House of Commons
Prayers
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Oral Answers to Questions
(10 years, 7 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
17:13 - The House divided: - Ayes: 195 / Noes: 294 - Question accordingly negatived.
Mel Stride (Central Devon) (Con)
1. What assessment he has made of the effects on the defence and security of Scotland of being part of the UK.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence (Dr Andrew Murrison)
Scotland is an essential part of the UK’s defence. Our integrated approach protects us all, underpins our considerable international influence and clout, and sustains defence industries which employ around 12,600 people in Scotland. Together, our defence and security effort is truly world-class. Why would anybody want to unpick it?
Mel Stride
My hon. Friend will know that the Scottish Government’s White Paper proposes that Scotland’s territorial waters should be protected by two warships and no submarines, and he will also be aware that Scotland comprises about 50% of the UK’s total territorial waters, currently protected by some 17 warships and five submarines. Does he agree, therefore, that the proposals set out by the Scottish National party in the White Paper represent a significant diminution in the protection of Scotland?
Dr Murrison
The Scottish Government claim they will spend £2.5 billion on defence, but their Finance Minister John Swinney’s leaked memo on Scotland’s budget says at paragraph 50:
“I have made clear to the Defence Workstream that a much lower budget must be assumed.”
I very much doubt, therefore, that the Scottish navy would have even the two complex modern warships to which the Scottish Government aspire. Moreover, their White Paper makes no provision for refuelling and reprovisioning at sea. It implies that they will leave that to the Royal Navy, underlining the point that we are indeed better together.
John Robertson (Glasgow North West) (Lab)
23. The Minister may or may not be aware that on the Glasgow coat of arms it says, “Let Glasgow flourish.” Does he agree with me that voting no in the Scottish independence referendum will mean that shipbuilding on the Clyde will flourish, and that Glasgow will be all the better for it?
Dr Murrison
I absolutely agree with the hon. Gentleman. Some 12,600 jobs in Scotland are linked to the defence industry. It is impossible to imagine that the jobs to which he refers will be sustained in the event of independence, given the very small number of ships that the Scottish Government would purchase, and article 346 of the treaty on the functioning of the European Union, with which I know he is familiar.
Steve Brine (Winchester) (Con)
18. Further to the question of my hon. Friend the Member for Central Devon (Mel Stride), according to SNP plans, under independence the Scottish air force would have 12 Typhoon jets, if costed properly. Would that not be a considerable reduction in the number of jets that are currently based in Scotland, and a huge reduction in the total number of jets currently available to protect the air approaches to Scotland and, ultimately, what would be left of the UK?
Dr Murrison
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The Scottish Government tell us that they would have 12 Typhoons, which means four that are operational at any one time. That is no substitute for the Royal Air Force, and neither does it come close to what is provided by the allies, which the Scottish Government like to pretend they will match: Norway has 57 jets and Denmark has 30. The Scottish Government have also made no provision for air-to-air refuelling, without which the scope for covering Scotland’s extensive air space will be dramatically reduced.
Angus Robertson (Moray) (SNP)
The Ministry of Defence is responsible for ensuring that Scotland is a maritime nation with no maritime patrol aircraft and no ocean-going vessels. The MOD is also responsible for the closure of two out of three air bases in Scotland and the disproportionate cut to personnel and spending, while at the same time committing to Trident, which the majority of people in Scotland oppose. May I appeal to the Minister and the Secretary of State to come for more day trips to Scotland so that people can contrast the appalling reality of MOD decisions in Scotland with the ludicrous scaremongering of the UK Government?
Dr Murrison
The hon. Gentleman says that there are no ocean-going vessels, but he has forgotten the submarine service, which, for a Scottish MP, is a huge omission. He talks about maritime patrol aircraft, but he says nothing about how he would analyse the data that maritime patrol aircraft are designed to collect. He talks about two warships, yet he tells us in his White Paper that the only way he can refuel them, and thus extend their scope, is by relying on the Royal Navy.
Sir Menzies Campbell (North East Fife) (LD)
As someone who was born in Glasgow and at one stage lived close to Yarrows, as it then was, my hon. Friend will understand that I have a particular interest in the future of shipbuilding on the Clyde. Were Scotland to become independent, improbable though that may be, can he conceive of any circumstances in which the Government of the rest of the United Kingdom would wish to place orders in what would then effectively be a foreign country?
Dr Murrison
We have not ordered warships from another country for 100 years, outside the two world wars. Article 346 of the treaty on the functioning of the European Union makes the situation clear: it would not be possible to order such vessels in the event that Scotland and the United Kingdom became foreign countries to one another.
Gemma Doyle (West Dunbartonshire) (Lab/Co-op)
There is not a single costed commitment to build or purchase any defence equipment in the SNP’s manifesto—or “White Paper”, as they like to call it—over and above existing UK Government plans. In fact, a letter from the Deputy First Minister indicates that the frigates they refer to are actually four of the 13 that we expect and hope the UK to order later this year. Are not the jobs of those working in the defence sector in Scotland, which are reliant on UK contracts, some of the most at risk if Scotland becomes independent from the rest of the UK?
Dr Murrison
I am not sure about the figures that the hon. Lady cites, which I think are optimistic. What I would say is that £2.5 billion is 7% of the £33 billion to £34 billion that we currently spend on defence, and Scotland represents 8.4% of the UK population. I think we can all do the figures ourselves and realise that Scotland gets a very, very large chunk of the defence cake; furthermore, it benefits from every single pound of the £34 billion that we spend on defence every year. It is inconceivable that Scotland would be better defended in the event that it became independent.
Rehman Chishti (Gillingham and Rainham) (Con)
2. What recent assessment he has made of the security situation in Afghanistan and its effect on participation in the Afghan presidential election.
The Secretary of State for Defence (Mr Philip Hammond)
The Afghan national security force has now reached 97% of its surge strength target and has the lead responsibility for security across the country. Despite persistent efforts and a number of high-profile attacks, the Taliban have failed to achieve a breakthrough and confidence in the ANSF among the civilian population is high.
Against this backdrop, nearly 7 million Afghans took part in provincial and presidential elections on 5 April, 36% of whom were women. On election day itself, the ANSF secured polling centres, effectively preventing any high-profile attacks. Last week, I visited Afghanistan and took the opportunity to congratulate the Afghan military commanders in Helmand on this truly remarkable achievement.
Rehman Chishti
A secure Afghanistan needs the support and co-operation of Pakistan. Did the Secretary of State discuss that with Prime Minister Sharif on his recent visit to the United Kingdom, and what assurances did the Prime Minister give, as any future President would need that support?
Mr Hammond
I did discuss security with Prime Minister Sharif during his recent visit to London, and I congratulated him on the effective border security that Pakistan had provided during the recent Afghan presidential elections. He, in turn, reiterated his Government’s commitment to a peaceful and stable Afghanistan, and to working with whoever emerges as President Karzai’s successor to confront the common challenges that both countries face.
Keith Vaz (Leicester East) (Lab)
On Saturday 26 April, five British servicemen were tragically killed in a helicopter crash, including Flight Lieutenant Rakesh Chauhan, whose parents have a business in my constituency and are widely respected there. Will there be an investigation and if so, can we have a timetable, and can we be assured that all support is being offered to the bereaved relatives?
Mr Hammond
First, I am sure that everybody in the House would wish to join the right hon. Gentleman and me in sending our deepest condolences to the relatives of those who died in that tragic accident. It is a poignant reminder, coming so close to the end of the combat campaign, not just of the risks our service people undertake every day in the face of the enemy, but of the intrinsically dangerous nature of what they do, day in, day out.
There is an ongoing review into the circumstances of the accident. At the moment, there is no evidence of any enemy action being involved in the incident. I cannot give the right hon. Gentleman a timetable for the completion of the review because it will take as long as it takes, but as soon as we have information that we can publish, we will do so.
Mr Julian Brazier (Canterbury) (Con)
I welcome my right hon. Friend’s assessment of the security situation. Does he agree that one of the highest priorities after the main withdrawal must be ensuring that we can still provide security for the teams from the Department for International Development that are carrying out essential social and economic work?
Mr Hammond
Once the UK forces have drawn down from the combat role in Helmand, we will still have a small security team, largely composed of civilian contractors, based in Kabul. We will work closely with the Foreign Office and DFID to ensure that their officials and the civilian contractors whom they employ in the ongoing aid effort, are properly protected.
Derek Twigg (Halton) (Lab)
On Pakistan, will the Secretary of State tell the House what discussions he has had recently with the Americans and other allies about how we can provide ongoing support to Pakistan to ensure a secure and safe border and that it is able to deal with insurgents and Taliban on its side of the border?
Mr Hammond
The UK has a close military-to-military relationship with Pakistan. When I met Prime Minister Sharif recently, I was able to reassure him about our intentions to continue in particular the excellent counter-IED work that we are doing with the Pakistan army and the Pakistan civil defence and police authorities. IEDs claim a huge toll in Pakistan, and that work is seen by the Pakistanis and ourselves, and by the Americans and the Danes—both of which countries intend, I understand, to contribute to our future programme—as key to Pakistan’s future.
Joan Walley (Stoke-on-Trent North) (Lab)
3. What his policy is on hon. Members visiting armed forces serving abroad.
The Minister for the Armed Forces (Mr Mark Francois)
All visit requests from hon. and right hon. Members are considered on a case-by-case basis and accommodated if possible. If an hon. Member wishes to visit our armed forces serving at home or abroad, they should write to my right hon. Friend the Defence Secretary giving the purpose of the proposed visit. However, it has been the long-standing policy of the Ministry of Defence, including under the previous Administration, that visits by individual MPs are normally undertaken at their own expense.
Joan Walley
Given the concern about the armed forces review and the prospect of many officers, soldiers and so on losing their jobs, is it not important that, under the military covenant, we do everything possible to resettle returning armed forces personnel? In such circumstances, would it not be appropriate for the Ministry of Defence to approach the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority to see whether it will include MOD destinations among those designated in Europe for one trip a year by MPs?
Mr Francois
May I begin by saying that I have a lot of time for the hon. Lady, having served with her on the Environmental Audit Committee several years ago? I wrote to her in late March about an issue in relation to a visit she had requested, but I am afraid that the position has not changed since then. The funding of individual Members’ travel is ultimately a matter for IPSA. I am willing to talk to IPSA about the matter, but Members will know that I cannot guarantee the outcome.
I pay tribute to the hon. Lady, however, who has shown consistent support for the Mercian Regiment and its predecessors, and that has been reflected back to Ministers by the regiment itself.
Mr James Gray (North Wiltshire) (Con)
I strongly agree with the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent North (Joan Walley) about the usefulness of hon. Members visiting our armed forces overseas. Does my right hon. Friend the Minister not agree that there is one very useful mechanism for doing so—set up recently with your assistance, Mr Speaker—in the armed forces parliamentary scheme, which was well founded by Sir Neil Thorne and continues. I hope that all hon. Members will consider joining that excellent organisation.
Mr Francois
I am very happy, without recourse to IPSA, to pay tribute to the armed forces parliamentary scheme and the valuable work that it does in assisting Members of Parliament, particularly those who do not have previous military experience, to understand better the wonderful work that our armed forces do on our behalf. I also pay tribute to my hon. Friend for all his work to update and upgrade the AFPS to ensure that it remains fit for the 21st century.
Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)
I will certainly raise the issue on our IPSA liaison committee, but can the Minister think of any other parliamentary fees office anywhere in Europe that would be, frankly, so mean and short-sighted as not to fund Members of Parliament to visit their armed forces abroad? That is so typical of IPSA. I very much hope that the whole House will join the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent North (Joan Walley) in her campaign.
Mr Francois
I understand the point that my hon. Friend is seeking to make. In fairness, neither I nor my ministerial colleagues are responsible for the decisions of IPSA. It sounds as if he is about to launch something of a flanking attack. If he does so, I suspect that some Members of the House may come to his aid.
Mr Mark Harper (Forest of Dean) (Con)
5. What discussions he has had with his counterparts in Baltic countries on recent Russian aggression against Ukraine.
Karl MᶜCartney (Lincoln) (Con)
8. What discussions he has had with his counterparts in Baltic countries on recent Russian aggression against Ukraine.
The Secretary of State for Defence (Mr Philip Hammond)
The UK is committed, with other NATO allies, to delivering reassurance to the Baltic countries. I visited Estonia and Lithuania on 2 May and met my defence ministerial counterparts to discuss developments in Ukraine. I travelled out to Estonia with elements of 1st Battalion the Duke of Lancaster’s Regiment, who are participating in Exercise Spring Storm in Estonia. I then visited the UK Typhoon deployment to the NATO Baltic air policing mission in Lithuania. In addition, my hon. Friend the Minister responsible for international security strategy will visit Poland and Latvia this week for further such discussions.
Mr Harper
Our Baltic partners in NATO will be reassured by those visits and the demonstrable support we are giving them. Can the Secretary of State say anything about the illegitimate referendum held yesterday ahead of the further referendum in the eastern part of Ukraine next Sunday, given the Russian authorities’ comments this morning that they expect to see it implemented? The concern is that if we do not act firmly they will take irreversible action.
Mr Hammond
The so-called referendum that took place over the weekend was illegal. It did not meet any standards of objectivity, transparency or fairness and it was not properly conducted as a public referendum or election. Indeed, its organisers did not even pretend to meet any of those standards. In short, it was a sham and a farce. We do not recognise any outcome that might follow from it. The important decision-making point will come at the elections on 25 May, and we will watch very carefully to see which countries support progress towards those elections and which countries seek to impede it.
Karl MᶜCartney
The latest news in the east of Ukraine marks a continuation of the salami-slicing tactics of Russia. In the course of my right hon. Friend’s discussions, has a red line been identified or can we expect to see Poland with a Russian border at some point? In light of these recent threats, are there any plans to review the national security strategy, given that the doveish Lib Dem view of the world has evaporated since the document’s publication in October 2010?
Mr Hammond
We are sending clear signals through the reassurance mechanisms that we are delivering to our Baltic partners in particular, that NATO members take very seriously their mutual obligations to defend each other. An attack on any NATO state would be considered an attack on all NATO states and nobody, including in the Kremlin, should ever forget that important fact. As for the national security strategy, the proper point for that to be reviewed will be in 2015, along with the 2015 SDSR. I am certain that the changing context will inform that review.
Stephen Doughty (Cardiff South and Penarth) (Lab/Co-op)
24. Given the real concerns of our allies in the Baltic states and eastern Europe about Russia’s actions in Ukraine, can the Secretary of State give any further clarity on what engagement with Russia is expected at the Wales NATO summit later this year, and whether any such engagement is appropriate, as things stand?
Mr Hammond
The agenda for the NATO summit is a matter for NATO members, not for the host country, to determine. From the discussions I have had with my NATO ministerial colleagues, I do not think there is any appetite for a NATO-Russia meeting during the course of the summit in Wales.
Ms Gisela Stuart (Birmingham, Edgbaston) (Lab)
What specific discussions have been had with Poland, which would play a significant part if there were an article 5 country attack, including about capacity and border security?
Mr Hammond
I have regular discussions with my Polish counterpart and, as I mentioned a few moments ago, my hon. Friend the Minister responsible for international security strategy will travel to Poland on Wednesday for further such discussions.
Sir Gerald Howarth (Aldershot) (Con)
20. What discussions has my right hon. Friend had with US Secretary of Defence Hagel to assess the threat posed by Russia to eastern and southern Ukraine? Might those discussions encompass the deployment of a NATO maritime force, as I have advocated for some time, with the specific purpose of deterring the Russians from taking Odessa?
Mr Hammond
As the House would expect, we have regular discussions at ministerial and official level with American counterparts. As the House will know, the US is taking some bilateral actions alongside the actions being taken by NATO. The UK is focused at the moment on contributing to the NATO reassurance agenda, and it is not proposed that that will include the sending of warships into the Black sea.
Mrs Madeleine Moon (Bridgend) (Lab)
During the various visits made by the Secretary of State, were there any discussions on the potential use of RPAS— Remotely Piloted Air Systems—to watch the borders, so that nations can be sure no risk is coming towards them?
Mr Hammond
No, but, as the hon. Lady will know, the E-3 Sentry AWACS––airborne warning and control system—aircraft is deployed at the moment, patrolling in Polish airspace to protect NATO’s eastern border.
Julian Smith (Skipton and Ripon) (Con)
6. What recent discussions he has had on the closure of Claro barracks in Ripon.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence (Dr Andrew Murrison)
A productive meeting was held on 21 February between MOD officials and representatives of North Yorkshire county council, Harrogate district council and Ripon city council to discuss Claro barracks. The MOD will remain engaged at this level.
Julian Smith
On Saturday, the Royal Engineers celebrated their freedom of the city of Ripon with the most incredible display of kit and personnel, and the corps band played brilliantly at the beating of the retreat. If there is any opportunity to keep the Royal Engineers in Ripon for a minute longer, for half a year longer or for decades longer, we will take it. May I urge Ministers to keep thinking of Ripon as they look at the rebasing strategy?
Dr Murrison
May I join my hon. Friend in congratulating the Royal Engineers on their achievements overall and, in particular, on gaining the freedom of the city of Ripon? He knows, because we have discussed it, that I plan to visit Ripon shortly, and I look forward to that very much. I would like to be able to give him some comfort on his question, but the Army basing plan is a highly credible document that will right-size the Army for the future and so I want to manage his expectations.
Mr Tobias Ellwood (Bournemouth East) (Con)
7. What progress has been made on the design and development of the Type 26 global combat ship.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence (Mr Philip Dunne)
The Type 26 global combat ship programme is in its assessment phase; its basic capabilities and design were announced in August 2012. My hon. Friend is a keen student of this planned state-of-the-art frigate, so he knows that it is being designed for flexibility in mission and capability for the Royal Navy. The final design, equipment fit and build programme will not be set until the main investment decision has been taken when the design has been fully matured. That decision is now expected towards the end of this year.
Mr Ellwood
It has been said that a ship can be in only one place at a time, and the same applies to the helicopter on board. Given the increased reliance on rotor systems at sea, which significantly widen the footprint of influence on operations, ranging from humanitarian to kinetic, will the Minister look seriously at increasing the deck space to accommodate not one but two Merlins, or indeed four Wildcat helicopters, to give Britain’s next ship greater flexibility?
Mr Dunne
I can assure my hon. Friend that the Type 26’s flexible mission bay is just that: it will accommodate a broad range of manned and unmanned surface, air and underwater vehicles, and be adapted on a tailored mission basis to the changing needs of its deployment. The use of both the hangar and the large flight deck will enable the platform to operate the Wildcat, Merlin or Chinook helicopter, in addition to the ship’s permanently embarked helicopter.
Jason McCartney (Colne Valley) (Con)
9. What steps he is taking to ensure effective incentives are in place to support recruitment to the reserves.
The Minister for the Armed Forces (Mr Mark Francois)
We outlined in the 2013 White Paper the improved offer we are making to reservists. We have introduced a paid leave entitlement, occupational health checks and improved medical support, and from April next year reservists will become eligible for the new armed forces pension scheme. To further encourage individuals to join the Army Reserve, a number of new and revitalised schemes offering financial incentives to individuals to join were announced in March.
Jason McCartney
I am holding a jobs fair in Holmfirth on Friday 20 June, which the Royal Navy and the RAF have confirmed they will be attending. I hope that, as well as recruiting for regular positions, they will be spreading the word about our reserve forces. Does the Minister agree that we all have a big role to play to make sure that employers understand the benefits of employing reservists?
Mr Francois
I do agree with that. In order to garner employer support, we have worked with businesses to create the corporate covenant, which is a way for businesses to demonstrate their support for the armed forces community, including reservists. I signed the corporate covenant last June, along with representatives from the main business and trade organisations, including the British Chambers of Commerce, the Business Services Association, the CBI, the Federation of Small Businesses and the Institute of Directors. More than 100 corporate entities, including Liverpool football club, have now signed the corporate covenant. I must also pay tribute to my hon. Friend, who is clearly doing his bit to encourage the reserves, and we all wish him absolute success for the forthcoming jobs fair in his constituency.
Mr Barry Sheerman (Huddersfield) (Lab/Co-op)
May I remind the Minister that reservists and the reserve force have to have local roots? There is no prouder tradition in the Army than the relationship with the county of Yorkshire, but there are severe worries about premises closing and, thus, there not being local meeting places and local roots. These things are being diminished and it is worrying to our forces and reservists in Yorkshire.
Mr Francois
As someone who has commanded reservist soldiers, I understand very clearly the importance of local roots and regiments having a basis in their own community. We have said that we will look carefully at the basing announcements that we have made with regard to the reserve. In particular, we will analyse those units that are especially well recruited. If we see units that are recruiting well, we may be prepared to take that into account before final decisions are made.
Mr John Baron (Basildon and Billericay) (Con)
One of the reasons why many of us opposed the Government’s reservist reforms was the prospect of false economies. Given that the financial incentive to ex-regular reservists has recently been doubled because of poor recruitment and that other costs have increased, will the Minister update the House on the financial cost of this initiative, if not now then in writing subsequently?
Mr Francois
It is true that there have been a number of financial incentives designed to encourage ex-regulars to join the reserves, although those incentives generally operate in a way such that those regulars have to commit for a number of years in reserve service and do not necessarily get all of that money up front. It is still highly cost effective to have reserves that can be mobilised for operations. In addition, I was at the Ten Tors Challenge on Saturday on Dartmoor, which was supported by a number of Army Reserve units. I spoke to a number of Army Reserve commanding officers, including Major-General Ranald Munro, the Deputy-Commander Land Forces and the senior reservist in the British Army. They are absolutely confident that we can hit our targets, and so am I.
Sarah Newton (Truro and Falmouth) (Con)
Does my right hon. Friend agree that having the right bases in the right places is absolutely essential, and can he update me on the progress being made to keep the 6th Battalion The Rifles in Truro?
Mr Francois
I am very well aware of the campaign that my hon. Friend has doggedly run in an attempt to maintain a platoon of 6 Rifles in Truro, not least because of the proud heritage of the Duke of Cornwall’s Light Infantry—the DCLI. She may take close interest in my earlier answer to the hon. Member for Huddersfield (Mr Sheerman) where I said that those units with a particularly strong recruiting record will find that we take that into account.
Steve McCabe (Birmingham, Selly Oak) (Lab)
10. What assessment he has made of the implications for the UK's defence policy of the situation in Ukraine.
Mr William Bain (Glasgow North East) (Lab)
11. What discussions he has had with his NATO counterparts on the implications for NATO defence policy of the situation in Ukraine.
The Secretary of State for Defence (Mr Philip Hammond)
As I have already said, the situation in Ukraine is very serious. We are responding to it through a series of activities, working together with NATO allies. In terms of UK policy, the emphasis at present is to support NATO's reassurance measures, both in the short and longer term. The events of the past few months have reminded the world that Russia remains a significant military power and cannot be trusted to abide by the rules of the international system. NATO members will need to take the lessons of the Ukraine crisis into account in determining the future posture of the alliance.
Steve McCabe
I am sure that nobody wants to see sabre rattling, but the accelerated withdrawal of all British troops from Germany was a decision taken during the rather hasty defence and security review of 2010. Given all that has happened since, is there not a case, as Lord Dannatt recently suggested, for a bit of a rethink on this?
Mr Hammond
No. From the point of view of military effectiveness, the presence of large numbers of British troops in Germany, which is now well behind the front line of NATO’s border with Russia, is no longer appropriate. Those troops will return to the UK where they will be able to operate more efficiently and effectively as part of integrated UK forces based here, but appropriate units will of course be ready to deploy should they need to do so.
Mr Bain
Ten years ago, the peoples of Latvia, Lithuania and Estonia made free and democratic choices to be under NATO’s collective security. What assurances can the right hon. Gentleman and the other NATO Defence Ministers give that the territorial integrity of those states will be protected and that acts of aggression from other states will be actively dissuaded?
Mr Hammond
I have reasserted, and my right hon. Friends the Foreign Secretary and the Prime Minister have reasserted regularly, the commitment of the United Kingdom and of all the NATO allies to the principle of collective self defence under article 5 of the Washington treaty. However, it is not just our words but our actions. Stepping up our engagement in exercises taking place in the Baltic states and deploying four Typhoon aircraft to take part in an additional rotation of Baltic air policing are tangible demonstrations of our commitment to the people of the Baltic states. I can tell the House from my meetings the week before last in Lithuania and Estonia that those tangible demonstrations are very much appreciated not just by the Governments but by the populations of those countries.
Rory Stewart (Penrith and The Border) (Con)
Will the Secretary of State clarify what steps he is taking to develop non-nuclear options for deterrence to prevent a repeat of what Russia has done in Ukraine? Economic sanctions are clearly insufficient. Will he and our international partners investigate, for example, the use of cyber-attacks as a potential deterrent?
Mr Hammond
As I have previously announced, we are developing our cyber capabilities, and they form a part of our overall armoury. The trick here is to provide clear reassurance and to deter any moves by anybody against NATO states in any mistaken belief that our resolve is in any way lacking, while not provoking in a way that would be unhelpful. I hope that we are getting that balance right at the moment, and we shall endeavour to continue to do so.
Dr Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)
I think we are getting that balance right, but does the Secretary of State agree that the greatest possible threat to peace and security in Europe would be if modern-day Russia’s success in using old-style Soviet tactics against a non-NATO country were to be replicated against a NATO country? It is not just a question of reassuring the NATO countries: it is a question of making it clear to the Kremlin what they must not do.
Mr Hammond
My hon. Friend is right, but let us be clear. What they must not do is perpetrate acts of aggression against independent sovereign states such as Ukraine. Because we have special commitments, through our obligations under the Washington treaty, the red line around NATO is even clearer, and we must emphasise it at every opportunity to avoid any danger of miscalculation in the Kremlin or elsewhere.
Vernon Coaker (Gedling) (Lab)
Ongoing events in Ukraine show the continuing tensions in the region and the potential for further actions by Russia that could be destabilising for the wider region. Can the Secretary of State confirm what steps NATO has already taken, what the British involvement in those has been, and what additional steps are being considered?
Mr Hammond
Several measures have already been taken, including increasing the scale of exercises in the Baltic states and stepping up the level of Baltic air policing. A discussion is going on about proposals from Supreme Allied Commander Europe—SACEUR—on a menu of further measures of reassurance, and the United Kingdom expects to play a full part in helping to implement them.
Vernon Coaker
I thank the Secretary of State for that reply. Russia’s effective annexation of Ukraine’s sovereign territory and its threat to others in the European sphere is the sort of activity that we thought had been consigned to a bygone age. Given that the core of UK defence policy is based on stability in Europe, what impact does the Secretary of State think that the ongoing situation will have on our defence policy and that of NATO, and to what extent is it informing discussions in advance of the forthcoming NATO summit in the UK?
Mr Hammond
The hon. Gentleman makes a very good point. Some might suggest that our eyes had wandered away from the potential challenge from Russia—a militarily very powerful nation, with which we do not always enjoy an alignment of interests. The consequences of the crisis will be to focus NATO member states clearly back on the potential challenge from Russia, among other challenges that NATO has to be prepared to deal with in the future.
Stephen Gilbert (St Austell and Newquay) (LD)
12. What steps his Department is taking to tackle homelessness among veterans; and if he will make a statement.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence (Anna Soubry)
Some 20,000 service personnel leave the armed forces each year. The majority transit into civilian life without any difficulty, but housing is a problem for some. As a result, we have made £40 million of LIBOR funding available to charities and other organisations so that they can address the problem.
Stephen Gilbert
I welcome the money that the Minister has just outlined, but more than 4,000 British veterans find themselves in housing need each year. Will she join me in welcoming the work of Homes for Heroes, and meet me and representatives of that organisation to see what more can be done to tackle this issue?
Anna Soubry
Indeed. I pay tribute to all our charities and other organisations, which are doing great work to make sure not only that when people leave the forces, they have somewhere to live, but that those veterans who have slipped through the net, some of whom, unfortunately, have ended up homeless, are assisted. I will check my diary and get back to the hon. Gentleman.
Ms Diane Abbott (Hackney North and Stoke Newington) (Lab)
Is the Minister aware that a proportion of those homeless veterans also have mental health problems? Given the reports that we have seen today about a steep rise in Afghanistan veterans with mental health problems, what are Ministers doing to support veterans in that position?
Anna Soubry
We all take very seriously all those who suffer from mental health problems by virtue of their service. It is worth saying that the incidence of mental health problems among our veterans is the same as in the population at large. We have ploughed around £7 million recently into making sure that services are available. I pay tribute to Combat Stress, for example, for the outstanding work that it has done. It has had £2.7 million, for example, of LIBOR funding and other funds made available to it. The problem is a serious one, but we have to get it into proportion. Mercifully, the overwhelming number of members of our armed forces do not suffer from mental health illnesses, but when they do, we take that very seriously.
David Mowat (Warrington South) (Con)
13. What progress he has made on improving the efficacy of his Department’s procurement since May 2010.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence (Mr Philip Dunne)
When we came into office, the major projects report for 2009 identified procurement overruns of £1.2 billion and delays of 93 months in the top 15 defence equipment programmes, after 13 years’ of inaction by Labour. By contrast, we have taken decisive action and made considerable progress in improving the efficacy of defence procurement. The latest major projects report from the National Audit Office for 2013 showed that the cost of 10 of our 11 largest equipment programmes had been reduced by almost £50 million in the last year, and some 98% of our key performance measures are set to be achieved.
David Mowat
In December, as the Government abandoned the process to find an external contractor to manage Defence Equipment and Support procurement—the so-called GoCo approach—the Secretary of State said that the Bechtel bid in particular had contained knowledge capital which would be useful going forward. Can the Minister confirm that this has happened and that best practice is being assimilated?
Mr Dunne
On 1 April we established DE&S as the first bespoke Government trading entity with wide ranging freedoms from central Government controls, details of which I look forward to publishing before the House prorogues. We are introducing global best practice to the new DE&S through three work package contracts for managed service providers. We are today issuing the invitation to negotiate for the first work package for project delivery to eight world-class companies which have passed the pre-qualification questionnaire process, and we plan to award contracts for the four domains this autumn.
Sir Peter Luff (Mid Worcestershire) (Con)
25. I congratulate the Minister unreservedly on winning these freedoms for DE&S. In the absence of a proper contract with a contractor, how can he maintain his opposition to the Treasury’s natural instincts to abhor freedom and seize back power to itself and the centre?
Mr Dunne
I applaud my hon. Friend for the pioneering work he did in helping us take this reform of DE&S through. We are convinced that the work that we are doing in the new bespoke trading entity will bring significant benefits to defence procurement for the long term, but as he knows, we have retained in the Defence Reform Bill, which should shortly receive Royal Assent, the power for a future Government to introduce a GoCo, with suitable parliamentary scrutiny, should this be necessary to transform DE&S further in the years to come.
Henry Smith (Crawley) (Con)
14. What assistance his Department plans to provide to ensure that veterans are able to take part in the commemorations of the 70th anniversary of D-day.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence (Anna Soubry)
The Ministry of Defence has been working very closely for a number of months with several organisations, including the Normandy Veterans Association, the Royal British Legion, the Commonwealth War Graves Commission and the French Government to ensure that our veterans are at the very heart of the D-day commemorations in June. So far we know that 500 of our veterans will be attending, with some 4,000 of their friends, carers and supporters.
Henry Smith
As my hon. Friend will know, many of my constituents and others around the country—elderly veterans who hope to go to northern France for the D-day commemorations—will have difficulty paying for things such as travel insurance and accommodation. Can she update the House on how the lottery can help with some of that financing?
Anna Soubry
My hon. Friend raises a good point. The Big Lottery Fund effectively provides the funding and has worked with the Royal British Legion to make sure that the money available will include, most notably, the high cost of insurance. If there is any difficulty, I am sure that my hon. Friend will come to see me about that, because it is imperative that there are no bars to our great veterans being able to attend these D-day commemorations.
Barbara Keeley (Worsley and Eccles South) (Lab)
19. This 70th anniversary might be the last chance to celebrate with veterans what they did in fighting on D-day, given that there are fewer of them and it is harder for them to travel. As it is so vital to recognise the service and sacrifice given on D-day, can more be done to support veterans and their families in attending various events in this country? So many of them will find it hard to travel to Normandy.
Anna Soubry
I am absolutely assured that everything has been done with all the relevant authorities that one would expect to be done to ensure that our veterans can attend. The funding allows family members, carers and supporters, not just the veterans, to attend. That is presumably why 500 veterans have already told us that they are attending, with 4,000 of their carers and friends. There has been some publicity about a form that people have to fill in. They do have to fill in a form, of which I have seen a copy, and it is very sensible. It is not lengthy or complicated, and it will provide us with excellent information so that we can ensure that our veterans take a full part in the commemorations. Unfortunately, as we know, for many of them this may be their last opportunity.
Yvonne Fovargue (Makerfield) (Lab)
Appropriately, plans to commemorate the first world war are far advanced, but it is right and proper that the anniversary of the D-day landings is also commemorated. As my hon. Friend the Member for Worsley and Eccles South (Barbara Keeley) said, veterans of 1944 are advancing in years and many will find it difficult to travel long distances, even with the support of their carers. Has the Minister had discussions with veterans organisations and other local groups to ensure that there is a national commemoration service, and also local events? What plans are there to publicise these events, so that everyone can attend an event should they wish to do so?
Anna Soubry
Apart from the various events that are planned in France, the most significant one in this country is in Portsmouth on 5 June, from where many of our troops sailed. The hon. Lady makes a good point, but it is right that the spotlight falls over in France on the beaches, with all the services in that place. I have talked to veterans of the D-day landings, so I know what a terrific effort they make to get there, because it means so much to them, and rightly so.
Duncan Hames (Chippenham) (LD)
16. What assessment he has made of the findings of the recent annual report of the Service Complaints Commissioner.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence (Anna Soubry)
I pay tribute to the work of Dr Susan Atkins and all that she has done in her time as the Service Complaints Commissioner. She has identified continuing problems, but overall we have been making excellent progress. There is more that we can do and we have identified that. For example, we know that we need a service complaints ombudsman. We also need to change the system, which will require legislation, and we will do all of that as soon as we possibly can.
Duncan Hames
I thank the Minister for that reply, which shows that she understands the seriousness of these problems. The Service Complaints Commissioner’s report finds that the Army manages to resolve only a quarter of complaints within its target of 24 weeks. How will the move to a service complaints ombudsman prevent, in the words of Dr Atkins,
“a fundamental breach of duty of care and of the Armed Forces Covenant”?
Anna Soubry
The ombudsman will play a huge part in making sure that all our services, notably the Army, now really do improve their statistics, but there are other measures that we need to introduce by way of legislation. The system needs to change, and I am confident that the sorts of proposals that Dr Atkins has come up with, many of which, if not all of them, I support, as do others, will make the sort of progress that we really now must see.
Mr Kevan Jones (North Durham) (Lab)
I add my thanks to Susan Atkins, who has done a great job in establishing the service complaints ombudsman. The Minister mentioned the ombudsman, and it was welcomed across the House when the Government announced that they would go down that route. Can the Minister tell me the exact time scale? Will legislative time be found in the next Session to ensure that the ombudsman is in place before the next general election?
Anna Soubry
I think we all know that I cannot say, even if I knew, whether any such legislative moves will be made in the Queen’s Speech.
Anna Soubry
No, I will not give the hon. Gentleman a clue, as he urges me to do. These are serious matters. We have said that we recognise how important this is, we need legislation, and we will introduce that at the first available opportunity.
Mr Marcus Jones (Nuneaton) (Con)
T2. If he will make a statement on his departmental responsibilities.
The Secretary of State for Defence (Mr Philip Hammond)
My first priority remains our operations in Afghanistan and the successful completion of the draw-down of our combat role by the end of this year. Beyond that, my priorities are maintaining budgets in balance, rebuilding our reserve forces, reinforcing the armed forces covenant and reforming the defence procurement organisation so that our armed forces can be confident of being properly equipped.
Mr Jones
Supporting the small but significant group of veterans who leave the armed forces and then struggle in civvy street is of paramount important. The excellent Veterans Contact Point in my constituency provides support for such veterans in the Warwickshire area. What more can the Government do to support such excellent organisations, and will the Secretary of State or one of his team visit it?
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence (Anna Soubry)
I think that my hon. Friend was trying to plug a visit, and he has done a good job, because I would be more than happy to go and see that organisation. Often it is those small, local charities that can deliver the best—I certainly have one in my constituency. We have made available millions upon millions of pounds in LIBOR funding for exactly those sorts of organisations to deliver those much-needed services.
Alison Seabeck (Plymouth, Moor View) (Lab)
Today’s report from Combat Stress flags up the increasing awareness of post-traumatic stress disorder and the increasing willingness of people to seek help earlier, which is a thoroughly good thing. The Combat Stress community outreach team provides those vital services and benefits from the existing funding, as the Minister has highlighted. Will she confirm that it is her intention that that level of funding will continue beyond the end of this financial year?
Anna Soubry
What I can say is that we have given £10 million of LIBOR funding, effectively in perpetuity, to support our excellent charities. Combat Stress, for example, has received £2.7 million from that, and the outreach team, which the hon. Lady mentioned, received £2 million. May I also make a correction? I think that earlier I said that about £7 million of LIBOR funding had gone into mental health, but it was actually £13 million. We also have many other measures to combat this very concerning condition.
Graham Evans (Weaver Vale) (Con)
T3. As a graduate of the armed forces parliamentary scheme, I have seen at first hand the excellent contribution that men and women make to our armed forces. What steps is my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State taking to encourage the recruitment of women into our armed forces?
Mr Hammond
Women play an important role in our armed forces. Just recently we passed a seminal moment in the history of the Royal Navy, with women officers being assigned to duties in the submarine service for the first time. However, we want to make further progress, and to that end, as has been widely reported, I have asked the Chief of the General Staff to bring forward the next review of the question of women in combat roles in the Army and to report back to me by the end of the year on the opportunities such a move would present and the challenges that would have to be addressed.
Ian Austin (Dudley North) (Lab)
T5. The Secretary of State will be aware that Dudley is home to A Squadron The Royal Mercian and Lancastrian Yeomanry, a brilliant reserve unit that is well supported and has deep roots in the local community. Will he join me in congratulating it on the brilliant recruitment day it organised a few weeks ago, which I was privileged to be invited to attend? Is that not exactly the sort of initiative we need if the reserve forces are to help Ministers meet their targets?
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence (Mr Philip Dunne)
I am familiar with the dispositions of that well-respected regiment, because B Squadron is recruited from its base in Telford, which is adjacent to my constituency. I am delighted to hear the good recruiting result that the hon. Gentleman refers to. I have further good news for Dudley residents: as my right hon. Friend the Minister for the Armed Forces indicated, reserve units can recruit beyond their structured liability in the event that they have success in recruitment, and we intend for the Dudley and Telford squadrons to be able to continue to recruit to up to 125% of their strength.
Mr Speaker
Order. Answers are hopelessly long. Ministers really have to get the message.
Robert Halfon (Harlow) (Con)
T4. Iran’s position as the world’s leading state sponsor of terrorism was highlighted once again in March when Israel intercepted the Gaza-bound Klos-C ship with a deadly cargo of advanced long-range rockets. What estimate has my hon. Friend made of Iran’s continued support for terrorism and the effect that that has on our security and strategic interests in the middle east?
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence (Dr Andrew Murrison)
Iran’s known support for militant groups across the middle east remains cause for grave concern, and it rather undermines President Rouhani’s stated desire to improve Iran’s relations with its neighbours. The UK will continue to work with allies to ensure a suitable response to Iran’s destabilising activities.
Andy Sawford (Corby) (Lab/Co-op)
T6. The Ukrainian army is short of basic equipment such as secure radios, bullet-proof vests, and even sleeping bags and blankets. Has there been any consideration of how we could assist?
Mr Hammond
The UK has excellent relationships with the Ukrainian armed forces, and we have worked with them over a period of years. We have received a request for additional equipment from the Ukrainian armed forces, and we are considering carefully how to respond to that request.
David Rutley (Macclesfield) (Con)
T8. In the light of Sir John Holmes’ review, will the brave aircrew who were involved with bomber aircraft that were not part of Bomber Command but still flew sorties over Germany—such as my constituent, Theo Eaves, who was then based in southern Italy—be recognised with the Bomber Command class?
Anna Soubry
The entire nation should have enormous admiration and respect for the contributions made by our RAF crewmen during the second world war. Such matters are part of Sir John Holmes’s continuing military medals review, which is independent of the Ministry of Defence. He is aware that those who flew on bombing missions with other elements of the RAF outside Bomber Command have made a case for further recognition, and he is considering that as part of his review. I am told that he will report back shortly.
Katy Clark (North Ayrshire and Arran) (Lab)
Defence Munitions Beith in my constituency employs 236 people and maintains and services complex weapons systems. Has the Department been involved in any discussions about what would happen to Defence Munitions Beith in the event of a yes vote in September?
Dr Murrison
I pay tribute to Defence Munitions Beith, which does a hugely important job and is right at the very centre of defence in the United Kingdom. The straight answer to the hon. Lady’s question is no, because to pre-negotiate would place the Scottish and UK Governments in an invidious position. We do not intend to prioritise one part of the UK above another in advance of the referendum on 18 September.
Steve Brine (Winchester) (Con)
T9. Further to the exchange that the Minister and I had in the House on 16 December, can he confirm that he would expect that an MOD objection on the grounds of low- flying aircraft in the area of a proposed onshore wind farm, such as Bullingdon Cross in my constituency, would be taken extremely seriously by any planning authority and by the Planning Inspectorate?
Dr Murrison
My hon. Friend and I have discussed this matter in the past. He knows that the MOD is working hard to find a solution to mitigate the effects of onshore wind turbines on the things that we do. In the meantime, it is important that the MOD does object to planning applications that may get in the way of its defence deliverables.
John Cryer (Leyton and Wanstead) (Lab)
Further to Question 14, has the Minister had any discussions with her Commonwealth equivalents about enabling Commonwealth veterans to get to France for the D-day celebrations next month?
Anna Soubry
I personally have not, but I undertake to make full inquiries when I go back to the Ministry to see whether any of my officials have done so, and to write to the hon. Gentleman.
Jack Lopresti (Filton and Bradley Stoke) (Con)
T10. What steps are the Government taking to encourage former reservists to re-enlist? Does my right hon. Friend agree that some of us old veterans may still have something to offer?
The Minister for the Armed Forces (Mr Mark Francois)
We are particularly keen to get former reservists to re-enlist, not least because of the experience they bring to the role. My hon. Friend practises what he preaches. He served as an Army reservist in Afghanistan, left what was then the Territorial Army, has clearly missed military service, and has recently joined the Royal Auxiliary Air Force. On behalf of the whole House, I would like to wish Officer Cadet Lopresti the best for the future.
Crispin Blunt (Reigate)
Our military are increasingly subject to a legal regime that is increasingly costly, both financially and operationally. Does my right hon. Friend agree with the Defence Committee’s recommendation that the next strategic defence and security review must examine the legal framework within which they operate and have less regard to human rights law and more regard to the law of armed conflict?
Mr Hammond
It is essential that when we deploy our armed forces in combat, they are able to operate without having both hands tied behind their back. An increasing spate of costly actions are being brought against Her Majesty’s Government by contingent fee lawyers on behalf of foreign nationals. We are spending £31 million on the Al-Sweady inquiry, the principal allegations of which have collapsed. A number of legal cases are under way and it is not clear that the legal situation will have been clarified by the time of the next strategic defence and security review. The legal processes are very long-winded. The commitment I have made is that if the legal situation is unsatisfactory when those cases come to their final conclusion, we will take further measures, whether by legislation or other means.
Sir Bob Russell (Colchester) (LD)
On placing orders for Royal Navy ships, including fitting replacement engines, does the relevant Minister agree that the national security importance of guaranteed ongoing servicing in the UK must be the determining factor, instead of a foreign deal that weakens Britain’s long-term defence interests?
Mr Dunne
As the hon. Gentleman, who is a distinguished member of the Defence Committee, knows, this Government believe in open procurement to get the best value for the taxpayer, not only in procuring equipment initially, but in sustaining and supporting it, including diesel turbine engines for Her Majesty’s royal naval ships.
Richard Graham (Gloucester) (Con)
The Minister has referred to the important project of the Type 26 frigates. He will know that the first HMS Gloucester was launched in the Commonwealth in the 1650s and that the 10th HMS Gloucester was decommissioned only a couple of years ago. Does he agree that nothing would be more appropriate than for the 11th HMS Gloucester to be a Type 26 frigate?
Martin Horwood (Cheltenham) (LD)
Do Ministers know whether the Chilcot inquiry into the invasion of Iraq will be published by the time of the general election? If so, which one and what is causing the delay?
Dr Murrison
Both my right hon. Friend the Defence Secretary and the Prime Minister have called for early publication of Sir John Chilcot’s report. I voted against the Iraq war, but served in Iraq in 2003 and I, too, would rather like to see this publication in my lifetime.
Mr Speaker
I have been saving up the hon. Member for Kettering (Mr Hollobone) as a favoured delicacy of the House.
Mr Philip Hollobone (Kettering) (Con)
Is there any evidence that the recent developments in Ukraine are impressing upon all of our NATO allies the importance of spending at least 2% of their GDP on defence?
Mr Hammond
I assure my hon. Friend that the question of the levels of defence spending among NATO allies and commitments to future defence spending will be an important theme at the NATO summit in Wales later this year.
The Minister of State, Department of Health (Norman Lamb)
I beg to move,
That this House does not insist on its amendment 11 and agrees with Lords amendments 11B and 11C in lieu.
Mr Speaker
With this it will be convenient to consider the following:
Lords amendment 32A to Commons amendment 32, and consequential Lords amendments 32C and 32D.
Commons amendment 40, Government motion not to insist, Lords amendment 40B in lieu, amendments (a) and (b) thereto, Lords amendment 40C in lieu, amendment (c) thereto and Lords amendments 40D and 40E in lieu.
Commons amendment 42, Government motion not to insist and Lords amendments 42B and 42C in lieu.
Commons amendment 46, Government motion not to insist and Lords amendments 46B to 46E in lieu.
Norman Lamb
I would like to start by placing on the record my sincere thanks to all right hon. and hon. Members for a real spirit of collaboration that has existed throughout the Bill’s consideration and for the constructive criticism that has characterised both our formal and informal discussions leading up to this moment. Many of the suggestions have been taken up, and I believe we now have a better Bill as a result. This scrutiny has influenced not only the Government’s amendments, but the surrounding policy, and our proposals for forthcoming secondary legislation and guidance. Indeed, the approach we have taken so far of working collaboratively with those in the sector will continue throughout the consideration of the secondary legislation and guidance.
Hon. Members may recall that some weeks ago on Report I undertook to consider further the matter of the application of the Human Rights Act to social care. Government amendments 11B and 11C represent the fulfilment of that promise. They respond to the excellent report by the Joint Committee on Human Rights, and follow discussions that Earl Howe, the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State with responsibility for quality, and I have had with a number of Members of the House of Lords and with my right hon. Friend the Member for Sutton and Cheam (Paul Burstow). I am grateful to the Joint Committee and to those parliamentarians with whom we have had such constructive discussions.
As has been said in this House and in the Lords throughout the passage of the Bill, this Government need to send out a strong message to the sector not to allow abuse, neglect or harm. Our priority must be preventing harm, abuse and neglect from happening in the first place. We very much believe that there are already, as a result of the steps this Government have taken, strong deterrents to abuse and neglect, and many of the Care Quality Commission’s fundamental standards will include human rights dimensions. The standards will apply to all registered providers of health and social care, and failure to comply with these standards which relate to harm could be a criminal offence. We are, however, aware of the strength of feeling on this matter, which is why Earl Howe offered a Government amendment in the Lords.
The amendment does not extend the scope of the Human Rights Act into the purely private sphere, where there is no state involvement, which clause 48, removed in the Public Bill Committee, did. It would, though, make it explicit that care providers who are regulated by the Care Quality Commission in England, or by equivalent bodies in the rest of the United Kingdom, when providing care and support arranged or funded in whole or in part by local authorities, are exercising a public function for the purposes of the Human Rights Act. In welcoming the amendment, Lords Members agreed that it meets the objectives of the Joint Committee on Human Rights. The amendment has also been welcomed by the Equality and Human Rights Commission. The amendment makes it clear that providers of publicly arranged or funded care and support—both residential and non-residential—provided on behalf of a local authority to an individual are bound by the Human Rights Act.
As hon. Members may recall, I was unable to accept the JCHR amendment, in the way it was drafted, for technical reasons. The Human Rights Act is an entrenched enactment, which the devolved legislatures cannot modify, but its application should be the same across the UK. The Government’s amendment therefore applies the legislative clarification to Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland. It is important to bear in mind that the scope of application of the Human Rights Act matters to lots of other people beyond the care sector. The Government believe it is not appropriate to pick and choose which people or bodies are expressly made subject to the Human Rights Act; it should always be based on clear principles. That is why I want to make it clear that this amendment would not set a precedent for any future occasions where there are perceived to be gaps in the coverage of the Human Rights Act. The House of Lords warmly welcomed this amendment, and I hope that this House will do the same.
Paul Burstow (Sutton and Cheam) (LD)
My hon. Friend is setting out the important changes that have been made in the Lords on the trust special administration process. He might consider giving further emphasis to the point that Earl Howe made in relation to all the steps that would be taken prior to the consideration of a trust special administration process being put in place, not least the intervention powers of Monitor and others.
Norman Lamb
Given that time is tight, I simply confirm that I strongly support what Earl Howe said in the other place, and reinforce the points that my right hon. Friend has made.
For NHS trusts, clause 118 already requires the Secretary of State to produce guidance on seeking commissioner support and involving NHS England, and we will ensure that the key principles of parity between affected commissioners and the essential services they commission are captured in the guidance. I urge the House to support the Lords’ amendments.
Mr Jamie Reed (Copeland) (Lab)
Our amendments to Lords amendments 40B and 40C are designed to protect patients, improve transparency and decision making, and ensure that health service reconfigurations do not result in a restriction of access to services for patients. I give notice that I wish to press amendments (a) and (b) to Lords amendment 40B to a vote.
This is probably the final piece of health legislation that will come before this Parliament. To date, this Bill marks four years of chaos and confusion in the NHS—chaos inflicted on the service by the Prime Minister and his two Secretaries of State for Health. What a four years it has been! The Prime Minister promised no top-down reorganisation of the national health service, then introduced the biggest and most chaotic, expensive and wasteful reorganisation that the service has seen in its entire history. He promised a bare-knuckle fight against hospital closures—a fight that not only never appeared, but was knowingly untrue from the outset. We have seen Ministers admit that the 111 service was not ready to be rolled out, but who went ahead, scrapped NHS Direct and rolled it out anyway. We have seen one of the most important schemes for the future of the country and the NHS in the shape of the care.data scheme being bungled, botched and brought to the brink of collapse by ministerial incompetence. We have seen military hospital field tents outside accident and emergency units and police cars being used as makeshift ambulances, queuing outside hospitals for hours on end.
Ms Diane Abbott (Hackney North and Stoke Newington) (Lab)
My hon. Friend mentions the supposed attack on bureaucracy by the Conservatives. Is he aware that since their reorganisation there is actually more bureaucracy? Many of the people who have been sacked, and who received redundancy payments, are now working in the commissioning support organisations.
Mr Reed
My hon. Friend is entirely right, and the Lords amendments will only make that situation worse.
Now, as this zombie Parliament limps towards the finishing line, we are asked to consider a Frankenstein Bill—a badly stitched together Bill—which began with good intentions, but which, for the most part, will not end well. The Care Bill should have remained just that. On the face of it, part 1, building on the work of the last Labour Government, makes some modest improvements which we welcome, but let us be under no illusions. For all the Government’s bold claims, this Bill is a modest Bill. We support the rights for carers and many of the provisions and principles contained in part 1. Even though we believe that these could have gone much further towards the creation of a properly integrated model of whole person care, the real issue is that the Government have hijacked the Bill to push through a back-door reconfiguration tool that undermines the principle of local commissioning by centralising hospital closure and service removal decisions. It exposes as a sham the Government’s rhetoric about local clinical commissioning over the last four years.
Before I address the trust special administrator clause in more detail, let me touch on Lords amendment 11B, relating to human rights. Hon. Members may remember this issue from our debates on Report. The amendment will ensure that all users of publicly funded or arranged care have direct protection under the Human Rights Act 1998. Under the law as it stands, the fundamental protection and access to individual redress offered by the Act are not applied equally in all care settings.
This measure has a long history. In the other place, Lord Low tabled and passed a new clause which sought to close the loophole. But the Government removed it in Committee in this House, and then voted down an Opposition amendment on Report that would have restored it. The Minister did, however, say that he would go away and look at the issue again. The result is the amendment that we have before us today. For our part, we welcome the Government’s U-turn on this. It is good that Ministers have seen the light, having voted against this kind of protection at every previous stage of the Bill’s passage.
The amendment is clear that any care that is paid for out of public money
“directly or indirectly, in whole or in part”,
or which is arranged by a public authority, will now be covered by the Human Rights Act. However, I have a couple of questions for the Minister. First, he knows that personal budgets are absolutely critical in giving people greater choice and control over their lives, and enabling people to make their own decisions about how their care is delivered. It is important that personal budgets are covered by the amendment. Will the Minister confirm that that is the case, and that social care provided by a regulated provider and paid for by direct payments is included?
Secondly, it would be good if the Minister could clarify for the House whether so-called non-personal care is covered by the amendment. The definition of care used in the Lords amendment is that used in the Health and Social Care Act 2008. This is quite a narrow definition, and it is possible that it could exclude some very important types of care for people with learning disabilities or mental health problems, such as assisting them to participate in activities or to get to appointments. The Opposition amendment tabled on Report, which was drafted by the Joint Committee on Human Rights, would have covered this non-personal care, but as the Government’s amendment contains a narrower definition, we are concerned that they may be excluding quite broad categories of publicly provided social care services that may not be defined as personal care. We would be grateful if the Minister could allay our fears on that point, and confirm that those extremely important types of care for some very vulnerable people will be covered by this amendment. I look forward to his reply.
Kate Green (Stretford and Urmston) (Lab)
This is an important point for disabled adults in residential care, for example, who may receive care from one private provider, but access other services and facilities through another provider. Does my hon. Friend agree that it is important that all activities, including going out to participate in social and learning activities, need to be covered by the Lords amendment?
Mr Reed
Indeed. My hon. Friend knows about these issues in detail. That is why we have asked the questions that we asked and tabled our amendment on Report.
With reference to parts 2 and 3 of the Bill, the insertion of the hospital closure clause—the Lewisham clause, clause 119, formerly clause 118, call it what you like—is extremely regrettable. It is because of this that the comparison with Frankenstein’s monster has been made, and because of this that we have tabled further amendments today. This House, the people of this country and every hospital league of friends, local hospital action group or other such groups working for the benefit of health services local to their area—and I include in that the magnificent campaigners in Millom and around the West Cumberland hospital in Whitehaven —will never forget the genesis of the major policy change that this clause represents, namely Ministers’ attempts to close good services at a well performing hospital against the wishes of the locally affected public, patients and local clinical commissioners.
On attaining office, the Government made a series of grand promises about future changes to hospital services. The coalition agreement stated:
“We will stop the centrally dictated closure of A&E and maternity wards, so that people have better access to local services.”
GPs were meant to be placed in decision-making roles and given the power to shape local services. As with so much that this Government do, the rhetoric could not be further from the reality, and far from stopping centrally dictated closures, they are now legislating to make it easier to close local hospitals and remove hospital services.
Clearly, a failure regime is essential and when things go wrong, they must be put right, but to attempt to short-circuit the existing reconfiguration framework, and to actively seek to disfranchise patients and the public, is not the way to improve services. Riding roughshod over local commissioning in order to reconfigure an area’s health services is not the way to build support for change. Deliberately ignoring the voices of local patients is a recipe for more expense, uncertainty and delay.
Take the example of Lewisham. Much has been said in this place about the process, the legal judgments and the amazing work undertaken by local campaigners there, so I shall not go into too much detail. Suffice to say that the Government’s attempts to use the law for a purpose for which it was never designed were described as “strained and unnatural” by Lord Justice Sullivan when dismissing the Government’s appeal against their original defeat. I would be grateful if the Government could explain why they believe the most effective way to deal with a failing trust is to alienate local commissioners, the local community and local health professionals. Rather than bringing stakeholders to the table to form a solution with regard to Lewisham, the Secretary of State dragged them through the courts and lost, twice.
Having been beaten by the law, the Secretary of State has decided to change it. The simple truth of the Government’s hospital closure clause is that a successful local hospital, the type that the Secretary of State enjoys getting his photograph taken in, can be closed without due process, simply because the one down the road is in trouble. It is as logical as removing a patient’s leg to cure a headache. Despite their valiant defence of the clause as it stood on Second Reading, the Government have been forced to make what they call major concessions, which are in reality very minor concessions.
Lords amendments 40B to 40E seek to ensure that “essential services” are not harmed. We are told this would mean that if a local commissioner believed that the trust special administrator’s recommendations would harm essential services, they would not be implemented—unless, of course, NHS England overruled the local commissioner. Our amendments to Lords amendments 40B and 40C would ensure that any recommendations would not be able to go ahead if they in any way restricted access to services, and that all correspondence between commissioners and the trust special administrator would be made public. Making it harder to use services is the very antithesis of the principles underpinning the NHS, which the Government claim to support—but only when it suits them.
We should judge this Government not by their words, but by their actions. They promised no top-down reorganisation. They delivered the biggest, most wasteful, most expensive and chaotic reorganisation in the history of the service. They promised a bare knuckle fight to protect local services. They delivered a back-door reconfiguration tool that could facilitate the largest ever hospital closure programme. They promised that local decisions would be made by local commissioners. They delivered a power for the Secretary of State and NHS England to overrule local commissioner vetoes. All this was done against the advice of medical professionals, against the wishes of the public and against every pre-election promise, and therefore without a shred of legitimacy.
The TSA process was introduced in 2009 and was intended, as the High Court ruled, to be used to make quick changes to management structures in order to address financial failures, not to make widespread service reconfigurations possible without public input.
Mr Reed
I will make some progress.
The only way to build sustainable services is to have widespread ownership of changes and a robust process of community engagement. The Government’s disfigurement of the TSA process will mean that they have to give no regard to patients’ wishes, and in practice it will mean that they can disregard the views of local commissioners. If the Secretary of State wants to close a hospital, it will be done. It is as simple as that.
In 2003 Labour created the independent reconfiguration panel, a non-departmental body to advise on service change. The IRP’s terms of reference when reconfigurations are proposed state:
“The panel will consider whether the proposals will provide safe, sustainable and accessible services for the local population, taking account of:
1) Clinical and service quality
2) The current or likely impact of patients’ choices and the rigour of public involvement in consultation processes, and
3) The views and future referral needs of local GPs who commission services, the wider configuration of the NHS and other services locally, including likely future plans.”
Why does the Minister think reconfigurations of whole health economies should not be subject to independent scrutiny by the IRP? Why does he think that this should be bypassed without local agreement? Given that quality issues are subject to a number of investigations before a TSA would be appointed, such as Care Quality Commission investigations and being placed in special measures, why cannot a thorough investigation of reconfiguration options be put to the IRP and the public?
If the point of centralising a reconfiguration decision is to provide a quick solution, why are not the Government open to consultation with the public on the future of their local health services during the process of inspection by the CQC or the extended period of time during which a trust is in special measures? Speedy resolution of care failures is essential, but to go along with the Government’s proposals would be to suggest this sense of urgency appears only after months of work trying to address the problem. That is wrong, and it is little wonder that so many hospitals and so many communities believe that this legislation is setting them up to fail.
The Government’s position on this is intellectually dishonest. In reaching the conclusion that the TSA process should be hijacked to provide a back-door reconfiguration tool, they have wilfully ignored professional, legal and medical advice, and have disregarded existing procedure. They have cost the taxpayer hundreds of thousands of pounds in defending their decision in the courts and they have added to the chaos into which they have already plunged the NHS. On Report we offered to work with the Government on a cross-party basis to produce a reconfiguration process and a TSA process that would have commanded broad public and political support. This offer was rejected.
The Opposition’s amendments seek to make a bad law slightly better, but the truth is that more lifeboats on the Titanic would not have stopped it sinking. In case any Government Members ever actually believed the coalition agreement, a vote against our amendments today is a vote against that agreement. At their heart, our amendments are an attempt to help the Government to help themselves, but more importantly, to help all of those communities who expect to have a say in the future commissioning of their local hospital services. The next Labour Government will ensure that their voice is heard.
Paul Burstow
Listening to the hon. Member for Copeland (Mr Reed), it struck me that the Care Bill could be described as a Bill that was full of ideas that were proposed by the Labour party when it was in government, but was a modest measure. In some ways, I find those two positions contradictory, unless of course the last Government were not the bold, revolutionary Administration whom they often told us they were when they were in office. If we are indeed in a zombie Parliament, that is characteristic of the languid nature of opposition offered by the Labour party.
Paul Burstow
I hope the hon. Lady will forgive me, but I will make some progress, just as the hon. Gentleman did earlier.
Amendment 11B concerns the Human Rights Act, and I thank Ministers for keeping an open mind and for listening seriously to the concerns raised by Lord Low and others, and to me and other hon. Members who were concerned that an opportunity was being missed to close a gap. Legislation under the previous Government partially but not completely closed the gap, as a result of which those cared for in their own homes did not have the benefit of Human Rights Act protection. The amendment, which was agreed without a vote in the other place, gives that protection. It is the end of a story of seven years of dealing with a gap in the law that was opened by a court judgment. I am grateful that, notwithstanding the difficulties of our bicameral parliamentary process, it has worked at its best on this occasion, because it has meant that concerns raised through the Joint Committee that I chaired, through the Joint Human Rights Committee’s report and by Members in the other place, have now been comprehensively addressed.
Having said that, will the Minister confirm that a person who avails themselves of provisions in the Bill that allow them, as a self-funder, to ask their local authority to arrange their care at the point at which they start to benefit from the means-testing arrangements, and therefore have some support from the local authority, will then be covered by the Human Rights Act?
I would also like to thank the Minister for listening carefully to what has been said at each stage in the passage of the Bill, in both Houses, in respect of the trust special administration regime. It is important to emphasise that the approach set out by the previous Labour Government recognised that trust special administration was a last resort. Earl Howe has emphasised that in the other place. He was very clear that there are powers available to the Trust Development Authority and to Monitor to intervene as necessary in order to avoid trust special administration ever being triggered in the first place. I commend to Members the passage in House of Lords Hansard in which he sets out clearly all the steps that would need to be taken:
“Trust special administrators would be appointed—and I make this point emphatically—only when all other suitable processes to develop sustainable, good healthcare have been exhausted.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 7 May 2014; Vol. 753, c. 1496.]
It is worth picking up on the point made by the hon. Member for Copeland. Having been given the opportunity to chair a committee looking at the guidance, I think that some of the points he made in his amendments today are exactly the sort that ought to be given proper consideration in the guidance. I hope that he, other Front Benchers, and indeed other hon. Members who have experience of the only two trust special administration processes that have taken place to date, will offer the committee their views and insights so that we can ensure that the advice we give the Government on guidance is as good and as clear as possible.
As was made very clear in the other place, we are not talking about a power that will effectively enable a wholesale reorganisation of the health economy. The Bill is very clear that this is about those matters that might require necessary and consequential changes. The amendments that were agreed in the other place, without a vote, make it clear that the essential services of trusts that find themselves drawn into a trust special administration process will be a proper consideration in the decision-making process.
It is curious that the Labour party now seems to want us to look at access in a different way from the way in which the trust special administration process that it put in place provided for. In other words, why was there no test on access with regard to the trust that was in special administration under its arrangements? Why did that not matter then but does matter now?
I think that the Government have listened very closely to what has been said and changed the Bill in a way that reflects the concerns that I described on Report. We will have the chance to comment further on the guidance—I hope that the hon. Member for Lewisham East (Heidi Alexander) and others will offer input into that—which will give us another opportunity to ensure that it is as tight and effective as possible on those very rare occasions when it is used.
I hope that consideration of the Bill will be concluded today and that it will make the difference to well-being, as a central principle, and to parity between those who receive care and those who give it. That is what the Bill does, and they are great things, and it is about time that they were on the statute book.
Heidi Alexander (Lewisham East) (Lab)
My hon. Friend the Member for Copeland (Mr Reed) has already set out the case for the Opposition’s amendment in lieu of their lordships’ amendments regarding the TSA regime, and I wholeheartedly agree with all that he said.
I would like to focus my remarks on why I believe that their lordships’ amendments do not undo the damage that lies at the heart of clause 119. While some people—I would probably include the right hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam (Paul Burstow) in this—seem to think that their lordships’ amendments are something of a cause for celebration, in my view the changes fall far short of what is really needed, which is the complete deletion of clause 119. Even with these latest amendments, clause 119 removes the legal protection for hospitals that face the axe because they happen to be located next to a failing trust that has been placed into administration. We know that this legal protection was vital in the case of Lewisham. The Government, having been told by the courts that they broke the law, are now simply changing the law so that in future they can close much-needed services in successful hospitals to deal with financial problems in others.
It has been suggested that the Lords amendments to clause 119 arose from discussions sparked off during debate on Report in this place. Yet the new clause we discussed then, which was tabled by, but then not supported by, the right hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam was very different from what is before us today. Of course, we all remember what happened last time: the Lib Dems were simply bought off with the offer of chairing a committee. It is therefore worth comparing what we discussed on Report and what we are debating now. If I recall correctly, the new clause that the right hon. Gentleman had in his name a month or so ago proposed that the commissioners of services in hospitals that fall outside a trust in administration should have, in effect, a power of veto over recommendations put forward by an administrator.
Paul Burstow
No, it did not. It provided for parity of esteem between commissioners of affected trusts compared with the commissioner of the service that was failing.
Heidi Alexander
I am grateful for the right hon. Gentleman’s intervention. I pressed him on this very point on 11 March, when I asked whether his new clause
“would provide a direct veto to commissioners of services at a hospital located outside the trust to which an administrator has been appointed.”
He responded:
“That is the intention, so the new clause has been drafted to have that effect.”—[Official Report, 11 March 2014; Vol. 577, c. 244.]
The new clause proposed in March—we had a full debate and discussion about it—suggested that if the commissioners were content with the proposals put forward by a TSA, full public and patient consultation would kick in, whereas if the commissioners were not content, they would call a halt to the process. As I said, I pressed the right hon. Gentleman on that, and he was clear in the remarks that he made at the time.
That is not what we are debating now. The amendment that was passed in the other place last week gives statutory consultation rights to commissioners of services in hospitals that fall outside the trust to which an administrator has been appointed. It suggests that changes to essential services that are proposed by the administrator but delivered outside the failing trust should not be caused harm, while seemingly leaving the definitions of “harm” and “essential services” to NHS England. The amended clause states that, should there be a difference of opinion between commissioners, NHS England will act as some sort of referee and have the final say.
I contend that what we have before us today is very, very different from what was mooted in this place on Report. The changes to the Bill that the Government have introduced in the Lords are minor at best, and confusing and irrelevant at worst.
