House of Commons

Monday 14th July 2014 Commons Chamber

Monday 14 July 2014

The House met at half-past Two o’clock

Prayers

Monday 14th July 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker in the Chair]

Oral Answers to Questions

Monday 14th July 2014 Commons Chamber

The Secretary of State was asked—

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

1. What progress his Department has made on the Army 2020 programme.

[The Minister for the Armed Forces (Mr Mark Francois)]

The Army continues to implement Army 2020 structures in accordance with the announcement made by the Secretary of State on 5 July 2012. Headquarters Force Troops Command has formed in its new role, and Headquarters 1 UK and 3 UK divisions will commence their new roles this autumn. Units will enter the new annual training cycle from 1 January 2015.

[Diana Johnson]

Will the Minister explain why the only target the Government will meet is to shrink the full- time regular Army to 82,500 by 2018, so that the whole professional British Army will fit inside Wembley stadium? What does that say about the coalition’s priorities in terms of national security?

[Mr Francois]

First, the reserve force is professional too, and the combined regular and reserved force will not fit inside Wembley stadium—although the way England has been playing of late, that may be a mercy. I remind the hon. Lady that the new defence approach does not represent our purely breaking new ground, but brings us more into line with our international partners. Reserves currently make up 17% of our armed forces, compared with 55% in the United States, 51% in Canada, and 36% in Australia. Under Future Force 2020, reserves will make up 20% of our armed forces and 26% of our Army.

[Sir Nicholas Soames (Mid Sussex) (Con)]

Does my right hon. Friend agree that if the Army 2020 model is to succeed it will depend on a proper pull-through of new recruits? Will he confirm that the Capita system, which made such a disastrous start, is now improving and achieving a satisfactory flow of new recruits?

[Mr Francois]

I confirm that there have been problems with the computer system, and I have said that in the House previously. I also confirm that that is being improved, and that additional measures have been taken to streamline the process—for instance, by reducing paperwork and medical bureaucracy. The system is improving and the flow is getting better.

[Nick Smith (Blaenau Gwent) (Lab)]

23. Last month’s National Audit Office report on Army 2020 showed that Ministers had not done the basic work to ensure the successful delivery of the reforms, particularly of reservist recruitment. Poor planning data had been used and assumptions were not tested. Why did the Minister not challenge those half-baked proposals?

[Mr Francois]

When I served in the Territorial Army in the 1980s, I served on something called Exercise Lionheart in 1984. In those days, what was the Territorial Army had 75,000 trained men and women under arms, drawn from a smaller population. I have to believe that if we could achieve 75,000 then, we can get 30,000 trained men and women by 2018-19. We can do this, and I believe that we will.

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

The Defence Reform Act 2014 requires the reserve forces and cadets associations to prepare an annual report on the state of the reserves, and the Secretary of State to publish it. Will my right hon. Friend confirm that that report was filed on time? When will he publish it?

[Mr Francois]

Shortly.

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

22. Does the Minister agree with the National Audit Office’s conclusion on Army 2020, which was that the Department did not properly assess the value for money of shrinking the size of the Army?

[Mr Francois]

We believe that we have properly assessed the right size of the Army to create a mixture of regulars and reserves to defend our country in the future, and I respectfully remind the hon. Gentleman that we mobilised 25,000 reservists for service in Iraq and Afghanistan, many of whom won gallantry awards fighting directly alongside their regular counterparts. We are very proud of our reserves and what they have achieved in the defence of this country in the past, as well as what they will continue to do in defence of this country in the future.

[Mr Julian Brazier (Canterbury) (Con)]

Although I strongly welcome my right hon. Friend’s earlier answers, will he tell the House what is being done to get the money and processes of recruiting back into the hands of reserve units?

[Mr Francois]

My hon. Friend—who, by the way, is responsible for the amendment that leads to the report mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for South Norfolk (Mr Bacon)—is familiar with the whole process, and he and I have discussed the matter on a number of occasions. To make the programme work as effectively as possible, we must continue to devolve responsibility for recruiting down to unit level to give commanding officers and their subordinate officers greater responsibility and challenge in meeting the numbers. As I have intimated to the House, that programme is already under way, and I believe that with his support, and support across the House, we can make this programme work.

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

The NAO report concluded that the Government’s incompetent handling of Army 2020 was leading to serious shortfalls in capability. As my hon. Friend the Member for Denton and Reddish (Andrew Gwynne) just announced, the only target they were meeting was handing out P45s. The Prime Minister’s announcement today of investment in special forces will ring pretty hollow as they go through a restructuring programme that has seen a reduction in their capability. Is this not yet another example of Ministers giving with one hand, only to take away with the other?

[Mr Francois]

The reason we have been able to announce more than £1 billion of investment in equipment for our armed forces is the careful financial management we have had to undertake because of the financial train crash we inherited from Opposition Members.

[Mr Philip Hollobone (Kettering) (Con)]

2. What policies he is pursuing to prevent political disintegration in Afghanistan similar to that occurring in Iraq after NATO forces leave.

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

There are significant differences between Iraq and Afghanistan. Subject to the conclusion of a status of forces agreement with NATO, the alliance plans to continue to support the Afghan security forces and the Security Ministries as part of the Resolute Support mission. NATO countries reaffirmed the Chicago summit commitments of $4.1 billion a year towards Afghan national security force sustainment, helping to underpin the long-term stability of Afghanistan. We look forward to the status of forces agreement being completed as one of the first acts of the incoming Afghan President.

[Mr Hollobone]

Two things seem to have caught everyone by surprise in Iraq: the very poor intelligence picture that the west has had on the caliphate forces; and the fact that nobody seems to have understood how weak the response of the official Iraqi armed forces was going to be to the Sunni insurgency. Can my right hon. Friend assure me that those two big failures will not be repeated in Afghanistan?

[Mr Hammond]

It is important to note that the failure of the Iraqi security forces was a failure of political coherence, not a failure in combat. Where they engaged in combat, they performed adequately. It was where they failed to engage at all that the problem arose. We expect to have far better situational awareness in Afghanistan, because of the continuing engagement through Operation Resolute Support in that country.

[Derek Twigg (Halton) (Lab)]

The Secretary of State will be aware of recent reports that areas such as Sangin, Now Zad and Musa Qala have fallen into the hands of the Taliban or the insurgents. Are those reports correct?

[Mr Hammond]

I think I said to the hon. Gentleman the other day that there has been combat in that area of northern Helmand and that the Taliban did take some ground from the Afghan national security forces. However, the ANSF rapidly regrouped, and almost without any support from the international security assistance force retook the towns in question. The ANSF are now in effective control of those towns on the ground. The Taliban attack has been defeated. That is not to say that the ANSF are not prepared for a further assault by the Taliban. This area of Helmand is by far the most kinetic in Afghanistan. It is a very dangerous area still, and it will be for the foreseeable future.

[Mike Crockart (Edinburgh West) (LD)]

In the difficult circumstances that the Secretary of State outlines, some of those most in danger are the 600 interpreters who served with the British forces on the front line. In June last year, he outlined plans to allow them to resettle in the UK, so will he tell the House why, according to recent reports, only two of them have so far been granted visas?

[Mr Hammond]

I do not have the statistics on the current state of the programme to hand, but it is working and applications are being processed. I am very happy to write to the hon. Gentleman with the exact current state of affairs.

[Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)]

3. What discussions he has had with his counterparts in the middle east about the situation in Iraq.

[John Glen (Salisbury) (Con)]

8. What plans he has to consult partner countries in the middle east about a solution to the current violence in Iraq.

[Rehman Chishti (Gillingham and Rainham) (Con)]

16. What discussions he has had with his counterparts in the middle east about the situation in Iraq.

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

I recently travelled to the Gulf for discussions with the Governments of Saudi Arabia, United Arab Emirates, Kuwait and Qatar to better understand the views of our closest allies in the region on the situation in Iraq. There is a shared view that only a political solution, based on a more inclusive Government in Iraq, can turn the tide against ISIS.

