outcomes: victory or defeat. Do we want to have war? Would it not be better to have a truce and move towards real partnership—partnership between Cardiff and London?
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Wales Office (Baroness Randerson) (LD)
My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Morgan, for securing the debate today on this important issue. I have to remark on the change of rhetoric from the Opposition. A year ago, when unemployment was still higher in Wales and the statistics were not so good, we discussed this issue and the Labour Party told us that it was all the UK Government’s fault that Wales was lagging so badly behind. Now that unemployment in Wales has fallen and there are signs of recovery, which we would all welcome strongly, of course, the rhetoric from the Benches opposite is that this recovery is due entirely to the Welsh Government: the UK Government bear no responsibility for it at all.
The truth of the matter, as all noble Lords actually know, is that we all strongly welcome the fact that Wales is at last starting to catch up. Several noble Lords have referred to the fact that the problems with the Welsh economy have existed for many decades, and GVA—to which the noble Lord, Lord Wigley, referred—has been a persistent problem as it has declined over the years. These are not sudden problems and it is absolutely clear that there are levers in the hands of the Welsh Government, but the macroeconomic levers of course remain with the UK Government. It would be helpful if the noble Baroness took some of the advice of the noble Lord, Lord Rowe-Beddoe, and adopted a more open-minded approach to this.
The truth is that, since 2010, the UK economy has gone from rescue to recovery. Wales is now in a great position to take advantage of this. The economy is growing and, as the Chancellor outlined in the Budget, Wales is growing faster than forecast, as is the UK. We are now growing faster than Germany, faster than Japan and faster than the US. I remind the party opposite that it claimed that none of this growth would be possible if the coalition Government continued to take the difficult decisions to deal with the deficit. It predicted disaster, and disaster we have not seen.
I will refer to one or two issues relating to employment. It should be emphasised that since the end of the first quarter of 2010, employment in the private sector in Wales has increased by 114,000. Over the past quarter alone, private sector employment increased by 12,000. Although there has been, as the noble Baroness said, a decline in the number of people employed in the public sector, that decline has been proportionately very much lower than in the rest of the UK and has been very significantly outstripped by the number of jobs created in the private sector.
Reference was made to youth unemployment, which of course seriously worries us all, but youth unemployment was a long-standing problem in Wales. It rose by 74% under the previous Government. It is therefore hugely welcome that the youth claimant count was down by 3,500 in the most recent statistics in February last year. Once again, there appears to be a better picture.
The noble Baroness, Lady Gale, referred to women in the labour market. I am so pleased that she drew attention to that. Since May 2010, the number of women employed in Wales has increased by 36,000. I draw her attention to the fact that, on International Women’s Day, I hosted an event in the Wales Office with leading businesswomen and women in academia in Wales. She asked whether the UK Government had a similar scheme to the one in Wales. The Women’s Business Council has existed for a considerable time and is designed to encourage women at the top of business and to ensure that there is a better spread throughout the business world.
More people have been going out to work in Wales than at any time in our history. Since the election, 81,000 more people are in work in Wales. The employment rate, as has been noted, has increased by more than in any other region of the UK over the year, and unemployment in Wales is now below the UK average, at 6.7%. We absolutely agree that times have been tough for households as the economy recovers, throughout the UK and in Wales, but it is important to acknowledge that, last year, average earnings in Wales increased by 4.4%. That is more than twice the rate of inflation, inflation now being 1.7%, at a four-year low.
Central to the coalition Government’s measures to support families and those in work is the increase in the income tax personal allowance. Only last week, a further 13,000 people in Wales were taken out of income tax—in fact, that happened only yesterday—and 144,000 have already been taken out of income tax altogether in Wales. With our further increase in the personal allowance announced for April 2015, a total of 155,000 people will have been taken out of income tax in Wales as a result of the Government’s decisions. That will make a real difference and will be worth £805 per year to those people, providing a boost to living standards. I also say that, with 1.2 million people working in Wales, virtually everyone in work in Wales will have benefited from the income tax cut to the personal allowance. I see that there is a Division.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Gibson of Market Rasen) (Lab)
My Lords, there is a Division in the Chamber and this Committee will therefore stand adjourned for 10 minutes.
Baroness Randerson
Thank you, my Lords, I will resume. I wanted to speak about the support for business that the UK Government have been undertaking. In the Budget, the annual investment allowance was doubled to £500,000 from the end of 2015 to support businesses across the UK in investing and expanding. There was a business energy package, which is important for Wales because businesses like Celsa have high energy requirements in Wales. That package will be worth up to £240 million to businesses between 2016 and 2019. We are also extending by three years the period in which enhanced capital allowances are available to companies investing in enterprise zones: until March 2020.
Mention has been made of the investment in broadband. I remind noble Lords that this is UK government money. The UK Government have provided £69 million to Superfast Cymru and £150 million to tackle mobile coverage across the UK. Some £10 million has gone to Cardiff and £6 million will go to Newport for the Super-Connected Cities Project, so the concern about broadband connectivity is right but it is important that we pay attention to the speed with which it is being tackled, as indeed the UK Government are tackling the issues of infrastructure across Wales and the UK.
The noble Baroness referred to a war on Wales. Scrutiny is not war, nor is criticism. With government comes responsibility—the responsibility to deliver. One must not confuse wanting the best for Wales, pointing out where there are problems, with talking Wales down. It is important that the Labour Government in Wales take that scrutiny on the chin, if I may put it that way, and accept that they have to take responsibility.
I welcome the constructive comments from the noble Lords, Lord Griffiths and Lord Rowe-Beddoe, about the key aspects of our economy, the higher education institutions and the airport, which are essential to the growth of the Welsh economy. This debate has highlighted the fact that Wales is on the up but there is a long way to go. The proof is there that this Government are creating the right conditions for growth, but we fully accept that our job is not done and that there is still a long way to go.
House of Lords
Youth Unemployment
(10 years, 1 month ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness McDonagh
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what action they have taken to tackle youth unemployment.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Work and Pensions (Lord Freud) (Con)
The Government provide support to young people through Jobcentre Plus as well as through the youth contract and the Work Programme. Our approach continues to work. The youth claimant count has fallen for the 21st consecutive month.
Baroness McDonagh (Lab)
Why then has long-term youth unemployment doubled since 2010 and why, according to a recent Local Government Association study, were 40% of young people underemployed? Does the Minister agree that the Conservative Party has form on this? It is what it did in the 1980s, causing long-term generational unemployment with catastrophic social and economic consequences, only now it is being aided and abetted by the Lib Dems.
Lord Freud
There is a great deal of confusion about long-term youth unemployment. The actual figures, rather than the fantasy figures made up on the opposite Benches, show that before the coalition came to power long-term youth unemployment had doubled. Since then, that increase has slowed and the figure has now started to fall—it was down 38,000 this quarter and 59,000 this past year—and the long-term count has fallen for the 12th consecutive month. Those are the unemployment figures. One of the sources of the confusion is the JSA claimant count for long-term youth unemployment. The reason for that confusion is that the previous Government hid long-term unemployment by introducing training allowances, which took people off. So those figures are distorted. The right figures, which show the underlying position, are the ILO unemployment figures which I have just given.
Baroness Wheatcroft (Con)
My Lords, I recently visited the Hammersmith Jobcentre Plus. I recommend it to all noble Lords, and not only if they are looking for jobs. It was a delight to see that under one roof one could get help with housing, drug and education problems as well as with jobs—and, of course, the first three are important in finding jobs. Does the Minister agree that this holistic approach is paying dividends?
Lord Freud
The key element of universal credit, clearly, is that it is an incentive for everyone to go to work and to work more. That is particularly attractive to younger people who are excluded from tax credits. Around universal credit, we are putting in place a series of local partnerships so that we can provide holistic help for people who have barriers to going into work. That is the issue. One needs to address the structural problems of getting youngsters and, indeed, others into work and not fiddle around with figures.
Lord Brooke of Alverthorpe (Lab)
My Lords, first, I am not clear about what the Minister said in his earlier reply on the numbers. Is it not true that the underlying trend for the number of long-term unemployed is still increasing, even though there have been some decreases latterly? Also, the figure is still higher than it was under the previous Government. Secondly, can he state whether he meant to say, when he attacked Labour’s policy of putting people into training, that he would rather have them unemployed than in training?
Lord Freud
My Lords, the figures show that the long-term unemployment figure is still 6% higher than it was in 2010, on top of the doubling that was seen under the previous Government. I am absolutely behind training because it is the way to help people, particularly youngsters, get into the labour market. The trouble is that when things such as training allowances are used as a way of distorting the underlying problem, it misleads people. Indeed, I think it has misled a lot of Members on the other side of the House.
Lord Roberts of Llandudno (LD)
My Lords, first, is the Minister satisfied with the quality of the interviews being conducted by Jobcentre Plus and with careers advice in schools? Secondly, does he agree that we need to look very much at the core unemployment rate, which is a major problem that the Government are not succeeding in solving, whichever party is in power?
Lord Freud
We are looking to improve careers advice in schools and Ofsted has confirmed that it will give this guidance a higher priority. Reducing unemployment is clearly a central objective for this Government, and I thought it was interesting that a couple of weeks ago the Financial Times reported that we have now overtaken the United States in our participation rate, a rate that normally falls during a recession. We have also been pushing employment up in the key 25 to 35 year-old group between 2007 and 2013.
Baroness Prosser (Lab)
My Lords, will the Minister explain why this Question is being answered by the Department for Work and Pensions and why we do not have a Minister from either BIS or the Department for Education? Is it because the Government see youth unemployment as merely a welfare problem and not as an issue of training and getting young people into work? Is he further aware that the Department for Education spends 0.04% of its budget on careers advice, the lowest percentage in the developed world?
Lord Freud
My Lords, the reason I am answering this Question is that I represent the Department for Work and Pensions, so it is fairly self-evident that I should be responsible for it.
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean (Con)
My Lords, will my noble friend confirm that neither the Opposition nor the Government can create jobs for young people, and that the fantastic work being done by the Government in encouraging apprenticeships, and the Budget measures that have reduced national insurance contributions by £2,000 for those who take on young people, will do far more than the kind of comments we have heard from some parties about offering youth job guarantees that are undeliverable?
Lord Freud
My Lords, the party opposite has a policy of guaranteeing jobs that cost more than its own costings. It thinks that the policy will cost £1.9 billion in the first year and £0.9 billion in subsequent years. The Treasury has looked at the Opposition costings and puts them at £2.6 billion a year. That money is anyway to be taken from a tax on bonuses that has already been spent. Apparently it has been spent 10 times over, but it is now to be devoted to this policy. Most disturbing of all is that to the extent that this is built on the Future Jobs Fund, the figures show us that we can get the same result for youngsters through the Work Programme, which delivers real jobs with mainly private sector employers. We are achieving the same outcomes at one-20th of the cost. You know what you get with Labour: tax and spend.
Homelessness: Young People
Lord Ahmed
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what steps they have taken to tackle homelessness among young people.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Communities and Local Government (Baroness Stowell of Beeston) (Con)
My Lords, this Government have invested £470 million to tackle and prevent homelessness overall, and we continue to seek improvements in services for vulnerable young people. We place heavy emphasis on preventive measures such as family mediation and on a more joined-up approach by local services so that young people receive support before reaching crisis point. The percentage of statutory homeless people aged 16 to 24 continues to fall and is at an all-time low.
Lord Ahmed (Non-Afl)
I thank the Minister for her reply. Is she aware that rough sleeping has increased by more than 37% since 2010? No Second Night Out estimates that as many as 20% of rough sleepers are under the age of 25. Research conducted by Centrepoint found that councils have not spent £65 million assigned for emergency support for vulnerable young people, for fear that the Government will cut more of their funding. Will the Minister encourage local councils to spend that money on vulnerable young people and provide them with the housing that is desperately needed?
Baroness Stowell of Beeston
My Lords, as I said in my opening reply, the Government have invested £470 million in homelessness, and this investment has been maintained and continues to provide services for those who are in need. Our emphasis is very much on preventive measures, particularly around mediation. On helping those who, sadly, do find themselves homeless, the noble Lord mentions the No Second Night Out project, which has done tremendous work in ensuring that those on the streets spend only one night out, and we are also doing a huge amount to ensure that the money that is available for local authorities to support homeless people is being targeted effectively on prevention and root causes.
Lord Patel of Bradford (Lab)
My Lords, does the Minister agree that the most vulnerable group of young people—those who have come from prisons and young offender institutions—struggle, particularly because they come from all over the country? Would it not make sense for each local authority area to have one point of contact in the local authority who would liaise with the prison and the young people and ensure that, once they leave prison or the young offender institution, they are rehoused back into their local areas in safe housing?
Baroness Stowell of Beeston
The noble Lord makes a specific suggestion to do with those coming out of young offender institutions. Clearly, we are improving our services so that they are very much targeted at those in need. One of the arrangements that we have put in place is the youth accommodation pathway, which focuses on helping families stay together and, where they cannot, makes sure that the support offered is tailored. I will consider the point that the noble Lord has made.
Baroness Suttie (LD)
My Lords, does my noble friend agree that young homeless people are particularly vulnerable to infectious diseases such as TB, and that early diagnosis and safe accommodation for the duration of the lengthy treatment of TB are essential in preventing the spread of the disease to the wider community?
Baroness Stowell of Beeston
Clearly, as I have already said, one of our biggest priorities is making sure that, if somebody ends up on the street, they are helped off it as soon as possible. The No Second Night Out programme in London has seen about three-quarters of rough sleepers spend only a single night out. On TB specifically, NHS London has been funding a mobile X-ray unit to screen for TB in hard-to-reach groups and a “find and treat” service to help ensure that people identified with suspected active TB are supported in accessing appropriate services.
Baroness Armstrong of Hill Top (Lab)
My Lords, I remind the House of my interests as chair of Changing Lives. Is the Minister really content that enough is being done to help these most vulnerable people? Is she aware that many homeless organisations are now getting increasingly concerned at the number of younger people who are coming on to the streets and into services with severe mental health problems and for whom it is then very difficult to get help and support?
Baroness Stowell of Beeston
I certainly agree with the noble Baroness that any homelessness is a cause for concern. I always want to make sure that we can do more than we are already doing. This year, we are introducing a couple of new projects very much focused on the cause of homelessness and we are doing a lot to support those who are in a great deal of need but may not qualify under the formal criteria that would usually lead them to be statutorily homeless and receive that kind of help. We are constantly looking for new ways to assist people in their times of need.
Baroness Hussein-Ece (LD)
My Lords, 48% of homelessness agencies report that they are turning away young, single homeless people because their resources are fully stretched. More worryingly, one in five local authorities feel that they are not meeting their legal requirements for homeless young people aged 16 and 17. Could my noble friend say what more local authorities could and should be doing, given that they have a statutory responsibility for young people of that age?
Baroness Stowell of Beeston
As my noble friend knows, all local authorities have a specific legal duty to house any 16 or 17 year-old who is found sleeping rough or who is not able to be with their family. On whether local authorities more generally are meeting those needs, we are doing quite a lot of work with local authorities to make sure that they are improving their services as far as possible to co-ordinate better and to address causes. We will continue to apply as much pressure as we can in this area.
Voting: Young People
(10 years, 1 month ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Tomlinson
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what steps they have taken to increase the number of young people registered to vote.
Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab)
My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend Lord Tomlinson, and at his request, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in his name on the Order Paper.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire (LD)
My Lords, the Government have announced that five national organisations and every local authority in Great Britain are sharing £4.2 million in funding to promote voter registration, including among young people. The Cabinet Office has written to electoral registration officers encouraging them to use this funding to support the delivery of Rock Enrol, a learning resource which provides an opportunity for young people to register to vote and enables them to discuss the importance of doing so in schools or colleges.
Lord Kennedy of Southwark
My Lords, only 44% of young people aged 18 to 24 actually voted in the 2010 general election, citizen training is virtually non-existent in our schools and we have the threat of IER, which risks wiping thousands of young people off the register. When are the Government finally going to do something to engage young people and get them on to the register?
Lord Wallace of Saltaire
My Lords, we are conscious that this is a long-term problem. The number of young people voting in elections has been going down for the past 25 years. When I was drafting my party’s manifesto for the 1997 election, I remember being told by a number of people in my party that we had to recognise that fewer young people voted than older people. That problem has been growing and it is still growing. With schools, students forums, funding a number of organisations, and working with Bite the Ballot and others, we are doing our utmost to mitigate that. From June this year we are also introducing online registration, which we hope will help young people find it easier to register.
Lord Naseby (Con)
Bearing in mind the Electoral Commission’s recent report on voter registration fraud, what safeguards are there to ensure that only those students at university who are eligible to vote in our national elections are the ones who register? In particular, what care is being taken to ensure that postgraduates on a one-year course, who may be eligible to register, do so but are taken off the register when they leave?
Lord Wallace of Saltaire
My Lords, I suspect that a number of us in this Chamber are registered in two different places and have been for many years. Many students are registered in two different places, at their home and at their university. In all matters of electoral registration we have a balance to consider between keeping fraud to a minimum and doing everything that we can to encourage all British citizens to register.
Lord Wills (Lab)
My Lords, while I welcome everything that the Government are doing to encourage increases in registration among young people, does the Minister accept that these efforts are very limited and that there is a lot more that they could be doing at relatively little cost? This could include, for example, sending out registration forms to young people when they get their national insurance numbers, when they get their driving licences or when they are applying for student loans. What consideration are the Government giving to those sorts of measures?
Lord Wallace of Saltaire
My Lords, in the most recent visit by representatives of Bite the Ballot to the Cabinet Office they presented it with a draft voter mobilisation Bill that would indeed mean that when young people interacted with the state they would be reminded on each occasion to register. There are a number of quite tricky questions about government and the citizen, and how many things that you pull together in each interaction between government and the citizen, and we may be producing a Green Paper on this next year. We are conscious that the ICT revolution makes all this much easier, but the privacy lobby is not entirely keen on us making it as easy as we would like.
Lord Storey (LD)
My noble friend will be aware that the schools initiative in Northern Ireland saw a 50% increase of the entire young people’s population. Why are we not running such a scheme in the rest of the UK?
Lord Wallace of Saltaire
My Lords, we are looking at the Northern Ireland Schools initiative that took electoral registration officers and others into schools, with forms, and that is one of the things that we will need to consider. We are also talking with teachers from the Association for Citizenship Teaching and others about how to energise students in schools and in further education colleges, to make sure that they are reminded that they have the opportunity and the duty to register to vote.
Lord Campbell-Savours (Lab)
My Lords, is not underregistration among young people only a symptom of the disconnect between the politicians and the people? Does not the sight of a Cabinet Minister hanging on when she should go only aggravate that condition and that disconnect?
Lord Wallace of Saltaire
My Lords, the noble Lord is absolutely right. We all know that there is a broader and long-term problem, which did not arise simply with this Government, of popular alienation from politics, and a sense that national politics and Westminster have little to do with the lives of young people in particular. All of us here and in the other place have a shared interest in combating that, rebuilding trust in politics, and regaining a sense of shared citizenship and political values. The Government cannot do that on their own.
Lord Cormack (Con)
My Lords, bearing in mind that these are all citizens and subjects of this country, have the Government considered compulsory registration?
Lord Wallace of Saltaire
The Government have considered it, and have not accepted it.
Lord Grocott (Lab)
Does the Minister agree that one of the factors that may lead to young people not registering—or, if they do register, not voting—would be if, prior to an election, a major political party were to promise to fight to reduce tuition fees but immediately after the election join with others to treble them?
Lord Wallace of Saltaire
The noble Lord thinks he makes a very fair point. I might also point out that one of the reasons for people not being interested in elections is that so many seats are safe seats and they know who is going to be elected anyway so there is no point in voting. The noble Lord will remember that he actively opposed the alternative vote.
Lord Roberts of Llandudno (LD)
My Lords, have we applauded the work of Bite the Ballot on its National Voter Registration Day—5 February—when it enrolled 40,000 new voters at a cost of 15p a head, which is far less than the government cost? Will we give our support next year to a countrywide National Voter Registration Day?
Lord Wallace of Saltaire
My Lords, the Government are actively interested in working with as many voluntary organisations as we can in maximising registration. We congratulate Bite the Ballot on its success this year and we very much hope that it has greater success next year.
Mental Health: Young People
(10 years, 1 month ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Goudie
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what steps they have taken to reduce mental illness among young people.
Lord Patel of Bradford (Lab)
My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend Lady Goudie, and at her request, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in her name on the Order Paper.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health (Earl Howe) (Con)
My Lords, through our action plan Closing the Gap we are supporting schools to ensure that mental health problems are identified early, improving outcomes. Children’s mental health is a priority, and we have invested £54 million over the four-year period 2011-15 in the children and young people’s improving access to psychological therapies programme, known as CYP IAPT, to transform child and adolescent mental health services—CAMHS—improving young people’s access to the best evidence-based care.
Lord Patel of Bradford
I thank the noble Earl for that reply. Is he aware that the Royal Society for Public Health, together with the Prince’s Trust, published a report in this year’s annual Youth Index that showed an extremely high correlation between unemployment and mental illness among young people? In fact, a startling 40% of young people who were unemployed had signs of mental illness and were developing self-harm issues and even suicidal thoughts. Can the Minister say what the Government are doing about that report? Following on from the earlier Question, I suppose that the simple answer would be more jobs for unemployed people, but can the Minister say more about what the Department for Education is doing? Schools have a responsibility to introduce mental health and well-being classes formally within education but they are very reluctant to work with health services, particularly mental health services, to deliver that. Can the Minister say what is being done at a national level between the Department of Health and the Department for Education, as well as in encouraging local mental health services to work with schools?
Earl Howe
My Lords, I am aware of the study to which the noble Lord refers. It ties in quite closely with the findings of the Marmot report of a few years ago, which correlated quite closely the link between socioeconomic deprivation and children and young persons’ mental ill-health. Helping people, especially young people, get back into employment is a key priority for the Government. We know that young adults with mental health issues are underrepresented in the labour market. We aim to enable more young people with mental health needs to find and keep a job. There is an ongoing government programme to drive whole-system and cultural change, led by the Department for Work and Pensions. We are working with health and social care services to support young people to become economically active, not least through the CYP IAPT programme.
As regards schools, very briefly, schools can raise awareness of mental health through PSHE. Mental health is not a compulsory part of the curriculum. However, I note that the new national curriculum will see children aged five to 16 taught about internet safety in a sensible, age-appropriate way, which is a really important step to help children and young people understand some of the issues facing them.
Baroness Meacher (CB)
My Lords, I very much welcome the announcement of the increased investment in improved access to psychological therapies for children and young people. Can the Minister tell the House what percentage of children diagnosed with depression and anxiety and displaying serious conduct disorders will receive treatment as a result of the Government’s increased investment?
Earl Howe
Children with the conditions mentioned by the noble Baroness are most certainly eligible for CYP IAPT, not least cognitive behavioural therapy for emotional disorders, which include anxiety and depressive disorders. The programme covers services available to 54% of England’s population aged nought to 19—our target is 60%—and that is successfully giving children and young people improved access to the best evidenced care. NHS England is planning for a countrywide extension of the programme and the Government’s aim is that all of England should be involved by 2018.
Lord Mawhinney (Con)
My Lords, regarding my noble friend’s statement that £54 million has been made available over four years, although there will be plenty in the department and some in the NHS who know of this project, can he tell your Lordships’ House how information around the services paid for by this project are brought to the attention of young people themselves and their parents?
Earl Howe
My noble friend clearly has a close insight into this area because he is spot on in asking that question. CYP IAPT is rather different from the adult IAPT programme. It is a programme that aims to ensure that those working with CAMHS work much more closely with children and young people and with their parents and their families. The services have to enable children and their parents to have a say in designing the service that they receive, and they must also introduce and use regular outcome measures that help the child or young person and their parents and therapist to understand how well the child is doing. Therefore, involving the parents is absolutely integral.
Baroness Wheeler (Lab)
My Lords, a recent survey found that more than half of young carers reported having a mental health problem, including feelings of stress, anxiety and depression, eating and sleeping problems and risk of self-harm. What are the Government doing to support these dedicated young people? What guidance will be given in the Children and Families Act and the Care Bill on how local authorities should work with mental health services to ensure that young carers get the support they so clearly need and deserve?
Earl Howe
The noble Baroness is absolutely right and the pressures and strains on young carers have been well recorded. It is fair to say that compared with a few years ago, not least thanks to the efforts of the previous Government but also the work that we have continued, GPs and others working with families are much more alert now to the needs of young carers and can signpost them to appropriate support. The CYP IAPT programme is designed no less for young carers than it is for others.
Immigration Bill
(10 years, 1 month ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
16:47 - Division on Amendment 55A - Ayes: 282 / Noes: 184 - Amendment 55A agreed.
18:53 - Division on Amendment 56 - Ayes: 242 / Noes: 180 - Amendment 56 agreed.
Baroness Butler-Sloss
“Child trafficking guardians for all potential child victims of trafficking in human beings
(1) If a relevant child has arrived in the United Kingdom and is a potential victim of trafficking in human beings, an independent child trafficking guardian shall be appointed to represent the best interests of that child.
(2) The child trafficking guardian shall have the following responsibilities to—
(a) advocate that all decisions relating to the child are made in the child’s best interest;(b) ascertain the child’s wishes and feelings in relation to those decisions;(c) advocate for the child to receive appropriate care, safe accommodation, medical treatment, including psychological assistance, education, translation and interpretation services as required;(d) assist the child to access legal and other representation where necessary, including, where appropriate, to appoint and instruct legal representatives on all matters relevant to the interests of the child;(e) consult with, advise and keep the child informed of legal rights;(f) keep the child informed of all relevant immigration, criminal, compensation, community care, public law or other proceedings;(g) contribute to identification of a plan to safeguard and promote a durable solution for the child based on an individual assessment of that child’s best interests;(h) provide a link between the child and various statutory and other bodies who may provide services to the child, accompanying the child to any relevant meetings; (i) assist in establishing contact with the child’s family, where the child so wishes and it is in the child’s best interests;(j) where appropriate liaise with an immigration officer handling the child’s case in conjunction with the child’s legal representative;(k) accompany the child to all interviews with the police, the immigration authorities and care proceedings;(l) accompany the child to any court proceedings; and(m) accompany the child whenever the child moves to new accommodation.(3) A child trafficking guardian must have completed the training required in subsection (7) and may be—
(a) an employee of a statutory body except for an employee of a local authority;(b) an employee of a recognised charitable organisation; or(c) a volunteer for a recognised charitable organisation.(4) A person discharging duties as a child trafficking guardian shall not discharge any other statutory duties in relation to a child for whom they are providing assistance under this section.
(5) Where a child trafficking guardian is appointed under subsection (1), the authority of the child trafficking guardian in relation to the child shall be recognised by any relevant body.