Heidi Alexander
The right hon. Gentleman is shaking his head, and I can see that he disagrees with me about this, so let us look at the committee which has been set up and which he is chairing. Is it actually going to make any difference? My fear is that it is just camouflage for the fundamental damage that will be caused by clause 119. The committee will supposedly look at the rules that govern the use of the trust special administration regime. The most important rules that govern the use of the TSA regime are being set today, in this House and by this Bill.
Paul Burstow
I am grateful to the hon. Lady for giving way; she is being very gracious. The reason the Lords amendment is important is that it makes it clear that essential services in other trusts are now relevant to the guidance at which my committee will be looking.
Heidi Alexander
One person’s definition of “essential” might not be the same as that of another person.
The Lords amendment tinkers at the edges of clause 119. Although it offers some marginal improvement on the Government’s original clause, it does not go far enough. I would vote for deletion again if I could, but parliamentary procedure does not afford me that opportunity. There is no doubt in my mind that this clause, even with the latest amendment, will allow more fast-track hospital closures in future. It removes the protection that existed in law, which allowed Lewisham council and the Save Lewisham Hospital campaign to take a case against the Government and win.
The latest amendment may guarantee another layer of consultation, but it contains no overall guarantee that services will not be closed at successful hospitals to balance the books elsewhere. Is the Minister or the right hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam able to say unequivocally that had this amended clause been on the statute book at the time of the TSA regime in south London, the future of Lewisham’s A and E and maternity service would have been secure? They cannot, because it is not the case.
In conclusion, I do not accept that their lordships’ amendment provides the protection that some believe it provides. The amended clause still extends and augments powers for TSAs and NHS bureaucrats. Even with the increased checks and balances contained within their lordships’ amendments, the TSA process is still a chaotic and rushed mechanism for closing hospital services. It plunges local health economies into desperate uncertainty and takes power away from the public and clinicians.
I do not believe this is the way to make the sorts of changes our health service requires to meet the challenges of the 21st century. I have maintained that position throughout the passage of the Bill and I make no apology for sticking to my convictions to the end. The public do not want more fast-tracked hospital closures, but this Bill legislates for them.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Dr Daniel Poulter)
Before I turn to the amendments, I want to put on record my thanks to hon. Members for their contributions to today’s debate. I also want to express my thanks once again for all the contributions made by hon. and right hon. Members throughout the passage of the Care Bill and, indeed, for the contributions made by noble Members of the other place.
The hon. Member for Lewisham East (Heidi Alexander) made a characteristically robust contribution in standing up for her local health care services. I also pay tribute once again to the contribution made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Sutton and Cheam (Paul Burstow), not only today, but at the Bill’s inception, during its scrutiny by the Joint Committee and throughout its passage through this House and the other place. He has done a tremendous amount of work to ensure that the Bill is much better than it used to be. He deserves considerable praise for what he has done and the help he has given the Government in securing a Bill that is not just fit for purpose, but which will make significant changes and improvements to our health care system.
It is worth bearing in mind that the Bill represents the most significant reform of care and support in more than 60 years, putting people and their carers in control of their care and support for the first time. The Bill will also put a limit on the amount that anyone will have to pay towards the costs of their care. It is a very big step forward and one that was long overdue. The Bill also delivers key elements of this Government’s response to the terrible events that took place in Mid Staffordshire and the recommendations of the Francis report by increasing transparency and openness and helping to drive up the quality of care across our NHS and social care system. I am pleased that the Government were able to table amendments that have been accepted in the other place, and I hope that those amendments will enjoy support in this House today.
Before I turn to the substantive amendments tabled by the hon. Member for Copeland (Mr Reed), I want briefly to address the points made about human rights legislation and the issue of direct payments. It is important to highlight that like clause 48 of the Bill, as originally drafted, and section 145 of the Health and Social Care Act 2008, which was the preceding provision, Lords amendment 11B relates to providers of social care registered with the Care Quality Commission, covering personal care provided at home and in residential care settings. The amendment covers physical assistance—for example, prompting someone to take their medication, dress, eat, drink and perform activities of daily living—but not non-personal care. To answer the question asked by my right hon. Friend the Member for Sutton and Cheam, I am happy to confirm that when self-funders start to receive support from the local authority, they will indeed be covered by the Human Rights Act 1998.
To turn to the amendments tabled by the hon. Member for Copeland, it is worth highlighting to the House that, contrary to what he asserted, the TSA regime—let us remember that the regime was laid down by the previous Labour Government—has been substantively improved by the amendments made to the Bill. In particular, clause 118, which has been debated as clause 119 at various points, will extend the requirements on the trust special administrator to consult not just the public, staff of the failing trust and its commissioners, but other provider trusts, their staff and their commissioners, local authorities and local healthwatch organisations. There is therefore a comprehensive duty of consultation and engagement in the TSA regime, and that will be further strengthened by the amendments we are now discussing.
Amendment (a) to Lords amendment 40B and amendment (c) to Lords 40C amount to wrecking amendments and, as I shall outline, amendment (b) to Lords amendment 40B is unnecessary and unworkable. Amendment (a) to Lords amendment 40B and amendment (c) to Lords 40C would mean that the recommendations of a trust special administrator could not restrict access to any services of another affected trust. Like previous ones, they are in effect wrecking amendments that would make it impossible for the administrator to do their job.
Both Houses recognise that the NHS is a network and that no hospital is an island, and have already agreed that clause 118 must allow the administrator to take a holistic view of the local health and care economy to find the very best solution for a failing trust. That is of course in the best interests of local patients. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Sutton and Cheam outlined in Committee, it is right that a trust and its patients in particular are not thrown to the wolves when the quality of care is unsustainable or letting patients down, but that a holistic and broader view of the local health care economy can be taken. That was the previous Government’s intention in setting up the TSA regime, and it is our intention now. The previous Government were not the first Government who did not necessarily make their legislation accord perfectly with the intentions they outlined in impact assessments for the TSA regime. That is why we are now in the position of having to correct and improve the regime through the Bill.
The amendments tabled by the hon. Member for Copeland would undo the effects in relation to the trust special administrator’s regard to the wider health economy, and they would reverse the effect of clause 118, such that the administration regime would not be able to create a complete and workable solution to intractable problems or failures of patient care in the NHS. I am sure hon. Members will agree that that would be entirely undesirable, and that it would not be in the best interests of NHS patients, who must be protected where a hospital cannot deliver safe or sustainable care.
Amendment (b) to Lords amendment 40B would give the trust special administrator significantly less time to finalise his or her draft recommendations about the future of a failing trust by requiring the publication of all correspondence between the administrator and commissioners at least 10 working days before publication of the draft report. Hon. Members will be aware that we have extended the time for the trust special administrator to draw up the report from 45 to 65 days and for the consultation from 30 to 40 days, because those processes need to be done properly.
I remind hon. Members that transparency is already built into such processes at every stage. The administrator is required to publish the draft report submitted to Monitor and is expected to include in it the commissioners’ statement in agreement or disagreement to the report. Following consultation, the administrator’s final report is submitted to Monitor for a decision. That report, which Monitor must publish and lay before Parliament, again needs to present to the regulator the views of all affected commissioners. The administrator is required to attach to the final report a summary of all responses to its draft report that were received during the statutory consultation. That would include the views of all affected commissioners as respondents and explain what consideration was given to those responses. There is full transparency at every stage of the process. Quite apart from being wrecking amendments, the Labour amendments are therefore completely unnecessary.
Liz Kendall (Leicester West) (Lab)
Wrecking amendments? They are saving you from yourselves!
Dr Poulter
The administrator, working closely with all affected commissioners and providers, may need to communicate in writing in the 10 working days before the draft report is published and submitted. Amendment (b) would therefore significantly reduce the time available to the administrator to develop and finalise the draft report and seek commissioners’ agreement. The hon. Member for Copeland said that he was concerned about that process, but his amendment would make it more difficult.
Clause 118 will extend the time that is available to the TSA to develop the draft report. Amendment (b) would reverse that. That is irrational, undesirable and goes against the very point the hon. Member for Copeland made about having time to consider the best interests of commissioners and the local health economy. I thought that that was an unintended and unwanted consequence of the amendment, but having heard the comments of the hon. Member for Leicester West (Liz Kendall), I am not so sure. However, I hope that the hon. Gentleman will not press the amendments.
In conclusion, the Government are committed to a TSA regime that is workable, transparent and in the best interests of patients. In cases of exceptional and significant care failure, lives are put at risk if a problem is not dealt with swiftly and effectively. It is for that reason that we are strengthening the regime in the Bill. I am very proud of the Bill and the opportunity that it offers to improve the health of and, the quality of care for, many people, particularly the frail elderly, those with disabilities and those with long-term care needs. It represents the most important step forward in integrating and better joining together health and social care for well over a generation. I hope that hon. Friends and hon. Members will support the Bill and the amendments that have been made to it.
Question put and agreed to.
Lords amendments 11B and 11C in lieu of words left out by Commons amendment 11 agreed to..
Lords amendment 32A to Commons amendment 32 and consequential Lords amendments 32C and 32D agreed to.
Clause 118
Powers of administrator etc.
Amendment (a) proposed to Lords amendment 40B.—(Mr Jamie Reed.)
Question put, That the amendment be made.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Mrs Eleanor Laing)
Order. Will Members who have no interest in the forthcoming debate and are leaving the Chamber please do so quickly and quietly? Not to do so is a gross discourtesy to those who wish to speak.
Female genital mutilation
Mr Speaker
Order. Will Members leave the Chamber in a seemly manner? Ministers and Whips will not conduct noisy conversations with each other, because they will want to show the same respect to the hon. Gentleman as they would wish to be extended to them in comparable circumstances. I take that as a contrite smile from the Minister of State, Ministry of Justice, the right hon. Member for Bermondsey and Old Southwark (Simon Hughes).
Simon Hart
I am pleased to be able to present this petition from the Tenby and district branch of Soroptimist International, urging the Government to do all that they can to stop female genital mutilation.
The petition states:
The Petition of residents of the UK,
Declares that the Petitioners believe that not enough is being done to stop the illegal practice of female genital mutilation, and further that a Petition on this subject has received over 2,600 signatures.
The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urge the Government to do more to stop female genital mutilation and to encourage other countries to stop this practice.
And the Petitioners remain, etc.
[P001349]
Local planning in Hampshire
Mr James Arbuthnot (North East Hampshire) (Con)
My constituents have the good fortune to live in a part of the country that is extremely attractive, so attractive that others want to live there, and that creates intense planning pressure. In the district of Hart, there is no up-to-date local plan for reasons my local residents consider to be unfair. As a result, I present this petition today on behalf of Michael Morris, Jonathan Glen, Brian Burchfield, Kenneth Crookes, Stephen Parker and 291 of my constituents. The petition states that
the current planning system is preventing our District Council from properly controlling development in our area.
Wherefore your Petitioners pray that your Honourable House strengthens the position of District Councils by enabling them to refuse planning permission on the grounds of prematurity, while a local plan is being devised.
And your Petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray, &c.
Following is the full text of the petition:
[The Humble Petition of Michael Morris, Jonathan Glen and Brian Burchfield on behalf of the residents of Hook and Rotherwick,
Sheweth,
That the current planning system is preventing our District Council from properly controlling development in our area.
Wherefore your Petitioners pray that your Honourable House strengthens the position of District Councils by enabling them to refuse planning permission on the grounds of prematurity, while a local plan is being devised.
And your Petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray, &c.]
[P001350]
Free Schools (Funding)
(10 years, 7 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Urgent Questions are proposed each morning by backbench MPs, and up to two may be selected each day by the Speaker. Chosen Urgent Questions are announced 30 minutes before Parliament sits each day.
Each Urgent Question requires a Government Minister to give a response on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Tristram Hunt (Stoke-on-Trent Central) (Lab)
(Urgent Question): To ask the Secretary of State for Education to make a statement on the allocation of funding for the free school programme.
The Secretary of State for Education (Michael Gove)
I am delighted to be able to update the House on progress in providing new school places. Just last week, the Public Accounts Committee congratulated the Department on the clear progress that had been made in delivering new school places through the free school programme, with costs significantly lower than under the last Government’s school building programme.
Free schools cost about half what schools built under Building Schools for the Future cost. Thanks to the savings we have made, and thanks to the success of our long-term economic plan, we have been able to invest far more than the last Government in creating new school places, especially in areas of need.
We are investing £5 billion over the lifetime of this Parliament in giving money to local authorities for new school places. That is more than twice what the last Government spent over the equivalent preceding period, despite repeated warnings that the population was increasing. We plan to invest even more in the new Parliament, with £7 billion allocated in the next Parliament for new school places. As a result, we have delivered 212,000 new primary school places between 2012 and 2013, and we are on course to deliver another 357,000. Thanks to the efforts of many great local authorities, we now have fewer pupils in overcrowded primary schools than we had in 2010.
As well as the expansion of existing local authority provision, we have also, on top of that, created 83,000 places in new free schools. The budget for these schools has been just under 10% of the Department’s total capital budget, but free schools are so far outperforming other schools inspected under our new and more rigorous Ofsted framework. Schools such as Dixons Trinity in Bradford and Canary Wharf free school in Tower Hamlets have been ranked outstanding within months of opening. Free schools are now over-subscribed, with three applications for every place. Indeed, the longer that free schools are in place, the more popular they are, with schools such as the West London free school and the London Academy of Excellence becoming the most over-subscribed schools in their area.
It is important to remember that while we have met the demand identified by local authorities for new school places, we have also set up seven out of 10 free schools in areas of significant population growth. Indeed, as the National Audit Office has pointed out, £700 million of the £950 million spent on free schools so far opened has actually augmented the money given to local authorities for new school places. Other free schools have been set up to provide quality provision where existing standards are too low, or school improvement has been too slow.
We should never be complacent about educational standards, but we should today take time to thank good local authorities and all our school leaders and teachers, because no child in this country is without a school place, fewer children are in overcrowded schools and Ofsted reports that more children are being taught good and outstanding lessons by more highly qualified teachers than ever before. In short, thanks to the rigour with which we have borne down on costs, the innovation unleashed by the academy and free schools programmes and the success of the Government’s economic strategy, we have been able both to provide all necessary school places and to drive quality up across the board. I commend the free school programme to the House.
Tristram Hunt
This afternoon, young people are sitting their exams, and we wish them the best of luck. They will be showing exactly the kind of self-control and focus so woefully lacking in Education Ministers. Indeed, the Minister for Schools has not even deigned to turn up.
The question today is: when we face enormous constraints on the public purse, how do we best prioritise spending for new school places? For every parent wondering why their child is taught in a class size of over 30 and for every parent angry that they cannot get their kid into a good local school, we now have the answer: the coalition—both parts—has raided the schools budget to pay for pet political projects in expensive, half-empty and underperforming free schools.
Will the Secretary of State confirm that he has reallocated £400 million from the targeted basic need programme to fill a black hole in the free school programme? Does he accept National Audit Office data showing that more than two thirds of the places created by the free school programme have been created outside areas of high and severe primary need? Why has the free school programme been so heavily weighted to secondary places during a time of national crisis in primary places? Does he agree with the Treasury that spending on this programme, like his leadership of the Department, is spiralling out of control?
Michael Gove
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his questions. He asks where responsibility lies for a shortage of school places. The responsibility lies with the previous Government, whose Chief Secretary to the Treasury left a note to his successor saying that there was no money left. The responsibility lies with the Labour Government who, when they were in power, cut primary places—cut them—by 200,000 between 2003 and 2010. The responsibility lies with the Labour Government who cut funding for new school places by £150 million, or by 26%, between 2004 and 2009. The responsibility lies with the previous Labour Government, whose primary capital programme told local authorities to cut primary places, not to increase them.
This coalition Government have increased spending on primary school places and local authority need and, at the same time, we have provided excellent new provision through the free school programme. I note that the hon. Gentleman was silent on Labour’s position on the free school programme. Where is the consistency of Labour’s position on this policy? In May 2010, he said that free schools were a
“vanity project for yummy mummies”.
In May 2013, he reversed his position, saying that he wanted to put “rocket boosters” under the programme. In October 2013, he reversed again, saying that free schools were a “dangerous ideological experiment”. Later the same month, he said, “If you are a parent interested in setting up a free school, we will be on your side.” He has had more contorted positions on free schools than some Indian sex manuals that I could name.
The truth is that the hon. Gentleman has betrayed his inconsistency on free schools and the inconsistency in his support for the additional money that we have put in to provide not just local authorities but free school sponsors with the places that our children need.
Mr Graham Stuart (Beverley and Holderness) (Con)
I wonder whether we can clear this matter up, because the Minister for Schools appeared before the Education Committee during the school places inquiry. He said:
“We have got £12.5 billion or more for basic need that we are going to spend over the 2010 to 2021 period, which is absolutely massive. The Treasury have been very clear with us and we have been clear with them that basic need is the top priority. If we thought jointly that we couldn’t fund the basic need because of the free school programme, we would have to reduce the free school programme. But the free school programme is additional; it does not compromise our basic need objectives.”
Is the evidence that was given to the Committee correct or is what we heard in anonymous whispers over the weekend correct?
Michael Gove
I am grateful to the Chairman of the Education Committee. I absolutely confirm that the evidence shared with him was 100% correct.
Mr Barry Sheerman (Huddersfield) (Lab/Co-op)
Surely the point of this urgent question is to ask the Secretary of State to clear up the unholy row not with the Opposition, but between members of the coalition. What is being lost is the right of children to have a decent education. Primary school places must be delivered where they are needed, not where they are not.
Michael Gove
I have enormous respect for the hon. Gentleman and he makes three important points. First, as we have just heard from the Chairman of the Education Committee, the Minister for Schools has confirmed to the Committee that the hon. Gentleman once chaired that spending on free schools augments basic need funding. Secondly, he is absolutely right that we both share a desire to ensure that there are more good school places where they are needed across the country. Free schools are playing a part in that. As I pointed out in my statement and as I know he welcomes, free schools, academies and communities are all contributing to the fact that our teachers are delivering more good and outstanding lessons than ever before, and that no child is without a primary school place.
Sir Malcolm Bruce (Gordon) (LD)
The Secretary of State will be as aware as I am—it has been communicated to me over the weekend—that many areas of greatest need are not getting free schools and need places to be provided. What is he going to do to ensure that the areas that have the need but no free schools get the places that they need?
Michael Gove
My right hon. Friend makes a characteristically good point. I should declare an interest because at one point, he and my mother served on the governing body of the same school in Aberdeen. His point about the need to ensure that we have more good free school applications in those parts of the country that need school places is a very good one. Unfortunately, some local authorities—they tend to be Labour—are standing in the way of good new free schools. I am encouraged by the support that I have had from a number of Liberal Democrat colleagues, including the hon. Member for Burnley (Gordon Birtwistle), who have backed free school applications when Labour local authorities have stood in their way.
Clive Efford (Eltham) (Lab)
The Secretary of State has confirmed that the evidence that was given to the Education Committee by the Minister for Schools was accurate. Would the Minister for Schools, had he bothered to attend today, agree with that statement and confirm that he still holds the same position?
Michael Gove
The hon. Gentleman is asking whether the Minister for Schools agrees with the Minister for Schools. I can confirm that he does. I can also confirm that there is good news for the hon. Gentleman’s constituents. Under the last Labour Government, only £33 million was spent on providing new primary school places in his constituency. Under this coalition Government, £40 million is being spent. I am sure that he will welcome that additional investment, which has been secured by this coalition Government.
Mrs Anne Main (St Albans) (Con)
Clive Glover is leading a group of parents who hope to have a free school on the Harperbury hospital site. A feasibility study is happening now. What worries me, given that this might happen in 2015, is the lack of clarity about the position of the Labour party. It does not seem to have the same commitments. With local elections happening, I think that residents should know what the Labour party thinks about free schools.
Mr Speaker
Order. Although I understand the concern of the hon. Lady and the possible concern of her constituents on this matter, the terms of the question do not engage ministerial responsibility, which is the issue for the House of Commons.
Mr David Lammy (Tottenham) (Lab)
The Secretary of State uses the phrase “quality and rigour” in relation to free schools. Will he look at the recent Ofsted report on Hartsbrook E-ACT free school in my constituency? It found inadequate reading, writing and mathematics, that it was inadequate in all classes, a school body that needed improving, inadequate safeguarding, and that it was inadequately and poorly organised. Is that quality and rigour, and does the Schools Minister agree with that report, and does the Secretary of State as well?
Michael Gove
Obviously, we both agree with that report because it is an Ofsted report and we place an enormous amount of weight and confidence in the chief inspector’s scrutiny of underperforming schools. While there are free schools that underperform, it is only fair to say that there are also local authority maintained schools that are underperforming. It is sad that even as standards increase overall, every day that schools are open two local authority schools go into special measures. If we put that in the frame, we can recognise the context in which school improvement work is taking place.
Although Hartsbrook E-ACT free school was underperforming, in the right hon. Gentleman’s constituency the Harris academy, which took over from the failing Downhills school—the right hon. Gentleman, of course, was sceptical about that takeover and forced academisation—is now flourishing. That shows that after initial teething problems, school reform under this Government has worked. I hope that we can work together to ensure that Lord Harris and other high-quality sponsors continue to create the academies and free schools that will help to bring young people in the right hon. Gentleman’s constituency additional hope for the future.
Mr Nick Gibb (Bognor Regis and Littlehampton) (Con)
I refer to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. I am obviously a keen supporter of free schools. The Secretary of State will know that some free schools are keen to adopt approaches commonly found in the most successful independent schools, but some fear Ofsted inspectors brought up in progressive education. Will the Secretary of State ensure that Sir Michael Wilshaw’s statement that there are no Ofsted prescribed forms of teaching is adhered to by the thousands of inspectors engaged on the ground?
Michael Gove
I take my hon. Friend’s point, and I read with interest and appreciation his article in The Daily Telegraph today. Sir Michael Wilshaw is an outstanding chief inspector—the best ever to hold that post—and he inspects without fear or favour. He has also been responsible for ensuring that the quality of inspection during his time has increased. He has led an academy and seen the benefits that academies and free schools can bring to parts of London, so I know that Sir Michael will bear in mind my hon. Friend’s words and ensure that Ofsted continues to do a highly effective job inspecting all schools and holding them to the highest standards.
Fiona Mactaggart (Slough) (Lab)
I am surprised by the Secretary of State’s description of this report as “praising” his free school programme, because it raises more questions about that programme than he implies. I represent a town with many free schools. I have welcomed them because, as mums who were visiting Parliament said to me today, what we need is enough school places. The problem with the free school programme in a town as diverse as Slough is that it lacks planning and a community cohesive approach to free school places, to ensure that every community in my town has sufficient educational places. What will the Secretary of State do about that?
Michael Gove
I am grateful to the hon. Lady, and she is right to say that Slough is one of the hot spots in the country where a significant increase in the population has placed pressures on the local authority. We have been able to fund the local authority’s school provision, and augment it with the provision of free school places. It is also striking that many of the applications for free schools in and around Slough have come from different communities, who at last have an ethos and a level of aspiration for the schools that they felt had not existed before. If the hon. Lady wants to bring me any specific examples of inconsistencies of provision, I will of course look at them. I am grateful to her for pointing out that she, like many Labour MPs, welcomes free schools in her constituency and is prepared to work with the Department for Education in the interests of young people.
Mr Tim Yeo (South Suffolk) (Con)
Is my right hon. Friend aware that Stour Valley community college, a first-wave free school in my constituency, is achieving outstanding academic and other results, while pursuing a very inclusive admissions policy? Not surprisingly it is heavily over-subscribed, and the view of people in Suffolk is that the best possible use of the Department’s money is spending on free schools, and we look forward to the day when private as well as public money can be invested in those schools.
Michael Gove
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for making the point that in Stour Valley we have a school that is providing education of outstanding quality. He has been a consistent champion of providing new provision in the local authority of Suffolk, which has not always had the best schools in the past. The new schools provide not just choice but challenge, and have helped to drive up standards in Suffolk overall. I am grateful that Suffolk local authority has taken an enlightened approach to driving up school standards.
Richard Burden (Birmingham, Northfield) (Lab)
May I gently remind the Secretary of State that he has not answered the question put to him by my hon. Friend the shadow Secretary of State? The National Audit Office report suggests that two thirds of the places provided under the free schools programme were diverted away from areas of high and severe primary need. Does the Secretary of State reject those findings or not?
Michael Gove
The first point is that no money was diverted away. It is clear that free school spending augments spending on providing local authority school places. It is clear also that local authorities have sufficient funds. Under the previous Labour Government, the hon. Gentleman’s own local authority of Birmingham received £45 million to provide additional school places. Under this coalition Government, it has received £65 million. Some 87% of new primary school places through the free schools programme are in high or severe areas of need, so they are augmenting—adding to—the provision that those areas need. I should also point out that the hon. Gentleman is fortunate enough to be in a city that enjoys, in the Perry Beeches chain, one of the best performing chains of academies and free schools anywhere in the country. Thanks to the success of head teachers such as Liam Nolan, children in Birmingham are at last enjoying a high quality of comprehensive education of the kind that I know he and I want to see spread across the country.
Richard Harrington (Watford) (Con)
As I am sure you will be aware, Mr Speaker, when I was elected to be the Member of Parliament for Watford at least half of the initial constituency inquiries and complaints were about the shortage of school places in the west Watford area. Since then, the excellent Reach Free school, which I have visited, has opened. Parents are impressed with it and so are the students, and there are two more in the pipeline. Given that this is clearly an area of need and that free schools are cheap and easy to operate, what possible complaint can the Opposition have?
Michael Gove
Once again my hon. Friend makes a very fair and reasonable point. He also provides me with the opportunity to remind the House that in Hertfordshire, under the previous Government, £25 million was allocated for new school places. Under this coalition Government, £122 million has been allocated for new school places, and that is in addition to the free schools programme. This Government’s approach to fiscal discipline and greater efficiency, with school places costing less than half what they cost under the previous Government, means that we are able to meet need and to raise standards in every part of the country.
Mr Steve Reed (Croydon North) (Lab)
The Secretary of State may already be aware that Croydon has the biggest shortage of school places in the country. Before he quotes figures at me, the Tory council’s own papers say that funding
“only partially meets the costs…of places needed.”
Is it not perverse to deny places to children in Croydon, while funding new schools in areas with no shortage of places?
Michael Gove
Again, I have to emphasise to the hon. Gentleman that it was the previous Government—I know he was not part of it—who cut spending on new school places and told local authorities to cut surplus places at primary. It is this coalition Government who have increased spending in Croydon on new school places: under the previous Government it was £17 million and under this Government it is £142 million—eight times as much. Before the hon. Gentleman asks for more funding, he should apologise to his constituents for the reckless profligacy and inefficiency of the previous Labour Government.
James Duddridge (Rochford and Southend East) (Con)
In September, for every place in a free school there will be three applicants. Does the Secretary of State agree that we should trust parents and pupils? They clearly like free schools and we should fund them accordingly.
Michael Gove
My hon. Friend makes a valid point. It is important that we do not just ensure sufficient school places everywhere in the country; we need to ensure that they are high-quality school places. One of the reasons why the free schools programme is succeeding is that it is both adding to the number of quality school places and providing an appropriate challenge and support to existing schools to raise their game.
Ian Mearns (Gateshead) (Lab)
When the Secretary of State came to office, he often quoted Sweden as a great example to follow because of their free schools programme. Now that Sweden is in flight from free schools, what lessons is he learning from that experience?
Michael Gove
One of the things I have learned from Sweden is that their free schools outperform other schools in Sweden; the more free schools there are in the municipality, the stronger the educational performance of it. Sadly, Sweden has not benefited as we have from the full panoply of educational reforms needed to drive up standards. Sweden does not have an independent and authoritative inspectorate like our Ofsted under Sir Michael Wilshaw’s leadership; and Sweden does not have the programme of externally set and externally marked assessments such as those we have at the ages of 11 and 16 in order to ensure that all schools are held accountable.
Chris Skidmore (Kingswood) (Con)
Given that eight out of 10 new free schools have opened in areas where there is a shortage of places or areas of deprivation, does the Secretary of State disagree with the shadow Secretary of State’s view that these are simply a
“vanity project for yummy mummies”?
Michael Gove
My hon. Friend makes a very good point, and he is not alone in backing free schools. Andrew Adonis has pointed out that free schools are actually a Labour invention. He, a genuine reformer, said that
“the issue for Labour is how we take them forward, not whether we are for or against them.”
The problem is that when we listen to the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent Central (Tristram Hunt), we do not know from one day to the next whether Labour is for or against free schools, taking us backwards, not forwards.
Alex Cunningham (Stockton North) (Lab)
The four non-executive directors of the Department for Education board demonstrated to the Education Select Committee their total lack of knowledge about children’s services and about the transfer of vast sums of money from children’s services to other education budget headings—even admitting that they had not even discussed our questions on the matter. In the light of their lack of understanding and failure properly to scrutinise the executive, will he review their appointments and find some people who do have the necessary knowledge and know what is expected of them?
Michael Gove
I notice that the hon. Gentleman, recognising that the previous line of inquiry about free schools and basic need has been exhausted, has changed the subject to children’s services. Let me say that the non-executive directors of the Department for Education include Mr Paul Marshall, the founder of the Lib-Dem think-tank CentreForum; David Mellor, one of Britain’s most successful businessmen; Jim O’Neill, one of the most authoritative economists in this country; and Dame Sue John, an outstanding school leader. If one looks at their record and compares it with the hon. Gentleman’s, I know who I would prefer to have with me in the Department for Education pushing reform forward.
Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)
May I encourage the Secretary of State in his zeal for free schools? They are, after all, hugely popular with Conservative voters and they are all about Conservative thinking. If some Liberal Minister does not want them, he can always resign.
Michael Gove
I am always grateful for my hon. Friend’s interventions. He, of course, was Chairman of the Public Accounts Committee when it pointed out that, under the last Government’s Building Schools for the Future programme, we had a degree of profligacy and waste that was a genuine scandal. My hon. Friend will know that it is not just Conservative voters who find free schools attractive. Like so many free schools opening in Labour areas, the Derby Pride free school, an alternative provision free school backed by Derby County football club—congratulations to them on making it to the play-offs—is outstanding in its provision for disadvantaged children in a Labour area, despite the fact that the Labour local authority did not want it to open. The truth about free schools is that they provide high standards for children who have been failed in the past.
Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Lab)
May I take the Secretary of State back to the answer he gave to my right hon. Friend the Member for Tottenham (Mr Lammy)? If a free school is lamentably not performing—failing its children and failing the community—does he agree that it would be much better if that free school were within the orbit of the local authority, which could observe and spot what was going on, give the necessary support and bring the school back into the accountable public sector?
Michael Gove
First, there is an area of consensus between the hon. Gentleman and me about the fact that there are good local authority schools and good local authorities that provide appropriate support and challenge for their schools. I absolutely accept that, but it is important to recognise that there are many underperforming local authority schools, and local authority oversight is very far from a panacea for school failure. As I pointed out earlier, every day that schools are open, two local authority schools and others go into special measures. It is also the case that so far, according to the tough new Ofsted criteria that we have set up, free schools outperform other schools. Furthermore, my Department has I think been faster in dealing with school failure, whether it be in Derby or Crawley, than many local authorities have, and I think it right to bear down on failure wherever it occurs.
Neil Carmichael (Stroud) (Con)
I note that basic funding for schools in Gloucestershire will provide an additional 1,680 places over the next two years. Does the Secretary of State agree that the purpose of the additional funding for free schools is to provide choice for parents, and that the need for parents to have that choice is behind the drive for higher standards?
Michael Gove
That is a very good point, and it is the point that was made by Tony Blair, the former Member of Parliament for Sedgefield, when he was Prime Minister. The purpose of new school provision is not simply to provide additional places where they are needed, but to provide a choice for parents when standards are low. It is critically important to recognise that the Government are both funding local authorities to ensure that there is a school place for every child and providing choice and quality in great schools such as the Krishna Avanti free school in Leicester, which I had the honour of opening alongside the right hon. Member for Leicester East (Keith Vaz)—another Labour supporter of the free schools programme.
Bill Esterson (Sefton Central) (Lab)
A number of schools in my constituency have told me that the Government have stopped funding vital basic needs services, which has meant a real-terms cut in their budgets. We now know why. Is not the truth that when it comes to free schools, the Secretary of State is diverting much needed resources from teaching and learning for those most in need in order to benefit a few?
Michael Gove
In fact, we are increasing funding for additional school places in Sefton by nearly 50%. We are doing that because, thanks to the reforms that we have made, we are in a position to provide school places more cheaply than the last Government. Of course I am always happy to talk to the hon. Gentleman about ensuring that high-quality provision continues, but the fact remains that there is more funding under this Government than there was under the last.
Jackie Doyle-Price (Thurrock) (Con)
I thank my right hon. Friend for the 1,950 extra school places that he has provided in Thurrock, including places at the Harris primary academy free school, which is due to open. After years of severe need in the Chafford Hundred area in my constituency, a free school is now delivering much needed provision, and is making a real contribution to under-privileged children as well as offering choice.
Michael Gove
Education standards are rising in Chafford, thanks to the academy and free school programme. It was an absolute pleasure for me to visit a studio school in my hon. Friend’s constituency last week, when I had an opportunity to see how our school reforms are helping children in a disadvantaged part of Essex to achieve everything of which they are capable. I pay tribute to the energetic work that my hon. Friend has done in supporting that school and the many others which are raising standards in Thurrock.
Heidi Alexander (Lewisham East) (Lab)
Despite the best efforts of Lewisham council, many parents in my constituency are struggling to get their children into local schools because the local authority does not have enough money to fund an adequate expansion of primary places. What justification would the Secretary of State give to those parents, who see him spending money on free schools in parts of the country where demand for places is small, if not non-existent?
Michael Gove
I am grateful for that question, because it gives me an opportunity to pay tribute to Frankie Sulke, the director of children’s services and leading local official in charge of schools in Lewisham, who has been doing a great job in helping to raise standards in the local authority. However, I also think it fair to point out that whereas the last Labour Government spent £25 million on new school places in Lewisham, the present Government are spending £78 million, triple that amount. I hope that the hon. Lady will acknowledge that that has been the result of the careful economic management in which this coalition Government have engaged.
Sir Tony Baldry (Banbury) (Con)
Does my right hon. Friend understand the confusion felt by working parents who have striven so hard to establish a free school for five-to-18-year-olds at Heyford Park in my constituency when they hear the shadow Secretary of State for Education describe free schools as a
“vanity project for yummy mummies”?
Indeed, is not the very phrase “yummy mummy” the sort of patronising terminology that we now expect from so many members of the metropolitan elite that currently occupies the Labour Front Bench?
Michael Gove
My right hon. Friend has made a very good point. Last week I had an opportunity to talk to a group of parents in Ealing, thanks to my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing Central and Acton (Angie Bray). Those parents were dedicated individuals from every social background and ethnicity who wanted to improve their children’s education. They were not “yummy mummies”; they were parents who cared, and we on this side of the House stand up for them.
Roberta Blackman-Woods (City of Durham) (Lab)
The free school in Durham will be lucky if it achieves a total roll of 80 students next year at a cost of £30,000 per pupil. Does the Secretary of State think this is good value for money in an area of surplus places, and where local successful schools like St Leonard’s that are crying out for investment from his Department, have been told by his Schools Minister, strangely absent today, that no money is available?
Michael Gove
The first thing to acknowledge is that the amount of money we are giving to Durham local authority for basic need is increasing under this Government, and the second is that the Durham free school will add to the quality of education that children in Durham enjoy. In the city of Durham there are some outstanding schools, like Durham Johnston school which has succeeded over generations, but across the north-east the level of educational ambition has been too low for too long, and we need new providers to help augment the quality of education, not just in County Durham but elsewhere.
Angie Bray (Ealing Central and Acton) (Con)
I thank my right hon. Friend for his visit to Ealing last week when he met parents setting up Ealing Fields free school, and I gather that later this week he will also be visiting another free school, William Perkin, in another part of Ealing. Does he agree that the point about these free schools is that they are providing extra school places in areas where they are much needed, like Ealing? What’s not to like about that?
Michael Gove
I am afraid that the last Government, even though they were warned that population figures were increasing, spent only £18 million on new school places in Ealing. We are spending £72 million on new school places in Ealing, and on top of that this Thursday I will be delighted to open a new free school, the William Perkin free school, which has been founded by Alice Hudson, an outstanding head teacher who does a brilliant job. I look forward to being joined there by the Labour Member of Parliament for Ealing North (Stephen Pound), who has been a consistent supporter of this school right from the very beginning: yet another Labour party member and Labour MP who supports our free school programme.
Ian Austin (Dudley North) (Lab)
Parents in Dudley are spending this week in appeals once again because their children have been allocated places in schools they do not want to send them to. Why should pupils be denied places in popular and successful schools because those schools just do not have the space needed to accommodate them? Why will the Secretary of State not promote competition and expand the market by enabling well-run, oversubscribed, financially sound schools to borrow the resources needed to provide those extra facilities and be able to pay them back with the revenue the extra pupils would bring?
Michael Gove
The hon. Gentleman makes a very good point. I read with interest and appreciation the article he wrote in The Independent on Sunday outlining a similar case, and I have asked officials in the Department to see what we can do to give effect to his suggestion. If he would like to come to the Department and share his thinking with officials, I shall be delighted to see what we can do to take this forward.
Nick de Bois (Enfield North) (Con)
In my constituency there are three free schools destined, of which two are open, offering 80 places, yet this is in an area in the top 10% of the country for childhood deprivation. I understand the Secretary of State has been accused, with results like this, of being an educational zealot. May I suggest he wears that as a badge of honour for the results he has produced for us in Enfield?
Michael Gove
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for the point he makes. It is of course the case that there has been pressure on school places in Enfield. That is why we have been pleased to increase the amount we spend from £20 million under the last Government to £77 million under this Government. It is also why I am delighted that Patricia Sowter, an outstanding head teacher, has been able to increase the number of school places on top of that by expanding her wonderful chain of free schools. When the hon. Member for Liverpool, West Derby (Stephen Twigg) was shadow education spokesman, he paid tribute to Patricia Sowter for her fantastic work. I hope the current shadow spokesman will associate himself with those words.
Jenny Chapman (Darlington) (Lab)
I represent a constituency in the north-east that, as the Secretary of State knows, is consistently complimented by Ofsted on the standard of its education, and I would like him to bear that in mind when he writes off my region in the way he just did. I want to ask him about private schools converting to free-school status. Although it is welcome to see these private schools become non-fee paying, it seems that a sizeable debt is being written off when they convert. Will the Secretary of State say how much his Department is spending on settling the debts of private schools converting to free schools?
Michael Gove
I absolutely shall. The first thing to bear in mind is that, as the hon. Lady rightly points out, Darlington is an exceptionally high-performing local authority. One of the reasons for that is that many of its schools have converted to academy status with the support of the local authority, and Darlington shines out as an enlightened Labour local authority. I will share the exact figures with the hon. Lady, but I should stress that many of the independent schools that have changed to become free schools are now open to all and an excellent standard of education is available to children on a comprehensive basis. Many of those arguing for independent schools to become free schools are Labour MPs such as the hon. Member for Barrow and Furness (John Woodcock) and the right hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr Straw), and I am delighted to have been able to work with two more Labour MPs supporting our free schools programme.
Alun Cairns (Vale of Glamorgan) (Con)
How many new places have been created by the free schools policy, and how does the demand compare with that for local authority schools?
Michael Gove
So far, some 83,000 places have been created, and as I pointed out earlier, these schools are overwhelmingly over-subscribed.
Mr Jim Cunningham (Coventry South) (Lab)
In 2010, the Secretary of State cut Coventry’s schools programme. How much of that programme has now been reinstated?
Michael Gove
It is important to bear in mind that the Building Schools for the Future programme was not the most effective way of allocating resources to local authority schools. We have increased provision for additional school places in Coventry, compared with the last Government: they spent £25 million and we are spending £41 million. Coventry is also the area that has benefited fastest from our new Priority School Building programme. Whitmore Park primary school was one of the first to open, just a couple of weeks ago, and there are other schools in Coventry in desperate need of maintenance money which we are now helping at a lower cost and faster than under Building Schools for the Future.
Damian Hinds (East Hampshire) (Con)
Was not the real vanity project the Building Schools for the Future programme that my right hon. Friend has just alluded to, which was hugely costly? Are not this Government now picking up the pieces of the last Government’s unbelievable lack of planning at primary level, and in a way that guarantees quality, diversity and choice to parents?
Michael Gove
My hon. Friend makes an excellent point. Again, it is important that the House recall that under the last Government the provision of primary school places was cut, and under this Government it has expanded. At the same time as increasing the quantity of school places, we have raised the quality.
Nia Griffith (Llanelli) (Lab)
The Secretary of State has allocated public funds to subsidise surplus places in under-subscribed free schools, while there is a shortage of school places in other areas. Will he now consider putting on hold plans for prospective free schools to open in September that still do not have applications for half their first cohort of places, and putting the money saved towards providing places where they are genuinely needed?
Michael Gove
It is important to acknowledge that money is going to providing places where they are genuinely needed. One thing I did not have an opportunity to point out earlier—[Interruption.] Let me give the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent Central (Tristram Hunt) these figures, which have been audited nationally. In Stoke-on-Trent under the last Government, £2.4 million went to new primary school places; under this Government, the figure is £12.4 million—three times as much. The hon. Gentleman is benefiting, not for the first time, from a Conservative Government being in place. I am confident that in due course we will find that all the free schools opening this year will be popular, and if for any reason they fail or falter, we will be quick to close them down or put them under new management.
Stephen McPartland (Stevenage) (Con)
My wife is a teacher in a primary school in Stevenage that Hertfordshire county council is expanding, along with many others. Does my right hon. Friend agree that the real root cause of the problem is the previous Government’s decision to cut 200,000 primary school places and remove surplus places?
Michael Gove
My hon. Friend is absolutely right, and the last Government cannot say they were not warned. The Office for National Statistics repeatedly pointed out that the population was increasing; we were living through an unprecedented baby boom, and many new Britons were arriving on our shores. All these trends should have been anticipated by the last Government, but they were not. It fell to us to increase spending on primary school places; unfortunately, the last Government did not take the action that was required in time.
Angela Smith (Penistone and Stocksbridge) (Lab)
Chapeltown academy, the proposed 16-to-19 free school in my constituency is being developed in the context of cuts in funding for FE, growing pressure on primary school places in Sheffield and Barnsley, and no demonstrable need for these proposed new sixth-form places—a point underlined by the fact that just 12 Sheffield youngsters have taken an offer from the academy as a first preference. The Secretary of State can surely see the need to redirect the resources being wasted on Chapeltown Academy to better use elsewhere.
Michael Gove
I am grateful to the hon. Lady for that point. My understanding is that significantly more have applied—a significantly higher number—but it is the case that this new provision will help raise standards in Sheffield and that we are providing this new school alongside having increased the amount of money available for primary school places in Sheffield. Under the previous Government, £22 million was provided; over the equivalent funding period, we are providing £36 million.
Justin Tomlinson (North Swindon) (Con)
Nothing matches the anger of parents denied a place in a good local school. In stark contrast to when Labour cut 200,000 places in the midst of a baby boom, the proposed New College free school in my constituency is the best opportunity to meet the shortfall in secondary school places. I hope that the Minister will fully support the bid, in stark contrast to Labour’s opposition.
Michael Gove
I am sorry to hear that Labour is opposing that excellent additional provision. Swindon, in particular under Conservative leadership, has seen schools improve consistently over recent years. I hope that we see great additional state school provision in Swindon. I will do everything that I can to support the parents who are behind that bid.
Andy Sawford (Corby) (Lab/Co-op)
Will the Secretary of State confirm that he reallocated £400 million from the targeted basic need programme to fill a black hole in the free schools programme? It is a simple question. He did not answer my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent Central (Tristram Hunt). Yes or no?
Michael Gove
We are actually spending more on basic need and on free schools as a result of the wise decisions that we have taken. It was interesting, in the hon. Gentleman’s question, that he did not take the opportunity—but I shall—to praise Corby technical school, which is the wonderful new free school that has been opened in his constituency. It is providing an outstanding standard of education for young people in his area. I hope he will take the opportunity the next time that he speaks on education to praise those who have provided such an outstanding quality of education.
Mr Robin Walker (Worcester) (Con)
A moment ago, the Secretary of State mentioned a football club that is supporting alternative provision in a free school. Will he join me in congratulating the Worcester Warriors in its support of the Aspire academy, a free school soon to be opening in Worcester? I thank him for the fact that, along with that free school in one of the areas of highest need in my constituency, the Government are also investing in 500 more primary places in Worcestershire.
Michael Gove
I am delighted to hear that. We are very grateful for the role that football clubs and other charities play in supporting free schools. One of the best free school applications that I have seen came from Everton football club and was enthusiastically supported by the right hon. Member for Leigh (Andy Burnham), another predecessor of the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent Central and another Labour supporter of free schools—
Michael Gove
The right hon. Gentleman wrote to support that bid. I am glad that there is growing consensus behind free schools. I am disappointed that the dwindling band on the Opposition Front Bench hold out against it.
Bridget Phillipson (Houghton and Sunderland South) (Lab)
The Secretary of State referred to the Priority School Building programme and the speed with which schools are being built under it, but is it not the case that only 10% of schools in the programme will even have been started on by 2015?
Michael Gove
It is the case that the Priority School Building programme has had to have a number of individual projects rescoped, and some have encountered delays that we would not have wanted to see, but the programme has delivered more school places, at a lower cost and faster than the previous Building Schools for the Future programme.
Guy Opperman (Hexham) (Con)
In my part of Northumberland, we have neither the benefits nor the perceived burden of a free school. We have focused on more primary places; the rebuild, authorised by the Secretary of State, of Prudhoe community high school; the creation of the Haltwhistle academy, the first in my constituency; and the changes to the fairer funding formula, which will for the first time produce enhanced funding for Northumberland. I welcome the changes, I welcome his direction of travel and, in particular, I welcome the changes to the fairer funding formula.
Michael Gove
My hon. Friend makes a very good point. Part of the progressive changes that have been introduced by my Department and which have been championed and designed by the Minister for Schools has been an increase in funding for the parts of the country that have suffered in the past. In particular, the delivery of the pupil premium ensures that disadvantaged children, wherever they are, enjoy not only a high quality of education but additional investment in a better future.
Nic Dakin (Scunthorpe) (Lab)
Why has £62 million been spent on nine 16-to-18 free schools, with little evidence of need and at a time when sixth-form colleges are experiencing very deep funding cuts?
Michael Gove
I take funding for 16 to 18-year-olds seriously. That is why I am delighted that the London Academy of Excellence in east London, which was visited and indeed praised by the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent Central, has helped to ensure that children in a part of east London who did not always have access to a high-quality academic education now enjoy it. Of course, my door is always open to the Association of Colleges and others to ensure that the great work that sixth-form colleges and that sixth-formers throughout the country do remains supported properly.
Dr Thérèse Coffey (Suffolk Coastal) (Con)
My right hon. Friend will be aware of Churchill free school in Haverhill, which makes provision for children with autism. I hope that the application in Ipswich will be similarly successful. He will be aware of the school in Saxmundham that was requested by parents and opened by the Seckford Foundation, because unfortunately the alternative was a school that was rated “inadequate”. Is it not right that free schools give parents and children a real educational opportunity at a time they desperately need it?
Michael Gove
My hon. Friend makes a good point. Free schools are providing parents with choice, not just in mainstream education but in ensuring high-quality provision for children with special educational needs. I am delighted that the Seckford Foundation is one of a number of charitable organisations seeking to augment the public money that comes to the taxpayer to improve our educational system.
Mr Rob Wilson (Reading East) (Con)
The previous Labour Government’s overspending and my local education authority’s failure to plan ahead meant that Reading was left in 2010 with huge pressure on places. I thank the Secretary of State for the millions of pounds poured into extending existing primary schools, as well as three new free schools and a new Reading university technical college. The new schools are providing new opportunities and raising standards across the area. Should we not all welcome choice and diversity as part of driving up standards and delivering long-term success in the education system?
Michael Gove
My hon. Friend makes a very good point. We have increased the amount available for new primary school places in Reading from £8.3 million under the previous Government to £34.7 million under this Government. He also gives me the opportunity to say that in addition to the new school provision offered by free schools, university technical colleges are providing parents with high-quality options and choice at the age of 14. Let me take this opportunity to thank Lord Adonis and Lord Baker for the leadership they have shown at the head of the university technical college programme.
Mr Philip Hollobone (Kettering) (Con)
May I thank the Secretary of State for his role in securing the provision of an extra 2,660 primary school places in Northamptonshire since 2010 and congratulate him on securing the funding massively to increase this programme so that an additional 4,490 primary school places will be provided by 2016?
Michael Gove
I am grateful to my hon. Friend. He, like me, is a hawk on public expenditure, but by making savings elsewhere we can invest more in primary school places where they are needed. He is right that investment in primary school places in Northamptonshire has increased: it was £29 million under the previous Government and in the equivalent period under this Government it has gone up to £55 million.
Point of Order
Stephen Pound (Ealing North) (Lab)
On a point of order, Mr Speaker. May I ask your indulgence and advice on how I might correct what I am sure was an unintentional calumny by the Secretary of State when he referred in passing to my support for a free school in my constituency? I wish to assure the House that my support for William Perkin school is predicated entirely on my respect for the teachers, staff and pupils and not on a loathsome system that diverts resources from those in need.
Mr Speaker
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman who has, I think, found his own salvation, as he knows and as the House will detect. He expresses himself with the force and alacrity with which he has been associated in the Chamber these past 17 years.
Business without Debate
Care Bill [Lords]
Mr Speaker
There has been a late change of heart, not on my part but on the part of those on the Treasury Bench. I have selected amendments (a) to (c) to Lords amendments 40B and 40C. I understand that Ministers have grouped for one debate all five sets of propositions from the Lords, meaning that there will be one single debate. It will be held in formal terms on the motion to be moved now by the Minister in relation to Lords amendments 11B and 11C in lieu of the words left out of the Bill by this House’s amendment 11.
Criminal Justice and Courts Bill (Programme) No. 2
Proceedings | Time for conclusion of proceedings |
|---|---|
First day | |
New Clauses and new Schedules relating to any of the following: (a) driving offences; (b) determination of the minimum term in relation to mandatory life sentences; (c) committal of young offenders to the Crown Court for sentence. | 7.00 pm |
New Clauses and new Schedules relating to any of the following: (a) treatment, release and recall of prisoners; (b) adult cautions; (c) offences of sexual grooming of children or abduction of children; (d) Armed Forces; amendments to Part 1. | 8.30 pm |
New Clauses and new Schedules relating to any of the following: (a) detention of young offenders; (b) youth cautions; (c) referral orders; amendments to Part 2; New Clauses and new Schedules relating to any of the following: (a) trial in magistrates’ courts on the papers; (b) charging offenders in respect of costs of criminal courts; (c) collection of fines; (d) appeals in civil proceedings, other than judicial review and challenges to planning-related decisions; (e) wasted costs in civil proceedings; (f) contempt of court; (g) juries and members of the Court Martial; amendments to Part 3. | 10.00 pm |
Second day | |
New Clauses and new Schedules relating to judicial review and challenges to planning-related decisions; amendments to Part 4. | Two hours after commencement of proceedings on Consideration |
New Clauses and new Schedules relating to offences of possessing or using offensive weapons; remaining new Clauses and new Schedules; amendments to Part 5; remaining proceedings on Consideration. | One hour before the moment of interruption |
Criminal Justice and Courts Bill
(10 years, 7 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
18:44 - The House divided: - Ayes: 196 / Noes: 291 - Question accordingly negatived.
20:30 - The House divided: - Ayes: 6 / Noes: 469 - Question accordingly negatived.
20:47 - The House divided: - Ayes: 195 / Noes: 277 - Question accordingly negatived.
21:59 - The House divided: - Ayes: 196 / Noes: 295 - Question accordingly negatived.
“RTA section 3ZC | Causing death by driving: disqualified drivers | On indictment | 10 years or a fine or both | Obligatory | Obligatory | 3-11 |
RTA section 3ZD | Causing serious injury by driving: disqualified drivers | (a) Summarily | (a) On conviction in England and Wales: 12 months or a fine or both. On conviction in Scotland: 12 months or the statutory maximum or both. | Obligatory | Obligatory | 3-11”. |
(b) On indictment | (b) 4 years or a fine or both |
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Jeremy Wright)
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Mrs Eleanor Laing)
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
New clause 22—Penalty for driving while disqualified—
‘(1) In Part 1 of Schedule 2 to the Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988 (prosecution and punishment of offences under the Traffic Acts) in the entry relating to the offence of obtaining licence, or driving, while disqualified, section 103(1)(b) of the Road Traffic Act 1988—
(a) in column 3 leave out “6 months” and insert “12 months”;
(b) in column 2 below “(c) On indictment, in Scotland”, insert “(d) On indictment, in England and Wales”; and
(c) in column 3 below “(c) 12 months or a fine or both” insert “(d) 2 years or a fine or both”.
(2) In relation to an offence committed before section 154(1) of the Criminal Justice Act 2003 comes into force, the reference to 12 months is to be read as reference to six months.
(3) The amendment made by this section applies only in relation to an offence committed on or after the day on which it comes into force.’.
Makes the offence of driving while disqualified triable either way, with a maximum penalty of 2 years’ imprisonment for conviction on indictment.
Government new schedule 2—‘Offences committed by disqualified drivers: further amendments.
Amendment 9, in clause 28, page 26, line 31, at end insert—
‘(c) a submission from the DVLA to inform the court of any penalty points endorsed on the driver’s record.’.
Amendment 8, page 26, line 35, at end insert—
‘(3A) For cases involving driving offences, where the accused has 12 or more penalty points currently on their drivers’ record, any exceptional hardship plea previously made by the accused must be disclosed to the court.’.
Government amendment 7.
Government new clause 10—Term of imprisonment for murder of a police or prison officer.
Government new clause 11—Committal for sentence of young offenders convicted of certain serious offences.
Jeremy Wright
Over a period of months, we have listened to concerns raised by the families of victims and hon. Members acting on their behalf about disqualified drivers. They have said that the current maximum penalty of two years’ imprisonment for causing death by driving when disqualified does not adequately reflect the tragic consequences of the offending. I am particularly grateful to, among others, my hon. Friends the Members for Gloucester (Richard Graham), for Gillingham and Rainham (Rehman Chishti), and for Kingswood (Chris Skidmore) for keeping the issue firmly on the agenda. In our view, disqualified drivers who flout court bans, continue to drive badly and cause death should be treated far more seriously by the courts than they are at present, and I am pleased to say that new clause 14 and new schedule 2 will effect that change.
We should also concern ourselves with disqualified drivers who cause serious injury. It is, after all, often a matter of chance whether the victim lives or dies. If there is no evidence that the offender was driving dangerously, the most with which he or she can be charged under the current law is driving while disqualified, which incurs a maximum penalty of six months’ imprisonment. That is plainly inadequate. It does not reflect some of the horrific and life-changing injuries that can be suffered by road traffic victims, or the terrible toll that this can take on their families. That is why we are also introducing a new offence of causing serious injury by disqualified driving, which will incur a maximum penalty of four years’ imprisonment.
We thought carefully about whether these changes should apply to unlicensed and uninsured drivers as well. We decided to limit the changes to disqualified drivers, because we think that they have a higher level of culpability than other illegal drivers. A driving ban would only be imposed on an offender following the commission of a series of motoring offences or a single serious offence. If such an offender flouts a ban imposed by the court, continues to drive badly and causes a death or serious injury, it is right that he should feel the full force of our proposed new provisions.
Keith Vaz (Leicester East) (Lab)
One of the areas that cause me concern is to do with drivers from other EU countries who may have been banned or disqualified in those countries but who come here and are allowed to drive in the United Kingdom. Is there anything in the Government proposals to stop them doing that?
Jeremy Wright
I entirely understand the right hon. Gentleman’s concern and I will come on to talk about the proposal we have for a wider review of sentencing in driving cases. He may well wish to make further submissions on the points he has made for inclusion in that review. A number of issues have already been raised which we think can sensibly be discussed in the course of that review, and I am sure there are some yet to be raised.
Susan Elan Jones (Clwyd South) (Lab)
Can the Minister explain why being unlicensed was not included in this proposal? If one is unlicensed, one undoubtedly knows one is unlicensed, so why were such people taken out of this?
Jeremy Wright
I appreciate that this is a matter of judgment in all cases, but the distinction we have made is between those who have been disqualified by a court—in other words, they are subject to a court order—and have none the less gone on to drive, and those who are driving unlicensed, and, as the hon. Lady says, doing so knowingly, but not as a consequence of a court’s decision. That is the distinction we make, but I know she takes a considerable interest in driving offences and their consequences, and I am sure she will wish to engage with the review we will begin.
Dr Julian Huppert (Cambridge) (LD)
The Minister will be aware of the Road Justice campaign by the CTC and others. I and they very much welcome this review. Will he give us an idea of the time scale of the review and when we can expect the conclusions, because many of us would like to feed into them?
Jeremy Wright
We hope to conduct the review over the next few months and I hope that will give my hon. Friend and others the opportunity to contribute to it, but let me just finish what I am saying in relation to the specific proposals in new clause 14. I hope the House will agree that there is a need for these proposals. First and foremost the measures should give families of victims a greater sense that justice has been done. More generally, tougher sentences for convicted offenders should improve public confidence in the justice system. Amendment 7 changes the long title of the Bill to include driving. I commend these provisions to the House.
I know that Members might like to see reform of other aspects of the road offence framework. Some have already been mentioned in the course of this debate. Indeed, new clause 22 seeks to make the offence of driving while disqualified an either-way offence and increase its maximum penalty; and we have, as I have indicated, been giving serious consideration to all representations made on this subject, not least from my hon. Friend the Member for Gillingham and Rainham, who has a ten-minute rule Bill on repeat offences of driving while disqualified. He and others rightly hold strong views and we are committed to ensuring that maximum penalties reflect the seriousness and culpability of offending behaviour. That is why, as we have already mentioned today and as the Justice Secretary made clear in his announcement on 6 May, the Government are committed to carrying out a wider review of the road traffic sentencing framework over the next few months. We are in discussion with the Department for Transport and other interested Departments about the details. We will make a further announcement about the scope of the review in due course.
Mr Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith) (Lab)
Could the Minister give us a sense of how this would fit with the legislative timetable? If primary changes are needed as a result of the review, will there definitely be a Bill to do that?
Jeremy Wright
Unless the hon. Gentleman is going to contradict me and vote accordingly, there is broad support for what we have set out in new clause 14, which is a self-contained measure that we do not think will have ramifications across the rest of the sentencing system. That is not true of some of the other changes that Members on both sides of the House may wish to make. As I have said, we have reached no pre-conclusions as to what should or should not be included in a review. However, we think it sensible to make sure that if we are to have a wholesale look at driving offences—which, unless the hon. Member for Hammersmith (Mr Slaughter) is going to contradict me, there is considerable support for across the House—we should do it in a considered way. We are not talking about years for that to happen, but months.
Rehman Chishti (Gillingham and Rainham) (Con)
I thank my hon. Friend and his Department for listening to the victims of crime on the question of increasing sentences for those who commit the offence of killing people on our roads by driving while disqualified. On repeat offenders and the Bill that I introduced, I thank my hon. Friend for including such a provision in the review. However, does he agree that there is no one way of dealing with repeat offenders? Whether they are dealt with through a magistrates court, through an increased sentence in a criminal court, as I have suggested, or by making the offence an either-way offence, as the Opposition have suggested, the right approach is to carry out a comprehensive review, because there is no one way of dealing with the issue.
Jeremy Wright
I agree with my hon. Friend that it is important to review all the options. He has already made a powerful case for his preferred option in dealing with repeat offences of driving while disqualified, and I know he will continue to do so. I hope the review will give him and others the opportunity to make the case they wish to make. In view of that, I hope the hon. Member for Hammersmith will consider whether it is necessary to press his new clause to a vote.
Amendment 8 relates to cases where a defendant being tried under the single justice procedure has 12 or more penalty points on their record. Subsection (3) of proposed new section 16A of the Magistrates’ Court Act 1980, introduced by clause 28 of the Bill, specifies that a decision under the new single justice procedure must be made “in reliance only” on the documents sent to the accused, along with “any written submission” provided that aims to mitigate the sentence imposed. Under amendment 8, a defendant would additionally have to include in any written submission details of previous exceptional hardship pleas they had made to the court. I know the hon. Member for Bolton West (Julie Hilling) will make her case for the amendment in due course, but I presume that the intention is that the single justice procedure should be able to take that into account when considering any further submissions from the defendant requesting mitigation of their sentence.
The Government share Members’ concerns about drivers who continue to drive when accumulating penalty points that would normally result in disqualification. As I have said, we will conduct a review of the wider sentencing framework for driving offences, and as I said to the hon. Lady during Justice questions last week, it may well be that there is a strong case for the inclusion of such a measure.
James Duddridge (Rochford and Southend East) (Con)
My hon. Friend knows that I am very much in favour of making newly qualified drivers carry a probationary plate on their cars for two years to indicate that they might be a greater risk. Will he consider requiring disqualified drivers who re-qualify to have that probationary plate, partly as a punishment but partly to highlight the potential risk to others?
Jeremy Wright
My hon. Friend makes an interesting point. He has a good record of campaigning on these issues, in which he takes considerable interest and has significant expertise, and we will certainly consider what he said. The review will allow new ideas such as his to be considered in the context of the sentencing framework.
Robert Neill (Bromley and Chislehurst) (Con)
I agree with my hon. Friend that the development of the arguments we have heard in respect of other clauses reinforces the need for a more comprehensive look at the issue. In the light of the reassurance he has given to my hon. Friend the Member for Rochford and Southend East (James Duddridge), will he also ensure that the review looks not only at the basic sentencing powers but at the operation of the penalty points system, which we know is complex and sometimes itself creates incongruities?
Jeremy Wright
I think I am in danger of conducting the review this afternoon, but I agree with my hon. Friend, and all these things are worth considering for inclusion in the review. I simply sound this note of caution: if we review everything, we will exceed the proposed time scale and perhaps not deal with the concerns raised earlier by my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge (Dr Huppert). None the less, I am sure that there is a great deal that can sensibly be considered.
I return to amendment 8 and point out that proposed new section 16C of our provisions already provides for cases in which the single justice proposes to disqualify a driver. The single justice must give the accused an opportunity to make representations about the proposed disqualification. If the offender fails to take up the opportunity to make representations, they may be disqualified in their absence. That is, of course, no different from what may occur under the magistrates court process. At present, offenders are disqualified in their absence when, having been warned about the purpose of the hearing, they do not attend court. When the defendant wishes to make representations, however, and that would include representations about exceptional hardship, the single justice must issue a summons to the defendant requiring them to appear at a traditional magistrates court. Any exceptional hardship plea may therefore be dealt with in open court, and the court would have the opportunity to investigate the defendant’s driving history. The Bill therefore already makes appropriate provision for the situation that the hon. Member for Bolton West is concerned about.
Julie Hilling (Bolton West) (Lab)
Does the Minister not accept that magistrates are not told why people have already cited exceptional circumstances? The magistrate has no idea what previous plea of exceptional circumstance was given. My amendment is about that issue, so that magistrates are made aware.
Jeremy Wright
The hon. Lady has just made a wider point than would apply simply to the single justice procedure. The point we are addressing in relation to her amendment is that there should be no significant disadvantage for those who are dealt with under the single justice procedure; nor should there be any disadvantage to the court under that procedure in ascertaining the facts of the case. If someone were wanting to assert particular hardship, which might exclude the possibility of disqualification, they would need to come to court and do it themselves. The court should then do the necessary investigations. However, I take her point and will consider carefully whether there are improvements that we can make to more general procedures.
Amendment 9 is also related to the single justice procedure. It would introduce a new requirement that the documents sent to the defendant with the single justice procedure notice should include a submission from the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency to the court informing the court of any penalty points on the defendant’s driver record. I agree that up-to-date DVLA information is important when deciding the sentence for such offences. The House is aware that that very issue was raised in Committee, and as the Under-Secretary of State for Justice, my hon. Friend the Member for North West Cambridgeshire (Mr Vara), made clear, our intention then was to consider the point further.
Under the existing procedure, when dealing with an offender in their absence, courts are able to check the DVLA position when sentencing for certain road traffic offences—we have discussed that point and, as I said, I accept that it is important that they are able to do the same under the new procedure. We need to ensure that the legislation allows for that in cases dealt with under the new single justice procedure as well. As I said, we have undertaken to look at the matter, and it is still under consideration. We will ensure the necessary consideration. On that basis, I hope that the hon. Member for Bolton West and her colleague the hon. Member for Wythenshawe and Sale East (Mike Kane), whom I do not see here, will be satisfied.
New clause 10 makes an amendment to schedule 21 to the Criminal Justice Act 2003, which provides guidance to the courts in assessing the seriousness of all cases of murder in order to determine the appropriate minimum term to be imposed under the mandatory life sentence. The amendment would raise the starting point for offenders aged 21 and over from 30 years to a whole life order for the murder of a police or prison officer in the course of his or her duty.
I do not need to remind the House of the vital role that those officers play every day in keeping our communities safe and in managing difficult and dangerous offenders. Tragically, some officers have paid the ultimate price while carrying out these duties on our behalf. The Government consider it essential that those officers feel the full weight of the state behind them in the execution of their duties. Changing the starting point to a whole life order for those who murder police and prison officers will send a powerful message of support for the work that those vital public servants do. It will show that we place the highest value on their safety and that we recognise the dangerous job they perform on a daily basis.
Those officers can be distinguished from other public servants by the role they perform in terms of routine contact with dangerous offenders. Their daily duties and risks mean that they stand apart from others. That unique and important status should be recognised, and those who murder police or prison officers on duty should know that they face the most severe sentence possible under the law. I should make it clear that the change in the law does not necessarily mean that a whole life order will be imposed in every case involving the murder of a police or prison officer in the course of duty. The court must always have the discretion to impose the appropriate sentence based on all the facts of each case, but offenders should be in no doubt that they face the severest consequences for such murders. I therefore hope that the House will support the new clause.
Finally, new clause 11 is designed to close a gap in the sentencing power of criminal courts that could prevent an adequate sentence being imposed where it turns out that the offending is more serious than it appeared when the case was initially accepted by the youth court. We believe the gap might tend to undermine efforts to encourage youth courts to try grave crimes in suitable cases and might restrict sentencing powers unduly. The category of offences that includes cases such as those that involve allegations of serious sexual offending against under-18s, for example—also known as grave crimes—are serious enough to be capable of being sent to the Crown court for trial, but not all of them necessarily require the highest sentencing powers of the Crown court. It might be possible to deal with some of them satisfactorily using sentencing options available in the youth court, and if so there is an advantage in retaining them in the youth court. The youth court is particularly attuned to inquiries into the alleged activities of children, and serious sexual offences can be tried there by authorised district judges who have been specially trained to deal with them.