[Sir Edward Leigh]

Would this House of Commons not be in a shameful position if, having caused this murderous civil war between Sunni and Shi’a by our wrong-headed invasion of Iraq, we now washed our hands of the situation? Nobody wants to commit ground troops again, but is there not a case to be made for committing advisers and, if necessary, special forces—any means necessary short of ground troops—to show our moral support for the existing Government in Iraq?

[Mr Hammond]

We have made it clear that we believe there are two steps. The first is a political solution to the situation in Iraq. Iraq must have an inclusive Government in order to rally the Iraqi security forces and to be able to provide an appropriate defence against the ISIS incursion. Our focus at the moment is on encouraging the formation of such an inclusive Government in Baghdad. Once a Government with broad legitimacy in the country is established, we will be open to considering requests for technical advice and support from that Government to reinforce the Iraqi security forces.

[John Glen]

I welcome my right hon. Friend’s initial answer. Does he agree with me that it is critical for the UK to remain close to all the regional players, including Jordan and Qatar, so that maximum influence can be brought to bear if any of these individual countries get drawn into Iraq’s internal security challenges in different ways?

[Mr Hammond]

I agree with my hon. Friend that it is vital that we remain engaged with the key countries in the region, and we will do so. It is vital, too, that we are acutely mindful of the pressures that the Governments of Jordan and Lebanon are under as a result of what is going on in Syria and Iraq. These are two very important countries, and we will do everything we can to support them in these difficult times.

[Rehman Chishti]

In my right hon. Friend’s discussions with his counterparts in the middle east, did they say whether Mr Maliki was the right person to lead Iraq or whether former Prime Minister Allawi, having had excellent relations with Sunnis in Iraq and the wider middle eastern countries, is the right person to take Iraq forward?

[Mr Hammond]

Not all the Governments of our key allies in the middle east have such an understanding of the democratic process as we do. It is very clear to us in this country that it is not for us to comment on who should be the Prime Minister of a country following a democratic election. It is clear that the Government of Iraq need to be inclusive, and in direct answer to my hon. Friend it would be fair to say that there is a range of different views among middle east countries about the appropriateness of various individuals to lead such an inclusive Government.

[Mike Gapes (Ilford South) (Lab/Co-op)]

Twenty years ago, John Major’s Government supported the Kurds and quite rightly protected them against Saddam, while Tony Blair’s Government did the same. Is it not now time for the British Government to recognise that the Kurdish region of Iraq, which is democratic, pluralistic and inclusive, needs support to defend itself against al-Qaeda-linked terrorism, and to support the pluralism and democracy that will grow from that region into the rest of Iraq?

[Mr Hammond]

The hon. Gentleman will know that the Foreign Secretary went to Erbil on his recent visit to Iraq. The British Government’s position is clear: we need to keep Iraq as a unified state. The one thing that I heard in every one of the capitals I visited in the Gulf is that Iraq needs to remain a unified state. We should devote our efforts to trying to achieve that outcome—a unified state with a pluralistic Government.

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

I want to pursue the answer that the Secretary of State gave to the hon. Member for Salisbury (John Glen). Jordan is extremely important, so I think there is a collective responsibility to build up that country’s resilience. Will the right hon. Gentleman say a little more about what precisely we are doing?

[Mr Hammond]

The UK has excellent military-to-military relationships with Jordan. We send troops there for training for our own purposes and we provide technical support and assistance to the Jordanian armed forces. Many Jordanian officers come to the UK for training. We will continue to support the Jordanian armed forces and the Jordanian Government in every practical way we can.

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

Have the Government given any thought to the aftermath if they cannot get agreement on a broad-based Government for Iraq? What is likely to happen after that?

[Mr Hammond]

It is not for us to get agreement on a broad-based Government; it is for the Iraqi people to seize the moment to ensure the future continuity of Iraq as a unitary state. That is not assured. Clearly, there are three separate regions within Iraq, any one of which could seek autonomy if a broad-based Government in Baghdad is not formed. We have to devote our present energies to seeking to ensure that outcome.

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

May I ask my right hon. Friend to return to the issue of Jordan? That country is under grave pressure as a result of the influx of refugees. It is a country that is generally recognised to be both politically and economically fragile. The fact that ISIS has expanded its activities to such an extent that people believe Jordan could be menaced serves only to underline the importance of our assistance to a country that is enormously important to us, not least on account of its being a very long-standing ally. Can we be assured that this Government will understand the urgency of Jordan’s position and do everything feasible to ensure that it does not succumb to the undue influence of ISIS?

[Mr Hammond]

My right hon. and learned Friend is absolutely right. Jordan is a key ally in the region. Crown Prince Faisal will be at Farnborough tomorrow, and we look forward to discussing these issues with him. However, what my right hon. and learned Friend has said also emphasises the need for us to look at the impact of ISIS on a cross-regional basis. Lebanon, Syria, Iraq and Jordan are all affected by its activities, and the threat that those activities represent will also be felt by many states in the Gulf and, indeed, in the west.

[John Robertson (Glasgow North West) (Lab)]

4. What the Government's priorities are for the NATO summit in Wales.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence (Dr Andrew Murrison)]

Let me begin by paying tribute to the hon. Gentleman’s constituents and other shipbuilders on the Clyde for their tremendous achievement in creating HMS Queen Elizabeth.

The Government have three clear priorities for the NATO summit in Wales. First, we will mark NATO’s achievements in Afghanistan, recognise the sacrifices that it has made, and draft the next chapter in our enduring support for the Afghan people. Secondly, we will send Russia the clear message that NATO has the necessary capabilities and intent to provide for the collective security of the alliance by means including the deterrence of further Russian aggression. Thirdly, those capabilities will also contribute to addressing the numerous challenges that emanate from an unstable world in NATO’s neighbourhood and further afield. In particular, we will underscore transatlantic unity through a commitment to defence spending and practical security sector support for NATO’s partners and friends.

[John Robertson]

I thank the Minister for that extensive answer, and on behalf of the 2,000 workers in my local shipyard and other yards throughout the United Kingdom I thank him for his kind words.

I am a member of the NATO Parliamentary Assembly, and, as such, I have meetings with NATO parliamentarians from the United States and Europe. They are of the opinion that Georgia should be given a membership action plan at the Wales summit. What is the United Kingdom’s view?

[Dr Murrison]

Let us be clear: this is not an enlargement summit. However, at a recent meeting, NATO Foreign Affairs Ministers determined that Georgia should be encouraged and given every support that it needs in its aspirations. They also considered other aspirants to NATO, and similar programmes have been mapped for them.

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

Given the importance of the Russia-Crimea issue to the NATO summit, and given the importance of the UK’s showing leadership at the summit, does it not provide a unique opportunity for us to make a statutory commitment to spending no less than 2% of our GDP on defence?

[Dr Murrison]

My hon. Friend is tempting me, but, in resisting his proposition, let me suggest to him ever so gently that our intent is to encourage other partner nations to step up to the plate and make their fair contribution. If we are to enjoy the insurance policy, we must pay the premium. Too many of our partners in this endeavour have yet to spend a proper proportion of their GNP on defence, and that must be our priority.

[Yvonne Fovargue (Makerfield) (Lab)]

Cyber is certain to be a priority at the NATO summit, as it is a growing threat. Today there was an announcement of increased resources for ISTAR—intelligence, surveillance, target acquisition and reconnaissance—and cyber defence. However, the Secretary of State is seeking to sell off military spectrum capability. What work has been undertaken to establish the possible effects of that on military communications and equipment, given that it is an increasingly critical area?

[Dr Murrison]

We are, of course, keeping the spectrum that we need. I am very pleased that the hon. Lady welcomes today’s announcement, which is a result of prudent management of the defence budget early in the current Parliament. Let me also gently point out to her that this country has been independently assessed as being No. 1 in respect of preparedness for a cyber attack. Most of that is due to close co-operation between the Government and the commercial sector, which is vital in preparing this country to face down a possible cyber attack.