(6) In subsection (5), a “relevant body” means a person or organisation—
(a) which provides services to the child; or(b) to which a child makes an application for services; or(c) to which the child needs access in relation to being a victim of human trafficking; or(d) any court or tribunal that a child engages with.(7) The Secretary of State shall by order—
(a) set out the arrangements for the appointment of a child trafficking guardian immediately after a child is identified as a potential victim of trafficking in human beings;(b) set out requirements for the training courses to be completed before a person may exercise functions as a child trafficking guardian;(c) set out the arrangements for the supervision of persons discharging duties as a child trafficking guardian;(d) set out the arrangements for the provision of support services for persons discharging duties as a child trafficking guardian; and(e) designate organisations as a “recognised charitable organisation” for the purpose of this section.(8) A person’s appointment as a child trafficking guardian for a particular child under this section shall come to an end if—
(a) the child reaches the age of 21; or(b) the child leaves the United Kingdom.(9) In this section, a child is considered to be a “potential victim of trafficking in human beings” when a referral has been made to a competent authority for a determination under the identification process required by Article 10 of the Trafficking Convention (Identification of Victims) and there has not been a conclusive determination that the individual is not such a victim.
(10) For the purposes of subsection (9), an individual will not be considered to have received a conclusive determination that the individual is not a victim of trafficking in human beings if—
(a) an individual is appealing or seeking judicial review of the conclusive determination; and(b) the appeal or judicial review is not completed.(11) In this section—
“competent authority” means a person who is a competent authority of the United Kingdom for the purposes of the Trafficking Convention;
“relevant child” means a person who is under the age of 18 and who—
(a) requires leave to remain in the United Kingdom whether or not such leave has been granted; or(b) is a national of an EEA state other than the United Kingdom;“the Trafficking Convention” means the Council of Europe Convention on Action against Trafficking in Human Beings (done at Warsaw on 16 May 2005);
“trafficking in human beings” has the same meaning as in the Trafficking Convention.”
Baroness Butler-Sloss (CB)
My Lords, as your Lordships will see, I have formidable names supporting me on this amendment. I should declare that I am a trustee of the Human Trafficking Foundation and the co-chairman of the parliamentary group on slavery and human trafficking.
We all know that slavery and trafficking of victims are wicked crimes. When the victims are children and young people under 18, the horror of those crimes reaches a new dimension. Amendments 55A and 62A are designed to alleviate to some extent, but never entirely eliminate, the consequences of the effect of being trafficked into this country or through the United Kingdom. Children are particularly vulnerable to exploitation. Children of all ages, from babies to teenagers, are brought into this country by traffickers, who use them or pass them on to other traffickers. Kent Police, for instance, prevented several foreign children being exported to France. Girls and boys are exploited in the sex trade—as I say, it is boys as well as girls. There are children working a seven-day week as domestic servants or begging on the streets and the Tube, having been trained, Fagin-style, to thieve. Some of the boys who I saw running up and down the Edgware Road were, I was told by the Metropolitan Police, called mobile surfers. Your Lordships might tell your children and grandchildren, “Don’t leave your mobile on the table because a child will run in and pick it up, come out and throw it to someone else”. They are the ones called mobile surfers. There are Vietnamese boys cultivating cannabis farms, of which there are 7,000 to 8,000 in the United Kingdom, and there are other forms of forced labour.
The United Kingdom has signed up to the Council of Europe convention and the European Union directive against the trafficking of human beings. The previous Government, and the present Government, have put in place strategies for helping victims and the proposed modern slavery Bill will, I hope, make a breakthrough in the conviction of traffickers and the support of victims. It is, however, a sad reflection on successive Governments that the help for foreign children brought to the United Kingdom and identified as victims is less appropriate and less effective than it is for adults. They are treated as unaccompanied children and looked after under the provisions of the children legislation. A few are subject to care orders, which would involve a CAFCASS guardian for the period of the court hearings only. Most are accommodated under Section 20 of the Children Act 1989 and the local authority with which the child is placed does not have parental responsibility for the child. Moreover, a teenager over 16—many of them are brought into this country—is above the age for a care order.
These children and young people under 18 have been removed from their own country, family and home to a foreign country where most of them do not speak English. Some do not even know which country they are in. If they are lucky, they will be picked up by UK Visas and Immigration at the airport or port. However, others who are found later, particularly the Vietnamese boys who look after the cannabis farms, are treated by the police and the CPS as criminals and not as victims. Trafficked children are vulnerable to being retrafficked and a distressing number go missing before the social workers have even identified them as trafficked victims, so most local authorities do not even know which of their missing children are victims. These children have presumably been removed by the traffickers and many do not get found again.
Many children will have been subjected to the worst kinds of abuse imaginable. They may be traumatised, confused, disorientated and facing a bewildering variety of people who do not speak their language. Yet they are expected to cope with immigration officers, the police, social workers and other agencies, including the law. Some of them are groomed by their traffickers to give a false story. There are also cultural as well as linguistic barriers, a suspicion of public authorities and an unawareness of their rights. They need support, sympathy, continuity of care and, almost certainly, counselling or therapy or other medical and psychological care. Most need schooling. They are pushed from pillar to post, telling their story again and again in order to access welfare, medical and legal assistance. No one person—no identifiable friendly face—is there to whom they can turn throughout this period of their ordeal.
The purpose of these amendments is to give these children that one person who can be mentor, friend and support and a stable person in the lives of these unhappy, traumatised and ill treated young people. The first amendment sets out the duties of a child trafficking guardian. There are certain basic requirements. The guardian must be appointed as soon as the child is identified as a potential victim of trafficking and not 24 or 48 hours later, when the child may already have gone missing. The same person must be there until the conclusion of all the inquiries and the child is settled. The guardian must be the link for the child with all the agencies and make the arrangements in the best interests of the child. Perhaps most important of all is the requirement that the guardian has statutory authority in order to have the right to information about the trafficked child from, for instance, the police, social services and the NHS. It is also important to bear in mind that the role defined by Amendment 55A is not that of a social worker. Quite apart from anything else, the international best practice that defines the role of a guardian makes it clear that this role must be discharged by someone who is not involved in providing statutory services to them beyond the child trafficking guardian advocacy services. This makes the role quite different from that of a social worker.
The number of children involved is quite small compared with the 66,000 who go into care. There were 372 such children in 2012, according to the national referral mechanism. It would therefore not need a large number of guardians or a great financial outlay. However, the cost may not now be a major consideration in the light of the current government proposal for child specialist advocates, to which I now turn.
Lord McColl of Dulwich (Con)
My Lords, it was during a health debate seven years ago that I first drew attention to this appalling tragedy of human trafficking and the shocking number of children involved. It pains me to say that nothing has changed. It is still as bad as ever. There are more slaves today than in the time of Wilberforce.
When trafficked children are rescued, not surprisingly they have many needs. They need safe and secure accommodation, education, asylum and immigration support, legal advice and representation, medical care and counselling, assistance with tracing their family, help in engaging with police investigations and so on. These varying needs result in these children having to engage with a wide range of different state agencies. Having to deal with all these different agencies is traumatic for two reasons: first, trafficked children are required to repeat their traumatic story again and again to each of the different people dealing with the various aspects of their care and, secondly, the number of different agencies concerned is bewildering for vulnerable children in a foreign country.
In this context, children who have been rescued from trafficking can feel overwhelmed and they become vulnerable to retrafficking by their traffickers, who are always eager to reclaim them. Knowing this, the number of trafficked children who go missing from local authority care after being identified is of great concern: 301 of the 942 trafficked children rescued between 2005 and 2010 subsequently went missing, according to figures from CEOP. Some charities estimate the figure to be much higher, with more like 60% of trafficked children going missing. What a trafficked child needs is someone who can both stand beside them in all their engagement with the multiple state agencies and advocate for their best interests. These children need a real human face to provide this continuity not just protocols or systems for multi-agency working.
This is a problem not just in the United Kingdom but across the world. It is in this context that the idea of a child trafficking guardian has been developed by UNICEF and others to provide these two missing functions: first, relational continuity and, secondly, advocacy. The truth is that some charities already try to play this role, but because it is not recognised in law some state agencies refuse to recognise and engage with them.
Barnardo’s told the Joint Committee on the Modern Slavery Bill the story of Afina. Afina was a 17 year-old girl who had been trafficked. She was being supported by a Barnardo’s specialist project and accommodated by the local authority while waiting for a decision about her case under the national referral mechanism. Afina had a history of frequently going missing for periods of around a week or two, and it was known that she would travel to the east of the city. The local authority decided to move her to a residential unit in the east of the city in order to keep an eye on her. The Barnardo’s worker who was supporting Afina at the time raised the alarm with the local authority when she heard about this proposed move, as she was concerned that Afina’s traffickers may have been based in the east of the city, thereby explaining why she travelled there. The local authority did not listen. Shortly after the move, Afina went missing and has now been missing for many months. Barnardo’s are worried that she may never return to care. Afina’s MRN decision has recently confirmed her trafficked status but, with no way to contact her, she is unaware of this and is not receiving the care and support that she needs. Had Afina been appointed a child trafficking guardian, under this amendment, from the moment she had come to the attention of those in authority, her story could have been very different. She is just one example; there are many more.
As well as the importance of this statutory authority and legal recognition for child trafficking guardians, the other key defining factor is that they are independent of all the other statutory agencies that provide services to the child. Whether the guardian is a state employee or provided by a charity—the amendment allows for either—this independence is vital to ensure that no other policies or interests get in the way of putting the child’s best interests first. Picking up on the point about volunteers, I must say, as a Conservative and a Scot, that Amendment 55A would provide excellent value for money. It makes provision for the service to be provided by volunteers along the lines of the hugely successful, and very cheap, court-appointed special advocates in the United States. The only cost to the Exchequer would be the provision of appropriate training, which is of course hugely important. As my colleague on the Conservative Benches, the noble Lord, Lord Wei, explained in his important ConservativeHome article on the subject, trafficking guardians would provide an excellent opportunity for highly trained volunteers, like magistrates.
As the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, has said, today is the fourth occasion the Government have had to respond, in this House, to a proposal for child trafficking guardians. It was first proposed in November 2011 by my human trafficking Private Member’s Bill. The Government have had lots of time to respond and their response has been very disappointing. Initially, they argued that the Children Act 1989 already provided the necessary child trafficking guardian services through Section 26A advocates, independent visitors and independent reviewing officers. Even if one views these three roles together, they do not constitute a child trafficking guardian function.
Section 26A independent advocates are only appointed at the request of the child, not from the moment a child is recognised as a potential victim of trafficking, which is of pivotal importance if we are to protect children from being retrafficked. The relevant European directive and the amendment both make it plain that the appointment must be made at this first moment. Of equal importance, Section 26A advocates only relate to the services a child accesses from a local authority. The remit of a child trafficking guardian must extend further, including, for example, immigration services and the law courts. Independent visitors are a complete red herring because they do not go with the child anywhere and are not empowered to speak on their behalf. Independent reviewing officers are similarly a red herring because they do not accompany the child to meetings with the multiple state agencies but simply deal with their care plan.
In this context, another government argument is that the role of a child trafficking guardian would add an additional layer of bureaucracy. This is simply not credible. The implication is that a child trafficking guardian places yet another burden on the child; that it is an additional state agency with whom they must engage. The opposite is the truth. The child trafficking guardian provides no new agency that they have to visit. They are simply, and very importantly, someone who accompanies the child in their interactions with all the statutory agencies with which they must engage to help them process this existing burden. They lighten that burden, not only by providing moral support and relational continuity, but because they can speak on the child’s behalf. This role in ensuring that trafficked children have access to all the services that they need and helping to link the different agencies providing them is in fact a similar role to that of the family key workers in the Government’s very successful family intervention projects for troubled families. Trafficked children also need someone to provide that co-ordinating role.
Baroness Royall of Blaisdon (Lab)
My Lords, I am proud and pleased to be a signatory to Amendments 55A and 62A, and I am grateful for the excellent briefing that we received from the many organisations working with children and young people that understand the need for child trafficking guardians. I pay tribute to the noble Lord, Lord McColl, and the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, who have powerfully and graphically outlined the case for our amendments. They have done a huge amount of work on this and related issues, especially the noble Lord, Lord McColl, who has been absolutely dogged in his determination to get justice for trafficked children. More than 450 children were identified as possible victims of trafficking in the past year alone. In February 2012, I said that I was,
“certain that the noble Lord, Lord McColl, will pursue these issues doggedly until he is satisfied”.—[Official Report, 15/2/12; col. 849.]
My certainty continues.
As has been said, this is the fourth time that we have made the case in different Bills for child trafficking guardians, and our determination is undimmed. From all that we have read and heard, including in this House, the need for a systematic child trafficking guardian system is real and urgent; it is evidence-based and recommended by national and international experts. Indeed, the report commissioned by the Government when we first raised this issue during the passage of the Protection of Freedoms Bill in February 2012, entitled Still at Risk, identified that the care provided to trafficked children remains inconsistent and does not give adequate support or advocacy assistance. It recommended provision of an independent trusted adult who would ensure that,
“potential victims of trafficking are able to understand their rights, ensure that their voice is heard in decisions that affect them, and are supported effectively through the different legal processes that they are engaged in”.
The current, inadequate level of protection for trafficked children being offered by professionals and agencies, which are meant to be supporting them, leads to untold suffering and to some of them simply disappearing from the system. Some charities estimate that a shocking two-thirds of children who are rescued from traffickers then go missing again because the system to protect them simply is not strong enough. Most of these children come from countries outside the EU; they do not understand the language and they do not know where they are. Even when people try to assist them, the processes and web of contacts with which they are confronted are complex and confusing, and the fear must be intolerable.
Sometimes the decisions that are taken do more harm than good, compounding the situation. The Children’s Society brought to our attention the case of Charlotte. An orphan, Charlotte worked as a house girl in her country of origin before being brought to England, at the age of 13, by a relative of the family. She was made to work for the family and their children nearly 20 hours a day, seven days a week. She was extremely physically abused by the woman for whom she worked, and was eventually thrown out of the house. After sleeping rough, she was spotted by a member of the public who took her to the local social services. The social services took Charlotte to the police station, but she was terrified. The family who had exploited her had told her that, if she told anyone, particularly the police, that she was a child, she would get into trouble. She therefore gave the police the name and age that had been given to her by the traffickers. Her fear was compounded when the Home Office and her solicitor said that they did not believe her age, and she remained frightened that she would be sent back to her country of origin.
Charlotte needed a child trafficking guardian and the system failed her. Frankly, I do not understand why when, armed with the evidence of Still at Risk, the Government did not accept a similar amendment to the Children and Families Bill. The noble Baroness, Lady Northover, the Minister for that Bill, said then:
“We remain concerned that the introduction of guardians for trafficked children, alongside those persons who should already be working in the interests of the child, is not the most effective way to tackle the local problems”.—[Official Report, 9/12/13; col. 655.]
She said, as the noble Lord has said, that there would be new regulations accompanied by new guidance. Of course these are welcome, but they do not respond to the real, absolute need. That was not enough then and it is still not enough now, despite the fact that the Home Office issued a news release on 28 January which stated that child victims of slavery were to be given personal support by a network of specialist, independent advocates, acting as a single point of contact throughout the care and immigration process. However, as the noble and learned Baroness has said, there is very little detailed meat on the bones of the press release. There are clear anomalies, as she has pointed out.
Barnardo’s has welcomed the announcement of a pilot of specialist child trafficking advocates for trafficked children as a step in the right direction, but it believes that these advocates fall short of a legal guardian who would make decisions in the best interests of the child. Guardians would also have the legal power to hold agencies to account if they failed to support child victims of trafficking.
As an aside, I wonder why these proposed advocates—which are not enough—were not included in the draft modern slavery Bill which is now receiving its pre-legislative scrutiny. Most importantly, following our many debates and the research and evidence we have had, why were guardians not included in that Bill? Why water down the proposals that have been presented to the Government on numerous occasions? The poor substitutes that the Government keep giving us are simply not acceptable. I strongly urge the noble Lord to accept the excellent, well drafted amendment before us today, which meets the concerns of all those involved. Frankly, anything less than legal guardians will not be enough.
I freely admit that I am political, but this subject has nothing to do with politics. It is about humanity; it is about justice for some of our most vulnerable children, who, by foul means, have been trafficked into the country. They are suffering in ways in which no individual, let alone a child, should have to suffer. These defenceless young children have been subjected to horrific abuse, including domestic slavery and sexual exploitation. The current system is failing these children. They need someone to speak up for them to make sure that their best interests are at the heart of the decisions being made about them. We have a duty to act and to act now.
Baroness Howarth of Breckland (CB)
My Lords, I had not intended to speak on this amendment and I find myself in a curious position in so doing. Having worked in this field for many years, I am absolutely clear that you have to approach the needs of these children with your heart. Any noble Lords who have children or grandchildren can imagine what it would feel like to discover that they had disappeared from home—had been whipped away—and been forced into prostitution or other forms of slavery such as working as unpaid cleaners.
However, having reacted to the issue with one’s heart, one has to deal with it using one’s head. I say that because, having listened to the arguments, I am still not clear what a child trafficking guardian would do. I spoke against this concept during the passage of the then Children and Families Bill, and therefore feel that I should at least explain my position and establish where we go from here. At that point, I shared the view expressed by the Minister on behalf of the Government: namely, that we should make absolutely sure that staff in existing services had the necessary training to enable them to help these young people, particularly those who end up in children’s homes and subsequently disappear. Far too many young children go in and out of children’s homes, and I shall speak briefly on that.
As I say, I spoke against this concept at that point in the hope that we would be able to develop satisfactory services. Since then I have had conversations with people involved in social services. As many noble Lords will be aware, the stress on services at local level is at its highest at present. My own local authority has to find several millions of pounds more from its budget in the next few years. That money will come out of children’s services and care services as well as other areas and will reduce the services that we all strongly believe have to be provided. That makes me wonder how social workers, who are so incredibly hard pressed, will be able to develop the skills needed to help these young people.
Some local authorities are doing very well in this regard. I work with Children and Families Across Borders, and have met some of its workers. This organisation works with young people whose immigration, trafficked and care statuses are all in total confusion. Sometimes it takes four social workers and two local authorities working across local authority borders to track down and help these children. I am somewhat distressed in that two of the proposers of the amendment are two of my closest friends, whom I admire enormously, but, does the noble Lord, Lord McColl, really think that volunteers can work with these children?
Recently, I have undertaken work in the areas of safeguarding and witchcraft. Many noble Lords may know that trafficked young people are often told that a spirit will attack their families back home if they break the cycle in which they are trapped with their traffickers. They believe that this will happen and consequently they continually leave safe places to go back to the traffickers, not through perversity but because they believe that in so doing they are protecting their families. That is a complex concept for a social worker or, indeed, anyone to understand.
At this moment, I must say to my two colleagues that I am undecided about how I should vote. This is partly because I do not understand where the guardian would stand in the structure. Here I look to the Minister and to those proposing the amendment. Having worked for eight years in the children and family court service, as chair and vice-chair, I know all about guardians in that service. Where would these guardians stand? All workers need some sort of management. How would they relate to the local authority? What would the local authority’s role be? How do they differ from advocates? I have heard some examples, but still do not clearly understand the difference.
What I do know is that these young people desperately need someone who will understand them emotionally and who is hard-headed enough to understand the dangers. As we hear from many organisations working with these young people, the traffickers are dangerous not only to the children but to the workers, who must understand the danger of their work. The other issue is that without some sort of supervision for advocates or guardians, they cannot do the work. Everyone working with this sort of emotional stress needs a supervisor—I would never do it without a mentor. I leave these questions in the air before I shall decide where I stand on this issue this time around.
Baroness Hamwee (LD)
My Lords, I too applaud the determination of those who have brought this matter before the House again. Having seen that the Government were trialling an advocacy support arrangement across a number of different—and, in some cases, clearly obvious—authorities, I tried to find details on the Home Office website. I could not. Nor could I find anything on any of the local authority websites that I tried. However, if I am right in thinking that the trial follows on from the recently concluded draft regulations on care for unaccompanied and trafficked children, and that the provisions to be trialled reflect what is said in that consultation, I must say that I was disappointed in the lack of robustness in what I read there.
There is comparatively greater robustness in the amendment. The consultation said that the local authority should facilitate access to independent advocacy support where required. I note that the amendment requires the appointment of a guardian with defined responsibilities. The noble and learned Baroness has talked about the powers that go with those responsibilities. I am not sure that they are as explicit in the amendment as I would like, but they are implied. She clearly distinguishes between the social worker support and guardianship. I am aware that the pre-legislative scrutiny committee took evidence on this.
I ask the Minister to describe what is to be trialled—starting, I believe, in July—and also whether he can point noble Lords to where we can read more about this. I am concerned about the timing and how this will fit in with the proposed modern slavery Bill. I understand that the trials will run for a period of six months from July. There will then, quite rightly, be an evaluation. Perhaps the Minister can tell us who will do the evaluation. This is not intended to be an attack on the Minister in any way, but I do not think that the Home Office is necessarily the best department to evaluate this; it is really a cross-departmental matter. The evaluation must be considered and discussed with local authorities and a wide range of agencies. How long will that take? If the evaluation comes to the conclusion that there should be guardianship, will the modern slavery Bill include enabling provisions that will allow this to be fleshed out in regulations? How will this provision actually be achieved, given that the exercises that I have talked about must take us very close to May of next year and the end of the next Session?
The Minister has been extremely generous of his time in discussing the Bill. If this amendment is not accepted—it seems a little impertinent of me to seek to usurp the position of those whose names are attached to it, and I am not doing that—it would be very helpful if, following today, we could unpack the detail of it so that the Government can give a clear indication of where they have concerns, rather than just awaiting the result, as they will evaluate it, of the proposed trial starting in July.
Lord Quirk (CB)
My Lords, although I share some of the misgivings already expressed, including that of the noble Baroness, Lady Howarth, particularly in relation to the role of volunteers in this important matter, I find myself at present very much in support of the amendment. However, I wonder whether I could be given clarification in respect of proposed new subsection (8)(b). Clearly—or at least it seems clear to me—the intention is that the child trafficking guardian ceases to occupy that role if the child ceases to be domiciled in the United Kingdom. The subsection says something much fuzzier and possibly open to mischievous interpretation with its wording,
“if … the child leaves the United Kingdom”.
Perhaps in responding to others who will be asking questions for clarification, the proposers could take that small point on board.
Lord Northbourne (CB)
My Lords, I am not an expert in this field but I have encountered this situation in the context of the enormous number of unaccompanied children who arrive at the port of Dover. As a citizen of Dover and Kent, I declare an interest as a taxpayer there.
The noble Baroness, Lady Howarth, raised the very important issue of the enormous overload of work and pressures under which social workers operate in most, if not all, areas. I want to ask a question of someone, although I do not know whether it should be the Government. Who is going to pay for all this? My question is not so much, “Who is going to pay the guardians?”, because they might do it as volunteers, but if a child is moved from one local authority to another, the cost of caring for that child will move from one local authority to another, and, not unnaturally, local authorities whose services are already under huge pressure are not going to encourage that. How is it all going to work?
Lord Dubs (Lab)
My Lords, I support the amendment with great enthusiasm and want to comment briefly on an interesting point made by the noble Lord, Lord McColl, and possibly by others as well. I serve on a committee of the British-Irish Parliamentary Assembly and towards the end of last autumn we produced a report on people trafficking. We covered all the jurisdictions—that is, England, Wales, Scotland, Northern Ireland, and indeed the Republic of Ireland—and one thing that came through very clearly was that children who are taken into care because they appear to have been trafficked too often disappear from their local authority care home. Nothing seems to be done about that. It may be that the numbers are small, and I very much hope that they are, but surely it is extremely serious if a child in such a vulnerable position is taken into what seems to be a safe environment and then disappears, presumably—we can only suspect this—because the traffickers have discovered where the child is and have persuaded, induced or compelled him or her to abscond. There appears to be no system—I may be wrong but my committee could not discover one—whereby local authorities are diligent enough to try to find out what is happening to these children. They may have done so from time to time but there seems to be a gap in what is going on. Therefore I look to the amendment in the realistic hope that a child trafficking guardian would use influence to lessen the likelihood of children disappearing from local authority care homes.
On the noble Lord’s point about the cost implication if a child is moved from one local authority to another, I do not understand why a child in the care of a local authority, with no obvious parents to care for him or her, would be moved from one local authority care home to another, although it might happen. Nor can I see a good reason why a child should leave the country, as has also been suggested. If a child is vulnerable and in care, surely everything must be done to ensure that the child’s well-being is looked after totally and that the child would be enabled to leave the country only if there were a proper basis for him or her to be looked after elsewhere; otherwise we are simply saying, “We are washing our hands of this child and never mind what happens to it”. Surely we would never dream of doing that.
I look at the amendment to see to what extent it will meet the need that I have just described. I think that, by and large, it would. It does not quite spell it out as clearly as I would like, but if we had a child trafficking guardian and the child was in a local authority care home, the guardian would know that the child was there and keep an eye on him. If the child were to disappear, the guardian would surely be among the first to ask, “What has happened? All steps must be taken to find the child”. Above all, it would help the local authority care home and the social workers to develop a better system so that children could not easily be induced or compelled away, or whatever happens to them. Even if the numbers are small, we are dealing with a serious problem. We always thought that once a child was in a care home the child was safe. I hope that this amendment, if passed, will make such children a little safer.
Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)
I had not intended to speak but I was concerned to hear about some of the disturbing individual cases of bad practice described by noble Lords.
Surely the prime public policy need is better enforcement by the police, supported by social services, of anti-child-trafficking laws and penalties to prevent these awful things happening. Does an adequate framework for such enforcement exist? This issue is highly relevant to Amendment 55A.
The issues would be better discussed and tackled separately in legislation that can look at both issues—perhaps in the draft modern slavery Bill. We should also take time to properly review the proposed provisions. I noted the well informed comments of the noble Baroness, Lady Howarth, about the role of volunteers and the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, about costs. For these reasons we should not burden the Immigration Bill with this complex new issue but seek to find a way forward to consider it.
Lord Cormack (Con)
My Lords, we have clearly got to find a way forward. As my noble friend Lady Neville-Rolfe has just briefly and succinctly said, the question is whether it fits better into this Bill or into the anti-slavery Bill.
There is no more despicable thing than to exploit a child. One’s mind goes back to when I had the great good fortune in 1982 to be commissioned to write a short life of William Wilberforce to commemorate the 150th anniversary of his death and the 150th anniversary of the abolition of slavery throughout the British dominions in 1983. In researching that book I became totally convinced that William Wilberforce was indeed the greatest Back-Bencher in our history. He was a man who never held office of any sort and yet campaigned brilliantly and persistently over decades, first, to achieve the abolition of the slave trade in 1807 and then, over a quarter of a century later, the abolition of slavery itself. He heard the news of the passing of that Bill as he lay dying in his home.