A defendant under 18 charged with such an offence is invited to indicate a plea, and when a guilty plea is indicated the youth court may commit him or her to the Crown court for sentence where appropriate. On the other hand, if the indication is not guilty and the youth court decides to retain the case and tries and convicts the defendant, there is no general power to commit the offender to the Crown court for sentence. That means that if information emerges during the trial that suggests that a more severe sentence is appropriate, the youth court will simply have to make do with its own sentencing powers. The only exception is when the conditions for imposing an extended determinate sentence are met, but they are stringent. That is at odds with the position for adults, where there is a general power to commit cases to the Crown court for sentence, not merely after a guilty plea.
It is possible that the absence of a safety net allowing for committal for sentence leads youth courts to be unnecessarily cautious in deciding whether to retain grave sexual crimes. A provision permitting committal to the Crown court for sentence whenever a defendant is convicted of a grave crime in the youth court, as is already possible after a guilty plea indication, might encourage the youth court to retain more cases and ensure adequate sentencing powers are available in every case. I hope that the House will therefore support new clause 11.
Mr Slaughter
We are grateful to the Government for accommodating the topics we want to discuss today and for the overall allocation of time on Report. We do not hear that very often, but it is in part a result of Report running over two days—or at least a day and a half—as a consequence of this being a carry-over Bill.
We anticipate that there will be about 10 hours of debate, including Third Reading, and curiously only half the time will be spent on the Bill as it left Committee. Today, we have three hours on parts 1 to 3 and on day two we will have two hours on the important and controversial part 4, which attacks the legal and financial basis of judicial review claims. The rest of the time is for new projects proposed by the Lord Chancellor or by his Back Benchers with his support. He has a common but unwelcome habit of shoehorning new laws into Bills at every stage of their progress through both Houses. A cynic would say that he does so simply to provide another hit with the tabloids or to introduce a stick to beat his coalition partners with. It is certainly a poor way to legislate, and he has surpassed himself by tabling new clauses on driving offences that require him to amend the long title of the Bill through Government amendment 7—I do not think the Minister mentioned that amendment, but I apologise if he did.
Neither the new clauses on driving in the first group for discussion today nor those on offences of possessing offensive weapons have taken the Government by surprise. There was a full debate in the Chamber on the subject of dangerous driving in Back-Bench time on 27 January and, famously, the issue of carrying knives featured in the Tory manifesto.
Jeremy Wright
The hon. Gentleman knows that I hold him in high regard and affection, but he has accused me of rushing into new clause 14. Now he is telling me that it did not catch me by surprise and I should have done it earlier.
Mr Slaughter
If the Minister waits, all will become clear.
We do not quarrel with the seriousness of any of the matters under discussion on Report. My hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley Central (Dan Jarvis) will raise our concerns about offences against armed forces personnel—matters that we, unlike the Government, flagged up in Committee. This is a sloppy way of making law and nowhere was that more clear than with last week’s announcement that new offences and new sentences for existing offences on some driving matters would be tabled today. At the same time, as the Minister has conceded, the Secretary of State announced that a full review of all driving offences and penalties would be carried out over the next few months.
Let us pause there for a moment. If the Government are reviewing all offences over the next few months, why do they need to change the law for one offence and introduce a brand-new offence in the Bill? I suspect that my curiosity is shared by the Minister, who replied to the debate on 27 January. We heard nine compelling and moving speeches on that day from Members on both sides of the House explaining how their constituents had been victims of dangerous, careless, drunken or disqualified drivers but how the culprits had escaped with what appeared to be lenient penalties. He carefully and courteously, as is his wont, lowered expectations, saying:
“Having emerged blinking into the daylight from the usual channels into my current job, I know better than to commit parliamentary time for any purpose”.
He added sagely:
“It is important for us to consider these matters in the round, and to do so in a way that does not create discrepancies in the sentencing system.”—[Official Report, 27 January 2014; Vol. 574, c. 731.]
Four months later, time has been found to do exactly what the Minister warned against.
The Minister might ask whether that matters if we are moving in the right direction. The groundswell of opinion expressed in that debate and outside the House is that the two-year maximum sentence for causing death by disqualified driving is inadequate, as it leads to an average sentence of about nine months in custody. We agree and we will not oppose the new clause, but is 10 years the correct figure? It is double the maximum for causing death by careless driving, arguably a more serious offence as the quality of driving is an issue. Equally, it seems anomalous to create an offence of causing serious injury by disqualified driving when no equivalent is proposed of causing serious injury by careless driving or even causing serious injury by careless driving while under the influence of drink and drugs—an offence with a maximum sentence of 14 years when it causes death.
Why has causing death by disqualified driving been singled out? As the Minister said, the current offence brackets causing disqualified driving with driving without insurance and driving without a licence. Will causing death by driving in those two circumstances remain punishable with a two-year maximum sentence? I am afraid that this bears all the hallmarks of the Secretary of State’s penchant for plucking new offences out of the air and pushing them forward to show what a tough guy he is. There were only 13 convictions in the last year for which figures are available for all offences of causing death while disqualified, uninsured or without a licence. How many cases will the change in the law affect?
Perhaps the Secretary of State will say that the change is intended as a deterrent to others, but how many disqualified drivers will be put off by the thought that they might kill or cause serious injury? There is no evidence of careless or dangerous driving in their cases, because they would then be charged with those offences. That brings me to new clause 22, tabled in my name and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley Central, which we believe is a more effective way of tackling the problem that the Secretary of State and the Minister have rightly identified.
More than 7,000 people were convicted of driving while disqualified in 2012, a substantial reduction since 10 years previously but still a great number of people who wilfully defied an order of the court and carried on driving while banned. Our answer is to make the offence of driving while disqualified triable either way, with a maximum penalty of two years’ imprisonment for conviction on indictment, which the Magistrates Association has been calling for for some time. Currently, the maximum penalty for driving while disqualified is six months and it is a summary only offence. Although that might be sufficient for a first or even second-time offender, it does not address the minority of recidivist offenders who have multiple disqualifications on their record and carry on driving oblivious to the courts.
Robert Neill
I understand the point the hon. Gentleman is making, although I do not totally agree with it. Limiting the penalty to two years might reflect some aggravation that arises in instances of disqualified driving which give rise to injury. Does he not concede, however, that even if we allow for aggravation in respect of sentencing, a two-year sentence probably would not be enough to reflect justice for an injury that might be life-changing but which stops short of involving the offence of causing death by dangerous driving? The person’s life would be ruined for keeps, which would not be captured adequately by a two-year sentence, as under his proposal—four years might be nearer the mark.
Mr Slaughter
I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman’s comments, but he is misunderstanding me slightly. We do not oppose new clause 14. I would wish to have seen it remain part of the review, because of the arguments I have put forward about the substantial overlap with a number of other offences, most of which were introduced by the previous Labour Government in a previous review—I think we are all agreed that that was necessary. We do not disagree that a review is needed now, but our new offence is of a different type and serves a different and, we say, a more effective purpose in discouraging drivers who are tempted to drive while disqualified. What the Government are doing—it may be right, but let us see it “in the round”, as the Minister would say—is looking at the more serious offences, where there has to be a balance between the nature of the offence and the maximum penalty.
Rehman Chishti
I agree entirely with the hon. Gentleman that the six-month sentence for repeat offenders who drive while disqualified is completely wrong, and I put that view forward in a private Member’s Bill in December. There was a reason why driving while disqualified was moved away from being an “either way” offence to being a summary offence: these cases may have taken up a lot of court time. Does he agree that a way to overcome that is to have the matter tried and dealt with at the magistrates court, and for the magistrate to have the discretion to refer repeat offences to the Crown court for a sentence of up to two years? That would deal with the problem. If those repeat offenders are not dealt with at an early stage, we should not then say, “Tough sentence at the end”; they can be dealt with at the lower end.
Mr Slaughter
I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman needs to make a speech now. I do not disagree with him—there is a strong measure of agreement here—but he is proposing a complicated resolution whereas we are proposing something more straightforward. It will certainly be a help if the Government get their act together and implement the part of the 2003 Act which will allow magistrates to sentence for 12 months for a single offence, although we still think that that is insufficient for this offence. If repeat offenders plead guilty and are released at the halfway point of sentence, they are likely to serve no more than eight weeks, however many times they have previously been disqualified. Tougher sentences for this offence will act as a deterrent, warning others that driving while disqualified is unacceptable; stamping out driving while disqualified before death or serious injury is caused is Labour’s priority.
A two-year maximum sentence for those serial offenders means that they can expect to spend up to four times longer in prison than is the case now—and of course they would be off the road for all that time. There should not be much difference between the parties on these issues. As I say, we do not oppose the Secretary of State’s new clause 14, despite our reservations, but we would like the Government to support our new clause 22. If they do not, we will put it to a vote of the House; unless the Secretary of State can give me some assurance that they will either support that or at least push those views forward in the review he is doing, we would wish to vote on that matter.
Rehman Chishti
I am listening to what the hon. Gentleman is saying. He said that what I put forward in a private Member’s Bill is complicated. How is it complicated, given that we both agree about repeat offenders? In 2012, 42% of the 7,000 who were sentenced were repeat offenders, with 23% having offended more than three times. It is repeat offenders who pose the risk and who are likely to get two years. Why can we not trust the magistrates to deal with this and then send it to the Crown court? That would stop the Crown court being clogged up. Let us trust the magistrates.
Mr Slaughter
With respect, I do not think the Crown court is going to be clogged up. We are talking about different ways of skinning the same cat, so if we do go to a vote, I look forward to the hon. Gentleman joining us in the Lobby.
Let me briefly deal with the other matters in this group. I commend the amendments standing in the names of my hon. Friends the Members for Bolton West (Julie Hilling) and for Wythenshawe and Sale East (Mike Kane). They were discussed in Committee—the Opposition are very disciplined about these matters—and I remain hopeful that the Government will see fit to accept them at some stage. They deal with the egregious issue of multiple offenders escaping “totting up” bans because the courts either do not have the requisite information from the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency in front of them or are, unknown to them, being told the same sob story for the fourth or fifth time. As a result, there are still people driving with two or three times the 12 points that should have seen them banned. There is no connection between those matters and new clauses 10 and 11. Both deal with serious matters, but it is puzzling that, once again, they have been shoehorned into the Bill at this stage. However, let me deal with them briefly.
The murder of a police officer is a heinous crime, and 13 police officers have been killed in the line of duty since 2000. The courts already take their sentencing powers very seriously, and the starting point for this is 30 years. The killers of Sharon Beshenivsky received 35 years each, the murderer of PC Ian Broadhurst received 37 years and the murderer of PCs Fiona Bone and Nicola Hughes received a whole life sentence. The courts are already effectively exerting these powers, but we have no objection to the clarification, if I may put it that way, that the Government wish to introduce, particularly, as the Minister has said, as judicial discretion will remain in these cases. Thankfully, this proposal is not going to affect many cases, but it deals with the most serious crimes that are committed.
Finally, new clause 11 is a sensible tidying measure. As the Minister says, it already applies to adult offences, so, although I am always puzzled to read the headlines in The Daily Telegraph, I was particularly puzzled to see a headline where the Secretary of State was saying, “We will toughen sentences for youth crime”. The new clause is sensible and we support it, but it is about giving more discretion to magistrates. It is about empowering magistrates courts to try cases where they might previously have felt that they had to second-guess the decision and commit the case to the Crown court; it is not about inflicting additional burdens on the Crown court, and I just wish the Government would not spin at every opportunity.
We have a good degree of consensus on this part of the debate and it would perhaps be complete consensus if the Government see reason and adopt our new clause 22. I know that the hon. Member for Gillingham and Rainham (Rehman Chishti) will agree with us, because his private Member’s Bill proposes much the same thing, but so would the Secretary of State, were he to grace us with his presence, because he has said:
“I want to make our roads safer and ensure people who cause harm face tough penalties. Disqualified drivers should not be on our roads for good reason. Those who chose to defy a ban imposed by a court and go on to destroy innocent lives must face serious consequences for the terrible impact of their actions.”
Let us take action against disqualified drivers at an early stage. I urge the Government to support new clause 22.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Mrs Eleanor Laing)
I call Robin Walker. Sorry, I mean Chris Skidmore. I beg the hon. Gentleman’s pardon.
Chris Skidmore (Kingswood) (Con)
You would not be the first person to make that genuine mistake, Madam Deputy Speaker. I entirely forgive you for it, and thank you ever so much for calling me.
I rise to speak in support of new clause 14, and I thank the Minister and the Department for including it in the Bill. It seems like only yesterday when, on 27 January 2013, I received a telephone call and discovered that two of my constituents, Ross and Clare Simons, had been killed that evening while riding a tandem bike down Lower Hanham road in Kingswood. They had been struck by a driver who had been driving, in a police chase, at 70 mph in a 30 mph zone. Obviously, this was devastating for all the families, and when I went to the vigil a week later, I said to Ross’s father, Edwin Simons, that I would do everything in my power as the local Member of Parliament to stand up for the families and for victims. That is what this clause is about: making sure we send out a message that it is unacceptable to cause death by driving while disqualified. For people watching this debate it is simply common sense to say that people who kill through driving while disqualified should never have been in the car in the first place. People wondering why the law has never been toughened up will see that it makes perfect sense to introduce this new clause.
After that fateful day on 27 January 2013, I set up, with the families, the petition “Justice for Ross and Clare”, which called for far tougher penalties for disqualified drivers, especially those who kill by dangerous driving. The perpetrator, Nicholas Lovell, who went to jail, had 69 previous convictions, 11 of which were for driving offences, and he had been disqualified four times. We can only imagine the families’ grief when they found out in court that this person had not only taken away these innocent young lives but done so while he was disqualified. For more than a decade and a half, he had shown a complete disregard for the law.
Our petition gathered 15,000 signatures, and we took it to No.10 Downing street. As part of the campaign, I led the Backbench Business debate on 27 January 2014, which the hon. Member for Hammersmith (Mr Slaughter) mentioned, and 30 Members took part. It was clear then, and a testament to the power of Backbench Business debates, that we had cross-party consensus for changing the law. I also pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Gillingham and Rainham (Rehman Chishti) for introducing a ten-minute rule Bill on the matter. I am glad that this discussion is taking place today.
Karl Turner (Kingston upon Hull East) (Lab)
I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on the work that he has done in relation to this matter. Does he agree that what we should be doing is punishing people who drive while disqualified per se? The higher-end penalty should be for driving while disqualified. The maximum two years, as I think it is now, should be increased, so that we might avoid at a later stage the terrible incident of death while driving disqualified.
Chris Skidmore
The important thing to recognise in new clause 14 is that it sends out a message and hope for future legislation. When I first began the campaign, many families were fairly sceptical that there would be any change, particularly this side of the general election. There was a concern that politicians would sit on their hands and not do anything. By passing this new clause we would be opening up future debate. I have great sympathy with new clause 22, but I have not had the time to study the implications of it in detail. If that could be part of the overall review that is taking place, I would absolutely welcome that.
When considering this review, I want to make a pitch for the families of Ross and Clare Simons that we look again at causing death by dangerous driving while disqualified. At the moment, the crime is just death by driving. Nicholas Lovell, who killed Ross and Clare Simons, was given the maximum sentence of 14 years—it is one of the only times that such a sentence has been delivered by the judge. As Lovell pleaded guilty, he was given 10 years and six months. The judge at the time said that had he the legal power, he would have given out a far tougher sentence. He gave the maximum, but he recognised that, because Lovell had been disqualified, there should have been an additional aggravating factor, or that an additional maximum tariff should have been added to the sentence. I would therefore welcome the review looking at death by dangerous driving while disqualified and upping that sentence.
Karl Turner
What the hon. Gentleman is saying, in my respectful submission, is that the judiciary and the courts should have more discretion over sentencing. New clause 22 does just that, does it not?
Chris Skidmore
We need to look again at the maximum tariff for causing death by dangerous driving while disqualified. The judge at the time wished for that power. I do not know the precise implications, which is why we need a review in the round. We need uniformity across the piece. One thing I realised from the Backbench Business debate was that I was not alone; the families were not alone. We heard about some of the awfully brief sentences that had been handed out, and the unequal nature of those sentences. It is very hard for a grieving family to find out that, in what seems to be an almost identical case, the sentence handed out in one area is entirely different from that handed out in another area. I would like to ensure that we put in place a rigid framework. Obviously, judges should have discretion as well, but victims need to understand—I am not a lawyer and I struggle at times to follow the complicated processes of the law—that if someone is disqualified, they should not be in a car in the first place; that is common sense. Nicholas Lovell should never have been in that car when he ploughed into Ross and Clare Simons’s tandem. It is for those families that new clause 14 has been introduced. For me and for the local families, it is Ross and Clare’s law.
Julie Hilling
I wish to talk specifically to amendments 8 and 9 that are in my name and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Wythenshawe and Sale East (Mike Kane). There is something very strange happening with driving penalties. The law says that a driver should be banned if they receive 12 points on their licence, unless they would face exceptional hardship. It also says that the same plea for exceptional hardship should be used only once. I would not be surprised if there were a few people driving legally with 15 points, but I would not expect there to be 8,000 people frequently driving with many more points. I would not expect a person in Liverpool to be driving with 47 points on their licence, or a woman in Bolton to be driving with 27 points on her licence. I wonder how many pleas of exceptional hardship they have made. I am not sure I could even think up that many pleas to put before the courts.
Exceptional hardship is not about losing one’s job, but it could be about losing one’s home or about other people losing their job. The terms of exceptional hardship are very narrow, so why did the Squeeze singer Chris Difford escape a driving ban after pleading that it would cause exceptional hardship as he would no longer be able to travel the country playing gigs? The 47-year-old earns up to £100,000 a year performing around the country and was caught doing 88 mph on a 70 mph road.
The son of Tony Christie, famous for his song “Is this the way to Amarillo” claimed exceptional hardship because he would not be able to drive his dad to gigs after he totted up 25 points. The jockey Kieren Fallon escaped a driving ban after he claimed that it would cause exceptional hardship because the state of the racing industry was such that he could not afford a full-time driver. Premiership footballer Zak Whitbread, who admitted speeding at 97 mph with 17 points already on his licence, escaped a ban after saying that he would not be able to find another football job if he could not drive.
There are many other cases of people who have escaped bans. Not all of those 8,000 people are famous, but often they are rich enough to pay a good barrister to get them off. Alex Williams, the Tory candidate for Stretford and Urmston at the last general election, got off because he said that he would not be able to afford to pay his £2,000 a month mortgage if he could not drive. I do not understand why those people could not pay somebody to drive them around. They could have taken a taxi, train or bus like the rest of us.
As I have already said, drivers cannot use the same exceptional hardship plea each time they are taken to court, but there is no central record of which plea has been used. There is also no record of whether these drivers are involved in later accidents. If a driver can clock up 47, 27 or even just 15 points, they must have a disregard for the law and therefore pose a risk to other road users.
Mike Kane (Wythenshawe and Sale East) (Lab)
I congratulate my hon. Friend on her campaign in her constituency. When the points system was established, it was never intended that so many people would get away with so many sob stories, and that we would have so many thousands of people driving on our roads. Magistrates do not know, because the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency has not informed them, that sob stories are repeated and used time and again.
Julie Hilling
I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend. I remember the days of endorsements. We introduced the points system to give us more flexibility, but 12 points was regarded as the threshold for losing one’s licence. If more people are driving around with more than 12 points on their licence, it lessens the effect of the deterrent. It may lead people to think, “Perhaps I can get away with driving around with more than 12 points on my licence.” The whole threat of people losing their licence after 12 points, so therefore driving within the law, has been weakened.
Of course we need to tackle the sentencing of people convicted of causing death or serious injury by dangerous driving or driving while banned, but the whole issue of driving offences—and the way that cars can be used as weapons—needs to be addressed. We need drivers to realise, at every level of offence, that bad behaviour will be punished in order to make our roads safer. The Bolton News, my local daily paper, has been campaigning on this issue for some time. It ran a survey a while ago in which 83% of people agreed that 12 points should mean that drivers are banned. There is real support for that proposition.
We know that young people aged 15 to 24 are more likely to die in road accidents than as a result of any other single cause and, sadly, the number of deaths is increasing. Of course we need justice for those who have lost loved ones, but we also need deterrence. We have to take road safety and driver behaviour seriously, and do everything we can across the spectrum, from the point at which people start offending behaviour in a car to the final catastrophic effect of a terrible accident.
I have been trying to raise the issue of 12 points in various ways for several years, often with the support of Brake. Transport Ministers told me to speak to Justice Ministers, who told me to talk to the Sentencing Council, which told me to go back and speak to Transport Ministers. I am therefore relieved to have a place in which to raise this issue, although I accept—given what the Minister said—that the issue will not be solved in its entirety. I have spoken to magistrates and the Institute of Advanced Motorists about this very issue, and they are very concerned about it. The magistrates raised the issue of the difficulty of getting accurate information from the DVLA about the number of points that a driver has. Secondly, magistrates are concerned that there is no record of the pleas used. Although a driver cannot officially use the same plea of exceptional hardship, the magistrates have no way of knowing whether it has been used before. Thirdly, the magistrates worry about a lack of consistency. Different magistrates accept different pleas of exceptional hardship, so some drivers are allowed to keep their licence in some courts whereas others in other courts are not.
Mr Robert Buckland (South Swindon) (Con)
I am listening with great interest to the hon. Lady’s excellent speech, and I am very sympathetic to the important points that she makes. One other area she might want to consider is whether the police national computer, which records the previous convictions of everybody in England and Wales, should be enhanced so that exceptional circumstance pleas could be set out briefly in a document which would then be put before any court considering a fresh application.
Julie Hilling
The hon. Gentleman raises an interesting and important point. However we capture such information, it needs to be made available to magistrates, and that is an excellent suggestion.
I accept that the amendments would not solve all of the problems that I want to address of people driving with more than 12 points on their licences, of consistency of sentencing and of magistrates having the correct information. If the Minister will specifically commit to looking at the issue of 12 points and sentencing, I will not press my amendment to a vote.
Dr Huppert
It is a great pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Bolton West (Julie Hilling) who spoke so clearly on this issue. I agreed with much of what she said about this huge problem. It is astonishing how many people get off time after time. Some law firms even advertise their incredible success rates in achieving that, which we do not want to see.
There may be extenuating circumstances or special cases occasionally, but once someone has said they know they should be banned, and then makes a desperate plea, they should be more careful afterwards. It is not impossible to drive for quite a long time without breaking any rules or getting any points on your licence—some people have clean driving licences. Certainly if I had nine points, or even 12 points, I would try very hard indeed not to speed or drive dangerously. I hope that the Minister will listen carefully to the review.
I have a couple of pedantic points about the hon. Lady’s amendment, as I do not think it covers everything that it needs to. However, that is not the point for today. I hope that we can get the right changes that most of the House would want to see. I welcome the Government’s announcement of a review, and I hope that it will be a substantial review. I also hope that the Minister is successful in obtaining parliamentary time to ensure that the results of the review become law. A review will not solve the problem on its own.
I pay tribute to the work done by the CTC’s road justice campaign, which produced an excellent report called “Road Justice: the role of the police”—I know that the Minister has had some discussions with that organisation—which looked not only at the legal aspects, but at the role of the police and the prosecution. The law is not the only issue. Too often, especially when pedestrians or cyclists are the victims of collisions, the police do not investigate sufficiently to allow charges to be brought. In several cases, people have come to my surgery having been involved in a collision in which someone else behaved very dangerously and the police simply were not interested in doing the basic groundwork, such as taking photographs of the scene at the time. There is very little point us getting the law right if the police do not investigate and prosecutors do not take action. I know that the Minister is not responsible for the police, but I hope the review will look more broadly at the issue to ensure that its proposals will make a difference.
The campaign has had some 12,000 signatures, so we need some action in response. Some of the cases are astonishing. In one case, a gentleman had been drinking and smoking cannabis and then was speeding, with his girlfriend riding pillion, and crashed and killed a pedestrian. He had 45 previous traffic offences but apparently there was not enough evidence to charge him with causing death by dangerous driving, even though there was a clear cause of death—dangerous driving—and he had a long track record. He did get 18 months in jail, but the fact that prosecutors did not even feel able to bring a charge of death by dangerous driving is a problem.
Karl Turner
Prosecutions are made on whether there is enough evidence to bring the charge and, secondly, whether it is in the public interest. I do not mean to criticise the hon. Gentleman, but it may be a little unfair to say that a prosecution for dangerous driving should have been brought in that particular case. Perhaps there was good reason why it was not.
Dr Huppert
The hon. Gentleman is right: I have not been through all the court transcripts in that case. But it is not an isolated case. It is a similar story in literally hundreds of cases—we have heard some today and many others have been collected in various places. I am sure he is not trying to suggest that he would agree with the action taken in every one of those cases.
One problem—and having spoken with many people about this, I cannot see an easy resolution to it—is that juries are often not prepared to convict on offences that perhaps they should be. Prosecutors can have a tendency to low-ball the charge to ensure a conviction. I hope that the review will address that issue, because none of us want to see charges being brought that juries feel are simply too serious to convict.
Susan Elan Jones
Does the hon. Gentleman agree that we are also looking for a cultural change here? In the same way that the present generation does not talk about “having a drink for the road” as might have happened 30 or 40 years ago, we seek a cultural change in attitudes to the offences for which people should serve prison terms.
Dr Huppert
I think we have seen a cultural change. The sentencing aspect is a very small part of that, as I am sure the hon. Lady would agree. The success of the drink-driving law is not the number of people prosecuted: it is the number of people who do not drink and drive. We need a cultural change that suggests that dangerous behaviour, whether it is driving too fast or cutting people up, is simply not acceptable.
We are seeing other changes that are making driving safer, such as the introduction of 20 mph speed limits. That is happening very successfully in my constituency in Cambridge, where we are seeing some driver behaviour changes, but it is still early days. The changes will start to get across the idea that driving or travelling in any form of transport carries a risk of doing incredibly serious harm to other people.
Jeremy Wright
With the leave of the House, I shall try to respond to some of the points made in the debate which, as we came to expect in the course of Committee, was instructive and well balanced. I start with the remarks of the hon. Member for Hammersmith (Mr Slaughter), who made his case for new clause 22. He kindly indicated that he has no objection to new clause 14, which I welcome, and he made it clear that he has little objection to some of the other measures in this group, and I am grateful for that.
As I said in my earlier remarks, we intend to consider a number of aspects of the criminal law in connection with driving offences in the course of the review that I described. I can certainly undertake to the hon. Gentleman that the issue of driving while disqualified, particularly where it involves repeat offending, which is the type of offending highly likely to lead to sentencing at the top end of the scale, whatever that scale may look like in the future, is something that we are highly likely to want to consider as part of the review. I am sure he will maintain his case for the inclusion of that.
The difference between the circumstances we are considering in relation to new clause 14 and the circumstances we are considering in relation to new clause 22 was conveyed very movingly, as we have heard before, by my hon. Friend the Member for Kingswood (Chris Skidmore). New clause 14 is designed to address what we perceive to be some egregious cases in which sentencing powers were not adequate. It was clear to us from those cases that we should plug that gap in the sentencing regime. There are other questions that we have to ask about driving offences and how those offences are punished, which are about whether we have pitched properly the sentencing powers of the judiciary. But we have not yet had the opportunity to consider in detail the implications of the change set out in new clause 22, and I doubt very much that the hon. Gentleman has, either.
Mr Slaughter
With all due respect to the Minister and to the hon. Member for Kingswood (Chris Skidmore), the tragic case of Clare and Ross Simons that he described was a very serious case of causing death by dangerous driving. Even though the driver was disqualified, it was not a case of disqualified driving. It would not in any way be affected by new clause 14. The Minister has made the case against himself. It is clear why new clause 22 has been canvassed over a long period by practitioners, the Magistrates Association and others. There is an overwhelming case for increasing that nugatory summary only sentence. The position is far more complicated, as shown by some of the tensions that have come out in the debate, which is why new clause 14 is a little precipitate, even if it is going in the right direction. Will the Minister give a clear undertaking that there will be an increase in the sentence for driving while disqualified? If not, we will press the new clause to the vote this evening.
Jeremy Wright
I will come back to the point about how much we know about the implications of new clause 22. To deal with the case of specific examples, the point that I am making in relation to what my hon. Friend the Member for Kingswood said is that where it is brought to our attention that there are particular gaps in the sentencing regime, it is appropriate that we look very carefully at those. The case that precipitated the decision to table new clause 14 was the case of Mr Stock, who was killed in precisely the circumstances that new clause 14 would address.
It is important that when such cases are brought to our attention, we look carefully at whether there is a gap in the law, and we then look at how that gap might best be remedied and what the consequences of doing so might be. The reason that we did not respond immediately to such cases, and the reason that I did not respond to the Back-Bench debate to which the hon. Gentleman referred by saying straight away, “Yes, of course, we will change the law immediately and we will do so in the following way,” is that it is important to consider all the ramifications of making changes.
We have had the opportunity to do that in relation to what we now propose as new clause 14. We have a good idea, as the hon. Gentleman mentioned, of how many cases might be affected, and what effect that would have on the work load of the Crown court and of the Prison Service. I wonder whether he has any idea what the ramifications for the Court Service or for the Prison Service would be of the change that would be made by new clause 22. That does not mean to say that after we have considered those ramifications properly and carefully, we would not come to the conclusion that it is the right thing to do, but we are not going to do so today, for the reasons that I have set out.
If the hon. Gentleman reflects, and given that he hopes to be in government himself in less than a year—[Interruption.] I am not saying that he will, just that he hopes to. If that eventuality ever came to pass, I do not think he would wish to make policy any differently from the way I am suggesting we should do so. If that is right, I cannot, as he would understand, accept new clause 22 today. I have gone as far as I think I sensibly can, which is to say that it will certainly form part of the review that we intend to undertake, and if we conclude as a result of the review that it is the right thing to do, we shall do it.
Mr Slaughter
I think the Minister is playing with me a little. I have used the best evidence I can and as I said, I have spoken to practitioners and to the Magistrates Association about the matter. I am advised that the clause is likely to affect only a small minority of cases, which are the recidivist cases. The Minister has access to that degree of detail and that information. Perhaps he could tell us how many cases he thinks would be affected.
Jeremy Wright
As I have tried to indicate to the hon. Gentleman, I would want to look at all those things. He is right—I do not know. We have to look at the matter carefully and I am sure he would want us to do that. Between the point at which he decided to table new clause 22 and this debate taking place, there has not been an opportunity to do that work, which we would want to do. He is welcome to continue looking a gift horse in the mouth if he so wishes, but what I am saying to him, I hope very clearly, is that we are certainly not shutting the door on what he is proposing, but neither are we going to accept it today without doing the proper work. No responsible Government could do otherwise. He may or may not want to be part of a responsible Government, and if it is not a responsible Government, he may want to do things differently, but that is the way we do things for as long as we are in government.
Let me move on to the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Kingswood. Again, he spoke movingly, as he has before, of justice for Ross and Clare Simons. He also made the case for including in the review the issues of death by dangerous driving by those who are disqualified, and we will certainly consider that matter also.
The hon. Member for Bolton West (Julie Hilling) made, as she has done before, a good case in relation to those who have multiple points on their licence and are somehow not yet disqualified. She is right to be concerned about that, as are we. We would want to consider that matter, too, at greater length. There is, as she knows and as I have said to her before, an issue in relation to how much we can sensibly trespass on judicial discretion. In each and every case a bench of magistrates would have to have concluded that the exceptional hardship case was made out, such that they thought it appropriate not to disqualify in those cases. There will always be exceptional cases, but her argument is that those cases should, indeed, be exceptional; they should not be regular, and I have a good deal of sympathy for that view. The specific point around exceptional hardship claims—
Julie Hilling
Does the Minister therefore think that perhaps a stronger direction should be given to magistrates on what should be exceptional hardship?
Jeremy Wright
I would be wary of doing that, but we can look at how we ensure that magistrates are doing all necessary due diligence on the nature of past exceptional hardship claims, perhaps before other benches. That was the hon. Lady’s second point that I was just coming on to. There is something in that. We need to consider how to ensure that benches take the opportunity to look carefully at what has been said to their brethren in other cases involving the same defendant, who may be running the same argument on exceptional hardship multiple times and continually avoiding disqualification. We will need to look carefully at that.
That does not mean that running the same argument cannot necessarily amount to exceptional hardship more than once—again, that is a matter for each bench to determine—but they should do so, as she says, with their eyes open and in possession of all the relevant facts. We will look at whether there are ways in which we can ensure that they do more to get those facts. However, it is not the case that they do not have access to those facts now. The DVLA already retains the information on whether an exceptional hardship claim has been made by the same defendant in a previous case. It is there to be looked at, but further inquiries may then be necessary to find out exactly what was said in the making of that exceptional hardship claim. We will take that away and look at it. As I have already said, there is a good case for including in the review the hon. Lady’s point about multiple points on a licence and the totting-up offences.
My hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge (Dr Huppert) made a number of points around the vulnerability of cyclists, with which, of course, I agree. We must always be conscious of that, not just in the Ministry of Justice but in other Departments too, as I know colleagues in the Department for Transport in particular are. He is right to say that this is not simply about sanctions, but also about changing behaviour. He will recognise that in the Ministry of Justice we are pretty much all about sanctions, so there is a limited amount that can be done by this Department, but certainly in conjunction with other Departments there may be a great deal more that can be done. He will understand, too, that the review will be into the penalties available to the judiciary under the criminal law. It will not, of course, sensibly be able to reach wider than that, although he will wish to take advantage of his opportunities to make submissions to it none the less.
My hon. Friend will recognise that new clause 10 deals with the starting point for decisions on the appropriate tariff for a life sentence. We think it appropriate for the reasons that I set out earlier that the starting point for murders of police officers and prison officers should be a whole life tariff, but sentencing judges can move up or down from that starting point as they think fit, and that applies in both directions. If one starts with the murder of a police officer and believes for particular reasons that it is appropriate to go below a whole life tariff, the sentencing judge can do that, and will want to set out why they choose to do that. I anticipate, following this change, that that will be very much the exception, and that as a matter of course, those who are sentenced for murder of a police or prison officer in the performance of their duties should expect to receive a whole life tariff. That is the purpose of this change. But the reason I say that it operates in both directions is that if somebody were to be convicted of murder, not necessarily of a police or prison officer attracting a whole life tariff starting point but a lower starting point, that may still result in a whole life tariff if the judge thought it appropriate to revise that sentence upwards from the starting point. I hope that is helpful to my hon. Friend. With those remarks, again I invite the House to support the Government new clauses, and not the Opposition’s new clause.
Question put and agreed to.
New clause 14 accordingly read a Second time, and added to the Bill.
New Clause 22
Penalty for driving while disqualified
‘(1) In Part 1 of Schedule 2 to the Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988 (prosecution and punishment of offences under the Traffic Acts) in the entry relating to the offence of obtaining licence, or driving, while disqualified, section 103(1)(b) of the Road Traffic Act 1988—
(a) in column 3 leave out “6 months” and insert “12 months”;
(b) in column 2 below “(c) On indictment, in Scotland”, insert “(d) On indictment, in England and Wales”; and
(c) in column 3 below “(c) 12 months or a fine or both” insert “(d) 2 years or a fine or both”.
(2) In relation to an offence committed before section 154(1) of the Criminal Justice Act 2003 comes into force, the reference to 12 months is to be read as reference to six months.
(3) The amendment made by this section applies only in relation to an offence committed on or after the day on which it comes into force.’.
Makes the offence of driving while disqualified triable either way, with a maximum penalty of 2 years’ imprisonment for conviction on indictment.—(Mr Slaughter.)
Brought up, and read the First time.
Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.
“Section 3ZC (causing death by driving: disqualified drivers) | Section 103(1)(b) (driving while disqualified) |
Section 3ZD (causing serious injury by driving: disqualified drivers) | Section 103(1)(b) (driving while disqualified)”. |
“RTA section 3ZC | Causing death by driving: disqualified drivers | Section 11 of this Act. |
RTA section 3ZD | Causing serious injury by driving: disqualified drivers | Sections 11 and 12(1) of this Act.” |
Philip Davies (Shipley) (Con)
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
Mr Speaker
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
New clause 31—Tagged curfew on remand not to count towards time served—
‘(1) The Criminal Justice Act 2003 is amended as follows.
(2) In subsection (1B)(c) of section 237, leave out “or section 240A”.
(3) In the italic heading before section 240, after “custody”, leave out “or on bail subject to certain types of condition”.
(4) Leave out section 240A.’.
New clause 37—Open prisons: deportees—
‘No prisoner serving a sentence for which he is liable for deportation can be moved to a Category D prison.’.
New clause 38—Resettlement licence: deportees—
‘No prisoner serving a sentence for which he is liable for deportation can be eligible for resettlement licence.’.
New clause 39—Open prisons: murderers—
‘No prisoner serving a sentence for murder can be moved to a Category D prison.’.
New clause 40—Resettlement licence: murderers—
‘No prisoner serving a sentence for murder can be eligible for resettlement licence.’.
New clause 41—Open prisons: serious offenders—
‘No prisoner serving a sentence for an indictable only offence can be moved to a Category D prison.’.
New clause 42—Open prisons: victims—
‘No prisoner serving a life sentence can be moved to a Category D prison before the views of the victim or the victim’s family have been sought and considered by the Secretary of State for Justice.’.
New clause 2—Meeting a child following sexual grooming etc.—
‘(1) The Sexual Offences Act 2003 is amended as follows.
(2) In section 15(1)(a) (meeting a child following sexual grooming etc.) for “two”, substitute “one”.’.
At present, someone is only considered to be committing an offence if they contact the child twice and arrange to meet them or travel to meet them with the intention of committing a sexual offence. This new Clause would mean that the perpetrator would only have to make contact once.
New clause 3—Offence of abduction of child by other persons—
‘(1) The Child Abduction Act 1984 is amended as follows.
(2) In section 2(1) (offence of abduction of child by other person) for “sixteen”, substitute “eighteen”.’.
At present, there is a disparity between the ages that children must be to be considered to be abducted depending on whether they are in the care system or not. This new Clause would rectify this disparity and set a consistent age of under 18.
New clause 15—Aggravated offences against members of the armed forces—
‘(1) Part 12 (Sentencing) of the Criminal Justice Act 2003, is amended as follows.
(2) At the end of section 146, insert—
“147 Increase in sentences for aggravation related to membership of the Armed Forces
(1) This section applies where the court is considering the seriousness of an offence committed in any of the circumstances mentioned in subsection (2).
(2) Those circumstances are—
(a) that, at the time of committing the offence, or immediately before or after doing so, the offender demonstrated towards the victim of the offence hostility based on the victim being a former or serving member (or presumed former or serving member) of the armed forces or army reserve; and
(b) that the offence is motivated (wholly or partly) by hostility towards persons who are former or serving members of the armed forces.
(3) The court—
(a) must treat the fact that the offence was committed in any of those circumstances as an aggravating factor; and
(b) must state in open court that the offence was committed in such circumstances.
(4) It is immaterial for the purposes of paragraph (a) or (b) of subsection (2) whether or not the offender’s hostility is also based, to any extent, on any other factor not mentioned in that paragraph.
(5) In this section “armed forces” means Royal Navy, Army and Royal Air Force, both regular and reserve.’.
Amendment 20, in clause 18, page 17, line 29, leave out from ‘portrays’ to end of line 42 and insert
‘sexual activity which involves real or apparent lack of consent or any form of physical restraint which prevents participants from indicating a withdrawal of consent’.
Philip Davies
New clause 29 stands in my name and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Bury North (Mr Nuttall). I appreciate that with this group of amendments time is of the essence, so I will try to be as snappy as possible. I usually try to accommodate interventions, but I hope that Members will be mindful of the fact that there are amendments in the group that have been tabled by others. In the interests of time, and in order to allow everyone a fair lick of the sauce bottle, I will try to refrain from speaking to the amendments that do not stand in my name, even though there are things that I would like to say about them if time allowed.
New clause 29 would reverse the changes made in the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012 in relation to those who are eligible to be recalled to prison for just 28 days for breaching their licence. The Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008 amended the Criminal Justice Act 2003 to enable fixed-term recalls in the first place—one of the many shameful things done in the law and order field by the previous Labour Government. However, the 2012 Act further amended the 2003 Act to extend the use of fixed-term recalls to previously denied prisoners. That is another example of the previous Lord Chancellor, my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Rushcliffe (Mr Clarke), being even more lax on law and order issues than the previous Labour Government. Many of us might have thought that that would be rather hard to achieve, but he managed it in that particular field.
Most people believe that when someone is let out of prison early, whether it be halfway through their sentence, a quarter of the way through on home detention curfew, or at some other point before they should be let out, if they reoffend during that time or breach their licence conditions, they should go back to prison to serve the rest of their original sentence—at the very least; one might even argue for sending them to prison for longer. Unfortunately, this is not only not always the case; it is often not the case, or may even never be the case at all.
Jeremy Wright
I have a nasty feeling that my hon. Friend is not going to welcome much in the Bill, but may I ask him at least to welcome one thing? He will have noticed, I am sure, that we propose to increase the penalties for those who fail to comply with their licence. Does he at least accept that that is a good idea?
Philip Davies
I absolutely accept that the current Lord Chancellor, with the help of my hon. Friend the Minister, is doing his very best to try to undo lots of the mistakes made by his predecessors; I am the first to acknowledge that. My contention is that the Government are not going anywhere near far enough in meeting the needs and expectations of the general public. Yes, of course they are making small steps in the right direction, but they are far too small and I would like them to go further.
Andrew Percy (Brigg and Goole) (Con)
May I reassure my hon. Friend about the views of the public? I spend my weekends out on the doorsteps talking to people in Brigg and Goole, and the one thing they tell me about law and order is that they expect that people who go to prison should serve their full term. The idea that somebody can breach their licence and then in effect have a 28-day all-inclusive holiday is completely and utterly outrageous. I entirely concur with what he is saying, and so do the people of Brigg and Goole.
Philip Davies
I am grateful to my hon. Friend, and, of course, to the people of Brigg and Goole who are so ably represented by him in Parliament. He is absolutely right. Most people think that when somebody is sent to prison for whatever length of time the court hands down, they should be there for that period of time. It beggars belief that even when they are released from prison and commit another offence, they do not go back for the original sentence that was handed down.
There is no licence period for offenders serving less than one year in prison, and that covers about 60% of the prison population at any one time. Many of the remaining prisoners will be released on licence halfway through their sentence. Fixed-term recalls were introduced in 2008 to reduce the pressure on prison places. It was not done because it was the right thing to do, but because the previous Government got completely overwhelmed on the matter of prison places. Unfortunately, not much appears to be known by the public, nor—dare I say it?—by many colleagues in this House about how the system of fixed-term recalls works. A fixed-term recall occurs where the offender breaches their licence and is returned to prison for a mere 28 days, as my hon. Friend the Member for Brigg and Goole (Andrew Percy) said—not for the rest of the prison term they were originally given, not even for most of it, but for just 28 days.
When fixed-term recalls were introduced, they excluded certain offenders. However, in his bid to reduce the prison population still further, the former Lord Chancellor, my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Rushcliffe, relaxed the eligibility criteria by way of a change in the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012. I always had my doubts about the fact that the punishment of offenders was mentioned in the title of that Act, because it seemed to do anything but punish offenders, and I was right to be concerned. As of 3 December 2012, fixed-term recalls were made available to previously denied prisoners. These were offenders serving a sentence for certain violent or sexual offences, those subject to a home detention curfew—that is, serving some of their prison sentence at home—and, most shockingly, those who had previously been given a fixed-term recall for breaching their licence within the same original prison sentence. I suspect that not many people realise that, and they certainly will not like it when they do.
One unbelievable thing that I recently found out is that in the nine months from January to September last year, 785 of the prisoners serving sentences of one year or more who had been released on licence before the end of their sentence were not only recalled to serve just 28 days for breaching their licence once, and then released, but subsequently recalled to serve another 28-day spell and then released again before the end of their original prison sentence. In nine months, 785 of the most serious offenders in our prisons were released from prison having breached their licence, returned to prison for 28 days, released again, and then, for a further breach of their licence, returned to prison for just 28 days and then released again. You couldn’t make it up, Madam Deputy Speaker. This is a complete failure of policy that is completely indefensible and unjustifiable. I am not easily shocked when it comes to any matters relating to justice, but this has to be one of the most unbelievable policy decisions of all time, and I doubt there is much support for it among the general public. I would love to hear the Howard League for Penal Reform, otherwise known as the prisoner’s friend, and other do-gooding organisations justify this kind of approach.
In answer to one of my recent parliamentary questions about the Bill, my hon. Friend the Minister said:
“Fixed term recalls will continue to be used in low-risk cases where a short period back in custody is sufficient to deal with the breach and the offender can then safely be re-released to continue with their rehabilitation under licensed supervision in the community.”—[Official Report, 3 March 2014; Vol. 576, c. 641W.]
My new clause would remove those who have committed serious offences from eligibility for the 28-day recall, as well as those who have already been given a chance on a 28-day recall and gone on to breach their licence conditions again. If what the Minister says is really the case, surely he and the Lord Chancellor, who is, I believe, much more in tune with public opinion and more on the side of the victim than the criminal—certainly compared with his predecessor—will do something to rectify this appalling state of affairs and support my new clause. Unless he can offer some sensible measures to address these points, I intend to press it to a vote.
New clause 31 proposes that time spent on tagged curfew would not count as time on remand. The Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008 amended the Criminal Justice Act 2003 to allow periods of time spent on tagged curfew, on bail, to count as credit towards any eventual custodial sentence. As I said on Second Reading of this Bill, I want an end to the ridiculous position whereby time spent on tagged curfew is credited as though it were time spent on remand in prison. The new clause would remove that entitlement. Currently, when someone is on bail on an electronically tagged curfew from, say, 11 pm until 8 am, and they then receive a custodial sentence, the amount of time they have to serve in custody is reduced by half a day for each nine hours or more spent on the curfew beforehand. I have never understood the maths of it. If nine hours is spent on a curfew, how does that equate to half a day in prison, even if the two things were comparable, which, in my view, they are not? I appreciate that some people will have had curfews longer than nine hours, but some of those who had nine-hour curfews will still be getting the benefit of this credit. The credit also inevitably means that some people avoid prison altogether. If they have been on a curfew for a certain period of time and then receive a custodial sentence of a certain length, they will never see the inside of a prison cell despite the court having deemed that only a custodial sentence was appropriate for the crime they committed.
I can do no better than repeat what my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Harborough (Sir Edward Garnier) said as shadow Minister in 2008 when this proposal was first being made by the previous Labour Government:
“One of the greatest concerns of the public is that the current system leads to dishonesty in sentencing. People do not seem to understand that when a person is sentenced to two years in prison, that actually means that he will be in custody only for one year. It provides yet another example of how the Government, in order to overcome the difficulties of prison overcrowding, are guilty of promoting an untruth.”
He went on to say that a curfew
“cannot be considered the equivalent of having spent time in prison awaiting sentence, but the new clause directs the court to take all that time—described as ‘the credit period’—into account in reducing the custodial sentence. I am afraid that the public will find that rather difficult to understand.”
He went on to say, as I quoted on Second Reading:
“If someone has committed an offence that crosses the custody threshold—an offence that is serious enough to warrant a custodial sentence—it will cause a great deal of scepticism, undermine public confidence in the justice system and make the Government look increasingly ridiculous if the court is then required to say, ‘By the way, all the time that you have spent at home in bed is time that can be taken away from your custodial sentence.’”—[Official Report, 9 January 2008; Vol. 470, c. 369.]
As it happens, back in 2008 the Conservative party voted against the then Government introducing this particular measure. Indeed, the Minister voted against it when in opposition. Has he changed his mind about this ridiculous system—if that is the case, he can tell us why—or does he still think it is ridiculous even though he does not accept my new clause? I would be extremely grateful if he could tell us why he intends to defend in this Parliament something that he thought was wrong and voted against in the last Parliament. We can only conclude that he has somehow changed his mind, but I am not entirely sure what caused that to happen.
My other new clauses, 37 to 42, all relate to open prisons and can be taken together. I am sure it will not have escaped anybody’s notice that open prisons have been a hot topic in the past week or two, with the absconding of the “skull cracker” from an open prison. The prison authorities might have thought there was a clue in his name before they decided to release him, but it appears that that was beyond them. This is a multiple armed robber who was serving 13 life sentences and had absconded from prison before—twice, I believe—but who somehow, unbelievably, found himself in an open prison and being released on temporary licence.
I had been looking at this issue for some time before the “skull cracker” case, and the more I learn about it, the more I despair. The actual facts regarding open prisons and the sorts of people being let out on day or night release are shocking. People say that open prisons are an essential part of people’s rehabilitation and that, just before they are released and have gone through all their rehabilitation, it means they can gradually work their way back into the local community. We know that that is clearly not true, because of the police’s reaction when the “skull cracker” escaped from prison. If all of this guff about rehabilitation of people in open prisons were true, when the “skull cracker” escaped from prison the police would have told the public, “Don’t worry about it, because this man was rehabilitated. He was going to be released from prison very soon anyway, so he is of no danger to the public.” Of course, the police did not say that; they said, “This man is immensely dangerous and must not be approached at any price.”
Therefore, we know for a fact that the argument that people in open prisons who are coming to the end of their sentence are being rehabilitated is a load of old nonsense dreamt up by the do-gooders. I can see from the facial expressions of the hon. Member for Cambridge (Dr Huppert) that the do-gooders are ably represented, as usual. He, along with the Howard League for Penal Reform, is the criminal and prisoner’s friend.
Dr Huppert
I hope the hon. Gentleman puts his new clauses to the vote so we can see how much of the House rejects what he is saying. Does he really not care about the research done by a huge number of organisations which shows that reoffending rates among those released from open prisons are far lower than the rates for those who are released from closed prisons? Rather than give his own personal opinions, surely the hon. Gentleman would like to see less reoffending and, hence, fewer victims of future crimes.
Philip Davies
I suggest the hon. Gentleman goes to speak to the people at the building society who were the victims of the armed robbery by the “skull cracker.” The hon. Gentleman seems to take comfort from people in a Westminster bubble—people who need to get out more—agreeing with him. I am concerned not about whether he agrees with me, but about what the general public think and whether they have confidence in the criminal justice system. He is, of course, a typical arrogant type who thinks that he knows better than the general public about everything. All I can suggest is that he knocks on a few doors in his constituency and asks people what they actually think about the criminal justice system. He may be shocked. It would be better for him not to stick to the people in the ivory towers in his constituency; he should try to speak to people on estates and those who buy their own homes. He might be surprised by what he finds out.
My new clauses 37 states:
“No prisoner serving a sentence for which he is liable for deportation can be moved to a Category D prison.”
New clause 38 states:
“No prisoner serving a sentence for which he is liable for deportation can be eligible for resettlement licence.”
Andrew Percy
I thank my hon. Friend for giving way again. On deportation, surely the debate about whether an open prison is key to rehabilitation is completely irrelevant, because these people will not be released back into society in the United Kingdom. He should, therefore, enjoy the support even of those who argue that open prisons are part of rehabilitation, because the people affected will leave the United Kingdom. The argument is completely baseless.
Philip Davies
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. I am sure we are all excited at the prospect of hearing what the hon. Member for Cambridge will have to say about these particular two new clauses and whether he thinks it is suitable for people who are about to be deported to be moved into open prisons and released on temporary licence so that they can walk out willy-nilly. Knowing him as I do, I am sure he thinks it is quite right for them to be moved to open prisons and released on temporary licence. We await his comments with baited breath. If he were to agree with me, there is no doubt whatsoever that it would be a red letter day. At that point, I think I would be able to claim that my new clause had the support of the House.
The clue to my new clauses is in the title: if someone is liable for deportation following an offence, I do not understand what grounds there can possibly be for releasing them on resettlement licence. The whole justification for resettlement day and night release is that it is supposed to help prisoners reintegrate into the area by re-establishing links with family and the local community. To be honest, I am not a fan of that at the best of times—given that many offenders spend so little of their sentence in prison anyway, I cannot believe that so many of them are not in prison when we think they are—but giving a resettlement licence to someone liable to be deported is utter madness. I cannot for one second understand the logic of it and I would be amazed if anybody could find any support for the idea from any quarter.
New clause 38 would make those liable for deportation ineligible for resettlement licence, and new clause 37 would ensure they were not allowed to be moved to open prisons. I cannot believe that I even needed to table these new clauses—I would have thought they were basic common sense—but I believe this change is essential to remove the much greater risk of these offenders absconding, knowing that they are likely to be deported at the end of their sentence in any event.
New clause 39 states:
“No prisoner serving a sentence for murder can be moved to a Category D prison.”
New clause 40 states:
“No prisoner serving a sentence for murder can be eligible for resettlement licence.”
There is nothing much more serious than dealing with the case of someone who has been murdered. The individuals who have committed such crimes have shown that they are capable of ending someone’s life, and there has to be a risk that they will do it again. It is all well and good saying that these people should be rehabilitated, but the risk is obviously at the highest possible end of the scale.
According to replies to further parliamentary questions, I was told that two murderers are still on the run, having absconded from open prison a few years ago, and that 106 offenders serving sentences for murder have absconded in less than 10 years. Those are not small numbers. As far as I am concerned, any murderer who absconds from our prison estate is one too many. It is absolutely disgraceful that 106 murderers have absconded from our prisons in 10 years. New clauses 39 and 40 would help to protect the public, who should not be put at risk in this way.
There are real-life, tragic examples of the risk these murderers pose. One of those terrible cases happened when Ian McLoughlin was on day release following a murder conviction, which in turn followed a conviction for manslaughter. He murdered Graham Buck, who had gone to help his neighbour. The offence was apparently committed on his first day on day release from prison after 21 years in custody. One day is all it takes. I believe that putting murderers in open prisons and giving them day release is playing with fire unnecessarily and creating unnecessary additional victims of crime. Such tragic cases should never have happened, and we need to make sure that they never happen again. I therefore hope that colleagues will support the new clauses.
New clause 41 would deny a prisoner serving a sentence for an indictable only offence from being moved to a category D open prison. According to an answer on 1 May to one of my parliamentary questions, there were more than 4,000 offenders in open prisons at the end of last year, including 1,227 who were in for violence against the person offences, 215 for sexual offences, 505 for robbery, 202 for burglary and 1,115 for drug offences. According to other answers, there are 643 life-sentence prisoners in open prisons, as well as 599 other prisoners serving indeterminate sentences for public protection. These are not the type of offenders I was expecting to find in open prisons. I believe that most of the public think that open prisons are for people like Lester Piggott, not people serving 13 life sentences.
Not only are such people in open prisons, but they are allowed to go out by being released on temporary licence. Some 611 prisoners serving life sentences were granted release on temporary licence in the last year for which figures are available, and 1,043 serving indeterminate sentences for public protection were granted release on temporary licence. If people serving indeterminate sentences for public protection were fit to be released from prison, they would have been released. That is the whole point of indeterminate sentences. The fact that they are still in prison means that, by definition, they are not fit to be released. I am at a loss to understand how those who have committed the most serious offences—those which justify a so-called life sentence—are allowed to move to open prisons in such numbers.
I also struggle with the basic concept that someone deemed too dangerous for release, in serving a sentence for public protection, is actually released on temporary licence. New clause 41 would ensure that no one serving the most serious sentences—for murder, attempted murder, manslaughter, section 18 wounding, conspiracy, robbery, rape, aggravated burglary, kidnapping, riot, blackmail and arson—could be moved to an open prison or released on temporary licence.
Finally, new clause 42 would mean that no prisoner
“serving a life sentence can be moved to a Category D prison before the views of the victim or the victim’s family have been sought and considered by the Secretary of State for Justice.”
Victims’ rights should be at the heart of our criminal justice system. A victim can be the person directly involved or the affected family. It is one thing to be a victim of a serious crime and it is another to hear the often far too low sentence handed down to the perpetrator, but it is an absolute outrage for the victim and their family to learn that the person has been released early, or is seen to have an easy life in an open prison or by being released on temporary licence.
One of the most stark examples is that of offenders who are transferred to open prisons, which must be very upsetting and concerning for victims in many cases. It is absolutely right that before considering any application for people to be moved to an open prison, particularly for those who have committed the most serious offence, victims and their families should have a formal input into, and their objections or comments should be heard as part of, the process of deciding whether or not that person should be moved.
I hear Members talking time and again about how they think that victims should be at the heart of the criminal justice system, that their rights should be paramount and that their views should be more carefully considered by the criminal justice system and the courts. This is an opportunity for them not just to come here and spout about the rights of victims and their families, but to do something about it by allowing victims and their families to play a formal part in the decision-making process. New clause 42 would ensure that victims’ voices are heard, with decisions taking into account what the victim has to say as well as the offender’s impact on them and their family.
I genuinely do not understand—I really do not—why anybody would object to this particular new clause. I hope that the Minister will say that he will support it and that the shadow Minister will also do so, so that we can send out a message from this House, on a cross-party basis, that we do not just say that we want victims to be at the heart of the criminal justice system, but have actually delivered something meaningful that will make an awful lot of difference to how victims feel about the criminal justice system.
I look forward to hearing other hon. Members’ views. I have no doubt that my new clauses command the widespread support of members of the public, and I would like to think that they also command an awful lot of support in this House.
Dan Jarvis (Barnsley Central) (Lab)
I will speak principally to new clause 15, which is in my name and those of the shadow Defence Secretary, my hon. Friend the Member for Gedling (Vernon Coaker), and my hon. Friends the Members for Hammersmith (Mr Slaughter) and for North Durham (Mr Jones). Before I do so, let me comment briefly on the other new clauses in this group.
The Minister will of course address the impact on the Bill of new clauses 29, 31 and 37 to 42, which were tabled by the hon. Members for Shipley (Philip Davies) and for Bury North (Mr Nuttall), but I think that there is agreement across this House that no one who poses a serious threat to the public should be in an open prison. The hon. Member for Shipley has just reminded us of the serious and much-publicised case of a prisoner absconding in recent days. Thankfully, he is now back in custody, but Ministers must explain why he was ever allowed to be in an open prison or granted release on temporary licence in the first place.
I want to make three points on new clauses 29, 31 and 37 to 42. First, we should remain mindful of the role that open prisons have played in our criminal justice system going back nearly 80 years. Except for a small proportion of offenders on whole-life tariffs, all prisoners will return to civilian life at some point, and category D prisons can help that process if they are used in the right way. The Prison Governors Association pointed out last week:
“The use of open conditions is an important factor for effective resettlement. Research suggests that reoffending rates among those released from open conditions are far lower compared to those released from closed prisons.”
Secondly, the point is to ensure that risks are properly managed so that public safety is not compromised, because this is even more of an issue today than it was four years ago. As shown by a written answer last month to the shadow Justice Secretary, my right hon. Friend the Member for Tooting (Sadiq Khan), the use of release on temporary licence has jumped by 23% since 2010. Over the same period, the Government have presided over a 57% rise in breaches in relation to those released on temporary licence. Those breaches may well be serious breaches or involve prisoners, such as Mr Wheatley, who have committed serious and violent crimes. It is therefore important that the public should receive assurances.
Thirdly, we should remember that no prisoner can be moved to open conditions without a recommendation from the Parole Board or the National Offender Management Service. Ministers must therefore answer this question: what support are they giving the Parole Board to ensure that it has proper resources to give all cases the careful consideration they need and deserve? The Government have accepted that the Bill will result in an extra 1,100 Parole Board hearings, but the Parole Board is already under severe strain. Nearly one in five staff have been cut since the last election, but although staff numbers are falling, its work load is rising. There is already a significant backlog of outstanding cases, and a recent Supreme Court ruling means that the number of oral hearings the Parole Board will have to hold is set to increase from about 4,500 per year to as many as 14,000 per year.
With that in mind, I am cautious about the blanket approach proposed by the hon. Member for Shipley, but Ministers need to assure the public that resources are in place to ensure that all decisions on moving prisoners to open conditions are properly scrutinised.
Philip Davies
The hon. Gentleman is about to move on, but I have not heard him mention new clause 42, which would give victims the right to have their say before a serious offender was moved to an open prison. Given that his party is talking about a victims’ law, can I take it as read that his party supports my new clause? If not, why not?
Dan Jarvis
I am grateful for that intervention. The hon. Gentleman can take it as read that we will look carefully at the detail of his proposal, as we always seek to do. We are consulting on these matters. The Labour party has appointed Sir Keir Starmer, QC to look carefully at these matters and he will report in due course.
I will move on to new clauses 2 and 3.
Dan Jarvis
I will not give way again, because I want to move on to new clauses 2 and 3.
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Rotherham (Sarah Champion) on tabling the new clauses and on the campaign that she has led on tackling child exploitation. Sexual grooming and child abduction are difficult subjects to talk about in our society, but we must remain vigilant and do all that we can to protect children and correct anomalies in our laws. As a father of three, I applaud the parliamentary inquiry that she led with Barnardo’s. There has been much support for her new clauses from police forces and leading children’s charities. That is reflected in the fact that the proposals have the backing of Members from all parts of the House. I therefore hope that the Government will give the new clauses proper consideration. The Minister said that he was sympathetic to them in Committee, so I look forward to hearing what he has to say tonight.
Amendment 20 was tabled by my hon. Friends the Member for Bishop Auckland (Helen Goodman), for Kingston upon Hull North (Diana Johnson) and for Hammersmith and myself. There is agreement on both sides of the House about the need to tackle extreme forms of pornography. In recent months, we have heard warnings from the Children’s Commissioner about how violent pornography is distorting our children’s understanding of sexual relationships, including the normalisation of sexual violence in gangs. Research by Rape Crisis South London has shown that extreme material that depicts and glorifies rape is readily available online. We therefore welcome the steps that are being taken by the Government in the Bill.
Our amendment is designed to clarify the proposals to reflect a promise that the Prime Minister made last summer. He pledged, with regard to extreme pornography,
“to make sure that the same rules apply online as they do offline.”
Our concern is that the Bill will fall short of that. We agree that a careful balance needs to be struck so that the standard for criminalising possession is very high and people’s private sexual behaviour is respected. We think, however, that the legislation would be improved by replacing the Government’s description of rape in proposed new subsection (7A) with the text used by the British Board of Film Classification—a well-established test that is already used to judge offline content.
Amendment 20 would improve the law in two ways. First, it would make it clear that the ban on possessing rape pornography extends to all depictions of rape, even if they are staged. Portrayals of actual rapes are very rare. The content that has been identified by Rape Crisis South London and the Children’s Commissioner is primarily commercial pornography with high production values, poor acting and staged violence. It is not clear whether, under the Bill, that would be deemed realistic enough to secure a prosecution. It would certainly be banned offline, which is what the Prime Minister’s promise was based on. Secondly, the amendment would ensure that content was banned if it showed rape, but not the act of penetration. I hope that the Minister will reflect on both those points and consider accepting our amendment. It would not only implement the Prime Minister’s promise, but make it clear that extreme pornography that depicts rape and glorifies sexual violence should not be permitted in our society.
Before I go into the merits of new clause 15, I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Dunfermline and West Fife (Thomas Docherty), who has campaigned so hard on this policy. It is important to recognise that the overwhelming majority of the British public are very proud of our armed forces and hold them in very high regard. We see that right across our country. Just a glance at the latest Ministry of Defence reputation survey shows that the armed forces have a favourability rating of about 85%. That is testimony not just to the way in which those in uniform serve us in theatres abroad, but to the contribution they make to our local communities.
The sad truth, however, is that not all men and women who serve our country receive such a warm welcome when they return from operational duty. I will give three brief examples. The first case was reported by BBC Radio 5 Live and involved a soldier called Lee. He was returning to his home in Bolton from a three-month tour in Afghanistan, when he was set upon by a group of drunken thugs. When the police caught up with them, the attackers said they wanted to prove “how hard they were” by attacking a soldier.
The second example relates to the London 2012 Olympic and Paralympic games—an event that would not have been possible without the help of our armed forces to make it safe and secure. There were reports of troops being advised to travel together in groups after a number of soldiers were
“attacked, verbally abused and harassed”.
In one particularly nasty case, an off-duty soldier was badly beaten by four men not far from Tower Hill tube station, after the attackers noticed that he was carrying a military bag.
Thirdly, let me briefly tell the story of an 18-year-old called Alexander, who was training to be a soldier in the Coldstream Guards. He was assaulted in August last year, when he was jumped by a gang of eight attackers as he walked through an underpass near his home in Exeter. When they saw that he was wearing his military backpack, they stopped him and asked whether he was in the forces. The gang surrounded him, kicked him to the ground and tried to attack him with a screwdriver. Alex later told his local newspaper:
“They kept shouting Lee Rigby—like they wanted to re-create what happened.”
I am sure that the whole House will agree that those cases are appalling, abhorrent and completely unacceptable. Unfortunately, they are far from unusual. I draw the House’s attention to the armed forces and society survey that was carried out by Lord Ashcroft, with the assistance of the Ministry of Defence. The study contacted 9,000 serving personnel across all three branches of the armed forces, and is acknowledged to be the most detailed and in-depth study in the area. The survey contains a number of startling statistics. It found that more than 20% of service personnel had suffered verbal abuse in the previous five years and that about one in 20 had been the victim of violence or attempted violence.
Any attack that is motivated by hate for our armed services is one too many. Our service personnel do not ask for special treatment, but they rightly expect not to be discriminated against because of what they do for our country. That is why we are proposing action through new clause 15. It would make physical or verbal attacks against members of our armed forces an aggravated offence, when the prosecution can establish that a person’s service in the armed forces was a motive for the assault. It is a small change, but one that would send a strong signal that we will not tolerate such attacks as a society. It builds on existing laws that cover assault that is motivated by other characteristics. I hope that the Minister will give it proper consideration and support it today.
I am aware that the Government have expressed two clear reservations with the proposal. Let me deal with them both. The first argument is that the existing laws are adequate. Indeed, the veterans Minister, the Under-Secretary of State for Defence, the hon. Member for Broxtowe (Anna Soubry), told the House earlier this year that
“the sentencing guidelines make it clear that if somebody is assaulted by virtue of their being in the armed forces, that is clearly an aggravating feature”—[Official Report, 17 March 2014; Vol. 577, c. 545.]
That sounds clear, but we do not believe that it is that straightforward in practice. The current sentencing guidelines for assault do not include any specific references to members of the armed forces. They say that it will be an aggravating factor if an offence is committed
“against those working in the public sector or providing a service to the public”.
It is not clear whether that definition would always include members of the Royal Navy, the Army or the Royal Air Force, nor whether it extends to when they are off duty, which is when many such assaults take place. Amending the law so that the armed forces are specifically mentioned would bring much greater clarity.
The second argument was made by the Minister in Committee who noted:
“The current provisions deal with hostility on the grounds of race, religion, disability and sexual orientation, all personal characteristics that are beyond a person’s immediate control. Hostility on those grounds makes the offence particularly harmful, both to vulnerable individuals and to communities… However, hostility based on occupation is of a different kind.”––[Official Report, Criminal Justice and Courts Public Bill Committee, 27 March 2014; c. 518.]