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

Article 5 of the NATO treaty currently specifies that if there is armed aggression against any member, there will be a collective military response, but of course most of the Russian activity in the eastern Ukraine has not been armed; it has been deniable, special forces and asymmetric. If there were similar Russian activities against the three Baltic states, would that constitute an Article 5 moment, and, if not, does article 5 need redefining, or perhaps even adjusting or changing, at the summit?

[Dr Murrison]

Article 5 stands. It is very clear, and any potential aggressor needs to fully understand the implications of it. My hon. Friend mentions Ukraine and, of course, we have been clear that the solution to Ukraine is primarily not military, but economic and commercial, and has to do with energy security, and that is where we are putting our efforts.

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

5. What recent discussions he has had with his NATO counterparts on the situation in the middle east.

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

I have regular discussions with the principal NATO Defence Ministers on issues of current concern, including the middle east. I attended the NATO Defence Ministers meeting in Brussels on 3 and 4 June, I met the US Deputy Secretary of Defence on 3 July in the margins of the naming of HMS Queen Elizabeth at Rosyth, and I will meet my French counterpart for talks at Farnborough tomorrow.

[Miss McIntosh]

Given the increasing insecurity in the middle east and the crucial role NATO will be playing, what commitment has my right hon. Friend received from our European partners that they will also step up to the plate and commit to spending up to 2% of their GDP on defence?

[Mr Hammond]

There is an ongoing discussion among the European NATO partner nations about how to respond to the perfectly fair challenge the United States has set us, by asking the question: why should US taxpayers be prepared to pay for a defence of Europe that European taxpayers appear to be rather reluctant to pay for? I have to say to my hon. Friend that this discussion has been rather more fruitful and productive than I was initially expecting, and I am optimistic that we may reach agreement on a declaration at the NATO summit in Wales this autumn that will set a baseline for moving European NATO spending forward as the European economies recover.

[Mrs Madeleine Moon (Bridgend) (Lab)]

Turkey is a critical ally within NATO. It is also struggling to manage the large numbers of refugees who have come over its borders both from Syria and Iraq. Can we be very clear in sending out a message to other nations also at the Newport summit that we will not stand by and see Turkey attacked before coming to its support?

[Mr Hammond]

Turkey is a full member of the NATO alliance and benefits from the article 5 guarantee that the Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for South West Wiltshire (Dr Murrison), referred to a few moments ago, so Turkey can be assured that the alliance will stand behind it both militarily and, perhaps of more immediate importance, in providing assistance to it with the huge humanitarian challenge it is facing from this influx of refugees.

[Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Con)]

Given the insecurity in Ukraine and the middle east, is the MOD giving any thought to reconstituting the Allied Command Europe rapid reaction force?

[Mr Hammond]

Such a move would be a matter for SACEUR—Supreme Allied Commander Europe. I have not heard of any such ongoing consideration at the moment, but I am happy to check my facts and get back to my hon. Friend if I am wrong.

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

The Secretary of State will be aware of the widespread public concern about the current conflagration in Gaza, and the women and children either dying or threatened with death. I am aware that there is a statement this afternoon, but none the less my constituents will expect me to be telling the Secretary of State that they hope that every arm of Government will be bending every sinew to work towards a ceasefire.

[Mr Hammond]

Of course, the Government’s position is that there must be an urgent ceasefire and, although we have been saying this for a very long time, there must be progress towards a two-state solution, however challenging achieving that sometimes appears. My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary will make a statement shortly. The role of the MOD in this matter is not central and I hope it remains not central; it is a Foreign Office lead and I am sure my right hon. Friend will be happy to answer the hon. Lady’s question more fully.

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

6. What progress he has made on strengthening the military covenant.

[The Minister for the Armed Forces (Mr Mark Francois)]

The armed forces covenant is a symbol of the debt we owe to servicemen and women, veterans, and their families. As the House will be aware, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence reports annually to Parliament on progress in implementing the covenant.

Since the last report was published in December 2013, significant achievements include the allocation of £40 million to fund accommodation projects for veterans and the establishment of the £200 million forces Help to Buy Scheme. I am also delighted to say that the vast bulk of local authorities in Great Britain, from borough councils to county councils, have signed a community covenant, a tangible commitment to supporting our armed forces

[Jesse Norman]

I welcome today’s announcement of released extra investment in special forces, which will be very welcome in my constituency. The Royal British Legion and SSAFA have set up a new military charities advice service in Hereford and in Ross-on-Wye, supported by Herefordshire council. Will the Minister join me in praising the volunteers who staff that new service, and the council, which has taken a leading role in promoting the community covenant?

[Mr Francois]

I am very happy to praise my hon. Friend’s council and the volunteers who do such vital work for the wider armed forces community, and I am extremely happy to praise those two very good charities, not least as we in the Ministry of Defence have for some while been encouraging charities to work more closely together—what one might in the military community call the principle of combined arms—and to see these two great charities combining forces for the benefit of the wider armed forces family is excellent, and I commend them for their efforts.

[Gemma Doyle (West Dunbartonshire) (Lab/Co-op)]

The Prime Minister has found rather a large amount of cash down the back of the Secretary of State’s sofa, with which he is now playing catch-up with the UK’s defence capabilities. But did any of the Ministers argue at any point that some of this money should be spent on armed forces housing, which remains a key priority for armed forces families, or in addressing the unfairness in the previous war widows’ pension schemes? I remind the Minister that the noble Lord Astor has estimated the cost of sorting out one of those schemes at £70,000 a year.

[Mr Francois]

I thank the hon. Lady for her welcome for our equipment announcement today. The Government are committed to removing the disadvantage faced by our armed forces, and that is why we enshrined the key principles of the covenant in law. We have committed £105 million during the past four years to upholding the covenant; £30 million for the community covenant; £35 million for the LIBOR fund; and £40 million to fund a range of accommodation projects for veterans. In addition, £10 million per annum will be available in perpetuity to support the commitments for the armed forces covenant from 2015.

[Stephen Metcalfe (South Basildon and East Thurrock) (Con)]

9. What steps he is taking to ensure that the commitment and sacrifice of the armed forces is recognised by the public.

[Mr Mark Harper (Forest of Dean) (Con)]

15. What steps he is taking to ensure that the commitment and sacrifice of the armed forces is recognised by the public.

[The Minister for the Armed Forces (Mr Mark Francois)]

I am in no doubt whatsoever that the British public are incredibly proud of the men and women who serve in our armed forces. This pride was emphatically displayed at this year’s Armed Forces day, which was a resounding success. The national event in Stirling was attended by more than 35,000 members of the public, and across the rest of the UK more than 200 regional events were organised by local authorities and community groups, including one at Woolwich barracks, which I was delighted to attend. I am told that social media activity around Armed Forces day this year reached more than 3 million people.

[Stephen Metcalfe]

Will the Minister join me in congratulating organisations such as ABF The Soldiers’ Charity, for which I recently jumped out of a plane; the Essex Military Support Association, which organised the excellent South Essex Armed Forces day; Basildon council, which has awarded the Royal Anglian Regiment the freedom of the borough; and a group of residents who have recently refurbished the Stanford-le-Hope war memorial? As well as the Government having a role, does he agree that the community has a wider role as well?

[Mr Francois]

In the 1990s, I served on Basildon council, once described as the only local authority in the United Kingdom where at council meetings the council has actively heckled the public gallery. I commend what it has done for the covenant, I commend the Essex Military Support Association, an event that I attended in Armed Forces week, and I particularly commend my hon. Friend for courageously jumping out of a perfectly serviceable aeroplane in support of ABF The Soldiers’ Charity and the wider armed forces community. He did a brave thing and we commend him for it.

[Mr Harper]

May I also draw the Minister’s attention both to my local regiment, the 1st Battalion the Rifles, which demonstrated commitment and sacrifice on its two tours of Afghanistan when, sadly, it took a number of losses, and to Captain Angus Buchanan VC who won his Victoria Cross in the first world war saving two of his wounded comrades? His Victoria Cross has been bought by the noble Lord Ashcroft and is shortly to go on display in the Imperial War museum.