That of course did not end the sort of social evils against which he had campaigned, and we all remember Fagin, the fictional character of Dickens, and how Mr Brownlow came to the rescue of Oliver Twist. We also remember the writings of Henry Mayhew in the articles under the heading, “London Labour and the London Poor”. I often think that we could do with a Mayhew and a Dickens today to point the moral and adorn the tale, as it were, by graphically describing the sort of evils to which my noble friend Lord McColl, the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, and the noble Baroness, Lady Royall of Blaisdon, have referred during the debate.
Baroness Howe of Idlicote (CB)
My Lords, I support the amendment. Those who have listened to my noble and learned friend Lady Butler-Sloss and particularly to the noble Lord, Lord McColl, who has such a history on the background to this issue, will have been strongly persuaded that now is the time to act. We have just heard from the noble Lord, Lord Cormack, that plenty of able people could be recruited into this area. What is particularly important is that these guardians should be the sort of people who can gain the confidence of a young trafficked person soon enough to be able to intervene and see that whatever devils have been identified are in fact dispelled. The reality of the child’s situation should be appreciated and a way found for them to lead a normal life in the future, however horrendous their treatment has been. All of us will have been utterly appalled by what we have heard of that treatment. I shall not take more time because I hope there will be a vote, the sooner the better, to put this to the test. I merely emphasise how strongly I support the amendment.
The Earl of Sandwich (CB)
My Lords, on a final historical note, the noble Lord, Lord Cormack, probably remembers the late Lord Wilberforce sitting on these Benches. How horrified he would be to hear the statistic of the noble Lord, Lord McColl, that there is a greater number of slaves here today than in William Wilberforce’s time. I have followed this issue as a council member of Anti-Slavery International for nine years. I pay tribute to its staff for what they have done behind the scenes to educate the public and the Government.
I am impressed by the distance that the Government have travelled on this road already, not only on the conventions but in the detail that we are looking at today. It is as a result of non-governmental pressure. But there is more to be done today, so I strongly support the amendment although I anticipate that it will not be easy for the Government to accept. The Minister should accept it because of the feeling across the House this afternoon which was inspired by the moving descriptions of my noble friend and others. He should accept it because it is humane, and because it is a belt-and-braces protection for the trafficked child who will not have adequate protection from the social services or from CAFCASS despite what my noble friend has said: they are not in the position yet to cope with this. He may not want to accept it because of the constraints of his ministerial responsibility and the departmental budget, which has many calls upon it.
We are grateful for the offer of a trial for personal advocates. However, it does not go far enough because, as he has already heard, the Children’s Consortium and many others argue that there is no proper protection under the Children Act for trafficked children without a legal guardian. That argument must be correct. Perhaps the Minister will take up the invitation of the noble Lord, Lord Cormack, to make a small promise and bring something out of a hat, maybe in the draft Modern Slavery Bill or a promise for Third Reading. I look forward to that event.
Baroness Hussein-Ece (LD)
My Lords, I shall add a few words to this important debate. There cannot be many of us in your Lordships’ Chamber who have not been moved by the plight of these very vulnerable young people and children who have been treated so badly. We know the numbers are not huge; nevertheless they are significant. I welcome what the Government said earlier about introducing a pilot system of advocates. However, I do have a problem with how far this would go, having been a local authority councillor and a cabinet member with responsibility for child protection and for unaccompanied children who have often been trafficked. We know that this problem has been going on for many years—the status quo is simply not acceptable. We must act to protect these vulnerable young people.
As I understand it, an advocate is somebody who speaks on behalf of someone else, in this case the child. However, my worry is whether the advocate would have any legal responsibility in the way that a parent would, or, under the amendment, a guardian. The amendment gives the guardian some parental responsibility to act and take decisions in the best interests of the trafficked child, and to work across agencies. We know, as has already been said, how local authorities are stretched. Often a child will have three, four or five social workers in a year. That is not unusual. Very often, they simply get lost trying to navigate a very complex system.
The attraction of a guardian, which is so compelling in the amendment, is that this person would be required by the Secretary of State to take a far more official and statutory responsibility for individual young people and to act in their best interests. I hope that my noble friend will perhaps address this when he comes to respond. Would he be satisfied? Does he think that we should be satisfied that this six-month pilot scheme with advocates will go far enough to protect these very vulnerable children and young people? Otherwise, we would have to consider this very carefully in evaluation, and it may well be too late. What worries me is that we will have a six-month pilot period, followed by the evaluation, but all the time young people are falling between the cracks, going missing, not being picked up and not being protected. At the end of the day, that is what we want—for these children and young people to be protected as long as they are here in our care in this country.
Lord Avebury (LD)
My Lords, I will just pick up a point that my noble friend made about the difference in powers between the advocate on one side and the guardian on the other. The point was raised in the memorandum sent to us by the Refugee Children’s Consortium whether or not, without “legal powers”, there will be anyone,
“to instruct solicitors on a child’s behalf and ensure that decisions are made in their best interests”.
Would the advocate have those powers to instruct a solicitor on the child’s behalf? I take it that a guardian certainly would have those powers, which is an important difference between the two proposals that we now have before us.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Home Office (Lord Taylor of Holbeach) (Con)
My Lords, this has been interesting. This is not the first time that the House has discussed the issue, but I am pleased that it has been raised again for noble Lords to consider. I am also pleased that the noble Earl, Lord Sandwich, feels that we have travelled a long way. It certainly seems as if we have done so. I accept the feeling that lies behind the amendments and, if I urge the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, to withdraw her amendment, it will be on the grounds of things that I will tell her that the Government are doing, not because I think that her feeling on the issue is wrong.
The Government remain absolutely committed to stamping out all forms of modern slavery, and the work on this issue continues apace. I think my noble friend Lord McColl probably knows this already, but there are no half-measures in what we are going to propose. Last December, the Home Secretary published a draft Bill on modern slavery—the first of its kind in Europe—which will ensure the harshest penalties are available for offenders. It consolidates and simplifies existing offences, making the law easier to apply. At the heart of everything we do is the desire to support and protect the victims and to ensure that they receive the help they need to recover from their traumatic ordeal. I met with Frank Field last week, who noble Lords will know is working closely with the Home Office on this very issue, as indeed are a number of noble Lords.
We have listened to the concerns raised in this House and we agree that these children must be afforded the best support and protection from the state. Since this House took a view on this matter during the passage of the Children and Families Bill in December, the Government have announced a trial of specialist independent advocates for trafficked children. The trial will test the specialist independent advocates against the existing system, which will be supported by new, strengthened statutory guidance and regulation in this area. The noble Baroness, Lady Howarth, showed how important it was that this new system should be able to work reconciled with our existing system, so that we get the best from it. I say to the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, that these specialist, dedicated advocates will be experts in trafficking, and completely independent of the local authority and social services department. Their role will be to steer the child through the complexity of the multiple government agencies—not just local-authority care, immigration and criminal justice but all government departments. This is to ensure that the child’s voice is heard.
Lord Taylor of Holbeach
I am sorry if that was the case. I was hoping that all noble Lords here would have seen it. A copy of the letter was placed in the Library.
I can say that these roles are almost all entirely aligned. The specialist advocates that we are trialling from July will be a consistent point of contact for the child. They will accompany the child to meetings and support the local authority to assess the child’s needs, and promote the child’s safety and well-being. They will support the child in relation to children’s social care, immigration and criminal justice systems and, importantly, they will play a role in key decisions relating to the child trafficking victim.
There are, however, two important suggestions. First, our proposals go further. Child trafficking is child abuse. It is vital that we ensure that all victims, who deserve to be helped to recover from the trauma of this hateful crime, receive the support that they need. The Rochdale and Oxford cases have shown that the trafficking of children extends its vile reach much further than purely those being trafficked across borders. I hope that noble Lords will appreciate that. I assure my noble friend Lady Neville-Rolfe on this. That is why the trial of specialist independent advocates goes wider than the proposed amendment. The support in the amendment will be given only to those trafficked across borders; under our proposals, the support will be not only for those children but for those trafficked internally in the UK as well. Secondly, our advocates will support children, as I have said. Under the amendments before us, these guardians will support adults up to the age of 21 and would not therefore be focused on the needs of the child as our advocates will be.
I assure noble Lords that progress on setting up the trial has been swift. We will be in a position later this week—it is a pity it is not today; I am having to argue with the knowledge that the situation will be made clearer during the course of this week—to announce which organisation, which I am sure will be well known to noble Lords, will be delivering the child trafficking advocacy service, which will commence on 1 July 2014 across 23 different local authorities.
There are differing views on and evidence about the best way to support these incredibly vulnerable children, and we have heard some of those discussed this afternoon. To ensure that we take the right action to deliver the best outcomes for these children, we consider it essential that we are given the opportunity to assess whether the introduction of the specialist child trafficking advocates will make the difference we hope and believe it will, but we need evidence in order to discuss how to roll the project out. That is why we are commissioning an independent evaluation of the trial. An evaluator will be in place by June and will report six months after the trial commences, and again when the trial concludes.
As my noble friend Lord Attlee made clear on 19 March, this will enable us to consider the impact of the specialist independent child trafficking advocates, as well as how the scheme worked, during the passage of the modern slavery Bill, which should be before one or other of our two Houses of Parliament. The modern slavery Bill is a much better place to make these changes. I think most noble Lords understand that that is a Bill that is specifically about this issue. The trafficking of children is not just a migration issue. By making amendments to this Bill, we risk conflating the whole business of immigration with the issue of trafficking and creating a gap for children who are trafficked within the UK.
Lord McColl of Dulwich
Will the noble Lord make clear why the advocates that he is proposing do not have a legal status?
Lord Taylor of Holbeach
That is a question that the modern slavery Bill will indeed be able to consider. The whole point of having the trial is that we need to know the degree to which a legal status for the advocates is essential for their success. I say to my noble friend: let us give the trial a chance. This area has not been dealt with by successive Governments over time, and it is a problem that has grown worse over time. Surely the sensible way to do it is by having a trial; we will know before we legislate in the modern slavery Bill. I reassure the noble Earl, Lord Sandwich, that we will be considering this matter within the context of that Bill. I am sure he will understand that.
Lord Cormack
Can my noble friend give the House a guarantee that there will be something on that on the face of the anti-slavery Bill?
Lord Taylor of Holbeach
The Bill that is presented to Parliament is hardly likely to contain details of this measure because, as I understand it, the intention is to introduce sections on the trafficking advocates during the passage of the Bill, when we will have the information available.
Baroness Royall of Blaisdon
My Lords, pilots are often very good places to start. But the noble Lord, Lord McColl, the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, and others first raised this in 2011. We have what I believe to be a very good Bill, the modern slavery Bill, going through pre-legislative scrutiny at the moment, but I do not understand why this is not an integral part of that Bill. The Government have known for a long time that that Bill was coming forward. The pilots could have taken place an awfully long time ago. I am intrigued as to why all the bits of the puzzle were not put together, as would be logical.
Lord Taylor of Holbeach
The noble Baroness is perhaps right to chide me, but we are seeking to get this matter right. It is in the interests of the children to make sure that the public authorities that have to deal with this problem have a proper ground on which to do so. This is not an easy area. We are dealing with children whose situation is very different from that which we ourselves experienced as children or, indeed, our own children have experienced. These are very different terms and to get that right is important.
Baroness Howarth of Breckland
I apologise for interrupting the Minister, but I happen to agree with him that the most important thing is to get this right. Having heard the arguments so far, I do not think any of these options have been properly thought through to their conclusion to ensure that we get this right. Looking at what is happening on the ground at the moment, we could actually have another difficult, disastrous situation. Therefore, I ask the Minister: did I mishear, or did he say that the advocates would be set up under some sort of statutory regulation? I think the thing that concerns the House is the authority by which the advocates would be able to operate.
Lord Taylor of Holbeach
They would advocate in exactly the same way as they do currently in Scotland. There is no statutory scheme in Scotland but they are respected by the authorities there. What I am saying to the noble Baroness and, indeed, the House, is that setting them up under a statutory scheme is one of the matters that we will find out as a result of having these trials in place. This, to my mind, makes sense. Given what the noble Baroness is advocating, I sense that she is on my side because she can see the complexity of the issue.
I think that the noble Baroness, Lady Royall, is on my side. She is perhaps right to chide me for not acting more promptly, but none the less there are limitations to these amendments, which do not provide, for example, for the involvement of UK-trafficked children. We want the trial to deal with children whose trafficking origin may be from crossing borders but may well be within the UK—they are equally vulnerable and can equally benefit from having an advocate operating on their behalf.
Let me perhaps deal with some questions, as I have talked a lot about how I feel and noble Lords will know that I feel quite strongly about this particular issue. I was asked by my noble friend Lord McColl whether the independent advocate would operate in the same way as the guardian. Our advocates will be allocated to children in the trial as soon as they can be identified, with no delay. Any provided for the purpose of this trial will provide 24-hour access to their service to ensure this. As I have said, the role of the advocate is almost entirely identical to the role that the noble Lord outlined. Under existing arrangements, the victim must be informed of their right to an independent advocate. The advocate will be available to all potential child trafficking victims participating in the trial whether or not they are in receipt of support from the local authority—that is, in the care system. Therefore, one does not have to be in the care system to be entitled to receive this support. Children will be allocated to the advocate automatically as soon as they are identified as potential victims.
Lord Higgins (Con)
I am extremely grateful to my noble friend. Coming to this rather from scratch, can I ask him to spell out precisely what the difference is between the amendment and what the Government are proposing?
Lord Taylor of Holbeach
First of all, the amendment is to an Immigration Bill and is therefore confined to immigration, and it only deals with such children who have been trafficked—I am sorry, I have received advice on this—so it is limited in that respect. We believe that it is wrong to legislate by the terms of this amendment when a trial is in place that seeks to make sure that the legislative framework adopted for this development is sound and in place on a proper footing. We have a modern slavery Bill which, as I hope my noble friend will understand, is much more aligned to addressing this issue than the particular type of trafficking which depends upon immigration for its origin.
Lord Lester of Herne Hill (LD)
I am very sorry to be adding to the questions, but can the Minister explain how the trial is going to help the Government to decide whether the scheme should be statutory? What is the problem about deciding that question now and telling the House that it will be made statutory in the other Bill?
Lord Taylor of Holbeach
I think I gave an answer to that, did I not? It may not be necessary. It is not in Scotland, where it works well enough, so why should the Bill make it statutory in England if it does not need to be? These are the sorts of considerations that Parliament is there to decide. Now, if the noble Lord feels that we should decide it today and include a statutory provision within the Bill, so be it. I am just asking: why do that when you cannot be certain of the terms of the statutory obligations that you want to have in place? I am explaining to noble Lords that the whole purpose of the trial is to examine those. I was asked by the noble Earl, Lord Sandwich, about that. If the evaluation of the trial gives the evidence that we are looking for, we will indeed bring forward an amendment to the modern slavery Bill to deal with it.
The noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, quite rightly asked who is going to pay for this. For the purposes of the trial, the Home Office is funding the provision of advocates and, were this to be rolled out nationally, the Government would need to consider where the budget would be drawn from. That is why we need the opportunity to evaluate the role. If we want this to be worth while, where is the money, how are we going to pay for it and what elements do we have to consider as a priority? As part of this Government’s work to eradicate modern-day slavery, the Home Office has funded this trial of independent specialist advocates. The amendments before us do not make clear on whom the duty to appoint and therefore fund the child trafficking obligations will fall. Is it children’s social care or the Secretary of State? That is not clear within these amendments.
My noble friend Lady Hamwee asked about the statutory guidance. She is quite right that statutory guidance will be important. She asked whether the independent child trafficking advocate is the same as the independent advocate referred to in the draft DfE statutory guidance. No, the advocates that we are trialling will be specialist, dedicated advocates working only with victims of child trafficking. They will have a broader role to support them in relation to children’s social care, immigration and the criminal courts. They will be a constant point of contact, so it is a broader remit than would be provided for under this Immigration Bill.
It is critical to ensure that we have the best arrangements in place to protect and support these vulnerable children. Before we make any changes to our existing safeguarding arrangements, for there are safeguarding arrangements already in place, Parliament must be confident of the outcome of these changes. That is why I am at this point asking my noble friends to be patient and await the robust, independent evaluation of this important trial. It will be independent.
I say to my noble friend Lady Hamwee that I will write later this week to noble Lords to explain the updates which are consistent with this week’s announcement. I will include the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, in my correspondence—I promise her that. I will then keep noble Lords posted throughout the passage of the modern slavery Bill, and indeed the process of the trial, so that when that Bill comes before Parliament they are in a position to consider the amendments that this Government will make. I urge the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, to withdraw her amendment on the grounds that I have assured her in this way.
Lord Wright of Richmond (CB)
My Lords, before the Minister sits down, may I raise an entirely separate administrative problem? The Minister referred to a letter which was clearly highly relevant to many Peers, but which they had not seen. It had been placed in the Library. The Minister himself very kindly wrote to me about a month ago on an entirely different subject, and I went to the Library to see where the copy lay. It is on the web. Nobody had been told that the Minister had written to me; it might have been up to me to do so. Perhaps I may suggest that somebody—clearly, not the Minister—ought to look into this problem, because when a letter is placed in the Library the writer probably assumes that many of us have seen it. There clearly needs to be some sort of action to draw it to the attention of relevant Peers.
Lord Taylor of Holbeach
I assure noble Lords who have spoken in this debate that I will write to them personally about developments this week. I am very grateful for the noble Lord’s notion. We met, and I did indeed say that the letter was in the Library, and I am sorry if it was only on the web. I will try to ascertain how that is. I think that noble Lords will agree that on this Bill I have been pretty assiduous in trying to keep noble Lords abreast of what is going on, and I will continue to do so on this particular topic.
Lord Cormack
Before my noble friend sits down, he said that we will have details in a few days. Does this not make a powerful argument for his coming back on Third Reading?
Lord Taylor of Holbeach
No, we will not have information on the trials within a few days. We will have information about how the trials are being set up and the evaluation of the trials. That is what we will have available within the next few days. It is important that we wait until then before we make a decision on this matter, but I assure noble Lords that they will be informed when an announcement is made. It cannot be made at the moment because of the ways in which the Government actually organise these affairs, but it will be made very shortly. It will be this week, and within the next few days.
Baroness Butler-Sloss
My Lords, I do not doubt the good intentions of the Government. I should like to have seen that letter before I prepared what I was going to say to your Lordships’ House. I did not know that the letter existed, so I did not go to the Library to ask about it. I suspect that there are others in the same situation. That really does put us in grave difficulties when we are putting forward amendments.
However, perhaps much more importantly, I am a member of the Joint Committee on the Draft Modern Slavery Bill, and three different government Ministers came to speak to us, together with endless government officials at different times, but nobody told us about this. The first I knew of it was the press release. The Joint Committee was sitting until the end of last week and yet, oddly enough, we were not even told about it last week. We knew through the press release. You might have thought that it was relevant for the Joint Committee on the Draft Modern Slavery Bill to be told about it, but we were not told. I read the press release that dealt with care proceedings in immigration. It did not deal with any of the other matters that the Minister told us about. I do not doubt his good intentions, but it is interesting that we have it on Monday this week, rather than last week.
If I may respectfully say so, it looks as though the Government are scrabbling a bit to meet this amendment. If this really matters to the Government, it is odd that there is nothing in the modern slavery Bill, not even enabling powers, to allow for the production of statutory guidance, if that was the appropriate thing. The statement that there will be a statutory guardian does not have to be in the Bill, but the words that the Secretary of State could provide for such a guardian could be included. That did not come to us last week. I ask noble Lords to reflect on what is going on here when today is the first day I have heard about it, the Select Committee has never heard about it and even the press release had only part of what we are told today, although it was quite a long press release.
What is the real difference between what the Government are offering and what the amendment is saying? The difference is the statutory power. We were told again and again in our Select Committee about the absence of a statutory power for an advocate or a guardian. The word is unimportant and the title does not matter; it is the job that matters. The job is being offered by the Minister, but the Select Committee was told that if you have no statutory power, there is no obligation on any agency—social services, the police, the CPS for the Vietnamese boys who are being prosecuted or the NHS—to deliver to that advocate the information the advocate needs. The advocate will not have any powers in going to advise in immigration procedures or to talk to the UK Human Trafficking Centre, and so on and so forth.
Lord Taylor of Holbeach
I do not wish to interrupt the noble and learned Baroness, but I made it quite clear that advocates would have those powers. For these trials, they do not require a statute. They will have the right to represent that child at any meeting—immigration, criminal or of any description. I have tried to make that quite clear.
Baroness Butler-Sloss
My Lords, I hesitate to disagree with the Minister, but where do the powers come from if there is no statutory basis? He referred to Scotland. The Select Committee heard very interesting evidence from a number of people from Scotland. They told us that in Scotland all the trafficked children are in Glasgow. There is one police force which works very closely with the local authorities. They can make it work in Glasgow. They told us very clearly, particularly one of the MSPs, that they did not think it would work in England because England is not one place. England is a lot of rural communities, urban communities and big cities where the police may not have heard of this, so when the advocate who has no statutory power goes to the police somewhere in the north-east of England they will say, “Get lost”. I can very well see it. In the absence of statutory powers, I do not see what good intentions will do. If the Government would accept in principle what we are asking for, there is no reason why the other place cannot improve it on such matters as the Secretary of State, who is not in the amendment, but we need to have the House with us to get the very basics.
I remind noble Lords that children are worse off than adults at the moment. We are not talking about English children from Rotherham, Rochdale, Luton and Oxford. We are talking about foreign children who are trafficked into this country without the language and not even knowing which country they are in. Many, if not most, of the children do not go through the care system. If they are only accommodated, the degree of social work help is limited. A CAFCASS guardian is not appointed. They do not go through the court system. Consequently, these children are outside the system. These children need the help that those who go through the care system get.
I recognise the points that the noble Baroness, Lady Howarth, whom I treat as one of my closest friends, is making. I would prefer to see one of the major charities take this on, rather than independent volunteers, because that would have a basis of efficiency that would make me feel a lot happier. She is right about a mentoring or supervisory system for guardians: I should like to see that. Those things are important but they are details that one could put together once it is on the statute book.
The noble Lord, Lord Quirk, pointed out the interesting issue of domicile, which I had almost forgotten about. It arises in divorce, where it hardly ever matters, but to my recollection—and that of the noble Lord, Lord Elystan-Morgan—it does not arise in the Children Act 1989 or any other child legislation where there is an issue of residence. Consequently, the answer is that if a child leaves the country they are no longer resident.
I see no difficulty in a legal guardian or advocate—I do not mind about the word—working with social workers. CAFCASS, which is an independent, nationwide organisation run by the state, works perfectly well with social workers. Why can an independent child trafficking guardian system not do the same, so long as it has the statutory basis that the social workers have to treat it seriously?
I could make a great many other points but we are, as the noble Lord, Lord McColl, will remember, being asked for the fourth time not to pursue this. Why is this? It is because of half measures. I would prefer it in the modern slavery Bill but the Government are not offering it there. Let us, consequently, get it into some legislation. If the Government accept it, they can put it into the modern slavery Bill and we do not have to have it in the Immigration Bill. We need the view of the House that this is what should happen. I beg leave to test the opinion of the House.
Lord Pannick
“(1) A committee of members of both Houses of Parliament shall be established to consider and report on whether section 40 of the British Nationality Act 1981 (deprivation of citizenship) should be amended to enable the Secretary of State to deprive a person of their citizenship status if—
(a) the citizenship status results from the person’s naturalisation, and(b) the Secretary of State is satisfied that the deprivation is conducive to the public good because the person, while having that citizenship status, has conducted him or herself in a manner which is seriously prejudicial to the vital interests of the United Kingdom, any of the Islands, or any British overseas territory, even if to do so would have the effect of making a person stateless. (2) The committee shall consist of six members of the House of Lords nominated by the Chairman of Committees, and six members of the House of Commons nominated by the Speaker of the House of Commons, to be appointed on the passing of this Act to serve for the duration of the present Parliament.
(3) Any casual vacancy occurring by reason of the death, resignation or incapacity of a member of the committee shall be filled by the nomination of a member by the Chairman of Committees or the Speaker of the House of Commons, as the case may be.
(4) The quorum of the committee shall be two members of each House and the committee shall be entitled to sit and to transact business whether Parliament be sitting or not, and notwithstanding a vacancy in the membership of the committee.
(5) Subject to the above provisions, the committee may regulate its own procedure.”
Lord Pannick (CB)
My Lords, this amendment stands in my name and in the names of the noble Baroness, Lady Smith of Basildon, the noble Lord, Lord Macdonald of River Glaven, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Brown of Eaton-under-Heywood. The noble Lord, Lord Macdonald, has asked me to express his apologies to the House for his absence abroad today.
Clause 64 would give the Home Secretary power to decide that British citizenship obtained by naturalisation should be removed for reasons of the public good, even if the result would be to render the person stateless. Amendment 56 would establish a Joint Committee of both Houses of Parliament to consider all aspects of the Government’s proposal and report back. Parliament could then take an informed view on whether the benefits, if any, of the Government’s proposal outweighed any detriments. A Joint Committee is required because Clause 64 was added to the Bill very late in the passage of the Bill through the other place—that is, 24 hours before Report and Third Reading on 30 January, so there was no pre-legislative scrutiny of this proposal, no consultation and no opportunity for consideration by the Public Bill Committee of the other place. The absence of pre-legislative scrutiny and proper consultation is especially unfortunate in a context such as this. The Home Secretary said, in introducing this clause in the Commons on 30 January:
“Depriving people of their citizenship is a serious matter. It is one of the most serious sanctions a state can take against a person and it is therefore not an issue that I take lightly”.—[Official Report, Commons, 30/1/14; col. 1038.]
The need for proper scrutiny by a Joint Committee is not an abstract matter. The implications of Clause 64 raise matters of real concern on which there is very limited information, as the debates in Committee in your Lordships’ House demonstrated. Many questions were posed in Committee as to how this proposed power would work and what its consequences would be. A Joint Committee will need to consider the practical implications and the international implications of implementing this power. As discussed in Committee, there are real concerns that the proposed measure would do little to protect the national interest and may be counterproductive. It is difficult to understand what would be achieved by taking away the citizenship of a person resident here. It may be more difficult to remove them from this country as other countries would be less willing to accept them without a passport.
In his letter dated 4 April—which I and other Peers received and for which I thank the noble Lord—the Minister, the noble Lord, Lord Taylor of Holbeach, emphasised, rightly, that we are concerned in this clause with dangerous individuals, individuals who pose, as he said, a serious national security risk to the United Kingdom. There is no dispute about that. The question is how the exercise of a right to remove British citizenship would assist in protecting us against such individuals. The noble Lord said in his letter that the Home Secretary is concerned to prevent such people from travelling abroad using a British passport to participate in terrorist training activities. However, the Secretary of State already has power to withdraw a British passport from dangerous individuals for precisely such a reason without stripping them of their nationality and making them stateless. The noble Lord, Lord Taylor, made a Written Ministerial Statement on this very subject to the House on 25 April of last year.