I have three points for the Minister to consider. First, I understand the distinction that has been made, but what a person chooses to do with their life can become every bit as much a part of their identity as who they are or where they come from. That is especially the case for people who dedicate their lives to serving our country across the world. Secondly, I do not think that an attack on a young soldier such as Alexander, because of the uniform he was wearing, is any less harmful to our society than when people are assaulted because of who they worship or the colour of their skin. All our communities hold close connections to the men and women who put their lives on the line for us, and any hateful attack on that can be just as damaging to the bonds of our society as an attack motivated by characteristics already protected in law.
Thirdly, the Minister will know that offences are already in place that specifically cover assaults against people in certain occupations: police constables, prison workers, immigration officers and emergency workers in Scotland. Surely our armed forces deserve the same recognition. That is why my right hon. Friends the Leader of the Opposition and the shadow Defence Secretary have committed the next Labour Government to taking action on this matter. We will introduce an armed forces Bill in our first Queen’s Speech, tackling the issue of the assaults that we are debating today and outlawing other forms of discrimination against our service personnel. The Opposition have pledged to do that next year, but Ministers have an opportunity to make a head start and take action now.
I urge Members across the House to support new clause 15 today. Our men and women in the Navy, Army and Royal Air Force serve us with dignity and bravery, and in this important year of remembrance, as we reflect on those who have made sacrifices for us in conflicts past and those who continue to serve us today, it is our duty to ensure that they are treated with dignity in return.
Sir James Paice (South East Cambridgeshire) (Con)
I do not want to do permanent damage to the reputation of my hon. Friend the Member for Shipley (Philip Davies), but he will be surprised to know that I agreed with a large amount of what he said—that will come as a bit of a shock to him.
I rise mainly to speak to new clauses 2 and 3, although I am in an invidious position, because the hon. Member for Rotherham (Sarah Champion), in whose name they stand, has not yet spoken to them, and I do not wish to detract from her remarks or steal her thunder. I entirely support the comments by the hon. Member for Barnsley Central (Dan Jarvis) about the work that she has done. I served on the panel that looked into child sexual exploitation, and I found it an illuminating and at times emotional experience, but it was very rewarding. We listened to young people who had been exploited, and to those who work in the legal system or courts, such as judges, as well as to the police who have to deal with these issues day in, day out.
I particularly support new clause 2. I do not wish to go into it in detail, because the hon. Member for Rotherham should have the privilege of doing that herself, but the fundamental point of reducing the number of grooming offences from two to one is something with which most people would agree. I hope that the Government will be sympathetic to the new clause, and even if they cannot accept it tonight I like to think that this will be a significant step towards introducing it.
Sadly, we are now all too familiar—partly from the various cases following Operation Yewtree, but from many other cases too—with the fact that child exploitation by adults appears to be far too common an activity. It is something that we in this House should all condemn, as I know we do, and we need to be able to stop it wherever possible. It seemed clear from the work of the panel and the evidence that we were given, that reducing from two to one the number of occasions that someone can contact children with a view to exploitation is perfectly sensible and reasonable, and—most importantly—could lead to a reduction in the number of victims. I strongly support new clause 2.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dawn Primarolo)
Order. This debate must end by 8.30 pm, and the Minister needs to respond to all the questions and proposals put to him. It should be possible to get every Member in, and of course the hon. Member for Shipley (Philip Davies) will get a few minutes at the end of the debate if he wishes to respond. May I ask each Member to aim to speak for about eight minutes, which will leave time for the Minister? Obviously, it is not compulsory to speak for eight minutes—it is possible to speak for less time, but I would prefer no longer so as to ensure that everybody gets in.
Sarah Champion (Rotherham) (Lab)
I thank the right hon. Member for South East Cambridgeshire (Sir James Paice) for his support today and on the panel, and my hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley Central (Dan Jarvis) for the support and guidance that he has given me throughout this process. This is very much an issue on which the House can come together, and it has been heartening to see that when it comes to the protection of children, people think on more a logical and protection-based basis than a political one.
New clauses 2 and 3 are the result of a cross-party inquiry into child sexual exploitation that I led with Barnardo’s. We discussed the new clauses in Committee, and I appreciate the careful consideration that the Minister gave them then as well as subsequently, and I hope that that translates into a commitment.
New clause 2 would amend the Sexual Offences Act 2003 as recommended by the inquiry so that the police are better able to prevent young people from being groomed. At present, someone is considered to have committed a grooming offence under section 15 of the Act if they contact the child twice and arrange to meet them, or travel to meet them with the intention of committing a sexual offence. My new clause would mean that the perpetrator would have to make contact only once, although the other requirements of the offence would obviously still remain. During the legal and the police oral evidence sessions, advocates and the police reported that the current legislation is too weak, and that making the grooming offence easier to use would make it a good prevention tool. As one legal professional stated,
“there is a lot to prove”
when trying to get successful prosecutions using current legislation.
In many cases, there have been multiple instances of contact between the perpetrator and the victim, but proving that can be difficult for the police. There was unanimous support for this change in the inquiry’s oral evidence sessions, specifically from senior police officers. Indeed, it seems clear that if a child is travelling across the country to meet an adult, or vice versa, and that adult has demonstrated the intent to commit a sexual offence, it is completely unnecessary to require them to make contact with the child at least twice.
Two years after the UK Sexual Offences Act 2003, the Scottish Parliament considered recommendations and adopted legislation on sexual grooming. Prior to making a decision, the Scottish Parliament heard from a number of witnesses. Several respondents questioned the need for adults to have met, or communicated with, a child on at least two earlier occasions. The Association of Directors of Social Work considered that to be prohibitive, as a meeting can be set up with just one communication. The Scottish Children’s Reporter Administration recommended revising the requirement to one prior communication to more accurately reflect the reality of some children’s vulnerability and perpetrators’ skills in exploiting it. The Law Society’s written submission questioned why there was a necessity for the accused to have met or communicated with a child on at least two earlier occasions. It recommended that the reference to two earlier occasions should be deleted from the offence provision. In oral evidence, the Law Society witnesses confirmed their belief that there needed to be only one communication.
In oral evidence, the Association of Chief Police Officers in Scotland suggested that more than one contact may often be made in the grooming of children for sexual abuse, but that
“If contact had been made on a single occasion and the circumstances and other information that was available to us suggested that the contact was illegitimate it would not be helpful if we were required to wait until another contact had been made or the person had travelled with the intention of meeting the child and for more evidence that the meeting was likely to lead to sexual abuse, before we could intervene.”
In his evidence, James Chalmers also questioned the requirement for two previous communications:
“One lengthy internet conversation could last hours or the best part of a day and could be much more significant than two short conversations. That is why I have my doubts about the limitation of requiring two previous meetings or communications. I am not sure that that provision serves any useful purpose.”
Dr Rachel O’Connell, director of research at the cyberspace research unit at the University of Central Lancashire, gave evidence to the Committee that, in her experience, grooming can take place over a period of many months, but that in at least one case in Wigan, a girl went to a meeting with a paedophile after only a few online conversations during one day. In its submission to the Committee, the National Hi-Tech Crime Unit of Scotland stated:
“There is no evidence to suggest that a paedophile will not carry out the grooming process during the first communication and arrange to meet up with a child. This is no doubt the case in many instances. The aim of the new legislation is the protection of children and this loophole may well be one that the paedophile would utilise to avoid prosecution.”
I understand that the requirement for prior communication on two occasions was probably initially put in place to demonstrate clearly the intent to commit a crime. From a police point of view, however, and especially that of the child, this is at best an unnecessary burden and at worse will lead to a child being abused before the police can act. The Scottish committee recognised this concern, but considered that it is the content and the context of communications that are key to proving the offence, rather than the number of communications. There is a clear possibility that a particularly skilled paedophile could, in one communication, arrange a meeting with a vulnerable child. Because of all this evidence, the offence of grooming a child in Scotland is just one communication. I urge the Minister to follow that lead and adopt the same policy.
On new clause 3, there is at present considerable disparity between the maximum ages at which children can be considered to have been abducted, depending on whether they are in the care system or not. This was outlined well by the right hon. Member for South East Cambridgeshire. New clause 3 would amend the Child Abduction Act 1984 to make it consistent for all children. Currently, the Children Act 1989 makes it an offence to remove a looked-after child from care without authority if they are under the age of 18. The Child Abduction Act 1984, however, which applies to children not in the care system, applies only to children under the age of 16. I went over the details of this issue in the Bill Committee and I am mindful of Madam Deputy Speaker’s warning.
In Committee, the Minister raised the case of a parent who objected to their 16-year-old running off to Gretna Green to be married and used the abduction notice to stop them. I understand his argument, but I believe that police would approach this pragmatically and make the right decision. New clause 3 would be extremely helpful in a case brought to me by a constituent. Her 16-year-old daughter keeps going out to meet her much older boyfriend. The mother is extremely concerned that the daughter is being groomed, but the police do not have enough evidence to act. As the daughter lives at home, the police cannot use an abduction warning notice on the boyfriend, which could be an effective deterrent. As she said:
“What am I meant to do? I tried locking her in her bedroom but she just climbed out of the window. Am I meant to chain her to her bed?”
If the Minister accepts new clause 3, all children under 18 will receive the same protection. My constituent’s daughter would not have to be demonstrably groomed or abused before the police could act. I urge the Minister to consider my new clauses.
Dr Huppert
It is a huge pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Rotherham (Sarah Champion). It has been a pleasure to work with her on amendments in Committee and on Report. I pay tribute to her work and to the style with which she has tried to ensure that change happens. Her approach has been to try to solve the problem, rather than to have a political debate that would create heat but not fix anything. I hope she gets the result she deserves from the Government.
I will not say a huge amount on the detail, as the hon. Lady has covered the issues very adequately. When we discussed new clause 2 in Committee, the Minister said:
“it is sensible for me to go away and reflect on what she has said, and to work out what we can sensibly do next.”––[Official Report, Criminal Justice and Courts Public Bill Committee, 27 March 2014; c. 498.]
I hope he will be able to enlighten us on what he has sensibly done next. I notice it is not yet in the form of an amendment that we brought to this House. I hope an amendment is about to be brought, even if it has to, disappointingly, go to another place. I think the change can be made. I accept totally that the exact wording might not be precisely right—it is always hard to write these things perfectly—but the intent of new clause 2 is clear. The Minister was supportive earlier. I hope he will be again.
On new clause 3, I think the wording is slightly further away from what can be achieved. There are genuine issues—if a 17-year-old can get married, it does seem a little strange. I understand why the hon. Lady was not able to capture every single aspect of this. Having tried bits of legislation, I know how hard it can be. I hope the Minister is able to be supportive, so that we can close some of the gaps without going too far and creating problems that we do not intend to cause. I hope we can have helpful comments. I also pay tribute to Barnardo’s, which has done a huge amount of work on this issue.
I am aware of the constraints on time, Madam Deputy Speaker, so I will not go through every single clause, even though I have strong opinions on some of them. The shadow Minister talked about assaults on members of the armed forces. He is absolutely right to say that we should take great care. People who serve in the armed forces do a huge number of things for our country and they deserve protection. They should not be treated in the ways he outlined. Some of the cases are absolutely abhorrent, but I am not persuaded that his exact proposal is the best way to tackle them. I hope he will seek to find a sensible way forward and not play party politics. He has avoided doing so in other areas. We want people to be treated properly and with respect, but I do not think it is right to single out the armed forces from other organisations. There are powers already—I hope the Minister can clarify this—for this to be taken as an aggravating offence. It is already possible to do what he seeks to do, so I do not think his amendment will move us forward.
Turning to the huge bundle of amendments tabled by the hon. Member for Shipley (Philip Davies), I am happy to take credit from him for campaigning for what actually works. I know he is less bothered about that than some of us are, but I want an approach on prisons that helps people and reduces the number of offences committed. That has to be the aim. This is not just about punishment, but about not creating future problems. There is a huge amount of research on what reduces reoffending. Open prisons result in lower reoffending rates, and that is important. He would like to talk about the victims of the original offences, and I have sympathy with that approach, but I would also like to look at the victims of offences that we want to try to prevent from ever happening. That is incredibly important, and it is why I and others are so keen on evidence-informed policy making—that we should find out what happens and listen to experts rather than deal with a gut reaction.
Diana Johnson (Kingston upon Hull North) (Lab)
I add my tribute to that of others for the work done by my hon. Friend the Member for Rotherham (Sarah Champion). She has been a Member only a short time, but she has made a huge impact. I very much hope that the Minister will have listened carefully to her contribution today.
I shall speak to my amendment 20, and I believe that there is genuine cross-party support for the House to take action against extreme forms of pornography. It is worth remembering the work done by Liz Longhurst after the death of her daughter Jane, who was murdered by a man obsessed with pornography involving asphyxiation. Out of that context came the Labour Government’s legislation of 2008, which made it a criminal offence to possess certain forms of pornography—depicting necrophilia and bestiality, for example. We know, however, that there is more to do, especially with online developments.
The Government’s proposal is to ban the possession of pornography deemed to be
“grossly offensive, disgusting or otherwise of an obscene character”
or containing realistic depiction of
“rape and assault by penetration”.
Both elements of the test are complex and open to wide interpretation. I tabled amendment 20 because I thought we could do better than that, and I hope that the Minister will agree with what I am about to say.
The amendment leaves in place the first part of the provision because we accept and acknowledge that the standard for criminalising possession has to be very high. However, it would simplify the second part of the test by replacing the Government’s description of rape with the definition used by the British Board of Film Classification—namely, content depicting
“sexual activity which involves real or apparent lack of consent or any form of…restraint which prevents participants from indicating a withdrawal of consent.”
As my hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley Central (Dan Jarvis) said, this simplifies the law in two respects. First, in respect of “realistic rape”, we know that the depiction of actual rapes is very rare, particularly on the internet, although we know that some “honour rapes” in the middle east can be found on the net. The portrayals currently on the internet tend to be very unrealistic and have high production values, so it is quite obvious that they are staged, but they are none the less very disturbing and concerning.
I would like to thank David Austin who works at the BBFC for showing me and other MPs an example of something that they are currently able to stop being distributed under their own classification guidelines, but that would fall foul of how this clause is drafted. What he showed us was an armed man who breaks into a residential home with two women in the house, who are then subjected to serious violence and sexual assault. It is quite clear that this is being staged, but it is incredibly violent and upsetting—and it would fall foul of the Minister’s definition.
The second reason for amending the clause is to ensure that content is banned if it shows sexual assault, including rape, but not limited to rape, including where the acts of penetration are not actually seen. As drafted, the clause will ban content only if it showed the act of penetration. This could mean videos of sexual assault or real rape avoiding censure if the camera positioning does not show the penetration. The BBFC showed me an example in a film that went on for several minutes of women who were gagged, tied up and were whimpering. These women were clearly in distress. It was upsetting to watch as the women being gagged, tied up and whimpering were in a dreadful state. As I say, the BBFC told me that they would currently be able to stop that being distributed, but not under this clause. It would fall foul of the provision because there were no acts of penetration.
I hope that the Minister will think again about this issue. Many Members would view it as a reasonable step to allow what now happens with the BBFC’s offline classification to be transferred to how we treat the same things online. That would also sit well with what the Prime Minister said he was going to do when he wanted to have the same criteria for online and offline images. Let us see that happen by the Government’s acceptance of amendment 20.
Jeremy Wright
This has been a full debate, and I would like to respond to as much of it as I can, while still leaving my hon. Friend the Member for Shipley (Philip Davies) with a couple of minutes at the end if I possibly can—I know how he loves to have the last word.
Let me start with my hon. Friend’s new clause 29, which seeks to place statutory restrictions on certain categories of offender to prevent them being suitable for fixed- term recalls. I can assure him that it is already the case that no offender who is assessed as a risk to the public—assessed as being able to cause serious harm—can be given a fixed-term recall. Those serving a public protection sentence—the “extended sentence prisoners” referred to in the clause—are already excluded, so it is not necessary to amend the legislation in that respect.
In addition, as my hon. Friend knows, we are taking measures in clause 7 to introduce a new test for release following recall, which will mean that prolific offenders or those who are persistently non-compliant with their licence could also be deemed unsuitable for a fixed-term recall. I share my hon. Friend’s concern and, indeed, that expressed by my hon. Friend the Member for Brigg and Goole (Andrew Percy), about those who cock a snook at the legal system by persistently failing to comply with their licence. In clause 7, we seek to do something about that.
We already have measures, either in place or pending, to prevent high-risk and prolific offenders from being subject to fixed-term recalls in cases in which it would not be appropriate for them to be automatically released after 28 days. The proposals in the new clause are either unnecessary—because they are already provided for elsewhere—or would go too far in placing a blanket statutory ban on certain categories of offender. We believe that decisions about the type of recall that is appropriate should be decided on a case-by-case basis, and I therefore invite my hon. Friend to withdraw his new clause.
New clause 31 would abolish section 240A of the Criminal Justice Act 2003, which, as my hon. Friend explained, provides that when a defendant on bail is subject to an electronically monitored curfew, half the period spent on “tagged bail” may be credited as time served towards his sentence. Incidentally, my hon. Friend said that the same applied to time spent on remand, but in that instance the entire period may be credited, rather than half of it.
We want to ensure that only defendants who need to be detained are remanded in custody while awaiting trial. Tagging on bail helps to ensure that bail periods are completed successfully, and that remand prison places are taken up only by those who really need to be there. Tagging defendants and requiring them to comply with a curfew of at least nine hours each day is a useful tool that we want to continue to use. We consider that when people have had to comply with a daily curfew which restricts their liberty, that time should be taken into account.
Philip Davies
Can the Minister explain why he voted against that proposal when the last Labour Government introduced it?
Jeremy Wright
That was six years ago. Since then, the criminal justice system has become used to using the provision. Also since then, we have had the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012. I do not know how my hon. Friend voted on that, but I voted in favour of it.
Jeremy Wright
My hon. Friend surprises me. As he knows, the courts had been using the provision for some time, and we thought it important to regularise it by means of the Act.
My hon. Friend also referred to what he described as dishonesty in sentencing. He will be aware that my right hon. Friend the Justice Secretary and I have considerable sympathy with the move towards ensuring that automatic release is minimised. He knows that our ambitions extend well beyond what we have managed to achieve so far, but I trust he will be encouraged by the fact that we have already reduced the application of automatic early release. We have removed it from those serving extended determinate sentences, and the Bill will remove it from child rapists and terrorists.
New clauses 37 to 42 deal with the use of open prisons and release on temporary licence. My hon. Friend mentioned the case of Michael Wheatley. It is an extremely concerning case, and, as my hon. Friend and other Members would expect, we are looking very carefully at what occurred. When we have completed our investigations, we will consider what further action needs to be taken.
New clauses 39 and 41 seek to prevent offenders serving sentences for murder or for an indictable-only offence from being moved to a category D or open prison. Open prisons provide an opportunity to assess prisoners in conditions more similar to those that they will face in the community, which is vital in protecting the public. To release life-sentence prisoners directly from closed prisons without the resettlement benefits of the open estate might, in certain cases, lead to higher levels of post-release reoffending, and thereby create more victims. That is something that both my hon. Friend and I would wish to avoid.
A period in open conditions for the purposes of ongoing risk assessment and support for resettlement can be particularly important for lifers—a category that includes all murderers—many of whom will have spent many years in prison, and will therefore often not be prepared for release. While those serving sentences for indictable-only offences include some of the most serious offenders, some of those who have been convicted of common-law indictable-only offences will not be dangerous. An example is those who have been convicted of cheating the Revenue—the sort of people, one might think, whom my hon. Friend might expect to find in open prisons. I suggest to him that what he proposes in new clause 41 is not a useful means of determining in which category of prison an offender should be held. That must be determined on the basis of the risk posed by the individual.
Dr Huppert
One of the challenges faced by many ex-offenders is finding employment. We know that employment substantially reduces their risk of reoffending. What evidence has the Minister of the way in which open prisons help people to become used to proper employment when they leave?
Jeremy Wright
My hon. Friend is right, but it is important to note that in every case a proper risk assessment must be made to ensure that only the right people find themselves in open prisons.
Currently, in most cases, the decision whether to move a prisoner to open conditions is made after advice has been sought from the Parole Board. The hon. Member for Barnsley Central (Dan Jarvis) referred to the burden on the board that the Bill will create. We must indeed ensure that the board has the necessary resources, and we will do that. Public protection is the priority, as all Members would expect it to be, and the Parole Board takes account of a range of factors when assessing whether the risk posed by an offender has been reduced enough for that offender to be managed in open conditions, or on licence in the community. Those factors might include the completion of offence-related courses, a sustained period of good custodial behaviour, access to appropriate and stable accommodation, access to education, training and employment—as was suggested by my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge (Dr Huppert) —and support from professionals, as well as from family and friends. Offenders are returned to closed conditions if their behaviour in open conditions, or updated risk assessments completed in open conditions, indicates an unacceptable risk to the public.
My hon. Friend the Member for Shipley was also rightly concerned about absconding. Prisons can and do take a variety of actions to try to reduce its incidence. Open prisons operate intelligence systems with the aim of spotting those who might be planning to abscond. Prisoners are screened, and those who are at significant risk of absconding are sent back to closed conditions. Absconders can be criminally charged, and prisons, police and the Crown Prosecution Service are increasingly working together to secure their successful prosecution, which can act as a deterrent to others—as can the increased penalties for which the Bill provides.
New clause 42 seeks to ensure that no prisoner serving a life sentence can be moved to a category D prison before the views of the victim or the victim’s family have been sought and considered. Here I hope that I can offer my hon. Friend some reassurance. We have recently taken steps to enhance the rights to which victims are entitled under the statutory probation victim contact scheme, which covers all victims of serious sexual and violent offences when the offender has received a prison sentence of 12 months or more. Under the scheme, victims already have the right to submit a victim personal statement to the Parole Board when the board is considering whether to direct the release or a move to open conditions of a life sentence prisoner. That allows victims to explain the impact that the offence has had on them, and what the impact of a move to open conditions, or release, would be. Victims have a right to make representations about release conditions attached to an offender's licence, and that includes temporary release from open prison. When there are any concerns about the vulnerability of the victim, the victim can feed into the licence conditions by, for instance, requesting an exclusion zone in the area where they live or work.
New clauses 37 and 38 seek to prevent prisoners liable for deportation from being moved to an open prison or released on temporary licence. When a prisoner is being removed from the United Kingdom directly from prison, a move to open conditions or a temporary release will not serve its key resettlement purposes. That point was made by my hon. Friend the Member for Brigg and Goole. However, in cases in which the prisoner, although liable to deportation, is not actually deported but is resettled here on release from the sentence, the positive benefits of open conditions and temporary release would, if the new clauses were passed, be lost.
Our current policy seeks as far as possible to ensure that those who will be removed from the UK stay in closed conditions, and that those who will not can be considered for transfer to open conditions and temporary release. In such cases, as my hon. Friend would expect, particular care is taken to ensure that the risk assessment takes into account the potential of removal.
When decisions are made about transfer to open conditions or temporary release, Home Office staff will be consulted so that any information relevant to the risk assessment process can be obtained. That includes the likelihood of removal action, history of failure to comply with immigration conditions, previous absconds, any history of deception with the aim of entering or remaining in the UK or evading removal, and any failure to comply with the directions of the Home Office. We are actively reviewing our policy to ensure that it can meet those aims, but we are satisfied that a statutory ban on the transfer to open conditions or temporary release for every prisoner liable to deportation would not be in the interests of reducing reoffending.
My hon. Friend expressed concern about the use of temporary release. New clause 40 would prevent any prisoner serving a sentence for murder from being released on temporary licence. Temporary release contributes to public protection and reducing reoffending by helping those who are due to be released to prepare for life outside prison. For prisoners serving an indeterminate sentence, it also provides evidence for the Parole Board of how an offender complies when in the community. Making this change would lead to offenders who had rightly been away from ordinary society for years being suddenly removed from a strictly regulated regime where most decisions are made for them into the community where they will make most decisions for themselves. Temporary release allows this transition to take place gradually, using short releases, over many months, for the impact of each temporary release to be assessed over this time, and for the risk management plan to be tailored accordingly, while the offender is still in custody.
We have already acted to ensure that public protection is placed at the heart of the temporary release scheme. Changes were made to risk assessment requirements last year following three serious incidents involving temporary release, and on 10 March we announced a package of measures to further improve decision making, monitoring and enforcement of the thankfully rare temporary release failures. To reassure my hon. Friend, I should put this into context for him. There are about half a million releases on temporary licence every year: roughly 0.1% of them result in a failure of any kind and a much smaller proportion of that small proportion involve the suspicion of further offences. None the less, we take all those failures very seriously and we intend to do something about them.
Specifically, from the autumn we will have a new scheme of restricted release on temporary licence for serious offenders. In those cases, there will be more stringent risk assessment procedures, with greater involvement of psychology and probation professionals and more restrictive licence conditions involving probation professionals. As soon as suitable equipment is available, we will be able to tag offenders on temporary release, and we intend to do so. Improving risk assessment and management in individual cases is the right response to concerns about temporary release; a blanket ban on all offenders serving a sentence for murder would be counter-productive. As other Members have said in this debate, this is about a balance of risks. For all those who are released from custody—the vast majority of those serving sentences—it is important to reduce the risk of reoffending as much as we can, and many of the things we have talked about in this debate help to do that.
Philip Davies
I am grateful to the Minister for the work he has done in trying to toughen up on some of these issues and on the rights of the victim. On that basis, I am inclined not to press new clauses 29 and 42 to a Division as I understand that some progress is being made. However, on new clause 38 about people liable for deportation being eligible for a resettlement licence, this should not even be negotiable or needed, and on the basis of the Minister’s answer on that, which I have to say was wholly inadequate, I intend to press new clause 38 to a Division, as there is no excuse for allowing those people out of prison at all.
Jeremy Wright
I am naturally disappointed to hear that, but let me have one more go. The point I am making in relation to new clause 38 is that there is a distinction between those who are liable for deportation and those who are actually going to be deported. For those who are going to be deported, my hon. Friend is absolutely right that there is no justification whatever for release on temporary licence or transfer to open conditions. For those who are not going to be deported or where there is a reasonable chance they will not be, however, we have to think about the same balance of risks I described to him earlier. That is the logic for making the distinction I sought to make, and explains why I cannot accept the blanket way in which his new clause is phrased.
Let me now deal with new clause 2. The hon. Member for Rotherham (Sarah Champion) has again tabled her amendment to reform the “grooming” offence at section 15 of the Sexual Offences Act 2003. As she said, the amendment would reduce the number of times the defendant needed to meet or communicate with the child in order to satisfy that element of the section 15 offence from two to just one. As she knows, I have much sympathy with this proposal, as I know many other Members do. I am grateful for the work she has carried out with Barnardo’s, and I join in the tributes that have already been paid to her not just for highlighting this particular issue, but for the part she has played in the wider fight to tackle the sexual abuse and trafficking of children.
Our laws in this area are robust and strong. We can be proud that we are among the world leaders in the fight to protect children from sexual abuse. However, as the hon. Lady knows, I remain open to suggestions for improvement in this aspect of the criminal law, and in Committee I promised to look carefully at the issues this amendment raises. I do, however, believe it is vital that before we proceed with such a reform, we ensure that we have first considered all the issues and evidence fully. With that in mind, my officials recently met Barnardo’s to ascertain the full extent of the problem. Barnardo’s has now reported to my officials with some supportive evidence and we are expecting further material from them shortly.
As well as examining this evidence, we are considering how such an amended offence would interact with the existing offences in the Sexual Offences Act 2003. We will then be in a better position to consider how this reform can be taken forward. I can assure the House that this Government remain committed to the protection of our children from sexual abuse, and we are looking seriously at the proposed amendment and will report our position as soon as possible.
On new clause 3, as the hon. Lady knows, section 2 of the Child Abduction Act 1984 makes it an offence for someone other than a certain person such as parents or guardians to take or detain a child under the age of 16 so as to remove or keep him or her from a person’s lawful control. The point here is that the offence can be committed irrespective of the consent of the child concerned. I understand the hon. Lady’s intention is to bring the section 2 offence in the Child Abduction Act into line with the abduction offence in section 49 of the Children Act 1989. My right hon. Friend the Member for South East Cambridgeshire (Sir James Paice) made the same point and I understand it entirely, but, as I explained in Committee, such a change would lead to difficulties. Young people of 16 or 17 are lawfully able to be married, are generally deemed capable of living independently of their parents, and are otherwise able to make decisions affecting their way of life, not least in sexual matters. The amendment would make it a general offence with a maximum sentence of seven years’ imprisonment to take a person of that age who is capable of exercising his or her own free will in that regard away from his or her parents. I therefore hope the hon. Lady will understand that the position on new clause 3 is different from the position on new clause 2.
I will now turn to new clause 15. As the hon. Member for Barnsley Central knows, we debated this amendment in Committee so I hope he will not be too surprised to find that not much has changed since then. He did make some additional points that I want to pick up on, however.
I repeat that the Government are firmly committed to the protection of members of the armed forces, veterans and their families who, as the hon. Gentleman and others have said, make a valuable contribution to our society. They deserve the full protection of the law, but I am not convinced that his proposal is necessary to achieve that. His amendment would attach a statutory aggravating factor to assaults and other offences committed against members of the armed forces. I will not repeat everything I said in Committee about personal characteristics, and he has highlighted that that is a different matter. He added two further points to what he said in Committee, however. He mentioned the fact that special provision is made for police constables and prison officers. The reason for that is the nature of their work—we talked about that a littler earlier—and the likelihood that they will be assaulted in the course of their work. That does not apply to many other professions, including, I would suggest, the armed forces. He is right of course that someone’s profession, particularly if they are in the armed forces, can be a large part of their identity, and he has already highlighted the fact that there are sentencing guidelines in place, which the courts are required by law to follow, which make it clear that it should be considered an aggravating factor if the victim is serving the public.
The hon. Gentleman also raised the question of what happens when someone is off duty. It is probably worth looking back to the case of Lee Rigby. This was a soldier who was not on duty at the time. The hon. Gentleman will, I am sure, have seen the sentencing remarks of the sentencing judge for the killers of Lee Rigby; it is clear from them that the fact that this was an off duty soldier was taken into account by the court. In the light of that, I hope the hon. Gentleman will see fit not to pursue his amendment.
Amendment 20 would replace the Government’s proposed targeted extension to the extreme pornography offence with a much broader provision. It would capture any sexual activity that involved real or apparent lack of consent, or some form of restraint which prevented a person from indicating withdrawal of his or her consent—for example, a gag. I absolutely understand the good intent here of the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull North (Diana Johnson). I know what she is trying to achieve, but I have to say to her that this would be far too broad an extension to a tightly drawn and deliberately targeted offence. It will always be a matter of judgment as to whether we have gone far enough, and I quite understand that she will want to return to these arguments. However, I hope she will accept our argument—she may want to look again at the Hansard record of our proceedings in Committee, because I am about to run out of time—as to why the provision should be drafted this tightly. I therefore hope that, on that basis, she will not press the amendment to a vote, but I quite understand that she will want to return to the subject another day.
Philip Davies
This has been a rather disappointing debate, as we might have predicted. Although I would have liked to have a vote on all my amendments, which are all worthy of a vote, in order to test the will of the House, on the basis of the Minister’s response I will withdraw new clause 29 and instead press new clause 38 to a vote.
Clause, by leave, withdrawn.
David Mowat (Warrington South) (Con)
On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. I wonder whether you could give me some guidance. For the third time in recent weeks a member of the Opposition Front-Bench team has been to my constituency without informing me—today it was the right hon. Member for Doncaster North (Edward Miliband); I have told his office that I was going to raise this. Is there anything you can do, notwithstanding his intellectual self-confidence, to help him observe the niceties of behaviour in this House?
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)
What I can say is that this is obviously not a matter for the Chair as such, but it is on the record. It is the convention for all Members to inform another Member of a visit, and I hope that that takes place in the future.
Clause 19
Secure colleges and other places for detention of young offenders etc
Dan Jarvis
I beg to move amendment 18, page 19, line 4, leave out clause 19.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment 14, page 19, line 16, at end insert—
‘(2A) A young woman may not be placed in a secure college established under subsection (1)(c).’.
Amendment 15, page 19, line 16, at end insert—
‘(2A) No person who is aged under 15 shall be detained in a secure college established under subsection (1)(c).’.
Amendment 12, page 20, line 30, at end insert—
‘(14) The Secretary of State must make arrangements to ensure there is adequate specialist provision to cater for the health and wellbeing needs of all young persons detained in a secure college.’.
Amendment 13, page 20, line 30, at end insert—
‘(14) The Secretary of State shall make arrangements to ensure that sufficient places are available in secure children’s homes to enable young persons, for whom detention in a secure children’s home is deemed more appropriate by the relevant authority than detention in a secure college or young offender institution, to be so detained.’.
Amendment 16, page 20, line 37 leave out clause 20.
Amendment 21, page 71, line 1 leave out schedule 3.
Government amendments 5 and 6.
Amendment 17, page 76, line 10, leave out schedule 4.
Amendment 10, in schedule 4, page 74, line 17, at end insert—
‘Staff
4A (1) All staff employed as teachers, counsellors or nurses at a secure unit must hold qualifications as one of the following—
(a) qualified teachers;
(b) accredited member of the British Association of Counsellors and Psychotherapists; and
(c) registered nurse (children).’.
Amendment 19, page 76, line 16, at end insert—
‘(3) The Principal shall—
(a) keep special educational provision in the secure college under review;
(b) keep SEN and disability training of secure college workforce under review;
(c) ensure persons detained who may have a special educational need are brought to the attention of their home local authority; and
(d) carry out (a), (b) and (c) with advice from the secure college SEN co-ordinator.’.
Amendment 11, page 77, line 20, leave out from ‘where’ until the end of line 21 and insert
‘a young person poses an imminent threat of injury to himself or others, and only when all other means of control have been exhausted.’.
Government amendments 3 and 4.
Dan Jarvis
Amendments 10 to 19, which stand in my name and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Hammersmith (Mr Slaughter), relate to the Government’s proposed introduction of secure colleges. Let me set out some context. It is welcome that youth crime has come down substantially since the late 1990s, but it has led to new challenges in our youth justice system that need to be addressed. Reoffending rates are too high, and the cohort of young people in custody is a lot smaller now compared with a decade ago. These young people have complex needs and present very different challenges. We need a youth custody regime that can effectively meet those challenges, and effectively punish, rehabilitate and bring down reoffending. The question is whether creating secure colleges is the most effective solution.
More than a year has now passed since the Government consulted on these proposals, but in all that time, the key facts have remained the same. The Government have come to the House today with a set of proposals that they claim “will transform youth custody”, but there are no expert organisations expressing any enthusiasm for secure colleges. The Government claim that the colleges will put education at the heart of rehabilitation, but they cannot say how it will be delivered in practice. They claim the proposals will reduce the cost of youth custody, but it is not clear where the £85 million is coming from, and they have not produced any hard evidence to support this policy.
When we debated these changes in Committee, we said that we would listen to what the Government had to say and work with them constructively to improve the legislation. We also said that if Ministers wanted our support, they would need to present proper supporting evidence to justify going ahead with this experiment and address the serious concerns being raised by experts in the justice sector. Alas, no such evidence or improvements to the Bill have been forthcoming, which is why we cannot support these proposals, and why we have tabled amendments 16 to 18 to delete the secure college proposal from the Bill.
We all know the value of education, and how it can and should play an important role in rehabilitating young offenders. I am sure that everyone across the House agrees with that. The issue is that there are four areas where Ministers have plainly failed to make the case for secure colleges. Let me take each in turn. First, there has been a chronic lack of evidence to justify the creation of secure colleges. It is true that levels of educational attainment and purposeful activity are not good enough in many young offender institutions, and that education provision in the youth estate can and should be improved. We are agreed on that, but it seems the Justice Secretary is the only person who believes that the only way these problems can be solved is to plough tens of millions of pounds of public money into creating an entirely new type of institution.
Members of the Bill Committee took evidence for two full days, yet not one witness had a single word of support to offer for the Government’s plans for secure colleges. The deputy children’s commissioner, Sue Berelowitz, said that
“a 300-bed secure college will result in a large impersonal environment that does not adequately meet the emotional and mental health needs of children in custody.”
Similar concerns have been echoed by experts across the sector, including the Prison Reform Trust, the Standing Committee for Youth Justice, and the Howard League for Penal Reform. Even the Government’s own impact assessment states:
“The Secure College model has never previously been tested.”
It confirms that these plans are untried, untested and that the results would be unpredictable. There is no quantifiable evidence that the secure colleges would reduce reoffending rates. Such little detail has been provided that it is hard to see how the reduction will be achieved in practice. So what alternatives to secure colleges has the Minister’s Department considered? He will recall that I asked him in Committee what assessment his Department had made of how the £85 million budget for the secure college could be alternatively spent. For example, instead of building the secure college, that money could be invested in improving educational provision in the existing youth estate. I would be grateful if the Minister could confirm whether that option has been considered, and if not, why not.
The second failure relates to education and welfare provision and goes to the heart of this debate. The Government’s objective is for secure colleges to transform the rehabilitation of young offenders through better education and training. That is a laudable ambition, but it needs to be placed in the context of the existing cohort of young people in custody. We know that the lives of the majority of those young people are characterised by multiple layers of complex disadvantages that include mental health issues, learning disabilities, self-harm issues, and problems with drugs, alcohol and family breakdown. That raises two fundamental points. First, those are not challenges that can be overcome through education alone—significant specialist health and welfare provision would also be required. Secondly, if secure colleges are to deliver educational outcomes over and above what has been achieved in the youth estate before, one of several things would need to happen: secure colleges would need to offer more hours of education and purposeful activity than existing institutions; they would need to have a higher calibre of teaching staff and a higher student-staff ratio; or they would need to offer some new model of transformative teaching that we have not seen before.
Secure colleges would also need to overcome a particular challenge identified by the Justice Committee in its youth justice report last year. It pointed out that the average time spent in custody is only 79 days.
Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Lab)
The Justice Committee did look at those issues, and one of the problems is that a plethora of agencies, organisations and contractors deals with individual young people in custody. Often, too many people are involved, and a closer focus from one or two clear directions is needed on how individuals will make progress in custody, especially in education.
Dan Jarvis
I will come to that point shortly. The average time a young person spends in custody is only 79 days, meaning that most young offenders are not in custody long enough to improve their basic skills, but beyond a few vague commitments, no meaningful detail has been provided on how education or welfare will be delivered.
The House does not need to take my word for that. The Secretary of State wrote to the Chair of the Joint Committee on Human Rights a few weeks ago. Describing the secure college proposals, he said:
“The Bill establishes the secure college in law. Beyond the legal framework, the legislation does not specify details of the regime to be delivered within the secure college.”
So there we have it—there is no comprehensive plan in this Bill for how education or welfare will be provided. But we need to know how this will work. For instance, I have met one prospective bidder who has admitted that it would not be possible for it to deliver education and welfare itself and that it would need to bring in a range of other specialist providers. As my hon. Friend suggests, we could have a situation in which one provider operates the secure college, another delivers the teaching, and two or three others—or even more—deliver welfare services, all in the same institution. Will the Minister tell us what measures will be put in place to ensure that that does not lead to confusion and chaos on the ground? Where are the minimum standards in the Bill to ensure that corners are not cut when secure college contracts are put out for competition?
We have therefore tabled amendment 12, which would place a specific obligation on the Secretary of State on health and well-being provision, and amendment 10, which would require secure college staff in teaching, nursing or counselling roles to hold relevant qualifications. On education in particular, the Opposition believe that teachers should be properly qualified. That should be the case for any classroom, and it should certainly be the case when staff are working with challenging children who have complex needs, such as those who are found in a secure environment, but Ministers have given no guarantees yet that this will be the case in secure colleges.
That brings me to the third failure, which relates to the safeguarding of vulnerable young people who will be detained in the secure colleges. A number of concerns have been raised by groups across the sector, but Ministers have not been able to offer sufficient assurances on any of them. Let me run through three of them. First, there is the question of whether secure colleges should accommodate very young children or girls, which is highlighted by our amendments 14 and 15. These would prevent all girls and all 12 to 14-year-olds from being accommodated in secure colleges.
Both groups are in the extreme minority within the youth estate. In 2012-13, 96% of children in custody were boys, meaning that girls were outnumbered by more than 19 to one. According to the latest figures, there are only about 50 teenagers under the age of 14 in youth custody, and the majority are in secure children’s homes. The Government have signalled, however, that they intend secure colleges to accommodate both boys and girls between the ages of 12 and 17. That would come with huge safety risks. Even the noble Lord McNally, until recently a Minister and now chair of the Youth Justice Board, has warned against this approach. He recently told the Justice Committee:
“I would want to advise the Secretary of State to think very hard about whether young females should be there”—
that is, in secure colleges. He went on to say:
“Of course, co-education has its attractions, but I would not want the scheme to fail because of difficulties in trying to accommodate mixed groups”.
There is a further point here. The Minister told us in Committee that this issue would be addressed by the very architecture of the secure college, with different groups accommodated in separate units. He could not provide any further detail, however, because he said that not all the design decisions had been taken. This is just months before shovels are scheduled to be in the ground and construction of the secure college is due to begin early in 2015.
Secondly, the Government have thrown the future of secure children’s homes into doubt. Twenty-eight beds have already been cut and Ministers have signalled that many of the vulnerable young people currently accommodated in such homes will be moved into secure colleges. The kind of children for whom secure children’s homes cater would be all at sea in a 300-bed teenage Titan prison, and it goes against all the evidence showing that smaller establishments are by far the most effective for young people. It is easier to maintain control in such establishments, they are less violent, and staff are able to offer much greater hands-on support. They are also closer to home, enabling children to maintain links with their parents, which aids rehabilitation. That is why we have proposed amendment 13, which would require an adequate number of places in secure children’s homes to be maintained.
Thirdly, there are the conditions regarding the use of restraint. Opposition Members fully accept that there will be the occasional need to use reasonable force in youth custody environments. The Minister will be well aware, however, of the chorus of concerns raised that the Bill could be interpreted as allowing the use of reasonable force for the maintenance of good order and discipline. If so, this may be unlawful in the light of a ruling by the Court of Appeal in 2008, which we debated at length in Committee.
The Secretary of State’s letter to the Joint Committee on Human Rights said that there should be
“limited and clearly defined circumstances”
where reasonable force could be used to enforce good order and discipline, so I invite the Minister to lay out what these circumstances might be. I suspect he will say that this will all be worked out in the secure college rules, which have yet to be finalised. We keep coming back to this problem. A problem or area of concern is raised, and the Minister assures the House that it will be dealt with in the secure college rules. We then ask to see the secure college rules, but the Government have said they will not be available for scrutiny until after the Bill has become law.
I am sure the Minister will understand that this is a far from acceptable state of affairs. That is why the Opposition have retabled amendment 11, which would revise the wording in schedule 4. This would make it much clearer, resolve the legality issue and put a lot of minds at rest, while still allowing reasonable force to be used.
Mr Buckland
I rise to speak to amendment 19, which is tabled in my name, relating to the issue of accountability for special educational needs in the proposed secure colleges. The amendment would make the principal of the college responsible, first for reviewing the SEN provision available in the college; secondly for identifying whether the work force are appropriately skilled to support young people with SEN; thirdly for working with that young person’s home local authority when they might benefit from a new education, health and care assessment, which was established by the welcome Children and Families Act 2014; and finally for undertaking those duties with advice from the secure college’s special educational needs co-ordinator.
It is worth reminding the House once again why special educational needs in secure colleges is such a fundamental issue. Research suggests that 60% of children in custody have communication difficulties; a quarter of children in the youth justice system have a learning disability; three quarters have serious difficulties with literacy; and 17% of young offenders have a statement of SEN, compared with 3% of the general population. Those difficulties are often not identified until the young person enters custody. Ensuring that a young person’s SEN needs are recognised and supported is essential to the success of the Government’s stated aim in introducing secure colleges: to put education at the heart of youth custody. I fully support that aim.
We had a short debate on these issues in Committee, and I listened carefully to the Minister’s response to the concerns raised about SEN provision. He said that he would expect potential education providers to demonstrate that they could provide the necessary support for detained young people with SEN, and I am sure that he would agree that training for staff in that discipline is crucial. However, I understand that the Government do not want to constrain innovation by putting into statute too many specifications on what providers must deliver and that the more detailed requirements on provision will be included in the contract.
That is why my amendment does not specify the detailed SEN provision or training that must be provided; rather, it seeks to place duties on the principal to keep that provision and training under review. That has several advantages. It is a means of ensuring that contractual commitments relating to SEN are delivered on the ground. It creates a strong statutory framework around which the provision of SEN support and training can be provided, but it does so without being restrictive or prescriptive in the way the Minister was concerned about.
One of the major challenges we face is linking up provision in custody and provision in the community. We do not want to see progress made by a young person while in a secure college to be lost after he or she is released, because for many detained young people—this is a sad reality, but it is true—custody might be the first time in many years that they have engaged in education. For far too many it is the first time their special educational needs are identified. It is therefore crucial that any information identified in a secure college is passed on to the home local authority so that there is continuity in ensuring that their needs are met. Upon release, those young people might be eligible for an education, health and care assessment from their home local authorities. That might need to begin before they are released so that a proper package can be put in place to prepare the ground for that transition. That is why my amendment would require the principal of a secure college to pass any information on a child’s special educational needs to their home local authority, building on the great strides that have been made in the 2014 Act.
Guy Opperman (Hexham) (Con)
I congratulate my hon. Friend on his eminently good speech, which, as always, draws upon his expert knowledge of SEN. Is he not describing an integrated form of education whereby what takes place inside one particular institution is transferred seamlessly to other institutions involved? Is that not what we should be aiming for in all education across the prison system?
Mr Buckland
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that intervention. Already in the debate we have heard, in speeches and interventions, about the relatively short period of time that young people spend in custody. That continuity is absolutely essential if we are to take meaningful strides not only in dealing with rehabilitation, but in reducing reoffending rates, which concern all of us and are a priority for the Government.
My amendment is a probing amendment, but I am keen for my hon. Friend the Minister to consider further these proposals in relation to SEN provision in secure colleges: that education providers in those colleges be required by contract to put SEN at the heart of their education provision; that those providers also be required by contract to ensure adequate and proper training for staff so that they can properly identify special education needs and meet that need when it is identified; and finally, that we give further thought to exactly who in a secure college should be responsible for working with home local education authorities when young people either have education, health and care plans, or might be eligible for them. I commend those points to the House.
John McDonnell (Hayes and Harlington) (Lab)
I will be very brief, because other Members wish to speak. I find this whole secure college proposal abhorrent. It flies in the face of all the evidence that has been put before the Justice Committee and debated in the wider media. What do we know about trying to address the issues that confront young people once they get involved in this system? We know that the most successful units are the smaller ones. So what is the response? It is to create a mass-scale prison.
The other thing that we know works—this is absolutely critical—is for young people to be located close to their homes so that they can maintain family and community contact. The scale of this proposal in catering for about 25% of young people in the prison system means that these colleges will be located in the centre of the country, nowhere near the vast proportion of homes where these young people live, so we will be breaking down family connections. We have warnings before us, right across the piece, that in a mixed-gender establishment those most at risk will be young women. Some of the statements and evidence provided about those risks were frightening.
All the evidence tells us that a system such as that proposed will not work, and I think the Government know that. This is Oakwood for children, and we know what happened in that privatised prison—riots, assaults, and a lack of control. I think the Government know that there is a danger that that will be replicated in this large institution. That is why the Bill is allowing for the use of physical force against young people, contrary to everything the courts have told us.
Sir Alan Beith (Berwick-upon-Tweed) (LD)
Given that the hon. Gentleman, who is a member of the Justice Committee, was unable in the circumstances to visit Oakwood when we did so recently, I hope he would not want to give the impression that the Committee had formed the view that his description fits Oakwood as it is now rather than as it was at the beginning.
John McDonnell
I was unable to go on that visit because I was in hospital at the time. However, I have had the reports from Oakwood and I have met the Prison Officers Association. We have seen time and again the level of assaults there and the riots that have taken place. Only recently, a whole wing was taken over by prisoners. That is a result of privatisation. That is the agenda; that is what this is about. It is not about the rehabilitation, education and care of young people; the main thrust is reducing the overall cost of the system. That is why privatisation has come on to the agenda. As a result of this Government’s drive to reduce costs within the system, we are putting the lives of young people at risk.
I grew up on an estate where young people were sent into the prison system—that is, borstals. This proposal is bringing borstals back into the system. We thought we had got rid of them. They were like large-scale prisons where a regime of brutality could emerge because of packing so many young people in, and where costs were limited so there was not the intensive investment looking at children’s individual needs.
This is a dreadful proposal. If it is enacted, with £85 million spent on this large-scale Titan prison for young people, we will live to regret it, because it will damage young people’s lives and, rather than rehabilitate them, force them into a more brutal form of criminal practice in future.
Stephen Gilbert (St Austell and Newquay) (LD)
There is much to commend part 1 of the Bill, but, like other hon. Members, I cannot say the same for part 2.
The plans for secure colleges are a leap into the unknown that have the potential to deliver worse outcomes for the very vulnerable young people who are placed into custody across the secure youth estate. It is not just me or other hon. Members who are saying that; it is the Howard League for Penal Reform, the Prison Reform Trust, the deputy Children’s Commissioner, and the Standing Committee for Youth Justice. Like them, I worry that the introduction of secure colleges could drive up the number of young people being sent into custody—something that we are seeking to avoid. I fear that they will not meet the emotional and mental health needs of children who are placed into them, that they will not meet the excellent standards of educational attainment in some of our secure children’s homes, and that they will provide for worse outcomes for some of the youngest, and therefore most vulnerable, people we need to detain.
As the hon. Member for Barnsley Central (Dan Jarvis) said, we are seeing a steady period of decline in youth imprisonment and youth crime, though one will not necessarily read about it in the newspapers. Overall, youth crime is down by 63% since 2002. Since 2009, there have been 55% fewer young people coming into the youth justice system and 36% fewer young people—that is, people under 18—in custody.
The introduction of detention and training orders under the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 resulted in a large spike in the number of under-18s being sent into custody, because courts saw that as a new solution. I fear that secure colleges could create a similar spike, with children being sent into custody rather than accessing the restorative and rehabilitative options that are available to meet their complex needs.
It is clear, not least from what my hon. Friend the Member for South Swindon (Mr Buckland) has said, that the secure youth estate already faces considerable challenges taking account of the mental health needs, learning disabilities and difficulties, addictions, childhood abuse and neglect of the children in its care. We should not underestimate the background problems faced by those children who end up in custody.
The Prison Reform Trust study of 6,000 children in custody revealed that at least three quarters of the sample had absent fathers; a third had absent mothers; half lived in a deprived household; more than a quarter had witnessed domestic violence; another quarter had experience of local authority care; and one in five was known to have harmed themselves, and a shocking one in 10 to have attempted to take their own life. It is clear that if we are to address reoffending among that cohort, we have to first address those underlying issues.
Kate Green (Stretford and Urmston) (Lab)
I share all the concerns about secure training centres that have been expressed this evening by Members of all parties. I want briefly to ask the Minister about the position of young women and girls in particular. Frankly, it is baffling that young women could be in the same secure training centre as young men when we have taken such steps to differentiate the needs of adult women in the custody system. It is also baffling that, when we have ruled out Titan prisons for adults, we think they are appropriate for young people. We seem to be going in an utterly perverse direction.
We know that girls’ needs in the penal system are different from those of boys and young men. We know that girls are more likely to self-harm and to be placed in restraint and in segregation. We also know that their emotional and well-being needs are different. They have often been victims of terrible trauma and abuse prior to their entry into the penal system. Therefore, if girls and young women are to be placed in these centres, I want the Minister to address some specific issues with clear and direct responses.
First, will the Minister tell us whether any young woman who might be pregnant or who might be a young mother will be placed in one of the secure training centres? In my view, it would be utterly unacceptable for such young women to be confined in the centres. Secondly, will any young women or girls who have themselves been a victim of sexual or domestic abuse or violence be placed in such institutions? Again, it would be utterly inappropriate to put such young women where they would see themselves close to the risk of bullying, aggression and potentially harm from young men. Thirdly, will dedicated staff working only with girls and young women be employed in the secure training centres, or will the whole staff team be shared across the centres, with no specialist and dedicated provision for girls and young women? Finally, what assessment, if any, has his Department made of the impact on reoffending rates among girls and young women of being placed in such institutions? I am not aware of any evidence that such a goal would in any way be effectively achieved, but perhaps he will share such evidence as he has.
Mike Kane
Ministers in the Government who abandoned the Building Schools for the Future programme are now effectively asking Parliament to write a blank cheque for the introduction of the secure college. During my first Public Bill Committee, I was mightily impressed by the contributions of Members and Front Benchers on both sides and by how they comported themselves. There was unanimity on many items in the Bill, but this was a particular area of division. Like my hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell), I do not think that even Ministers believe in this proposal. Yet the Government’s objective is laudable. The Minister has said that 69% of young offenders go on to reoffend. We should all share the ambition to do better, because that figure is too high.
I have many objections to the secure college. My first objection is to its size and cost, as my hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley Central (Dan Jarvis) pointed out. With 320 beds and at a cost of £85 million, it can only be described—as it has been—as a Titan. The up-front cost for each place is more than £250,000, which is more than places in secure homes, secure training centres or young offenders institutions. What position will they find themselves in once this college has been built? How will it distort the market for our other provision up and down the nation?
Liberty has stated that the proposal will work against the Government’s objective of reducing young offending. As my hon. Friend the Member for Stretford and Urmston (Kate Green) said so eloquently, the position of young female offenders within the provision is completely unclear at the moment. The Youth Justice Board has advised against any accommodation for girls in such a secure college.
My second objection to the secure college is that the Government are not clear about its objectives. Is it supposed to be educational, or to have a custodial function? They have not worked that out. If the purpose is educational, my worry is how any educator in such an establishment can create the necessary relationships between themselves and those they educate. As a school teacher, I had 190 days—based on the old agrarian timetable—to teach a child, to build a relationship with them and their parents, and to pass that on through a sophisticated mechanism for the handover that involved reports and strategy. When he spoke so eloquently about SEN measures, the hon. Member for South Swindon (Mr Buckland) was exactly right to ask how such a process will happen. The average custodial sentence for a young person is less than 80 days, so how can an educator begin to establish such relationships in an educational environment that will bring the young person on? I do not think that there is any chance whatsoever of building such a relationship between educators and the young person. Young people with special educational needs also have complex social and emotional needs.
In conclusion, I could not agree more that large institutions are wrong for children, and they are particularly damaging for the most vulnerable children. Without clear objectives, the leaders we hope to employ in any such institution will find it an almost impossible task to navigate the mission that the Government have failed to clarify in Committee and in the House tonight. The Government should think again.
Jeremy Corbyn
I will be brief so that other colleagues can speak in this important debate. I was pleased that the Front-Bench spokesman gave way to me earlier because, having visited a number of young offenders institutions through my membership of the Justice Committee, I am alarmed by the background of many of the young people in those institutions. They are often the victims of abuse, neglect or simply an uncaring society and a lack of care throughout their lives. They often end up brutalised by the system, then come out and commit further offences. Life gets worse and worse for them.
The endless answer appears to be a bigger and bigger plethora of agencies, contractors and others who are supposed to assist these young people who are going through serious traumas in their lives. One problem is that too many agencies, too many people and too many organisations are intervening, often on a profit-centred basis rather than a care-centred basis. The people who lose out are the young people. The rest of society also loses out because the skills and abilities of those young people are lost to us as they set off on a life of crime and further imprisonment.
The Government now propose these very large secure training colleges. I am appalled by the whole idea. I agree with what has been said from the Opposition Front Bench and by the hon. Member for St Austell and Newquay (Stephen Gilbert) and others. We do not need big institutions, where people get lost, where self-harm takes place and suicides occur, and where bullying and harassment become a daily fact of life. That culture can become a form of control over those within the centres. We need something that is far more caring and far more focused on educational achievement and building social skills for the future.
I will make one last point so that others can contribute to the debate. During the investigation into youth justice, a number of us on the Justice Committee had the good fortune to visit young offenders institutions in Denmark and Norway. That was very instructive. They spend a great deal more money than us on dealing with young offenders. They have much smaller units in which to deal with them. They focus heavily on education and social skill development, and heavily encourage family visits and, where possible, education in a normal college outside the institution. The person who goes through the process of rehabilitation while in custody maintains a high degree of contact with the rest of society, rather than being totally locked away and coming out after some years having lost lots of social skills, if not lots of contacts. The results in Denmark and Norway are very low levels of reoffending compared with what we have, much lower levels of self-harm and attempted suicide, and, in the long run, a much lower level of crime in society.
My hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) pointed to the obsession with the contract culture. That seems to be driving the Ministry of Justice at every turn. There are teams of people in the Ministry of Justice working out how to hive off, sell off, privatise and get rid of services, rather than focusing on the core function, which is the administration of a service and reducing the rate of reoffending—not creating profit centres for companies such as G4S and many others. Please can we not go down that road? I hope that the Minister understands that many of us feel passionately about this. We want to see young people being valued, not having their lives destroyed in these kinds of institutions.
Julie Hilling
Nobody except the Minister thinks that secure colleges are a good idea—no educationist, no one who works in young offenders institutions, no one who works in the criminal justice system and no one who campaigns for improvements in the way that we treat children and young people in the justice system.
We do know that the vast majority of young people who end up in the criminal justice system have very poor literacy, numeracy and linguistic skills. The statistics show that 86% of offenders in young offenders institutions have been excluded from school. I maintain that the majority of those young people will have special educational needs because of physical or mental disabilities or emotional difficulties, whether or not those needs have been previously identified. Such children need to be educated in small groups and to do a wide range of activities. Simply sitting them at a desk and expecting them to learn does not work, and it has never worked for them.
Jeremy Wright
I think that we had a constructive debate in Committee, and it is disappointing that the Opposition have set their face against secure colleges. I will not be able to pick up on all the points made during the debate, but let me do my best.
Amendments 16, 17, 18 and 21 would effectively remove from the Bill all reference to a secure college, and it is worth starting with the context of our proposed reform of the youth secure estate. At present we pay around £100,000 a year on average for a place in youth custody, and yet almost 70% of young people go on to reoffend within 12 months of release. For secure children’s homes the cost rises beyond £200,000 a place, yet reoffending outcomes are little different.
To give the House the facts, the proportion of offenders who reoffended in the 12 months to March 2012 is as follows: 69.9% in young offenders institutions; 70.1% in secure training centres; and 67.6% in secure children’s homes. That is why we need to do something different, and why we are pursuing the idea of secure colleges. I have heard the arguments tonight and, indeed previously, that there are better ways to improve the youth custodial estate, and in particular that smaller establishments such as secure children’s homes are more effective. The figures for reoffending that I have given do not demonstrate that, but I understand that plenty of good work is done across the estate.
The hon. Member for Barnsley Central (Dan Jarvis) asked whether we considered spending the money on the existing estate, and the answer is yes. However, if we continue to do the same things in the same ways, we can expect the same results. He seems to have said this evening that he accepts that the status quo is not acceptable but he does not think that secure colleges are the right way to go. He clearly favours a much more small-unit approach, such as secure children’s homes, but I wonder whether he has considered the cost of that. Our rough guess is that putting all young people currently detained in custody into a secure children’s home would cost in excess of £100 million more a year than we currently spend. I would be interested to hear—as, I am sure, would the House—how exactly that would be paid for by the Labour party if that is its intent. I suspect it does not know.
The truth is that no current model of youth custody is delivering the types of outcomes that we all want to see, or providing sufficient value for money for the taxpayer. That is why we want to consider secure colleges. I am conscious that there is an appetite to hear more detail on how secure colleges will operate than primary legislation can provide. It is therefore worth pointing out to the House that during the Bill’s passage we intend to publish and consult on our plans for secure college rules, including, where appropriate, setting out some indicative draft provisions. This will provide both Houses with more information on how we expect secure colleges to operate.
John McDonnell
During the passage of the Bill? We are on Report! This is the end of the Bill’s consideration in this House. We have one more day. We will not return to this issue unless the other place amends the proposed legislation.
Jeremy Wright
If the hon. Gentleman takes the time to look at the programme motion he will see that there are two days allowed on Report. This is the first day, not the second. [Interruption.] I have made the position clear.
Jeremy Wright
No, I am afraid I will not. I have 10 minutes left and a good deal of ground to cover. There will be a second day on Report and the other House will get to consider this matter. The hon. Gentleman was not present in Committee. Had he—
John McDonnell
On a point of order, Mr Speaker. I am sure the Minister does not wish to mislead the House about the processes of this House. I would like absolute clarity. I am a Back-Bench Member dealing with this part of the Bill on day one, which is considering this part the Bill. On the basis of the programme motion, this part of the Bill will not come back for consideration on day two, so this is my last opportunity to consider the matter unless the other place amends the Bill on this point. I will not have the opportunity to take part in a debate informed by the publication of these rules. Is that accurate, Mr Speaker?
Mr Speaker
The hon. Gentleman has described the procedure accurately. What he has said is not something from which I wish to dissent. I cannot rule on it, but what he has said is procedurally correct.
Jeremy Wright
I make two points to the hon. Gentleman. First, if he looks carefully at the programme motion—I am sure he understands this very well—he will see that there will be a Third Reading debate at the end of the second day on Report. He will have the opportunity to raise something then. Secondly, it really would not matter what the secure college rules say, would it? The hon. Gentleman has made his position crystal clear. He thinks this is a capitalist conspiracy to privatise youth justice. He is not interested in the details of secure colleges at all; he is interested only in what he perceives to be the political animus here. If he will allow me to do so, I will come on to the detail that he says he wants to discuss. Let us discuss it.
Amendments 13, 14 and 15 relate to secure children’s homes and the placement of under-15s and girls in secure colleges, an issue of perfectly legitimate concern that was raised in Committee. Let me set out the Government’s position. There was much debate in Committee, and again here on amendment 13, on secure children’s homes. We accept that secure colleges will not be appropriate for 10 and 11-year-olds remanded or sentenced to custody. We have also made it clear, in our response to the “Transforming Youth Justice” consultation, that there are likely to be some detained young people who will continue to require specialist separate accommodation on the grounds of their acute needs or vulnerability.
The Bill provides for secure colleges. It does not seek to make any changes to the existing legislative provision relating to secure children’s homes. Local authorities, rather than the Secretary of State, provide secure children’s homes. We think it is right that they retain that responsibility. The nine new Youth Justice Board contracts and the increased use of welfare places demonstrate that there is currently high demand for secure children’s home provision. Quite properly, the Secretary of State and the YJB exercise their various powers to provide and commission secure accommodation for young people remanded or sentenced to custody in such a way that suitable accommodation is available for those young people. That includes commissioning places in secure children’s homes as appropriate. I have made it clear before that that will continue.
There was also detailed discussion in Committee of whether girls and under-15s will be accommodated in secure colleges. Amendments 14 and 15 would prevent the placement of any young person under 15, and any girl, in secure colleges. Let me point out again that I recognise concerns that accommodating a large number of boys and only a small number of girls could, if the risks are not properly managed, place those girls at risk. That was very much the point made by the hon. Member for Stretford and Urmston (Kate Green). I also recognise that girls in custody often have a range of complex needs and that it will be important that the secure colleges meet those needs. I am afraid that I do not have time to go into the detail she raised, but I will write to her if I can. The one question I can answer immediately relates to care for young mothers. There is currently a mother and baby unit at the Rainsbrook secure training centre. If that is not to continue, we must make provision elsewhere.
My hon. Friend the Member for St Austell and Newquay (Stephen Gilbert) and others suggested that it might be daunting for children as young as 12 to be in the same secure establishments as 17-year-olds, although such age groups rub shoulders in mainstream secondary education and, indeed, in some of the other establishments that we have discussed. I am confident that those risks can be managed in secure colleges, and I want young girls and younger children to have access to the facilities and opportunities that will be provided in them. Having said that, I should make it clear that no final decisions have been made on who will be accommodated in the pathfinder secure college. Such decisions will be taken later in the development of the pathfinder, and in the light of careful analysis of the needs of the youth custodial population and the implications for the different groups who may be accommodated.
Amendment 11 makes an important point about the use of force. I recognise that the issues of good order and discipline and how they are maintained are at the heart of the amendment. There was considerable debate about those issues in Committee. I sought to reassure Members then, and I am happy to try to do so again now.
The duties of custody officers include maintaining good order and discipline, but the provisions in the Bill will not by themselves allow them to use force for that purpose. That will not be possible unless specific provision is made in the secure college rules, in which the boundaries on the use of force should be set out. I repeat that we intend to consult on our approach to secure college rules.
I entirely understand that the term “good order and discipline” could be considered too broad in this context. Let me try to explain exactly what we have in mind. This is not about using force for the purpose of discipline as a form of punishment, or simply to make a young person follow an instruction. We have always made it clear that force must not be used merely to secure compliance with an order. We believe that, as a last resort, in the limited circumstances in which all attempts to resolve the situation without resorting to force have failed, and in which a young person’s behaviour is having an impact on his or her own safety and welfare or that of others, some force—subject to strict conditions and safeguards—may be necessary. Force may be used as part of securing good order and discipline only when there are clear risks to the maintaining of a safe and stable environment for young people, and when its use is a necessary and proportionate response in order to protect the welfare of the individual or that of others. I hope that that explanation is helpful. As I have said, further debate will doubtless take place when Members have seen the secure college rules.
I am grateful to those who tabled amendments relating to health and education. I shall not have time to discuss them in detail, but Members may wish to read the Hansard report of the Committee stage, when we debated precisely these matters. NHS England will have a duty to assess the needs of young people in a secure college to determine which services should be provided. NHS England applies the Intercollegiate Healthcare Standards for Children and Young People in Secure Settings, which were developed by the royal medical colleges and published last year.
The qualifications of teachers have been mentioned. It is, of course, important for properly qualified individuals to provide many services in secure colleges, but in some cases engaging and effective education may be delivered by individuals without a teaching qualification. I believe that the experience and aptitude of staff who work with this challenging cohort are more important than the qualifications that they may have. I should also remind Members that secure colleges will be inspected by Ofsted.
A key point has been made about special educational needs. I apologise to my hon. Friend the Member for South Swindon (Mr Buckland) for the fact that I shall not have a chance to discuss it with him in detail, but it was raised in Committee, and I assure him that a great deal of further thought will be given to how those needs can be met.
Amendments 5 and 6 are required as a consequence of the agreement in Committee to extend the secure college provisions of the Bill to Wales. We have liaised closely with the Welsh Government on our plans for secure colleges, and they have confirmed to us that they are content for the amendments to be made.
Amendments 3 and 4 to clause 63 are technical amendments to correct the territorial extent of the provisions on contracting out. I hope they will cause the House no difficulty.
Question put, That the amendment be made.
Business without Debate
petitions
Mr Speaker
Order. Will Members leave the Chamber in a seemly manner? Ministers and Whips will not conduct noisy conversations with each other, because they will want to show the same respect to the hon. Gentleman as they would wish to be extended to them in comparable circumstances. I take that as a contrite smile from the Minister of State, Ministry of Justice, the right hon. Member for Bermondsey and Old Southwark (Simon Hughes).
Simon Hart
I am pleased to be able to present this petition from the Tenby and district branch of Soroptimist International, urging the Government to do all that they can to stop female genital mutilation.