[Mr Francois]

I pay tribute to all those who have won the Victoria Cross, the highest award for valour that this country can possibly convey. As we approach 4 August and the commemoration of the first world war, I am sure that Members from all parts of the House are very conscious of those who have made the ultimate sacrifice in defence of our freedom. It was Pericles who said:

“Freedom is the sole possession of those who have the courage to defend it.”

They had that courage and we remember them.

[Michael Connarty (Linlithgow and East Falkirk) (Lab)]

I recently had the honour of attending the rededication of a refurbished war memorial in Whitburn village in West Lothian, which had been taken in hand by the local community, aided by local councillor George Paul. Added to the memorial was the name of Sapper Robert Thomson of the 35th Engineers, who was killed in Iraq in 2004, and one of the most poignant moments was when his mother laid flowers beneath his name. What are the Government doing to encourage and assist communities to add the names to war memorials of those members of the armed forces who have died in recent conflicts?

[Mr Francois]

I have been impressed by a number of schemes across the country in which local authorities and schools have taken a greater interest in war memorials. For instance, I have heard about projects where primary schools have been invited to research the names of those who are on war memorials. We all know why that is fundamentally important. I was at the National Memorial Arboretum yesterday to attend the unveiling of a monument to the Essex Regiment, the Second Battalion of which came up the beach on D-day. We say on Remembrance Sunday, “They will never be forgotten.” They never will.

[Paul Blomfield (Sheffield Central) (Lab)]

10. What the Government's policy is on bereavement leave for parents and spouses of armed forces personnel killed during service.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence (Anna Soubry)]

The Government are employers in two respects. Anyone in the civil service who finds themselves in this horrible position can apply for up to five days of paid leave, which can be extended depending on the circumstances. Members of the armed forces who lose a loved one in service are entitled to up to four weeks of paid compassionate leave.

[Paul Blomfield]

I thank the Minister for her reply. My constituent Bill Stewardson lost his son Alex who served with the Duke of Lancaster’s regiment in Basra in 2007. On his next working day, Bill was told by his manager:

“You can have one day’s carer’s leave for the funeral— and we don’t have to give you that.”

Since then Bill has campaigned tirelessly for statutory bereavement leave for the parents of members of the armed forces lost on active service. Does the Minister agree that that is the least we can do and will she work with colleagues to bring forward such proposals?

[Anna Soubry]

I am aware of the case that the hon. Gentleman raises, and I congratulate him and his constituent on their campaign. This is actually a matter between employers and employees, and it is also a policy direction under Department for Business, Innovation and Skills, but that does not preclude me, or other Ministers, from having a view. I would not be in favour of putting such a proposal in statute; it would be far too complicated and difficult—[Interruption.] The hon. Member for North Durham (Mr Jones) is chuntering as ever, but he obviously has not given the matter much thought. I imagine that there will be many others who will also want to have that sort of bereavement leave. Statute is not the way to do this. The way to do it is for employers to do the right thing by all of those who face such circumstances, just as we must do in Government.

[Bridget Phillipson (Houghton and Sunderland South) (Lab)]

11. What progress his Department has made on the next strategic defence and security review; and if he will make a statement.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence (Dr Andrew Murrison)]

The Government’s priority remains the delivery of the outcomes of the 2010 SDSR which was launched in May 2010 and published in October that year. The next review will of course be after the general election, and therefore its direction will be a matter for the next Government. The MOD, alongside other Government Departments, is engaged in early preparatory work that will feed this as part of a Cabinet Office-led process.

[Bridget Phillipson]

The Minister will know that civilian contractors already play an important role in responding to the growing cyber-security threat that we face as a country. But what further consideration will he give to reviewing recruitment procedures in order to consider direct recruitment to some of those specialist roles, so that we can meet the cyber-threats of the future.

[Dr Murrison]

I am grateful for the hon. Lady’s question. Reserve forces were mentioned in response to an earlier question and cyber-capability is one of those niche areas in which reserves will be able to bring something to the piece. This is a difficult and complex area and as we move forward into a different defence environment, we must think carefully about the new niche capabilities that we need.

[Crispin Blunt (Reigate) (Con)]

Army 2020 doubled the savings expectations from the Army following the strategic defence and security review. Reserve capability is important. What is the training strength of the Army Reserve today?

[Dr Murrison]

I am a reservist, so I should really know the number off the top of my head, but from memory it is a little shy of 20,000.

[Vernon Coaker (Gedling) (Lab)]

It would be churlish not to start by wishing everyone well in the forthcoming reshuffle—[Interruption.] I knew that comments would be made; I do not mind.

Given the importance of the question, I am absolutely amazed that the Under-Secretary of State for Defence, the hon. Member for South West Wiltshire (Dr Murrison) is answering and not the Secretary of State. How does today’s announcement by the Prime Minister relate to decisions taken in the previous strategic defence and security review in 2010 and to preparations for next year’s review? Where has the money been taken from? The Prime Minister has cut hundreds of special forces personnel, but he now says that the special forces are being given additional capability. He said that he had saved money by scrapping Sentinel, but now says that that money might be used to keep it. Is it not the case that today’s announcement has as much to do with PR for an ailing Government as it does with an SDSR for the country’s future?

[Dr Murrison]

Today’s announcement comes from proper financial prudence and the proper management of a budget, something which the previous Labour Administration so signally failed to do. If I may say so, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State deserves a great deal of credit for bringing our defence budget back into balance, which is why the Prime Minister is able to announce £1.1 billion of investment. It is a pity that the Labour party does not welcome that a little more fully.

[Vernon Coaker]

It is the same old song, but this Government’s record does not stand up to scrutiny, which is what we are discussing today. Four years on from the previous SDSR, the Government have given a little with one hand, having spent four years taking far more away with the other. The Secretary of State has gone from denying there was an underspend to saying that it was earmarked for future equipment costs and to saying that it was for contingency. He now announces that it will be spent on things that were cut in the first place. Will he finally admit that he does not have a grip on where the Department is going or what it is doing about the SDSR and that he is just making it up as he goes along?

[Dr Murrison]

Oh dear, oh dear. The hon. Gentleman is inhabiting a parallel universe. The Labour party left a £34 billion black hole in 2010, and it has taken some tough decisions to bring us to where we are today. Today saw the announcement of £1.1 billion of spending and a further £160 billion over a 10-year period. Where would we have been had the Labour party still been in power four years on?

[Mark Pritchard (The Wrekin) (Con)]

12. What recent representations he has received on future employment at MOD Donnington; and if he will make a statement.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence (Mr Philip Dunne)]

rose—

[Mr Speaker]

The Secretary of State has an uncharacteristically ashen face, but I am sure that the sensation will pass.

[Mr Dunne]

As my hon. Friend the Member for The Wrekin (Mark Pritchard) knows, I have visited MOD Donnington a couple of times. My most recent visit was on 15 May, when I had the opportunity to meet representatives of both staff and the trade unions. I have received representations from both hon. and right hon. Members of the House, including from my hon. Friend and parliamentary neighbour.

[Mark Pritchard]

I am grateful for that reply. While I may not be right honourable, I nevertheless hope that MOD Donnington will feature in the Minister’s thinking over coming weeks as he decides on the successful bidder for the future logistics of Her Majesty’s armed forces.

[Mr Dunne]

As my hon. Friend knows, we are currently engaged in introducing private sector management skills into the logistics and defence support group activities carried out at Donnington. Both are at advanced stages of negotiation, so I am unable to give him any more information at this point about the competition. However, as soon as a decision is reached, he will be one of the first to know.

[Henry Smith (Crawley) (Con)]

13. What assessment he has made of the recommendations of the concluding report of the Trident commission set up by the British American Security Information Council.