In practice, it seems likely that a deprivation of citizenship would normally occur while the individual is out of this country. However, that raises a concern that other countries may well say that the individual was allowed in only by reason of the fact that they were travelling on a British passport, and now that that status has been removed and the person has no other nationality, we, the United Kingdom, can have them back. Your Lordships may have seen the advice of Professor Guy Goodwin-Gill, professor of international refugee law at Oxford University, that in those circumstances this country would have an international law obligation to the other state to readmit that individual, however objectionable their conduct.
The Joint Committee will also want to consider whether the benefits, if any, of the proposed new power justify the adverse international implications. This country played a leading international role in the drafting of the 1961 UN Convention on the Reduction of Statelessness. We have done much since then to encourage other nations to refrain from inflicting on their citizens what Lord Wilson, in the Al-Jedda case in the Supreme Court last year, described as “the evil of statelessness”. There are, regrettably, all too many dictators around the world who are willing to use the creation of statelessness as a weapon against opponents and we should do nothing to suggest that such conduct is acceptable.
The Government have now, very late in the passage of the Bill, brought forward their own amendment to provide for post-legislative scrutiny, and the Minister will speak to that. However, the noble Lord’s Amendment 56A does not say who will conduct this post-legislative scrutiny or indeed require that they are even independent of the Home Office. The noble Lord’s amendment allows for information in the scrutiny report not to be published. In any event—this is the crucial point—the Government’s Amendment 56A does not meet my concern because proper consideration of the implications of this proposed power to render people stateless is required before legislation is enacted and not afterwards.
Given the absence of pre-legislative scrutiny, the late stage at which Clause 64 was added to the Bill and the lack of clarity as to how this power will operate and with what consequences, we should refer it to a Joint Committee so that Parliament can be properly informed on these difficult and important issues. I beg to move.
The Deputy Speaker (Baroness Pitkeathley)
I must tell your Lordships that if Amendment 56 is agreed to, I cannot call Amendments 56ZA to 56ZD inclusive for reasons of pre-emption.
Lord Taylor of Holbeach
My Lords, it may be helpful if I explain the terms of our amendment at this stage and then come back to address the debate. I would not do so unless I thought that it would be helpful to the House.
I begin by reminding the House of the background to and context of the proposals in Clause 64. It is a fundamental duty of any Government to protect the British public and to maintain the security of the UK against a range of threats, as I think noble Lords will understand. This provision is intended to strengthen our position in a very important, targeted and limited way.
Sadly, a minority of individuals choose to become British citizens and then, later, seek to threaten our security, subvert our values and laws, and fight against our Armed Forces. It would be perverse if such people, while attacking our forces or terrorising civilians, could invoke our protection. People who have chosen to become British have taken an oath in which they pledge to respect the UK’s rights and freedoms, uphold the UK’s democratic values and fulfil their duties and obligations as British citizens. Despite this oath, some act in a way that is seriously prejudicial to the vital interests of the United Kingdom.
I know that noble Lords are concerned about the potential impact of leaving a person stateless and I accept that this is not something to be contemplated lightly. The Home Secretary acknowledged this when she introduced the clause and made clear how seriously she regards her personal responsibilities in this regard. However, again, I must remind the House that not only would every individual have the opportunity to challenge the decision on appeal but some who are deprived would be able to fall back on another nationality with no difficulty.
I listened to the arguments raised by noble Lords in Committee about the need for an independent reviewer and I am pleased to say that we have agreed to this. We have not yet decided who should conduct reviews. It may be appropriate to appoint the independent reviewer of terrorism legislation, currently David Anderson, to take on this additional task. We are mindful of the fact that if the review of deprivation power is added to the demands on him, it must not be to the detriment of his capacity to meet his existing important statutory duties. That is why the name of the independent reviewer is not in the amendment. None the less, it may be him.
Lord Lester of Herne Hill (LD)
Does that mean the Minister will accept that the word “independent” should be in his own amendment? It is in the amendment of my noble friend Lady Hamwee, but it is not in his.
Lord Taylor of Holbeach
I have just referred to the “independent reviewer of terrorism legislation”. We see the person undertaking this role to be independent. His role, I was going on to say, is to present a report of the reviews to the Home Secretary, who would lay them before Parliament. That could not be done unless the person was independent of the decisions being taken by the Home Secretary. I accept that point. We would then debate them in this House.
We propose a different reporting cycle to the one proposed in Amendment 57A. We recognise the importance of scrutinising the operation of the power at the earliest opportunity, hence the commitment to review after the first year. However, given the low number of orders—I have never made it other than plain that the number of cases is never going to be large in this area—that we expect to be made under the new power, we do not consider that subsequent annual reviews would be necessary or proportionate, particularly as every individual case can be subject to independent judicial scrutiny on appeal. So every individual case can be appealed before a judge. The Government will have an opportunity to address any concerns about the operation of the power arising from the initial report after 12 months, which is important, and the subsequent 36-month review period will then provide a much fuller evidence base from a large number of cases.
Amendment 56, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, proposes that a parliamentary committee should be established in place of the introduction of the new power in Clause 64. I do not agree that a small committee of six persons from each House is the right place to consider this matter, not least because it would mean that we would have to unpick some decisions already made by this House after careful consideration of a report from the Liaison Committee about which Select Committees should be established in the new Session which makes it clear where the decision for this kind of nomination should lie. The appropriate place for scrutiny of these proposals is in the whole House considering a Bill, as we are doing now, and we should not shy away from making difficult decisions.
This is a matter of national security and we should be wary of unnecessary delay, which would leave a loophole to be exploited and create a barrier to effective action for what is likely to be at least a considerable number of months while the committee deliberated on this action.
That is my intervention at this stage. I hope it helps the House to consider the context of why the Government are not likely to accept the noble Lord’s amendment and prefer their own.
Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Lab)
My Lords, I wish to speak to Amendments 56ZA to—
Lord Brown of Eaton-under-Heywood (CB)
My Lords, my name is on the amendment so I wish to speak to it.
Baroness Lister of Burtersett
I also have an amendment in the group. I shall speak to Amendments 56ZA to 56ZD in this group. They have been tabled with colleagues from the Joint Committee on Human Rights, which recommended them. They also reflect concerns raised in a joint briefing from the Equality and Human Rights Commission, the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission and the Scottish Human Rights Commission. But I should make it clear first that I would prefer Amendment 56 to be successful so that these amendments would become redundant. Indeed, these amendments reinforce the case for Amendment 56 because they underline how a number of key human rights issues remain unresolved. As the commissions observed, the consequences of having and using the power proposed in Clause 64 have not been carefully and thoroughly considered in respect of the UK’s compliance with its international and domestic human rights law obligations. I fear that this remains the case despite the welcome government Amendment 56A. It should not be the responsibility of an independent reviewer to put right defective legislation once it is in operation.
Amendment 56ZA seeks to ensure that any deprivation of citizenship is consistent with the UK’s obligations under international law. There has been some confusion in our debates so far as to what is meant by this. The JCHR accepts that Clause 64 is compatible with our obligations under UN conventions on statelessness, and not surprisingly the Government have prayed this in aid. But, in doing so, they have conveniently overlooked the JCHR’s concern that exercising the power in relation to a naturalised British citizen while they are abroad carries with it a very great risk of breaching the UK’s international obligations to the state which admitted that British citizen to its territory. These two points were at times conflated during our debates in Committee.
The Government’s legal position is that subject to one very limited exception, there is no general entitlement in international law for a state to deport a non-British citizen to the UK. On the other hand, Professor Goodwin-Gill, an acknowledged authority on the subject and already cited by the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, has said that the Government’s position on general international law is “manifestly incorrect”. This is not the place to go into disputes of legal interpretation, and as a non-lawyer I am certainly not the person to do so, but the point is that if fine legal minds are in dispute about whether it is compatible with international law to denationalise a citizen while they are abroad, surely it makes sense to allow a Joint Committee of both Houses to consider the matter before the proposal goes any further.
At this point I want also to put on the record the JCHR’s disappointment that the Government continue to refuse to inform Parliament about the number of cases in which the power to deprive a person of their citizenship has been exercised while that person is abroad. How can statistics affect national security? When the JCHR put this question to the independent reviewer in a recent public session, he responded by saying:
“My sympathies are very much with your request. If they will not tell them to you, I can only assume that they would tell them at least to a security cleared reviewer, who might in turn be able to make a recommendation that they may be released more widely”.
Will the Minister give a commitment now to make those statistics available to the independent reviewer, who he has said may indeed be given the power of review proposed in Amendment 56A?
Amendment 56ZB requires that the deprivation of citizenship is a necessary and proportionate response to an individual’s conduct. I would have thought that that was a rather basic safeguard for such a draconian power. The committee welcomed the Government’s indication that they would adopt a proportionality approach to deciding whether to exercise the power to deprive someone of their citizenship regardless of whether that would risk statelessness, but we believe that the importance of the concepts of necessity and proportionality as safeguards against arbitrariness are such that they should be in the Bill as conditions which have to be satisfied before the Secretary of State makes a deprivation order. We believe that this could make a real and practical difference in particular cases.
We also noted that it was hard to imagine the circumstances in which such a serious measure could ever be a necessary and proportionate response to a threat to the country’s economic well-being, as has been indicated by the Government. In Committee, the Minister promised to write to me with an example of when this might happen. I do not believe that I have received that example, so I should be grateful if he could provide it today on the record.
Amendment 56ZC would remove the retrospective power contained in the clause. The Government response to the Committee’s objection to this exceptional constitutional step was that a person does not have a legitimate claim of being unaware of the potential consequence of their actions because the person who would come within the scope of this new power would already be liable to being deprived of citizenship under existing powers. The only thing that prevents that now is that such a decision would leave them stateless. Is not that “only thing” rather an important thing? The Government response makes light of the fact that it is the law that currently prevents a person being deprived of citizenship if it made that person stateless. Surely a citizen should be entitled to rely on what the law said at the time of their action? Again, this is an issue that a Joint Committee could usefully address.
Finally, Amendment 56ZD requires that this decision,
“must take into account the best interests of any child affected”.
No doubt the Minister will point to the very welcome Amendment 58 that explicitly writes the Section 55 children’s duty into the Bill. However, Section 55 applies only to children who are in the UK. Thus the duty would not apply if the child affected—who may be a British citizen—happens to be abroad at the time, as is quite possible. A child is a child, wherever that child happens to be. I cannot believe that a Government who have repeatedly reiterated their belief in the best interest principle are really saying that that principle does not apply if the child happens to be out of the country.
I made it clear at the outset that the best way to resolve the issues raised by the JCHR is through the appointment of a Joint Committee as provided for by Amendment 56. Indeed the JCHR itself complained about the lack of public consultation and its detrimental impact on the parliamentary scrutiny of this clause. As the noble Lord, Lord Deben, said in Committee,
“statelessness is one of the most terrible things that can befall anyone”.—[Official Report, 19/3/14; col. 212.]
The Minister has himself spoken of the evil of statelessness. In the words of Dr Matthew Gibney of the Refugee Studies Centre at Oxford University, to be stateless,
“may be a recipe for exclusion, precariousness and general dispossession”.
This will be the first measure adopted by the UK in recent years that would give rise directly to an increase in the number of stateless people in the world condemned to be dispossessed,
“without the right to have rights”,
as Hannah Arendt so memorably put it. This House has a duty to prevent this clause going any further without the full and detailed scrutiny it warrants by a committee of both Houses.
Lord Brown of Eaton-under-Heywood
My Lords, that Clause 64 is highly contentious and far from obviously a good idea is perfectly plain. It is plain, indeed, from the Minister’s own recognition in Amendment 56A that a review of its operation will be required even if the provision is enacted. The critical difference between the Government’s amendment and our own is that we say that there should be no such drastic provision enacted as this without its first being subjected to full and proper consideration, and that of course would happen under our amendment. This really is a matter of fundamental principle.
It is true to say, as the Minister noted in Committee, that someone can already be made stateless if deprived of their citizenship having originally obtained naturalisation by fraud. That is perhaps understandable. The person would never have obtained British citizenship in the first place but for having committed fraud. To render stateless someone who has already properly gained citizenship by naturalisation is, I would suggest, quite another matter. Of course one must recognise that the power would arise only in respect of those who had betrayed the trust which we as a nation put in them when we granted them naturalisation and who now themselves create a risk to national security. For my part, I can readily see the temptation to say, “Well, they, too, therefore can properly be made stateless”. This is a temptation which I truly believe that, as a nation proud—and rightly proud—of our human rights record, we should resist.
Baroness O'Loan (CB)
My Lords, I spoke on the first day in Committee but was unable to attend on the day this clause was discussed, as I was recovering from surgery. Nevertheless, as a member of the Joint Committee on Human Rights, I have put my name to these amendments because it is profoundly important that the Bill which comes to be enacted following your Lordships’ deliberations takes into account the issues which arise. As the noble Baroness, Lady Lister, has said, this would most effectively be done through the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Pannick.
The outstanding issues have been graphically illustrated by the noble Baroness, Lady Lister, but I will refer very briefly to them. The Government have so far declined to provide any indication of the number of people whose citizenship was taken away from them while they were abroad, on the basis that they are all cases in which the information on which the Secretary of State relied was information which should not be made public. The Government say that they are “unable” to put the numbers into the public domain,
“for reasons of national security and operational effectiveness”.
However, I do not believe that the release of this number, or of many other numbers, will in any way impact on national security.
The Government also indicated in their response that it is anticipated that the new power will usually, and possibly always, be exercised on the basis of closed material. As noble Lords will recall, this is not a procedure which has commended itself to many and is one which carries with it the risk of unfairness. The Joint Committee remains concerned that exercising the power,
“in relation to naturalised British citizens while they are abroad … carries a very great risk of breaching the UK’s international obligations to the State who admitted the British citizen to its territory”.
The first two amendments to which I put my name, Amendments 56ZA and 56ZB, therefore seek to ensure United Kingdom compliance with our international obligations and to ensure the adequacy of the safeguards against arbitrariness in decision-making by requiring that, if it is to be done,
“the deprivation of citizenship is a necessary and proportionate response to such conduct”.
The Joint Committee on Human Rights does not accept the Government’s argument that the clause is compatible with its international obligations to countries that have admitted British citizens whose citizenship is subsequently removed.
The Government assert that out-of-country deprivations of citizenship do not engage the European Convention on Human Rights because it does not apply extraterritorially other than in exceptional circumstances. However, the case which they propose as an authority for this view is by no means an authority for the broad proposition that the ECHR is not engaged by an out-of-country deprivation of citizenship that leaves an individual stateless, as the case itself did not concern a deprivation which left the individuals concerned stateless. Moreover, there have been cases involving extraterritorial jurisdiction. I point your Lordships to the East African Asians case, in which the UK was found to have breached the right not to be subjected to “inhuman or degrading treatment” in Article 3 of the ECHR when it removed the right of abode in the UK from British citizens. Were Parliament to enact Clause 60 as drafted, it would be the first measure adopted by the UK in recent years that gave rise directly to an increase in the number of stateless people in the world.
Amendment 56ZC is about retrospectivity. The noble Baroness, Lady Lister, has already made the point that, under current law, a naturalised British citizen who does not also have another nationality is not liable to being deprived of their citizenship. Yet that is what the Government assert. The law says that they cannot be made stateless by deprivation of UK citizenship which has been conferred. The amendment seeks only to ensure that a person could not lose their citizenship as a consequence of actions which they were unaware could result in such loss, particularly since the information and intelligence which will lead to the decision-making will, in most cases, be withheld from them through the closed procedure.
The final amendment is about children. The Government do not consider an amendment such as this necessary to ensure that the best interests of any children affected are treated as a primary consideration. The Government cite the “children duty” in Section 55 of the Borders, Citizenship and Immigration Act 2009 as applying already to the Secretary of State’s decision-making in respect of deprivation decisions. However, as the noble Baroness has already said, the Section 55 duty applies only to children who are in the United Kingdom. It does not apply if the children affected, who may be British citizens, are abroad at the time, as they very well might be when the power is being exercised in relation to an individual who is abroad at the time of deprivation. Amendment 56ZD is very simple. It seeks to extend the duty in Section 55 of the Borders, Citizenship and Immigration Act to children who are outside the UK at the time when the Secretary of State makes the decision affecting them. Can the Minister explain how else such children could be protected?
Baroness Hamwee
My Lords, I have Amendments 57A and 57B in this group and share the concerns that have been expressed about the substance and transparency of the new clause and what the point of it is. In Committee, I asked that question rhetorically. I now ask—I hope it is not a rhetorical question—why we should not use a TPIM, as we have that legislation on the statute book. The conduct of the individuals concerned seems to fall into the same area, and this indeed raises the same issue—that the individual has not been prosecuted. If TPIMs are not to be used, it is bound to raise the suspicion that the power will mainly be exercised when an individual is out of the country.
The charitably funded Bureau of Investigative Journalism has identified 17 cases, mainly through FoI and court records, in 15 of which the individual was overseas at the time of the deprivation under the provisions as we now have them. If these individuals are regarded as such a high risk, I think we can assume that, having lost their status, they would be subject to close surveillance, certainly if they are in this country. If they are overseas, that might raise even wider matters.
I understand from officials—I thank them as well as the Minister—that if an individual, having been made stateless through this procedure, is in the UK, he will have limited leave to remain. I was referred to the relevant Immigration Rules. Under paragraphs 404 and 406, a person who is,
“a danger to the security or public order of the United Kingdom”,
will be refused leave to remain. Can the Minister tell noble Lords whether that person is then disqualified from leave to remain and what happens to him?
I understand from the old UKBA casework instruction on restricted leave that that will apply, and that restrictions and conditions can be imposed, including a residence restriction. Noble Lords will recall concerns about residence restrictions under the old control order regime. One of the concerns about those restrictions was the impact on the family of the individual subject of an order. Can the Minister explain what will happen to the family of an individual if, on the one hand, he is in this country and if, on the other, he is abroad? Does the family qualify for leave to remain in the circumstances of the individual being a danger to security or public order, as I have quoted? I mention all this because the impact on families was a concern about control orders, TPIMs and terrorist asset-freezing. Reporting on that has been a component in reviews, which we have seen, by successive independent reviewers.
The Bureau of Investigative Journalism mentioned to me two examples of the impact on families. One was of a Sudanese-born man who lost his citizenship. The bureau told me that a Home Office official said in evidence in court that the Government waited until he was overseas before removing it. He had taken his wife and four children to Sudan for the summer. That left the children effectively exiled as well. The other example was of a British-born man whose youngest son was born here and who remains a British citizen. He has developmental disorders and is dependent on both his parents. His mother wishes to return to the UK for treatment for the son but she cannot do so without her husband. One does not want to be too hearts and flowers about this. The issue that we are being asked to consider is a tough one, but I think that the issue goes wider than just the individuals involved. I asked the Minister whether individuals and a family might be left without resources and so left destitute. Can he share with the House the Government’s position on that, particularly if the deprivation has been made while the individual is abroad?
Baroness Kennedy of The Shaws (Lab)
My Lords, I have made a number of speeches on this subject at different stages of the Bill and I do not want to take too much of the House’s time. I welcome the idea of an independent reviewer being involved, but I say to the Minister that it is not enough. As he will see, my name is on a number of the amendments that were referred to by my noble friend Lady Lister. I, too, am a member of the Joint Committee on Human Rights. The amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, is really the course that I would urge this House to take.
The whole idea of making people stateless is unsupportable as a measure, but that fact does not place barriers in the way of the Government in their efforts to deal with terrorism. Terrorism is a serious threat nationally and internationally, and the Government must act in the interests of our safety. Opponents of this move, of whom I am one, are not objecting to removing citizenship from people who have two passports. If someone already has dual nationality—and not just the possibility of being able to get it from somewhere else because they have a father or grandfather who is of a different nationality—then on the right evidence and with due process there is no reason why citizenship cannot be removed from someone whose conduct has been shown to be a threat to our national security. The Supreme Court recently did precisely that in relation to a Pakistani-British family living mainly in Pakistan.
However, I want to remind this House why the idea of rendering someone stateless is so repugnant. After the horrors of the Second World War, the international community had the opportunity of reflecting on the whole notion of the Wandering Jew—as though “wandering” was a voluntary condition—and the idea of what it meant to have no secure home and of living with the mental torture of insecurity. The international community was conscious of the many other people forced to live lives of uncertainty—because it is a weapon used by tyrants and dictators—knowing that they could be ousted at any moment because of the instability of their status. We were all alert to how such persons lacked full rights if they were rendered stateless, and that was why the convention to end statelessness came into being. Britain was one of the countries at the forefront of such moves, which is why we have been a beacon in relation to this issue.
It is interesting that Germany, reviewing its own conduct in relation to statelessness after the Second World War, has made it part of its constitutional obligations that it will never remove citizenship once it is granted. The United States, too—which, of course, became a haven for those seeking sanctuary—never removes citizenship once it is granted and believes strongly that people should not be rendered stateless.
Of course, if you are not a citizen of anywhere, you cannot have the rights that citizenships confers on you—the very right to have rights, as has been mentioned already. The presumption should always be that if you commit crime you should be tried and jailed, and that there are steps that can be taken to deal with criminality and behaviour that is a threat to states. But there is also a presumption that if something happens to you abroad you can insist on contact being made with your embassy or consulate so that your rights can be asserted. It is not just about providing protection, it is about seeking to make everyone subject to the rule of law—the thing that Britain is renowned for. The presumption should always be that law is involved in these processes.
I have repeatedly told the story of Mahdi Hashi, who had his citizenship removed while in Somalia. Two other persons from whom Britain had removed citizenship were droned—killed by the use of drones—in Somalia. We should reflect on that; it was evidence given to the Joint Committee on Human Rights by the UN rapporteur on counterterrorism only a week or so ago. Mahdi Hashi was advised through his parents of having lost his citizenship and that he had a month to appeal. Somalia has no British embassy. He travelled to Djibouti, where he was picked up by the secret police. On saying that he was British, he was told that inquiries had been made and that Britain was denying any obligations towards him. We washed our hands of him—Pontius Pilate lives on.
Mahdi Hashi was interrogated at length—no lawyers, no court processes. He was then handed over to the CIA and further interrogated—no lawyers, no court processes. He had a hood put on his head and was transported to the United States of America—no extradition processes. This was essentially another rendition. But Britain can now claim that we were not complicit because he was not our citizen. Is that the purpose of this change of law, that we might be able to do things that make people vulnerable and deny them their rights, creating yet more black holes where no law obtains but where we cannot be accused of complicity?
We in Britain have always claimed our commitment to the rule of law; indeed, we like to think of ourselves as having parented its existence. You might ask: is this man, who is now sitting in a jail in New York, a bad guy? I cannot tell you. No evidence is in the public domain. But it matters not whether he is a bad guy—that is the important thing to have in mind. We are supposed to believe in due process, the rule of law and international human rights. By making him stateless, we stripped him of the safeguards that any human being should expect. That is not how we normally behave. That is not an acceptable way for a civilised nation to behave.
This is an issue of profound principle and much more care needs to be taken than we currently see in considering the implications of this in terms of what message we are sending to the world, what the position is with regard to international law, what it means to make someone stateless, and what other states, where such persons end up, might feel about our having made such persons stateless. All those matters should persuade us that there should be a committee set up and that this needs much further reflection, because there are principles involved that should be seriously considered by us all because it matters about the nation that we live in.
Lord Lester of Herne Hill
My Lords, I was not able to speak in Committee but, briefly, I will make a point that I think has not yet been made.
My noble friend the Minister reminded us, rightly, of the fundamental importance of national security and of combating the evil of terrorism by all effective means. I do not think that I needed to be reminded of that but he was right to remind us all the same. Equally, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Brown, reminded us of another fundamental matter, which is the parliamentary scrutiny of draconian powers before they enter the statute book.
If I were persuaded, as the Minister has suggested, that this debate and previous debates are adequate as a substitute for effective pre-legislative scrutiny, I would not support the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, but I am not persuaded of that. The issues are extremely complicated and even though I think that I am some kind of international lawyer, I am certainly not going to analyse what Professor Guy Goodwin-Gill has said, even though I agree with him, or bore the House, as lawyers frequently could do, by going into a lot of technical detail.
What I want to do, and which gives rise to a question, is to deal with a point that the Joint Committee on Human Rights, of which I am a member, raised in our report and the way that the Government responded to it. In our report, we drew attention to the relevance of the European Convention on Human Rights and its various provisions, and we disagreed with the Government, whose position was that the European Convention on Human Rights had nothing to do with the issue. We went into the matter in paragraphs 45 and 46 of our report. In footnote 25 we referred to a case in which I was counsel for the applicants in the great case of the east African Asians against the United Kingdom.
That was a case which involved not national security but racism. It was a case where, to their shame, the then Labour Government persuaded both Houses of Parliament in emergency debates over three days and nights to take away from 200,000 British Asians, who were citizens of the United Kingdom and colonies, their right to enter and live in their only country of citizenship. By doing that, Parliament made 200,000 British citizens de facto stateless, even though a promise had been given to them by the previous Conservative Government that if they did not become local African citizens, they would be given the right to settle in this country. That promise was broken because of an extremely effective racist campaign mounted by Enoch Powell and Duncan Sandys, which led the Labour Government, with the support of both Houses, to pass that obnoxious legislation.
When we challenged that successfully before the European Commission of Human Rights, we relied upon two American cases. One was called Trop v Dulles. That was a case where under United States law somebody had been deprived of his American citizenship by Mr Dulles. The US Supreme Court said that under the American constitution, that was impermissible. The European Commission of Human Rights was impressed by that and it held that our Parliament had subjected British citizens to treatment that was racist and degrading.
Lord Paddick (LD)
My Lords, I wish to speak mainly to Amendment 56. I apologise to the House that I have not spoken in previous stages of the Bill although I have been present for the overwhelming majority of the debates in this House. I rise somewhat reluctantly in support of the Government as I fully understand some of the concerns many noble Lords, including many of those on my own Benches, have on this issue. I have been struggling to balance both sides of the argument in this complex area. However, I have listened carefully to the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, and I have some issues with what he has said this afternoon.
My understanding is that the Secretary of State already has the power to revoke British citizenship where the person concerned has acquired such citizenship through fraudulent means, whether it makes them stateless or not. If it is subsequently discovered that it is simply not true that the individual is entitled, and never has been entitled, to British citizenship, can it be right that they should be allowed to keep it, just because that would otherwise make them stateless? The noble and learned Lord, Lord Brown of Eaton-under-Heywood, said this afternoon that that is understandable. The Secretary of State already has the power to revoke British citizenship from a naturalised British subject if their conduct is seriously prejudicial to the vital interests of the UK, provided that that does not make them stateless. Therefore, if it is discovered that a naturalised British subject has been engaged with the Taliban in blowing up British soldiers in Afghanistan, for example, can it be right that they should be allowed to keep their acquired British citizenship?
The new power the Secretary of State seeks through Clause 64 is the power to revoke British citizenship from a naturalised British subject if their conduct is seriously prejudicial to the vital interests of the UK even if it does make them stateless. If it is right that a naturalised British subject should have their British citizenship revoked because they have been engaged with the Taliban in blowing up British soldiers in Afghanistan, can it be right that they should be allowed to keep that British citizenship just because it would otherwise make them stateless?