The petition states:
The Petition of residents of the UK,
Declares that the Petitioners believe that not enough is being done to stop the illegal practice of female genital mutilation, and further that a Petition on this subject has received over 2,600 signatures.
The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urge the Government to do more to stop female genital mutilation and to encourage other countries to stop this practice.
And the Petitioners remain, etc.
[P001349]
Mr James Arbuthnot (North East Hampshire) (Con)
My constituents have the good fortune to live in a part of the country that is extremely attractive, so attractive that others want to live there, and that creates intense planning pressure. In the district of Hart, there is no up-to-date local plan for reasons my local residents consider to be unfair. As a result, I present this petition today on behalf of Michael Morris, Jonathan Glen, Brian Burchfield, Kenneth Crookes, Stephen Parker and 291 of my constituents. The petition states that
the current planning system is preventing our District Council from properly controlling development in our area.
Wherefore your Petitioners pray that your Honourable House strengthens the position of District Councils by enabling them to refuse planning permission on the grounds of prematurity, while a local plan is being devised.
And your Petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray, &c.
Following is the full text of the petition:
[The Humble Petition of Michael Morris, Jonathan Glen and Brian Burchfield on behalf of the residents of Hook and Rotherwick,
Sheweth,
That the current planning system is preventing our District Council from properly controlling development in our area.
Wherefore your Petitioners pray that your Honourable House strengthens the position of District Councils by enabling them to refuse planning permission on the grounds of prematurity, while a local plan is being devised.
And your Petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray, &c.]
[P001350]
Flooding (Staines-upon-Thames)
(10 years, 7 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Kwasi Kwarteng (Spelthorne) (Con)
I am delighted to have the opportunity to discuss on the Floor of the House the matter of flooding and the River Ash in Staines-upon-Thames. The incident, which took place this February, was a significant development that caused a great deal of discomfort and inconvenience to my constituents.
I want to discuss why parts of Spelthorne were flooded during the winter and to examine why particular events happened in the way that they did. I also want to consider a question relating to the local statutory water undertaker, Thames Water. I must forcefully express that it is not my intention to apportion blame. I simply want to air the concern for the public record and to attempt to get more public scrutiny of a very important issue. I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Minister for making time to respond to the debate and I hope that he will help to elucidate the Government’s position about the situation and the regulation of our water companies more generally.
The River Thames, as many people know, runs the entire length of my constituency and is fed by a number of tributaries that dissect the area. It is a great blessing and a matter of great pride, and it affords recreation and enjoyment, but unfortunately when flooding occurs it can be very inconvenient. Such inconvenience does not happen every year or even every five years. It is rare, but when it does happen it is particularly frustrating and often dangerous.
The Thames burst its banks in places this year as water levels reached heights not seen since the great floods of 1947. Although record rainfall contributed to those events, as we all know, there are certain more specific questions about why some places were more affected by flooding than others. Residents express a variety of opinions about the nature of the flooding, but there are suspicions in particular about the maintenance of the infrastructure and whether the failure to close a particular sluice gate, for whatever reason—I am not blaming anyone—might have exacerbated the flooding of the River Ash over the weekend of 8 February through to Wednesday of the next week, when the sluice gate was shut.
In order to try to get to the bottom of this, we need to look back at what happened in 2003, because, as people will appreciate, a protocol was established by the Environment Agency to prevent the River Ash from flooding; when there is a threat that water in the Thames Water aqueduct will overflow into it there has to be a plan, and a protocol has been put in place to deal with that eventuality. When the River Thames reaches a certain level, water backs up in the River Colne and then spills over into the Staines aqueduct at locations some distance from Staines. The water is then channelled by the aqueduct towards the town. If the aqueduct is full, water can spill over into the River Ash. The 2003 protocol says clearly that Thames Water—the regulated company—should pump water out of the aqueduct at the Crooked Billet pumping station when that threat exists and if that does not work, sluice gate 8 at Moor lane should be shut. That arrangement has been expressly put in place to prevent water from spilling over and putting between 50 and 500 homes at risk of flooding. The protocol was clear but in February, for whatever reason, it was not adhered to. As I understand it, Thames Water had legitimate concerns about shutting the sluice gate—so it says—and that should be investigated. I am keen to stress that I am not here to apportion any blame; I simply want to raise the matter so that the Minister can respond to legitimate concerns expressed to me by my constituents.
On Saturday 8 February, the pumping of water out of the Staines aqueduct was operating at full capacity but that failed to stop water overflowing into the River Ash. The flood incident duty officer’s log, which was released as a result of a freedom of information request, shows clearly that the Environment Agency invoked the 2003 protocol at 6.25 pm that day. On Sunday 9 February, the Environment Agency repeatedly asked Thames Water to lower sluice gate 8 to prevent water from flowing from the Staines aqueduct into the River Ash. This information has all been obtained through an FOI request by residents who are rightly concerned and have come together to form an action group to find out more about what happened. That request on the Sunday to lower the sluice gate was not adhered to; Thames Water had its own reasons for not complying with it. After 5 pm on Sunday, residents in Leacroft in Staines noticed that their street was starting to flood, and Environment Agency telemetry data show that water levels rapidly rose after 11 pm that day.
Early on Monday morning, at 1 am, the Environment Agency learned that sluice gate 8 was not operating. We are led to believe that a bit later—at 7.35 am—the Environment Agency raised the prospect of calling in the Army to shut the gate. At 10 pm, Surrey police informed residents in Greenlands road and Leacroft to evacuate their homes. The idea that in this day and age the police should be telling residents of Staines, a highly residential area, that they should evacuate their homes does not do us proud as a nation—people should not have to experience this. Clearly, by 10 pm on Monday, the situation was very serious. On Tuesday, Thames Water sent contractors with heavy equipment to the sluice gate, which, as I understand it, was not working. In the early hours of Wednesday, Thames Water finally closed the gate by 1 metre—it did not close it entirely. As soon as that happened, residents observed that water levels began to recede rapidly. On the morning of Thursday 13 February, the floodwater had disappeared.
Over the course of four days, from Sunday through to Wednesday, the floodwaters had entered approximately 50 homes, and damaged hundreds more properties. At the time, workmen complained about the growth of vegetation on the machinery of the sluice gate. Residents are rightly infuriated by events, and it is their concern and anger that has led me to raise the matter in this public way on the Floor of the House. It is quite right that residents should feel aggrieved. They have been forced to leave their homes for six months to allow repair work to be done. It is difficult now, even three months afterwards, to work out where responsibility lies. Clearly, quite difficult and traumatic events took place, but the reasons for why they happened and how blame should be apportioned remain obscure, which is why it was incumbent on me to raise them as a matter of public concern.
We understand that flooding is being deemed a natural event by the insurance companies, which are already putting up people’s home insurance premiums. A direct financial penalty is being put on people as a consequence of this flooding. The reasons why the sluice gate was not shut remain unclear. As I have said, I have no wish to apportion blame, but we must investigate the matter and understand why the sluice gate did not operate in the way that it should have done so that we can answer the question about whether or not the flooding was a natural event. If it could be found that there was some human error, or that something or someone prevented the sluice gate from being shut, then the flooding was not a natural act, but a human one.
Other parts of my constituency were badly affected not just by water flooding but by sewage flooding, which is related to flooding infrastructure and the roles of the regulator, Ofwat, and the water supplier, Thames Water, and those are other issues that we need to look into. As I have said, I am not trying to apportion blame; I am just saying that this is something that we, as parliamentary representatives, should be seriously investigating.
Areas of my constituency that were affected include Wheatsheaf lane, Garrick close and Laleham road in Staines, and Old Charlton road and Charlton road in Shepperton. Sewage flooding can happen for lots of reasons. It happens when the sewerage systems are very old or poorly maintained. As soon as we have any flooding, the water gets into the sewerage system and pumps are not able to remove foul water from people’s houses. There is no reason why people should have to put up with that in 2014. Our drainage and sewerage systems should be able to cope under immense strain and really adverse weather conditions. No one in this country should have to endure the difficulties and health risks that people in my constituency endured in the early months of this year.
We have to look at the investment that Thames Water and other companies have put in to maintain the infrastructure. Our ability to hold these private bodies to account is at the centre of the issues that I am raising. People know that I believe—probably more passionately than any other Member—that privatisation can be a very good thing. The privatisation of the water companies was broadly successful, but even those of us who supported the privatisation of utility companies have to recognise the crucial role for regulation, because of the monopoly that such companies have—people have little choice about who supplies their water. I have always supported and argued passionately for free enterprise, but I have always believed that if we are to have regulated industries, they should be regulated properly. Ofwat and other such bodies should be given sufficient teeth to regulate and discipline those companies.
I am sure that the nature of Ofwat’s relationship with the water companies will be the subject of many debates, but in September 2013 Thames Water submitted an application to Ofwat to hike its prices by 8% in 2014-15. That application was blocked in November last year because the regulator felt that the company had made substantial savings and should be able to use those savings for reinvestment. In the event, in a compromise, Thames Water put up its prices by 4.1%. The average household water bill was £357 in 2013-14. This year, 2014-15, it will be £370. That is the broader question about the regulation of monopoly industries that I wanted to raise briefly.
I have my own view of what happened in Spelthorne earlier this year. I am firmly of the view that the impact of the floods—even though they were a natural event—was exacerbated by a degree of underinvestment in key infrastructure. I am open to evidence, advice and discussion, but I share my constituents’ opinion. The water companies have a duty to local residents and it is vital that they deliver a good service. Most importantly, it is vital that they earn the trust of their customers, and the only way to do that is to look more closely at the role of the regulators and perhaps give them more enforcement powers to regulate the industries that they have so far capably regulated.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Dan Rogerson)
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Spelthorne (Kwasi Kwarteng) on securing this debate. Sadly, it is an issue that we have had to discuss in relation to several areas, given the severity of the recent floods. I shall begin by setting some of these events in context and then turn to the more local impacts in his constituency.
First, I should like to place on record once again my thanks to the many people who worked tirelessly in response to the recent flooding events, including the staff of the fire, ambulance, police and other rescue services, local authorities, the Environment Agency, the voluntary sector, and local communities who helped friends, neighbours and families in difficult circumstances.
Unprecedented weather events caused the flooding that we witnessed across the UK. We experienced an extraordinary period of very unsettled weather from early December, with flooding on the east coast and around to Wales, and then many weather fronts coming in from the west and causing flooding across the country in various river systems and in groundwater. It was the wettest January since 1766 for England and Wales. Central and south-east England received over 250% of average rainfall. Met Office statistics suggest that for south England this was one of the most exceptional periods for winter rainfall in at least 248 years.
In addition, tidal surges caused by low pressure, strong winds and high tides led to record sea levels along many parts of the east coast. High spring tides brought coastal flooding to parts of the south and west coasts. River, surface water and groundwater flooding occurred in many areas. Towards March, flooding was mostly confined to the Thames valley, Wiltshire and the Somerset levels, the latter in particular seeing unprecedented water levels, while groundwater levels remained high across many southern counties.
Recent events impacted on the homes, businesses and farms of people across the country. Latest estimates suggest that over 7,000 properties have been flooded in England since the beginning of December 2013. This includes 2,316 properties since the most recent flood event began in early February. In addition, more than 48,000 hectares of farmland is thought to have been affected. There was significant damage to sea and flood defences and transport infrastructure in some areas. Urgent work is under way to repair the damage to rail links, with many lines back to full operation by 3 March. The House is aware that the extreme weather also affected power supplies to homes. It is estimated that power supplies to more than a million customers were restored over the course of the disruption. I am pleased to note that power supplies disrupted as a result of the high winds were also restored to all customers.
The Environment Agency is aware that the river system in the Staines-upon-Thames area is complex and consists of various connected channels which drain into the Thames, as my hon. Friend set out. All these rivers, at some point, cross the Thames Water aqueduct. As levels on the River Thames were so high, these rivers were not able to discharge into it as they normally would, causing them to back up and spill into the aqueduct at various points. Following months of persistent rain, there were also high groundwater levels so water could not drain away. Initial reviews indicate that it was a combination of saturated ground, high rainfall and high levels on the River Thames causing its tributaries to back up that caused the flooding experienced in the Staines-upon-Thames area.
The response was a magnificent effort. In the face of such unprecedented weather, countless people and organisations worked together round the clock to help those affected. The level of response, and the spirit of it, was staggering. I appreciate how hard everyone has worked and just how hard it is for those people whose homes and businesses have been affected. All levels of Government and the emergency services were fully engaged in dealing with the floods and extreme weather. The Government’s response was led by the Cobra emergencies committee. Through these meetings, we were able to ensure that all relevant agencies, organisations and local authorities were fully prepared and were doing everything possible to support households that had been affected. We ensured that local emergency plans and out-of-hours help were in place to give immediate assistance, wherever necessary.
The Environment Agency was at the forefront of the local response. In Somerset, for example, this included one of the biggest pumping operations the country has ever seen. Military personnel from the Royal Navy, Royal Marines, the Army and the Royal Air Force provided flood relief in affected parts of the UK. More than 5,000 personnel were committed to help with flood relief operations. Thousands more troops remained available if required. At a local level, tactical co-ordinating briefs took place for the local responders in areas at risk.
My hon. Friend raised a number of issues in relation to the water infrastructure in his constituency. I pay tribute to him for the way that he set out his position, not seeking to apportion blame, but in the spirit of seeking to learn from what happened to ensure that similar events are not repeated if, heaven forbid, similar extreme weather events occur in the near future or in the medium term.
As my hon. Friend pointed out, the residents’ relationship with the river is usually harmonious. It is part of the culture of the area and what makes it special, but when things change, impacts can be great and severe. He referred in particular to the operation of the sluice gate on the aqueduct. During discussions with those involved prior to the debate I sought to cover a range of options that I thought my hon. Friend might raise, such as the future safety of the area through the lower Thames flood relief scheme, which is being brought forward and developed, which I welcome. We touched briefly on the operation of the sluice gate. It is important to point out that the aqueduct operates as a mechanism for the supply of water into reservoirs, which then feed into the wider water system, so it is not meant to operate as a flood defence. However, it can be used to divert river water, and as my hon. Friend said, pumping enables that to happen, keeping water away from communities that are under threat.
Clearly, the operation of the sluice is an important part of the response when river levels and the level of water in the aqueduct are high, so we need to look at what happened in this instance. If local lessons can be drawn from it, I am keen to hear more about that. Having heard my hon. Friend’s contentions and the concerns that he has raised on behalf of his constituents, I am happy to raise some of those specific points with the agencies involved. I know that my hon. Friend will be doing that locally, but I am happy to support him in seeking the answers that his constituents understandably want in response to their queries.
My hon. Friend mentioned the issue of evacuation, and it is important to point out that it is a proposal of last resort. If people are at risk, people come first. We seek to protect property, but if people are at threat of injury, we need to remove them safely from the situation. That was repeated around the coast, for example, during the extreme weather conditions. Sometimes it is difficult to convince people that the threat is immediate, so it is a tough call for people to make locally, but it is important that we have that as a last resort. However, before that, as my hon. Friend pointed out, it is far preferable to ensure that the infrastructure is working as effectively as possible to make sure that that is unnecessary.
My hon. Friend also referred to the situation with regard to sewage, and a number of other hon. Members have raised that in recent debates since the flooding events. Flood water contaminated with sewage is incredibly unpleasant. Systems should be in place to cope with the normal flow of sewage, and they are. We have a resilient system, but the sewerage system is not designed to cope with extreme events and large amounts of water. It would be possible, in theory, to design sewers that were able to cope with much higher volumes of water, but as my hon. Friend pointed out, a large cost would be attached to that. In all these matters we need a balanced approach between what is deliverable and what is achievable. Ultimately, the investment cost has to be funded through the privatised water industry, as my hon. Friend set out, where bill-payers foot the cost. With regard to problems of sewage contamination, as with the operation of the sluice gate, if there are specific local instances where infrastructure was not up to the task, we can learn from that, and I can raise those issues with the water company.
We have recently seen the passage of the Water Bill, which has yet to receive Royal Assent, in which the Government set out their desire to see resilience at the heart of the industry—that is, resilience in terms of water supply, making sure that we have enough water to deliver the growth that we want, and resilience to climate change and to ensure that we have that great environmental quality in our water bodies around the country. Resilience could also be considered in terms of response to extreme events, so the regulator will now have to take that into account far more, as it has a primary duty of resilience.
I thank my hon. Friend for raising these issues. I would be happy to take forward the points on the local circumstances that he raised, perhaps by correspondence, to make sure that he and his constituents get the answers that they seek.
Question put and agreed to.
HS2 Proposals for High Speed Rail
Written Statements
Defence Scientific Advisory Council (Triennial Review)
(10 years, 7 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence (Mr Philip Dunne)
I am today announcing the publication by the Ministry of Defence of the findings of the triennial review of the Defence Scientific Advisory Council (DSAC). Triennial reviews of non-departmental public bodies (NDPBs) are part of the Government’s commitment to ensuring, and improving, the accountability and effectiveness of public bodies.
The DSAC is an advisory NDPB that provides the Secretary of State for Defence with independent expert advice on matters relating to non-nuclear science, technology, engineering, analysis and mathematics.
The review concluded that DSAC provides a valuable source of independent advice across defence and the functions performed are still required. The review recommended that DSAC should be retained as an advisory NDPB and noted that it continues to meet the high standards of governance required.
The review was carried out with the participation of a wide range of internal and external stakeholders and I am grateful to all those who contributed to this triennial review.
The Defence Scientific Advisory Council, triennial review report has been placed in the Library of the House. Copies are available to hon. Members from the Vote Office and to noble Lords from the Printed Paper Office. It is also available at the following link: https://www.gov.uk/government/organisations/defence-scientific-advisory-council.
Wind Power
The Minister of State, Department of Energy and Climate Change (Gregory Barker)
The Procedure Committee has requested that the response to UIN 193072 be revised in order to give a more complete response to the hon. Member for Sunderland Central.
The question asked:
To ask the Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change, how much onshore wind capacity (a) received planning approval and (b) was rejected in each month in (a) 2009, (b) 2010, (c) 2011, (d) 2012 and (e) 2013; and how many planning applications for onshore wind farms were (i) approved and (ii) rejected in each of those months. [193072].
The original answer—Official Report, 25 March 2014, column 161W—was given as:-
This information is available in the Renewable Energy Planning Database (REPD), which tracks the progress of all renewable energy projects 0.01 MW and over from submission of a planning application through to determination and generation: https://restats.decc.gov.uk/app/reporting/decc/monthlyextract.
The full answer, including the relevant data, is:
The Renewable Energy Planning Database (REPD) tracks the progress of all projects over 0.01 MW from submission of a planning application through to determination and generation: https://restats.decc.gov.uk/app/reporting/decc/monthlyextract.
Historical data for planning approvals and refusals change from one month to the next owing to time taken for planning information to be published and the difficulty in locating each individual piece of planning data.
As at the end of March 2014, the REPD shows (for onshore wind installations):
The number and installed capacity of onshore wind farms that have been through the planning system and either accepted or rejected on a month by month basis since January 2009 are:
Month | # Approved | Capacity (MW) | # Refused | Capacity (MW) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Jan-09 | 12 | 142.96 | 4 | 56.75 |
Feb-09 | 6 | 56.2012 | 3 | 81.2 |
Mar-09 | 12 | 111.275 | 3 | 20.006 |
Apr-09 | 3 | 3.6 | 3 | 11.2 |
May-09 | 8 | 164.1 | 4 | 88 |
Jun-09 | 5 | 12.715 | 3 | 30.7 |
Jul-09 | 11 | 51.756 | 2 | 32.4 |
Aug-09 | 10 | 202.622 | 1 | 14 |
Sep-09 | 7 | 34.2 | 3 | 29.9015 |
Oct-09 | 11 | 83.322 | 3 | 69.6 |
Nov-09 | 6 | 46.856 | 3 | 64.2 |
Dec-09 | 14 | 272.061 | 6 | 59.8 |
Total-09 | 105 | 1181.6682 | 38 | 557.7575 |
Jan-10 | 11 | 277.2 | 0 | 0 |
Feb-10 | 5 | 23.2 | 3 | 31.124 |
Mar-10 | 5 | 51.281 | 3 | 99.9 |
Apr-10 | 13 | 99.627 | 5 | 19.63 |
May-10 | 7 | 69.55 | 1 | 8 |
Jun-10 | 9 | 27.625 | 6 | 96.811 |
Jul-10 | 12 | 48..52 | 1 | 27.6 |
Aug-10 | 4 | 1.077 | 3 | 67.1 |
Sep-10 | 10 | 68.972 | 3 | 46 |
Oct-10 | 13 | 122.8 | 4 | 34.8 |
Nov-10 | 12 | 232.875 | 7 | 120.1 |
Dec-10 | 18 | 225.926 | 4 | 92.6 |
Total-10 | 119 | 1248.585 | 40 | 643.665 |
Jan-11 | 9 | 77.36 | 4 | 44.9 |
Feb-11 | 7 | 46.032 | 4 | 69.411 |
Mar-11 | 15 | 251.236 | 6 | 75.81 |
Apr-11 | 15 | 63.56 | 4 | 58.4 |
May-11 | 12 | 123.525 | 0 | 0 |
Jun-11 | 9 | 56.805 | 3 | 5.145 |
Jul-11 | 12 | 58.96 | 3 | 23.1 |
Aug-11 | 9 | 19.902 | 6 | 12.855 |
Sep-11 | 10 | 33.235 | 4 | 73.9 |
Oct-11 | 8 | 41.75 | 8 | 57.88 |
Nov-11 | 15 | 119.235 | 7 | 22.63 |
Dec-11 | 15 | 74.8 | 8 | 38.56 |
Total-11 | 136 | 966.4 | 57 | 482.591 |
Jan-12 | 11 | 294.485 | 10 | 67.14 |
Feb-12 | 22 | 101.41 | 8 | 48.76 |
Mar-12 | 18 | 61.046 | 12 | 77.425 |
Apr-12 | 10 | 501.295 | 7 | 19.74 |
May-12 | 17 | 272.52 | 5 | 60.565 |
Jun-12 | 17 | 159.816 | 6 | 84.99 |
Jul-12 | 24 | 136.318 | 6 | 21.605 |
Aug-12 | 17 | 94.156 | 9 | 89.36 |
Sep-12 | 20 | 199.68 | 10 | 53.165 |
Oct-12 | 38 | 187.061 | 14 | 68.455 |
Nov-12 | 50 | 230.72 | 8 | 52.161 |
Dec-12 | 30 | 14.376 | 18 | 145.385 |
Total-12 | 274 | 2252.883 | 113 | 788.751 |
Jan-13 | 31 | 77.732 | 14 | 103.361 |
Feb-13 | 33 | 492.831 | 16 | 137 |
Mar-13 | 35 | 220.463 | 18 | 58.152 |
Apr-13 | 43 | 380.48 | 21 | 80.235 |
May-13 | 31 | 32.867 | 26 | 103.805 |
Jun-13 | 38 | 50.66 | 20 | 336.13 |
Jul-13 | 41 | 44.97 | 31 | 150.776 |
Aug-13 | 27 | 33.21 | 34 | 135.61 |
Sep-13 | 29 | 65.711 | 28 | 243.455 |
Oct-13 | 26 | 104.25 | 30 | 124.125 |
Nov-13 | 45 | 31.255 | 36 | 123.775 |
Dec-13 | 57 | 132.746 | 36 | 90.9 |
Total-13 | 436 | 1667.175 | 310 | 1687.324 |
Total 09-13 | 1704 | 12966.2474 | 806 | 6632.853 |
Nigeria: Chibok Abductions
(10 years, 7 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr William Hague)
I wish to update the House on the UK’s response to the abduction of over 200 schoolgirls in northern Nigeria on 14 April, for which the terrorist group Boko Haram has claimed responsibility.
Officials from our High Commission in Abuja have been in regular contact with the Nigerian Government since the attack, with whom the primary responsibility for responding to the abductions rests. I spoke to the Nigerian Foreign Minister on 18 April to offer the UK’s assistance.
Finding the girls and returning them safely will be challenging in the face of the determined and ruthless group which holds them in such difficult terrain.
The Nigerian authorities assess that the girls have been taken to the Sambisa forest, an area of challenging terrain about 40 times the size of London. The girls may have been dispersed and some may have been taken into Cameroon or Chad. A further 11 girls were reported to have been taken in two incidents on 4 and 7 May.
My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister spoke to President Jonathan on 7 May. He reiterated UK support and offered to send an expert team drawn from across the British Government. President Jonathan accepted the Prime Minister’s offer.
A UK team arrived in Abuja on 9 May to offer advice to the Nigerian authorities on this incident, and on developing longer-term counter-terrorism solutions to prevent such attacks in the future. This builds on our existing extensive security engagement with the Nigerian authorities. We are co-ordinating closely with France, Canada and the US, who have also dispatched teams to Nigeria.
Since their arrival, the team, and the British High Commissioner in Abuja, have met President Goodluck Jonathan, the Nigerian national security adviser and senior members of the Nigerian armed forces. The team have also met the Nigerian police and representatives of the Chibok community in order discuss the UK approach to family and victim care, and potential avenues of support. Further meetings are taking place this week.
The UK team are also looking at social and economic factors behind the instability in northern Nigeria and neighbouring areas, with a view to advising on longer-term assistance, including in the area where the girls were abducted.
This appalling incident is a tragic reminder of the need for the international community to work together to eradicate sexual violence in conflict. The UK is leading the international community in addressing these crimes that have gone unchallenged for too long. I am delighted that on 25 April Nigeria endorsed the declaration of commitment to end sexual violence in conflict, which I launched at the UN General Assembly last year. Next month we will hold the global summit to end sexual violence in conflict from 10 to 13 June 2014, which I am co-hosting with the special envoy of the UN High Commissioner for Refugees, Angelina Jolie, at which we will seek practical action to shatter the culture of impunity for these crimes.
These events are also a reminder of the heavy price the people of Nigeria continue to pay from terrorism, including from the two recent bomb attacks in Abuja and an upsurge of attacks in north-east Nigeria, such as a Boko Haram attack on Gamboru Ngala in Borno state on 5 May which may have killed over 200 people. We will continue to work with the Government of Nigeria as they address these painful issues.
I will keep the House informed of further developments in Nigeria.
Grand Committee
Arrangement of Business
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Colwyn) (Con)
Good afternoon, my Lords. If there is a Division in the House while we are sitting, the Grand Committee will adjourn for 10 minutes.
Communications Act 2003 (Disclosure of Information) Order 2014
Lord Gardiner of Kimble
That the Grand Committee do consider the Communications Act 2003 (Disclosure of Information) Order 2014.
Relevant documents: 26th Report from the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments
Lord Gardiner of Kimble (Con)
My Lords, this order provides for the disclosure of information between the telecommunications regulator Ofcom and four other public bodies allowing those bodies to carry out their regulatory duties more effectively, providing greater protection for consumers. The four bodies in question are the Information Commissioner, the Insolvency Service, the Financial Conduct Authority and the subsidiary of the FCA, the new Payment Systems Regulator.
At present, Ofcom is prohibited from disclosing information to these bodies without the consent of the regulated businesses concerned. Ofcom may disclose information to nominated bodies, including the former Office of Fair Trading, whose work is now covered by the Competition and Markets Authority, and government Ministers in respect of certain functions which those bodies perform.
As the Committee will be aware, nuisance calls are a source of great inconvenience for many. Direct marketing certainly has a useful role to play and can, for example, enable us to take advantage of cheaper energy tariffs and lower mobile phone bills and to make donations to charities. It is also right that should we choose not to receive unsolicited calls or text messages, our choice should be respected by the industry. There are regulations in place that enable consumers to make such choices and provide for enforcement action to be taken against those organisations that break the rules. However, it is clear that the laws are not working as effectively as they could be and further action is needed.
Over the past 18 months the problem of nuisance calls has emerged and become a high-profile issue with complaint numbers about unsolicited marketing calls being made to the Information Commissioner—who has enforcement responsibility for unsolicited calls and text messages—rising rapidly in recent years. That is unsurprising as Ofcom research in May last year indicated that 82% of consumers received a nuisance call on their landline telephone number. I should stress that although nuisance calls are a source of inconvenience and annoyance for many, this is a particular concern for the elderly and for those who are housebound, for whom such calls cause great anxiety and distress. Such consumers are also more vulnerable to the potential fraud and scams which are an unfortunate by-product of the world of low-cost mass communication in which we now live.
It is therefore no surprise that the issue of nuisance calls has been the subject of Private Member’s Bills in the other place by Mike Crockart and Alun Cairns, and in this House by my noble friend Lord Selsdon. It has also been the subject of an inquiry by the All-Party Group on Nuisance Calls and by the Culture, Media and Sport Select Committee, as well as the topic of several debates and numerous Parliamentary Questions. It has also been taken up as a campaign by the consumer group Which? calling for government and industry to do more to protect consumers. I would like to take this opportunity to thank all who have raised this issue, particularly my noble friend Lord Selsdon.
In relation to the Information Commissioner, this order permits Ofcom to disclose information that it obtains during its regulatory activity. It will enable information to be disclosed that can be used to take more robust enforcement action against those organisations that are deliberately disregarding the existing regulations by making calls and sending texts to consumers. The fact that the conduct of organisations is being noted by Ofcom and details disclosed to the Information Commissioner will, we believe, act as a stronger deterrent.
Addressing the problem of nuisance calls is a priority issue for the Government. Indeed, we committed to introducing this measure in our strategy paper Connectivity, Content and Consumers: Britain’s Digital Platform for Growth, which was published on 30 July last year. We subsequently confirmed that we would be introducing this measure in our Nuisance Calls Action Plan, which we published on 30 March. We have received widespread support for this reform.
The order also enables Ofcom to disclose information to the Insolvency Service to help to tackle directors behind what are called “phoenix” companies, which provide communications services but do not always supply services as promised. This often results in financial loss to consumers who have paid for a service that is not delivered. Ofcom can issue a penalty of up to 10% of turnover but often the company will enter into insolvency to avoid paying, only to reappear under a different name. The company will also usually transfer its customer base before winding up the original company and then continue to harm the same customers. This measure helps to enable the Insolvency Service to consider taking action against company directors for misconduct as directors. That action may result in a ban from acting as a director of a company for a period of time. Also, action by the Insolvency Service on the basis of information provided by Ofcom may provide a better deterrent for other directors planning to commit similar misconduct.
I also referred to disclosure to the Financial Conduct Authority. The Government are taking action to ensure that UK payment systems and services meet the current and future needs of consumers, businesses, other users and the wider economy. Payment systems enable funds to be directly transferred between individuals and institutions. A prime example is LINK, which underpins the ATM network in the United Kingdom.
In December 2013, the Financial Services (Banking Reform) Act gained Royal Assent. The Act provided for the establishment of a new competition-focused, utility-style regulator for payment systems in the UK. In March this year, the Chancellor announced in his Budget Statement that the concurrent competition powers of the new Payment Systems Regulator would be brought forward to 1 April this year.
The Government recognise that the new regulator faces a significant challenge to build up its capacity and expertise in relation to the market place that it will regulate—in particular, with regard to communications companies that are increasingly becoming important in the electronic payments market. More people than ever are able to link their bank accounts to an application and to make payments via their telephone or tablet device. Online platforms such as Google and Apple offer payment mechanisms via their app stores and are developing new ways to access more traditional payment systems. The UK Payments Council has built a central database, enabling customers from eight large UK financial institutions to make payments to and from an account simply by using their mobile telephone number.
Many of these communication companies are regulated by Ofcom and therefore, as communications networks and their relationship with payment systems evolve, Ofcom’s ability to provide knowledge and expertise of this to the Financial Conduct Authority and Payment Systems Regulator will support effective collaboration with these organisations and help ensure that consumers are not put at risk by any improper activity carried out.
It is important to note that Her Majesty’s Treasury brought into force separate legislation in April that enables the information that the Financial Conduct Authority and the Payment Systems Regulator capture to be disclosed to Ofcom. The Treasury will also be consulting in the second half of this year on which payment systems will be designated for regulation going forward.
This is an important measure for the bodies concerned as it will enable them to undertake their regulatory duties more effectively in the future and further interests of consumers. I assure noble Lords that we will continue to work closely with regulators, industry, parliamentarians and the consumer group Which? to promote effective regulation and, most importantly, to secure consumer protection, particularly, as I said earlier, for the elderly and the vulnerable, who need the most protection. We believe that this legislation is necessary and proportionate, and there will be no cost to business. I beg to move.
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for his explanation of the intent behind the order. I make it clear from the outset that we support these changes. Although the authors of the 2003 Act were quite rightly cautious about encouraging the exchange of too much personal information between government agencies, I am sure we nevertheless accept that in the field of communications the world has moved on significantly and that the current restrictions are preventing our regulators from carrying out their functions effectively. It therefore makes sense to extend the definition of the Information Commissioner, the Financial Conduct Authority and the Payment Systems Regulator as relevant persons and relevant functions under the Act. It also makes sense that Ofcom can disclose information to the Insolvency Service in pursuit of the directors of phoenix companies who are deliberately manipulating the system to avoid being brought to book when enforcement action is taken against them.
These changes provide small but helpful ammunition in the fight against the much bigger problem of nuisance and fraudulent calls. However, I doubt that many of the millions of people plagued by these calls would take too much comfort from the proposals before us today, particularly since—as the Minister has acknowledged—it is the elderly and vulnerable who are most at risk of distress and exploitation from them. Will the Minister take this opportunity to update your Lordships on what further steps the Government are planning to take to tackle this menace? For example, I have had sight of the Government’s Nuisance Calls Action Plan, which was published earlier this year and acknowledges that there were more than 120,000 complaints about these calls in a six-month period alone. However, the action plan seems to lay great emphasis on reducing the legal threshold and increasing fines for those companies, rather than providing mechanisms for preventing the calls in the first place. It seems that consumers are being left to fight their own battles with these nuisance callers, rather than having a right to be protected from the unwanted calls.
There are several devices on the market to help consumers filter or block these calls. Having looked into these devices on behalf of my elderly mother who suffers from these calls—which I am sure a number of noble Lords will also have experienced—I know that they are very expensive. One of the market leaders, trueCall, costs upwards of £160 to install. Does the Minister accept that these devices would not be necessary if the Telephone Preference Service, which already exists, were working effectively? It should filter out these calls but is not carrying out that function as it should. Does he agree that one way of empowering consumers would be to provide caller identification free on all telephones so that people knew who was calling them before they picked up the phone? Finally, does he accept that the regulation of this sector is still too complex and that what is needed is a one-stop shop—a single phone line and website—for citizens to report nuisance calls?
I am very aware that I have extended the scope of this debate slightly beyond the specifics of the order before us. However, I hope the Minister will acknowledge that these are real concerns and provide some further assurance that the Government are taking these matters seriously and have deliverable plans to ensure that these unwanted calls will stop. I look forward to his response.
Lord Gardiner of Kimble
My Lords, the order impacts positively on Ofcom’s ability to disclose information to the four bodies that I outlined and I am extremely grateful to the noble Baroness for the support that she has given to it. We are at one on the fact that we need to tackle this growing issue—that is precisely why the Government have brought forward their proposals—and I am grateful to have this opportunity to outline some of the further steps that we will be looking at.
I can assure the noble Baroness that we would not be undertaking this measure if we did not think that this was an extremely serious point and if we were not particularly concerned about the elderly and vulnerable. They are the ones whom we overwhelmingly seek to protect, as well as protecting the general population and the consumer as well.
Our action plan also noted our proposed consultation on whether to lower the legal threshold for the Information Commissioner to take an enforcement action, but in addition to the legislative proposals, the action plan seeks to improve information for consumers, industry best practice and call-tracing efforts, which will be aided by the meetings that are taking place with representatives of the telecommunications companies, consumer group representatives and interested parliamentarians.
The noble Baroness rightly raised the question of the effectiveness of the Telephone Preference Service. The service, which should provide protection to consumers from unsolicited marketing calls, may indeed not be as effective as when it was introduced in 1999. That has led to some consumers using call-blocking products and services. I reassure her that Ofcom and the Information Commissioner have undertaken research to determine how effectively the TPS is working, and we expect that those findings will be published next month. We will of course consider and review their findings and take action should it be required.
It was also announced in the action plan that a task force led by Which? will look at the issue of consumer consent in more detail and come up with recommendations for the Government later this year, which I very much look forward to reading. The noble Baroness also referred to providing caller line identification for free so that consumers can know who is calling. The Nuisance Calls Action Plan covers the provision of caller line identification, so that consumers know who is calling. We would prefer for the service to be provided free of charge but, ultimately, this is a commercial decision for service providers. However, TalkTalk, for example, has provided its additional services free of charge, and we very much hope that other service providers will follow that excellent example.
On the question of a one-stop shop, a single telephone line and website on which to report calls, we have ensured that consumers can now access information about reporting nuisance calls in different ways. Ofcom and the Information Commissioner have worked closely together to help ensure that information on their websites is both clear and consistent and provides quick links to further information and help. Also, Which? has developed a portal on its website, helping to direct consumers arriving at its website to the right place to complain about the different types of calls and texts.
I particularly reassure the noble Baroness that we will continue in our efforts to promote consistency in the information provided to consumers across different communication channels.
Efficient and effective regulation is undoubtedly in the interests of consumers, industry, regulators and government. We hope that this measure will help to achieve just that. It will simplify the process of disclosing information between public bodies with a view to enhancing consumer protection. It has been actively sought by Ofcom in respect of nuisance calls, and the bodies affected also approved the measure, which, as I said, has been welcomed widely. I should add that it will not in any way add burdens on business, as it targets those who break the law; and, equally importantly, it will not encroach on the privacy of any consumers or businesses.
The primary driver for this reform was the need to take action on nuisance calls. This is an issue that the Government take extremely seriously. It is pertinent to note that this measure was announced in our Nuisance Calls Action Plan, which took account of much of the debate in your Lordships’ House and in the other place. Against a backdrop of a very high number of complaints to the regulator and the need for greater enforcement action, it is imperative that we act, and act quickly.
I again reassure the noble Baroness that we take this matter extremely seriously. We all know of people who have been affected by this. It is our duty to act. It is for those reasons that I commend the order to your Lordships.
Arrangement of Business
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Colwyn) (Con)
My Lords, I have taken advice from the Table. In the absence of an Opposition, it is in order to go ahead with the following order.
European Union (Definition of Treaties) (Convention on International Interests in Mobile Equipment and Protocol thereto on matters specific to Aircraft Equipment) Order 2014
Viscount Younger of Leckie
That the Grand Committee do consider the European Union (Definition of Treaties) (Convention on International Interests in Mobile Equipment and Protocol thereto on matters specific to Aircraft Equipment) Order 2014.
Relevant documents: 26th Report from the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Business, Innovation and Skills (Viscount Younger of Leckie) (Con)
My Lords, this is quite a technical order whose purpose is to specify the Convention on International Interests in Mobile Equipment and the Protocol thereto on matters specific to Aircraft Equipment as a European treaty under Section 1(3) of the European Communities Act 1972. For the ease of discussion, I shall refer to the convention and the protocol as “the treaty”. Once the order has been made by the Privy Council, it will enable the Government to make regulations to implement the provisions of the treaty using the powers in Section 2 of the European Communities Act.
I shall take a few moments to explain the background to the treaty to which the order refers. The treaty aims to make it easier to finance the purchase or lease of helicopters, airframes and aircraft engines over a certain size and engine capacity. It excludes military, police and customs equipment. Light aircraft are unlikely to meet the treaty’s minimum size and engine capacity requirements.
The treaty supports an important part of the UK economy—the aviation and aerospace sectors. Before outlining the treaty itself, I shall take a step back and consider these sectors, which make a significant contribution to the UK economy. The air transport sector’s annual turnover is £26 billion. This refers to the aviation sector, which provides around 120,000 jobs in the UK and supports many more indirectly.
Aerospace was among the first of the joint industry/government industrial strategies—one of 11—to be published last year. The aerospace sector, which covers manufacturing, has an annual turnover of £24 billion and supports 230,000 jobs across the UK. UK aerospace has a 17% global market share, making it the number one aerospace industry in Europe, second globally only to the US.
UK companies have key strengths in the most complex parts of aircraft such as wings, engines and advanced systems. The UK is also one of the few countries that can build and design advanced helicopters. The joint government and industry Aerospace Growth Partnership is investing in research and development projects through the Aerospace Technology Institute to keep the UK aerospace sector at the forefront of technology developments.
The Government recently announced a series of projects to be funded through the ATI. This includes £60 million of investment in a new aerospace facility at the manufacturing technology centre at Ansty, near Coventry; £13 million to improve the research capacity of wind tunnel facilities at seven universities—Imperial, Southampton, Oxford, Cambridge, Cranfield, City University London and Glasgow; and £60 million investment in seven new R&D projects spanning all four pillars of the ATI—wings, engine, aerostructures and advanced systems.
Having set the treaty in context, I return to the purpose of the treaty itself and how it supports the aviation and aerospace industries. The aviation and aerospace sectors are growing, and Airbus estimates that air traffic will increase globally by 4.7% over the 20-year period 2013-32, requiring approximately 29,000 new aircraft with a total value of approximately $4.4 trillion.
Purchasing or leasing the aircraft equipment is very expensive. Boeing estimates that global aircraft financing requirements in 2014 will be $112 billion. Average prices of aircraft can range from around $60 million to $400 million, depending on factors such as aircraft size, engine choice, performance capability and other design requirements. When purchasing or leasing aircraft equipment, most airlines are likely to raise finance through third parties, such as banks or capital markets, or, on occasion, manufacturers may provide financial support.
Airlines may also seek support in the form of guarantees from government or government-supported export credit agencies. ECA guarantees or insurance may be used in cases where banks are reluctant to lend the full amount due to the large risks associated with the loan and the airlines. Many of these financing sources are on an asset-secured basis. Should an airline default on its loan or enter insolvency, the financier would usually step in and repossess the aircraft to make recoveries against the debt.
Renewable Heat Incentive Scheme (Amendment) Regulations 2014
Baroness Verma
That the Grand Committee do consider the Renewable Heat Incentive Scheme (Amendment) Regulations 2014.
Relevant documents: 26th Report from the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Energy and Climate Change (Baroness Verma) (Con)
My Lords, I am pleased to open the debate on the Renewable Heat Incentive Scheme (Amendment) Regulations 2014.
Heat makes up 45% of the UK’s overall energy use and therefore represents a key part of our energy industry. Renewable heat will help businesses and community groups to manage their energy bills and will also continue to play a key role in delivering on our renewable energy targets and long-term carbon plan in an increasingly affordable way. The renewable heat incentive, the world’s first scheme of its kind, is the Government’s primary mechanism for delivering our ambition of a step change in how we produce our heat through the deployment of renewable heating technologies.
Recently—in March—we debated the regulations introducing the domestic RHI for households, and I am pleased to update the Committee that on 9 April this year the domestic RHI scheme was launched, delivering on our promise to support householders with the switch to renewable heating systems.
Initial feedback from both industry and consumers on the launch of the domestic RHI has been overwhelmingly positive. We have already seen the first owners of renewable heating technologies enter the domestic scheme, with 480 up to 4 May. The domestic scheme, unlike its non-domestic counterpart, is coupled with the Green Deal. We have now seen the first customers who have taken advantage of both schemes claiming the domestic RHI.
Today, the Government are introducing a series of improvements to the non-domestic RHI for businesses, delivering tailored, appropriate support to a greater range of renewable technologies in the scheme. These improvements go a long way to achieving the ambitious levels of deployment that we want and need in the renewable heating sector.
These regulations bring in changes to the non-domestic RHI in three broad areas: they improve and expand upon the range of technologies available in the scheme; they introduce improvements to the budget management mechanism, delivering greater value for money; and they bring refinements to the rules of eligibility and operation of the scheme.
We have come a long way since the RHI was first announced in 2011. With the launch of the domestic scheme and, now, the expansion and improvement of the non-domestic scheme, this is undoubtedly an exciting time for the renewable heating sector, reaffirming this Government’s commitment to renewables and to helping businesses and community groups to manage their bills.
Before I move on to the detail, it may be useful if I provide some brief background to what these amendments will achieve. The RHI is designed both to deliver the ambitious levels of renewable heat to meet our 2020 renewable energy targets and to set the foundations for the mass deployment of renewables in the 2020s and 2030s. Since the RHI’s launch in November 2011, we have seen good progress in the deployment of renewable heating technologies. We have received more than 5,000 applications, more than 4,000 have been accredited and over a terawatt-hour of heat has been generated and paid for.
However, we want to do more. We want to see more technologies supported, to provide more tailored support and to deliver more with the available budget. The non-domestic scheme in particular is intended to offer a range of renewable heating options. There are varying requirements across the non-domestic sector and we want to create viable renewable heating options across the breadth of the commercial, industrial, public and not-for-profit sectors. These amendments will widen the options available and offer more appropriate and bespoke tariffs for the full range of technologies.
I will talk further about the specific expansions and updates to the tariffs that we are introducing to the scheme following consultation on those expansions back in September 2012 and the confirmation of the policy in December of last year. The first technology that I will focus on is air-to-water heat pumps. Heat pumps have an important role to play in our long-term carbon budgets and in helping to manage energy bills. Support is needed now not only to incentivise renewable heating over fossil fuel alternatives in the short term but also to stimulate innovation and performance improvements in the longer term. We are proposing to introduce a tariff of 2.5p per kilowatt hour for air-to-water heat pumps.
I turn to the second of our new technologies: large-scale biogas combustion. Biogas and anaerobic digestion, in addition to being a source of renewable energy, is a sustainable solution to waste management and a key plank of our waste strategy. These regulations introduce new support for plants with capacity of 200 kilowatts and above. Support will be introduced through two new tariff bands: 5.9p per kilowatt hour for medium-sized installations and 2.2p per kilowatt hour for large installations—that is, those over 600 kilowatts.
In addition to new support, the regulations also introduce bespoke, improved support in the form of new tariffs for some technologies. The first of these is biomass combined heat and power. A key plank of the Government’s bioenergy strategy is that combined heat and power generation offers more efficient use of the biomass resources and should be promoted where possible. Biomass CHP systems are already eligible for the RHI under the tariffs available for biomass heat-only installations. CHP projects, however, have their own particular risks and costs associated with them, so a bespoke tariff is needed to bring forward the significant investment required for this important technology. The regulations introduce a tariff, based on detailed cost and performance data, of 4.1p per kilowatt hour. In order to ensure that only good-quality CHP receives the higher tariff, support will be contingent on obtaining certification under the combined heat and power quality assurance scheme.
We are also proposing improved support for deep geothermal heat, which is extracted from depths of below 500 metres underground. Deep geothermal has the potential to provide cost-effective, affordable, renewable low-carbon and non-intermittent heat to the UK. Its small service footprint and its ability to supply continuous heat on demand makes it an ideal fit for urban environments and it has been identified as a key technology for heat networks. These regulations introduce a new bespoke tariff for deep geothermal of 5p per kilowatt hour.
Baroness Worthington (Lab)
My Lords, I am very grateful to the Minister for her introduction to the regulations to be considered today. As we have spoken on the subject in the past, I reiterate our strong support for mechanisms to incentivise the uptake of renewable heat. Indeed, my Question in the House last week touched on that. We said that we would have a debate and here we are, so I am very grateful for this opportunity.
I have made these points in the past, so I will not spend too much time on them. We are very interested in the rates of deployment under the scheme and would like to see as much emphasis as possible from the Government on progress to date, an analysis of what could be done differently and how things can be improved to increase the rate of uptake. The time between now and 2020, when we face our renewables energy targets under the European renewables directive, will elapse quickly so it is important that we make good progress. As the noble Baroness pointed out, heat emissions account for 45% of our total energy system, so it is a hugely important area.
These regulations are welcome. There are many aspects of them which show that the Government are listening, having taken proper and due account of what stakeholders are feeding back, and have made appropriate changes. That is very welcome. Having said that, I still have a fundamental worry about the scheme being complex. Many elements are quite prescriptive. The schedules setting out all the budget elements per fuel type or per scale are complex. These sums of money are now being put into ever smaller parts, with digressions and various rules which are complex to understand. My fear is that if you are a small business or a company out there trying to build a business on the back of the regulations, they look very complex. My gut instinct is that markets thrive on simplicity, with the Government dictating outcomes and allowing the market to find the best solution. I recognise that in the renewable heat industry, we are dealing with a nascent market and it might need this kind of administratively controlled system to start it off, but I hope that we will hear from the Minister about the future support for renewable heat. Can we get to a slightly less administrated, inflexible system of budget management than we have and towards a broader, more market-based system, which it would benefit from? That is my first point.
The second general point is that in terms of value for money for the consumer, renewable heat provides some of the best and least costly options we have for decarbonising and diversifying our fuel mix. You can see that by looking at some of the pence per kilowatt hour tariff levels that have been set. Some of those technologies are very cost competitive with some of the renewables technologies that we are funding in the electricity sector.
In particular, that is true if we look at biomass. Not only do you find relatively cost-competitive rates at which you can deploy biomass—mainly commercially; I think that the domestic sector is slightly separate—you also save on fuel imports, because for every tonne of biomass that goes into an energy system, a large proportion of it can be converted into heat, whereas only roughly one-third of it can be converted into electricity. For biomass in particular, where there are some associated sustainability issues, it makes an awful lot of sense to ensure that your biomass goes into the heat network ahead and above of it going into the electricity network.
To what extent does DECC monitor the incentives that are in place and compare them against each other? What does the RHI biomass subsidy tell us compared to the subsidies being paid under the RO, the FITs and the CFDs that apply to electricity? Can we discuss whether those incentives are pointing in the right direction and whether we have the right incentives to deploy biomass in the most efficient way in both carbon and cost terms?
My other question is on the solar thermal element. The Minister mentioned that the cap of 10p per kilowatt hour has been maxed out for that technology but it is still less than the industry says it needs. I wonder about the rationale for setting the cap at 10p per kilowatt hour; it is probably somewhere in the literature and I apologise if I have not absorbed it. I would be interested to know whether some of the CFDs or feed-in tariffs that we are offering in electricity go beyond that 10p cap. If so, why are we capping heat but not electricity in the same way? I am curious about that.
I have one question about the changes to the way that projects will be accredited. The tariffs for CHP state that the rules will be relaxed to allow CHP units that have both fossil and biomass to be eligible. How do we then police that? We know that all our HI payments are on a deemed basis. If people have one unit that can fire on either fossil or biomass yet they get a deemed payment, what is the evaluation, monitoring and verification process and how will we police it to ensure that we do not create some kind of weird incentives there?
I have raised in the past my keen interest in bio-oils being used to replace heating oil. I think I am going to meet officials informally to talk that through; I mention it again because it is still a low-hanging fruit that we should explore having.
Those are my main points. I say again that the regulations are welcome. My questions are probing in nature and from a desire better to understand the regulations. I look forward to hearing the noble Baroness’s reply, and if she would care to meet on this topic subsequently, that would be great.
Baroness Verma
I am extremely grateful for the general support that the noble Baroness has given to the regulations. As she and I are both aware, given that the scheme is the first of its type in the world, there will be lessons to be learnt as we go in looking at how technologies respond and react to the work we are doing. As she rightly points out, renewable heat is really key to being able to manage some of the stresses that will be put on the power sector in the longer term.
To respond to one or two of the noble Baroness’s direct questions, she asked about the solar thermal element and the difference between the incentives there. The key, of course, is that to achieve our 2020 renewables target we have to be able to set tariffs to consider all technologies. The width of the question is about ensuring that all technologies are able to partake in there without distorting the market for any technology that wants to come in but cannot find space to be supported. Of course we have to work to value for money as well.
Law Commission
(10 years, 7 months ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what plans they have to prioritise and clear the backlog of Law Commission bills awaiting parliamentary consideration.
Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts (Con)
My Lords, my noble friend on the Front Bench is well aware that I am no lawyer. He and indeed other Members of the Committee may therefore wonder why I have trespassed into this rather specialist area of the legal world—the role of the Law Commission. The answer is that a few years ago, when the new procedure devised to enable your Lordships’ House to consider Law Commission Bills not only faster but more effectively was introduced, I had the privilege of serving on the first Bill so dealt with, the Perpetuities and Accumulations Bill, which gave me first-hand knowledge of the valuable work done by the Law Commission.
When I talked to staff at the Law Commission, in a rather charmingly self-effacing, self-deprecating way they described their work as being “care and maintenance”. That gravely underestimates the value of what they do. For example, their work on the Consumer Insurance (Disclosure and Representations) Act—another Bill Committee on which I served—made significant improvements to the position of the man in the street seeking to obtain insurance. It restricted the ability of insurers to ask open-ended questions of the “Are there any other questions and facts that the insurer ought to be aware of” variety. The Bill Committee received evidence of cases where this had been much abused. An individual was refused treatment for his cancer on his private health insurance because he had failed to reveal to the insurer that he had visited his doctor—about flu, not cancer—a few weeks before his cancer was diagnosed.
I argue that the Law Commission does valuable work in improving equality of arms, in clarifying aspects of historical legislation that modern developments have made obscure, and generally—in that rather overused modern phrase—in helping to make the law fit for purpose. Of course, there are limitations to the work of the Law Commission. It must not and cannot trespass into party-political issues. Notwithstanding that, it provides a light-touch, swift way of keeping our law up to date. I was therefore distressed to learn that a number of Law Commission Bills that are, so to speak, on the runway do not appear to be being cleared for take-off. I want to focus on three of those now.
The first is a report on easements and covenants, published in June 2011—nearly three years ago. Inter alia, restrictions on landowners creating easements and covenants with variable impacts restrict their ability to obtain mortgage finance and so impact the development of large estates. The Bill would ease those challenges.
The second is an insurance contract law Bill, which is essentially a commercial follow-up to the consumer insurance Act that I referred to earlier. The Bill is particularly important for small businesses, such as a shop or a small family metal fabricating business, where the owners’ personal assets are co-mingled with those of the commercial operation. There is a practical reason for urgency on that Bill, in that Mr David Hertzell—the Law Commissioner responsible for all the work done on that Bill to date—retires in December this year. It would surely be an unnecessary own goal to lose his experience and expertise.
The third is a third parties (rights against insurers) Bill. A version of it received Royal Assent in 2010 but, for reasons that I have not been able to ascertain, it has never been implemented. It now needs to be updated by a short supplemental Bill. The Act’s purpose is to protect the insured where the insurer has gone out of business. It therefore has particular relevance for “long tail” claims, such as those relating to asbestosis.
The Government could, if they chose, quickly take forward that group of Bills. Are those Bills going to have the regulars of the saloon bar of the Dog and Duck dancing on the tables? No, they are not, but they are individually going to make a significant difference in their specialist areas. In particular, I venture the thought that your Lordships’ House is not going to be overburdened with legislation in the next Session. Therefore, what better way to use the House’s time and expertise than in considering these important but non-contentious pieces of legislation? I look forward to hearing, at least in outline, how my noble friend sees progress being made on these and indeed other Law Commission Bills.
A repetition of what happened to the Law Commission’s Bill on termination of tenancies for tenant default would surely be unacceptable. It was originally published by the Law Commission on 31 October 2006—seven and a half years ago. To date, no response to it has been forthcoming, from this or the previous Government. Governments are of course entitled to decline to take forward particular pieces of legislation but it is surely unacceptable not to respond to the Law Commission’s work. The Bill would do much to help businesses to stay in business by removing the perverse incentive that currently exists for landlords to change the locks on properties as early as possible. Sadly, the commission has concluded that since, as I explained, more than seven and a half years have now elapsed since the first consultation, the Bill is out of time. Consultation will have to begin again and all the public funds so far expended have been wasted.
For the remainder of my remarks, I will look forward at two Law Commission Bills currently in consultation. The first is the regulation of health and social care Bill. I have a shrewd suspicion that my noble friend Lord Kirkwood and the noble Lord, Lord Patel, will wish to pursue this in more detail. Health and social care professional regulation is currently provided under the provisions of the Medical Act 1983 and a series of parallel Acts for other health professions. In the words of the General Medical Council, the Medical Act is,
“outdated, complex, highly prescriptive and difficult to change. This makes it difficult to innovate and respond quickly and efficiently to society’s expectations in a rapidly changing healthcare environment”.
This Law Commission Bill is different from most of those that have gone before in that it is long and complex. Most Law Commission Bills are quite slim but this Bill is telephone directory-thick, and of course it has the capacity to become party political. The Bill is in danger of falling between various stools. Nevertheless, for the reasons that I have already outlined, it is a badly needed Bill in order to keep our regulatory framework up to date and so improve the protection of patients. So where is this Bill now? Is it still a Law Commission Bill or will it become a Department of Health Bill? If so far it is neither, when will the decision be made as to which legislative process is to be adopted?
I now turn to an area in which I have long taken an interest—the world of charities. Charities and voluntary groups do wonderful work across our civil society—in particular, tackling those hard-to-reach groups that present particularly intractable and challenging social problems. To their great credit, the Government recognise the role of the sector, but the charity sector is much impeded by an outdated legal structure, notably the fact that the current law makes no distinction between the duties of a trustee of an ordinary trust as opposed to a charitable one. This, linked to the complications and complexities of what is known as permanent endowment, has significantly impeded the development of social investment and the consequent growth of charities that could benefit from the availability of finance so provided. A Law Commission consultation paper on these issues has recently been published and the consultation period closes on 18 June. I hope that my noble friend will be able to tell me that the Government propose to move forward swiftly to the implementation phase thereafter.
Before I conclude, I have one further point. The Lord Chancellor produces an annual report on the work of the Law Commission. A little bird told me that the report for last year was to be published last Thursday, 8 May. I have searched on the parliamentary website for it without success. Fearing that this only revealed my technological incompetence, I sought the help of the Printed Paper Office, also to no avail. I should be grateful if my noble friend could confirm its whereabouts.
Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts
The noble Lord, Lord Beecham, is clearly more expert than I am at this. Half an hour ago, the Printed Paper Office told me that it did not have a copy. I now know its whereabouts. I thought that it might be published with a view to trying to spike my guns, but there we are. I look forward to the pleasure of reading it in due course.
I have argued that the Law Commission does valuable work that is far too valuable to be left to moulder on a Whitehall shelf. Proposals are awaiting implementation and the Government should use time in the next Session to bring these forward. I recognise that I have asked my noble friend a number of detailed questions, although I hope that I gave his office at least an outline of the lines that I proposed to follow. I would be perfectly happy if he were minded to write to me and Members of the Committee in reply.
What I am looking for is a general sense of urgency and commitment. Someone once described a Minister’s job as being a mixture of bomb disposal and Dyno-Rod. I want to be reassured this afternoon that my noble friend is the man from Dyno-Rod.
Lord Kirkwood of Kirkhope (LD)
My Lords, it is a great pleasure to follow my noble friend Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts, and this is an important debate. I start by declaring an interest: I am currently chair of the trustees of the General Medical Council’s superannuation scheme. That might give a clue as to what I shall be talking about in the course of my brief remarks.
My noble friend Lord Hodgson has done the Grand Committee a great favour by tabling this Question for Short Debate. It is an important subject for the reasons that he described, but the timing of acquiring it is particularly valuable. It makes me think that we talk about the need to find ways to get adequate scrutiny for medical and other regulators, but actually the Ministry of Justice should have regular accountability sessions to Parliament. A Question for Short Debate such as the one this afternoon is an excellent example of that. It is something we should do annually because it is an important part of Parliament’s work carefully to scrutinise the invaluable work that the Law Commissions collectively, throughout the legislatures in the United Kingdom, do. They are of valuable assistance not just to Parliament but to us as individual legislators. My noble friend Lord Hodgson gets high marks for bringing this forward, and we should think about doing it more regularly in future.
I cheated; I spoke to the Law Commission and asked it where its annual report was, and it very kindly sent me a link, so I have had a chance, which my noble friend has not yet had, to look at that report. You would have to acknowledge that a fair amount of progress has been made. There is the influence that the Law Commission had on the Care Bill, to name but one, which is a massive piece of legislation and has taken up a lot of parliamentary time. That is an example of how the process should and can be used.
The Ministry of Justice deserves some credit for what has been achieved but I agree with my noble friend: there is emerging concern about the three pieces of legislation outlined in the annual report. If we can learn more about what is in the ministerial mind of the Ministry of Justice for those three pieces of legislation, that will be extremely valuable.
I want to make a point about time in Parliament. Although the value of the Law Commission is special, it is obviously no use whatever unless it can have adequate parliamentary time. My noble friend is right to say that there are two avenues into Parliament: the specialist procedure and the generality of proposals adopted by government departments are both available. He mentioned this in passing: I think that people will be puzzled by the excuse from time immemorial from business managers in Parliament—I used to be a member of the usual channels in the other place at an earlier stage of my parliamentary career, and business managers on the government side are always saying this—that they are strapped for time, and they would love to be able to help but they cannot because they do not have the appropriate slots. Ordinary people would be puzzled by that right now because parliamentary recesses, particularly this year, are more frequent and for a longer duration than in my experience they have been in the recent past.
My first question is, if the Ministry of Justice and the Law Commission are working closely together, why the Ministry of Justice is not knocking on the door of the business managers more regularly, saying, “If we’ve got a little bit more latitude in the business in front of the House, surely we can find a slot for some of this work”. I am sure that that must create a huge amount of frustration. The value of the Law Commissions throughout the jurisdictions in the United Kingdom is immense in the expertise that they make available to Parliament. Although my noble friend is right to guard against getting the Law Commissions involved in parliamentary or political controversy, the work that they do, the consultations that they carry out and the standing that they have with their interlocutors produce a quality of consultation that White Papers and Green Papers perhaps do not because they are necessarily promoted by government departments. The Law Commissioners must be very frustrated that they spend time on these measures and then find, as my noble friend reported, that some Bills are left languishing for seven and a half years. We have to work harder to find ways of getting parliamentary time for this important work.
In passing, I point out what we all know: the Queen’s Speech that we are looking forward to after the forthcoming Prorogation will contain—because they always do—a provision for other measures being laid before Parliament. That provision always gives some scope for Law Commission proposals and I do not think that we have been as assiduous and robust as we should have been in taking advantage of it. Indeed, we should be saying to the Law Commissions throughout the United Kingdom that over a five-year Parliament we will certainly guarantee them some time. There should be some understanding that there will be a bit of time for the special procedure and for government Bills. If the Law Commission sees fit to spend time giving careful consideration to some of these proposals for public care and maintenance and other revisions of our body of law, then the least we can do politically is to give it a better idea of what time will be available for that.
As my noble friend anticipated, I want to talk briefly about the case for early inclusion of the regulation of healthcare professionals in the upcoming Queen’s Speech. I want to put a single question to my noble friend on the Front Bench to which I do not know the answer. I do not know to what extent the Ministry of Justice has leverage with the usual channels—in my experience, not many people have leverage with the usual channels except the usual channels themselves. However, there must be some way for the Ministry of Justice to say, whether formally or informally, that it supports a piece of legislation. This is a substantial piece of legislation. It has 250-plus clauses, so fitting it into one parliamentary Session would be a tight fit, particularly in the next Session. We know when the election is going to be but I think that it will be an unusual, and perhaps an unusually unpredictable, space as far as parliamentary time is concerned.
I think that to go into the merits of the proposal would be technically out of order, but the need for it is great. I served for four years as a GMC member until last year, and enjoyed the experience. I even read distinguished reports written by some of our colleagues. In particular, the report by the noble Lord, Lord Patel, on the regulation of medical education was a very important piece of work, which I enjoyed. However, the one thing that I learnt, if I learnt anything, was that the Medical Act 1983 is no longer fit for purpose; it is fragmented, it is not suitable and it does not begin to deal adequately with nine different regulatory medical bodies, 32 professions and 1.44 million professionals. It is all about patient safety.
There is a point that I would make to my noble friend in seeking his assistance in getting some leverage for this measure to be included in the Queen’s Speech as either a draft or a full-blown Bill. My spies tell me that the worry in the Government is that health will be too tricky an issue in an election year. However, I think that patient protection is very important and, although contentious, if it were adopted by a department, it would be a departmental Bill and could become part of the political give and take. I think that such a Bill would be well received. It would certainly be treated very seriously here in the House of Lords, and there is the expertise in this House to do the measure justice. With that, I ask my noble friend to think very carefully. If he does have any influence with the usual channels, then if this is not in the Queen’s Speech there should at least be something that indicates what it is going to happen to it. The alternative is that this massively valuable work will be lost. The Queen’s Speech after the upcoming one will be in a very difficult set of political circumstances so we have to grasp the moment now, and we need his help to do so. I hope that he can help the Grand Committee by giving us that assurance today.
Lord Patel (CB)
My Lords, I am delighted to take part in this debate, initiated by the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts. Although much of what I was going to say has already been said by the noble Lord, Lord Kirkwood of Kirkhope, I will re-emphasise it because it just goes to show why the medical profession feels that this particular part of the Law Commission’s report is so important. As the noble Lord said, it is not about health but about the protection of patients and the public, for better healthcare.
It is on that basis that I wish to speak about the Law Commission’s Regulation of Health and Care Professions Bill, which sets out the framework that will cover all nine health and social care regulators—not just the medical regulator but the medical councils. I declare no current interest regarding the General Medical Council, although of course I am a doctor and have been a member of the GMC and, as the noble Lord said, I produced a report on medical education in recent times.
In 2011, the Department of Health published a Command Paper called Enabling Excellence, which set out the Government’s position on the regulation of healthcare professionals, so there is no doubt that as long as three years ago they intended to do something about healthcare regulation. The Command Paper announced that the Law Commissions of the UK would review the legislation underpinning each of the professional regulators. They wanted the commissions to address four key areas: first, the independence of the regulators, with emphasis on addressing the current dependence on government for legislation; secondly, the simplification of the legislative framework, giving regulators greater autonomy to decide how to meet their regulatory duties; thirdly, reducing the cost of regulation, with emphasis on the scope for mergers, the consolidation of functions, the reduction of registration and fitness-to-practice costs and co-operation on quality assurance of education; and, fourthly, accountability—the greater independence granted to the regulators would be matched by a commensurate strengthening of their public and parliamentary accountability for their performance, including widening the role of the Professional Standards Authority.
As recently as April 2014, following the conclusion of the review, the Law Commissions of the UK published the draft Regulation of Health and Social Care Professions Bill, to which noble Lords have already referred. It is now the Government who need to take the next step, and it may well be for the Department of Health in England—with the assistance, I hope, of the Ministry of Justice—to decide how it wishes to take the Law Commission’s Bill forward. I hope, as do other noble Lords, that it will be in the Queen’s Speech on 4 June.
For its part, the GMC strongly supports the introduction of the Bill, which provides a once-in-a-generation opportunity to provide a long-term legislative framework that would enable the GMC and other regulators to innovate and respond quickly and efficiently as society’s expectations change in the years to come, as the noble Lord, Lord Kirkwood, referred to. The Bill would allow the implementation of a range of long-awaited reforms that are not possible under our current legislation, and would enable greater opportunities for collaboration between the different regulators.