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

I welcome the commission’s conclusion that while there remains the possibility of a direct nuclear threat to the UK, we should retain our nuclear deterrent. We are clear that for this to be effective we need to retain a continuous at-sea deterrent posture, as we have for the past 46 years.

[Henry Smith]

I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for that answer, with which I wholeheartedly agree. Will he confirm that the British American Security Information Council Trident commission report did not consider a two-boat solution?

[Mr Hammond]

My hon. Friend makes a very good point. There have been suggestions that, to save a relatively small sum of money, Britain should abandon continuous at-sea deterrence and opt for a part-time deterrent, with boats tied up alongside or even sent to sea without nuclear weapons on board. I can assure my hon. Friend that the Government firmly reject such advice and I can further assure him that a Conservative Government will never take risks with Britain’s strategic security.

[Mr Speaker]

Time for the good doctor. I call Dr Julian Lewis.

[Dr Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)]

In welcoming what the Secretary of State for Defence has said, may I remind him that those on the Labour Front Bench have similarly committed to the retention of Trident and continuous at-sea nuclear deterrence? Does he therefore agree with me that whatever the complexion of the next Government, there can be no possible excuse for failing to renew Trident—whether in coalition, in government or in opposition? Wherever we are, we all ought to be committing to renewal in the next Parliament.

[Mr Hammond]

I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend that there is no possible excuse for not doing something that is absolutely necessary to Britain’s long-term strategic protection. However, I note that there are two parties represented in the Chamber this afternoon that do not support that agenda.

[Priti Patel (Witham) (Con)]

14. What his policy is on the future of the UK’s nuclear deterrent.

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

Government policy remains as set out in the 2010 strategic defence and security review: we will maintain a continuous submarine-based deterrent and are proceeding with the programme to replace our existing submarines.

[Priti Patel]

There are potential threats from hostile regimes around the world, and I have heard what the Secretary of State has already had to say. Does he agree, however, that any surrender of our deterrent would not only leave us vulnerable but weaken our position as a permanent member of the UN Security Council?

[Mr Hammond]

My hon. Friend is exactly right, although of course we maintain our strategic deterrent as the ultimate guarantee of our sovereignty and independence of action. It is worth remembering that there are still 17,000 nuclear weapons in the world, and so long as that is the case, we must be able to protect the British people against them.

[Mr Speaker]

As the hon. Member for Moray (Angus Robertson) just had the finger rather distinctly pointed at him, I rather thought that he might be pricked into responding.

[Angus Robertson (Moray) (SNP)]

indicated dissent.

[Mr Speaker]

It appears not. Never mind, he is a model of calm and patience. We will move on—I think we will get Sir Peter Luff in.

[Sir Peter Luff (Mid Worcestershire) (Con)]

17. What plans he has to encourage public debate on the defence needs of the UK in advance of the strategic defence and security review in 2015.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence (Dr Andrew Murrison)]

Public debate on defence matters and Britain’s place in the world is always welcome and the Ministry of Defence encourages this through its frequent engagement with Parliament. We also routinely engage with the service community, academics, think-tanks and other stakeholders in the course of policy formulation and I would expect this to accelerate in advance of the formal Cabinet Office-led cross-Government SDSR.

[Sir Peter Luff]

Given the importance of winning the informed consent of the British people for the payment of the insurance premium that guarantees our freedom and security, will my hon. Friend commit to following the good, if somewhat belated, example of the previous Government and publishing a Green Paper to build consensus ahead of the next SDSR?

[Dr Murrison]

The precise questions to be asked and the nature of the asking are a matter for the next Government, since this review will take place after the general election. Of course, both parties, of which one is likely to form the next Government, are represented in the Chamber today and I have no doubt that they are listening to what my hon. Friend has to say.

[Karl MᶜCartney (Lincoln) (Con)]

T1. 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 priority is delivering Future Force 2020 by maintaining budgets in balance, building our reserve forces, reinforcing the armed forces covenant and reforming the defence procurement organisation so that our armed forces get the equipment they need at a price the taxpayer can afford.

[Karl MᶜCartney]

I recently attended the wonderful and much loved annual RAF Waddington international air show, but the Minister will know that next year’s show has been cancelled by the board of the RAF to accommodate refurbishment work to the runway. Although I am pleased that the work is taking place, the air show generates more than £12 million for the Lincolnshire economy and about £500,000 for forces charities, so can the Minister reassure me and my constituents that the air show will return to the base in “bomber county” north of London in 2016-17, and certainly in time for the 100-year anniversary of the RAF?

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence (Mr Philip Dunne)]

My hon. Friend is right to draw attention to the great success of the air show at RAF Waddington, which I believe he attended the other day. He is also right to point out that the runway is in need of routine maintenance—essentially, a new runway needs to be laid, which will take 59 weeks starting in September—and therefore it will not be available next year. The RAF is undertaking a review of all air show commitments for next year, so we will be in a better position to respond on 2016 when that review has been completed.

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

The Government made a clear decision in the 2010 SDSR to withdraw the important Sentinel capability from service. There is now speculation that it is to be retained, although it is not named in the news release that has gone out—it sort of slipped under the media radar. Does the Secretary of State accept that, like the F-35 U-turn costing millions, this is another example of poor strategic decision making and more back peddling?

[Mr Philip Hammond]

No, and I think the hon. Lady will find that the capability was mentioned in the announcement that has been issued. The decision was made to take Sentinel out of service at the end of the campaign in Afghanistan, for reasons of affordability. I am pleased to be able to tell the House that, because of careful husbandry of the defence budget, we have now been able to take the decision to extend Sentinel once the Afghan campaign has ended, at least until 2018. That will allow us to look at the capabilities that Sentinel delivers—wide-area surveillance of fast-moving ground targets—in the context of our broader need for wide-area surveillance capability, both maritime and over land.

[Martin Horwood (Cheltenham) (LD)]

T2. The F-35 Lightning II should be one of the world’s most advanced combat aircraft, not least thanks to British expertise at companies such as GE Aviation and Ultra Electronics, but it was sadly missed at Gloucestershire’s royal international air tattoo—a very exciting event this weekend. Can Ministers reassure the House that that has no implications for its service for the United Kingdom from 2018?

[Mr Dunne]

My hon. Friend is right to draw attention to the importance of the F-35 programme to businesses up and down this country, including in Gloucestershire. Last year, the F-35 suffered an engine incident, which is being investigated. It is absolutely right that the safety of aircrew and aircraft are of paramount importance, rather than seeking to attend air shows around the world. Obviously, we would welcome the F-35 once it has been declared safe, and we are still hopeful that it will arrive at Farnborough before the air show finishes.

[Julie Hilling (Bolton West) (Lab)]

T7. Although today’s announcement is welcome for companies in my constituency such as MBDA, which is of course at Farnborough this week, does the Secretary of State think that announcing a re-spend on things that he cut in the first place will make up for the hundreds of millions of pounds wasted on botched decision making, bad equipment decisions, IT failure, a recruitment crisis and collapsed procurement reforms on his watch?

[Mr Philip Hammond]

I do not know who writes this stuff, but what has happened is very simple. We have got the defence budget under control. We have set up the armed forces committee, which comprises the chiefs of the individual services, and we have allowed them to set the priorities for requirements in the military equipment programme. As headroom becomes available, we accept their advice on the urgent priorities. They have identified a package of intelligence, surveillance, target acquisition and reconnaissance measures, which they consider now to be the highest priority for defence expenditure, and that is what we have announced today.

[Robert Jenrick (Newark) (Con)]

T3. British defence exporters, such as GDT in Newark, can take their stands at Farnborough today with renewed confidence as a growing part of our economy. GDT grew by 10% last year and the sector by 11%. What steps are the Government taking proactively with companies like GDT to ensure that this success continues?

[Mr Dunne]

I am very grateful to my hon. Friend for referring to the Farnborough air show, which I attended this morning for the Prime Minister’s opening. He was highlighting at Farnborough, not just to the British defence supply chain, but to representatives of the international supply chain who were present and to the international delegations visiting from abroad, just what a high-quality defence industry we have in this country, and as he pointed out, we cannot have a secure economic growth plan without a secure national security plan.