Some groups have said—indeed, the noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy of The Shaws, for whom I have the utmost respect said it this afternoon—that it is disproportionate in any circumstances to make somebody stateless, and that it is rogue states and autocratic Governments which have used powers to make their own citizens stateless. That argument has been used to support not giving the Home Secretary these new powers. There is no power, and the Government are not seeking a power, to make stateless those born in this country or those entitled to British citizenship from birth. Here we are talking about citizenship that has been given to those individuals by the Secretary of State, which the Secretary of State is seeking the power to take away from them if—and only if—their conduct justifies such revocation.
Some groups have argued that there is a wealth of terrorism-related offences that a person can be prosecuted for as an alternative to revocation of citizenship. My noble friend Lady Hamwee has suggested that TPIMs might be another way of dealing with this issue. Clearly, where there is evidence that can be placed before a court, and the individual is in the UK and can be prosecuted, every effort should be made to prosecute them. However, there will be a small number of cases where intelligence of involvement in terrorism cannot be made public.
I have no inside knowledge of the policing of terrorism but, as an example, it is in the public domain that in the past the security services have infiltrated terrorist organisations, and others within such organisations have provided intelligence to the security services about other individuals’ involvement in terrorism. In such cases, the lives of those who provide such intelligence from within would be put at risk if that intelligence were made public. That is, of course, not to say there should be no judicial oversight of such decisions. Anyone deprived of British citizenship, as my noble friend the Minister said, has a full right of appeal and those cases involving closed material would be heard by the Special Immigration Appeals Commission. I understand that, as these appeals will be heard by SIAC, legal aid will be available to those involved. I hope that the Minister will be able to confirm this.
I also think it is important that there is further oversight of the way in which these powers, if granted, would be used. While I largely accept the case for the Secretary of State having these powers, we have seen in the past the possibility of mission creep and testing the boundaries of powers given to Ministers. That is why I am very pleased to see the Government’s amendment, at the suggestion of my noble friend Lady Hamwee, to ensure that, for example, the independent reviewer of terrorism legislation conducts regular reviews into the use of these powers.
Even if it is necessary and proportionate to deprive somebody of citizenship so that it makes them stateless—and I accept that some noble Lords will argue that making someone stateless is disproportionate in any circumstances—some have asked what benefits this would bring. It has been argued that if citizenship is revoked while the individual is abroad, that would allow terror suspects to be loose and undocumented in whatever country they happen to be when their citizenship is revoked. Is it not the case that if they retained a valid British passport, these dangerous people are more likely to be able to travel at will to whatever country they like in pursuit of their terrorist ends? It has also been argued that it will make it more likely that dangerous people who are temporarily abroad will be sent back to the UK because they no longer have a British passport.
Contrary to the briefing provided by the Government, I accept that if someone entered a country with a British passport that is then revoked when they try to leave that country they are most likely to be sent back to the UK, if they do not or cannot regain their original nationality. This seems to be the area about which most noble Lords are concerned this afternoon: that were the UK to refuse admission, it would be a breach of the UK’s international obligations. I would very much like some reassurance from my noble friend the Minister as to what would happen in such circumstances. However, if they were to return to the UK they can be given limited leave to remain, which means that they can be subject to restrictions such as reporting any changes to their employment or address, or being required to report regularly to a police station. On the other hand, if they still hold British citizenship it would be easier for them to be involved in the development of terrorist networks, for example, or in providing support for terrorism or training or assistance in planning terrorist attacks without restriction.
Making someone stateless is a very serious matter that should be contemplated only in the most extreme of circumstances. I believe that such extreme circumstances can and do arise and that the Secretary of State should be allowed to exercise such powers without further delay, subject to the safeguards that already exist and those proposed by the government amendment.
Lord Sherbourne of Didsbury (Con)
My Lords, I intervene briefly to support government Amendment 56A and Clause 64 itself. I have followed closely the important and impressive debates on this clause in Committee and today. By the way, anyone who doubts the value of the House of Lords should read those speeches, because they demonstrate clearly this House’s concern for the rights of the individual.
The issue with which this House is grappling, not for the first time, is how to strike the balance between national security and the rights of the individual, in particular the situation that can arise when the Home Secretary of the day has reason to believe that an individual poses a grave threat to the UK’s national security but when, for various reasons, that person cannot be charged and brought to court. This is a dilemma with which Parliament has had to wrestle in recent years. Where a person poses such a threat but cannot be brought to court, it is right that Parliament should concern itself with the treatment and rights of that individual and the practicalities, as this House did on 17 March and is doing again today. I have had to ask myself: are there any instances of a Home Secretary, whether Labour or Conservative, depriving a person of citizenship on scant evidence and without good reason?
Baroness Berridge (Con)
My Lords, I declare an interest as a trustee of the think tank British Future and as a member of the Joint Committee on Human Rights. In the time that has been allowed to the Joint Committee to scrutinise this legislation and whatever mechanism your Lordships’ House chooses, whether it is post-legislative scrutiny or the Joint Committee option, there are three brief matters on which I would still like to hear the comments of my noble friend the Minister. I thank him for outlining the important duties, privileges and obligations that naturalised British citizens have. As an 18 year-old on a gap year, I took what was perhaps an unwise journey to northern areas of Ghana, which were known at that time for their instability, but I had most wisely packed my British passport. When civil disturbance arose, I literally clung to my British passport, knowing that of course the embassy would help to rescue me if I needed it. At that young age, I realised what a privilege it indeed was to have British citizenship and a passport.
I will outline those three brief matters. First, much mention has been made of the potential to undermine the position of the United Kingdom in relation to human rights laws on the international stage. It is important to give two current examples. In November 2012, 31 Bahraini citizens were deprived of their citizenship for “undermining state security”. When given the opportunity to sit in front of some Bahraini politicians, I outlined the position in relation to those cases, which arose in the context of civil protest. I was met with the retort, “Well, you do this too”. “Yes”, I said, “but we don’t do it to leave someone stateless”. The second example would be that there has been much mention in your Lordships’ House of the plight of the Rohingya Muslims in Burma, who do not enjoy citizenship. I therefore struggle to see how representations could be so forcefully made about them being entitled to citizenship if the Burmese Government are able to use similar language to that being outlined in the legislation.
Secondly, although it may well be that this clause does not place us in breach of our treaty obligations in international law, as I understand it neither would reintroducing the death penalty, yet moving to re-enact that is not a trajectory that many of your Lordships would wish to see. One of the circumstances that were not commented on in Committee in your Lordships’ House is this situation. If it seems that we can deprive people of their nationality while they are, for instance, in Syria and do not then have to readmit them to the UK, what would happen in the unfortunate situation of having people within our borders who have managed to get some kind of visa to be in this country and are perhaps unsavoury if their country of origin deprives them of their citizenship, so that we are left with a little oasis of stateless citizens in the UK? I am slightly too young to remember properly the tit-for-tat diplomatic spats of the Cold War, but is it really too much to imagine that there could be a tit-for-tat deprivation of the citizenship of people in different jurisdictions around the world?
Thirdly, I would like to outline the impact on the next generation, which has perhaps not been fully explored in relation to this new power. There are, of course, implications for the nationality and citizenship of the children of those who have been deprived of their citizenship. I am grateful to my noble friend the Minister for clarifying that the power will not apply, as I understand it, to people who acquire their citizenship by way of registration, who are often the children of someone who is naturalised—such people who are under 18 acquire their citizenship by registration. I would be grateful if my noble friend the Minister could outline the views of the Government about the effect on the next generation of children, who potentially have parents who are stripped of their nationality. This would make contact with that parent perhaps not impossible but significantly more difficult. Perhaps we might be at risk of sending a message to those children and perhaps having the same unfortunate effect as did certain of the powers that we used in Northern Ireland when we had a similar security situation.
Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)
My Lords, this has been a powerful debate. I am speaking to the amendment that I have been pleased to sign, along with the noble Lords, Lord Pannick and Lord Macdonald, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Brown. There is a sharp contrast with the time which was allowed to debate this issue in the other place.
I am grateful to the Minister for his comments at the beginning of the debate. I do not want to repeat the points which have been made, particularly those made more eloquently than I could do by those with legal expertise. I want to emphasise a number of points, particularly around the issue of scrutiny, which was referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Lester. This new government clause was introduced—with other amendments—in the other place just 24 hours prior to Report, all to be considered in a five-hour debate. It therefore did not receive the scrutiny that such a substantial and far-reaching clause needs and deserves. In the other place the Home Secretary admitted that,
“Members have not had as long to consider it as they would perhaps have wished”.
The Home Secretary claimed to have been “incredibly generous” in repeatedly giving way to respond to MPs’ concerns and questions, although I do not think that that was a particularly wise turn of phrase. As was made clear by my colleague in the other place, David Hanson, we were seeking to ensure that the consequences of such a significant clause had been properly thought through. The response from the Home Secretary was that the Government,
“recognise that there are consequences, and they have been considered”.—[Official Report, Commons, 30 Jan 2014; col. 1047-48.]
However, when we debated this in Committee, the responses from the Minister did not provide your Lordships’ House with the assurance that all the consequences had been considered. The noble Lord, Lord Sherbourne of Didsbury, partly quoted my comments in Committee, and I will reiterate the same point that everyone in your Lordships’ House wants to do everything possible to protect UK citizens from potential terrorist activity, both at home and abroad.
We also have to recognise that we have international obligations in this regard, as terrorism is a global threat. We all know that Clause 64 is a response to the Al-Jedda judgment by the Supreme Court, as was referred to by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Brown of Eaton-under-Heywood. It was clarified that the Secretary of State could not withdraw citizenship from an individual if it would leave them stateless. Clause 64 seeks to remove that barrier, and would allow the state to make an individual stateless if they are naturalised British citizens and the Government consider that they are involved with actions prejudicial to the interests of the UK. That would mean that either the former citizen remains locked in the UK, unable to leave, work or receive any support, but the Government still have obligations to that individual, or that they would be left stateless in another country and obviously not able to return.
When bringing forward such an exceptional power as this, the Government have a duty to consider the wider implications and the impact it will have. We understand that actions to tackle a threat to national or international security do at times curtail the freedom of an individual, but when such a measure is proposed it must be fully and properly considered. The process, the impact and the implications must all be fully thought through and understood.
The noble Lord, Lord Taylor, recognised the seriousness of this issue when we debated it in Committee. He said that it was right that we should have a thorough debate on the issue, after it was introduced at such a late stage and almost slipped in at the last minute in the Commons. However, the noble Lord has rejected the proposal in our amendment before the House today for scrutiny by a Joint Committee of both Houses, a dedicated committee to examine this in detail. He said that it should be debated during the passage of a Bill in your Lordships’ House.
For a debate to be effective, there must be answers to the questions raised. We are not a debating society. As the Minister has in effect acknowledged, our role in Parliament is to scrutinise and, if necessary, revise legislation. The noble Lord, Lord Lester, said in his comments that it was a complex issue. In Committee I and other noble Lords asked a number of questions in an attempt to understand how this clause would operate in practice and the impact on the individual, on public safety and on national and international security. To be effective in that scrutiny—the very scrutiny to which the noble Lord referred when introducing his amendment and rejecting our amendment—the Government must address the points we made, and answer the questions. On this very far-reaching clause, they have failed to do so.
In Committee we sought to understand the process and the full implications. What would the process be for making an order under the clause, and what would “seriously prejudicial” mean? What criteria would be considered by the Secretary of State, and what would be the process by which she would make her decision? I raised the specific case of Y1 with the Minister. In that case it appeared that the Home Secretary did not agree with the professional advice of the security services, following discussions with Cabinet members. I was not suggesting that that was necessarily wrong, but I wanted to understand if decisions could be made on political grounds. I did not receive much clarity on these points, but the Minister replied that this would affect only a small number of individuals. I have never considered that a few people being affected by a power makes it less important to consider the implications.
The Bureau of Investigative Journalism has identified 15 cases, to which the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, also referred, in which the person was overseas at the time. It has also shown that the use of that power gradually increased under this Government, from roughly one case each year in 2010 to eight in 2013. However, when asked for more precise information—for example, on how many of the individuals whose citizenship was removed were in the UK and how many were outside the UK at the time the decision was made—the Minister refused to give us more detail on the grounds of national security. I am not sure that I fully understand why giving the numbers involved, rather than specific information, is a danger to national security.
The Government have clarified that this new power could be used against people whether or not they are in the country, and whether or not they can acquire another nationality. They have stated that they would expect those who can acquire another nationality to seek to do so, but have no answers on what happens if that fails. There remains a lack of clarity on what happens to people who have their citizenship removed while they are in the country. This is an important point, as this clause is designed to deal with those whose activities are of concern, and indeed those who may be a danger.
Mr James Brokenshire, the new Immigration Minister, said that in the event of a person remaining in the UK they could be granted limited leave, “possibly” with conditions, and the UK would have certain legal international obligations under the UN convention. He expanded on that in a letter to the Constitution Committee, in which he wrote:
“For those living in the UK, we may grant another form of immigration leave, depending on the person’s circumstances … Crucially this will not attract all the privileges associated with being a British citizen; they would not be entitled to hold a British passport, to vote or to have full access to public services”.
The Minister confirmed this in writing to us after the debate. He also added that, in certain circumstances when the person cannot return to their country of origin, “it may be necessary” to provide them with exceptional leave to remain of some kind or another. Does this mean therefore that people would be trapped here, and we would not be able to deport them but would still have obligations towards them? How does that help to ensure that national security is protected?
What happens if someone is in another state when the decision is taken? What happens if they cannot be contacted? The Minister said that they would have the full right of appeal, but they cannot have this if they cannot be contacted. How can someone be notified in such circumstances, or avail themselves of any review of the decision? What about children who may be left behind? What will be the obligations of the state these children are in when their parent is made stateless? What will be the obligations of the state in which the person is made stateless?
Lord Taylor of Holbeach
My Lords, I am sorry that the noble Baroness feels that my responses have been inadequate. It is a matter of pride that I have sought to answer noble Lords’ queries during the passage of this Bill. The noble Baroness has never implied that anything I have supplied her with has been inadequate, and I am sorry if she has taken that view.
Baroness Smith of Basildon
At all times the Minister has sought to be courteous and to give as much information as possible. However, he will recall that in Committee I asked questions and he apologised for not having available some of the information needed to answer them. It is no slight on him personally; he has made a great effort to try to answer. It is just that there have not been answers to some of the questions I have asked.
Lord Taylor of Holbeach
I have written a report on every day of this Bill, and I will be writing about today’s debate to tell all noble Lords of those things that have arisen where I am not in a position to give an answer. The noble Baroness is very generous. Indeed I do my best but there is a limited amount of time and I do not want to take up too much time on an issue that noble Lords have debated with great skill for the elucidation of the House.
As I made clear in my earlier intervention, this is an important and sensitive issue that goes to the heart of ensuring that the Home Secretary has available to her the necessary powers to respond to changes and threats to our national security. Amendments 56ZA and 56ZB were discussed in Committee, and I can assure the House that this power was drafted taking full account of the need to ensure consistency with our international obligations. The Home Secretary will personally review every case and in doing so will of course consider, in line with our obligations under the ECHR, whether deprivation is a necessary and proportionate action in response to the conduct of the individual and the threat that they pose to the UK. I hope noble Lords will be reassured by our proposal for a statutory independent review that will be able to look at these matters as part of its scrutiny of the operation of this power.
The noble Baroness, Lady Lister, asked a number of questions. She asked whether the independent reviewer would have access to information on whether the deprivation action was taken while the person was in the UK or abroad. The independent reviewer will be provided with information on all aspects of the operation of the power, including the circumstances—
Lord Taylor of Holbeach
Perhaps I may just finish my answer. I think that it will be helpful to the noble Baroness if I do so. I will then give way.
The independent reviewer will be able to look at and will be provided with information on all aspects of the operation of the power, including the circumstances of individual deprivation decisions.
Baroness Lister of Burtersett
I am sorry to interrupt the Minister but I was not asking whether the independent reviewer would be allowed to do that once this law has come into force. I was asking the question that we have asked again and again about those who have already been deprived of citizenship. We have been told that we cannot have that information for security reasons, so the independent reviewer has suggested that perhaps he could have the information about those who have been deprived of citizenship under the existing legislation when they were abroad.
Lord Taylor of Holbeach
I see the point that the noble Baroness is making. I see no reason why not. If it has security connotations then perhaps it cannot be made public. However, our idea is that the independent reviewer should not be denied information that it considers important to perform its statutory duties as required by our amendment.
The noble Baroness asked about an example of where an individual would be deprived of citizenship on grounds of economic well-being. I replied to the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, on 26 March and a copy would have been sent to the noble Baroness, Lady Lister. In my letter I agreed that any situation which threatens vital economic assets is likely to be covered by terrorism considerations, but for that very reason we cannot rule out the possibility that it may be properly considered under this power.
The noble Baroness asked whether this goes against the UK’s international obligations to those countries that allow entry to British citizens who are subsequently deprived of that nationality. In the vast majority of cases, it does not. However, the Government note that the 1930 special protocol concerning statelessness created limited obligations in this respect. These obligations are limited to the 11 states that have ratified the protocol and apply only if certain conditions are met.
A number of noble Lords mentioned Professor Goodwin-Gill’s paper and his illustration that it was contrary to international law. Professor Goodwin-Gill has some expertise on this topic since he was part of the legal team representing Al-Jedda, but on this topic we believe that he is wrong. He based his analysis in large part on the opinion of Judge Read in the 1955 International Court of Justice case of Nottebohm, but Judge Read’s judgment was a dissenting judgment. We cannot accept the conclusions which Professor Goodwin-Gill derived from it. There is a very limited basis for an obligation to readmit people deprived of citizenship in very limited circumstances, as set out in Article 1 of the 1930 special protocol concerning statelessness. The limited number of state parties that have ratified this convention, together with the lack of state practice conforming to its provisions by states that are not party to the convention, shows that it does not constitute customary international law.
Lord Avebury
I am most grateful to my noble friend. As he has gone into some detail on Professor Guy Goodwin-Gill’s paper, would it be possible for him to lodge a paper in the Library, commenting on all the points raised in it? The Minister also quoted the views of the UK representative when the special protocol was agreed, who was very much in support of the idea that depriving people of their citizenship while they were abroad is illegal.
Lord Taylor of Holbeach
I will be happy to do that. However, I am conscious that noble Lords have been asking for answers today and to give what my noble friend has asked for would probably take the rest of the evening. I do not intend to do that, but I will do it in writing and lodge a copy in the Library.
Lord Lester of Herne Hill
I am sorry, but a few minutes ago the Minister said something about obligations under the European Convention on Human Rights. Am I right that the Government still take the view that the convention has no application extra-territorially if the Minister takes away someone’s citizenship when they are outside the country?
Lord Taylor of Holbeach
I was coming to this. I have been asked a lot of questions and I intend to answer them. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Brown, asked whether this would affect the UK’s contribution. It may be useful to point out that the UK is not alone in proposing this approach. Belgium and Ireland, among others, provide for the prospect of making a person stateless in circumstances analogous to what we are proposing. The noble Baroness, Lady O’Loan, and the noble Lord, Lord Lester, asked about the JCHR. Last year, in S1 and others v the Secretary of State, SIAC rejected the idea that Articles 2 or 3 would be engaged extraterritorially. Even if Article 8 were engaged extraterritorially, the interference would be lawful if it was necessary and proportionate. The high threshold set out in Clause 64 means that interference would be proportionate so I regard this as a rather academic point. I hope my noble friend, who does not lack academic credentials, is prepared to accept this. This was decided in 1973. This was like the case of the people in east Africa, to which my noble friend referred.
The noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy, made a passionate speech on the evils of statelessness after the Second World War. The UN Convention on the Reduction of Statelessness was agreed in 1961. The view of the United Nations was that, in extreme circumstances, people could be left stateless, as the JCHR accepted. This proposal is compatible with that UN convention. My noble friend Lady Hamwee asked what would happen to people in the UK who were made destitute. The UK would continue to have human rights obligations towards those in the UK and could not allow them to become destitute as a result of its actions. She asked whether these individuals were exempt from leave under the immigration laws and what would happen to family members. Family members would still be able to apply for leave within the rules, including the statelessness provisions, and would not be subject to restrictions unless their conduct justified it. My noble friend Lord Paddick, in a brave and thoughtful speech, said that legal aid is allowed for the appeal process. My noble friend Lady Berridge asked whether other countries will render people stateless in the UK on a tit-for-tat basis. Other countries can already do this and those affected would be subject to our immigration rules for stateless people. This clause will not provoke extra cases because, as we have stated, it will be used only for a few extreme cases. In any event, we believe that many will go on to acquire another nationality.
Lord Pannick
I thank all noble Lords who have spoken in this debate, particularly the Minister, whose door has been open throughout the passage of the Bill to all noble Lords concerned about particular clauses. He has given a characteristically full and helpful response to the amendments.
In his first intervention in this debate, the noble Lord, Lord Taylor, said that he recognises the importance of scrutiny at the earliest opportunity and that Amendment 56A therefore allows for a report one year after the passage of the Bill. The earliest opportunity for scrutiny is before we confer this power on the Secretary of State, not after we confer this power on the Secretary of State. The Minister then said that the place for proper scrutiny was in this House, not in a Joint Committee. But for this House to do its job properly depends on adequate pre-legislative scrutiny so that we have the information adequately to assess the implications of Clause 64. I am particularly grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, and to other noble Lords, for identifying a large number of questions that the Joint Committee no doubt will wish to consider.
The Minister also suggested that delay while we wait for a Joint Committee report might somehow be damaging. I find that very difficult to understand. Clause 64 would remove a restriction on creating statelessness, which has been part of our law since 2003. The Minister has not told us how many, if any, cases there are where the Secretary of State would wish to remove nationality on public good grounds but is currently prevented from doing so because it would cause statelessness. In any event, I do not understand—and it is plain from the debates that I am not the only the noble Lord who does not understand—how removing nationality to make a person stateless is going to assist national security by making it easier to control undesirable people or remove them from this country. That is one of the crucial questions that a Joint Committee will need to address.
In any event, a Joint Committee could report by, say, October, and if the Government see fit in the light of such a report, they can bring forward a short Bill in the next Session. The Minister cannot seriously suggest that the Queen’s Speech in June will be so full of material that the Home Secretary will be told in the autumn, in the light of a Joint Committee report, “We’re very sorry, but there’s simply no room to come back to this matter”. Let us be realistic about this issue.
Finally, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Brown of Eaton-under-Heywood, said, Amendment 56 is a modest amendment. It does not ask this House to take a final view on whether the proposed new power should be conferred on the Home Secretary. What it does is to invite this House rather to ensure that Parliament is fully informed of the benefits, if any, and the detriments, before the law is changed. Given the importance of the subject matter and the difficult questions that continue to exist as to the practical and legal consequences of the conferral and exercise of this new power, I think that that is a step that we should take to require proper pre-legislative scrutiny.
This is a matter of fundamental principle and I wish to test the opinion of the House.
Lord Taylor of Holbeach
“( ) After section 40A of the British Nationality Act 1981 insert—
“40B Review of power under section 40(4A)
(1) The Secretary of State must arrange for a review of the operation of the relevant deprivation power to be carried out in relation to each of the following periods—
(a) the initial one year period;(b) each subsequent three year period.(2) The “relevant deprivation power” is the power to make orders under section 40(2) to deprive persons of a citizenship status in the circumstances set out in section 40(4A).
(3) A review must be completed as soon as practicable after the end of the period to which the review relates.
(4) As soon as practicable after a person has carried out a review in relation to a particular period, the person must—
(a) produce a report of the outcome of the review, and(b) send a copy of the report to the Secretary of State.(5) The Secretary of State must lay before each House of Parliament a copy of each report sent under subsection (4)(b).
(6) The Secretary of State may, after consultation with the person who produced the report, exclude a part of the report from the copy laid before Parliament if the Secretary of State is of the opinion that it would be contrary to the public interest or prejudicial to national security for that part of the report to be made public.
(7) The Secretary of State may—
(a) make such payments as the Secretary of State thinks appropriate in connection with the carrying out of a review, and(b) make such other arrangements as the Secretary of State thinks appropriate in connection with the carrying out of a review (including arrangements for the provision of staff, other resources and facilities).(8) In this section—
“initial one year period” means the period of one year beginning with the day when section 40(4A) comes into force;
“subsequent three year period” means a period of three years beginning with the first day after the most recent of—
(a) the initial one year period, or(b) the most recent subsequent three year period.””
Lord Taylor of Holbeach
My Lords, if the Opposition were prepared to accept Amendment 56A, I should be prepared to move it.
Baroness Smith of Basildon
My Lords, I am not sure whether the noble Lord has moved his amendment formally but, as the matter has been referred to a committee, should this not also be referred to a committee? It would seem more sensible to us that, if a committee were discussing something, it would then decide the nature of any review that would take place after implementation.
Lord Taylor of Holbeach
The point that I was trying to make was that, if this were to form part of the substantive Bill, it would be possible for it to be considered as part of the Government’s proposals in this respect. I do not want the House to have another vote on the issue, but I feel that this is not in conflict with the amendment successfully moved by the noble Lord, Lord Pannick. However, I am told from the Box that there is no need for Amendment 56A, so I will not move it.
Lord Marlesford
“Provision of information relating to citizenship
(1) A condition of the issue of a new passport to, or the renewal of a passport of, a British citizen by Her Majesty’s Passport Office is that the citizen supplies details of their citizenship of other countries and of passports held relating to any such status at the time of application.
(2) The bearer of a passport issued by Her Majesty’s Passport Office must supply that Office with information regarding any acquisition or loss of citizenship of another country within one month of such a change.
(3) Information gathered by Her Majesty’s Passport Office for the purposes of subsections (1) and (2) shall be made available—
(a) to the Home Secretary for consideration as part of a decision made under section 40(4A) of the British Nationality Act 1981;(b) to immigration officers for consideration when undertaking their duties.”
Lord Marlesford (Con)
My Lords, this amendment is a simple one. Its purpose is to ensure that Her Majesty’s Passport Office is fully aware of other passports that are held by an individual to whom a British passport has been or is to be issued.
There is nothing new about this amendment: I have raised this matter in this House several times. I had convinced the previous Government to support it but, on that occasion, policy officials in the Home Office intervened to oppose it. I have had long, helpful discussions with my noble friend Lord Taylor, for whom I have the greatest affection and respect, and I believed that I had convinced him of the merit of this amendment. I had expected that it would be in the Bill, though there was obviously no commitment to it. However, once again, Home Office officials intervened to prevent it. The gentleman in Whitehall does not necessarily know best, especially when he lives in the Home Office. It is where, rather as in the European Commission, the monopoly of initiating legislation is seen as a prerogative to be carefully guarded, regardless of the merits of outside views. In the Home Office, new thinking is successfully repelled by the three initials—NIH. I remind the House of Margaret Thatcher’s adage: “Officials advise, Ministers decide”. However, sometimes Ministers need parliamentary help in so doing, especially from your Lordships’ House.