Let me give some background. The Medical Act 1983, which provides the GMC with its statutory powers, was designed for a different era. Like the legislation underpinning other professional regulators, it is outdated, complex, highly prescriptive and difficult to change. The regulation of healthcare professionals Bill, on the other hand, would ensure that the GMC and other professional regulators were much less reliant on government lawyers and archaic procedures to modernise professional regulation. Currently, rules and regulations made by the General Medical Council are in the form of statutory instruments and require the involvement of the Department of Health in England, the Privy Council and Parliament. The process is interminably slow. This Bill proposes wide-ranging powers with its own rules, subject to a duty to consult, which would allow for more efficient and modern practices by the regulators.
There are a number of reforms that the General Medical Council and other health professionals would look to implement as quickly as possible if the Bill were taken forward. I will give examples. There are a range of reforms that the council and other regulators would implement to improve their fitness-to-practice procedures for the benefit of patients and employers. Currently, they are cumbersome and lengthy. Many of these reforms have been consulted on already and received widespread support but cannot be implemented without new legislation. There is a need to speed up fitness-to-practice processes and to be able to appeal panel decisions when the General Medical Council feels that they do not protect the public—and the key role for the GMC is to protect the public. It also needs to be able to strike off automatically any doctor who has committed a serious crime such as rape without the need to refer to a panel, whereas now there is a need to do so.
The GMC would also be in a better position in having management with legal chairs and requiring doctors who have restrictions on their practice to undergo checks on their performance before a full return to work. The legislation does not now allow for that. The draft Bill goes some way to implementing a number of these reforms. Clearly, despite its many clauses, it will require a great deal of scrutiny and improvement, but I am sure that we are up to it.
The regulation of healthcare professionals Bill will provide the flexibility to approve education and training obtained in a range of programmes. Let me briefly refer to why this is essential. It will enable the General Medical Council and other regulators to address the current problem of having to recognise or derecognise an entire institution because one part of the programme offered by that institution fails to meet standards, even though other programmes may be acceptable. Because of that difficulty, we often find that the GMC is reluctant to take that action. These changes will enable the GMC better to support the efforts of UK universities and other educational institutions to deliver UK education and training overseas, which would be of enormous benefit to the United Kingdom and its reputation worldwide as a centre for education in healthcare.
In addition, the Bill will provide a way to introduce the more nuanced suite of regulatory sanctions recommended by the recent review of quality assurance in medical education—even though I might have had some say in that. The Bill could also enable greater efficiency among regulators, with more opportunities for co-operation. The regulators would have a new duty to co-operate with each other, which they currently do not, as well as being able to delegate any of their functions to another regulatory authority.
In conclusion, simplified legislation would allow the professional regulators to be much more flexible and innovative in using regulation to support and promote safe, compassionate patient care for patients. All eight of the professional regulators agree that:
“This will be a once in a generation opportunity to bring long awaited reform to ensure that the health professionals who treat us are properly trained, competent and up to date”.
The Minister may not feel that it is for the justice department to bring such a Bill forward, but I am sure that he and the department are in a highly respected position to influence other departments in addressing this issue, and at least to indicate that they will bring this Bill to Parliament in the next Queen’s Speech.
Lord Beecham
My Lords, I commend and support the noble Lords, Lord Kirkwood and Lord Patel, for their urging of the Government to proceed with the important legislation that they have described to the Committee in this debate. I will speak more generally about the work of the Law Commission. I plead guilty to technological ineptitude of a high order, but I was nevertheless able to download the report that was published, as the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson, said, last Thursday and able to obtain a hard copy this morning, so I have a slight advantage over the noble Lord in the ineptitude stakes when it comes to this debate.
It was interesting to read the Report on the Implementation of Law Commission Proposals. It is an annual report published by the Ministry of Justice, and it finds the Lord Chancellor in splendid Candide mode. He reports in his foreword that new procedures were introduced in 2009 and have,
“reduced the time and resources required for a non controversial Law Commission Bill to pass through Parliament”.
He refers to the Government’s “improved record on implementation” during the year and claims that there has been,
“significant progress on implementing the Commission’s proposals”.
He holds,
“the excellent work of the Law Commission in very high regard”,
and says that,
“the progress we have made during this past year demonstrates the continued relevance and resilience of the Commission’s work”.
Well, no doubt it does, but it would be more persuasive of the Secretary of State and the Lord Chancellor if in fact some of the long-outstanding proposals made by the commission had been activated during that time, or indeed an even longer period of time. After all, as we have heard, a number of proposed Bills have lain around for some considerable time. There has been the electronic communications code Bill, referred to in paragraph 45 of the report, which was published in February 2013 and to which apparently a response is indicated by the end of 2014. That means it will be nearly two years before someone in Government gets around to responding. Then there is the public services ombudsman Bill, referred to on page 49, which was published in 2011 and to which a response is apparently to be made available this summer. If a local authority took three years to respond to something, the Local Government Ombudsman would be rather critical of what little progress had been made.
The noble Lord, Lord Hodgson, referred to the Bill about easements. That is not a matter likely to inflame public opinion or, I suspect, cause a great deal of division among Members of either House. Yet, as he pointed out, it was published in 2011 and a response is apparently due—I do not know whether the Minister or his advisers can tell us exactly when, but it is some time this year. Certainly, that is another three-year period. It is even worse for the High Court criminal procedures Bill, which was put forward in 2010. At page 55 we learn that a response will be made in the summer of 2014. That is a four-year gap.
As the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson, rightly pointed out, there is the important termination of tenancies for tenant default Bill, which has been around for, as he said, seven and a half years. It is fair to say that the previous Government talked about doing something and did not get around to doing it, but it is four years on even since those days. It is interesting that in the 2013 implementation report, the Government stated that they had “discussed the proposals” and were,
“continuing discussions with the Commission”,
in relation to commercial tenancies. Those were referred to especially by the noble Lord, Lord Kirkwood. It will be interesting to learn if the Minister is able to update us today or subsequently on just how far those discussions have gone.
I have a closer interest in another aspect, which is private tenancies. A year ago, the Government were saying that they were also considering whether improvements could be made to the evictions procedure in the residential sector. Before Mr Grant Shapps—or Michael Green, as he is otherwise known—begins to accuse the Government of Venezuelan tendencies in respect of private rented property, perhaps the Minister will indicate whether the Government are seriously looking at this issue. They have been rather dismissive of proposals made by the Labour Party about elements of security of tenure, yet at least a year ago they were talking about looking seriously at precisely those issues.
In addition to those matters, there are still a number of outstanding matters in which the Government have apparently abandoned any prospect of taking Bills forward. With regard to the participating in crime Bill in May 2007, the cohabitation Bill in July 2007 and the conspiracy and attempts Bill in December 2009, the Government have indicated that they have no intention of taking up those recommendations for reform during the current Parliament. So that is one complete Parliament—one and a half, in two cases—gone without any action being taken, with no good explanation why the Government have come to that conclusion.
Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts
I had conversations with the Law Commission about where we were on these various issues. In two of the cases that the noble Lord has mentioned, the commission was concerned that they would get it into the arena of party-political warfare and concluded that it was not suitable to proceed further. That was the commission’s conclusion, not the Government’s. It is not a fair accusation that the Government have not acted; the Law Commission itself felt that these were not the right areas for it to be involved in.
Lord Beecham
The noble Lord may be right in respect of bringing stuff forward at the last minute in a five-year Parliament, but years have gone by. It cannot be said that political considerations would have been particularly relevant two or three years ago on matters that by that time had already been outstanding for four or five years. If these matters had been political, they would not have been included in the Law Commission’s programme in the first place or indeed agreed by the Government, because the Government agree these things. On the timing of an eventual Bill, I take the noble Lord’s point—it would perhaps be inappropriate to do that in the run-up to an election—but we have no indication at all of why the Government decided not to proceed with these Bills.
There are a couple of other Bills where apparently some sort of conclusion may be expected. There is a remedies against public authorities Bill, which celebrates its fourth birthday in 10 or 12 days’ time, on which the ministry committed to providing by Easter 2014 a complete analysis of the results of a pilot scheme. Are the Government ready to pronounce upon those results and, therefore, their intentions regarding that Bill? The other Bill to which there was a commitment to provide a response during the summer is a High Court jurisdiction in criminal cases Bill, which is now nearly three years old. Will we in fact get a response this summer, and is it possible for what I suspect will be such highly technical matters to be brought forward during the dog days of this Parliament—although, frankly, it does not look as though there will be much else to do? Then, as I said, there is the public services ombudsman Bill, to which a response was expected from the Cabinet Office, not the Ministry of Justice, by Easter. I am not aware that any such response has been in the public domain; again, perhaps, if not today then subsequently, we might find out.
All this raises questions not about how the commission works—it is doing its work—but about how that work is received and dealt with at the government end. It was interesting to read the triennial review of the Law Commission on this subject. Paragraph 43 asserts:
“The Law Commission faces many difficult challenges at the moment. It is currently developing its 12th Programme of Law Reform in an uncertain climate. The Protocol governing the Commission’s work provides that before approving the inclusion of a project in the overall programme the Lord Chancellor will expect the relevant Minister to give an undertaking that there is a serious intention to take forward law reform in this area”.
Touching on the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson, it then asserts:
“With the timescale for the 12th Programme spanning the next General Election, the Commission and Ministers will be making decisions in a context where there is a great deal of uncertainty about whether the incoming Government will support any project”.
That raises two points. First, in respect of matters that cannot be concluded in this Parliament, will the Government facilitate discussions between the Opposition and the commission about what a future Government might do? I ask that particularly in the light of recent decisions by the Prime Minister not to facilitate discussions between the Civil Service and the Opposition until much later this year—much closer to a general election than has been indicated in the past. As noble Lords will understand, I have very strong objections to that of a political kind. However, with Law Commission Bills we are not talking about highly controversial political matters anyway. I cannot see that discussions would be at all embarrassing to the Government; these are not government policies that will be under review. I cannot see any difficulty in facilitating a discussion between the Opposition and the commission about the commission’s own agenda. It would be helpful to an incoming Government, which I hope to see—and which noble Lords opposite hope not to see—or for any future Opposition to have that kind of relationship with the commission, so that the whole process can be accelerated and the Law Commission does not have to start from scratch.
The Minister of State, Ministry of Justice (Lord Faulks) (Con)
I thank the noble Lord for giving way. Did the party opposite avail the Conservative Party of such an opportunity when they were in power?
Lord Beecham
I have no idea, but I am not bound by every decision, right or wrong, made by the previous Government. I hope that they did. I might equally ask, did the noble Lord’s party ask for such a facility? I assume he does not know that either. Let us start from a clean sheet, and suggest that it is an innovation that would be worth pursuing, whatever the Government of the day. It is not a political issue: there is nothing between us politically in this agenda.
The second thing sits rather oddly with the following paragraph of the triennial review report:
“The continuing pressures on public finances will add to these challenges”.
I wonder why that should be the case, unless the commission’s manpower has been reduced, or the capacity within Government departments to deal with it has been reduced. For the most part, these are not expenditure-related Bills. The report goes on:
“This has brought to the fore the need to clarify the Commission’s funding model so that clear principles are established. To live within its means the Commission will need to be flexible and agile and will have to make difficult choices about the projects it takes on”.
Yes, but I repeat: is the financing a real issue? I have spoken for 13 minutes; I shall be very quick now.
My last point is that the Lord Chancellor currently produces a report on behalf of the Government as a whole. There does not seem to be a proper connection between the relevant departments and the Ministry of Justice in the course of the consideration of implementing these programmes. It seems to me to be necessary for there to be a single body, and it may well be the MoJ, to oversee the whole process from the government side. That is where the delays seem to occur. There may or may not be good reasons for them but no one on the government side seems to be taking responsibility for the overall programme. If they did that, we might not have the disappointment that has been voiced by other noble Lords today, and we might have a better realisation of the commission’s objectives, which the Government certainly share, in principle.
Lord Brooke of Sutton Mandeville (Con)
If the Lord Chairman will allow me, may I ask a question before the noble Lord, Lord Beecham, sits down? It looks as though he would be prepared to answer one. I volunteered in the Chamber when the new arrangements came in—I think the noble Lord was by then in your Lordships’ House. When my brother was chairman of the Law Commission, he made considerable progress by the conversations he had with the shadow Law Officers in what was then the Labour Government. I am not in any way seeking inside information, but I would be interested to know whether that route was being pursued today in the same way that it successfully was in those days.
Lord Beecham
That is really the point that I was making about the commission. I confess that I cannot say what approaches my colleagues in the other place have made as shadow Law Officers, and I do not think that the Minister would know either. I will certainly look at that from my party’s perspective.
Lord Faulks
My Lords, I am aware of the limited time I have been given. The noble Lord, Lord Beecham, has somewhat exceeded his time. He properly asked me a number of questions, as have other noble Lords. I will do my best in the limited time to answer as many of them as possible, but I am sure that noble Lords will appreciate that time does not allow me to give as much detail as I would otherwise have liked.
I begin by thanking my noble friend Lord Hodgson, who describes himself as no lawyer, but he is quite right to bring this matter to the attention of your Lordships’ House and he has performed a valuable service in so doing.
The Law Commission is the statutory independent body created by the Law Commissions Act 1965 to keep the law under review and to recommend reform where it is needed. The aim of the commission is to ensure that the law is fair, modern, simple and as cost-effective as possible. I speak from my own experience that, in decades gone by, the Law Commission would produce valuable reports but, sadly, often little was done with them because there was not sufficient political will, time, or whatever to bring some of its sensible suggestions into force.
However, in the past few years, the Law Commission, in collaboration with the Ministry of Justice, has engaged in a major exercise to enhance its profile within Whitehall and to increase the level of implementation of its work. Elements of that include the introduction of the new procedure, to which we have had reference, in your Lordships’ House for the consideration of non-controversial Law Commission Bills; a statutory duty on the Lord Chancellor to report to Parliament on implementation of Law Commission work—that is perhaps a partial answer to a point made by the noble Lord, Lord Kirkwood; and a statutory protocol on the relationship between the Law Commission and government departments. Those actions have resulted in a more efficient and streamlined way of working for the commission. As much was recognised in the recent triennial review undertaken in respect of the Law Commission, which was reported to this House. The review identified a number of areas of particularly good practice by the Law Commission and its sponsor team at the Ministry of Justice. It commended the open and transparent approach to law reform and policy-making as an exemplar of open policy-making.
When the commission examines a particular area of law, it first establishes the scope of its work in conjunction with the relevant government department. It then consults on existing law and on proposals for change. It makes a report to the Lord Chancellor or the relevant Minister with recommendations and reasons. The report may—and often does—include a draft Bill giving effect to the commission’s recommendations. The Bills are referred to as Law Commission Bills.
Since the new procedure was put in place in 2010, six Bills have been through the Law Commission Bill procedure. As your Lordships will appreciate, there are practical reasons for a limit to the number of Bills that can go through the procedure in a Session, but as and when opportunities have arisen, Bills have been taken forward using that special procedure.
It is perhaps important also to stress that we use what might be described as the normal procedure wherever possible to take forward the commission’s recommendations. For example, most of the recommendations in the Contempt of Court—Juror Misconduct and Internet Publications report were included in the Criminal Justice and Courts Bill introduced in Parliament in February 2014, and which is part of a carryover Bill, which will be considered by your Lordships’ House during the summer or perhaps in the autumn.
The special procedure has helped to clear the previous backlog and significantly reduce delays. Bills that have benefited from this new procedure include the Trusts (Capital and Income) Act 2013—the noble Lord, Lord Beecham, will be familiar with that—the Consumer Insurance (Disclosure and Representations) Act 2012, with which my noble friend Lord Hodgson will be familiar, the Third Parties (Rights Against Insurers) Act 2010, the Perpetuities and Accumulations Act 2009, referred to by my noble friend, the Inheritance and Trustees Powers Bill; and the Partnerships (Prosecution) (Scotland) Act. With the exception of the Inheritance and Trustees’ Powers Bill, which is awaiting Royal Assent, all are now Acts and have made important changes to the effectiveness, efficiency and quality of the law.
In March 2010, the Lord Chancellor and the commission agreed a statutory protocol governing how government departments and the Law Commission should work together on law reform projects. We see this as a key document for ensuring a more productive relationship with the Law Commission and improved rates of implementation of Law Commission reports.
The protocol covers the various stages of a project: before the commission takes the project on; at the outset of the project; during the currency of the project; and after the project. It applies both to projects set out in one of the commission’s regular programmes of law reform and to projects which arise out of individual referrals made to the commission. The protocol applies only to projects which the commission takes on after the date on which the protocol was agreed, although government departments and the commission have agreed to take it into account, as far as practicable, in relation to projects which were in progress at that date. This protocol does not apply to commission proposals for consolidation or statute law revision. I commend the protocol as a thorough and efficient process.
During the debate, reference was made to what might or might not need to be included in the Queen’s Speech. The Committee will of course appreciate that I am not in a position to comment on the contents of the Queen’s Speech. I take account of what the noble Lord, Lord Kirkwood, said about the other measures that it provisionally contains and I undertake to bring the contents of this debate to the attention of the Ministry of Justice—and further, if necessary. I cannot give any further assurance beyond that. However I can say, counter to the observations made by the noble Lord, Lord Beecham, that there is a good level of communication between the Ministry of Justice and the Law Commission, particularly in relation to the forthcoming programme. The consultation for the commission’s 12th programme closed on 31 October and the commission is currently reviewing the suggestions that have been made. It has submitted proposals, and the main part of its law reform will then be set for the following three years.
The noble Lord, Lord Beecham, referred to the report of the Law Commission's proposals and criticised certain delays in some areas and the failure to implement—or not to take up—certain proposals. Although the Law Commission provides invaluable assistance to any Government of whatever colour on law reform, there is no obligation on the part of a Government to bring forward proposals: it is a question of using a valuable resource. For example, the noble Lord referred to remedies against public authorities. I was one of the consultees on that particular exercise. I can say that there was far from agreement among the consultees about the correct way forward. The fact that the Law Commission examines a subject and comes up with proposals does not necessarily mean that it has provided the perfect answer, although very often it provides valuable assistance.
I should make some observations about the Lord Chancellor's Report on the Implementation of Law Commission Proposals and the duty introduced by the Law Commission Act 2009 for an annual report. The noble Lord, Lord Beecham, has already read it, and the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson, will be able to read it shortly. It was published on 8 May, so this is a timely debate. On easements and covenants, I refer the noble Lord to paragraph 52, on the insurance contract Bill, paragraph 8 on third parties’ rights against insurers, paragraph 32 and termination of tenancies paragraph 61, which may assist his reading thereafter.
The report shows that a number of Law Commission proposals have taken effect:
“The Trusts (Capital and Income) Act 2013 has come into force, as have the amendments to the Companies Act 2006 which streamline the system for registering charges and securities interests granted by companies. In furtherance of the Commission’s function to repeal laws that no longer serve any useful purpose”—
another important part of its work—the largest ever Statute Law (Repeals) Act, removing more than 800 Acts from the statute book, received royal assent on 31 January, 2013 and came into force immediately.
Perhaps I may deal with one area which I know several noble Lords were concerned about, which was the regulation of healthcare professionals. Rightly, there was reference to the considerable amount of work that was done in that respect and I think that there will be a lot of sympathy for the observations made by the noble Lord, Lord Patel, about the need to consolidate and improve the regulation of healthcare professionals.
The Law Commission began its work in response to the Department of Health’s White Paper in 2011. It carried out research into the then current regulatory system for healthcare professional regulation in preparation for its public consultation, which opened on 1 March 2012. It ran for a total of 13 weeks, and the Department of Health submitted a response. Following analysis of the responses to the consultation exercise and engagement with the Department of Health and other key stakeholders working to develop its policy, the Law Commission published its report and recommendations alongside a draft Bill on 2 April 2014. On behalf of my colleagues at the department, I would like to say thank you to the Law Commission for the significant amount of time and effort that has been put into developing such a detailed and thorough analysis. I can tell the Committee that the Department of Health is considering the Law Commission’s proposal with great interest and will produce a formal response in due course.
Of course, there has also been the report by Robert Francis QC, containing a total of 290 recommendations, a number of which related to the regulation of healthcare professionals, which will also bear considerable consideration. I know that officials at the Department of Health and the Nursing and Midwifery Council are currently working on the possibility of secondary legislation and associated amendments to the NMC rules which will give the NMC power to carry out its fitness to practice and registration functions more efficiently. The GMC and the NMC are also working together with other healthcare regulators to agree a consistent approach to being open and honest. As the noble Lord, Lord Patel, will know only too well, the explicit professional duty of candour, much debated in your Lordships’ House over the years and which is now a firm recommendation, is likely to find its way into law in due course.
I fear that I am unable to commit further than that, but I hope that noble Lords will find some encouragement from that.
Lord Kirkwood of Kirkhope
Before the Minister sits down, the question I asked was whether the Ministry of Justice could add its considerable weight to what I know is the view in the Department of Health that it is important to make some progress with that legislation in some way in the next parliamentary Session. Is the MoJ willing to support that view to the people putting together the proposals for the parliamentary programme for the next year?
Lord Faulks
The MoJ has a role by statute to liaise with the Law Commission. That is about as far as I can take it. I personally have sympathy with the concerns expressed. So far as that assists, I hope that I can bring them to the attention of my masters, as it were, in the Ministry of Justice. I fear that I cannot go any further than that. I think that the noble Lord will understand that.
I think that that has dealt with most of the main issues. As I said, the particular concerns of my noble friend Lord Hodgson are, I think, largely met in the report. That is not to say that they are not of considerable importance—they are. However, I respectfully reject the suggestion that the Government are sitting on their hands in respect of the unimplemented proposals. I hope that I have explained that there has been a great deal of progress. Of course, some have not been progressed at the pace that some would like, but there have to be priorities. To give one example, on one aspect of potential reform that has been mentioned, the termination of tenancies project, which relates to the Law Commission report published in 2006, we accept that that is a very long period between publication and decision, but we hope to reach a final decision this year.
The noble Lord, Lord Beecham, was critical of the Government’s criticism of his party’s suggestions in relation to private landlords and security of tenure. I think that the debate so far has focused on whether or not rate freezes of three years were necessarily a good idea. The noble Lord eschewed party politics and then proceeded to indulge in it. I respond by saying simply that the case for rent control is far from clear.
Lord Beecham
I did not raise the issue of rent control; I was talking specifically about security of tenure.
Lord Faulks
There is a complete answer to the concerns which the noble Lord was raising; perhaps I will not indulge myself by going into it now. Suffice it to say that the whole question is extremely difficult. I hope that he will accept that we operate continuously in a challenging economic environment. We have made significant progress in implementing the commission’s proposals. This Government, as, I am sure, does the party opposite, hold the Law Commission in very high regard. We continue to work with constructively with it. We have made great progress and can demonstrate by what has happened and what continues to happen the continued relevance and resilience of the commission’s work.
House of Lords
Immigration
(10 years, 7 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Holmes of Richmond
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what plans they have to remove international students from the headline immigration figures.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Home Office (Lord Taylor of Holbeach) (Con)
My Lords, the Government publish immigration statistics broken down by category. The number of student immigrants may therefore be easily distinguished from other migrants. The independent Office for National Statistics’ net migration statistics include students, and the Government have no plans to remove them. This makes no difference to the policy, which is that there is no cap and genuine international students are welcome.
Lord Holmes of Richmond (Con)
My Lords, the message must be clear to international students: we want you and we welcome you. Can my noble friend the Minister assure the House that the Government are doing everything to ensure that, when it comes to global higher education, the brightest and the best choose Britain?
Lord Taylor of Holbeach
I think that the whole House will agree with those sentiments. It is certainly the Government’s policy, and I hope that it will be possible to persuade universities and Universities UK to take this opportunity to improve our position as the second provider of higher education to the world student population. This is a great opportunity for us, and we need to be united in sending that message.
Lord Bragg (Lab)
My Lords, do the Government fully understand the damage that is being done? I speak as chancellor of the University of Leeds. I refer not only to the damage in fees, which is well over £1 million or £1.5 million—a lot to any university—but to the fact that we are excluding more than 23% of people from China and India. Does the Minister understand the value of those contacts, their value to our future negotiations, prosperity and culture and the lessening of value of our academic status in the world by this policy?
Lord Taylor of Holbeach
The noble Lord will know that there is no cap on numbers. We welcome the brightest and the best, and I wish that noble Lords would take that on board and persuade those universities where they have responsibility that this is the Government’s policy. If I may say to the noble Lord, visa applications from students sponsored by universities increased by 7% in 2013, and applications from students going to Russell group universities rose by 11%. That is not an industry that is suffering as a result of government policy; it is an industry that is taking advantage of government policy to show what a good offer we have for students.
Baroness Williams of Crosby (LD)
My Lords, I warmly welcome the Government’s wish to make it clear that overseas students are extremely welcome. However, I have two questions for the Minister. First, why do we need to continue to include international students in our overall immigration figures when Canada, Australia, the United States and our other major rivals see no need to do that given that these are not migrants but visitors who will return home? Secondly, what is the effect of a reduction in overseas students on our crucial STEM courses—that is, courses on science, technology, engineering and computing—as many of those courses are at risk if they do not retain, and increase, the present proportion of overseas students?
Lord Taylor of Holbeach
My Lords, I must correct my noble friend on a matter of fact in that all our major competitors, including the US and Australia, count students as migrants. I hope I may explain why that is the case. In 2013, 115,000 people who came to the UK as students extended their stay—70,000 or so, or 62%, for further study and 38,000 for work. The Tier 4 system offers flexibility to allow these high-value individuals to extend their visa. However, not to include them as immigrants is against the practice in other competitor countries and is against our interests in making sure that we know who is here, why they are here and what they are doing when they are here.
Lord Hannay of Chiswick (CB)
My Lords, does the Minister recognise that this is not a problem of statistics or the presentation of statistics? I entirely agree with his very welcome statement of the Government’s intentions but will he add just a few words—that in future the Government do not intend to treat students as immigrants for public policy purposes?
Lord Taylor of Holbeach
I have to make it clear that we treat them as immigrants for statistical purposes. The point of my argument is that students come here not just for six months or so but to pursue a course of study and, following that course of study, they go on to do other things. We delude ourselves if we think this is an alternative track that we can separate out from migration in general. The point I have made is that it makes no difference to our policy position, which is that the brightest and best should come here. I did not answer my noble friend’s question on STEM. Of course, STEM subjects are important. That is why STEM students from China went up by 7%, those from Malaysia by 1% and those from Hong Kong by 20% between 2011 and 2013. We are at one on this and I wish that noble Lords would accept the Government’s good faith in that regard.
Baroness Knight of Collingtree (Con)
My Lords, will my noble friend assure the House with regard to a major problem that we all experienced in the House of Commons for many years of students signing up to study at not very reputable places and then disappearing? Is that problem over?
Lord Taylor of Holbeach
Yes, my Lords. As my noble friend will know, institutions which were guilty of that practice are no longer able to sponsor students. I accept that universities are acting in good faith in conducting their responsibilities in this regard. All I am saying is that the Government’s position is that we want to back them in making sure that we tell the world what a good offer we have in this country for students.
Lord Stevenson of Balmacara (Lab)
Is not the problem that the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills is actively trying to make sure that many students come here but the Home Office is doing its best to make sure that they do not get in? This has been exemplified by the warm words said by the Minister today, which are simply not believed in many of the places that traditionally have sent students here. What is he going to do to go on the front foot and get out there and persuade people that Britain is indeed open for business and that our education system is something that they should be joining?
Lord Taylor of Holbeach
I do not think that the noble Lord would have any doubts as to my good faith in this matter, and I am sure that that is true of most noble Lords because it is not the first time that we have discussed this issue. Indeed, it has been a theme over the past 12 months since the committee reported to the House. I am anxious to join noble Lords who have responsibility within universities in making it clear that the Home Office policy is not about making it difficult for these people to be here; it is about facilitating their studies and encouraging them to do so. As the noble Lord will know, during the passage of the Immigration Bill through this House we debated this very issue and I said that I hoped to meet Universities UK to talk about it, and that remains my intention.
Independent Living Fund
(10 years, 7 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Campbell of Surbiton
To ask Her Majesty’s Government how the assessment guidance to local authorities under the Care Bill will address the particular needs of people transferring from the Independent Living Fund.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health (Earl Howe) (Con)
My Lords, one of the key principles of the Care Bill is that people who require care and support should have choice and control over their lives. The Bill requires that all assessments will consider the person’s needs, well-being and desired outcomes. The requirements of the Bill, and of guidance supporting implementation, will apply equally to all adults having an assessment, including those who are transferring from the Independent Living Fund.
Baroness Campbell of Surbiton (CB)
I thank the Minister for his considered reply but, given the Government’s emphasis on people who have direct experience of using care and support services being centrally involved in their design and delivery, will the Minister please explain why his Government think it unnecessary to set up a reference group, including disabled people, the Independent Living Fund, local authorities and civil servants, to oversee this very important ILF transition?
Earl Howe
My Lords, the noble Baroness will know that she and I had a very useful meeting last week and I, with my honourable colleague Norman Lamb, undertook to her that we would give that proposal serious consideration, which we will certainly do. I will be in touch with her in the coming weeks to arrange a further discussion about this. We are absolutely committed to co-production in this and to involving stakeholders wherever possible.
Baroness Wilkins (Lab)
My Lords, given that the Government have set the national eligibility criteria at a level that will not provide sufficient support for independent living, will the Minister say whether and how the Government will monitor the level of unmet need of the transferred ILF clients if elements of their package are not eligible for local authority funding?
Earl Howe
My Lords, 94% of ILF users receive support from both the ILF and the local authority. Local authorities will assess those who are transferring from the ILF. If a person is assessed as not having eligible needs, the Care Bill provides authorities with a power to meet those needs, and they do so. Authorities should also advise on what preventive services, information or advice, or other support may be available in the wider community to help them achieve their particular outcomes.
Lord Paddick (LD)
My Lords, while the Government’s policy of localism is to be generally welcomed, does my noble friend not agree that there should be some exceptions? If, as a result of devolving the Independent Living Fund, some severely disabled people can no longer afford to live wholly independent and fulfilling lives, how is this in the best interests of those disabled people? Will he explain, bearing in mind the high cost of social care and residential care, how that will be in the best interests of the taxpayer?
Earl Howe
My Lords, the provisions in the Care Bill will apply equally to everyone with care and support needs, including those who are currently receiving support from the ILF. The aim of the ILF is to support independent living for disabled people. The overarching aim of the Care Bill is to give people with care and support needs more choice and control over their lives. It focuses specifically on their well-being and the outcomes that they want to achieve, and puts them at the heart of the system. That would be my reply. There is no question of forcing people into residential care. The starting point is: what are the needs and wishes of the individuals involved, and how can care be built around those?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)
My Lords, can the noble Earl guarantee that no current recipient of the fund will lose out when money is transferred and it is the responsibility of local government? Will he tell the House why this money is not being ring-fenced? Will he acknowledge that in two recent examples of money being transferred by his department to local government—the Healthwatch budget and the public health budget—local authorities have not passed on the full amount? How will he ensure that local authorities spend that money on independent living?
Earl Howe
As the noble Lord knows, local government social care funding is not ring-fenced. We believe that allowing local authorities the flexibility to manage their budgets locally means that they can respond to local needs and priorities better. The Care Bill, as I have just said, will require local authorities to involve the person in the development of their care and support plan and, as far as possible, agree that with them. The person’s care and support plan may be different from their current package, but the central point is that they will be at the heart of the process to ensure that the package provides them with choice and control over their lives.
Baroness Uddin (Non-Afl)
My Lords, the Government’s recently published strategy, Think Autism, vowed to help people with autism spectrum disorder to live independent lives. However, the abolition of the Independent Living Fund withdraws the very scheme that was set up precisely to help those vulnerable people to live in the community. How many people with autism spectrum disorder currently receive support under the Independent Living Fund and will therefore be affected by this closure?
Earl Howe
My Lords, I do not have that figure in my brief but the number of people receiving payments from the Independent Living Fund is relatively few in comparison to the total number of people receiving adult social care and support. If I have any further figures that I can supply to the noble Baroness, I shall be happy to write to her.
Lord Laming (CB)
Will the noble Earl share with the House the objections to ring-fencing this fund during the initial period to make sure that we have certainty that the money will be used for the purpose for which it is intended?
Earl Howe
My Lords, the issue is that we essentially have a two-tier system. That is at the heart of why the ILF is being disbanded over the next year or so. As a result of that, we know that there is some cross-subsidisation, with local authorities using ILF money to off-set the cost of social care. We are rechannelling that money to local authorities in the expectation that they will use it for adult social care, as I have said. It is not, however, ring-fenced.
National Health Service: Nursing Staff
(10 years, 7 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Kennedy of Cradley
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what steps are being taken to ensure adequate levels of nursing staff in the National Health Service.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health (Earl Howe) (Con)
My Lords, patient safety is paramount. Patient safety experts agree that safe staffing levels should be set locally. Local NHS organisations are best placed to determine the skill mix of their workforce and must have freedom to deploy staff in ways appropriate for their locality. We have commissioned NICE to develop guidance on setting safe staffing levels and to endorse safe staffing tools. If hospitals do not have sufficient nurses, the Chief Inspector of Hospitals will take action.
Baroness Kennedy of Cradley (Lab)
As today is International Nurses Day, will the noble Earl join me and many others in this House in paying tribute to the hard work of our NHS nurses? Further, can he explain why, since 2010, the actual number of qualified nurses has fallen and nearly 4,000 senior nursing posts have been lost? What are the Government going to do about that worrying reduction in experience and skill in nursing in our NHS?
Earl Howe
My Lords, I readily join the noble Baroness in paying tribute to our nursing workforce, whether in acute settings, in the community or, indeed, in any other setting. In fact, if the noble Baroness consults the official statistics, she will see that there are more nursing, midwifery and health visiting staff at present than there ever have been in the history of the NHS. Since the election, more than 5,100 more nurses are working on our wards, there are more than 1,700 more midwives and more than 2,000 more health visitors. We have been able to fund these increased numbers by a reduction in administrative staff—today there are more than 19,600 fewer administrative staff. I would be interested to hear where the noble Baroness gets her figures from but, as she will have gathered, mine are completely in the other direction.
The Lord Bishop of Oxford
My Lords, given the court ruling last week against Thanet Clinical Commissioning Group saying that it was obliged to follow NICE guidelines unless a special factor could be determined that would justify departure, will Her Majesty’s Government give an assurance that the same test will apply to NHS trusts in regard to the ratio of nurses and patients?
Earl Howe
The guidance issued today by NICE on staffing ratios, to which I think the right reverend Prelate is specifically referring, is in draft, but the deputy chief executive of NICE has stressed that there are no floor or ceiling numbers on the required number of nursing staff that can be applied either across the whole of the NHS or in a particular ward setting. What the profession is seeking, and what NICE is looking to give it, is a reference tool or guideline that will enable it to judge correct staffing levels in accordance with the particular circumstances of a ward and the skill mix of the staff on that ward. It is a guideline rather than a mandatory prescription.
Baroness Manzoor (LD)
My Lords, my question relates to specialist nurses. NICE has issued guidelines in relation to TB, and I am delighted to see that Public Health England has also issued a strategy on TB, making it a key component. However, there are variations in the number of TB nurses within trusts. How are the Government and NHS England going to adhere to the ratios that have been advocated by NICE?
Earl Howe
My Lords, as regards specialist nurses, the Government have supported the development of a range of specialist roles within the profession. In the end it is for local NHS organisations, with their knowledge of the needs of the local population, to invest in training for specialist skills and to deploy specialist nurses. We recognise that more could be done by some local healthcare organisations in this area, and Health Education England is able to support employers with continuing personal and professional development—but within clear limits. The planning process has created an opportunity for employers, through the LETBs—local education and training boards—to prioritise investment in this area.
Lord Turnberg (Lab)
My Lords, the number of nurses may have gone up a little, but the main problem is the marked reduction in the number of senior nurses on wards. These are the women and men who are in charge of a ward and make sure that care is properly delivered at the ward level. Does the noble Earl consider that this particular loss is because we do not reward and value these key individuals well enough to recruit or retain them?
Earl Howe
My Lords, as the noble Lord will be aware, finances in the NHS are tight. However, as I said earlier, there are now 5,100 more nurses on our wards than there were in May 2010. That must indicate that nursing is still an attractive profession for the brightest and the best of our young men and women.
Lord Willis of Knaresborough (LD)
My Lords, will my noble friend accept that nurses do not work in isolation and that in order to deliver the high-quality care and safety that the Government rightly demand, the whole of the caring workforce needs to be properly trained and properly educated? What steps are being taken to ensure that healthcare support workers in particular—there are more than a million of them—get the training that they deserve to give patients the care that they too deserve?
Earl Howe
My noble friend is right. He may be aware that last month Health Education England, Skills for Care and Skills for Health launched the pilot for the new care certificate, which is taking place across a range of health and social care settings. It will test a set of standards designed to help employers to assess not only workers’ skills, but also the knowledge, behaviours and values that are required to deliver compassionate and high-quality care. That pilot will continue throughout the summer and, subject to evaluation, it is planned to introduce the care certificate next March.
Ratification of the Convention for the Protection of Cultural Property in the Event of Armed Conflict
The Earl of Clancarty
To ask Her Majesty’s Government when they will introduce legislation to ratify the 1954 Convention for the Protection of Cultural Property in the Event of Armed Conflict and accede to its two protocols.
Lord Gardiner of Kimble (Con)
My Lords, I am not in a position to say when the Government will introduce legislation to facilitate the UK’s ratification of the 1954 Hague Convention for the Protection of Cultural Property in the Event of Armed Conflict and its two protocols. I confirm our commitment to heritage protection and our respect for other nations’ cultural property. That is why we have pledged to introduce legislation as soon as parliamentary time allows.
The Earl of Clancarty (CB)
My Lords, does the Minister agree that there is a growing feeling that, if we do not ratify this treaty, at the very least we shall not have the necessary moral authority to speak out on, as well as to help to protect against, the destruction and theft of cultural heritage that continues to occur? The Government have been saying for years that they will ratify the treaty when parliamentary time allows. There is now plenty of parliamentary time. Will the Government get on with it?
Lord Gardiner of Kimble
My Lords, I of course understand the noble Earl’s position. It has not been possible for either the current or the previous Government to secure the parliamentary time needed to pass the relevant legislation. It was necessary for both Governments to take it up by giving priority to measures for economic recovery and reform.
Lord Maclennan of Rogart (LD)
My Lords, does the Minister recognise that there has in recent years been a considerable and avoidable loss of cultural heritage as a result of armed conflict? Does he not acknowledge that in 2008 the previous Government published the draft Cultural Property (Armed Conflicts) Bill for consultation? We have had 10 years since the Government’s concerns were removed by the passage of the second protocol. Can he not find some time for this? Parliament would be very keen to see this enacted.
Lord Gardiner of Kimble
My Lords, again I understand my noble friend’s position. It will help if I say that, because of anticipation of this country’s adoption of the convention and its protocols, it already informs the Armed Forces’ law of armed conflict doctrine and training policy, particularly with regard to respect for cultural property, precautions in attack and recognition of the protective emblem.
Lord Howarth of Newport (Lab)
My Lords, the Minister’s words are welcome as far as they go, but will he acknowledge that Governments have on previous occasions made exactly the same commitment as he has done today, yet the situation has persisted—disgracefully—that Britain is the only significant military power not to have ratified the convention? On this one issue at least, will the coalition parties set aside their differences and agree to put this measure in the Queen’s Speech?
Lord Gardiner of Kimble
My Lords, I am certainly not privy to the content of the Queen’s Speech. It would be fair to say that the coalition has taken forward many measures that are in the national interest. I am aware of and understand entirely the feelings of your Lordships and many outside who want legislation on this matter.
Baroness Butler-Sloss
My Lords, I must apologise to the Minister. I am afraid that was overenthusiasm because something did just cross my mind: is this is an issue of time or of inclination?
Lord Gardiner of Kimble
My Lords, I think I have emphasised in my replies that this is a question of time. We have pledged that we wish there to be legislation, as indeed did the previous Government. I have read the draft Bill published in January 2008. However, for very legitimate reasons, the previous Government felt that legislation was required to deal with the economic crisis. That is what the coalition Government have done and I believe it is bearing fruit—which is, after all, in the national interest.
Lord Cormack (Con)
My Lords, I do not think that any noble Lords would doubt the inclinations of my noble friend. However, 10 years is quite a long time and 60 years is even longer. We have just had an extra week of Easter Recess and we have an unnecessary extra week of Prorogation. Can we not just find a little time to get this very necessary measure—on which my noble friend protests that everyone agrees—on to the statute book?
Lord Gardiner of Kimble
My noble friend, as ever, makes a compelling point. However, I am afraid I am not a magician and I cannot will the parliamentary time. During this Session, we have undertaken a lot of very important work in the national interest, which is what your Lordships’ House does. I was looking at the recess weeks—they have been the same for the past three Sessions.
Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)
My Lords, the moral case for adopting this legislation is unanswerable. As we have heard, it is not really credible to say that this is about parliamentary time. I have heard what the Minister has said. Will he give a personal commitment that he will do what he can to ensure that this measure is included in the Queen’s Speech?
Lord Gardiner of Kimble
I am afraid that really is rather above my pay grade. I understand entirely what the noble Lord is saying. We would ideally like this to be put on the statute book but we are not in a position to do that at the moment. What is important in practical terms is that our Armed Forces are very conscious of the protocol and the convention, which is why they adhere to what is intended. I have some very interesting details on what we have been undertaking in Afghanistan, for instance, where we very much adhere to the requirements of the convention.
Lord Dobbs (Con)
Would my noble friend accept that one of the prime casualties of any armed conflict is the truth, and that we set up the Chilcot inquiry to establish the truth into that tragic war in Iraq? That report has now taken longer to write than World War 1 took to fight, and there is a rumour abroad that it is being held up by the intransigence of one very wealthy man. Would he not accept that the nation’s interests, and the interests of truth, far outweigh the interests of any one man and can he tell us when that report will be published?
Lord Gardiner of Kimble
I thank my noble friend but all these reports take their course and take their time. However, it is obviously very important that we have this report and have it in the proper time.
Transport for London Bill [HL]
The Chairman of Committees
That the Commons message of 7 May be now considered; and that the promoters of the Transport for London Bill [HL], which was originally introduced in this House in Session 2010–12 on 24 January 2011, should have leave to suspend any further proceedings on the Bill in order to proceed with it, if they think fit, in the next Session of Parliament according to the provisions of Private Business Standing Order 150A (Suspension of bills).
Scotland Act 1998 (Modification of Schedule 5) Order 2014
Baroness Williams of Trafford
That the draft order laid before the House on 17 March be approved.
Relevant document: 24th Report from the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments. Considered in Grand Committee on 7 May.
Merchant Shipping (Convention Relating to the Carriage of Passengers and their Luggage by Sea) Order 2014
(10 years, 7 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Kramer
That the draft order laid before the House on 24 March be approved.
Relevant document: 25th Report from the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments. Considered in Grand Committee on 7 May.
Immigration Bill
(10 years, 7 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
17:37 - Division on Motion B1 - Ayes: 193 / Noes: 286 - Motion B1 disagreed.
Lord Taylor of Holbeach
That this House do not insist on its Amendments 16 and 24, to which the Commons have disagreed for their Reasons 16A and 24A.
Lords Amendments 16 and 24
“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.”
The Commons disagree to Lords Amendment No. 16 for the following Reason—
16A: Because it would involve a charge on public funds, and the Commons do not offer any further Reason, trusting that this Reason may be deemed sufficient.
24A: Because it would involve a charge on public funds, and the Commons do not offer any further Reason, trusting that this Reason may be deemed sufficient.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Home Office (Lord Taylor of Holbeach) (Con)
My Lords, I have no doubt that we all wholeheartedly agree across the Floor of the House and in Parliament generally that there is a fundamental need for victims of child trafficking to receive the very best support that we can possibly offer them. Noble Lords will be aware of this Government’s absolute commitment to stamping out modern slavery, including child trafficking, while building on the UK’s strong track record in supporting and protecting victims. It is because of this commitment that this Government have signalled their intent to bring forward legislation to tackle the scourge of modern slavery. We intend to bring it forward as soon as parliamentary time allows. In addition, we are driving forward a range of non-legislative measures to tackle modern slavery and ensure that victims are identified and supported both inside and outside the criminal justice process and that perpetrators of this abhorrent crime are brought to justice.
I would like to take this opportunity to thank the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, my noble friend Lord McColl, Mr Frank Field and others for their engagement with us outside the House on this issue. I am also grateful to the other members of the Pre-Legislative Scrutiny Committee for their hard work in scrutinising the draft modern slavery Bill. I agree with the committee’s aims to make life as difficult as possible for slave masters and traffickers and to transform the position of victims of slavery, including children.
Lord Spicer (Con)
My Lords, would the Minister like to add Anthony Steen to that esteemed list?
Lord Taylor of Holbeach
I am very happy to mention Mr Steen, whose work has been exemplary on this issue. I willingly accede to my noble friend’s suggestion.
Noble Lords may or may not be aware that there have been a number of meetings to discuss this important issue over the past few weeks, involving not only myself but also the Home Secretary and our legal advisers. This reflects our determination to listen to concerns and to ensure that we are doing all that we can to deliver our common purpose, which is to ensure that we deliver the best support that we can for this particularly vulnerable group of children.
The cross-party engagement on this issue heartens me greatly and shows just how much we are pulling in the same direction to ensure that trafficked children—arguably some of the most vulnerable children in our society—obtain the protection and care that they so desperately need, whether they have been trafficked across or within our borders. The passion and fervour with which noble Lords have campaigned to achieve the goal of giving these children the care and support that they need and deserve is laudable and I hope that we have demonstrated in our conversations with the noble and learned Baroness and others outside the House and within the House of Commons that we wholeheartedly share the desire to do just that.
We are extremely grateful to all involved for working with us in the spirit of co-operation to find a workable solution that will bring the very best outcome for these children. I am pleased that we now have some consensus across Parliament about the best way forward on the important issue of ensuring the right protection and support for child victims of trafficking. By announcing in January the trial of independent specialist advocates for child trafficking victims, the Government sent the strongest signal of their commitment to take action on this matter.
Baroness Butler-Sloss
As an amendment to Motion A, at end to insert “but do propose Amendment 16B in lieu”.
“Report on provision of child trafficking guardians for child victims of trafficking in human beings
Within twelve months of the date of dissolution of the current Parliament, the Secretary of State shall report to both Houses of Parliament on the provision of child trafficking guardians for child victims of trafficking in human beings.”
Baroness Butler-Sloss (CB)
My Lords, I put down this amendment during a period of intense discussions last week in order to make it possible to continue the discussions with the Minister, the Home Secretary herself and the lawyers in the Home Office. I am absolutely delighted with the prospect of these pilots; the sooner they come into effect, the better. I am entirely happy with what the Minister has said: it covered every aspect of what my amendment says, but in the right place. I recognise that it is much better to have this enabling clause, together with a report by the Home Secretary in the modern slavery Bill, when it comes before both Houses of Parliament.
With that, I thank first the legal team in the Home Office, particularly the senior legal member of that team, Harry Carter, who could not have been more helpful to me. I am very grateful for the discussions with the Home Secretary and was particularly grateful to get just the e-mail I needed over the weekend from the noble Lord the Minister from Lincolnshire. With all of that, I beg to move and shall subsequently beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Baroness Royall of Blaisdon (Lab)
I wish to speak on this amendment—forgive me for being so tardy—as I just wish to place certain things on record.
I support the amendment tabled by the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, and am deeply disappointed and irritated by the amendment tabled by the Minister. While the noble Lord has just set out his reasons for not accepting the original amendment tabled by the noble and learned Baroness, the only reason given by the House of Commons was one of financial privilege. As has been said on other occasions, when the Government use financial privilege as the reason for rejecting amendments in the Lords, it too often looks as though the Government simply do not have sufficiently strong arguments to counter the just and moral reasons given by the Lords. Yes, I well understand that it is the Speaker who decides whether or not financial privilege should be applied, but the Government could have asked the House to waive financial privilege and chose not to do so.
This is frustrating for us but, more importantly, it has real implications for the small number of vulnerable children who are subjected to the evils of trafficking. These children have suffered the worst kind of traumatic experiences and they are desperately in need of a guardian, appointed on a statutory basis, to accompany them,
“throughout the entire process until a durable solution in the best interests of the child has been identified and implemented”.
On the subject of financial privilege, I ask the Minister to provide us with the Government’s computation of the predicted costs of the amendment that was rejected in the Commons.
Again I place on record my thanks for the extraordinary diligence and dogged determination of the noble and learned Baroness and the noble Lord, Lord McColl of Dulwich, to get justice for trafficked children. I also say to the Minister that I still do not understand why the Government have been so reluctant to act before now, why they could not have agreed to amendments in earlier Bills and why there was no provision for guardians in the draft modern slavery Bill. I know that pilots have now been announced, but if that has been the Government's intention for some time, why was there not an enabling clause in the draft Bill? I am pleased that the Government clearly now intend to introduce an enabling clause by amendment, but they could have done so much more.
In the absence of the amendment passed by this House, an enabling clause in the modern slavery Bill is welcome, but what would trigger that enabling power? Despite what the noble Lord just said, I am still slightly concerned about the statutory basis for the scheme. I want to be absolutely clear that, when a guardian feels the need to give instructions to a lawyer where a child is incapable of doing so, that lawyer will have the statutory basis to be empowered to represent the views of that child. Can the Minister give that assurance?
I also have a question about the timings. Could the Minister confirm that the trial will start on 1 July? Could he further tell the House when the pilots are due to end? As he would understand, it would be unacceptable if, when it came to the report that is in the amendment of the noble and learned Baroness, the Government were able to say that they had not had time to assess the outcomes of the pilots. I want to ensure that the timescale works.
The Minister in the other place said that the trial would cover 23 local authorities. Will all trafficked children be placed within those authorities, so that all trafficked children are covered by the trial?
I will mention one thing that may seem a bit pernickety. I was slightly concerned by some of the reasons given by the Minister in the other place for rejecting the noble and learned Baroness’s earlier amendment. He said one reason was that it dealt only with children under immigration control and that he wished in the modern slavery Bill to craft provisions covering all trafficked children. Of course, there was nothing to prevent the Government accepting the amendment and then repealing the provision if necessary when replacing it with a clause in the modern slavery Bill.
As I said, I welcome the fact that the Government are now introducing an enabling clause, but I am frustrated that it has taken such a long time. I am also rather frustrated that, in the end, the Government took the advice from the Speaker that financial privilege should be attached to this specific amendment. Sometimes, of course there are questions of money but in this case the money is negligible. Sometimes there are questions of politics but this issue has had cross-party support throughout. I am just frustrated that it has taken so long to get to where we are. Of course, I trust what the Minister said. I just seek clarification on the various questions I asked.
Baroness Hamwee (LD)
My Lords, I note that at the last stage the noble Baroness and I both used the term “dogged” to describe the work done by those who advocated—if that is not the wrong term in this context—the guardianship provisions. I sense that the House would like to move on as there is so much agreement, so I will go straight to the one question I have left of those I had on the amendment.
There is a difference, in the normal understanding of the terms, between “advocacy” and “guardianship”. They are not the same thing. Of course, the detail of the role will be described when we come to the legislation so we will then understand just what it will cover. No doubt we will discuss that. The one question I have left for my noble friend that has not already been asked is: how will the Government assess and evaluate the trials or pilots—whatever we call them—including assessing the need for the provisions that are not included in the trial? The noble Baroness mentioned the one about being instructed and being able to carry out instructions, which I was also concerned about that because of my own professional background. If the trials do not cover a part of the role, how are we going to know whether that role was necessary? I hope my noble friend can explain what the approach to the assessment and evaluation will be.
Baroness Williams of Crosby (LD)
My Lords, I also have a question before we conclude the debate on this issue. I add my warmest thanks to the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, the noble Lord, Lord McColl, and the noble Lord, Lord Taylor of Holbeach, for the huge efforts which have gone into doing this, which I am sure the entire House appreciates.
My question is slightly different and relates to how the so-called “relevant child” is to be identified. Can the noble Lord, Lord Taylor, say anything about what instructions are likely to be given to the police and the border agency regarding determining whether a child is being trafficked? We are all well aware, not least within the European Union, that there is a very high level of child trafficking and that many of those children are not identified as being trafficked until it is too late and they have been handed on to another round of this ghastly trade. It may be too soon and he may have to wait for the modern slavery Bill, but it would be very helpful indeed if the Minister could say something about the operational effect on the police and border agency relating to how they deal with children who might, conceivably, be trafficked, but where it is not quite clear that they have been.
Baroness Howarth of Breckland (CB)
My Lords, I have one brief question. No one can doubt my commitment to this group of children and to the work of my noble and learned friend Lady Butler-Sloss and the noble Lord, Lord McColl. It is crucial that we move forward and I am particularly grateful that the Government have decided to do this with a pilot. The questions that have been asked during this short debate reflect the complexity of the issue. Having been the deputy chair and chair of CAFCASS for some eight years, I know how crucial it is to ask the question about the difference between advocacy and guardianship. I presume these issues can be worked through during the pilot.
I am concerned that the funding for the pilot, and for any future programme, should not come out of local government funding for child work generally or out of funding that would otherwise support children in the community. As a vice-president of the Local Government Association, I am quite clear that there are children who are, in many ways, equally vulnerable in their own homes—and some more so—who need equal support from social workers, who are extraordinarily pressed at the moment, as are the workers in CAFCASS. As the noble Baroness the Leader of the Opposition mentioned, there are financial questions, so I simply want the assurance that this money will not come out of mainstream childcare funding.
Lord McColl of Dulwich (Con)
My Lords, I thank the Minister very much for all his help and co-operation. He spotted three of us plotting in a corner of your Lordships’ House and, instead of avoiding us, he made a bee-line for us and was open and friendly. We are very grateful to him, especially on the about-to-be statutory basis of the role. In our amendment, the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, the noble Baroness, Lady Royall, and I were concerned to ensure that the role of advocate met with international best practice, as well as taking advice from charities that have practical experience in supporting trafficked children.
Finally, I thank the Government for listening to us, obstinate and difficult though we were on some occasions. We are grateful that it has turned out well. Thank you.
Lord Taylor of Holbeach
My Lords, this has been an interesting and useful debate. I deliberately did not mention the reasons for the Commons rejection when I made my introductory speech. It is for Erskine May rather than a humble Minister to determine these matters. I thought it was more important to present the arguments on the issue to the House. I am pleased that we have had a chance to reconsider this. These past few days have been very useful. I think noble Lords who have been involved will agree with that.
I thank the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, the noble Baronesses, Lady Royall and Lady Howarth of Breckland, and my noble friends Lady Hamwee, Lady Williams and Lord McColl for their contributions on these points. On the point made by my noble friend Lord McColl, we agree that these roles must have a statutory basis so that they have the respect and co-operation of all the various agencies that will engage with supporting the child. We will ensure that provisions in future legislation will deliver this. I will welcome the continued engagement of all noble Lords who have spoken on this issue. I doubt that noble Lords will be prepared to let this matter go on the back burner. I am sure that we will be under pressure and that I will be answering questions on a regular basis about how things are going.
Once we have a provider for the advocacy position in place, I will be happy to place in the Library the sort of detail that has been asked for today by noble Lords. I would like noble Lords to be informed of where we are on the issue. On the particular request for interested Members of the House to be able to visit trial sites, I will ask officials to discuss this request with the service provider and local authorities. I doubt very much whether a request of that nature would be refused.
We all agree that these children are incredibly vulnerable. As I have said, we cannot prejudge the outcome of the trials, although I am sure the Secretary of State will want to ensure that the learning from the independent evaluation is acted upon so that every child gets the most appropriate possible care.
The noble Baroness, Lady Royall, asked what would trigger the enabling power. The Secretary of State will want to ensure that the learning from the independent evaluation will influence the way in which the power will be exercised. There needs to be a connection between what we learn from the trials, the nature of the problem, the ability of the trials to address the problem and other aspects which become apparent to us during the course of the trials. Perhaps that answers the question asked by my noble friend Lady Hamwee about how it will be judged. It will be judged by a proper evaluation of the trial within the 23 areas in which it is taking place.
I think there is a general feeling that we know we have to make a success of this because it is a great opportunity to help these most vulnerable people. It is patently obvious to me that we share the desire to protect and support these vulnerable children. The disagreement is not about whether support and protection are required, but about how we legislate to provide it. The Government are totally committed to running the trials to ensure we have the very best insight into what these trials need.
My noble friend Lady Williams of Crosby wanted to know about how the operation would be conducted in other areas, and the noble Baroness, Lady Howarth of Breckland, asked how the funding would be dealt with. I do not have to say to the House that funding will clearly be an important issue to get right. If the resources are not available, the project will not be successful. We understand that. How the funding is actually found is an important element of what we will learn from the trials. There will, of course, be a certain amount of lead-in time for the organisation that will supply the service. I therefore confirm that because of the delay it will not now be possible to begin the trials by July. It is now intended that they begin by the end of September, and the Home Secretary will announce the provider shortly.
I thank noble Lords for their agreement that this Bill is not the place for the issue to be resolved, and for not insisting on the guardians amendment that we discussed on Report.
Baroness Royall of Blaisdon
My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for saying that it is not now envisaged that the trials will start before September, and of course I accept that. However, the amendment proposed by the noble and learned Baroness states that the report should be ready within a year of the dissolution of Parliament, before the next Parliament begins. Can the Minister confirm that there will be enough time for the pilots to be appraised before the report referred to in the amendment comes before Parliament?
Lord Taylor of Holbeach
Yes. I can also confirm that the way in which the enabling clause will be constructed will make it clear that there will be tabling of regulations designed to bring in the necessary power. There will also be a section that will ensure that the report is delivered so that we do not have to wait. Therefore, there will be an opportunity to discuss the report before the regulations are actually tabled. We have to make up for some lost time here. I am not saying that it was the will of the House that these matters were delayed but, as it turns out, we have delayed a process that I agree is quite time-sensitive. However, I think all noble Lords will agree that it is most important of all to make sure that our judgment is right on the issue and that when we introduce child advocates we do so in a proper fashion.
Baroness Williams of Crosby
I apologise to my noble friend for interrupting. Given the shortage of time and the hope that we will bring in this pilot scheme as early as September, can the Minister give an assurance that the discussions that I referred to with the police and the border agency can take place before that, so that we are well set up to try to identify children who have been trafficked?
Lord Taylor of Holbeach
I will certainly recommend that that is the case. It seems essential that we make sure that we know how the trials fit in with people who, under existing arrangements, carry out responsibilities connected with this area. They are diverse, as my noble friend points out. The border agency, the police and local authorities are all involved in this area, and getting them to work in a proper and co-operative fashion to make a success of this project is essential.
I thank all noble Lords for their contributions today, inside and outside the Chamber. We are bound to return to this issue in detail as time goes by. In the mean time, I hope that the noble and learned Baroness will agree to withdraw her amendment.
Baroness Butler-Sloss
My Lords, for the second time this afternoon, I apologise to the House, and particularly to the noble Baroness, Lady Royall, for trying to cut short any discussion—it has been extremely interesting and very constructive.
I will say two things about the Government. First, I am very glad that we got so far; that seems to me to be a real step forward. I thank the Minister and the Home Secretary for the fact that the dreaded issue of finance being raised in the Commons did not frustrate us in having a really constructive discussion with which finance had absolutely nothing to do. The Government are therefore really to be congratulated for being prepared to talk to the noble Lord, Lord McColl, and myself despite that issue having been raised in the other place. I am very grateful for that.
Lord Taylor of Holbeach
That this House do not insist on its Amendment 18 and do agree with the Commons in their Amendments 18A and 18B.
Lords Amendment 18
“(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 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 the 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.”
Commons Disagreement and Amendments to the words so restored to the Bill
The Commons disagree to Lords Amendment No. 18 and propose Amendments 18A and 18B to the words so restored to the Bill—
(c) the Secretary of State has reasonable grounds for believing that the person is able, under the law of a country or territory outside the United Kingdom, to become a national of such a country or territory.”
“(3) 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, I beg to move Motion B in my name: that this House do not insist on its Amendment 18 and do agree with the Commons in their Amendments 18A and 18B.
Now, we had some lively debates on this issue, particularly on Report. I listened with great care to the views expressed on all sides of the House. I responded as fully as I could to a great number of questions to ensure that the Government’s position was clear. Noble Lords have sought to replace the proposals originally in the Bill with a measure to appoint a committee of the House to look at the issues in detail. That approach has been rejected by the House of Commons.
Amendments 18A and 18B restore the clause to the Bill, but with some key changes that respond to the concerns that were raised in this House. This is a narrowly drawn provision, which is proportionate to the risk created by harmful individuals. It is compatible with our international obligations, and closes a loophole in our law that has been highlighted by the Supreme Court. Noble Lords were concerned that the Home Secretary should not be able to deprive an individual of their citizenship in circumstances under which they had no recourse to another nationality.
When I spoke in earlier debates, I was clear that in most cases we would expect those who were deprived to be able to acquire another nationality. Amendment 18A now provides for a position where the Home Secretary can deprive an individual of their British citizenship only when they already hold another nationality or when she reasonably believes that, under the laws of another country, they would be able to become a national of that country. That is a significant change. It means that, in cases where the Home Secretary does not reasonably believe that the person has a right in law, she will not be able to take deprivation action.
We recognise that this is not likely to be a straightforward decision as, of course, every country operates its own nationality law. As we have made clear through the debates in both Houses, the Home Secretary would reach a decision only after very careful consideration of the facts of an individual case. She will reach a decision based on whether she reasonably believes that the person has recourse to another nationality under the law of another country. In doing so, she will naturally have regard to practical and logistical matters related to that. If the person was at real risk of persecution from that country, that would also be relevant to whether they were able to acquire that nationality. However, in most cases, the basis of the Home Secretary’s decision will be the law of the other country. Although aspects of these cases are likely to turn on closed material that will not be disclosed in full to the individual, the question of whether a person is, under the law, able to acquire another nationality is unlikely to be secret.
It has been suggested in previous debates that the Home Secretary’s decision to deprive should not take effect until an individual has secured another nationality. That requirement would render this provision ineffective. Indeed, such a requirement is really a description of the law as it stands. We must keep in mind that these individuals have acted in a way that is seriously prejudicial to the vital interests of the UK. We cannot compel them to take action to secure the nationality of another country, and it seems unlikely that they would lightly accede to a request to do so knowing that the consequence would be that we could then deprive them of British citizenship. Therefore, that cannot and must not be a barrier that prevents the Home Secretary taking action to remove their British citizenship where she reasonably believes that they are able to obtain another nationality, and we should not attempt to impose an arbitrary timescale within which that other nationality will be obtained.
Concern was also expressed previously that the power would be exercised in an arbitrary way. That will not be the case, as my next few comments will illustrate. The Home Secretary will certainly not take these decisions lightly. Ministers fully recognise that depriving a person of British citizenship is a serious step. That is why the threshold for use of the power is set at a high level and why decisions will be taken only after a great deal of research and careful consideration. This is not a speculative power: the Home Secretary must rely on the circumstances that apply at the time she makes her decision. She cannot simply assume that a person will be able to avail themselves of another nationality.
We have been clear that the power will be used in only a small number of cases. The existing power to deprive on non-conducive grounds has been used 27 times since 2006. Noble Lords will be aware that it is a long-standing practice of government not to disclose in public data that could damage national security or operational effectiveness, or which could cause individuals to be identified. That is why I cannot agree to requests to provide more detailed information to the House. Our position is based on clear advice from the agencies responsible for protecting our national security. I have, however, written to the chairman of the Joint Committee on Human Rights to make clear that such information would be shared with the individual whom we propose should conduct periodic reviews of the power introduced under this clause, who would have the appropriate security clearances. I have also expressed willingness to provide a private and in-confidence briefing to the JCHR if such arrangements would be acceptable to the current chairman, Mr Hywel Francis.
Any individual who is deprived of their nationality has a right of appeal under Section 40A of the British Nationality Act 1981. That appeal is to the Asylum and Immigration Tribunal—or, more likely in these cases, which may rest in part on closed evidence, to the Special Immigration Appeals Commission. The court will consider whether the Home Secretary has exercised the power lawfully and therefore whether she had reasonable grounds to believe that the person in question would be able to acquire another nationality.
I turn to Amendment 18B, which reflects the position that I took on Report and responds to the request made by a number of noble Lords that there should be an independent review of the operation of the power. Our proposals provide for a review after the first 12 months following commencement and triennial reviews thereafter. This review cycle recognises that the power will be exercised in a small number of cases only, and a longer period of review will ensure that there is a better evidence base to consider. Reports of the reviews will be laid before Parliament.
Noble Lords previously noted that there would be sense in combining this review role with that of the independent reviewer of terrorism legislation. I can only repeat what was said by the Immigration and Security Minister, Mr James Brokenshire, in another place, when he noted that the Home Secretary is certainly minded to discuss this role with David Anderson QC once the measure is on the statute book. She will want to consider with him whether this additional role can be accommodated without detriment to his existing responsibilities.
I am also aware that it has been noted that our amendment about an independent reviewer does not include the word “independent”. That is not a trick. The wording reflects that in analogous statutory provisions for reviews, perhaps most notably that of Section 36 of the Terrorism Act 2006, which relates to reviews by the independent reviewer of terrorism legislation. In other words, the provision that created the post of independent reviewer of terrorism legislation does not use the word “independent”, either. I can assure noble Lords that the person who carries out these reviews under the Immigration Bill provisions will be independent.
The amendment tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Smith of Basildon, would restore to the Bill the measure that would provide for an appointment of a committee of the House to examine the Government’s proposals. The Government’s position remains that this would be an unnecessary and undesirable step. It is unnecessary, because our proposals have been given a proper degree of scrutiny by Members of both Houses of Parliament and by the Joint Committee on Human Rights as well as outside commentators. The Joint Committee has acknowledged that the proposals are consistent with our international obligations and, although we have heard other opinions expressed, those have not been supported by evidence of customary international activity that contests the Government’s position that we are acting in accordance with international law. The amendment is undesirable, because we are seeking this power to fill a gap in our law—one that has now been highlighted by the Supreme Court and one that individuals will attempt to exploit. That cannot be right, which is why we feel that we are right to insist on our amendment.
The government amendment is now very narrowly drawn—much more so than before—and is targeted at a small number of very harmful individuals. Your Lordships’ House has quite properly carefully scrutinised the Government’s proposals and asked the House of Commons to examine this issue again. It has now done so and clearly resolved both to reject Lords Amendment 18 and to agree the government amendments by a significant majority. Now that the elected House has reaffirmed its view on this matter, I urge noble Lords not to insist on their amendment. I beg to move.
Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for his care in initiating this debate and addressing some of the issues that have been raised here and in the other place. When your Lordships’ House voted by a majority of 62 to refer the issue of making someone stateless to a Joint Committee of both Houses, it did so not to frustrate the Government in any way but to assist them in their deliberations.