[Angus Robertson (Moray) (SNP)]

As we know from the recent services inquiry of the Military Aviation Authority, three of my constituents died aboard colliding Tornado jets above the Moray firth in 2012. Among the contributory factors may have been the absence of a collision warning system. When will we see a collision warning system installed in Typhoon aircraft?

[Mr Dunne]

As the hon. Gentleman knows, because he called an Adjournment debate on this subject last week, at which he asked that very question and I gave him the answer, at present we are investigating the introduction of a system on Typhoon, and at this point it is not appropriate to give him a timetable or a cost for that introduction.

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

T4. If Pericles were alive today, I am sure he would have been at the Farnborough air show, looking at all the amazing equipment that is available to defend our freedoms. One piece of equipment is BAE Systems’ Taranis unmanned air vehicle. Will my right hon. Friend assure the House that this Government will continue to support that technology to ensure that we have manufacturing and research and development capability for the future, both militarily and commercially?

[Mr Philip Hammond]

I am pleased to be able to tell my hon. Friend that I shall be signing with my French counterpart at Farnborough tomorrow the Anglo-French collaboration agreement on unmanned combat air vehicle research, which will support the programme in which BAE Systems is engaged.

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

How many of the former soldiers sacked by the Secretary of State for Defence in historic acts of vandalism have found permanent employment—not employment on the basis of single-hours contracts or temporary employment, but permanent employment? Will he put the figures in the House of Commons Library?

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence (Anna Soubry)]

We find that, among those who leave our armed forces, an incredibly high proportion—some 86%—find employment within six months. That is because they are eminently employable by virtue of the service that they give to our country.

[Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)]

T5. The Red Arrows based at Scampton in my constituency are one of the most popular public faces of the RAF, but unfortunately their Hawk T1 aircraft ends its service in 2018. Can the Secretary of State give me an assurance that RAF Scampton has a future with the Red Arrows and that they will be provided with suitable aircraft?

[Mr Philip Hammond]

The decision on replacement aircraft for the Red Arrows does not have to be made until 2018, but my hon. Friend will have heard the Prime Minister say that, so long as he is Prime Minister, the Red Arrows will continue to fly.

[Mr Dennis Skinner (Bolsover) (Lab)]

Now that the Secretary of State for Defence might be leaving, having cut to the bone the armed forces to the lowest figure ever, many of them to be thrown on the scrapheap, is he looking forward to trying to employ them when he is in charge of the Department for Work and Pensions, or will he enjoy sorting out universal credit?

[Mr Hammond]

What I can say to the hon. Gentleman is that my Department has an excellent relationship with the DWP, looking at ways in which we can support those who are out of work and seeking to acquire the skills, soft and hard, necessary to get back into work, to get them into the reserve forces and trained in the reserve forces while looking for civilian employment at the same time. [Interruption.]

[Mr Speaker]

Order. An hon. Gentleman should not be talking about kicking people in an unspecified location. It is rather unseemly. I think I heard what he was driving at, if I may put it that way.

[John Glen (Salisbury) (Con)]

T8. In view of the uncertainty about the future of Public Health England at Porton Down and the imminent submission of the outline business case to the Treasury, will the Minister confirm that the Defence Science and Technology Laboratory is ready and willing to work collaboratively on a Porton-based solution for the future of the PHE facility there?

[Mr Dunne]

My hon. Friend is a valiant champion of all that goes on in and around Porton Down, and he is to be congratulated on the work he did in securing the science park funding last week. With regard to the CL4 facility at Porton Down, which is co-shared with Public Health England, the Ministry of Defence will be working with the Department of Health to ensure that the best solution is found for the country as a whole for the future of CL4 facilities.

[Nic Dakin (Scunthorpe) (Lab)]

What discussions has the Ministry of Defence had with North Lincolnshire council in recent weeks to ensure that the disposal of the Kirton in Lindsey base benefits the local community rather than damages it?

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence (Dr Andrew Murrison)]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his question. As he knows—we have corresponded on the matter—discussions with the local authority are ongoing. Our intention is to ensure that the site has a use that accords with our need for disposals, but in a way that the local community will appreciate. I believe that we will end up in that position before very long.

[Mr David Heath (Somerton and Frome) (LD)]

T9. The naming of HMS Queen Elizabeth is extremely welcome, and it will be even more so when we have some planes to fly off her decks. When the First Sea Lord says that“continuous carrier availability… means having two carriers, not one… a modest extra premium to pay for an effective, a credible, an available, insurance policy”,does the Secretary of State agree?

[Mr Philip Hammond]

Whether to bring the second carrier into service is a decision for the SDSR in 2015, as we have always been clear. Equally, I have always been clear that my personal view is that when one spends £6.4 billion of taxpayers’ money building two ships, one had better strain every possible sinew to operate them both.

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

Before the Secretary of State finalises the agenda for the NATO summit, will he revisit his decision and stance on a statutory basis for spending 2% of GDP on defence? His hand would be infinitely strengthened if he could say to other NATO members that not only do we already spend 2%, but we are committed to continuing to do so on a statutory basis.

[Mr Hammond]

It is for NATO as an organisation to set the agenda for the summit, not the UK; we merely host it and pick up the bill for doing so. We have been in the lead in seeking to agree across the member states a statement about the future financing of NATO, a statement that will answer the challenge—I referred to it earlier—that the United States has been persistently and quite legitimately raising over the past couple of years. I am confident that we will have a positive statement to make at the NATO summit.

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

Given that Britain is an island state that is very dependent on our trade routes, has my right hon. Friend yet decided how many Type 26s we will need and where they might be base-ported?

[Mr Hammond]

The programme for Type 26 envisaged 13 frigates being ordered. It is likely that the fleet will be split, as the current frigate fleet is split, but no final decision has yet been made.

[Sir Bob Russell (Colchester) (LD)]

When does the relevant Minister expect to announce a decision on the normal pension age for workers in the defence fire and rescue service?

[Anna Soubry]

That is a long-running problem. As my hon. Friend will know, those in our defence fire and rescue service are actually employed as civil servants, so it is a difficult one, but we hope to make a decision as soon as possible.

[Dr Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)]

As Ministers cannot sign early-day motions, may I exceptionally ask the Secretary of State for a comment on EDM 252, which commemorates the sacrifice of 7,000 British soldiers in the Normandy battle for Hill 112? It was tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Sir William Cash). What it does not say is that his father was one of those 7,000: Captain Paul Cash won the Military Cross a few days before he was killed 70 years ago yesterday.

[Mr Hammond]

I was aware of the role our hon. Friend’s father played in that decisive engagement, and I am sure that the whole House will join the sentiment expressed in the EDM. It is one of a number of EDMs that Government Front Benchers regularly regret being unable, by convention, to sign, but I am very happy to have this opportunity to indicate my strong support for it.

[Mr Alan Reid (Argyll and Bute) (LD)]

When the Minister is taking a decision on the retirement age for defence, police and fire personnel, will she take into account the fact that the strenuous activity demanded by this job is more in line with the other uniformed services than with the majority of civil servants, and that I believe that a retirement age of 60 is appropriate?

[Anna Soubry]

Yes, indeed. Having been to see the work of the fire service myself, I am fully aware of all these arguments. As I say, I very much hope that we will be able to make a decision sooner rather than later.

Petition

Monday 14th July 2014 Commons Chamber

Chris Ruane (Vale of Clwyd) (Lab)

- Hansard - - Excerpts

I would like to present a petition to the House concerning pylons that will come from the Clocaenog wind farms. The wind farms are located outside my constituency, but the pylons will lead to St Asaph in my constituency. One wind farm is in place. That is connected by underground cabling. However, four more wind farms are proposed and those will have overground cabling.