I have had a couple of earlier battles. Eventually, I won them both. The first one took 10 years. It was to set up a national electronic register of firearms. Parliament passed my amendment on that in 1997. The Home Office decided to stonewall it for 10 years. Minister after Minister in successive Governments backed me. Eventually, the Home Office capitulated and the electronic firearms register is today in full and effective use. The second battle, during which I introduced a Private Member’s Bill in 2011, was to secure the removal of those protestors in Parliament Square who hogged the space by camping, preventing access for others. The Government eventually agreed the amendment and put it in their own legislation. That area is now again attractive and protestors can still protest.
My amendment on passports is extremely simple. It intrudes on no one’s rights and the cost would be negligible. I emphasise that I am well aware, as are your Lordships, that, as passports come under the royal prerogative, Her Majesty’s Government already have extensive rights in setting rules and practices in relation to them. However, there is a serious gap in their practice, of which the security forces warned me more than five years ago. Successive Governments have for years and years tried to introduce an electronic border system so as to be able to scrutinise and record every passenger who enters or leaves the UK. It is obvious that without such a system it is impossible to keep track of those who have been given leave to enter for a limited period, let alone get a handle on those who wish our country ill or whose presence is not conducive to our national security. Although entry scrutiny has greatly improved, it is still not complete, and exit scrutiny is hardly under starter’s orders. It still depends largely on the airlines, shipping lines and railway ticket offices. Only a few countries, such as the USA, have put in place full checks on those departing the UK, if they intend to enter the USA.
Those who wish our country ill, by which at present I obviously mean primarily those Islamist jihadists who have demonstrated their ruthless determination to use all the methods open to terrorists, may hold other passports in addition to their British passports. They can travel in and out of the country with their British passports and it is very hard for the security services to track them when they use their other passports once they are abroad. That has been shown to be the case and has been referred to, and people are amazed that what I am trying to achieve by this amendment does not already exist. I have discussed it with senior serving police officers, who told me that they believed that it was already in force and were amazed that it was not. However, it is not.
To make the administration simpler, my amendment would apply initially only to new passports and the renewal of passports, which has to happen every 10 years. In due course, it would apply to all British passport holders. I emphasise that my amendment does not in any way prevent, threaten or reduce the right of British passport holders to hold as many other passports as they can acquire. Therefore, in a sense, it is very different from the amendments that we have just discussed. It is absolutely the opposite. It is a fully libertarian amendment. I believe that it would be a major contribution to ensuring that our borders are fully protected. It would mean that when a person presents a British passport at immigration control, the details of other passports held would show up on the scan. Indeed, once the British passport holder had recorded the fact that they had other passports, if those other passports were used, again, the scan would show the corresponding information about a British passport, so the measure is logical and straightforward.
The fact that this measure does not exist was emphasised in January 2009 in a reply given by the noble Lord, Lord West, the then Home Office Minister. The noble Lord told me last week that he was very sorry that he could not be here tonight to support my amendment. When asked how many British passport holders also held passports of other countries, the noble Lord had to reply that the “information is not available”. That was an astonishing situation. However, it is still the situation. It is high time that we encouraged the Home Office to close this gap in our defences. I beg to move.
Baroness Smith of Basildon
My Lords, I have very little to say on this, as it is not something on which I have a great deal of knowledge. The issue would have benefited from debate in Committee. I understand why the noble Lord did not bring the amendment forward in Committee, although I think he probably wishes that he had done so. We would have welcomed a debate on it. I know of the noble Lord’s persistence on issues. He and I have discussed issues such as litter previously and I look forward to him coming back to that matter as well.
However, I would be interested to hear the Minister’s views on this. From what the noble Lord, Lord Marlesford, has said, he expected this issue to be in the Bill. I think he thought it was agreed that it would be included in the Bill but it is not. I hope that the Minister can enlighten us on that, on whether the issue is being considered by the Government and on their reasoning in relation to it. That would be extremely helpful for this debate.
Lord Taylor of Holbeach
My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness and, of course, I thank my noble friend Lord Marlesford. He is patient, but I think he is also a realist. I think he understands that he may have been too optimistic in expecting this measure to be included in the Bill. However, some of the points that he mentioned in his speech, and which are referred to in the amendment, are very much sentiments that we share. I share his aim of bringing offenders to justice and fully support closing down any avenue that could impact on our ability to prevent and detect crime. However, I hope that I can explain to the noble Baroness and to my noble friend why legislation in this area is not necessary and would not be beneficial to the Home Office.
Her Majesty’s Passport Office directly contributes to the Home Secretary’s key aims of securing borders, tackling terrorism and reducing crime. It does this through its public protection strategy and by sharing data and intelligence with other parts of the Home Office and other agencies. Access to personal data for the purposes set out in subsection (3) of the proposed new clause is already permissible.
My noble friend has suggested that this passport information could be made available for deprivation decisions under the proposed power in Clause 64, on which we have just had a Division. This would not significantly improve the evidence base for these sorts of deprivation decisions. The Home Office retains information regarding an individual’s previous recorded nationality or passport from their immigration records and will undertake research to determine these facts. Within the new power, the Home Office will also consider the ability to acquire a former, or another nationality, although this will not be a bar to action, as I said in moving a previous amendment. We would not necessarily rely on information provided by the individual, who may seek to benefit from renouncing or not declaring other passports or nationalities.
My noble friend has also suggested that information collected could be made available to immigration officers for consideration when undertaking their duties. Immigration officers already have powers to require a person to furnish any information that is relevant to an examination, which may include details of dual nationality where necessary and appropriate.
Her Majesty’s Passport Office does not collect data on the number of passport holders who have a second nationality. My noble friend Lord Marlesford is aware of that. The passport application, however, requires all customers to submit any sort of passport, British or otherwise, at the point of application. That information is collected to help to confirm identity and is recorded on the person’s UK passport record. HM Passport Office receives about 6 million passport applications a year from domestic applicants. It receives a further 380,000 applications from overseas. Because of the smaller quantity involved, HMPO has been able to estimate that about 50% of overseas applications may involve applicants who hold dual nationality.
HM Passport Office is required to gather information that is relevant solely to the passport application. The issue of dual nationality is not directly relevant to the UK passport application process, because a person is not prevented from having another nationality under UK law. Collecting data for purposes other than the issue of the passport would require HM Passport Office to change its published data-sharing principles and to consider the possible impact on the exercise of the royal prerogative. Furthermore, HM Passport Office is not permitted to use the passport fee to subsidise the collecting of data for a purpose that is not relevant to the issue of the passport. The agency is required to charge applicants a fee that covers only the cost of the issuing of passports.
In any event, I am not convinced that establishing and maintaining such a database would provide any significant benefit. We already require existing and previous passports to be submitted at the point of application. Information is also held on the nationality of persons who have registered or naturalised as British citizens. Gathering information on dual nationals simply because they are dual nationals would therefore be of very limited value. It would be disproportionate, as there would be no specific benefit either to support an application process or to assist in preventing and detecting crime.
However, possession of another passport is of interest to HM Passport Office for the identity reasons that I have given above. In considering the amendment, I have asked that we look at the benefits and consequences of placing a requirement on British passport holders to submit to HM Passport Office, during the lifetime of their British passport, any new, renewed or replacement passport issued to them by the country from which they hold dual nationality. I will write separately to my noble friend when we have considered this further.
I have taken the opportunity of providing your Lordships with a detailed response to this amendment because the noble Baroness said that she would like to hear the reasoning behind the Government’s position. I hope that my noble friend will appreciate that I have been fuller than I might have been. This very much reflects the seriousness of the issues that he has raised today and previously in the House—he does the House great service by doing so. However, I am satisfied with the existing processes to record dual nationality and passports when required and that, importantly, mechanisms are in place to share those data with law enforcement agencies, including border staff. So, to some degree, we have met the objectives of his amendment. I hope that, with that clarification, my noble friend will withdraw his amendment.
Lord Marlesford
My Lords, I am most grateful to the Minister for what he has said. It does not answer my amendment, although I suppose that there is an indication that the Home Office is tiptoeing towards doing the sensible thing. I shall certainly continue to press this. The next time that there is relevant legislation, I shall attach this amendment to it. I hope that we will have a strong and full debate in Committee on this because I am certain that my proposal is simple, feasible, fully in accordance with freedom and would make a very useful additional weapon to ensure that our borders are properly policed. The information that led me to bring this forward originally was good information, from those who are responsible for the practical methods of protecting our national security. I believe that this can be done.
My noble friend mentioned the possibility of non-compliance and concealment. There is a simple remedy for this. If someone, in applying for a British passport or a renewal, with the requirement that they disclose other passports that they hold, fails to do so, it is obvious that they have not complied with their obligation in getting the British passport and it could immediately be cancelled. That would be an easy and satisfactory penalty for non-compliance.
I believe that my proposal is both needed and practical and I shall return to it. However, in the mean while, I withdraw the amendment.
Lord Avebury
“Descent through the female line
(1) Section 4C of the British Nationality Act 1981 (acquisition by registration: certain persons born between 1961 and 1983) is amended as follows.
(2) In subsection (3A)(a), after “father,” omit “and”.
(3) In subsection (3A)(b), at beginning insert “where material,”.
(4) In subsection (3A)(b), at end insert—
“(c) where material—(i) the applicant’s mother or father (“the parent in question”) would have acquired citizenship by descent from a mother on the assumption that, as applied to the parent in question, section 5 or 12(2) of, or paragraph 3 of Schedule 3 to, the 1948 Act (as the case may be) provided for citizenship by descent from a mother in the same terms as it provided for citizenship by descent from a father, and references in that provision to a father were references to the parent in question’s mother, or(ii) the parent in question would have acquired a nationality status by descent from a mother on the assumption that, as applied to the parent in question, a provision of the law at some time before 1st January 1949 which provided for a nationality status to be acquired by descent from a father provided in the same terms for its acquisition by descent from a mother, and references in that provision to a father were references to the parent in question’s mother”.(5) In subsection (3B)(a), after “mother,” omit “and”.
(6) In subsection (3B)(b), at beginning insert “where material”.
(7) In subsection (3B)(b), at end insert—
“(c) where material, the parent in question would have acquired a nationality status by descent from a mother on the assumption that, as applied to the parent in question, a provision of the law at some time before 1st January 1949 which provided for a nationality status to be acquired by descent from a father provided in the same terms for its acquisition by descent from a mother, and references in that provision to a father were references to the parent in question’s mother”.”
Lord Avebury
My Lords, this amendment deals with persons born abroad prior to 1983 who would have been British today if they had had a paternal grandfather born in the UK, or who would have been entitled to become British citizens by registration today if they had had a maternal grandfather born in the UK, instead of a paternal grandmother or maternal grandmother so born.
Before 1983, a person born abroad to a British father automatically became a British citizen by descent. In certain cases, the children of a citizen by descent also became citizens by descent, automatically or conditionally. So, for example, a person born outside the UK and colonies or, before 1949, outside Her Majesty’s dominions, and whose father was also so born, was a citizen by descent if his paternal grandfather was born in the UK. However, a person born abroad to a British mother and a foreign father had no right to UK citizenship, until this anomaly was dealt with for the first generation in the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002 by the insertion of Section 4C in the British Nationality Act 1981.
However, there remains discrimination in the next generation. A person born abroad before 1983, whose maternal grandfather was born in the UK, so that her mother born abroad was also British, has access to British citizenship through registration under Section 4C. Yet the person whose maternal grandmother was born in the UK, and whose father or mother born abroad did not acquire British citizenship, has no right to UK citizenship. To put it simply, there is discrimination in our law according to whether your grandfather or grandmother was British by birth, all other circumstances being the same.
For this reason, the UK has had to enter a reservation to our ratification of the Convention for the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women, Article 9(2) of which provides that:
“States Parties shall grant women equal rights with men with respect to the nationality of their children”.
Our reservation says that the UK’s acceptance of Article 9 shall not,
“be taken to invalidate the continuation of certain temporary or transitional provisions which will continue”,
beyond 1 January 1983. My noble friend would probably agree that a reservation which has lasted for 31 years cannot rightly be described as temporary or transitional, and that our commitment to gender equality is incompatible with the existence in our nationality law of a provision, the removal of which is unlikely to affect more than a few people. I beg to move.
Lord Taylor of Holbeach
My Lords, I am aware that my noble friend has long campaigned about the citizenship rights of children of British mothers, and indeed he was involved in getting us to where we are today in having a route for those born before 1983 to acquire the status that they would have had had women been able to pass on citizenship in the same way as men. However, as my noble friend will recognise, nationality law is complex and it is not straightforward to legislate to cater for all the anomalies that exist.
Before I discuss the amendment, noble Lords will remember that my noble friend introduced an amendment in Committee concerning the citizenship position of illegitimate children of British fathers. I committed to consider the matter further. I have not forgotten. It is in hand and I am continuing to look at this in conjunction with my noble friend. He will have seen our first two attempts to deal with this matter and he can be assured that yet another, more straightforward version will be with him shortly. The intention is that an amendment on the issue will be brought forward at Third Reading.
The amendment proposed by my noble friend today seeks, as he said, to amend Section 4C of the British Nationality Act 1981 to allow a person to acquire British citizenship through their grandmother if they would have been able to do so had women been able to pass on citizenship in the same way as men. I understand that citizenship could normally be passed on for one generation born overseas but that there are a limited number of cases where a person could acquire citizenship on the basis of their grandfather’s citizenship. An example of this might be where the grandfather was born in the UK and either his child or grandchild was born in a country, such as a UK protectorate, where the Crown exercised extraterritorial jurisdiction.
Although I recognise what my noble friend is trying to achieve here, I reiterate the point that was made when this issue was debated in the past: we can only go so far to right the wrongs of history. The original intention of Section 4C was to cater for the children of UK-born women, but the current legislation affects all children of British women. However, we think that there would be difficulties in extending this further to cover the grandchildren of British women as that could result in even more complexities. I think that my noble friend will recognise the complexity of the law in this area.
We recognise that there are some people who acquired citizenship through a grandfather and others who could not do so through a grandmother. However, where families have maintained a close and ongoing connection with the UK, those grandchildren could have acquired British citizenship through another route, such as registration or naturalisation based on a period of residence here. Those whose parents have never lived in the UK and have not established their own connections here are likely to have the citizenship of the country of their birth or residence.
I know that this will be disappointing to my noble friend but I cannot accept his amendment. However, I thank him for bringing it forward and for giving me an opportunity to explain the Government’s position.
Lord Avebury
My Lords, I recognise the Minister’s phrase about not being able to rectify all the wrongs of history but I do not agree with that expression. I think that we ought to remedy the wrongs of history and this would have been an excellent opportunity to do so in the case of what I think my noble friend acknowledges would be a very small number of people. However, I also recognise the realities of the situation—that, unlike the two previous amendments on which there were Divisions, I would not be so successful if I were to seek the opinion of the House.
Therefore, I will withdraw the amendment but, first, I should like to say how grateful I am to my noble friend the Minister for what he said about the amendment to enable illegitimate children born before 1983 to acquire British citizenship in circumstances where they would already have been able to do so if they had been legitimate. I hope that in our final draft, following the previous two, which the Minister mentioned, we will give the Secretary of State discretion to waive requirements that may be imposed on a parent in the event of the parent being unco-operative or no longer able to fulfil the requirement by reason of incapacity or death. I am also concerned that in the final draft we should avoid any ambiguity between registration and consular registration and avoid imposing any consular registration requirements which the parents of an illegitimate child might not have met, bearing in mind the stigma attached to illegitimacy in those days.
When my noble friend comes to produce the third draft at Third Reading, I should be most grateful if those points could be borne in mind. Meanwhile, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Taylor of Holbeach
“Duty regarding the welfare of children
For the avoidance of doubt, this Act does not limit any duty imposed on the Secretary of State or any other person by section 55 of the Borders, Citizenship and Immigration Act 2009 (duty regarding the welfare of children).”
Lord Taylor of Holbeach
“(ca) the first regulations under section 49(1);(cb) the first regulations under section 49(5);(cc) the first regulations under section 50(3);(cd) the first regulations under section 50(4);”
Lord Taylor of Holbeach
My Lords, the amendments in this group are government amendments, responding to the parts of the Bill dealing with sham marriages. They respond directly to the recommendations made by the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee in relation to Part 4 of the Bill. I thank the committee for its careful consideration of the issues raised by these powers.
Part 4 of the Bill will establish in England and Wales a new referral and investigation scheme aimed at tackling sham marriages and civil partnerships entered into for the purpose of circumventing the UK’s immigration controls. Under the scheme, all notices of marriages and civil partnerships referred to the Home Office will be considered for investigation.
Clause 49 provides the basis for the conduct of an investigation into a referred marriage or civil partnership where the Secretary of State has reasonable grounds to suspect that it is a sham and decides to investigate. Clause 50 makes further provision for the basis on which such an investigation will be conducted.
Clauses 49 and 50 provide for regulations to be made by the Secretary of State relating to the investigation of a proposed marriage or civil partnership under the scheme. These regulations will set out the requirements with which the couple must comply as part of the investigation. It will be necessary for the couple to comply with these requirements in order to complete the marriage or civil partnership notice process.
The committee is right to point in particular to the significance of the implications arising from non-compliance with an investigation. A couple failing to comply with an investigation will not be able to marry or form a civil partnership on the basis of that notice, and will have to give notice again if they still wish to marry or form a civil partnership. The committee recommended that the affirmative procedure would be appropriate for regulations made under Clauses 49 and 50.
We accept that it would be appropriate for the first set of regulations made under each of these powers to be subject to the affirmative procedure, and this is provided for by Amendment 59. This will enable both Houses to give full consideration to the substance of the regulations when the referral and investigation scheme is established. However, we do not consider that the affirmative procedure is appropriate for subsequent changes to the regulations which may be necessary after the scheme has been implemented. To require a debate in both Houses would be unnecessarily burdensome, as any such changes are likely to be minor.
Paragraph 2 of Schedule 6 provides for the disclosure of information by registration officials to the Secretary of State and other registration officials for immigration purposes, such as preventing immigration offences. The Secretary of State may by order specify further immigration purposes to enable the disclosure power to keep pace with developments in the law and in operational requirements.
Clause 53(6) makes equivalent provision where the referral and investigation scheme and these information-sharing provisions have been extended to Scotland and Northern Ireland by an order under Clause 52. The committee’s view was that these powers are similar to the power to extend information-sharing contained in Section 20 of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999, which is subject to the affirmative procedure. The committee has therefore recommended that they should be subject to the affirmative procedure. We have accepted the committee’s recommendation. Amendments 60 and 61 provide for the order-making powers under paragraph 2 of Schedule 6 and Clause 53(6) to be subject to the affirmative procedure. I beg to move.
Lord Taylor of Holbeach
“(g) an order under paragraph 2(3)(e) of Schedule 6.”
Lord Roberts of Llandudno
“( ) Section 1 and Part II of this Act shall come into force on a day to be appointed, that day being no earlier than the day on which an order made by the Lord Chancellor under section 9(2)(a) of the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012 in respect of civil legal services in connection with removal under section 1 and appeals under Part II comes into effect.
( ) The order must make provision for persons under 25 who entered the United Kingdom as a child.
( ) For the purposes of this Part, “child” means a person under 18.”
Lord Roberts of Llandudno (LD)
My Lords, in speaking to the amendment I will remind noble Lords how it concerns the removals and appeals provisions of the Bill and how they impact on people, including children and young people, who have no access to legal assistance.
Amendment 62 seeks to insert a sunrise provision in Clause 72. It provides that Clause 1 on removals and Part 2 on appeals cannot come into force until an order has been made dealing with legal aid for affected cases. This means that we will have to make sure that legal aid is extended and not reduced, and that it will make particular provision for people under 25 who entered the UK as minors. It is essential to see the removal provisions in Clause 1 and the appeals provisions in Part 2 in the context of diminishing access to legal assistance for those whom the Bill will affect.
The Government have stressed in relation to Clause 1, including in their fact sheet on the clause, that people subject to removal will be advised to seek legal advice as early as possible. This, however, will not be much use if people cannot obtain that advice because, first, they cannot afford to pay a lawyer; secondly, because immigration cases are not in the scope of legal aid under the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012; and, thirdly, because they do not meet the Government’s proposed residence test for civil legal aid, if that test is introduced as planned in August of this year.
We are talking about people being forced to leave the UK and the division of family members, one from the other, without their having the benefit of a lawyer to advise them on their and their family’s rights, including the rights of any affected children. This is about young people who have grown up in the UK, including young care leavers, being deported to a country they do not know without an appeal right and without even having the chance to speak to a solicitor about their case.
The Coram Children’s Legal Centre has done a great deal of work on this and has demonstrated why legal aid should be available. It told me that it had worked on cases where a child has been brought into the UK as an infant and has later been taken into care. The child has indefinite leave to remain until it reaches the age of 18 when, at that age, the Home Office tells them that it intends to revoke their leave and to deport them to a country of which they have no memory.
What of children such as these? A child’s immigration case based, for example, on the child having lived for most of their life in the UK, will attract no legal aid even if the case goes all the way to the Supreme Court. A child with no lawful leave will be excluded from legal aid by the residence test, even if that child is only seven years of age. Proposals to restore legal aid for children’s welfare under Sections 17 and 20 of the Children Act made in the Government’s response to the Joint Committee on Human Rights are welcome but they fail to address a core problem. A young person can be deported before there has been any opportunity for judicial oversight of the Home Office’s decision. They do not get legal aid for their immigration case, nor will they get legal aid for any judicial review. The issues at stake in removal and deportation cases are of the utmost importance in the lives of children, young people and families. Legal aid should be available for such cases.
The Government have said that there is the option of applying for exceptional funding but, after speaking to the Minister for Justice, the right honourable Simon Hughes, I understand that very few of such applications are successful. I was shown the paperwork, the application form that a young person has to fill in for exceptional purpose funding. It consists of 14 pages. I have looked at the 14 pages and I have looked at the Bill. I am not a lawyer by any means, but if the application form is so confusing and difficult for us to understand, how can you expect a young person of 18 years of age, who has no legal training, to stand up and speak for themselves because there is no legal aid available and a lawyer cannot be provided. The Government must look after all young people who are in need of legal assistance. If they do not get it, then British justice affecting young people is breaking down.
There is to be a review of the Bill after between three and five years. I would like that to be sooner. I would like to see how it is proceeding and for it to be kept under constant review.
I would also like to see more generous exceptional case funding. The Government expected about 7,000 cases and instead they got about seven. There has been wrong judgment right from the start. How many cases were expected and how many arose? We need a review far sooner than three or five years.
The Bill and its amendments are so complicated that this 14-page application form should be looked at immediately and simplified so that a person facing extradition will be able to understand exactly what it means. If my three requests are granted—a review before three years, more generous exceptional case funds and a simplified form—it would be a tremendous step forward. I beg to move.
Lord Taylor of Holbeach
My Lords, Amendment 62 seeks to amend Clause 72, which provides for the commencement provisions in the Bill. It requires the Government to make an affirmative order under Section 9 of the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012—or LASPO, as we refer to it in the House—so that removals and all appeals are eligible for legal aid where someone is under 25 and entered the UK as a child. We debated this amendment in Committee when my noble friend Lord Attlee explained that this amendment would stall and potentially block changes to removals and appeals in the Bill.
The scope of the legal aid scheme was approved by Parliament and settled by LASPO. The Government have recently consulted on introducing a residence test for civil legal aid. Parliament will have the opportunity to consider these proposals shortly. However, we have no plans to extend the scope beyond the high-priority matters on which Parliament has agreed.
In Committee, the noble Baroness, Lady Lister, who is not in her place at the moment, referred to the JCHR report on the residence test. She noted that the committee concluded that the Government’s response to that report had not gone far enough. With respect, we do not agree with that comment. The Government considered the JCHR report carefully and in response modified the exceptions to the residence test, including for children. These changes ensure that the test is fair and that legal aid is targeted where it is justified while achieving the essential policy aim of targeting legal aid at those with a strong connection to the UK. We do not accept that the residence test would result in any contravention of our domestic and international legal obligations, including our obligations under the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child.
While this amendment is well intentioned, it is unnecessary. The vast majority of unaccompanied children are asylum seekers and will receive legal aid. Victims of trafficking also receive legal aid, and indeed we discussed their status earlier today. Children or young adults who are not unaccompanied will have the support of their family in the UK.
In Committee, my noble friend Lord Roberts raised concerns about the number of successful applications for exceptional funding. The fact that a lower-than- forecast number of successful applications has been made does not indicate that the system is defective. It is important to note that estimates made about volumes are precisely that—estimates. The fact that the volume of applications has been lower than forecast is clearly also relevant to the number of applications granted. Legal aid is and will remain available for the highest- priority cases such as asylum seekers and advice and damages claims for victims of trafficking. Children and those who entered the UK as children who fall into one of these groups are eligible for legal aid. It is right that these limited funds should be targeted towards them. Therefore, it is only those children and young adults who do not fall into one of the high-priority groups who will not be eligible for legal aid.
My noble friend asked why the exceptional funding mechanism is so bureaucratic. We do not accept that the system is overly bureaucratic. There is a bespoke application form to fill in which is designed to help providers present the relevant information. In addition, clients can ask for a provisional determination concerning their case directly from the Legal Aid Agency if they wish to do so. I appreciate the enthusiasm with which my noble friend has addressed these issues, but in the light of my points, I hope that he will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Roberts of Llandudno
I thank the Minister for his response. He is always cheery and helpful, but he has not given me the answer I was looking for. I just hope that the Minister, possibly with the Ministry of Justice, will look at this again. We have heard stories of young people reaching the age of 18 and then facing possible deportation. There may be a dawn raid, but I hope that the age of the dawn raid is over. There are stories of youngsters aged 18 bedwetting, which is very embarrassing. I heard of one lad who would push the wardrobe up against the bedroom door so that if anyone came in the early hours of the morning to arrest him, it would be that bit more difficult for them to do so. The worst story I heard was that of one lad who had fashioned a noose and hung it over his bed, so that if anyone came, he could take that way out.
Please can we keep this situation under constant review and possibly look at the more extreme cases—I admit that these are the more extreme ones—so that every child feels that he or she is not alone? They need to know that people are there who are ready to work with them. I hope very much that by talking to the Ministry of Justice and the Home Office, we can come up with some sort of solution. Sadly, once again I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Butler-Sloss
Arrangement of Business
Baroness Anelay of St Johns (Con)
My Lords, before the Clock starts ticking for the debate in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Dannatt, perhaps I may assist the House with advice about timing. Because the Question for Short Debate is now last business, according to the rules set out in the Companion that means that instead of just one hour, he is allocated one and a half hours. I know that this will bring joy to some colleagues because it means that those who are to speak from the Back Benches and the Opposition Front Bench spokesperson will now have five minutes in which to speak before they exceed their allotted time. I know that this will not bring joy to all because they have worked their evening out on the basis that the time this debate would be held was 7.30 pm to 8.30 pm. I also ought to say that there is a speaker in the gap, who knows that the maximum time to speak is four minutes. There is a mood around the House, I think, that briefer is better, but I am sure that as always it will be a quality debate.