I will not rehearse the detail here but it was clear that the Government’s proposed new clause to extend the power to deprive an individual of naturalised citizenship, and in so doing make them stateless, had not been adequately or effectively considered in the other place. As we have said before, the amendment was tabled 24 hours before Report and there was no prior consultation or consideration in Committee, just a last minute amendment and short debate before it was accepted. I note the point the Minister has just made about adequate consideration having been given to the measure recently in the other place. However, it has to be said that even then the Deputy Speaker asked for brief speeches because of time constraints. We believe that further and more detailed consideration should be given to the matter in your Lordships’ House. In contrast to the other place, we had two excellent debates in Committee and on Report. The outcome of those two debates was that this matter required further examination because of the importance and complexity of the issues raised. An amendment was then tabled in my name and in the names of the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Brown of Eaton-under-Heywood, and the noble Lord, Lord Macdonald of River Glaven, was passed by 62 votes, and returned to the other place for further consideration. The other place rejected our amendment. However, we welcome the fact that the Government have taken note of some of the issues raised in our debates and have brought forward their own amendments. Government Amendment 18A refers to the reasonable grounds that the Home Secretary would have to have before making a naturalised citizen stateless, and government Amendment 18B is about a review. We certainly welcome the fact that the Government recognise the deficiencies in their original proposal and have sought to deal with some of the difficulties.
The reasons the Government gave for bringing forward the proposed new clause was the Supreme Court’s judgment in the Al-Jedda case, in which it was ruled that by depriving Mr Al-Jedda of his naturalised citizenship on the ground that that was conducive to the public good, the Secretary of State had made him stateless. The Supreme Court quoted from the Government’s own guidance in saying that it was necessary for a naturalised citizen to hold another citizenship not merely to apply for it, or have the right or the ability to apply, for the Secretary of State to be able to withdraw citizenship and in effect make them stateless, which she should not be able to do. As I have confessed before in your Lordships’ House, I am not a lawyer, and I listened with great care to those who have far greater legal expertise in this area than I do. However, it seems that by amending the law through Amendment 18A to ensure that the Secretary of State must have reasonable grounds for believing that the individual is able to acquire another citizenship, she would be able to deprive him of his British nationality in those circumstances even if it made him stateless. I think that the Minister—the noble Lord, Lord Taylor—used the phrase “recourse to apply”. However, I reread what the Immigration Minister, James Brokenshire, said in the debate in the other place. At col.191 of Commons Hansard of 7 May, he said it was important that the person was able to acquire another nationality, and repeated that at col. 192. At col. 194, he said that there should be the “ability to obtain citizenship”, but then said at col. 195 that the Home Secretary had to be,
“satisfied of their ability to seek the citizenship of another country”.—[Official Report, Commons, 7/5/14; col. 195.]
We need clarity on that point. Is it a question of being able to gain citizenship or the ability to seek citizenship? All those phrases were used by James Brokenshire in the other place. The noble Lord, Lord Deben, said in your Lordships’ House on 19 March that,
“to take away someone’s citizenship, it is not reasonable to say that you assume that they can get another country’s citizenship. It is only reasonable to say that you know that they have another citizenship; anything less than that is wrong. It may not be convenient, but it is not right”.—[Official Report, 19/3/14; col. 213.]
I would therefore welcome further clarification from the Minister.
In the Al-Jedda case, the Secretary of State referred to the original nationality that Mr Al-Jedda held, whereas this amendment, if I have understood it correctly, refers to the Home Secretary having “reasonable grounds” to believe that they could obtain citizenship of any country. In which case, does this government amendment go further than what is required to comply with the Al-Jedda judgment?
Although the Al-Jedda judgment represented an important principle in this debate, it was not the only issue that gave us cause for concern. Questions and issues remain around both the principle and practical implications, which I hope the noble Lord will address in his response. It was the lack of certainty on those points and those that arise from the new amendment that led to the need for further, more detailed examination by a Joint Committee. Perhaps I may therefore raise the concerns that remain about the implications for our relationship with other countries. I have read the legal opinion of Professor Guy Goodwin-Gill, who is a professor of international refugee law at the University of Oxford, a senior research fellow at All Souls College, and a barrister at Blackstone Chambers. His opinion from looking at international law is that the Government’s proposals risk damaging international relations and could lead to breaches of international obligations. I know that the noble Lord rejects that, but Professor Goodwin-Gill has provided a 20-page opinion that raises a number of issues that, at the very least, should be further considered and addressed to the satisfaction of your Lordships’ House.
I greatly welcomed the Government’s commitment to respond to that opinion. I was sorry that it arrived so late on Friday in order for us to have an opportunity to look at it. I am sorry that robust responses were not available for earlier consideration. However, I have now had the opportunity to read that response. Although it deals with various treaty obligations, it does not address the practical or diplomatic implications that I raised previously. We all know that the fight against terrorism is international and global. That highlights the need for international co-operation and collaboration. We really need proper and proportionate consideration of the implications for national and international security. This amendment would allow terror suspects to be loose and undocumented in any country where they happened to be when their citizenship of the UK was revoked. When citizenship has been withdrawn from citizens who are overseas, will the country that has admitted that individual in good faith on a British passport be consulted or advised at any stage that that person has had British citizenship withdrawn from them—even after citizenship has been withdrawn?
The noble Lord will recall that Professor Goodwin-Gill stated:
“Any state which admitted an individual on the basis of his or her British passport would be fully entitled to ignore any purported deprivation of citizenship and, as a matter of right, to return that person to the United Kingdom”.
The Government dispute that but the Minister confirmed to me in his letter of 25 March that the Government have not discussed the development of what was then Clause 60, on deprivation of citizenship, with other countries and do not consider it necessary to do so. I still find it quite incredible that the Government do not think that they have to consider other countries and debate this issue with them prior to implementation. In his letter, the noble Lord also relied on the statement that other countries allow for deprivations to make people stateless. He used, as the Immigration Minister, James Brokenshire, used in the other place, the Republic of Ireland and Belgium as examples. I was not aware of the position of Belgium on the issue and whether it has made anyone stateless in recent years, but the Minister could have quoted Tunisia, Lithuania, or countries that have rendered political opponents or ethnic minorities stateless—such as Zimbabwe, Burma, Serbia and Russia.
This country has a proud record over half a century of opposition to making individuals stateless. What about our relationship with, for example, the USA, Canada, Australia, France, Germany, Scandinavian countries and Italy? These countries have not taken a power to make citizens stateless. Again I looked at the response of Professor Goodwin-Gill in reply to the Government’s response. He took the view—I do not know whether this is correct; it is one of the reasons why we consider that such examination by a Joint Committee of both Houses is essential—that it would appear that Her Majesty’s Government have never accepted that another state has a right and is able unilaterally to denationalise its citizens while they are present in the UK, so making this country responsible for its residents’ safety and well-being. Are we imposing an obligation on other countries that we would not ourselves accept?
I should like to raise a second issue which was also raised in the other place and it would be helpful if the Minister could respond on this point specifically. It concerns what will happen if someone cannot obtain another citizenship despite their very best efforts to do so. The Government propose that the Home Secretary has to have reasonable grounds for believing that someone can acquire another citizenship, but what if they cannot? It has to be recognised that although someone may be entitled to apply for the citizenship of another country, they may not in practice be able to acquire it. The Minister admitted as much in his letter to me of 25 March when he said:
“The number of people affected by this new provision will be very low and not all remain stateless as some may be able to acquire or re-aquire another nationality”.
I know that that was written before the new amendment but it does not change the position of a person’s statelessness or ability to gain another citizenship.
In responding to similar questions in the other place, James Brokenshire referred to those who make no effort to obtain another citizenship. But that is a completely different point. If the Home Secretary’s belief that they could obtain another citizenship was reasonably held but it was wrong and they were unable to do so, what action could then be taken to avoid a lengthy period of statelessness? The Minister talked about not wanting an arbitrary time limit for such a decision to be made, but there is no time limit in the amendment for the Secretary of State to look again to see whether it was a reasonable decision which was not correct.
The Minister spoke of a limited form of leave to remain being available to those stranded in country. What form would that take and what are the state’s obligations? How does that make UK citizens safer? If someone from outside the UK cannot obtain another citizenship, what are the implications? They may not be in their country of birth or of a previous citizenship. Given that our Government have had no discussions with other countries about this, the point being made by Professor Goodwin-Gill about being returned to the UK has to be a possibility at the very least. The country that admitted them in good faith has done so as it believed them to have British citizenship at the time. They will not be admitted back into the UK so I am slightly alarmed that they might end up like the character played by Tom Hanks in the film “The Terminal”. I do not know whether the Minister has seen the film but it is based on a true story of the case of Mehran Karimi Nasseri who, having been expelled from Iran, was refused entry to London and sent back to France where he was arrested. I will not go into the details but he ended up spending 18 years in Charles de Gaulle Airport because he was stateless. That is not the only example, but I hope that it is the most extreme one. I found several cases of people being detained at airports for several weeks or months.
If the purpose of the clause is to make us safer from terrorists, we need greater clarity and certainty on what happens to those who become stateless, particularly those from outside the country. Unless there is certainty, we could end up in some kind of legal quagmire with cases being taken to court because of the lack of certainty. I am sure we all want to avoid that.
I shall touch briefly on Amendment 18B. We welcome the review outlined by the Minister. I recall that a similar amendment was tabled on Report by the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee. This amendment differs in that the amendment of the noble Baroness referred to an annual review, which I think would be a much improved position on waiting, after the initial one-year review, for one every three years. That seems to be a very long timescale for the power that the Secretary of State wants to take.
Our concern remains that this amendment still allows for what the Supreme Court described as the “evil of statelessness”. Although the government amendment offers some concessions to the concerns raised by that particular case, I would welcome further clarity from the Minister as we are not yet convinced that the argument has been made for individuals who are terror suspects and are stateless. I am looking here at the interests of national and international security. I shall listen carefully to the debate, to the legal expertise that we have in your Lordships’ House, and to the Minister’s response. However, we need a full examination of this issue to ensure that we fulfil our obligations without making people stateless, given the difficulties and concerns that that raises. I beg to move.
Lord Pannick (CB)
My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister, Lord Taylor, to the Immigration Minister, James Brokenshire, and to the Bill team, who have devoted an enormous amount of time to this difficult issue and have held meetings with noble Lords who are concerned about it. For reasons that I will seek to explain, I think that the Government have made a very substantial concession on this issue in Amendment 18A, following the success of the amendment that I moved on Report.
Before briefly explaining the reasons for taking that view, perhaps I may mention that the original unacceptable clause—it was unacceptable—has been improved only because of a coalition, if that is not now an unacceptable political term, of the Opposition, led by the noble Baroness, Lady Smith of Basildon, who has worked tirelessly and skilfully on this issue throughout the passage of the Bill through this House, with considerable support from the Cross Benches and a very substantial Liberal Democrat rebellion on Report. I would add that there was support from the noble and learned Lord, Lord Howe of Aberavon, who also voted for the amendment. As a result of that voting decision, the new paragraph added in the House of Commons very substantially reduces the risk of leaving an individual stateless, although I recognise that such an event is still possible if the Secretary of State’s assessment, although reasonable, turns out to be inaccurate for whatever reason.
I have written to the Minister giving him notice of a number of assurances that I seek and which I consider are important to the understanding of the protections which are contained in the new paragraph. The first is this. I understand that the reasonableness of the Secretary of State’s conclusion that another nationality is open to the individual will be open to challenge in the Special Immigration Appeals Commission, and that SIAC will have the power to determine whether the Secretary of State does have reasonable grounds for her belief that the individual is able to become a national of another country. I understand from the Minister’s opening remarks that he agrees with that.
The second assurance I seek is this. Does the Minister agree that the material which is relevant to the Secretary of State’s decision on this point—that is, the ability to acquire another nationality—would be very unlikely to be secret? The material would be provided to the applicant’s lawyers so that it could be fully debated in any appeal to SIAC. I would be grateful if he could confirm that.
Thirdly, am I correct in my understanding that the new provision means that the Secretary of State has no power to take away British citizenship if the matter depends on a discretionary judgment by the foreign state? I think that the words in the new paragraph, “able to become”, must mean that the matter is in the hands of the individual, who needs only to apply to the foreign state, pay the relevant fee, provide the relevant documents and show their entitlement. The paragraph does not say “able to apply”. There is good reason to interpret this provision narrowly: namely, to prevent deprivation of British citizenship where it would leave people in limbo, with the risk of statelessness if the foreign country decides not to exercise any discretion in favour of the applicant. I therefore think that this provision means that at the time of deprivation of British citizenship, the individual must have a right to citizenship under the law of the foreign country. Does the Minister agree?
I seek reassurance on a fourth point. I think that the word “able”, which is the word in the new paragraph, must mean that there is no practical impediment to obtaining the foreign citizenship. For example, if there is reason to think that the foreign state will not apply its own laws, or will not do so within a reasonable time, the Secretary of State simply could not remove British citizenship. Does the Minister agree?
Fifthly, the word “able”, as well as general principles of public law must mean that the Secretary of State could not exercise this new power to take away British citizenship where, although the person is entitled to acquire the foreign citizenship, there is good reason for their being unwilling to do so. An obvious example is where the individual is a member of a group that is persecuted in the country concerned. Does the Minister agree that it would be wholly wrong and unlawful for the Secretary of State, if she accepts that those are the facts, nevertheless to go ahead and deprive that person of British citizenship?
Sixthly and finally, I think that the word “able” and the general requirement that the Minister must exercise her power in a reasonable manner must mean that the courts would apply a “reasonable link” test. By that, I mean that the clause could not be applied by reference to an individual’s rights to acquire citizenship in a country with which he or she has no close link other than an entitlement to nationality. For example, surely the Secretary of State could not rely on the entitlement of a Jewish man or woman to citizenship of the state of Israel under the law of return if the individual has no other link with the state of Israel; or rely on a wife’s right to acquire the citizenship of her husband in a country that she has never visited. I have not thought up these examples. I take them from the judgment of Lord Wilson for the Supreme Court in the Al-Jedda case last October, at paragraph 23. Therefore, the sixth question is: does the Minister agree in principle that there must be a “reasonable link” test implicit in this paragraph, so that the clause could not be used in circumstances that would, in the absence of a reasonable link, be wholly unreasonable?
On the basis of my understanding of this clause, this is a substantial and welcome concession by the Government. I hope that the Minister can reassure the House that my views are consistent with the Government’s interpretation, because it is what the Minister says that the courts may look at in future.
Lord Lester of Herne Hill (LD)
My Lords, I am a member of the Joint Committee on Human Rights and I should declare an interest because, like the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, I am a member of Blackstone Chambers, the same chambers as Professor Goodwin-Gill. As the House will understand, barristers are not like solicitors: we are not in a firm and are perfectly capable of taking completely different views from some of our colleagues. I have of course read Guy Goodwin-Gill’s opinion and his supplementary opinions but I do not think that they focus on the particular issues, practical and otherwise, with which we are concerned in this debate.
As the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, indicated, the Joint Committee on Human Rights welcomes the concession that has been made. I was one of the rebels—in the words of the noble Lord, Lord Pannick—and am personally satisfied, for the reasons that the noble Lord gave, that the concessions obtained in the other House ought to be acceptable and are in accordance both with international law and with the principles of our own constitutional system of government and law. However, I also agree with the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, that the questions that he has raised are the right ones, and my support for the Government’s position is dependent on satisfactory assurances being given. It is very important that they are given, because one of the advantages of the Pepper v Hart doctrine is that what is said by the Minister in reply will give guidance about how this important provision is to be interpreted.
I very much welcome the shift that has occurred and the fact that it has occurred because of pressure from across the whole House and not simply from one party. I do not agree with the position now being taken by Her Majesty’s Opposition—unless it is a probing position. If they were to press their difference of opinion to a vote, I would support the Government.
Lord Brown of Eaton-under-Heywood (CB)
My Lords, on Report, I added my name to those of the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, and the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, in proposing what is now Amendment 18. I did so because, consistently with what I had previously said in Committee, I was so strongly opposed to the United Kingdom lending itself to what has been called the evil of statelessness, with all the reputational damage which that would have occasioned to this country. It seemed to me at that stage imperative that there should be pre-legislative scrutiny, as Amendment 18 essentially proposes, before any such extreme position should be adopted.
On Report, I recognised that amending the legislation, short of leaving people stateless, could indeed well be justified. I will quote just a sentence from what I said at that point:
“By all means, let the Government reverse the decision last year of the Supreme Court in Al-Jedda and legislate, as Lord Wilson in his judgment there implicitly suggested, to allow us to deprive someone of their British citizenship, provided that they can then immediately acquire the nationality of another state, as, indeed, it was assumed in the course of the litigation in that case that Mr Al-Jedda himself could have done”.—[Official Report, 7/4/14; col. 1174.]
Noble Lords should remember that this power is to be available only in the case of someone who has gained his British citizenship by naturalisation and who then betrays the trust that we as a nation put in him and acts in a way which is seriously prejudicial to the vital interests of this country. Provided that that person can then become a national of another country so as not to be rendered stateless, as was assumed in Mr Al-Jedda’s case, I see no real objection to our depriving him of the protection that we ourselves earlier conferred upon him. The Government’s very welcome amendments seem to limit the power precisely to these circumstances. My understanding of the new paragraph that it is proposed be inserted into the nationality Act under Amendment 18A is that it is precisely the same as that of the noble Lord, Lord Pannick. I will not go into all the points again, but it is plain that it refers to a present entitlement and not simply to a right to apply. The language is “to become” a national of another country, not “to seek to become”. Provided that that is so and provided that the Minister gives—as I fully expect him to—all the assurances that the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, has invited him to give, the Government have properly given way on this critical issue and, if the matter is put to the vote, I shall support the Government.
Lord Macdonald of River Glaven (LD)
My Lords, I also put my name to the amendment at Report. I have listened with great care to what the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, has said. It seems that his remarks, if they are adopted by the Government, indicate that the shift in the Government’s position is substantial. If they are not adopted by the Government, they amount to a demolition of the substance of this shift. I see the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, nodding at that. I, for one, shall be listening extremely carefully to the Minister’s response to the six points made by the noble Lord, Lord Pannick.
I want to remind the House why it is important that the Government acknowledge those points. The Home Secretary’s reasonable belief that a man or a woman may avail themselves of the nationality of another country will not assist a citizen in whose case that belief turns out to be ill-founded. He or she will be deprived, in Hannah Arendt’s phrase, of the “right to have rights” and locked out of any mechanism at all for achieving those rights for ever, until another state decides to take this individual on. If that is the position that the Government’s shift leaves us in, as a potential result of decision-making in the Home Office, then this shift does not go far enough.
For my part, I remain of the view that the United Kingdom should not embrace a policy where one of its potential results is statelessness, associated with so many of the degenerate states of the 20th century, and where the outcome, if it is statelessness, is so hostile to human dignity in its most basic form. This is particularly so where that policy is also bound to strike against the international accord that is so central to the maintenance of security both between and within states. In the long run, we cannot and will not make the United Kingdom a safer place by dumping our security threats abroad, sometimes into states where the capacity for dealing with them is completely debased, so that they simply grow. I agree with Professor Goodwin-Gill that a rule-of-law country accepting a United Kingdom citizen on the basis of his passport, lawfully certified and issued by the United Kingdom Government, will be perfectly entitled to respond to our unilateral withdrawal of that passport by insisting that the United Kingdom take this individual back. Which of your Lordships can doubt that if the tables were reversed we would take precisely the same approach?
I will conclude by speaking frankly. The history of this matter is that it appears to have been conjured up to serve an entirely party-political purpose in the midst of a debate in the other place. It is illiberal, it is an affront to civilised international relations, it will not improve our security and, in all likelihood, it threatens a legal and diplomatic quagmire, to no useful purpose and to the detriment of the reputation of the United Kingdom.
Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Lab)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Macdonald, who made a very powerful speech. I welcome the fact that there has been movement on the part of the Government in these amendments, and I very much welcome the helpful questions posed by the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, who has played such a role in getting us to where we are now. However, as the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, acknowledged, some people may still be made stateless as a result of the clause. Therefore, I am not as happy as some other noble Lords appear to be—or perhaps content is the word—and I support Motion B1.
In the Commons, some of the most pertinent questioning came from the Government’s own Back Benches. Sir Richard Shepherd asked,
“how the people of Britain will know that the action has been taken in a rational and reasonable way, when it is obscured from public view”.—[Official Report, Commons, 7/5/14; col. 194.]
Dr Julian Huppert asked:
“What will happen if somebody in the UK goes through the process, the Home Secretary believes that they are able to get citizenship from another country and they make a bona fide application for that citizenship, but it is turned down?”.
In effect, this was also the question posed today by my noble friend. When pressed—and he had to be pressed—the Minister, James Brokenshire, responded that they could be given,
“limited restricted leave to remain”.—[Official Report, Commons, 7/5/14; col. 196.]
But that is not a satisfactory substitute for citizenship and the rights that go with it.
My noble friend Lady Kennedy of The Shaws and others have expressed very grave concerns that the Government may well be waiting for someone to be out of the country to deprive them of citizenship. One concern of the Joint Committee on Human Rights was how often that has happened under the current powers. I very much welcome the fact that the Minister said he has responded to the Joint Committee’s latest letter about that and that he will make that information available to whoever is given responsibility for the review. I thank him for that.
In the Commons, James Brokenshire prayed in aid the fact that the matter had been considered by the Joint Committee on Human Rights as well as in another place—that is, here—to argue that,
“it is not correct to say that it has not been subject to careful consideration”.—[Official Report, Commons, 7/5/14; col. 213.]
Indeed, the Minister made the same point earlier. But the Joint Committee on Human Rights was very critical of the speed with which this measure was introduced and we—I am a member of the committee—made it very clear that we believed that a public consultation,
“would have made for better informed parliamentary scrutiny of the Government’s proposal”,
and that the Joint Committee that was proposed would allow for just that kind of proper scrutiny.
Your Lordships’ House made it very clear that it did not consider that there had been sufficient scrutiny by passing the amendment with such a significant majority. The only thing that has happened since then is that the House of Commons has debated for only 90 minutes something of such grave constitutional and moral importance. I really think that the case for a Joint Committee still stands. Indeed, the Home Affairs Select Committee, which published its report on counterterrorism after the debate in the Commons, has supported Lords Amendment 18, which underlines the point made by a number of organisations outside this House that the measure does not guarantee security against terrorism in any way.
I, too, have read the legal debate between the Government and Professor Goodwin-Gill. As a non-lawyer, I am not in a position to be able to judge that debate. Surely, however, the fact that there is such disagreement reinforces the case for a Joint Committee to tease out these very serious legal matters. The Floor of the House is not the place to do that. As the noble Lord, Lord Macdonald, has already made clear, so much is at stake. I quoted earlier the noble Lord, Lord Deben, who is now in his place, because what he said was so important. He said:
“Statelessness is one of the most terrible things that can befall anyone”.—[Official Report, 19/3/14; col. 212.]
The Minister spoke of the evil of statelessness. Another expert in this area said that statelessness was a recipe for exclusion, precariousness and dispossession.
We have not completely averted the danger that we will make somebody stateless as a result of the amendment, welcome as it is. I hope, therefore, that noble Lords will stand firm and support Motion B1 because the amendment does not provide a cast-iron guarantee against the evil of statelessness.
Lord Avebury (LD)
Like other noble Lords, I welcome the concessions that have been made by the Government which do, to an extent—although this could be argued—reduce the risk that an individual might become stateless. However, the risk still exists and I still have some concerns apart from those that have been expressed so ably by the noble Lord, Lord Pannick. I agree that we need answers to those questions, but I would like to touch on some other concerns.
We have already heard that the Government recognise what the Supreme Court called, in the case of Al-Jedda, “the evil of statelessness”. They now purport to address that evil by providing in their Amendment 18A that the Secretary of State has “reasonable grounds for believing” that the individual she is depriving of his citizenship will be able to become a citizen of some other state to which he formerly belonged. That assumption has been made by other states from time to time, including—as the Immigration Law Practitioners’ Association has pointed out—the Dominican Republic, in the case of persons born in Haiti, and Zimbabwe, in the case of all residents who might have had a claim through having been born in some other country. In the UK, too, the Government asserted for many years that persons of Indian origin who lived in Hong Kong had the right to reclaim the nationality of China—until finally in 2006 we satisfied them that they were wrong.
No doubt Ministers will say that what is now proposed is different, because instead of treating a whole class of persons the same, each case will be examined individually. However, in the case of the people who were formerly dual Malaysians and British Overseas Citizens, and had renounced their Malaysian citizenship in the hope of getting full British citizenship, they had all applied individually and had all been rejected. It was only after several years of correspondence and meetings with Ministers that in October 2013 the then Minister wrote to me asserting that an agreement had been reached with the former Malaysians on a scheme under which they would return to their country of origin, where they could enter a process of regaining the equivalent of indefinite leave to remain after five years; and after a further unspecified time, they would be able to resume Malaysian citizenship. During the whole of that period they would of course remain effectively stateless, as they had been during the latter years of their residence in the United Kingdom.
I wrote to the new Minister, James Brokenshire, on 11 February, asking if I could have a copy of the agreement he had reached with the Malaysians, having had no response to a verbal request made to his predecessor. I also asked about the experience of the one guinea pig returnee under the new arrangement. Having had no answer, I wrote again on 15 March, reminding the Minister of my earlier letter. After two further months, I had had no reply until, finally, after a telephone call this morning, the Minister’s reply arrived by e-mail.
Lord Hope of Craighead
My Lords, I will add a footnote to the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, and my noble and learned friend Lord Brown of Eaton-under-Heywood. I join them in welcoming Amendment 18A and Amendment 18B, which falls to be read together with it. Two questions lie behind one’s examination of Amendment 18A. The first concerns the point mentioned by the Minister once, if not twice. Is the wording of the provision compatible with our international obligations? The second concerns how the provision will work in practice. This will be the subject of the reviews referred to in Amendment 18B.
On the first point, the Minister said—I think twice, possibly more often—that the wording of the provision is deliberately narrow. He said it was narrowly worded and precisely targeted; it had to be narrowly worded and precisely targeted to meet the requirements of the convention. The international obligations are found in the European convention on nationality of 1997. It is worth reminding ourselves that the preamble says that it is concerned to avoid cases of statelessness “as far as possible”. The principles set out in Article 4 include that,
“everyone has the right to a nationality … statelessness shall be avoided”,
and,
“no one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his or her nationality”.
I think it is well known that Section 40 of the British Nationality Act 1981, as substituted by the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002, was framed with very close regard to the provisions of that convention. One can see it, too, in the amendments introduced by the Bill. The second condition set out in new Section 40(4A) refers to the situation where,
“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”.
The phrase “the vital interests” is a precise quotation from Article 7(1)(d) of the convention and one can see how closely tied the wording of the statute is to that of the convention. It is important that the wording should be narrowly framed in order to meet what the preamble and Article 4 were talking about, but that has another significance when one looks at how the wording will work in practice. It is well known that the courts will construe legislation on the assumption that Parliament has intended to legislate in accordance with this country’s international obligations. One would expect a court to have regard to the wording of the convention and to construe the words narrowly. They are narrowly worded but they will be narrowly construed, too. The key words already identified are “is able”. It is not “maybe” or a possibility; it is “is”, in the present tense. “Able” is itself a powerful word, and the new Section refers to being able to become a national of a country, not to an ability to apply or be considered.
One other point is worth mentioning to appreciate the full package with which this House has been presented. Section 40of the British Nationality Act, as amended, describes the obligation of the Secretary of State in the event of an order being made under that section. It states:
“Before making an order under this section in respect of a person the Secretary of State must give the person written notice specifying … that the Secretary of State has decided to make and order”—
this is really important—
“the reasons for the order, and … the… right of appeal”.
These things must be set out in the written statement. Particularly important is the reference to reasons, which will be examined with great care should the matter go to appeal.
There is just one point that is worth bearing in mind: the reference to rights of appeal. Concern has been expressed by Liberty, and perhaps others, about the situation in which somebody would find themselves when faced with a written statement of this kind when abroad and the prospect of an order of this kind being made against them. It would seem to require exercising the right of appeal from abroad. That is a practical problem which those individuals might face.
My concern is whether the review referred to in Amendment 18B would be capable of picking up practical issues of that kind. It is difficult for us at this stage and in these situations to forecast the future with any precision, but that is the kind of practical point—envisaging how the issue will be worked out in practice—that will require very careful consideration. The more disadvantaged somebody would be by having to exercise his right of appeal abroad, the more concerned one would be about the fairness of the provision and, indeed, its compatibility with the convention. When the Minister replies, will he be good enough to cover that point about the scope of the review and whether it would include the kind of practical problem to which I have just referred?
Baroness Kennedy of The Shaws (Lab)
I have concerns about the shift by the Government, although I welcome that there has been a shift in the way that has already been described. My concern is that reasonable grounds to believe that a person may be able to acquire another nationality does not really deal with the difficulty we face in the circumstances in which these cases arise. The cases that have taken place so far in which people have had their citizenship removed have almost invariably—certainly in my experience—involved persons abroad. The reason given is that the person is a threat to national security. I raise this question, among those already raised by the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope: would another country seriously consider giving nationality, even to someone who might have the ability to apply for nationality of that country, if it knew that British citizenship had been removed on the grounds that the person was believed to be in some way linked to, or to condone, international terrorism? Do we seriously believe that another state is likely to grant nationality to someone where that has been the basis for the removal of citizenship by Britain? My grandparents were Irish, and I am sure that I am entitled to apply for an Irish passport, although I have never done so, but would Ireland seriously be interested in acquiring a citizen who has already been deemed by Britain to be involved in supporting, condoning or in some way furthering terrorism? We have to be real about the circumstances that we are contemplating.
I want to add a number of questions to the ones that have already been asked.
Lord Quirk (CB)
Does the noble Baroness not note that there is a difference between the case she mentioned—of someone who would almost certainly be refused citizenship by the putative country—and the wording here, which is, “able to become”, not, as the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, stressed, “able to apply”? Therefore, the premise is that the Secretary of State had already considered the point that the noble Baroness made and that she was convinced that were the person concerned to say, “I wish to be”, he or she would become a citizen of the said country.
Baroness Kennedy of The Shaws
There can be all manner of speculation about whether, if someone was born in, for example, Somalia but left at the age of three, Somalia might afford citizenship to them. Would Somalia give them citizenship in such circumstances if Britain had removed citizenship on the basis that they were a threat to national security here? Would Pakistan? Would Syria? Would Egypt? The test of reasonable grounds for believing that the person would be able to acquire another nationality does not answer that question. What if they cannot do so? That is the question that my noble friend Lady Smith raised, and at the moment it has not been answered satisfactorily. I wait with interest to hear what the Minister says.
There is a second matter: what constitutes service? It ties in with the point raised by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope. What constitutes service when somebody is abroad? Is it good enough to serve notice on relatives living in Britain? Why should it be assumed that they would be able to inform adequately a person who is living somewhere else that they have had their citizenship removed? I would be very interested to hear the Minister’s response to what constitutes service. If someone is in a place such as Syria or Somalia, what is the likelihood of being able to serve notice—in the way that we understand service normally in law—on somebody in a war-torn area or a place where there is chaos and little in the way of government as we understand it?
What do we do about the issue of appeal, which was just mentioned by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope? At the moment, the normal period for appeal in the rules of citizenship is 28 days, and nothing suggests that that would change. Is someone in Somalia expected to be able to appeal within 28 days, not having been in receipt of service but having been informed days before, over a very poor telephone line, that they have the right of appeal but time is about to run out? What is the answer to the question of the appeal period?
If a person is unable to acquire another citizenship, will the withdrawal of citizenship then be negated? Will it fall away, and will the person then reacquire their British citizenship? Are we giving that as a guarantee? Will we see reinstatement if no other state is prepared to follow through?
I ask those who are international lawyers, or international lawyers advising the Government: when someone has a right to citizenship, is there not always a level of discretion in a state to say, “Yes, you are entitled because you were born here, but then you went away and you became a British citizen, but we are not going to allow you to apply and become a citizen of this country now because we believe that there is intelligence of your conducting yourself in a way that might be inimical to our national interests”? The question is much more complicated than is being suggested by the way in which the Government are seeking to appease us at this moment. That is why those of us who were concerned about this issue wanted there to be a much more considered review before the law was changed. I fall in line with others: I should like very clear answers to some of the questions raised by the noble Lords, Lord Pannick and Lord Macdonald, and by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, and to the questions that I have raised, before I would be satisfied that the movement by the Government has been far enough.
This is an issue of high moral import. This is an issue that affects not only us here, but which will be looked at around the world. There will be implications for people in other parts of the world, too. I ask the Government to take great care over the answers that are given because, as we have heard from others, courts will deal with applications, appeals and reviews based on some of the answers given today.
Baroness Hamwee
My Lords, noble Lords will be glad to know that I will be as energetic as I can in editing my remarks to exclude questions which have already been asked. However, I retain some points and concerns on the amendments, including on the principle.
Questions have been asked about what is meant by being “able”, and also about the practicalities of the matter. The Minister in the Commons said: “I am sure that”, the Secretary of State,
“would … have to consider practical issues and the other surrounding circumstances … She will, therefore, wish to consider those other practical or logistical arrangements as part of her determination”.—[Official Report, Commons, 7/5/14; col. 193].
Can my noble friend give the House assurances as to how all that will actually be reflected in statute or, if not in statute, then in guidelines? I mention here the guidelines published by the UNHCR on statelessness, which specifically refer to the application of nationality laws in practice being,
“a mixed question of fact and law”.
On the right of appeal, the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, has said that he trusts that there will be an assurance that the issues will be dealt with as open evidence. I add to that, while having the same hope, that if there are aspects which cannot be dealt with openly, will the provisions—I do not much like them, but they are what we have got—on gisting and special advocates apply? I have seen some doubt as to whether that would be the case.
On the amendment for review, I am glad that the Government have tabled this, as I did both in Committee and on Report. However, I stressed then the importance of independence. That term is missing from the Government’s amendment. Perhaps I can put it this way to my noble friend: can he confirm unequivocally that the review will not be in the hands of somebody who is within the Home Office?
Like others, I would welcome this being a matter for the independent reviewer of terrorism legislation. Concern has been expressed about resources, but whoever does the job is going to need the resources to do the job. I, too, have a question about why, after the first year, it should be triennial. If we are dealing with small numbers, then the job should be correspondingly small. I also ask the Minister to give us an assurance that the Government will support the reviewer undertaking more frequent reviews if he considers that they should be undertaken.
In debate, we have barely touched on the impact on communities of whom an individual in question is a member. I would support the appointment of the independent reviewer of terrorism legislation, because that postholder deals with people who are in rather connected situations where other measures might be applicable—and, indeed, might apply if deprivation is not to be used. It is clear that there is a danger that the use of the state’s powers, which focus on neutralising—if that is the word—the individual without considering the negative effect on the community, is an issue, as well as the specifics for the individual and their family. I am sure that the independent reviewer would focus on that as well.
Lord Taylor of Holbeach
My Lords, this has been an extremely good debate: a serious one, on a very serious issue. We have been fortunate to be able to hear from a large and well qualified body of the Members of this House. I am grateful to all noble Lords who have spoken, and I will do my best to provide those assurances that have been sought by noble Lords. The noble Lord, Lord Pannick, in welcoming the Government’s move in tabling their amendments in the Commons, wanted assurances. I am most grateful to him for letting me have sight of the things he was concerned about so that I was able to address them. I can say the same of my noble friend Lady Hamwee, who did not raise all the issues she had intended to because they had been raised by other noble Lords. However, I think that that most noble Lords have a similar need for reassurance, and I am well aware of the responsibility to provide that assurance to Members of the House.
Perhaps most important is the whole question of the meaning of “reasonable grounds to believe” and whether those reasonable grounds of belief are appropriate for determining the ability of a person to acquire another nationality. The Home Secretary’s decision must be “reasonable” based on the evidence available to her on the nationality laws of those countries and the person’s circumstances. That will include having regard to any practical arrangements, but those will vary from case to case, and it is not possible or appropriate to speculate about what weight those issues would carry in a particular case. “Satisfied” has been interpreted to mean that SIAC decides for itself whether a person is a dual national. In some circumstances a person, after being deprived of British citizenship, may take steps which guarantee that another country will not recognise him or her as a national. The appeal should therefore review the decision at the time it was made, which is why the phrase “reasonable grounds to believe” instead of “satisfied” is used.
Both the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, and the noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy of The Shaws, asked what the position would be if the foreign state had some discretion in whether to approve an individual’s request for citizenship. I think that the noble Baroness went as far as to say that she thought that there were likely to be grounds for discretion in almost any case. The clause refers to whether under the laws of a country or territory a person is able to acquire the nationality of that country. The key issue will be whether the Secretary of State reasonably believes that they are able to acquire the nationality. It does not say that the person must have a right—an automatic entitlement—to that other nationality. Where there is a discretionary judgment there may be reasonable grounds to believe that the discretion will be exercised. However, reasonableness would require something more than saying that the person should apply for the exercise of a general discretion to grant citizenship to any country that has such discretion. I hope I make myself clear on that. The Home Secretary must have reasonable grounds to believe that, at the end of any application process—if one is required—the person will become a national of another country.
Lord Pannick
If I understand him correctly, the Minister is saying that the application of this clause will depend upon the particular facts of the particular case. Can I ask him whether, among the relevant facts that the Secretary of State will take into account in deciding whether to apply this clause, and how it should apply, she will consider whether the individual has any link with the country concerned other than the ability to apply for nationality, and whether the relevant facts will also include whether the individual has a good reason for not wanting to apply for nationality in that country—for example, because of persecution?
Lord Taylor of Holbeach
I certainly can confirm to the noble Lord that one of the factors that has to be borne in mind by a Home Secretary considering these matters is the question of possible persecution. I assure the noble Lord on that in relation to the specific case that he mentioned and on the relevance of all factors that may impinge on a decision, which would include the ability of the person to acquire nationality in another country. They will be considered fully by the Home Secretary in all respects. The noble Lord asked about whether the person had an association and so on would be considered. I am sure that these are the sorts of things that the Home Secretary will have to consider in considering whether to exercise the powers in this clause. I am grateful to the noble Lord. He has been a great encouragement in the initial meetings that we had when we discussed these issues. Incidentally, the House should know that we are very much at the position that was suggested by a number of noble Lords right at the beginning; I am pleased that I have been able to satisfy some of the learned opinion that has been available to us here in the House.
Lord Avebury
Would the Secretary of State have the power to consider the case whereby a person has an entitlement to nationality of a state such as Saudi Arabia where his residence could be more harmful to the United Kingdom than if he were in the UK itself—as one knows from the fact that the vast majority of people who committed the 9/11 atrocity were nationals of Saudi Arabia? If we send people back to Saudi Arabia and they become involved in these offences, it would be immensely harmful to the interests of the United Kingdom.
Lord Taylor of Holbeach
I am sure that the Home Secretary will not exercise powers, which are clearly very important powers, carelessly or in any way that would damage the interests of the United Kingdom. I can assure the noble Lord that all such factors will be considered by the Home Secretary when she considers the question of deprivation.
Baroness Smith of Basildon
My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for the time he has taken and the effort he has made to address the points that have been raised in the debate. I concur entirely with his remarks about internal and international security. Obviously, the first duty of any Government is to keep their citizens safe and secure at all times. There has to be consideration of those issues when they are brought before your Lordships’ House. I can assure him that our consideration of these issues has at its heart the security of this nation and our international obligations to tackle terrorism. As the noble Lord said, I am grateful to all those who have spoken in this debate. We have benefited from substantial legal expertise. I am grateful to my noble friend Lady Lister for confessing that, like the Minister and me, she is not a lawyer. It is significant that even with the legal expertise in your Lordships’ House there is no complete agreement among lawyers, either. We made that point earlier.
I welcome the fact that the Government have moved away from the position that they took previously when the issue was debated in Committee and on Report. I welcome the answers given by the Minister. A lot of the debate hinges on one particular issue. I am grateful for the advice given to me by the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, in the conversations we have had. One of his questions summed up clearly the issue of the power to take away British citizenship if it relies on a discretionary power of another state. The noble Lord was very honest in his response to that. We have no power to know what another state will do. Other states have discretionary powers on whether to make people citizens.
The Government’s Motion rests on whether somebody is able to obtain citizenship. It hangs on the interpretation of that. We have concerns in that we want to avoid at all costs somebody becoming stateless—the evil of statelessness via the Supreme Court—and the dangers that that would bring to citizens of this country and abroad. I mentioned that James Brokenshire, the Minister in the other place, gave three different interpretations of what being able to obtain other citizenship could mean. If somebody is unable to obtain another citizenship and they remain stateless, at what point would the Home Secretary have to say, “We have a problem; this person does not have citizenship of any country”? There is a danger in leaving somebody abroad who we think is a danger to this country and involved in terrorism, who is stateless in another country or who remains in this country and cannot travel.
The noble Lord, Lord Lester, said that the intention was that those who are dangerous should leave—but they cannot do so if they have not got citizenship of any other country. The noble Lord also made the point that our position has changed. I can assure him that our position has not changed. These are the very same issues we raised in Committee and on Report, and we wanted to consider them in the light of the changes that the Government have made.
We have to consider the practical and diplomatic implications here. I know the Minister says that there is no need to discuss this issue with other countries, but he was not even able to confirm to your Lordships’ House that, if we remove citizenship from an individual who we suspect of being involved in terrorist activity while they are in another country, we would notify the Government of that country that we were doing so. That seems to be a rather irresponsible attitude and I worry that we will be passing the problems of terrorism on to other countries when international co-operation is so essential.
I do not wish to detain the House. We have had an interesting and worthy debate on this issue. What the Government have not been able to do, however, is rule out the possibility that we will make people who could be highly dangerous stateless. All it requires is that the Home Secretary must have reasonable grounds for believing that an individual can obtain other citizenship—but if those grounds are wrong and the individual cannot do so, we do not know what will happen to that individual.
The point was made when we debated this previously that we are not saying to the Government, “No, this must not happen”, but that there are still a number of questions which remain unanswered even at this late stage. They include the issue of what happens to someone when they have been rendered stateless and what the implications are for our relationships with other countries. The noble Lord, Lord Pannick, gave examples, and I am not sure that the Minister’s answer was that someone could not be made stateless.
Lord Lester of Herne Hill
I am most grateful to the noble Baroness. To be clear, what I said about the Opposition was not that they have not changed, but that they have not changed in the light of the changed circumstances of this concession.
Baroness Smith of Basildon
The Minister cheers the noble Lord on, but no one else is doing so. I said in response to the Government’s changes to their Motion that they do not remove the danger of statelessness. The noble Lord referred to the Pepper v Hart ruling, and he is absolutely right. What the Minister here and the Minister in the other place say is very important, but we have now had many interpretations from Ministers of what the amendment actually means.
Again, this has been a useful and interesting debate which I value, but we are seeking certainty on a number of issues, and that has not been forthcoming today. I believe that this matter would benefit from further consideration. It does not have to delay business. We are at the end of this Session, but it could be brought back quickly at the start of the next Session. It is important that we understand the implications for the security of this country and for individuals living in it. Accordingly, I wish to test the opinion of the House.
Arrangement of Business
Baroness Anelay of St Johns (Con)
My Lords, there is a question that I have been asked on many occasions over the past week and I am now able to answer it. Now that the progress of business is certain, it may be for the convenience of the House if I indicate that I expect Royal Commissioners to attend this House at the end of business on Wednesday this week to signify Royal Assent to several Bills and to prorogue Parliament until 4 June. The exact time of the ceremony will be settled on Wednesday itself, once the flow of business in both Houses is clear.
Lord Bassam of Brighton (Lab)
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness for her statement advising the House of the date of Prorogation. I make one simple point. We on these Benches have long predicted this particular day in view of the flow of government business. However, the House is being underused. It is clear from the figures that we are losing about 10% of active days of consideration in your Lordships’ House. I am sure my colleagues share my view that this is highly unsatisfactory. We do a very good job and we do it well, but it is not right for the Government to play fast and loose with this House when it comes to the proper consideration of business.
I welcome what the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, has said, and I am glad that the statement has been made. It gives some certainty to Members of your Lordships’ House. However, the other matters bear further consideration.
Baroness Anelay of St Johns
My Lords, in the past the Leader of the Opposition has made points about sitting patterns, and certain figures have been shown to her. Therefore, I am more than a little surprised that the noble Lord, Lord Bassam, continues to allege that this House is somehow sitting for some 10% less than its normal pattern. I just happen to have the figures with me.
The noble Lord, Lord Bassam, raises a serious point. This House is very adept at holding the Government to account and I know that it will continue to do so. The Opposition Front Bench is charged with that task and always carries it out to a high level of ability. I do not underestimate that at all.
It might be helpful if I refer to the working days available to this House. Without wishing to be too tedious, over the three most recent Sessions, if one looks at working days lost—in other words, working days on which we did not sit—at Christmas 2011 it was 10, at Christmas 2012 it was 10 and at Christmas 2013 it was 10. At Easter 2012 it was 15, at Easter 2013 it was 15 and at Easter 2014 it was 15. At Whitsun it was six days in 2012, including the extra bank holiday for the Diamond Jubilee, last year it was six and this year it will be six. With regard to Prorogation, in the Sessions 2010-12 and 2012-13 it was four days. For Prorogation last year it went up to seven. It has come down to five this year. There has been a perception—it is only a perception—that we have had longer, because of the way in which public holidays fall for Easter, Whit and Prorogation. On this occasion, Prorogation and Whit happen to be consecutive, but they would have happened anyway. I have plenty more figures, but that shows that we have a pattern and that we have kept to it.
Comments have been made about the Summer Recess. It is true that we went down to nine weeks last year, but it was 10 the year before and it is 10 this year. I have every confidence that this House will do the job that it does superbly, which is to hold any Government to account at all the proper times.
Lord Elton (Con)
Will my noble friend kindly tell us at what time the House will sit on Wednesday?
Baroness Anelay of St Johns
My Lords, the announcement I made was in the normal format but I know that the normal format is rather opaque, so I understand why my noble friend asked that question. I cannot give the exact time of Prorogation until Wednesday, because another place will still be dealing with divisible government business. As to the starting time, on Wednesday we will start at the published time of 3 pm. That is because it is appropriate for those who have their Questions that day to ask them at the time they expect. As I explained last week to the Opposition Chief Whip, it is appropriate that we and another place should try to get to the point of Prorogation at about the same time. In that way, there is only a small hiatus while the House adjourns during pleasure before we have the ceremony of the commissioners. We shall begin at 3 pm on Wednesday, by which time I hope to be able to give a better indication of exactly when on Wednesday Prorogation might be.
Lord Martin of Springburn (CB)
I put it to the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, as gently as I can that, while I understand all the difficulties that can be brought about by Prorogation, it should be borne in mind that many of us travel a considerable distance to come here. In doing so, we usually make arrangements a fortnight in advance for Monday to Thursday. The change to a Wednesday therefore causes considerable difficulties in arrangements for those Members who are travelling several hundred miles. I have accommodation in London, but I know that other colleagues who have to stay overnight have to make not only travel arrangements but overnight bookings. Perhaps this can be considered in future.
Lord Bassam of Brighton
I have a simple question. Will the noble Baroness agree to publish, in a letter placed in the Library, the stats on a per annum basis for the number of sitting days that the House has had since 2010?
Baroness Anelay of St Johns
My Lords, I can certainly look at that and see what helpful figures—helpful to the noble Lord—we can give. With regard to advance notice, I sympathise with those noble Lords who travel a great distance here and try to have some regular pattern of attendance. The problem normally arises only with Prorogation, as it is simply impossible to predict when it might take place. I follow the pattern, which has always been the case, that one can make the announcement only once this House has completed its legislative business. That, of course, does not include statutory instruments but only the substantive primary Bills themselves. I could have waited another 24 hours, because normally one gives only 24 hours’ notice. However, I am always keen to give as much advance information as possible because I recognise, with sympathy, that Prorogation can cause a particular difficulty.
Education: Free School Funding
(10 years, 7 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Schools (Lord Nash) (Con)
My Lords, with the leave of the House, I will repeat in the form of a Statement the Answer to an Urgent Question given in another place this afternoon by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Education. The Statement is as follows.
“I am delighted to be able to update the House on progress in providing new school places. Just last week, the Public Accounts Committee congratulated the department on the clear progress that has been made in delivering new school places through the free school programme, with costs significantly lower than under the previous Government’s school building programme.
Free schools cost around half what schools built under Building Schools for the Future cost. Thanks to the savings we have made, and thanks to the success of our long-term economic plan, we have been able to invest far more than the previous Government in creating new school places, especially in areas of need. We are investing £5 billion over the life of this Parliament in giving money to local authorities for new school places. That is more than twice what the previous Government spent over the equivalent preceding period, despite repeated warnings that the population was increasing. We plan to invest even more in the next Parliament, with £7 billion allocated for new school places.
As a result, we have delivered 212,000 new primary school places between 2012 and 2013 and we are on course to deliver another 357,000. Thanks to the efforts of many great local authorities, we now have fewer pupils in overcrowded primary schools than we had in 2010. As well as the expansion of existing local authority provision, we have also created, on top, 83,000 places in new free schools. The budget for these schools has been just under 10% of the department’s total capital spend.
Free schools are, so far, outperforming other schools inspected under our new and more rigorous Ofsted framework. Schools such as Dixons Trinity in Bradford and the Canary Wharf free school in Tower Hamlets have been ranked outstanding months after opening. Free schools are now oversubscribed, with three applications for every place and, indeed, the longer free schools are in place, the more popular they are. Schools such as the West London Free School and the London Academy of Excellence are becoming the most oversubscribed schools in their area.
It is important to remember that we have met the demand identified by local authorities for new school places and have also set up seven out of 10 free schools in areas of significant population growth. Indeed, as the National Audit Office has pointed out, £700 million of the £950 million spent on the free schools so far opened has actually augmented the money given to local authorities for new school places. Other free schools have been set up to provide quality provision where existing standards are too low or school improvements have been too slow.
We should never be complacent about educational standards but we should today take time to thank local authorities and all our school leaders and teachers, because no child in this country is without a school place, fewer are in overcrowded schools and Ofsted reports that more children are being taught good and outstanding lessons by more highly qualified teachers than ever before.
In short, thanks to the rigour with which we have borne down on costs, the innovation unleashed by the academy and free schools programmes, and the success of the Government’s economic strategy, we have been able both to provide all necessary school places and drive up quality across the board”.
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for the Statement. However, the fact is that the free school project is becoming more and more a source of embarrassment for this Government. In short, the Secretary of State seems to be running out of friends. Last week, the Public Accounts Committee reported that at least £240 million had been spent on building 42 free schools where there is no shortage of school places, diverting money away from the areas of greatest need. Meanwhile, it seems that the Treasury has raised concerns about the runaway costs of free schools, at both official and ministerial level. Even the DfE’s own civil servants are scrabbling around to effect some political damage limitation from the fall-out of the failing free schools. Now their coalition partners, the Lib Dems, are alleging that the basic needs budget—intended for extra school places in the most overcrowded areas—has been raided to expand the free school programme.
I listened carefully to the Secretary of State’s response to this accusation in the other place. He seemed to deny that the basic needs budget had been—or would be—raided to fund free schools and, indeed, he claimed that the free schools budget would be reduced if necessary to fund the basic needs programme. Can the noble Lord clarify who is right on this matter—David Laws or Michael Gove? Will he also acknowledge that the shortage of primary school places continues to be an issue and that, at the next election, more infants will be taught in classrooms with more than 30 pupils than was the case in 2010? When will the Government finally introduce some proper controls on this runaway expenditure, as demanded by the Treasury and the Public Accounts Committee? Does he accept the latest Ofsted evidence that free schools have a failure rate of 11% compared to just 3% for maintained schools, so they are not the great success story that Michael Gove likes to claim? Finally, does he have some sympathy with the Conservative Association in Crawley—home of the disastrous Discovery New School—which, when asked if it would like a ministerial visit, replied, “Please send anyone but Michael Gove”?
Lord Nash
The noble Baroness is of course only doing her job in pointing out the few failings in the free schools programme. However, overall, the programme is a massive success, as witnessed by the number of MPs across the other place this afternoon who praised the free schools in their constituencies and by the massive demand from parents, witnessed by their being three times oversubscribed.
Overall, free schools are far more likely to be rated outstanding within only a few months of opening than other schools. Any failings in our school buildings programme is but nothing compared to the massive failure of the previous Government’s Building Schools for the Future programme, which ran at least £10 billion over cost. That failure was coupled with their complete failure, apparently, to anticipate the looming crisis— despite repeated warnings and their immigration policy—in school places which we are now fixing.
I thought that the Public Accounts Committee report was very balanced and very fair. In particular, it was quite muted compared to the committee’s 2009 report into the Building Schools for the Future programme, which contained phrases such as,
“poor planning and persistent over-optimism”,
and said the department had,
“wasted public money by relying on consultants”,
and was “complacent”.
Rather than the free schools building programme taking money away from basic needs, it is in fact enhancing it: £1.1 billion has been allocated for 174 free schools, 70% of which are in areas of basic need; in the free school round announced in January this year, all our new maintained schools are in areas facing a shortage of places; and it looks likely that the latter will pretty much be the case as well for the new round to be announced shortly. We have been able to meet the demand for school places which we were left with by the previous Government, who in fact reduced the number of primary places by 200,000 despite the warnings. The noble Baroness referred to the Discovery New School. We have closed half of another school. We have in fact closed schools with 200 places in them which compares with the 150,000 new places that we have created under the free schools programme.
Baroness Perry of Southwark (Con)
Will my noble friend confirm that one of the most heartening aspects of the free schools programme is that every free school is opened only after extensive consultation with the local community? By the time the free school is open, it has huge community support, and the parents who have been involved in the setting up of the school have overwhelming enthusiasm and are greatly involved in the life of the school in a way that, in my experience, has been seen in very few local authority schools.
Lord Nash
I can confirm what my noble friend says. I encourage noble Lords from across the House to visit schools such as Dixons Trinity Bradford, Reach Academy Feltham, Canary Wharf College or ARK Conway Primary Academy, all of which have been rated outstanding within months of opening.
Lord Storey (LD)
The Minister is right to point to the fact that there are problems of overcrowding in maintained schools. In fact, a survey by the Local Government Association found that in 2012 one-fifth of primary schools were full, with the obvious problem of increased class sizes. Will the Minister confirm that every parent who wishes to send their child to a maintained primary school will be able to do so? Will he confirm or deny that no money has been diverted or augmented from the basic needs budget to the free schools programme? Will he confirm that it is still government policy that no free school should be run as a business? This has somehow been caught up in the issue of the meals programme for key stage 1 children. Will he confirm that the Government are fully committed to that programme?
Lord Nash
Local admissions arrangements are for the local authority in the area, although it is true that virtually all academies and free schools use the local authority admissions process. I have already answered the second point about money being directed from basic needs to free schools. We have a very strict policy: no free school or academy can be run as a business. Indeed, no one with any close relationship with a free school or academy can provide any services to that school except at cost. The Government are fully committed across party to the universal free school meals programme.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton (Lab)
My Lords, the Minister said that no money has been diverted into the free schools programme. Will the Minister confirm that the Treasury set a limit? If, for example, the per capita payment per pupil—not the building cost, but the per capita cost per pupil—is higher for free schools, then both the local authority maintained schools and the voluntary sector schools are deprived of resources. I, for one, take offence when it is said that free schools have more highly qualified teachers when actually they are allowed to employ unqualified teachers. I consider that to be a slur. I admit that I am biased, but does the Minister accept that in Lancashire parents join in their local schools, be they church schools—of which Lancashire has the largest number—or other schools? When the Minister says that seven out of every nine free schools are justified, two out of every nine are not justified. County schools, local authority schools and the voluntary aided sector cannot use that money if it is being spent to support a whim of the Secretary of State.
Lord Nash
All academies and free schools are funded on an equal basis to maintained schools. They may get some start-up grants, but their annual revenue going forward is equal. As regards the slur to which the noble Baroness referred, the Statement says quite clearly that Ofsted has reported that all schools, not just free schools, have more highly qualified teachers than ever before.
Baroness Williams of Crosby (LD)
My Lords, I understand that the very first duty of any education department is to ensure that every single parent will have the opportunity to place his or her child in a maintained school if that is what he or she wishes. I am concerned by what appears to be a fog of misunderstanding. My understanding is that there are at least 12 local authorities—I give as examples Teeside, Ruislip, Croydon and Bristol—where it is said to be impossible for a parent to find a place in a maintained primary school. That should be the first duty of Government. It would be very helpful if the Minister could say specifically that he does not know of local authorities that cannot find a primary school place for their children. If someone wants to send their child to a free school that is perfectly fair, but it should not be forced on them.
Lord Nash
I have said quite clearly that we have satisfied all the demand for free school places and we have funded local authorities to be able to satisfy that demand. Of course, we now have a system in which 60% of secondary schools and 12% of primary schools are academies. It may well be that in some areas the nearest school which the allocation process in the local authority directs parents to will be a free school rather than a local authority maintained school.
Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 (Amendment) (No. 2) Order 2014
(10 years, 7 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
19:08 - Division on Baroness Smith of Basildon’s amendment to the Motion. - Ayes: 125 / Noes: 216 - Baroness Smith of Basildon’s amendment to the Motion disagreed.
Lord Taylor of Holbeach
That the draft order laid before the House on 31 October 2013 be approved.
Relevant document: 13th Report from the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments. Considered in Grand Committee on 31 March.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Home Office (Lord Taylor of Holbeach) (Con)
My Lords, the Government seek to control khat as a class C drug under the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971, to protect the public from the potential harms associated with this drug and the threat posed from its international trafficking.
Through the second draft order laid by the Ministry of Justice, the Government are seeking to extend the use of penalty notices for disorder—PNDs—to the offence of simple possession of khat, when it is the second time that the offence has been committed. By a negative instrument, the financial penalty for the khat PND will be set at £60. On the first occasion that an offence has been committed, a person is likely to be issued with a non-statutory “khat warning”. Anyone caught possessing khat for the third time or more will face arrest. This reflects the policing strategy for khat possession cases agreed with the national policing lead for drugs. Both draft orders were considered in Grand Committee on 31 March. The House will be aware that both draft orders have been approved in the House of Commons. I commend the two orders to the House.
Amendment to the Motion
Baroness Smith of Basildon
At end to insert “but that this House regrets that Her Majesty’s Government’s plans for the introduction of the Order do not include provisions for a 12-month review of the impact of the reclassification of khat in view of the highly unusual community focus of its use, for putting a detailed policing strategy in place before a ban takes effect, or for a health strategy to prevent a transfer of addiction to other substances; and do not commit the Department for International Development to do more work with the government of Kenya to alleviate the effect of the reclassification on the Kenyan economy.”
Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)
My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for his explanation. I shall explain why we have brought this amendment before the House today.
It is around six weeks since we discussed this issue in Grand Committee. I thank the noble Lord for asking to meet me prior to this debate and for the discussion we had on the issue during the Recess. In Committee, the noble Lord, Lord Ahmad, responded for the Government. He agreed that this was a finely balanced decision. The Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs, the ACMD, does not advise that the drug should be banned, due to a lack of robust evidence. In fact, it considers it to be,
“a much less potent stimulant than other commonly used drugs”.
As I identified in Grand Committee, successive Governments have considered whether khat should be banned, but the evidence has not been clear or strong enough previously to support such a ban. It is clear from the evidence base in the Explanatory Memorandum and the Government’s assessment of the options that the decision remains a finely balanced one. One of the new considerations is the impact of the ban by other European countries.
Having considered the evidence, we accept that the benefits of a ban could outweigh the risks. However, as I stated previously, there are a number of assurances needed from the Government before that is clear. When we debated this in Committee and sought assurances from the Government, we did not do so unexpectedly. My colleague in the other place, the shadow Home Office Minister, Diana Johnson, had discussions with the Minister who had responsibility for this order. Curiously, this was not the Drugs Minister, Norman Baker, but another Minister, Karen Bradley. She spoke to her regarding our concerns and the conditions we consider to be essential if a ban is to be put in place. These were raised in the debate in Committee in the other place on 31 March and indeed in our own debate on the same day. I had also notified the Minister’s office of our concerns. Both Diana Johnson and I were disappointed with the responses from the Government, so this amendment is another attempt to seek reassurances from the Government on the implementation of such a ban. There are no surprises and no reasons of which I am aware that a full answer to the points we have raised should not be forthcoming.
I do not think I need to repeat the detail of the Committee debate on the harms of the drug or the risks associated with a ban. They are well documented in those debates, the Explanatory Memorandum, the impact assessment and, indeed, the letter from the Home Secretary. We are aware of the social and possible health harms associated with khat and which communities—largely the Somali and Yemeni communities—in the UK are most likely to use the drug. Overall, just 0.2% of the population have used khat but some 50% of Somali males are thought to be users, and up to 10% daily users. We are also aware that it is very difficult to separate the social harms of khat from the wider social issues faced by the Somali community and, to a lesser extent, the Yemeni and Ethiopian communities. We are also aware of significant and strong support from within the Somali community for a ban.
However, it must also be recognised that neither the ACMD nor the Home Office review has been able to isolate khat as the cause of problems or as exacerbating existing social problems. Khat has been linked to health harms including liver toxicity and tooth loss, as well as issues relating to the manner in which it is consumed, and mental health problems in the Somali community. But again, the evidence in relation to physical health is not considered by the ACMD—the committee that advises the Government on the misuse of drugs—as being robust enough to justify a ban.
We must also examine the risks of banning khat. We recognise that in assessing the risks we have to consider the risk of the UK becoming a hub for illegal exports to the US and other EU countries which have already implemented bans. I understand that is a key issue behind the Government’s intention to ban the drug.
In Committee, I asked the Minister, the noble Lord, Lord Ahmad, whether there was any evidence that khat imports into the UK were increasing and that the UK was being used as a base for illegal imports. He was able to advise that there had been a change although I am not 100% clear from the figures how significant that change is. Of course, that is a very reasonable issue for the Government to take into account and clarification of the scale of the problem would be helpful. When looking at the risks, it is relevant for the Government to consider the impact on the criminal justice system and to recognise that the enforcement costs may be high initially.
The Government recognise that there is a significant risk that a ban could damage community relations because khat use is both common and widely accepted within the Somali, Yemeni and Ethiopian communities. That would mean that banning khat would criminalise an established and accepted social practice.
The amendment would not prevent the ban but, because the impact must be fully understood and handled very carefully, we have identified four areas that are essential to ensure that any ban does not damage community relations and does not lead to khat’s displacement by other drugs, leading to more serious social and health impacts. As the noble Lord is aware, we wish to raise four issues that we think are essential before any ban should proceed.
The first is the review. Particularly because this is a very finely balanced decision, we think that there must be a review after 12 months that looks at the impact of reclassification, including on organised crime as well as community relations. That should include a monitoring framework, as outlined by the Home Affairs Select Committee; it was the second recommendation in its report. I know that the Government already collect some data in relation to drugs but, because khat is unique among drugs in that it is focused in particular communities, specific data need to be collected on community relations. Rather than that just being published as part of the overall publication of statistics and figures on crime, community relations and drug use, there should be a separate review published on khat.
One issue that the Minister very helpfully discussed with me when we met was policing. Because khat is highly prevalent in the Somali and Yemeni communities, the introduction of a ban would allow any Somali or Yemeni male to be subject to stop and search. I know that the Minister recognises that this could have a seriously detrimental effect on community relations, and the Government are bringing in changes to stop and search. Although we discussed this, it would be helpful if the Minister could put on the record how the Government will ensure that this does not undermine the Prevent agenda, which is now being focused on the Somali and Yemeni communities.
One risk that we can particularly identify, because khat is a social drug, is that it is linked to numerous businesses, including cafés and community centres, so policing has to be very sensitive to those risks. To ensure that this happens, we want a specific policing strategy, agreed by the ACPO lead for drugs and the Prevent team. That should be in place before a ban is in force.
I mentioned my meeting with the Minister and his officials. He was able to outline some of the issues regarding policing. I am aware that the Government are giving serious consideration to them. He agreed at that meeting to provide me with details and a copy of the draft guidance currently being considered but I have not yet had it. I know that he would want me to have a copy of that. It would have been helpful for the debate today but, if we could have a copy of that, it would be very helpful.
When we met I also reiterated the need for a programme of engagement and support for the Somali community. There needs to be some kind of education about the dangers of drugs and alcohol. As the advisory committee recognises, the evidence on the harms is not robust enough for a ban and the last thing that I think anybody wants to see is khat being replaced with illegal or prescription drugs or alcohol. That would be a very serious matter and could cause greater health harms. When we discussed this, the Minister was not able to provide me with any further information other than that he was sure that this was ongoing. These programmes will be essential, and if he is able to provide more information today that would be extremely helpful to our considerations.
My final point is on international development, an issue recognised by the Select Committee in the other place. The Department for International Development has to commit to work with the Kenyan Government to alleviate the effect of the khat ban on the Kenyan economy. When we discussed this, the Minister was confident that Kenyan farming was robust enough to diversify. He is more of an expert on farming than I am—I hope that will be the case. The Select Committee identified this as a very serious issue. My understanding is that the department is working with the Kenyan authorities. We need more information on this, as part of the review that should be undertaken and reported on in a year’s time, so that we can understand the work that is ongoing.
These are very real and genuine concerns. As I said, we are not opposing the ban but we really consider that before any ban is implemented these kinds of issues have to be considered and dealt with first. I hope that we will have a positive response from the Minister today. I beg to move.
Baroness Hamwee (LD)
My Lords, I have difficulties with both the substance of the order and the amendment. It seems that we may be in a world of policy-based evidence and an amendment that is being brought to the House because the Opposition are looking for something to object to without objecting to the ban itself. The matters identified in the amendment seem to be good reasons to oppose the ban, but the Opposition support it.
The ACMD not only recommended no change in the status of khat—that it not be controlled under the Misuse of Drugs Act—but set out a number of other recommendations dealing with local needs assessments; education and prevention initiatives; culturally specific and tailored treatment and recovery services; partnership working; addressing the problems through engagement and dialogue with the local community and interagency working; working through community safety partnerships; and regular monitoring and returns. It also made a specific recommendation about data to form the basis of future research. Those would themselves have formed a very good amendment, but that is not what is before us.
The ACMD was quite clear on the merits of the ban. The Secretary of State, on the other hand, seems to be saying—if I can summarise it—that since it is banned in the rest of the EU, it must be banned here. The ban was announced last July. Will the Minister tell the House what evidence there has been of the drug’s use since that announcement? Some time has now gone by. Indeed, it has been banned in the rest of the EU since January of last year, so if there are concerns, some of those might have come to light.
One of the reasons that we are given for the proposed ban is the risk of this country becoming a regional hub or a haven for criminals. I was interested to read some of the characteristics of khat, one of which is that it has a very short life. The active ingredient declines a couple of days after being picked; it needs to be fresh for it to have an effect. I have no doubt that the users of it, as consumers, are as demanding as consumers of most products, so is it a genuine concern that we would become a regional hub, if what might be distributed through the hub has, in fact, lost its efficacy by the time it is traded on?
The risks identified from a ban include the users moving towards more addictive, harmful and expensive substances; a black market; and organised crime stepping in to supply the drug and criminalising—inevitably—the users. I appreciate the proposals about applying an escalator to how offences are dealt with, but we would be criminalising users and suppliers, and we know that one crime leads to another.