The petition states:

The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Government to encourage local authorities to ensure that planning inspectorates recognise and carefully consider local residents’ views when making planning permission decisions and further that the House urges the Government to encourage Denbighshire County Council to show the same consideration to residents’ views in relation to the development of the Clocaenog wind farm as it has in the development of other wind farms.

Following is the full text of the petition:

[The Petition of residents of the Vale of Clwyd,

Declares that Clocaenog wind farm is currently being developed; further that the Petitioners believe that all cables connecting the wind farm to the electricity sub-station should be underground so as to minimise the visual impact on this beautiful area, to minimise the health risks to residents, to limit the devaluation in property prices and to respect the democratic will of the people of Henllan, Cefn Meiriadog and surrounding areas who unanimously voted to endorse the placing of these cables underground; further that Tir Mostyn, the first wind farm near Clocaenog Forest, placed its cables underground; and further that the offshore wind farms off the coast of Rhyl also placed its cables from the seashore to St Asaph underground.

The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Government to encourage local authorities to ensure that planning inspectorates recognise and carefully consider local residents’ views when making planning permission decisions and further that the House urges the Government to encourage Denbighshire County Council to show the same consideration to residents’ views in relation to the development of the Clocaenog wind farm as it has in the development of other wind farms.

And the Petitioners remain, etc.]

[P001366]

Gaza

Monday 14th July 2014 Commons Chamber

15:34

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

With permission, Mr Speaker, I will make a statement on Gaza.

The House is aware that despite intense efforts by US Secretary of State John Kerry, talks between Israelis and the Palestinians broke down at the end of April and are currently paused. Since then, there have been several horrific incidents, including the kidnap and murder of three Israeli teenagers and the burning alive of a Palestinian teenager. We utterly condemn these barbaric crimes. There can never be any justification for the deliberate murder of innocent civilians.

These rising tensions have been followed by sustained barrages of rocket fire from Gaza into Israel. Between 14 June and 7 July, 270 rockets were fired by militants into Israel, to which Israel responded with air strikes. Rockets are fired indiscriminately against the civilian population, including against major Israeli cities. Israel then launched Operation Protective Edge on 7 July. Israeli defence forces have struck over 1,470 targets in Gaza, and over 970 more rockets have been fired towards Israel. Two hundred and forty Israelis have been injured. In Gaza, as of today, at least 173 Palestinians have been killed and 1,230 injured. The UN estimates that 80% of those killed have been civilians, of whom a third are children.

We have acted swiftly to ensure the safe departure of British nationals wanting to leave Gaza. Late last night, we successfully assisted the departure of 27 British nationals and their Palestinian dependants from Gaza, through Israel to Jordan for onward travel. I am grateful to the UN, to Foreign and Commonwealth Office staff from London, Gaza, Jerusalem, Tel Aviv and Amman, and to the Israeli and Jordanian authorities for their work to ensure the success of this operation.

The whole House will share our deep concern at these events. This is the third major military operation in Gaza in six years. It underlines the terrible human cost, to both sides, of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, and it comes at a time when the security situation in the middle east is the worst it has been in decades. The people of Israel have the right to live without constant fear for their security, and the people of Gaza also have the fundamental right to live in peace and security. There are hundreds of thousands of extremely vulnerable civilians in Gaza who bear no responsibility for the rocket fire and are suffering acutely from this crisis; and the Israeli defence forces estimate that 5 million Israeli civilians live within range of rockets fired from Gaza. Israel has a right to defend itself against indiscriminate rocket attacks, but it is vital that Gaza’s civilian population is protected. International humanitarian law requires both sides to distinguish between military and civilian targets and enable unhindered humanitarian access.

The UK has three objectives: to secure a ceasefire, to alleviate humanitarian suffering, and to keep alive the prospects for peace negotiations which are the only hope of breaking this cycle of violence and devastation once and for all. I will briefly take each of these in turn. First, there is an urgent need for a ceasefire agreed by both sides that ends both the rocket fire and the Israeli operations against Gaza, based on the ceasefire agreement that ended the conflict in November 2012. Reinstating that agreement will require a concerted effort between Israelis, Palestinians and others, such as the authorities in Egypt, with the support of the international community. All those with influence over Hamas must use it to get Hamas to agree to end rocket fire.

We are in close contact with Israeli and Palestinian leaders and our partners and allies. The Prime Minister spoke to Prime Minister Netanyahu on 9 July, and in the past few days I have spoken to President Abbas, to Israeli Foreign Minister Lieberman and Strategic Affairs Minister Steinitz, and to Egyptian Foreign Minister Shukri. As Arab Foreign Ministers meet tonight, I have just discussed the situation with the Foreign Ministers of Jordan and Qatar.

On 10 July the UN Secretary-General told the Security Council that there was a risk of an all-out escalation in Israel and Gaza and appealed for maximum restraint. He had been in contact with leaders on both sides and other international leaders, underlining his concern about the plight of civilians and calling for bold thinking and creative ideas.

On Saturday we joined the rest of the UN Security Council in calling for the de-escalation of the crisis, the restoration of calm and the reinstatement of the November 2012 ceasefire. We are ready to consider further action in the Security Council if that can help to secure the urgent ceasefire that we all want to see. Yesterday, I held discussions in the margins of the Iran Vienna talks with Secretary Kerry and my French and German counterparts to consider how to bring about that objective.

Once a ceasefire is agreed, it will be vital that its terms are implemented in full by both sides, including a permanent end to rocket attacks and all other forms of violence. Implementation of that agreement must only be part of a wider effort to improve conditions in Gaza. Without that, we are likely to see further such cycles of violence. This should include the restoration of Palestinian Authority control in Gaza, the opening up of legitimate movement and access, and a permanent end to the unacceptable threat of rocket attacks and other forms of violence against Israel.

Secondly, we will do all we can to help alleviate humanitarian suffering in Gaza. At least 17,000 Gazans are seeking shelter with the UN. Hundreds of thousands are suffering shortages of water, sanitation and electricity, and stocks of fuel and medical supplies are running dangerously low. More than half the population was already living without adequate access to food before the crisis, the large majority reliant on aid and with many unemployed. The UK is providing £349 million for humanitarian relief, state-building and economic development for Palestinians up to 2015, and providing about £30 million a year to help the people of Gaza.

We are the third biggest donor to the UN Relief and Works Agency general fund. Our support has enabled it to respond to the crisis by continuing to provide health services to 70% of the population, sheltering 17,000 displaced people, and distributing almost 30,000 litres of fuel to ensure that emergency water and sewerage infrastructure can operate. The Department for International Development is helping to fund the World Food Programme, the International Committee of the Red Cross and the UN access co-ordination unit. With our support, these organisations are providing food to insecure people, helping to repair damaged infrastructure, getting essential supplies into Gaza, getting medical cases out and delivering emergency medical care. The Minister of State, Department for International Development, has spoken to Prime Minister Hamdallah, and DFID stands ready to do more as necessary.

Thirdly, a negotiated two-state solution remains the only way to resolve the conflict once and for all and to achieve a sustainable peace so that Israeli and Palestinian families can live without fear of violence. No other option exists which guarantees peace and security for both peoples.

I once again pay tribute to Secretary Kerry’s tireless efforts to secure a permanent peace. Of course, the prospect for negotiations looks bleak in the middle of another crisis in which civilians are paying the heaviest price, but it has never been more important for leaders on both sides to take the bold steps necessary for peace. For Israel, that should mean a commitment to return to dialogue and to avoid all actions which undermine the prospects for peace, including settlement activity which does so much to undermine confidence in negotiations. For Hamas, it faces a fundamental decision about whether it is prepared to accept Quartet principles and join efforts for peace, or whether it will continue to use violence and terror with all the terrible consequences for the people of Gaza. The Palestinian Authority should show leadership, recommitting itself to dialogue with Israel and making progress on governance and security for Palestinians in Gaza as well as the west bank.