Armed Forces
(10 years, 1 month ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Dannatt
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what is their assessment of whether they have sufficient manpower and the right balance of regular and reserve forces within the Armed Forces in order to meet the United Kingdom’s current national and international responsibilities and requirements.
Lord Dannatt (CB)
My Lords, in opening this evening’s short debate, perhaps I may first thank those noble Lords who are taking part, albeit somewhat later than we had anticipated, and other noble Lords who have indicated their interest in this question but who are not able to be in their places. To me this level of participation underlines the importance of the matters we are considering.
I am also aware that this short debate comes hard on the heels of the Defence Reform Bill, which has now passed all its stages in your Lordships’ House, and that the question of manning the Army Reserve was the subject of some discussion. Indeed, I spoke on the subject during the Committee stage and was minded to table an amendment at the Report stage. However, I make no apology for returning to this key topic, and I do so in the context of both regular and reserve manning, not just for the Army but for the Royal Navy, the Royal Marines and the Royal Air Force, too.
I believe that this subject can be properly addressed only if it is done so in its full context. It seems to me that, when the coalition Government took their decisions on the size and shape of the Armed Forces at the time of their strategic defence and security review in 2010, they did so against the background of the way the world looked then and in the midst of the economic crisis; we were in the early days of the current age of austerity. In headline terms, a decision was taken to prioritise defence equipment over manpower—a not altogether unreasonable decision given the long lead times in defence procurement and the need to preserve British jobs in the defence industries. However, in order to balance the books, manpower reductions of 30,000 personnel across the three armed services were required, which inevitably would fall most heavily on the Army, but they also fell with considerable impact on the other services, in particular on our ability to man the fleet both now and in the future, especially when the Queen Elizabeth class aircraft carriers and the new offshore patrol vessels come into service.
As regards the Army, the mitigation of the risks inherent in a 20,000 cut in Regular Army manpower would be the recruitment and training of an Army Reserve of 30,000, giving an overall integrated Army manpower strength of 112,000. Put like that, this looks to be a reasonable outcome, but doubt has remained as to whether the Regular Army component of just 82,000 of that overall total is sufficient for the nation’s needs, and whether the target of 30,000 trained reservists to round out Army 2020 is even achievable.
When this policy was announced, it was originally stated that the major draw-down of regular manpower would not occur until the strength of the reserves had risen to or near their projected target. However, after a reworking of the finances within the MoD, this policy was changed, and in the case of the Army the draw-down to 82,000 regulars has now been very nearly completed with little upward shift in reserve manning. Noble Lords have observed previously in this House that this shift of policy carries an acknowledged level of risk. Is the Minister confident that this risk is being managed and mitigated, both for now and in the foreseeable future?
I raise this question at this time because, with the planned culmination of our operations in Afghanistan—linked to a general feeling of war weariness and war wariness given our recent experiences in both Iraq and Afghanistan—it could be argued that concerns about the size of the Army today are theoretical rather than immediate. However, that view overlooks the current strategic landscape. While there is neither a logic nor an appetite for intervention in Syria, nor a treaty obligation requiring military intervention in Ukraine, both situations stand as stark examples of how the strategic landscape can change. Predicting the future is notoriously hard, and strategic shocks happen: the invasion of the Falkland Islands, the fall of the Berlin Wall, the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait and 9/11 were all unpredicted events that had major consequences for our defence and security policies and capabilities. It is often said about predicting the future that the trick is not to be so far wrong that, when the future reveals itself, you cannot adapt quickly to the new circumstances. Circumstances have changed since 2010, and are changing at the present time. They are plain to see, provided that there is a willingness to look.
I believe that these strategic changes change our previous risk calculations. The Russian takeover of Crimea may not have been to President Putin’s timing, but it certainly suits his agenda and aspirations. Whether his ambition reaches into eastern Ukraine or elsewhere only he knows, but with a Russia resurgent both in confidence and military capability in many observers’ judgment this is a poor moment for the US-led West to be weak in both resolve and muscle. Diplomacy and economic sanctions may for now be the right response to President Putin over Ukraine, but he will look through those things to see from where the real check on his actions might come. Russia has long been the ally of Syria. Mr Putin will have seen the UN and the EU virtually powerless to impose their will on President Assad, and he will be further encouraged. Parallels with earlier periods of history might or might not be useful, but it can be argued that uncomfortable shadows of the 1930s are starting to become visible.
Meanwhile, with economies still struggling to recover from the epic downturn in 2008, there is a lurking temptation to curb public expenditure further, as trailed by the Chancellor of the Exchequer in his recent Budget speech. However, to remove further resources from defence would be sending exactly the wrong message at this time. On the contrary, there is a growing argument that the international landscape is more challenging than in 2010 and that we should consider making a statement that greater military capability must underpin our diplomacy and the other instruments of our foreign and security policy. The projected 1% uplift in defence equipment procurement spending from 2015, though welcome, will do nothing to improve regular defence manning levels, which, without a further uplift in spending, will in all probability face further contraction. Such a conclusion is mathematically almost inevitable.
Furthermore, there is genuine concern as to whether we can in fact recruit and train 30,000 members of the Army Reserve. Although we are only some six months into a five-year programme of recruitment, I am not alone in believing that current circumstances bring forward the need to alter the regular reserve balance within our Army and increase the size of the Regular Army, and probably the regular component of the Royal Navy as well. There is an increasingly strong case for increasing the manning of our regular Armed Forces by some 5,000 posts. Not only would that be a useful increase in capability in itself, but it would send a clear signal that the UK Government take their defence responsibilities seriously, not only on behalf of their own citizens but on behalf of our EU partners and NATO allies too.
Noble Lords will have read this morning’s comments by the Secretary-General of NATO calling for an increase in defence spending. Although our Government will argue that the United Kingdom still has the fourth—or is it now the fifth?—largest defence budget, it is proportionately down in terms of GDP from even five years ago, and represents a funding level that provides a lesser degree of defence capability than five years ago. Will the Minister confirm that, whereas in 2008 our land forces were able to deploy 10 combat brigades, going around two five-brigade cycles, conducting difficult operations in both Iraq and Afghanistan simultaneously, that capability is no longer available and will not be under the plans for Army 2020? If the Minister does confirm this, will he further confirm that this is not because of equipment shortages but due to the lack of manpower, be it regular or reserve?
What is to be done? Much as I would like to see the 5,000 uplift in regular manpower across the three armed services that I am calling for, I am aware of the political calculation that there are no votes in defence, so I do not see this uplift happening before the next general election. However, talking widely with many people—within your Lordships’ House and without—that one meets, I wonder whether that calculation is correct. Are there no votes in defence? Indeed, are there no votes in providing adequately for our national security? I am not so sure.
At the very least, would the Minister use his good offices with the government Chief Whip to programme a full debate on defence and security issues in this House in the next Session of Parliament? Surely such a debate would be a major contribution to the strategic defence and security review that will follow the next election. Surely the people of this country deserve to hear the arguments set out clearly before them. At the end of the day, it is the votes of the people of this country that will determine the next Government, and it is the first duty of that Government to provide fully for the defence of the realm and the safety of our citizens, not forgetting the well-being of the members of the Armed Forces and their families, who provide that defence and our safety. The case for re-examining our previous assumptions on military manning and the levels of risk that we are taking is strong, and, if anything, getting stronger.
Lord King of Bridgwater (Con)
My Lords, the House is grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Dannatt, for providing this opportunity, albeit a truncated one, to raise this important subject. I echo his last comment and hope that it will be possible early in the next Session to hold a much more substantial debate on these important issues, not least given the troubled times in which we now may be finding ourselves. His Question asks the Government for,
“their assessment of whether they have sufficient manpower and the right balance of regular and reserve forces…to meet the United Kingdom’s current national and international responsibilities and requirements”.
As he rightly says, current responsibilities may look different from those of a few months ago.
In looking at this, many noble Lords will have had the advantage of reading the Defence Select Committee report, Future Army 2020. My first point is that the Secretary of State, in his answers to that Select Committee about the matters in the report, makes no bones about a determination to find a particular financial package into which defence requirements and defence equipment and resources have to fit. That is not a pleasant position to be in, but his approach is certainly much more sensible than to embark on more ambitious proposals for which funds are inadequate. Our Armed Forces are entitled to expect some measure of certainty that what we are embarking on can be properly funded and is therefore likely to be properly implemented. In that sense, recognising the need for austerity, I support him.
However, I share the noble Lord’s concern about the recruitment of reserves. I look with particular interest to what small firms are saying about making employees available for service in the reserves. Although they recognise the benefits of it to the individuals concerned, two-fifths of the companies that are open to providing reserves had reservations about their ability to help under the new structure. That is a serious matter. I therefore welcome the undertaking by the Secretary of State that he will keep this matter under close review.
I was interested in the exchange between Colonel Bob Stewart, the Secretary of State and the Chief of the General Staff when Bob Stewart asked for a short answer to the question: what was the strength and what was the weakness of Future Army 2020? General Wall said that its strength was the capability that we are getting for the resources allocated. That was a pretty guarded statement. Its weakness was that some areas would have less resilience than we would need, which obviously is a matter of concern.
The other element that I noticed coming through very strongly is that we are just talking about regulars and reserves here. However, noble Lords will have noticed the emphasis that is also given to contractors. There is undoubtedly a determination to make maximum use of contractors and contracted manpower to help fill perhaps some of the gaps in that respect. I welcome that because I have certainly found in the past that it can be very effective and very efficient—particularly, for example, bringing in contractors from the actual manufacturers to maintain and service important equipment.
I will not talk in detail about this, but the other concern I have is about rebasing from Germany, where quality of accommodation will be a major challenge for the Ministry of Defence. I hope that our returning forces will have the quality of accommodation to which they are entitled as they come out of some very good facilities in Germany.
The general view in the Select Committee report seemed to be that the question of further intervention was not one of if but of when and where. I was not in favour of intervention in Syria but I recognise that there will almost certainly be other cases. We are already involved in Somalia and Mali, and are helping with training in Libya. This activity of conflict prevention and capability building by training and helping countries to help themselves will continue to be a very important role for our Armed Forces. I welcome it from their point of view because, with the end of activities in Afghanistan, there will now be a period of what may appear to be rather dull service activity, and it is important that the Armed Forces have real and worthwhile activities.
As the noble Lord said, we are in a potentially dangerous time. We cannot be sure where the latest news coming out of Ukraine might lead. We hope that good sense will prevail, but at the same time we need to keep a very close eye on our resources while also keeping the new changes under close review. I welcome this opportunity which the noble Lord has given us to raise this point and to urge the Government to be ready to have a further, rather longer and proper discussion of these matters in the new Session of Parliament.
Lord Soley (Lab)
I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Dannatt, on bringing this issue before the House. I agree with a very large amount of what he said, in particular that we need a longer debate on this. I wrote to the Chief Whip the other week, saying that we needed a debate on our relationship with Russia, because it is far more important than just Ukraine. The countries of eastern Europe and the Russians need to hear what we are saying here and in the House of Commons through their defence attachés and political advisers. It is very important that they hear that.
My own view, which I spelt out on 18 March in a debate on Ukraine, is that this is far more serious and long running than we are allowing ourselves to believe at the moment. What is implied in the Question before the House is whether we think the balance between our reserve and other forces is right and whether it meets the current needs of the day. I suppose the short answer to that is that it might, if we are very lucky. However, I do not think that we are going to be that lucky. The Government and both Houses have to look much more seriously at what is happening with defence at the moment and at our relationship with Russia. It is not just about Ukraine. What President Putin has done is to bring out the Russian nationalist card and, in doing that, he has given a great boost to morale in Russia. As I said on 18 March, I understand why Russia feels marginalised and undervalued. I understand all of that, and the disastrous history that it had throughout the 20th century, but the way it is being dealt with is profoundly serious.
Commentators tend to focus just on the issue of what Russia will do in Ukraine, but there are other questions here. It is about the Russian population in the other east European states. If they choose to say, “We want to have our voice heard, we will do what they are doing in Ukraine or did in Crimea”, it would not just be about a confrontation between NATO and Russia—serious though that would be—but about whether some of those states began to disintegrate, rather in the format of the former Yugoslavia but without the religious factors that were present there. You cannot underestimate that. If NATO is then required to undertake a policing operation, or something rather more than that, you would have to say that the balance between reserve and volunteer forces is probably wrong and that reducing the size of our Armed Forces at the moment is also wrong. I have no wish to return to the Cold War—and even less wish to talk about hot wars—but when you are in as uncertain a situation as this, reducing your defences is a mistake. We ought to be doing exactly what the United States and one or two other NATO countries are doing, which is building a military presence in some of those east European countries. The United States has a new air squadron in some of them and the Italians have deployed a ship off the Baltic states.
Can the Minister say in his response what we are doing? There needs to be a clear message that we have a military impact there and we want to make that known. At the same time we must have very serious discussions with the Russians about how we address some of their genuine and understandable concerns, and how we address the issue of minority Russian groups in those east European states. There are important arguments to be had there. They are not just about the military balance, but without the military balance bit you risk things getting out of control.
Often we look at Mr Putin and think that he is in some way a master planner of the old KGB variety. I am sure that he is of the old KGB variety, but I am not so sure that he is quite the master planner and certainly not sure that he is in control of events in the way that he likes to be. Once you release that Russian nationalist card there is no controlling it. That is why I say to the Minister that we need to think about the strategic defence review due next year. We need to start thinking about it right now. The debate on defence would be an important part of that. A deployment of some type of military forces in east Europe would be welcome. I would be in favour of some increase in military expenditure in order to meet the needs that we are facing.
This is not just about recreating a Cold War situation. It is about recognising that the present situation is far more serious and ongoing and that in such a situation you need to have preparation on the military side while developing a different diplomatic response from what we have had in the recent past.
Lord Lee of Trafford (LD)
My Lords, I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Dannatt, on securing this debate and support the broad thrust of his remarks.
We have a backdrop of a world sadly full of conflict and uncertainty, and one with increased Russian and Chinese defence expenditure. Unfortunately, in the west we are going in the other direction. Last week General Sir Richard Shirreff, our outgoing NATO Deputy Supreme Commander, was quoted as saying:
“The sort of defence cuts we have seen … have really hollowed out the British armed forces and I think that people need to sit up and recognise that”.
The plan to reduce the Regular Forces and significantly increase our reserves presented a real opportunity to enthuse and capture the country’s imagination. Some months ago in this Chamber I recommended that our reserves be retitled something more exciting, such as the “Prince’s Royal Reserves”. Instead, we have continued with the dull, stale words “reserve” and “reserves”. It is no wonder that there are problems with reserve recruitment.
Like other noble Lords, I would welcome a full defence debate, but I want to take this opportunity to ask a few brief questions, most of which I have given notice of to my noble friend. Does he believe that we have sufficient escort vessels to fulfil our international responsibilities? Nominally we have 19 escorts, of which probably only a dozen are operational. On carriers, it is suggested that additional costs above the latest baseline of £6.2 billion will be shared 50:50 between the private sector and the MoD. Is that the situation? Could he also tell us where we are with the Crowsnest radar? Will that be ready in time?
On the next generation of Type 26 frigates, is the plan still to buy 13 and are we still on target to complete the final supplier selection for major items by the end of this year? When is the maritime reconnaissance asset, ScanEagle, launched from the back of ships, likely to come into service? On UAVs, what is the state of play with Watchkeeper, which had its first full-flight training test last month? Generally on UAVs, does he agree with a former Israeli Air Force commander who said recently:
“The attack helicopter is finished”,
and does he agree that unmanned air-to-air combat is a realistic prospect within 15 years? Does my noble friend believe that we are spending enough on UAV development and procurement?
On the Air Force, there are suggestions that the Joint Strike Fighter development in the United States is slipping further behind schedule. Can my noble friend comment on that? It is clearly so important to us in this country. On the Army, leaving aside Special Forces, what is our current attitude to parachute training? How many service personnel are being trained each year?
The Lord Bishop of St Albans
My Lords, I, too, thank the noble Lord, Lord Dannatt, for giving us this opportunity to discuss this important matter. I also take the opportunity to pay tribute to all those who with great commitment, and sometimes great cost and self-sacrifice, are putting their lives on the line for us and for the defence of our nation. It is important to remember some of those who are now on active service.
I shall refrain from commenting on technical military matters and raise two specific points quite briefly. First, as well as ensuring that our country is properly defended, it is vital that we maintain the capacity to contribute to the increasing need for peacekeeping in our world, and not least with the United Nations. These missions are essential if we are to protect civilians when hostilities break out and stop them escalating. They are vital if we are to create the conditions for rebuilding peace and for establishing strong democratic Governments.
Britain already supports a number of UN peacekeeping missions: in Cyprus, the Democratic Republic of Congo and South Sudan. These are long-term commitments. They do not just go away; they eat up many of our resources. After the United States, Japan, France and Germany, we are the largest contributor to the UN peacekeeping budget. As one of the largest economies in the world, we have a moral duty to provide help where we can if we are trying to create new alliances and to help those places that are facing really serious problems and divisions.
Noble Lords have already referred to the fact that world events can change rapidly—Ukraine—but of course we also sometimes look to our Armed Forces to help when there are emergencies in this country. It was not many weeks ago that parts of our country were facing flooding and we were very grateful to be able to call upon them to help us in those situations.
We need spare capacity and resources that are flexible. I have no doubt that Reserve Forces are an important element in this, as long as the increase in Reserve Forces is not used as an excuse to see them as a replacement for endlessly cutting our Regular Forces.
My second point is that if we are going to see some fundamental changes in the balance of how we sort out our defences, not least by a serious increase in the number of reservists and the use of Reserve Forces, we need to ensure that resources are refocused to support the reservists in particular. The Regular Forces have the huge advantage of being based on or close to military establishments. There are opportunities for their families to meet and offer mutual support. Local schools are always alert to the huge stresses put on the children—whom we must not forget—of those who are actively serving. Some of the excellent charities and support services are close at hand; indeed, chaplaincy is usually available on those military sites. But for many reservists, there is no similar support in the immediate locality when they return, especially if they live in rural areas far from large urban centres.
It has been hugely encouraging to hear about the impact and success of the Armed Forces community covenants. When the covenant was signed in my home town of St Albans in December 2011 between the Armed Forces, representatives of the Royal British Legion, the county council and all the district and borough councils, also included were Hertfordshire Enterprise Partnership, Jobcentre Plus and Hertfordshire NHS. However, it concerns me that we were not given an opportunity to join in with thinking about how we can offer chaplaincy and support, particularly to reservists, and indeed there was no mention of how schools were going to be included, so that when reservists came back and children found that stressful, they would be included and supported. I hope that as these covenants are rolled out, we can think about how we can draw in the voluntary sector to offer real and significant support to those who put themselves on the line in the defence of our country.
Lord Glenarthur (Con)
My Lords, I strongly share the concerns raised by the noble Lord, Lord Dannatt. The professionalism, resilience and indeed the sacrifices, as the right reverend Prelate has just said, of service men and women are plain for all to see.
Senior, highly trained and experienced military officers in or within recent direct experience of very responsible national and international positions know what they are talking about, so I was simply astonished 10 days ago to read that the Secretary of State had described as “nonsense” the statements made by a senior officer on retirement about his concerns for the present and future capability of the Armed Forces, most especially the Royal Navy but also about manning in general and the reserves in particular. Those views may be politically inconvenient but they are very widely held and articulated. The House of Commons report Future Army 2020 hardly provides a ringing endorsement of government policy, even if the economic factors the country faces are very real. Nonsense those comments certainly are not.
Reserve service men and women must be trained to a high standard and to be fit for deployment—there is not much argument about that. One imperative is to provide the right incentive for them, often known as the proposition. Unless opportunities for training, provision of equipment and direct comparability are provided in almost every way with the regulars, that proposition will be very difficult to deliver. In any case, it will not necessarily be a cheaper option.
Of course, recent operations could not have been successfully prosecuted without extensive use of reservists. As the noble Lord, Lord Dannatt, said, the target of 30,000 deployable reservists by 2018 is a tall order. The programme to recruit them has got off to a shaky start because of the errors apparently made within the Ministry of Defence and a contract with Capita. The final figure may not be achieved or ultimately sustainable. Attracting redundant or other former ex-regulars to the reserves appears to be proving difficult, and I hope that my noble friend will be able to give us figures for that.
I spent many years as chairman of the National Employer Advisory Board for the reserves and so have a long-standing interest in how, in what is proposed, their future is going to develop. I would love to know how confident the Government are in the employer aspects of reservists, especially in the need to ensure that leave for training time can be made available at no detriment to employer or employee. Reservists must be as thoroughly trained as, and interchangeable with, their regular counterparts. What are the up-to-date figures for recruiting and sustaining reservists against the targets that have been set? What are the same figures for the regular services, particularly the Army? What are the current rates of premature voluntary release of service men and women? I hope my noble friend can give answers to these questions, some of which I have been able to give him notice of.
Concerns remain about the entire Middle East and the rise in Islamic fundamentalism. However, as the noble Lord, Lord Dannatt, said, we have recently seen disturbing destabilisation on the eastern fringes of Europe. Our foreign policy towards Russia, with its recent acquisitive and bellicose ambitions and substantial military muscle, understandably dwells on economic and even personal sanctions. However, no foreign policy can be fully effective if not reinforced by the capability of credible military response—the underpinning to which the noble Lord, Lord Dannatt, referred—in keeping with our international obligations, should that ghastly prospect prove necessary. That seems to be very much the burden of the noble Lord’s question.
Defence capability is a form of insurance. I am afraid that we seem to have got pretty close to our policy documents becoming invalid.
Lord Burnett (LD)
My Lords, I, too, congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Dannatt, on calling this debate and on his powerful speech. It is a compelling irony that the Secretary-General of NATO set the scene for this debate in an article in today’s Daily Telegraph. Long before Russia’s illegal annexation of Crimea, there was much to concern us about its future foreign and defence intentions. Russia some time ago embarked on a massive programme of rearming and re-equipping its armed forces. Can my noble friend quantify the expenditure that Russia has set aside for this purpose? Will he write to me explaining what naval, military, air and other assets will be coming into service as a result of Russia’s huge expenditure and the personnel ramifications?
Russia’s economy is potentially very fragile. It is quite possible that energy prices will fall significantly. Russia is already in deficit. Corruption and nepotism are rife. There is a rapidly falling population. The legal system and the press and media are not considered to be independent of the Executive. All the apparatus of an autocracy are in place. If there are greater strains on the Russian economy, it is not difficult to speculate how this regime, or another even more hard-line regime, might react.
There are so many other areas of mounting tension in the world: not just the Middle East but most of Africa; China and Japan have got longstanding difficulties between them; North Korea; certain parts of South America; and there is even unrest in certain parts of the European Union. The USA cannot be expected to continue to bear nearly three-quarters of NATO’s total defence expenditure. We must honour our treaty obligations. As I have said, I wholeheartedly support the full Trident replacement programme. Can my noble friend tell us this evening how this is proceeding? Finally, can my noble friend tell the House what effect these events are having on government policy?
My noble friend gave me some encouragement in a reply to an Oral Question some months ago that the Government understood that the Royal Navy required some 2,000 or so additional personnel to man the aircraft carriers. For reasons already given, particularly by the noble Lord, Lord Dannatt, we also need more personnel in the regular “teeth” arms—the Royal Marines and the Army. I hope the Government are aware of this and that my noble friend will be able to give us some encouragement.
Lord Bilimoria (CB)
My Lords, in his 2007 book The Black Swan Taleb was at pains to point out that the trick in dealing with black swans was not predicting them—as outliers, they frankly defy prediction of any sort—but rather with ensuring that you can cope with them and have the resilience to do so. Last year, would anyone really have assumed that we would have been looking at the invasion of a large eastern European country by a resurgent Russia? The answer is almost certainly not.
As the outgoing secretary-general of NATO has said,
“every ally needs to invest the necessary resources in the right capabilities … In the long run, a lack of security would be more costly than investing now and we owe it to our forces, and to broader society”.
The noble Lord, Lord Lee, referred to General Sir Richard Shirreff, who said:
“I wouldn’t want to let anybody think that I think that Army 2020 is good news, it’s not … The sort of defence cuts we have seen … have really hollowed out the British armed forces and I think that people need to sit up and recognise that”.
The number of troops is going down. The Army’s strength was 102,000 and by 2020 it will be 82,000, so we will not even be able to fill Wembley stadium. As Professor Michael Clarke, director of the Royal United Services Institute, said:
“With 82,000 we’ve got a ‘one-shot’ Army. If we don’t get it right the first time, there probably won’t be a second chance”.
I thank the noble Lord, Lord Dannatt, for initiating this debate. He himself has said:
“When the Coalition took its decisions on the size and shape of the Armed Forces at the time of its Strategic Defence and Security Review in 2010, it did so in the midst of an economic crisis … but doubt has remained as to whether a regular Army of just 82,000 is sufficient for our needs, and whether the target of 30,000 trained reservists is achievable”.
The Armed Forces are undergoing a huge reduction. There will be a reduction by 33,000, or 19%, by 2020: 5,500 from the Royal Navy, 8,000 from the Royal Air Force and 19,500 from the Army. In a scathing assessment, General Sir Richard Shirreff has also said that Britain is now the only NATO state not to commit any of its naval forces to maritime operations. What I find shocking—the noble Lord, Lord Glenarthur, referred to this—is that when asked yesterday about Sir Richard’s comments, Mr Hammond said:
“Much of what I’m hearing is nonsense”.
This is our great military expert—our Defence Secretary. He dismissed calls from the noble Lord, Lord Dannatt, the former head of the Army, to halt the withdrawal of British troops from Germany in order to send a military statement to Putin, saying that tank regiments are more effective based in Britain. That was the great general, Secretary of State Hammond.
The head of the defence committee, James Arbuthnot, said that he thought Ministers should rethink the cuts to the Army’s permanent staff in the light of Crimea. He said:
“The sheer number of the armed forces are much lower now than they should be in order to protect our interests”.
The Financial Times said that:
“A leaked report from the Ministry of Defence last year suggested the plans to restructure the army were in ‘chaos’ because potential reservists were being put off by a sense of gloom surrounding the armed forces”.
Can the Minister confirm this? It also said that Robert Gates, the former US Defence Secretary, has warned Britain that it would not have,
“‘the ability to be a full partner’ after the cuts because it would lack the full spectrum of military capabilities”,
and that:
“The defence committee report also criticised a lack of clarity from ministers in how to deal with cyber attacks, warning that ‘emphasis needs to be placed on ensuring that critical systems are resilient to attack and contingency plans for recovery are in place’”.
Can the Minister also confirm this?