Of course, I am aware that the Minister in the Commons and the Home Secretary, in her response to the Home Affairs Select Committee, have presented the matter as finely balanced, and that the communities where use is widespread are divided. Looking at the reports, I have been wondering how broadly women in those communities want a ban and men do not. I wonder whether that is rather simplistic reporting. I find it difficult to believe that a ban would instantly lead to such a considerable behavioural change and make model husbands of former users. I have my doubts about that. There is one view that clearly comes from the Somali community, and that is that they would prefer their children to use khat rather than alcohol or tobacco. The ACMD has reported that the use of khat has been decreasing over recent years.
In the Commons, there was very little discussion—nothing from the Minister, I believe—about the broader issues of drugs policy or the wider context, to which reference has just now been made, of the economy of Kenya and the potential instability and risks associated with that. I would be very wary of banning something of cultural significance, with the risk of driving a wedge between the police and the already quite marginalised communities. The references in the reports to the use of khat at weddings made me think of sugared almonds at weddings in some other traditions and how one might respond to any suggestion that that tradition be changed. In summary, I am not persuaded by the orders, but I am not persuaded by the amendment: I would leave the balance as it is.
Baroness Meacher (CB)
My Lords, I support the amendment to the decision of Home Secretary to ban khat under the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971, although I identify with the comments of the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, in relation to the amendment. There are very good reasons to oppose this ban. I make clear at the outset that if khat presented a serious health risk to users, I would support a ban on the importation and sale of the substance. On the other hand, we now have sufficient evidence to show that banning the possession and use of psychoactive substances—even dangerous ones—is counterproductive. Of course, the excessive use of khat by small groups of Somalis needs to be tackled; the question is how. We know that bans on possession and use delay treatment. They divert resources away from public health and education initiatives and into the criminal justice system. We also know that a criminal record is extremely damaging to anyone’s employment prospects. The criminalisation of these people will therefore tend to lead them to continue with their drug habit or—if they ever get away from it—to return to it. There are very severe and negative consequences of banning, particularly on the consumer side.
That is the evidence framework within which I have thought about the Home Secretary’s decision to ignore the advice of the ACMD and ban not only the supply but the possession and use of khat. This is a most serious decision for the communities involved, people principally from Somalia, Yemen and Ethiopia. The small but vociferous group of campaigners from Somalia believe that a ban on khat will get rid of the problems as they perceive them—social problems within families and so on. In reality, those using khat will continue using the substance at a vastly increased price. The Home Affairs Select Committee’s ninth report suggested that a hundredfold increase in price could be expected from a ban on khat. The khat user who continued to use khat would also risk, as I said, a criminal record. The alternative, to which other noble Lords have alluded, is that khat would be replaced by alcohol in particular. We know that alcohol is far more dangerous and would have all sorts all sorts of consequences that khat does not have. Either alternative, therefore, would be much worse than the status quo. I am not suggesting that the status quo is wonderful, but it is nothing like as serious as the possible consequences of a ban. The idea that the household would have more cash to spend on food is, sadly, a delusion. Some women might see their husbands spending £25 on khat and think, “I could do with that to buy some shoes for the kids”, but it is a little more complex than that.
The ACMD had clear, scientific reasons for advising the Home Secretary that,
“the evidence of harms associated with the use of khat is insufficient to justify control and it would be inappropriate and disproportionate to classify khat under the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971”.
These are very strong words from the ACMD and, particularly, a council led by Professor Leslie Iversen, whom I know quite well and who is a highly regarded scientist known for his incredible moderation, gentleness and so on. He is not a wild man; if he allows such words to go forward to the Government, we really need to take note.
The two central findings concern the medical and social harms, as others have indicated. The ACMD concludes that khat has no direct causal link to adverse medical effects, other than a small number of reports of an association between khat use and significant liver toxicity—a small number and an association. In scientific lingo, as we know, “association” simply means that the two things tend to happen alongside each other. There is no indication of a causal link between the use of khat and medical consequences. On the question of anecdotal evidence of social harms, the ACMD concludes that its research into these has found no robust evidence that demonstrates a causal link between khat consumption and any of the harms indicated.
Professor Iversen emphasised in his letter to the Home Secretary that the council’s recommendations were based on a rigorous and systematic process of evidence-gathering and subsequent analysis of what was submitted and presented to it. In other words, as I understand it, the recommendations should not be set aside other than for matters of serious national security or national interest. Now my understanding is that the main reasons for the Home Secretary’s decision have nothing to do with medical and social risks, and are twofold. First, as others mentioned, Sweden and the Netherlands in particular have banned khat and would find it helpful if the UK took the same step in order to avoid this “hub”. The noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, dealt very effectively with that point, bearing in mind the very short life of the substances within khat that people are interested in.
The other issue raised, which I find utterly peculiar, is that there is some relationship between khat use and terrorism. That is quite remarkable. I will deal with the terrorism issue very quickly. A very small trade in a perfectly legal, low-cost substance in a few BME communities is just not a serious candidate for a terrorist threat or interest. Indeed, the ACMD was not provided with any evidence of al-Shabaab or any other terrorist group’s involvement in the export or sale of khat, despite consultation with the relevant national and international official bodies. I understand that the Home Secretary has claimed that the ACMD would not have been aware of these things. However, it was aware of the people who are aware of them—and consulted them. The fact that the ACMD picked up nothing in this area should be taken seriously. On the other hand, banning a substance such as khat and increasing its value a hundredfold or more really might interest terrorists. Even on that count, this ban could be—and could be expected to be—counterproductive.
The first question one must ask on the hub possibility is whether the bans in these other countries are working. There is apparently no evidence that they are, or that they are even helpful. I would not expect them to be helpful. The idea that we follow other people simply because they want us to seems a little wrong.
I want to put a proposal with respect to khat. The Government introduced temporary-class drug orders for the purpose of controlling new psychoactive substances. I will not go on for very long on this but I want to put it forward. I applaud the Government for their policy. Its great strength is that these TCDOs do not criminalise the possession and use of these drugs while the TCDO remains in place. However, it provides for the ban of production and sale of substances that may prove dangerous. These orders were designed to enable the ACMD to analyse new drugs and determine whether a full ban under the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 could be justified. The only possible justification given by the Government and Home Secretary—I emphasise that—for a ban of khat concerns the supply of khat to other European countries or supply involving terrorists, not that that point needs to be taken seriously. An order along the lines of a TCDO, which avoided criminalising users of khat, would fulfil the Government’s objectives while avoiding unnecessary and severe consequences for the BME communities affected.
The 12-month review proposed in the amendment would then evaluate a narrower issue: the supply ban and, for example, the price increase and illegal activity that will inevitably result. The ACMD could do that work, its findings could be put to the Home Secretary and, if the supply ban was seen not to be in the national interest, it could be dropped. If the ACMD recommended education and preventive initiatives, tailored treatments and other social interventions could then be funded instead of that money going into the criminal justice system. There is an awful lot to be said for that approach. The ACMD thought about this very carefully and that is what it came up with.
The above proposition is relevant even at this stage, if I may say so. We know that some 40% of legislation is never implemented. It is surely possible for the Government to implement only the supply side of their ban and defer—I hope indefinitely—the implementation of the ban on possession and use of khat. Such a plan would enable a more focused 12-month review, as I have already mentioned. I hope the Minister will be willing to take this idea away, even at this late stage: a supply ban only could be introduced and then evaluated to see whether it should continue.
Lord Rea (Lab)
My Lords, of course, in focusing on a topic such as this, almost everything that could be said has been. My noble friend already included four reasons in her amendment for not going ahead with the reclassification of khat. All four reasons were covered fairly fully by other speakers. There are a number of other cogent reasons why the Government should not go ahead with this proposal. Of course, a lot of them have been spoken to by other speakers as well.
Some of those reasons were stated very clearly in the report of the ACMD—which the noble Baroness, Lady Meacher, described fully. That was sent to the Home Secretary in January last year and, after that, the Home Affairs Committee reported on this in November. I am not aware that the effects of khat have changed much since those reports were published. The ACMD says that khat has no causal link to adverse medical effects other than a small number of reports of an association between khat use and significant liver toxicity, which were not of sufficient importance to recommend controlling the substance under the Misuse of Drugs Act. The noble Baroness, Lady Meacher, mentioned that it was an association, not a proven causal link. However, the report from the ACMD also had—as the noble Baroness said—a number of very useful recommendations to health and social care boards regarding khat that central and local government would do well to study and implement.
The main argument put forward by the Home Office for banning khat is that otherwise the UK might become a hub for its distribution—as mentioned by both the preceding speakers. However, if that were likely to happen it would already be occurring, whereas in fact the use of khat in this country—and I assume the importation of khat to this country, too—is falling. I repeat the question of the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee: can the Minister give us any figures about the use and importation of khat in this country? Is there any evidence of the smuggling of khat out of this country to Europe? As the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, said, that is very difficult because it must be done within two or three days or khat is more or less unsalable.
The most important reason for not going ahead with this order is—as the noble Baroness, Lady Meacher, said—the unintended consequences that will follow. Just to start with, the use of khat will probably not come down any faster than it already is. Banning substances that are widely used has little effect on the level of use. This is a fact that Governments—not only this one—are rather reluctant to accept. Another serious consequence would be—as the noble Baroness, Lady Meacher, said—to criminalise a section of an already poor and marginalised community: the Somalis in Britain and, to a lesser extent, some Kenyan immigrants and Yemenis. Perhaps the most important consequence might be the substitution of khat by more powerful alternatives, as already mentioned, including alcohol and other stimulants such as crack cocaine and forms of speed—amphetamines—or mephedrone. I join with other noble Lords and Baronesses in pleading with the Minister to reconsider the proposal to go ahead with this order for the very good reasons that the noble Baroness, Lady Meacher, put so cogently.
Lord Taylor of Holbeach
My Lords, I welcome this further opportunity to set out the Government’s approach, which allows me to focus, in particular, on the activities to support the successful implementation of the ban on khat. That has lain at the heart of concerns raised by noble Lords, which I take seriously. I am reassured that the points raised in today’s debate are nearly all matters that were taken into account in the early stages of our decision-making when we considered our response to the issues associated with this drug.
The noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, and the noble Lord, Lord Rea, asked what new figures we had on this drug. The new evidence, including reports from law enforcement agencies, emerged after the ACMD published its report and the Dutch banned khat in January 2013. It pointed to an increase in the volume of khat in transit via the UK to European countries where it is banned. The latest update for the first three months of this year shows that 17 seizures of khat—with a combined net weight of over 11.5 tonnes—originating in the UK were made in France en route to other countries where it is banned, including Denmark, Germany, Belgium and the Netherlands. This is evidence that this country is becoming a substantial hub for this material.
Before I address the particular concerns of the noble Baroness, Lady Smith—
Baroness Smith of Basildon
The Minister has given helpful figures, but can he give comparative figures on how the situation has changed over time? The premise is that if seizures of illegal imports are up, they must be up against another figure. I made this point in Committee; we had figures but not comparative ones.
Lord Taylor of Holbeach
I do not have those figures to hand. I think the noble Baroness will understand that, if this material is arriving here to be distributed to other countries, as I have illustrated, it confirms the view that this country is serving as a distribution hub in a way that would not have happened before those countries banned its use. That is the point which the Government have had to consider. The noble Baroness came to see us and we had a good and useful meeting, talking about issues that concern her. I will address these but I would like to consider the points made by other speakers first.
My noble friend Lady Hamwee wanted to know what the Somali network’s report had to say. An important aspect of this is that, according to testimony given by community leaders and mothers, several areas of a person’s life can be affected by khat use. Disagreements and frustration over drug use can cause family arguments and affect personal relationships; legal and health problems associated with khat use add to the strain on personal, financial and work relationships; and chewers of khat tend to be more inward looking rather than reaching out to others, fuelling further segregation. In other words, it can be anti-social in its impact.
The noble Baroness, Lady Meacher, rang me this morning to advise me that she wanted some assurances on this issue. I cannot give her the assurances that she is seeking but I can, at least, explain the Government’s thinking. She asked what the ACMD thought of our decision to control khat. The ACMD acknowledged the lack of robust evidence on whether khat caused medical or social harm. It understood that the scope of issues that the Government will take into account to make a decision on drug control would go beyond the remit of the committee itself. Before the decision was publicly announced, the Government discussed it with the chairman of ACMD, who accepted that we came to a different view on this occasion, based on consideration of the wider issues beyond those that were the immediate responsibility of ACMD.
The noble Baroness asked about temporary bans. They form part of the Police Reform and Social Responsibility Act 2011 but they are very different. Temporary class drug orders were introduced as a swift legislative tool to tackle the fast-paced emergence in the UK of psychoactive substances or so-called “legal highs”. I have debated these with the noble Baroness on other occasions. In essence, they are used where there is an urgent or significant threat to public safety or health. There is often very little evidence of the harm these drugs do, for the simple reason that they have been available only for a matter of months, if not weeks. Under a temporary class drug order, the advisory council has just 20 working days to advise and only looks at medical harms. Temporary bans are the exception, not the rule, and only last for 12 months. Khat is not a new drug where such swift, temporary action is demanded.
The role of advisors is to advise—
Baroness Meacher
Does the Minister accept that the whole point about khat is that the ACMD did look at the potential medical and social harms and concluded that they did not justify a ban? The supply-side issues, which Professor Iverson accepts may be slightly beyond the council’s remit, are separate. My point is that if you accept the ACMD’s conclusions that the medical and social harms are low and would not justify a ban—and it was very clear about that—the case for criminalising possession and use really is not there. Hence there is a value in something akin to a temporary class drug order: I was not suggesting that you literally translate it completely. Does the Minister accept that focusing simply on supply makes sense, in terms of the Home Secretary’s comments and the evidence available?
Lord Taylor of Holbeach
I cannot accept that. When I spoke to the noble Baroness earlier, I said that I did not think I would be able to give her much comfort. We did not reject the ACMD’s report. As I explained, the ACMD is there to advise on particular aspects but, in the end, Ministers have to make decisions and be prepared to stand by them.
I turn to the points made by the noble Baroness, Lady Smith of Basildon. She has considerable concerns that we have not made proper efforts to prepare affected communities for this ban. I want to reassure her that we have done exactly that. We acknowledge that this is a finely balanced decision that needs careful and extensive preparation at national and local level. Our plans, which have been worked up over a couple of months, are in place and are ready to be rolled out once the draft order completes its parliamentary passage. We are waiting on a decision of the House to approve the order today.
I ask the House to note that, although we took a different view from the ACMD, we took on board its recommendations for locally led health and community-based interventions to meet local khat needs and for monitoring the situation in communities. I know that the noble Baroness would like to have a review after a year. We see it as a matter of continuous review and are specifying that a close eye will be kept on the impact of the ban. In this, we are going beyond the usual approach to the monitoring of newly controlled drugs, to ensure that locally and nationally collected data provide an evolving picture after the ban.
Baroness Smith of Basildon
My Lords, as on many other occasions, I am grateful to the Minister for the time and care he takes in responding to issues raised in debate. I hope he understands that the only contributions made in your Lordships’ House today have expressed concerns about the Government’s actions regarding the ban on this drug. Our concern is that, with a decision as finely balanced as the Minister said, how it is implemented is very important.
I was somewhat surprised at the uncharacteristically ungenerous comments made by the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee. She said we were looking for something to do. I find that a curious expression when we are looking at a very serious issue on a busy day in your Lordships’ House. These issues strike at the heart of how such a policy would be implemented. The noble Baroness said that she was unhappy with the amendment before us, but it is open to any Member of your Lordships’ House to table a regret Motion or any other kind of Motion.
We debated this issue in Grand Committee and today. Noble Lords will understand that there are grave concerns about the Government’s action. I am grateful to the Minister for giving us more information on policing. My greatest disappointment is on the issue of health. In a previous debate on drugs, to which I think the noble Lord, Lord Ahmad, responded, I said that the FRANK website is not really an answer in cases such as this because somebody has to be interested in order to access it in the first place. As the Government are seeking to ban this drug, they have to be very proactive.
Lord Taylor of Holbeach
I am sure the noble Baroness will admit that this is not the sole intervention that the Government are making but is part and parcel of a package of health and community activities that the Government have commissioned. Public Health England is and will be very active in pursing this ban.
Baroness Smith of Basildon
That is helpful, and I look forward to receiving more information. The point is that the measures must be in place and understood prior to the implementation of any ban. My greatest disappointment is that the Minister has failed to commit to a review. For us, that is crucial. At the 12-month point, there should be a full understanding and published figures and information. Given that it is such a finely balanced decision, to say that there will be continuous review seems to be an opportunity not to have the serious review that we are seeking. I am grateful to the Minister for his response, but I am disappointed that he has not been able to address all the points that we raised. I wish to test the opinion of the House.
Criminal Justice and Police Act 2001 (Amendment) Order 2014
(10 years, 7 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Taylor of Holbeach
That the draft Order laid before the House on 4 November 2013 be approved.
Relevant document: 13th Report from the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments. Considered in Grand Committee on 31 March
Licensing Act 2003 (FIFA World Cup Licensing Hours) Order 2014
(10 years, 7 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Taylor of Holbeach
To move that the draft Order laid before the House on 1 April be approved.
Relevant document: 26th Report from the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Home Office (Lord Taylor of Holbeach) (Con)
My Lords, this order makes provision for the relaxation of licensing hours in England during World Cup matches in which England is playing. The 2014 World Cup will be hosted by Brazil, and the difference between the respective time zones means that several matches will kick off late in the evening and finish after the traditional closing time of 11 pm. The purpose of the licensing hours order is to allow people to enjoy the matches while minimising the administrative burden on licensing authorities and licensed premises, which would otherwise need to provide notice that they intended to extend their hours.
Section 172 of the Licensing Act 2003 allows the Secretary of State to make an order relaxing opening hours for licensed premises to mark occasions of,
“exceptional international, national or local significance”.
The coalition Government consider that England playing in the World Cup is an event of exceptional national significance, which many people will want to celebrate together.
We consulted in March on whether to relax licensing hours nationally. We received nearly 1,500 responses to our online consultation: 500 of those were from members of the public and 75% of all responses were in favour of the national relaxation. In addition, we consulted key strategic partners who represent a range of views, including the police, licensing authorities, the licensed trade, residents’ associations and health bodies. Some of these stakeholders raised concerns about late-night drinking leading to crime, disorder and public nuisance. We have sought to strike a balance by limiting the periods when licensing hours will be relaxed.
We believe that the vast majority of people will enjoy watching matches responsibly. The British Beer and Pub Association, in partnership with the Local Government Association and the Association of Chief Police Officers, has published guidance for licensed premises which intend to show the World Cup matches. The guidance aims to encourage the licensed trade to work together with the police and licensing authorities to ensure the safety of the public.
The order would apply to all licensed premises in England. It will cover the sale of alcohol and late-night refreshment for consumption on the premises during those matches in which England is playing. It will apply for a maximum of four hours for matches with a scheduled kick-off time of 8 pm or later, to a latest time of 1 am.
The order will apply to England only. We consulted on whether the order should have effect in England and Wales, or England only. We received only 25 responses from people who live or work in Wales, just over 2% of the total received. While Welsh respondents wanted licensing hours to be relaxed during the World Cup, the majority favoured it being done using the existing system of temporary event notices, rather than a blanket relaxation. This is consistent with what the Government have done: a national blanket relaxation in England, with licensed premises able to use the temporary event notices in Wales.
The Government have sought the views of those who would be affected by a relaxation in licensing hours. We have carefully considered their responses, including concerns about increased crime, disorder and public nuisance, and balanced this with reducing the burden on businesses which would otherwise need to use a temporary event notice to extend their opening hours. We have limited the relaxation to a maximum of four hours after the scheduled kick-off time, to a latest time of 1 am. This is a modest relaxation in licensing hours to allow those who wish to celebrate the occasion to do so.
I hope that noble Lords will agree with the Government that the licensing hours order is an appropriate use of the powers conferred on the Home Secretary by the Licensing Act. With that, I commend the order to the House.
Lord Addington (LD)
My Lords, briefly, this order that we extend licensing hours is an appropriate response to the celebration of a major national occasion. However, I would like to ask the Government a couple of other questions. The unfortunate fact is that things such as domestic abuse tend to go up when alcohol is consumed around sporting events. I was recently made aware of the White Ribbon Campaign, which tries to deal with other sporting groups, making sure that they are aware that this goes on and is unacceptable.
Will the Government be doing something to make sure that people such as, for instance, the football authorities—those who profit from this—accept that this type of behaviour is as unacceptable after the event as anything that would go on at the event, effectively making people aware that if you have had a few drinks and a great night out, you should not take out any frustrations on the person at home when you get back? It would be a good idea if that responsibility was passed on to all those who profit from this. Most people do not indulge in this; it is not a compulsory element, so a ban is not appropriate. Those who profit from this should be making sure that those who might use this as cover for anti-social behaviour, particularly in the privacy of a home, are aware that it is not acceptable.
I hope that the Government have a reasonably positive attitude towards this, if only as something that will develop out of this in the future. We must be aware that celebrations can mask anti-social activity.
Lord Rosser (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for explaining the purpose and intent of the order, which we shall not be opposing as we accept that there should be arrangements for extending licensing hours during the World Cup. However, the order raises as many questions as it answers, although in one area it is very explicit. In paragraph 37 of the impact assessment, it says:
“While England are certain to be playing in the matches in the first period, there is a high probability that they will not be playing in the later matches”.
It is good to know what the Government think of England’s prospects.
As the Minister has said, Section 172 of the Licensing Act 2003 confers on the Secretary of State the power to make a national licensing hours order if she considers that a period—I gather it is known as the “celebration period”—marks an occasion of exceptional international, national or local significance. The specified period, which is part or all of the celebration period, cannot exceed four days but means that premises’ licences and club premises’ certifications have effect as if times specified in the order were included in the opening hours authorised by the licence or certificate. The alternative option available would be to use the existing system of temporary event notices, which means that decisions would be made locally and specific conditions could be attached to the granting of any notices to reflect the local situation, or an extension could be refused for specific premises about which there were concerns.
The Government have come to the conclusion that England’s participation in the World Cup this summer, however brief they think it might be, is an occasion of exceptional national significance which justifies the extension of licensing hours to enable fans to watch the matches at pubs and other licensed premises across the country. The other occasions on which the Section 172 power was used were the royal wedding in 2011 and the Queen’s Diamond Jubilee in 2012. The football World Cup is now on a par with those two occasions, as the power has never before been used for a sports tournament. It would be interesting to know whether the Government will also consider the likely participation of the England women’s football team in the World Cup—which I think will be held in Canada next year—as a similar occasion of exceptional national significance.
Lord Taylor of Holbeach
My Lords, I welcome the debate on this order. I am not entirely sure where the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, stands on the issue before us—
Lord Rosser
I thought that I made that clear when I started. I said that we were not opposing it as we accepted that there was a need to provide arrangements for extended hours during the World Cup. What I am raising with the Government is how views were sought from a number of stakeholders, to which I have referred. They covered the police and the Mayor’s office, as well as local government and residents, who were not saying that there should not be an extension but asked why we could not stick with the current procedure of temporary event notices, which allow local circumstances to be taken into account, rather than doing it on a blanket basis, which, unless the Minister is going to tell me to the contrary, does not allow local circumstances to be taken into account.
Lord Taylor of Holbeach
It was that point of which I was uncertain—as to whether the Opposition were in favour of doing it through this measure. I am still unsure. I understand exactly what he has said—
Lord Rosser
I am asking the Minister to explain in rather more detail why, in the face of those points made by the organisations to which I referred, the Government are saying that the best approach is the national blanket decision rather than a continuation of temporary event orders. We are not opposing this order as we recognise that there has to be a facility for extension of licensing hours. But we are curious as to why the Government are so keen to go down the road of the national blanket order, which does not allow local circumstances to be taken into account, bearing in mind the nature of the comments that came back from the police and the Mayor’s office, residents’ organisations and the Local Government Association.
Lord Taylor of Holbeach
Of course, the overwhelming number of comments were in favour of using this measure. I accept what the noble Lord says. He is quite right to challenge the Government on why they have made this decision. I think that England’s participation in the World Cup is an occasion that many people will want to enjoy in an atmosphere of clubs or bars where they will be enjoying themselves with other people. We consider it appropriate that the World Cup is seen as an event of exceptional national significance for the purposes of Section 172 of the Licensing Act.
Before I go on to the points raised by the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, I would like to respond to my noble friend Lord Addington, who mentioned the very serious consideration of domestic violence. It is interesting that we have a domestic violence debate tomorrow, which I am also involved in. In truth, there is very little recent evidence that shows that incidents of domestic violence increase during sporting events, although in the past there have been occasions when such phenomena have been reported. Women’s Aid will run a campaign to raise awareness about domestic violence during the period of the World Cup, and that campaign is supported by the Home Office.
The noble Lord, Lord Rosser, asked whether we are going to extend the blanket provision to matches when England is not playing, such as the World Cup final. It is acknowledged that an awful lot of people will probably watch those games, but the power under which this order is being made allows for the relaxation for events of exceptional national significance and we consider that this would not meet the criteria if England was not playing in the final.
On that basis, the noble Lord has clearly read with interest the impact assessment. I am pleased that he is impressed by the intellectual rigour with which the Government draw up those assessments. He is quite right. It says that England are certain to play in the matches of the first period of the tournament—I think that we can all agree on that—but that there is a high probability that England will not play in later matches. That is a matter of opinion, and I am sure that other noble Lords will have different views on that issue. But the use of Betfair and its interactive website was the basis for that assessment.
Lord Rosser
As I understand it, the Minister has said that a blanket order could not apply to the final if England was not participating in it. Am I not right in saying that Section 172 can be applied to mark occasions of exceptional international significance as well as national significance?
Lord Taylor of Holbeach
The noble Lord is absolutely right, but the Government have not taken the view that that particular definition applies in this instance. We are limiting it to those games in which England is playing.
The noble Lord, Lord Rosser, asked about additional policing costs, crime and disorder and the cost to the taxpayer. We are mindful that late-night drinking can lead to crime and disorder as well as public nuisance but, because these matches will be identified and the situations known, the order is restricted to the sale of alcohol and late-night refreshment in pubs, clubs and anywhere else where alcohol is consumed on the premises. It is not an off-the-premises order.
The noble Lord asked about giving the police extra funding for this. No, this is not an event for which extra funding would be provided. He also asked whether there would be other occasions on which football events would be covered, and mentioned the women’s World Cup. Each occasion is assessed on a case-by-case basis, based on whether they could be considered of significance, alongside other circumstances, such as time, location, and the impact on public safety. Those things are carefully considered before orders such as this one are brought before the House.
The noble Lord asked how it would be possible to plan policing. The police will use their relationship with premises to determine which premises would be extending their licensing hours and will manage risks accordingly. He asked how we squared this proposal with our localism approach. The Government have decided that England’s participation in the World Cup is an exceptional national event. Due to the late kick-off times, which we cannot help, since Brazil is west of here, it is appropriate to relax licensing hours for a modest length of time in relation to these matters. This order provides a temporary change only in licensing hours during World Cup 2014.
Licensing hours have been relaxed before, as I have said. The order provides a temporary change, specifically for England’s matches. Future events and occasions will be considered on a case-by-case basis. This licensing hours order will reduce the burden on businesses, which is why we have chosen this path, when otherwise they would need to use temporary event notices to extend their opening hours. It will reduce the burden on licensing authorities, which would have to process the notices.
Lord Rosser
I am still not clear on the question of additional policing costs. Can the Minister say that the additional policing costs will be less than what the Government described as the benefit to on-trade premises of £1.35 million?
Lord Taylor of Holbeach
My Lords, I cannot say categorically what the actual increase in costs will be and I certainly cannot state categorically the degree to which the order will increase police costs. I think that a far more difficult situation would arise if England were playing, clubs, pubs and bars were not open and there was informal activity on private premises. At least the order allows policing to be planned as it enables the police to know which licensed premises will be open during these events.
Lord Addington
Before my noble friend sits down, I hope that I can ask him one more question. I asked whether those who will profit from the World Cup will be given a little more encouragement to make sure that domestic abuse issues are brought to the public’s attention. As the audience we are talking about is predominantly male and the problem to which I referred is predominantly a male problem, this might be a good time to raise awareness of it and establish an ongoing duty in this regard. That was what I was trying to get at. I did not get a chance to speak to my noble friend about this issue before the debate as he has been so busy but I wonder whether he could give his thoughts on that issue.
Lord Taylor of Holbeach
I certainly understand exactly what my noble friend is saying. As I said, the Home Office is supporting an awareness campaign on this issue. I cannot give him a specific promise that there will be a continuing commitment in this regard. However, we will discuss this issue tomorrow afternoon and I hope that the noble Lord will participate in that debate. I am prepared to write to him about a continuing commitment if that would be helpful in the event that he is not able to attend tomorrow’s debate.
Lord Rosser
I wish to ask the Minister a question following what he said a moment ago—that premises which decide to stay open later under the blanket order will have to advise the police in advance of their decision to do so. I thought the Minister was arguing that the blanket order made it easier for the police to keep control of the situation. However, the letter from the Association of Chief Police Officers says that the advantage of temporary event notices is that they allow police forces,
“to adapt their public order plans to more accurately reflect the probable demand based upon targeted intelligence”.
Does it mean, therefore, that under this blanket order premises which are intending to stay open later within the terms of the order will have to advise the police in advance?
Lord Taylor of Holbeach
No, that is not the case. However, the police will be able to ask whether such places intend to remain open. That is entirely up to them.
Lord Rosser
Can we be clear, therefore, that under the blanket order the police have to ask premises whether they are staying open whereas under the temporary event notice, where people would have to apply, the police would know in advance who would be staying open?
Lord Taylor of Holbeach
If the police consider it is important for them to know that information, they will ask the question. If they do not think it is important to know that, they do not have to ask the question; it is entirely up to them. It is a policing matter, not a question of the licensing arrangements. We are making it clear that the whole point of this measure is to liberalise the licensing hours available to licensed bars and pubs to enable them to have extra licensing hours, if that is what they seek, to enable their customers to watch matches and have a drink at the same time. I think it is quite clear what the arrangements will be. I would have thought that the noble Lord would accept that it is a perfectly sensible and practical arrangement. As I said in my opening speech—
Lord Rosser
The Minister says he hoped that I would accept that this is a perfectly practical arrangement. I have made it clear that there is no argument about the need for a procedure for extended hours. However, the points I am raising are ones the police have raised.
Lord Taylor of Holbeach
I think I have given the answer, have I not? My job is to present the reasons why we have chosen to go ahead with the order. We have done so because we consider that this is an event of national significance. As it is an event of national significance, we have decided that the Licensing Act approach is the right one to take to provide the opportunity for licensed premises to stay open during the matches. We have made it quite clear why we have done that. The job of the police is to maintain order. They are entitled to say that they do not particularly like our approach; that is entirely up to them. However, the Government have made this decision because they think it is in the interests of the public as a whole that they have an opportunity to view the matches while attending licensed premises. I think that is a perfectly reasonable thing to do. The order is conditional on England playing in any particular match. The coalition Government believe that the decision to relax licensing hours for England matches during the World Cup strikes the right balance between recognising the benefits of alcohol when it is enjoyed responsibly and maintaining proper safeguards for the public. On that basis, I hope that these orders are agreed.
Licensing Act 2003 (Mandatory Conditions) Order 2014
(10 years, 7 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Taylor of Holbeach
That the draft order laid before the House on 9 April be approved.
Relevant documents: 40th Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee, 26th Report from the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Home Office (Lord Taylor of Holbeach)
My Lords, the order makes provision for the introduction of a mandatory licensing condition banning the sale of alcohol below the cost of duty plus VAT. Some noble Lords will notice that the substance of this order has been debated previously, as the Licensing Act 2003 (Mandatory Licensing Conditions) Order 2014. After some debate, the order did receive the approval of the House. Unfortunately, the process necessary for formal approval of the order did not take place, so we must give the order our consideration again.
The Policing and Crime Act 2009 amended the Licensing Act 2003 to confer a power on the Secretary of State to specify further mandatory licensing conditions relating to the sale and supply of alcohol. New Sections 19A and 73B of the Licensing Act allow for such conditions where the Home Secretary considers it appropriate for the promotion of licensing objectives. The order will apply to all licensed premises in England and Wales. Scotland and Northern Ireland are subject to different legislation.
The Government are committed to reducing alcohol-related harms. We have taken a decision to ban the sale of alcohol below the permitted price—that is, the cost of duty and VAT. This fulfils a commitment in the coalition agreement. It will ensure that the worst cases of cheap alcohol are banned from sale. The ban will prevent anyone selling alcohol at heavily discounted prices. A can—that is, 440 millilitres—of average-strength lager will now cost no less than 40p, and a standard bottle of 70 centilitres of vodka no less than £8.89. The ban aims to reduce excessive alcohol consumption and its associated impact on alcohol-related crime and health harms.
It is estimated that overall alcohol consumption will fall by 10.5 million units in the first year alone, resulting in 900 fewer crimes and 100 fewer hospital admissions. After 10 years, there will be 500 fewer hospital admissions and 14 lives will be saved each year. It is vital that we reduce alcohol-related harm, which is estimated to cost society £21 billion per year, with £11 billion of this being alcohol-related crime. In nearly half of all violent incidents the victim believed the perpetrator to be under the influence of alcohol. The most common type of anti-social behaviour experienced or witnessed—by one in 10 people—was drink-related. This measure will ensure that we take a step towards a much needed reduction in the £21 billion bill that this country faces as a result of alcohol.
In the previous debate, the noble Baroness, Lady Smith of Basildon, raised concerns regarding the evidence upon which we based the policy. I reiterate that the benefits of this policy have been assessed using the University of Sheffield’s School of Health and Related Research model. This is accepted as the best model available for estimating the benefits of this policy. I hope that the noble Baroness found helpful my correspondence following the debate setting out the modelling in more detail. More detailed information on the modelling used by the University of Sheffield can be found at annexe 3 of the impact assessment, which was published alongside the order.
My noble friend Lord Clement-Jones, who is not in his place this evening, raised during the previous debate a question on minimum unit pricing and its effects in Canada. As I noted then, the context of sale in Canada is quite different from that in England and Wales. I hope that my noble friend found my subsequent response outlining the studies helpful.
The modelling from the University of Sheffield estimates that this policy is worth £3.6 million a year in crime reduction benefits in England alone. This figure was laid before Parliament in the impact assessment and the Explanatory Memorandum. The health benefits have also been considered and again laid before Parliament. The Explanatory Memorandum notes an estimated benefit to the public sector in England alone of £1.15 million per year on average over the first 10 years. The impact assessment estimates the wider health benefits to society, as well as the public sector, to be £5.3 million per year.
While the reduction in average consumption is modest, this policy will impact the most on hazardous and harmful drinkers. We know that there is a direct link between the price of alcohol and the quantity consumed by the heaviest drinkers, who tend to favour the cheapest alcohol. We also know that hazardous and harmful drinkers generate the biggest costs for alcohol-related crime. What this policy seeks to achieve is 900 fewer crimes in the first year alone, with a reduction in hospital admissions from 100 in year 1 to 500 in year 10. Two consultations have been held on the Licensing Act and alcohol strategy, in 2010 and 2012-13. Following the results of the consultations, banning the sale of alcohol below the cost of duty plus VAT was considered to be the most pragmatic way with which to tackle the worst examples of cheap alcohol.
I hope that noble Lords will agree with the Government that the introduction of the ban is an appropriate use of the powers conferred on the Home Secretary by the Licensing Act 2003. Accordingly, I commend the order to the House.
Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)
My Lords, I am grateful again to the Minister for his explanation, and I admire his ability to keep going today, as this is the fifth debate in which he has taken part. I do not intend to repeat the comments I made previously when this matter was debated. He will recall—he alluded to this—that I challenged the Government on the robustness of the evidence he provided for the policy and its impact. Indeed, I used the 32nd and 35th reports of the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee. I concurred with its conclusion that the effect of this policy, as outlined in the order, “appears to be negligible”. As I recall from the debate, he said that the level of reduction in alcohol consumption would be 10.5 million units in the first year. When the matter was considered further by the committee, it said that that was equivalent to one large glass of wine a year per individual. That does not have quite the same impact as saying 10.5 million units. There was no robust evidence to show that those who most needed to reduce their alcohol intake would do so under this policy.
The Minister alluded to the letter that he wrote to me following the debate. I admit that I had not expected this order to come before us again. Had it done so with no changes, my comments would be very brief, but there are significant changes and new evidence to which he did not refer today. It might be helpful if I did so. The Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee in its 40th report drew attention to those changes. I share the committee’s disappointment that neither the Explanatory Memorandum nor the impact assessment was revised on being re-presented to your Lordships’ House in light of the strong and justified criticisms highlighted in the previous debate. It would have been helpful if those had been taken into account before re-presenting the Explanatory Memorandum and impact assessment to your Lordships’ House.
I will raise two issues on which I seek the Minister’s comments. In terms of new evidence, consideration of the Budget is important in assessing the impact of this policy. As was evident from the previous debate, there would be a marginal impact, which has failed to convince the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee that the costs to industry, which would be significant in implementing the permitted pricing policy, could be justified. The impacts would be low and marginal—one large glass of wine a year. The Wine and Spirit Trade Association claimed that the Budget would save the industry £175 million in additional duty payments. That, in turn, would bring down the permitted price at which alcohol would be sold. If the Minister is relying on a higher permitted price to reduce alcohol consumption, he perhaps ought to talk to the Chancellor, who has ensured that the permitted price will be reduced by the reduction and freezing of duty on alcohol.
Other evidence from the Cardiff University study was presented in the committee’s report. I do not know if the noble Lord has had an opportunity to read it, but it makes interesting reading around the reasons for a significant fall in violent crime. The study was unconvinced that alcohol pricing is the most significant factor. There was a 12% reduction in injuries from violent incidents in 2003 and, for the fifth consecutive year, the NHS has recorded a decrease in injuries from violence. This issue has to be looked at again, given the large implementation costs and the impact on the industry. What added value will this policy change brought forward by the order produce for the NHS and policing if you also take into account the economic and social factors, and the policing initiatives that have led to the fall in violent crime? What additional change will this order bring about?
Finally, the impact assessment suggests that doubling the level of alcohol excise duty will reduce alcohol-related mortality by an average of 35%, traffic-crash deaths by 11%, sexually transmitted diseases by 6%, violence by 2% and crime by 1.4%. Although the impact assessment does not specify the timeframe, it says that that would be the impact. That would be pretty impressive but it is not what this policy seeks to do. It is based only on maintaining the current level of excise duty, but the Chancellor reduced it in the Budget. Can we take it that we should now seek an increase following the reduction in excise duty?
We all want the harms from excess alcohol, to which the noble Lord referred in his comments on domestic violence, reduced. However, I have serious concerns.
Lord Tyler (LD)
The noble Baroness seems to be coming to the end of her speech. Can she be optimistic for once? We have so much pessimism from the Opposition. Will she make a firm commitment? Does the Labour Party understand that the principle of minimum alcohol pricing is important? Are we not all in favour? This order may not go far enough for her; I understand that, but could she for once be optimistic and say that this may be a step in the right direction?
Baroness Smith of Basildon
There is a coalition Government and it is pretty hard to be optimistic. It is not about minimum alcohol pricing; that would be a completely different debate. The Government have ruled it in, then ruled it out—it will happen, it will not happen. This is about a different issue altogether. I am questioning whether the measures taken and the wonderful responses and results they are supposed to give really measure up. The Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee does not think so, and neither do I.
Lord Taylor of Holbeach
My Lords, I tend to agree with my noble friend Lord Tyler. We have had situations today where the measures are agreed in principle but then the Government’s reasoning is challenged. This is another case in which the Opposition are not quite sure where to be on this issue.
Baroness Smith of Basildon
The Minister is right. It is the Opposition’s job to challenge the Government not just on policy but on implementation. In accusing the Opposition of being negative I remind him that this policy was looked at by a cross-party group of esteemed Members of your Lordships’ House on a Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee. If I am negative and pessimistic, so are they.
Lord Taylor of Holbeach
The noble Baroness is quite within her constitutional rights to be critical of the Government. If the Opposition welcome a change, which I am sure they do, it would be rather nice if they said so. After all, this policy will deal with a particular class of drinker that I think the noble Baroness and I agree is a problem. We are talking about hazardous and dangerous drinkers, the very people who are attracted by the offer of cheap alcohol, as existed in the past. This measure is designed particularly with them in mind. We know that savings to the National Health Service alone are £5.3 million and the costs related to crime are £3.6 million. We welcome the general trend of a drop in violence, and alcohol is only one factor in a number of measures being taken to deal with violence—just as price is only one factor to deal with alcohol abuse. It does not invalidate its use.
The noble Baroness asked about the Budget and whether we should have changed the figures in the light of the Budget. I emphasise that it is a targeted measure, as alcohol harms. It will stop the worst instances of deep discounting which result in alcohol being sold cheaply and harmfully. The whole point of the order is to ban the worst cases of cheap alcohol sales, but other actions that help local areas to identify and tackle alcohol-related issues are all part and parcel of the coalition’s commitment to dealing with alcohol abuse. I hope that the noble Baroness will recognise the purpose of bringing forward this order and welcome it. With that in mind I ask that the order be approved.
Representation of the People (England and Wales) (Amendment) Regulations 2014
(10 years, 7 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Wallace of Saltaire
That the draft Regulations laid before the House on 24 March be approved.
Relevant document: 25th Report from the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments
Lord Wallace of Saltaire (LD)
In many ways I deeply regret that we are coming to this very late in an empty House. I know that the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, and I agree that this is a very important transition. It is in the interests of all parties that we get this transition to individual registration right. Perhaps—I raise this as a question for the new Session—it might be appropriate before the summer to have, if the Opposition care to suggest it, another debate on where we are and how confident we are that the transition is going ahead.
The Electoral Commission reported in its readiness report published at the end of March that significant progress had been made in preparing for the transition, and that there was no reason to delay the implementation of IER. Since the commission made its assessment, further progress has been made, particularly in the testing of the IT arrangements that will support the new system. Thus, all is going well. From my perspective all is going much better than I thought when I was originally briefed some 18 months ago. IER is set to start in June in England and Wales and in September in Scotland.
The draft instrument for England and Wales before the House today will enable a significant change to help the electoral registration officers—EROs—in two-tier local government areas to make their registers as accurate and complete as possible. The two instruments also make further refinements designed to get IER off to the best possible start. The significant change is that the draft regulations for England and Wales will provide for local data matching in two-tier areas. They will authorise EROs in two-tier local government areas, which are appointed by district councils, to inspect records kept by the county council and to make copies of information contained in them. This will remove the current anomaly that allows EROs in unitary authorities to inspect a wider range of locally held data such as—this is highly relevant to the concerns of the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy—lists of school students who are approaching voting age, than their counterparts in two-tier areas.
In addition, the regulations will authorise but not require the authority by which the ERO was appointed, and in two-tier areas the relevant county council, to disclose to the ERO information contained in records held by that authority. This can happen only if an agreement is in place between the authority and the ERO as to the processing of the information. This will put all EROs on an equal footing as regards the right to inspect information. It will also permit, subject to conditions, the disclosure of data by local authorities to EROs in a form suitable for electronic matching against the electoral register. The Cabinet Office ran pilot data-matching schemes in 2013 which indicated that as many as 100,000 eligible voters might be identified through two-tier data matching. I hope that your Lordships will agree that this measure will be very helpful to EROs in getting as many of these additional eligible people as possible on to the electoral register.
I know that there has been some disappointment that this instrument does not do more. I am familiar with the initiative in Northern Ireland to raise registration levels among attainers—that is, 16 and 17 year-olds—in schools. Bite the Ballot has been active in promoting a similar scheme in Great Britain, and I wish to take this opportunity to congratulate its members most sincerely on their efforts. The Northern Ireland initiative has worked well in the Northern Ireland context. That is why we have learnt from the work of Northern Ireland colleagues when considering what to do in Great Britain—but life moves on, and what works well in one place may well not necessarily work so well in another.
There are good reasons why we cannot simply replicate exactly the same approach for Great Britain. For example, the delivery structure in Great Britain is different. There is one single registration service in Northern Ireland as against 363 in Great Britain. Regulations in Northern Ireland enable the chief electoral officer to request post-primary schools to provide him with lists of the names, addresses and dates of birth of pupils. This would be almost impossible to replicate in a place such as London, where pupils at an individual school might come from any or all of London’s 32 boroughs, each with its own ERO, or indeed from local authorities outside the London area. Further, some students may not be British or Commonwealth citizens.
Crucially, we are introducing online registration for the first time. This was not available at the time of the introduction of IER in Northern Ireland, which was therefore required to be based on paper forms that EROs took into schools. We expect online registration to be by far the easiest way for young people to register, and the paper-based approach practised in Northern Ireland would therefore be a step backwards.
I understand, too, that EROs across Great Britain already take proactive measures to encourage young people to register to vote and to promote democratic participation generally. Local authority staff have made visits to schools and colleges to give talks on voter registration and to get young people to fill in registration forms. EROs have facilitated organisations such as the UK Youth Parliament by providing advice and equipment for running youth elections and have organised events such as “political speed dating” and young mayor competitions to encourage interest in democracy and put young people in contact with their elected representatives. Much is being done already on the mainland to encourage young people on to the register.
None the less, the Northern Ireland schools initiative has played an important part in providing the evidence and the business case for developing the Rock Enrol! exercise. Rock Enrol! is a learning resource that is freely available from the Cabinet Office. It gives young people the opportunity to register to vote and allows them to discuss the importance of doing so. The Government have announced that all local authorities in Great Britain, alongside five national organisations, will share £4.2 million in funding to maximise registration. EROs have been encouraged to use this funding to support the delivery of Rock Enrol! in their area in order to ensure that we target attainers effectively as part of our maximising registration work.
Your Lordships will have observed that these regulations do not include any provision for local data sharing in Scotland. This is because the different local government structure in Scotland renders unnecessary a provision for two-tier areas data sharing as drafted for England and Wales. However, the Cabinet Office is consulting EROs and local government bodies in Scotland to establish whether there is any need to make provision for disclosure of information to an ERO by the council which appointed him or her. If there is such a need, it will be included in a suitable future instrument.
I turn now to the provisions for the further refinements that we are making to the IER arrangements. Both sets of regulations will disapply the usual requirements for follow-up actions by the ERO where the ERO has invited a person to register to vote who he or she has reason to believe would, if registered, be registered as a special category elector such as an overseas elector, a person with a service declaration or an elector with an anonymous entry. These are small but important categories. The effect of the current regulations is that EROs are required to take specified steps to encourage applications to register in certain cases. They must send an invitation to register and, where necessary, two reminder letters and a canvasser to the elector’s residence.
There is, of course, some enthusiasm among EROs to be sent to canvass overseas electors in places such as the United Arab Emirates, Australia, New Zealand and Florida, but noble Lords will understand the issue of the costs involved. They will appreciate that these steps can be impractical and/or expensive, and the need for greater sensitivity in the case of anonymously registered voters will often make letters or visits undesirable. I can assure your Lordships that the legislation will not prevent EROs sending invitations to register to special category electors. It will merely change the subsequent actions from a mandatory process to one that will be at the discretion of the ERO.
The Government are working with the Electoral Commission to provide guidance to be issued to EROs in the summer of this year specifically encouraging them to be proactive in carrying out their duty of inviting those whose registration has expired to register. It will reinforce the need to send follow-up reminders to special category electors where the ERO believes that this will be effective.
The Government will introduce further secondary legislation that will require EROs to encourage special category electors to reregister before their registration expires. Under existing regulations, EROs are required to send a reminder to reregister to special category electors, excluding anonymous electors, between two and three months before their registration expires. The Government will amend these regulations to compel EROs to send an additional reminder. This has two advantages over the reminders sent following an invitation to register. First, it will reduce the burden on electors by preventing the need for a completely new application. Secondly, it will reduce both the cost and time burden on EROs by allowing electronic communication of the reminder notice.
The second instrument—the draft regulations for Scotland—also confirms that the date for the introduction of IER in Scotland will be 19 September 2014. The House will have observed that in this respect the regulations amend legislation that was passed quite recently. I ought to explain why that is. We are aware that the combined effect of previous instruments could result in a lack of clarity as to whether the start date for IER in Scotland is 10 June 2014 or 19 September 2014. The Electoral Registration and Administration Act 2013 (Commencement No. 5 and Transitory Provisions) Order 2014 clearly sets out that the start date in Scotland is 19 September 2014. The draft regulations for Scotland are intended to minimise any potential for confusion on this important point.
I reassure the House again that we are continuing to work to maximise electoral registration. We are considering running further data-matching pilot schemes, building on the work done in previous years to match electoral registers against data held by public authorities. This will help us see what additional data sets might be able to add to the processes for verifying electors’ details and helping find potentially eligible electors who are not yet registered.
The draft Representation of the People (Supply of Information) Regulations 2014 were laid on 6 May 2014. Should Parliament approve them, the regulations will allow political parties the information they will need to promote IER among electors who are not yet individually registered. This is in response to a request from the political parties that at the end of the 2014 canvass they should be given a specific new list of those electors on the register who have been carried forward but not confirmed or registered under IER. The parties have recently told the Cabinet Office that they remain in favour of such a list and are expecting it to be made available to them. I trust that the House will have the opportunity to consider that instrument in the near future.
I return to the two statutory instruments before your Lordships. Each will, in its own way, play a part in the successful implementation of individual electoral registration in Great Britain. I commend them to the House.
Amendment to the Motion
Lord Kennedy of Southwark
At end to insert “but that this House regrets that the Regulations do not go far enough to address the problem of young people not registering to vote and, in particular, that this statutory instrument is not more closely modelled on the proven and successful Northern Ireland Schools Initiative.”
Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab)
My Lords, in moving this amendment to the Motion, I first note that as far as it goes, this regulation has my support and that of noble Lords on these Benches. That is why my amendment is carefully worded in regretting the fact that it does not go further. The regulations are a useful addition to the tools that electoral registration officers have at their disposal to improve the accuracy of the electoral register. It is ridiculous that until this point, EROs in two-tier local government areas had no right to inspect records held by county councils that might have helped them to maintain improved accuracy of the register.
We have had many debates, discussions and questions about the electoral register, the registration process and connected matters in this Chamber and in the Moses Room. We have much more work to do in updating and improving the processes that we employ to ensure that they make a difference in getting the millions of our fellow citizens on to the register who, as I have repeatedly raised in this House, are eligible to be on the register but are not currently registered.
Like many noble Lords I have been out and about on the streets for the local and European elections. What I find particularly depressing is when you go down a street or on a council estate and you see gaps in the register—no one at the address is on the register to vote, but clearly somebody is living there. There are now too many of these gaps for it always to be because those people are not eligible to take part in elections. It is very depressing for anyone who believes in democracy and citizenship that people are not registered to vote. We could do much more to find new ways of identifying those people and getting them registered to vote. I have always thought that there must be more scope for looking at the way citizens engage with the state and making that engagement play its part in a process of checking if the person is registered to vote. There must be a presumption that the state has a duty to get its citizens registered to vote.
Lord Tyler (LD)
My Lords, I have a lot of sympathy with the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy. We should be quite clear about the context of this—it is a very serious situation indeed. Under the existing register—even before we move fully through the transitional period into IER—the latest audit of political engagement by the Hansard Society shows that nine out of 10 people think they are on the existing register, while fewer than seven out of 10 of those in the 18 to 24 year-old group think they are on the register. That is actually wildly optimistic, as we know from the previous research that has been undertaken. At the time when we thought that more than 90% of people—92%, I think—were on the existing register, it was actually something in the 80s. It is not true that we can expect to move from a good situation to a less good situation—we are going to move from a not good situation to a potentially disastrous situation. Incidentally, in the 18 to 24 year-old age group, only 24% are certain to vote at the present time according to the Hansard Society audit. That is appalling—it is really serious. Of course, if it is only 24% of perhaps 50% who are registered, we are into very serious democratic deficit.
From these Benches, we tabled an amendment to the then Electoral Registration and Administration Bill in October 2012 which sought to “authorise or require” establishments providing secondary education to disclose information to electoral registration officers for the purposes of getting attainers—those rising to the 18 year-old threshold—on to the electoral roll. The instrument before us now goes some way along that road, and for that it is welcome. It authorises such information to be disclosed, but it does not require it. That is the importance of this opportunity to debate it this evening, however late it may be. I believe that the Government should think very carefully about going further.
My noble friend the Minister has set out a strong argument that a transition to individual electoral registration in Great Britain should be much better managed than the transition in Northern Ireland. I understand that argument. However, during the passage of the Electoral Registration and Administration Act, we argued successfully from these Benches for a longer transitional period. Before the Bill was introduced, we argued successfully to retain compulsory registration, to retain an annual canvass and to make the best possible use of data matching. That was all very welcome. However, we also went on to suggest that we should now be looking at votes for 16 year-olds and 17 year-olds, and we have recently reaffirmed that commitment at our York conference. As others in your Lordships’ House will know, I have been promoting a Private Member’s Bill, with cross-party support, to that end.
Bite the Ballot has done remarkable work in trying to increase awareness of the need for registration. The noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, who has today and on previous occasions been very active in promoting this campaign, has made it clear that it sees that there is a real problem that we should all face, and that schools are a critical and integral part of extending the registration process, making it possible to extend the franchise to more of those to whom it is now an important civic duty as well as a civic principle and right.
We should see a seamless path from the citizenship syllabus through the final years at school to the point where a civic adult is in a position to take the next step to becoming a full, integral participant in the electoral process. That is what democracy is all about. Given the very low participation levels among the 18-24 age group, it is incredibly important that, with IER, we make it clear to people who will remain in their home area only up to a certain point—often they are moving into further education or their first job away from their home area—that that is still the natural place for them to take the first step in this process towards registration, during their last few months or year in secondary education. We must create an environment where young people see the vote as part of their progress, with their peer group, towards civic adulthood. They will then go on to vote there on the first occasion, with their peer group. We know that if you start voting at the youngest possible age, you are likely to continue to register and to go on voting, rather than lose the habit.
I turn to my noble friend’s specific argument in introducing this debate. The complexity of introducing registration in schools in England and Wales—and Scotland, for that matter—is much more difficult than doing so in Northern Ireland; he spoke about the delivery mechanism. I do not accept that, simply because we now have a move towards online registration, the electoral registration officers in England and Wales would somehow find it more difficult to make that process effective in schools. Since most secondary schools are amazingly online these days—you go into a sixth form and see hardly a book—it would be impossible for the electoral registration officer not to make that process immediately accessible, available and natural within schools.
Of course, as my noble friend said, it is true that in Northern Ireland there is one chief ERO and a smaller number of schools to deal with. Indeed, in England, the interaction with schools and FE colleges might be more complex than in Northern Ireland. There are, after all, a plethora of different kinds of schools and FE colleges, but none of them is secret. Every local authority knows the schools and FE colleges in its area.
EROs in England, Wales and Scotland already deal with a great many complex interactions, the greatest of which is the administration of the annual canvass—the essential ballast and building block for a comprehensive register. The canvass is different in different parts of the respective countries of the United Kingdom, with different challenges and different approaches, but the duty to conduct the canvass and create a comprehensive register is the same right across the United Kingdom. We could have done better in this order than simply permitting schools and EROs to do this if they wish. We would be horrified if we simply permitted EROs in Great Britain to do the annual canvass and said, “It’s up to you. Don’t if you don’t want to. If you find it a bit difficult, don’t bother”. That would be ridiculous.
If we are really saying that the Government do not have confidence in our decentralised system of individual EROs in each local authority area, we should be very worried about the whole basis of electoral registration on the mainland. After all, it is the difficult places that are most important. If a school is difficult to make contact with or to get into, the chances are that that is all the more reason not to give up. The very fact that it may be difficult should not be any excuse for the Government to say that this should not be an obligation on EROs.
Can my noble friend the Minister give us some insight into the Electoral Commission’s view on all this? I have not seen any advice. As my noble friend will know, I have served on the informal cross-party advisory group for the commission. My impression was that it was very keen to build on the experience in Northern Ireland, where it was so successful. I do not understand, therefore, why the Government have taken a different view. I hope that my noble friend will be able to give us chapter and verse of the commission’s advice on this important issue. Is it really true that the Government think that EROs on the mainland have such a difficult task that they cannot be asked to do this job effectively? If so, that raises major questions about the whole administration of electoral registration and supervision of our democratic process. That is a very serious charge indeed.
In the mean time, we will have to see how things progress with this order and the regime that the Government are putting in place. But I put down a marker now that I and my colleagues will want to make sure that there is no suggestion that this implies a vote of no confidence in the whole localised system of electoral management in England and Wales. Meanwhile, in September of this year, we will of course have a very interesting pilot project about the registration of young people—in Scotland. I do not know what the latest position is. I have seen some information about the registration of 16 and 17 year-olds, but I hope and trust that the Administration in Scotland are now taking the opportunity to take the whole electoral registration process into schools and FE colleges to ensure that there at least in the United Kingdom we are getting young people involved in the democratic process. Surely that is an absolutely critical obligation on the United Kingdom Government as well. I hope, therefore, that my noble friend will be able to reassure us that this apparent retreat from what was such a successful initiative in Northern Ireland does not imply a vote of no confidence is what going to happen here on the mainland.
Lord Roberts of Llandudno (LD)
My Lords, I say amen to nearly everything that has been said here today. An opinion poll over the weekend asked voters how many of them knew the names of their MEPs, Members of Parliament or local councillors. It is amazing that fewer than half were able to name some of those people. That might even go for us in this Chamber. Democracy itself seems to be endangered at the present time. When people feel remote, when they feel that their votes and voices do not count, that is a very dangerous situation. We are talking not only about registering people to vote. We are talking about ensuring that they know something about the democratic process and that they know something about the policies, needs and opportunities of the society in which we live. Their hands must be on that pencil not just to say, “Ah, another voter”, but as somebody who has thought things through, because if we do not have this re-igniting of democracy, then we are in very great danger in elections this year, next year and after that.
It is an immediate and urgent situation to try to get young people in particular to vote. My noble friend Lord Tyler has mentioned how few—25% and then half that 25%—feel that they count at all in our society and in our democracy. Therefore, we have somehow to re-inspire people. What often gets young people to vote is the inspiration of a teacher, a lecturer or a friend—someone who tells them, “Look, your vote could count. Your vote is necessary”. When I was starting with Bite the Ballot, of which I am delighted to be the honorary president—or the honorary grandfather or great-grandfather by now—a small team of young people said, “We are going to do something to engage young people particularly in the democratic process” and they did. They had debates in Parliament and they were crowded. Young people who previously knew nothing at all about certain policies were inspired and became part of that movement.
The high spot we had recently was National Voter Registration Day on 5 February this year. On that one day a small team managed to register 52,000 people to vote. They were young people who were not interested before, but in schools, youth clubs, colleges and supermarkets there were 400 volunteers organising on that day. Some of them were not even old enough to be registered themselves; they were just so keen. Somehow, we have to see this re-igniting. Sometimes, the goings-on in Parliament as televised just turn people off. They think, “Is that what it is all about? Is that what it means? Why should we bother?” We have a responsibility here and in the other place to make people feel that they have confidence in the people they have elected and that they want to play a part in that process.
I must not speak for too long—I am a Methodist minister so I am allowed to do that sometimes—but I should like to refer to Northern Ireland which has automatic registration. It is dead simple. Somebody will go into a school, and the names, addresses and birthdays of the pupils will have already been collected. There is now a link between schools and the electoral offices. Attainers and those who are already 18 years old can register automatically. There are in England—my figures are as up-to-date as possible—3.2 million pupils in state-funded secondary schools. There are at least 216,000 in Wales and a further 290,000 in Scotland. That works out at some 800,000 new people eligible to be on the electoral register every year. If only they could be automatically registered. There could be an opt-out because some might have religious convictions and say “We don’t want to vote”. There would be an opt-out if they wanted one but otherwise they would be on the register. I hope that someone with a wee bit of inspiration and imagination would go to their schools or colleges and explain the procedure to them.
Bite the Ballot went into so many hundreds of schools and colleges. I did not think anybody could do all that but a small team managed to register 52,000 people. How many more could be registered if there was automatic registration? We have modern technology, digital channels, YouTube and ordinary television channels that could be used by the Government to share this inspiration in what is really a desperate situation. We want young people and others to exercise their vote and say “We have influence”. If people feel that they have influence and that their votes and voices count, there could be a great revival of democratic accountability and feeling here in the United Kingdom.
Lord Lexden (Con)
My Lords, I am not a Methodist minister and shall be very brief. I support very strongly the comments made by noble Lords about the importance of action in schools. Like them, I have been greatly impressed by the results of the initiative in Northern Ireland. Speaking as a strong unionist, particularly where Northern Ireland is concerned, I would regard it as an absolute tragedy if lessons that could be usefully drawn from that part of our country went by the wayside and here in Great Britain we failed to profit as we might. I hope that my noble friend will consider very carefully that which Northern Ireland might have to teach us in this matter. He is noted for his open-mindedness and there is perhaps merit in a little further consideration of what has happened in Northern Ireland.
He will be unsurprised that I listened with great interest to the comments he made on the implications of these regulations for British subjects living overseas who are eligible to vote here. I gained the strong impression from what he said that the effect of the changes will be to assist the efforts that some of us, including my noble friend Lord Tyler, are encouraging to seek greater registration among British citizens living abroad who are currently eligible to vote. I know my noble friend supports those efforts, too.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire
My Lords, I thank noble Lords for their various contributions. I will take all the thoughts back with me. Let me start by saying that we are all concerned about the problems of low registration. The noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, really talked about two different problems: we are mostly concerned here about problems in getting young people on to the register. There is another problem, which is people who actually do not want to be on it. We have all been through some of the estates where a large number of people are not on the register and quite strongly tell you—as they put their bull terrier on to you—that they do not want to be on it. That is of course another part of the problem.
Lord Kennedy of Southwark
I must say that though I may have had various dogs set on me for all sorts of things, it was never so that people would not go on the register.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire
We recognise that we have a number of problems. My noble friend Lord Tyler referred to the recent audit of political engagement, which showed the level of political disengagement in the United Kingdom. I happened to be having my hair cut when Sky News ran its European poll on levels of trust in political elites. I regret to say that the United Kingdom comes alongside France and only just behind Belgium in the high levels of distrust in all our political elites. We share a common interest in reversing that and political parties have to work on it. The media have to make their own contribution and bear some responsibility for the rising levels of mistrust we have seen in recent years.
The majority of comments have been about how we get young people on to the register and, in the case of Lord Lexden, about overseas voters. I remind noble Lords that the Northern Ireland Schools Initiative does not automatically register pupils. The registration rate for attainers in Northern Ireland currently stands at 66%, not 100%. Students must still remember to bring in their national insurance number on the day the registration officers visit the school and then choose to register by signing the form.
As electoral registration officers and others go round secondary schools in England, Wales and Scotland, they will encourage pupils to register online in the borough in which they live. The two schools closest to Saltaire, Titus Salt and Guiseley, have a mixture of pupils from Leeds and Bradford. That is duplicated across West Yorkshire and, even more so, in London. This is part of the problem, but it will become easier with online registration.
I stress to the noble Lord, Lord Tyler, that we are not in the business of permitting electoral registration officers to go into schools. A lot of registration officers have already been going into schools for a long time and we encourage them to do so. The Government are a little more reluctant to make this compulsory. The Rock Enrol! initiative was founded on the basis of the experience of Northern Ireland. The business case for its development and ensuring that we were targeting attainers effectively came out of that as part of our work to maximise registration. EROs have been encouraged to use the funding provided by government for maximising registration to support the delivery of Rock Enrol! in their area.
We all understand that there is a great deal more to do to reverse the level of disengagement among young people and older people. We have failed over many years to produce effective citizenship education in our schools; that is another area to which we need to return. The noble Lord, Lord Tyler, asked whether votes at 16 would help in this regard. Perhaps we need to have that debate. I feel that it would also help if local government were stronger and more local so that people actually knew some of their elected representatives.
At the moment I do not have the recommendations of the Electoral Commission on this; I will write to the noble Lord as soon as I discover what they are. However, we are encouraging EROs to work on this and we are providing funding. Two of the five organisations to which we have provided specific funding—UK Youth and the Scottish Youth Parliament—specifically focus on this area. That will help us as we go forward. However, as the noble Lord, Lord Roberts, suggested, making sure that young people know something about the political process is part of a wider problem on which successive Governments have not done enough over the past 25 years.
I turn to the issue, raised by the noble Lord, Lord Lexden, of overseas voters and how to encourage them. I have learnt, over the past few months, that the number of overseas voters follows a cyclical pattern. It rises in the run-up to a general election and falls off again immediately afterwards. This is completely understandable. Perhaps we may hope that the fixed date of next year’s general election will encourage a larger rise. It was more than 32,000 at the 2010 election. We are working on this by putting advertisements on a number of websites to encourage those living abroad to think about registering. We have made it easier for them to register by reducing the number of documents they have to provide, and we support the efforts that others are making in this respect.
The Government do not think that we can do this on our own. We are working with Bite the Ballot and other voluntary organisations. We are encouraging political parties to do their bit. The other regulation I mentioned takes us further down the road. I assure noble Lords that although we have not entirely duplicated the Northern Ireland Schools Initiative, the Rock Enrol! initiative draws on it. Electoral registration officers on the mainland are already doing the work that the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, would like them to do. The Government will follow that, and we hope that the outcome will be registration at least as high as in Northern Ireland. I repeat that there, sadly, it is only two-thirds. We will do our best to hit that target.
Lord Kennedy of Southwark
My Lords, I thank the noble Lords, Lord Tyler, Lord Roberts and Lord Lexden, who made excellent points. I agree almost entirely with what they said. I found some of the Minister’s response a bit unconvincing, and I think we will be returning to this many more times.
The point I found most unconvincing was about the one electoral registration officer in Northern Ireland, where, as the noble Lord, Lord Tyler, said, it works fine. The idea that the more than 300 EROs in England and Wales and the Electoral Management Board in Scotland will not know their local college and school and so could not possibly do it right is just nonsense. We hear lots from the Government about localism and all sorts of things.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire
That is not the point. Of course, we all know our local college and school. The problem is that you cannot go into a school with a set of forms and encourage young people to fill them in because they do not all live in the same authority. Particularly in London boroughs, you are very often dealing with pupils from a number of different authorities, so if one were to do it on paper, that would be extremely complicated. That is why I stressed that the move to online registration gives us a much easier way of coping with this diversity of electoral authorities.
Lord Kennedy of Southwark
I am still not very convinced. Luckily the Electoral Commission now produces standard forms. I think the Minister may need to go back and reflect on that a bit more in government. That is not a credible argument.
I am very tempted to test the opinion of the House on this, but at this time it is probably not worth me doing so. I assure the Minister that I will come back and test it on a future date. I hope he will come back with a few more convincing arguments than those tonight. I beg leave to withdraw the Motion.
Representation of the People (Scotland) (Amendment) Regulations 2014
(10 years, 7 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Wallace of Saltaire
That the draft regulations laid before the House on 24 March be approved.
Relevant document: 25th Report from the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments
Motion agreed.