The noble Lord, Lord Dannatt, mentioned clearly that when the cuts were announced, it was in a time of economic crisis. He has said that the international landscape is much more challenging now than in 2010 and referred to making a statement that greater military capability must underpin our diplomatic forces. The current Chief of the Defence Staff, General Sir Nick Houghton, warned last year that Britain’s military could become a “hollow force”, with state-of-the-art equipment but no one to operate it. Even the Chief of the General Staff, Sir Peter Wall, has added:
“Ultimately history tells us that in some circumstances committed land forces may be the only way to achieve decisive outcomes in support of our strategic objectives”.
Will the Minister confirm that the cuts have all been about means before ends? We will have the smallest Army in 200 years. In 2010, the SDSR got rid of our Harriers, our carriers and our Nimrods. We have been fighting in Afghanistan and we have had one black swan after another: the Arab spring, Libya, Syria, Ukraine, Crimea. What next? Can the Minister confirm that the morale of our Armed Forces is in a very sorry state and needs to be addressed? What about the esprit de corps? Could he confirm the state of esprit de corps, which is the essence of our Armed Forces? We are at the top table of the world. We have tremendous soft power, but we need the hard power and we need the critical mass. To conclude, as General Sir Richard Shirreff said:
“We all support the efforts to get the deficit down, but it is all about priorities. What really matters? Well, the first duty of government is to protect the nation … And the electorate need to understand there is no point in having hospitals and schools and welfare unless the country is safe”.
Lord Freeman (Con)
My Lords, I join many of your Lordships—in fact, all of your Lordships—in thanking the noble Lord, Lord Dannatt, for initiating this debate. May I offer him some support? I think I speak for a number of my colleagues in saying that, if he is able to persuade the usual channels that we should have a full debate on defence in your Lordships’ House, then he can count on me to be one of his foot-runners on this particular issue.
I want to concentrate on the issue of the Reserves, the planned total size of which is 30,000. Perhaps I may say that my noble friend Lord Trefgarne, for whom I used to work as a junior Minister in the Ministry of Defence, will echo my recollection that if you go back 10 or 15 years what was then the Territorial Army had a trained force of over 50,000. To get to 30,000 therefore does not seem to me to be either impractical or impossible. I want to explain why I think it is of some significance and importance that we stick to that target.
My own experience, as president of the Council of the Reserve Forces and Cadets Associations for 10 years, was that there were some very important advantages in having what was then called the Territorial Army and is now the Reserve Forces drawn from large and small employers spread throughout the country. That is the first point: it would be quite wrong to ditch the target of 30,000 or reduce it in any way at all, because the reserves have a footprint across the whole of the country. With the Regular Army in particular withdrawing into a number of very large garrisons around the country, the footprint of the armed services could be reduced to our great disadvantage unless we maintain our target of 30,000. Even to speculate at this stage about reducing those numbers would send entirely the wrong signal about the efforts being made by employers. I am sure that my noble friend, who was responsible for liaison between large employers and the Armed Forces, will echo my point that it would send a confusing signal at this stage, when so much effort is being made.
I must tell your Lordships that the recent figures for recruitment into the Reserve Forces have begun to improve. If you go back three or four months there were some serious difficulties, but now the indications are that recruitment is better. We must maintain the national footprint of the Reserve Forces for political reasons—political with a small “p”, not party political—to make sure that we have the support and encouragement of our population for our Armed Forces.
The 30,000 target will include many specialists, and the nature of the Reserve Forces has changed over the previous 10 or 20 years. We are recruiting people with skills, whether in the medical profession or in construction, who can complement our Regular Forces so effectively and successfully. We have a five-year campaign running, and I am quite confident that we will reach the target. I am not in favour of sending the signal at this stage of reducing the target for our Reserve Forces to compensate for the need, it is argued, to increase our Regular Forces. We ought to stick to our guns—that may be an inappropriate comment, but I think it is true. We can reach 30,000 by 2018.
I look forward to working with the noble Lord, Lord Dannatt, to secure a full day’s debate in your Lordships’ House.
Baroness Dean of Thornton-le-Fylde (Lab)
My Lords, I join other Members of the House in congratulating and thanking the noble Lord, Lord Dannatt, for this short debate this evening. Questions for Short Debate are one of a number of ways of probing and questioning the Government’s policy; others include Questions for Written Answer, Oral Questions and debates. The fact is that the Government have not convinced people that their approach and policy on this area are right. They do not appear to have convinced either the House of Commons Select Committee or experienced spokespeople in this area.
For this debate I turned to the recent report by the Armed Forces Pay Review Body, an organisation which meets several thousand Armed Forces personnel face to face every year. Paragraph 2.11 of its report states:
“There had been notable drops in reported morale from Army personnel for the third consecutive year”.
According to the surveys, morale has dropped in our Armed Forces every year of this coalition Government. Paragraph 2.12 states:
“Our visits took place amidst continuing high tempo, with much operational commitment at the same time as the impact of the redundancy programme was being felt”.
Paragraph 2.13 refers to:
“The continued erosion of the overall package, together with the impact of the redundancy process were felt to be adversely affecting morale, which was already considered to be fragile”.
The facts linked with that are that last year, mainly before these redundancies were complete, the working hours of our Armed Forces personnel were up to 47.9 hours per week. That is the average, week in, week out. The average weekly duty hours increased in one year by three hours to 70.7 hours a week. That is something that we need to take into account when we consider the wording of this Question and the assessment of whether we have sufficient manpower in the Armed Forces.
In my experience, any commercial organisation would make such fundamental changes incrementally: as you made one change, you would increase another. The Government have gone forward with these redundancies but have no idea whether they will ultimately be able to recruit 30,000 reserve personnel. I hope they are able to, but the transitional period between now and then is a great danger for us as a nation, as we have seen in the latest developments in Europe.
In a letter accompanying this report, the Minister said that the Government accepted all the recommendations of the Armed Forces Pay Review Body. Will he therefore tell us what the Government are going to do about the morale issue—some but not all of which is a direct result of these changes—and what they are going to do about the overall working hours of our Armed Forces personnel?
Paragraph 31 on page 11 of the House of Commons Defence Select Committee report, which was published on 29 January, states:
“It is essential that the MoD budget settlement allows for the delivery of Army 2020”.
I cannot find any overall commitment from the Treasury that has confirmed categorically that the money will be available for this. Can the Minister give us that assurance?
The first responsibility of any Government is the defence of the realm. Does the Minister believe that with the state of morale and the numbers of our Armed Forces, they have the manpower to deliver that?
Lord Teverson (LD)
My Lords, I also welcome this debate, called by the noble Lord, Lord Dannatt. For four years, I was privileged to chair the EU sub-committee dealing with foreign affairs and defence and it was a pleasure to have my noble friend Lord Selkirk as a member of that group. I want to pursue some of the themes that came out of some work that we did on European defence. A handful of things have changed quite substantially over the last couple of years. First of all, there was the American pivot to Asia which sent out all sorts of messages, the consequences of some of which we may have seen over the last month. There was also the move by Russia, and we now have the first threat to territorial integrity in Europe for 24 years. There are also a number of smaller internal and ethnic conflicts, particularly within north Africa. I just want to take one or two points from each of those.
I do not think there is any dispute that the United States was going to pivot towards Asia, and it also has a defence treaty with Australia. Over the last six months, we have seen very dangerous issues within the East China Sea, the South China Sea and the Korean peninsula which show that we need to pay great attention to that area and that there needs to be very strong American presence, rhetoric and ability to act there. It was inevitable that the USA would move to look less at Africa and Europe, and that is not going to change. In 2011, we saw America leading from the back in the Libya operation and Robert Gates, the Defence Secretary, has said that if NATO did not get its act together, its future would be dim and dismal. Perhaps this is what it has been shown to be over the last year—hopefully, that will change.
I am sure that as the noble Lord, Lord Soley, has said, we need to show more than economic reaction to the situation in Ukraine. This should not be military action at present, but NATO and the European states need to show strength and resolution. We must show that we are serious and that what I call the Medvedev doctrine—looking after Russian citizens outside Russia—is not acceptable to nation states west of Russia. About two years ago, when we took evidence on European defence, we were very struck at how the Baltic states and Poland said very strongly that they did not see peace in Europe as inevitable and that they feared the Russian Federation. How right they have been.
NATO expenditure has moved down from some 2.7% of GDP in the 1990s to some 1.6%. I welcome the major change in that direction, but there is always a time when that must start to reverse, and if there is a time when it needs to reverse, it is now. This is not just about expenditure as a proportion of GDP. Europe has 1.6 or 1.7 million people in uniform but very little ability to actually deploy them, certainly not without the help of the United States. We need to start moving forward with our European allies to change this.
The Central African Republic is the other area which is very relevant today. The European Union is now sending a force there, postponed by three months, but the situation there is absolutely critical. This is telling, given that it is 20 years since the Rwandan situation. I was very pleased to see a press release from DfID saying that we were supporting security there, but we were doing it by giving £2 million to UNHCR. Quite frankly, what is needed is for us, either with the European Union force or with France bilaterally, to send real military support to stop the potential genocide between Muslims and Christians there.
President Obama said at the EU-American summit earlier this month that freedom is not free. That may be a cliché and it may sound trite, but I believe at this time that it is absolutely true.
Lord Lyell (Con)
My Lords, the thanks of all of us, especially from myself, are due enormously this evening to the noble Lord, Lord Dannatt, for giving us the opportunity to have just a starter or taster of what we hope will come later on in the Session. He has probed what I understand may be fairly fertile ground with my noble friend the Minister, and we may have a full debate at a later stage in this Session.
Your Lordships may recognise that the noble Lord is a man of enormous expertise and competence. I know from my relations with him, and thanks to the noble Baroness, Lady Dean, and other noble Lords in the House of Lords Defence Group, that he is a soldier and a man of enormous charm. However, as we have heard from the noble Lord, Lord Bilimoria, this evening, he is also a man of some considerable steel, and he says what needs to be said, tactfully but realistically. He may hit hard with the Ministry of Defence, but it is recognised with enormous gratitude in your Lordships’ House.
Thank goodness that I looked at the timetable and found that I had just three minutes—I shall certainly be under that. The text for this evening’s Question was particularly on the Reserve and Regular Forces. We have had notable speeches from my noble friends Lord Freeman and Lord Glenarthur on the Reserve Forces. In the various activities of the British Army in deployment in the past 10 or 15 years, the number of reservists who go to make up the total number of forces who are sent overseas, particularly Army, is one aspect—but there is much more. My noble friend Lord Glenarthur will know that it is the specialist forces, particularly his medics, who go for long deployment abroad and who bring enormous skills. Without their skills, operations in Afghanistan and elsewhere would be virtually impossible. Certainly, medics—I understand that there are engineers in other particular disciplines—have these specialist skills and are available.
I understand that three of your Lordships who have spoken this evening—my noble friends Lord King and Lord Freeman and myself—are conscripts who go back 50 years or more. As far as I recall, we were liable for two years’ full-time service and four years in the reserves. Certainly, I was never called up because I had a triple fracture of the leg that finished my full-time career; it probably would have ruled me out. I am not too sure what happened or what the rules were in the late 1950s, and whether it was obligatory or recommended that, having spent two years full time, you did four years as a reservist and fulfilled your duties in that regard. Our current Army has 82,000 regulars, with 30,000 reservists—at least, that will be the target figure. I hope that that will be quite enough to fulfil national and, above all, international requirements, let alone responsibilities.
I salute and am very grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Dannatt, for giving us the opportunity this evening and asking what needs to be done. I conclude swiftly by thanking my noble friend the Minister. The noble Lord, Lord Bilimoria, made a fair point, possibly, about my right honourable friend the Secretary of State. But I hope that he and the rest of your Lordships’ House, particularly those of us who have had the good luck to serve on the House of Lords Defence Group, recognise that my noble friend the Minister is certainly one of the most outstanding Defence Ministers in your Lordships’ House.
I have spent 41 years with the House of Lords Defence Group. I first went in 1973 to RAF Leuchars and RAF Kinloss. In all that time, I have known and learnt more, and one thing I have learnt is how lucky we are to have the constant support that we have from my noble friend the Minister and his colleagues in the Ministry of Defence. We are even luckier to have the support that we have had this evening from the noble Lord, Lord Dannatt. I cannot wait to hear what my noble friend has to say.
Viscount Brookeborough (CB)
My Lords, I declare an interest as a member of the Reserve Forces and Cadets Association Northern Ireland. My interest in these affairs comes from the fact that I was in the Regular Army and then served in Northern Ireland with part-time reservists. I am now involved with the Territorial Army.
My few short remarks refer to the Army reserves and to the target of 30,000 fully trained Army reservists that we have heard about. I ask the Minister where those 30,000 are going to come from because, at no time in the history of the Reserve Forces, has the full complement been fully trained. In our experience, 30,000 members does not refer to 30,000 fully trained; it is normally 75% or below.
In Northern Ireland the reserves were fully recruited—and even overrecruited—until the introduction of Capita, the new recruiting agency, into this process. The Province also had the highest percentage deployment rate per head of the population but recruitment is now going down. What has changed? It is not the availability of potential recruits. The conditions of service are improving; they are even better as time goes on. Only one thing has changed—the introduction of an agency and the breaking of that vital, personal contact during the initial stages of recruitment into the reserves. The Government may feel that this is moving with the times and noble Lords may compare it with modern banking and the increasing lack of personal contact with the branch managers and staff. We all have to bank somewhere, so we have to put up with that, but recruiting of potential reservists is different. They are probably employed, live within happy families and are looking for a new dimension to their lives with others from their local community. They do not have to join, nor deal with the faceless internet, and they do not want delay and hassle on top of their daily lives.
Northern Ireland was 100% recruited through traditional recruitment carried out by local sub-units, through schools, sporting and other clubs, and through friends who might have been current reservists. This new system has failed to be user-friendly at the first hurdle. The Government must also adapt their recruiting of reserves to the changing circumstances of today. Since the Iraq war, the reservists have joined up to go on operations, but now we are back to a training role, and there is no impending operation, for which we are all thankful. It may be a different type of person who will be required. Different support will be required for their families and even more enhanced support for their employers who may be less inclined in the long term to permit staff time off for training and topping up the numbers in the regular units. This might seem a thankless task to an employer. It is interesting that, towards the end of the Troubles in Northern Ireland, when we used so many part-time people, not only businesses but also government departments, such as those responsible for schools, roads and housing, were becoming more and more reluctant to allow their people to get away. Perhaps this does not have the long life that the Government would like to think.
I suggest that the Government have a much larger mountain to climb than they realise. I look forward to hearing the Minister say how they think they are going to do it. Time will tell.
Lord Rosser (Lab)
My Lords, I add my thanks to those already expressed to the noble Lord, Lord Dannatt, for securing this all too short debate on our reserve and regular Armed Forces. I endorse the tribute paid by the right reverend Prelate to our Armed Forces.
By now, of course, the key questions have already been raised, not least by my noble friend Lady Dean on the state of Armed Forces morale, and by other noble Lords on recent developments around the world. I wish to re-emphasise one or two points. I recognise that the noble Lord, Lord Dannatt, referred to all three armed services, and that concerns have been voiced in particular about personnel numbers in the Royal Navy. However, I wish to confine the rest of my comments to the Army.
When the announcement was made by the former Secretary of State for Defence that the size of the Regular Army was to be further reduced to 82,000—some 12,000 below the figure stated in the 2010 strategic defence and security review—he did it against the backdrop of an announcement that the size of the trained Army reserve force would be increased from 19,000 to 30,000 by 2018. He has also since confirmed that the rundown in the size of the Regular Army was linked to the increase in the size of the Reserve Forces. That would seem a logical stance to adopt since the increase in the number of reservists should be achievable if the Government are determined to provide whatever money is required to achieve that objective, although that, of course, does not necessarily mean that sufficient recruits of the required quality and skills will be secured.
That policy has now been changed by the Government, who have repeatedly declined to give assurances that the Regular Army will be reduced only in line with the intended increase in the size of the trained reserve force being achieved. That decision raises important issues. The first is that the Government must believe that a Regular Army of 82,000 is sufficient to deliver the military capacity and capability objective in the defence planning assumptions on which the strategic defence and security review is based without any increase in the size, or change in the composition, of our Reserve Forces. If the Government do not believe this—I ask the Minister to confirm the Government’s position—then declining to make the reduction in the size of our Regular Army dependent on achieving the intended increase in the size of our Reserve Forces must put the military capacity and capability objective in the SDSR at risk, and with it our national security as well. However, if the Government confirm that their position is that a Regular Army of 82,000 can deliver the military capacity objectives in the SDSR without increasing the size of our trained reserve force, that invites the question as to why we are increasing the size of our Reserve Forces to 30,000, and for what military and national security objectives are we doing so.
The Government have also inferred that the increased trained reserve force will provide some specialist skills which our Regular Forces will not possess to a sufficient degree. If that is the case—I would be grateful if the Minister could confirm the Government’s position on that point—how is it that the rundown in the strength of our Regular Army is not dependent on the increase in our trained reserve force, even in respect of these specialist skills, if our national security is to be safeguarded? I hope that the points I have just made are ones to which the Minister will respond in his reply to the debate.
Finally, reference has already been made to the House of Commons Defence Select Committee. In a recent report, that committee expressed its doubts that the Army 2020 plan represented a fully thought through and tested concept which would allow the Army to counter emerging and uncertain threats and develop a contingent capability to deal with unforeseen circumstances. It said that the Ministry of Defence needed to justify how the conclusion was reached that the Army 2020 plan of 82,000 regular and 30,000 reserves represented the best way of countering these threats. No doubt the Select Committee’s point is one to which the Minister will also wish to respond.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Defence (Lord Astor of Hever) (Con)
My Lords, I am also grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Dannatt, for introducing this very important issue. I share the right reverend Prelate’s thoughts for those members of the Armed Forces serving on operations and, of course, for their families. It is right that we should do everything we can to ensure that our country is not caught unawares in the event of unforeseen crises and threats. The noble Lord’s Question concerns the sufficiency of our manpower. In addressing it, we should look first at the existing scope and scale of our commitments worldwide.
Currently, we have more than 30,000 service men and women committed on operations. They are providing significant contributions to security and stabilisation in Afghanistan, combating piracy off the Horn of Africa, countering narcotics in the Caribbean and keeping open vital choke points in the Strait of Hormuz. Recently we have seen British Armed Forces support the French in Mali. We have deployed HMS “Daring” and HMS “Illustrious” to the Philippines to assist in the humanitarian effort in the wake of the hurricane. We have seen regulars and reserves protecting possessions and property against the recent floods. In the past week we have dispatched a submarine to help hunt for the missing Malaysian aeroplane. These are examples of the activities that our Armed Forces are currently engaged in, and all happening in a period of transition. If anyone was under the illusion that the post-Afghanistan world would be a quieter place, then events in Syria and latterly in Ukraine have swiftly dispelled that illusion.
Several noble Lords, including my noble friends Lord King and Lord Burnett, asked about Ukraine. What has happened there is completely indefensible. This is the most serious risk to European security that we have seen so far in the 21st century. The priority now is to deter further Russian military action, de-escalate and find a diplomatic solution. The Government have made it clear that they remain committed to a diplomatic solution to the current crisis in Crimea and Ukraine, and in this respect are pursuing a number of diplomatic and economic initiatives, including targeted sanctions and representations in international fora. In terms of reassuring allies, the UK was one of the first to offer tangible contributions, with our offer to supplement NATO’s peacetime Baltic air policing mission. NATO will continue to provide appropriate reinforcement of visible assurance of NATO’s cohesion and commitment to deterrence and collective defence against any threat of aggression to the alliance.
My noble friend Lord Burnett asked about Russian defence spending. Russia has previously stated that it intends to increase defence spending. It intends to spend $650 billion up to 2020, including the acquisition of eight nuclear submarines, 600 jets, 1,000 helicopters and 100 warships, in an attempt to modernise its armed forces.
The noble Lord, Lord Soley, mentioned the next SDSR. Clearly the SDSR in 2015 will consider whether our foreign policy and security objectives have changed in the intervening five years, and the implications for our Armed Forces.
The noble Lord, Lord Dannatt, asked what we are able to do under Future Force 2020. It will enable us to conduct simultaneously an enduring stabilisation operation of up to 6,500 personnel, equivalent to operations in Afghanistan over the past decade; one non-enduring complex intervention of up to 2,000 personnel, equivalent to that undertaken in Libya; and one non-enduring simple intervention of up to 1,000 personnel, equivalent to the UK’s support to France in Mali. This level of capability has been tested against a wide range of scenarios and a whole of government assessment of the likely future threats and commitments facing the UK. We are confident that it allows us to protect and promote the UK and its interests in an effective, sustainable manner.
The noble Lord also asked about risks. The Armed Forces are going through significant restructuring. Throughout this period, there will be shortages in some roles. However, we can be clear that there are safeguards in place to ensure that front-line operational capability is not affected. All three services continue to recruit, and the Army recently launched a major recruiting drive for both regulars and reservists. We are confident that we have, and will continue to have, the right personnel and skill sets to satisfy all strategic defence priorities.
Several noble Lords, including my noble friend Lord Lee, the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of St Albans, the noble Lord, Lord Bilimoria, and my noble friend Lord Lyell, asked about reserves recruitment. The latest reserves recruitment campaign began in January. All three services have used a range of advertising methods from radio, TV and online recruitment targeted at the youth audience to deploying uniformed personnel at prominent locations such as shopping centres. The initial response to the recruitment campaign is encouraging, as my noble friend Lord Freeman said. Local reserve units have been heavily involved in recruiting activity as they know their local areas best of all. From this, the Army is analysing the lessons identified and the reports of good practice, and is encouraging units to share and promote their good practice.
We have introduced a number of new initiatives to simplify the recruiting process. These include the revised medical process, introduced in January, and the new online application forms. It is still early days. The length of time that it takes applicants to progress through the application and training pipelines means that it will take a while for the actual impact to become realised, but we are very positive.
My noble friend Lord Glenarthur asked about recruiting levels against the 2018 target for reservists and regulars, and he also asked about retention in the regulars. The figures released on 13 February in the defence statistics demonstrate that the Reserve Forces are on track to meet or even exceed the interim target for April this year. We have always said that growing the reserves would be a challenge, and the start of that challenge is reversing the long decline in numbers. The trained strength figures are expected to dip initially because it takes around two years for a recruit to complete the training and join the trained strength.
Regular Army recruiting is forecasting a 30% shortfall in soldier entrants caused by a combination of factors. This is being tackled through an improvement to the recruiting process. This shortfall has been taken into account in our manpower forecasting and planning. Under Army 2020, the Regular Army is reducing from 102,000 to 82,500. Today, the Army has a shortfall of some 4,000 people against the structure, but this will be cancelled out as the structure is reduced over the next three years. Current voluntary outflow levels are above the 10-year average. The range of criteria used when forecasting VO is wide and includes economic advice from the Office for Budget Responsibility, historic behaviour and expected trends. The result of this forecast was used when modelling the requirements and it led to a reduced requirement for tranche 4.
My noble friend Lord Lee asked me about the carriers and the cost increases. Until a new contract is signed, the current agreement remains extant. This agreed a 90:10 share of costs. The Secretary of State stated in November 2013 that,
“under the new agreement, any variation above or below that price will be shared on a 50:50 basis between Government and industry, until all the contractor’s profit is lost”.—[Official Report, Commons, 6/11/13; col. 251.]
The revised deal, including the revised 50:50 share line that better incentivises industry to control costs by allocating an equitable share should costs grow beyond the new target, is expected to be approved this spring, and the new contract will be signed on completion.
My noble friend also asked about escorts. The Royal Navy has 19 operational frigates and destroyers: 13 Type 23 frigates and six Type 45 destroyers. These ships are held at varying degrees of readiness. Three ships are currently deployed overseas, conducting operations in the Persian Gulf, the eastern Mediterranean and the Atlantic. Four ships are undergoing training in preparation for forthcoming international deployments or are held at high-readiness for contingency operations. One is conducting defence engagement in Dover in support of the HMS “Cavalier” 70th anniversary celebrations, eight are in routine maintenance in their home port, and three are in deep maintenance. I hope that that addresses my noble friend’s questions.
My noble friend also asked about Joint Strike Fighter dates. Initial operating capability for the UK’s F-35 aircraft is scheduled for December 2018, with carrier strike capability scheduled for 2020. I am happy to tell my noble friend that these remain on track.
My noble friend asked for an update on ScanEagle. The ScanEagle has been successfully, swiftly and safely introduced into service, fulfilling an urgent operational requirement. This day and night capable UAS is operated from Royal Navy and Royal Fleet Auxiliary vessels and provides an important uplift in persistent surveillance and reconnaissance capabilities. It is currently in use on deployed operations, providing real-time intelligence to the ships’ staff and has already proved itself to be an important addition to our maritime capabilities.
My noble friend asked about the numbers of Type 26 frigates. The Government’s current planning assumption is the construction of 13 Type 26s.
I will do my best to answer as many questions as I have time for, but I am conscious that I will not be able to answer all noble Lords. I shall write to those whom I am unable to answer now and copy in all noble Lords who have spoken in the debate.
Several noble Lords, including the noble Lords, Lord Bilimoria and Lord Rosser, and the noble Baroness, Lady Dean, asked about morale. This is a challenging time for defence. Morale and esprit de corps are monitored within the Armed Forces Continuous Attitude Survey. We take this issue seriously and we are aware that we have work to do.
My noble friend Lord Burnett asked about the Trident replacement. Over the next year the programme will continue to evolve as the submarine design matures. Detailed preparations will continue for main gate in 2016, ensuring that the design, costings and procurement strategy are mature. A further report to Parliament will be made later this year.
My noble friend Lord King mentioned small and medium-sized enterprises and their concerns over reliance on reservists. We recognise the contribution of SMEs and that Reserve service can affect them more greatly than larger firms. That is why we are bringing in employer incentive payments of up to £500 per reservist per month when a reservist is mobilised.
My noble friend also asked about accommodation in the UK for forces returning from Germany. The MoD has set aside £1.6 billion to implement the army basing plan, providing nearly 1,900 new service family accommodations and 4,800 new single living/bed spaces.
The noble Lord, Lord Bilimoria, asked about our resilience to cyberattack. Defence takes cybersecurity extremely seriously. Across the UK as a whole cyber skills are in short supply. The best way to address this is through a mixture of Regular and Reserve forces.
The noble Baroness, Lady Dean, asked about working hours and the minimum wage. We have worked to ensure that the sacrifices and dedication of our personnel are recognised. They have continued to benefit from pay rises and other benefits, including subsidised accommodation, generous pensions and plenty of paid leave. It is therefore entirely misleading to suggest that any of them earn less than the minimum wage.
I am running out of time. This Government have taken difficult decisions in order to preserve the sustainability of the Armed Forces. That was the responsible course of action. No one thought that the transformation of our Armed Forces to Future Force 2020 would be easy—if they did, it would have been done much sooner. The services are rising admirably to the challenges of change. They are shaping their own future while continuing to deliver everything required of them in current operations.