In all these areas, the United Kingdom will play its role, working closely with US and European colleagues, encouraging both sides back to dialogue, supporting the Palestinian Authority, keeping pressure on Hamas and other extremists, and alleviating the humanitarian consequences of conflict. There can be no substitute, though, for leadership and political will from the parties concerned. The world looks on in horror once again as Israel suffers from rocket attacks and Palestinian civilians die. Only a real peace, with a safe and secure Israel living alongside a viable and contiguous Palestinian state, can end this cycle of violence. And it is only the parties themselves, with our support, who can make that peace.

15:45

[Mr Douglas Alexander (Paisley and Renfrewshire South) (Lab)]

I thank the Foreign Secretary for his statement and, indeed, for giving me advance sight of it this afternoon.

Today, a spiral of violence has again engulfed Gaza, southern Israel and the west bank, bringing untold suffering to innocent people in its wake. Of course, I unequivocally condemn the firing of rockets into Israel by Gaza-based militants. No Government on earth would tolerate such attacks on its citizens, and we recognise Israel’s right to defend itself.

As the Foreign Secretary set out, in recent days hundreds of rockets have been fired from Gaza at Israel, and at least three Israelis have been seriously injured. However, he was also right to acknowledge that, since the start of the Israeli military operation in Gaza just seven days ago, more than 170 Palestinians have been killed and thousands more have been injured. The UN has reported that more than 80% of those killed were civilians, and that a third of those killed were children. Although this conflict cannot and must not be reduced simply to a ledger of casualties, the scale of the suffering in Gaza today must be fully and frankly acknowledged, because the life of a Palestinian child is worth no less than the life of an Israeli child.

The Foreign Secretary has rightly condemned the horrific kidnap and murder of three Israeli teenagers and the burning alive of a teenage Palestinian, but although these repellent crimes seem to be the proximate cause of the latest spiral of violence, does he accept that the underlying cause of this latest crisis is the failure over decades to achieve a two-state solution for two peoples?

The spiral of violence of recent days is grimly familiar to anyone who remembers Operation Cast Lead in 2008-09 and Operation Pillar of Defence in 2012. The same bloodstained pattern is repeating itself. In the first operation, Israel declared a unilateral ceasefire. In the second operation, the Egyptians brokered one. Both times, it was clear that the conflict between Israel and Hamas could not be solved through force of arms alone. Does the Foreign Secretary therefore recognise that there can be no military solution to this conflict? Does he further accept that the scale of the suffering in Gaza, compounding the effects of the continuing blockade, serves to fuel hatred and, indeed, to embolden Israel’s enemies?

Does the Foreign Secretary agree that if the operating logic of Hamas is terror and the operating logic of Israel is deterrence, then pleas by the international community for restraint alone will be insufficient? Today, the risk of an all-out escalation in the conflict and the threat of a full ground invasion are still palpable—and preventable, if Hamas stops firing rockets.

As the Opposition, we are clear not only on the need for an immediate ceasefire, but that a full-scale ground invasion would be a disaster for the peoples of both Gaza and Israel, and a strategic error for Israel. Does the Foreign Secretary agree, and will he now make that position clear to the Israeli Government in the crucial hours and days ahead?

The Foreign Secretary spoke of the statements made by the UN Security Council on Saturday calling for a ceasefire, which I of course welcome. Alongside the Arab League at its meeting today, the UN must be forthright in its role of seeking to bring the recent violence to an end. Will he therefore support calls for the UN Secretary-General to travel to the region to act as a mediator between the two sides?

We know from bitter experience that a spiral of violence that reinforces the insecurity of the Israelis and the humiliation of the Palestinians leads only to further suffering. For Israel, permanent occupation, blockade and repeated military action in occupied land will make peace—and, ultimately, security—harder, not easier, to achieve. Alas, it is not a strategy for peace; it is a recipe for continued conflict.

The Foreign Secretary rightly and generously paid tribute to US Secretary of State Kerry’s considerable personal efforts to advance the middle east peace process, but, in truth, today there is no peace and there is also no process; instead there are continued rocket attacks and continued settlement expansion, growing fear and anxiety, and ongoing occupation.

I of course welcome the humanitarian efforts by both DFID and UNRWA that the Government have set out, but we all know that a humanitarian response, while vital, is not itself sufficient to end the suffering. In the past few days, Israel’s overwhelming military might has been obvious. Hamas, weakened today by Sisi’s rise in Egypt and differences with Iran over Syria, can avert the risk of an imminent ground invasion by stopping the rocket attacks, but Israel needs a strategy for building peace, not just tactics for winning the next round of war. This is a time and this is a crisis that demand not revenge, but statesmanship motivated by justice. Only politics, and a negotiated solution, offers a way forward to peace.

[Mr Hague]

I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for his questions, which show that we share the same analysis of the situation and offer a similar response. He said that he was clear that no Government on earth could tolerate such attacks, and that Israel had the right to defend itself. I also made that clear in my statement. We also share the analysis that, while what he called the proximate cause was the horrific murders that have taken place in recent weeks, the underlying cause is the failure to make progress in the middle east peace process. That is something to which we must continue to give our attention.

The right hon. Gentleman also mentioned the work of Secretary Kerry. I discussed these matters with Secretary Kerry yesterday afternoon in Vienna, and I can tell the House that he remains determined about the peace process despite everything that has happened, which is a great credit to him. He is determined that the United States will still play a leading role in pushing forward the process, and that this is a pause and not the end of the efforts to push it forward. We will continue to encourage him in that, and to help to deliver the support of the European Union.

I entirely agree with the right hon. Gentleman that there is no military solution to this, and that calls for restraint are important but not sufficient. We are very clear in our calls for restraint to all sides, including in the conversations I had with Israeli Ministers over the weekend, when I made it clear that we wanted to see restraint, proportionate response, de-escalation and the avoidance of civilian casualties. I think that the implications of such statements are very clear. We will support whatever role the UN Secretary-General can take in this.

The right hon. Gentleman was right to draw attention to the fact that Egypt played an important role in the November 2012 ceasefire. That is why I have been having discussions with the Egyptian Foreign Minister in recent days. On this occasion, other Arab states are also active in trying to bring about an agreed ceasefire. That is why I have been discussing this with other Arab Foreign Ministers before their meeting tonight, and we will continue to encourage them to do that. I believe that there is a common analysis, and a common appeal for a renewal of the peace process instead of a continuation of the violence, right across the House.

[Mr Speaker]

I call Mr Nicholas Soames.

[Sir Nicholas Soames (Mid Sussex) (Con)]

Thank you, Mr Speaker. Does my right hon. Friend agree that this is not just a war about rockets from both sides, and that it is a war about illegal settlements and stolen lands? What is the next big political move? I have sat here these last 30 years and heard the same statement every year; for 30 years, nothing has happened.

[Mr Speaker]

My apologies, Sir Nicholas. I thank you for that question and I congratulate you on your richly deserved knighthood.

[Mr Hague]

And I very much join in those congratulations, Mr Speaker.

I am conscious of the point that my right hon. Friend makes about how long we have been hearing these statements. Indeed, I have delivered quite a few of them myself, both in opposition and in government. To be speaking for the third time in six years about an almost identical conflict is deeply exasperating for all of us who deal with international relations. He asked what the next milestone would be. It will be a continuation of the United States’ effort. I believe that, in the end, only the United States can help to deliver Israel into a peace agreement and a two-state agreement. We in Europe have an important role in supporting that, and we have offered unprecedented economic co-operation and partnership with the Israelis and the Palestinians if a peace process can be concluded. Let us hope that both sides can grasp that vision.

[Mrs Louise Ellman (Liverpool, Riverside) (Lab/Co-op)]

Does the Foreign Secretary recall that all Israeli settlers and soldiers left Gaza in 2005? Does he agree that Hamas has carried out a double war crime by targeting Israeli citizens with more than 900 rockets in the past month and launching those rockets from bases in the middle of the Gazan population?

[Mr Hague]

We make the point strongly to Israel about avoiding civilian casualties and observing international humanitarian law, and the hon. Lady is right to say that when those rockets are launched against Israel, their only purpose is to cause civilian casualties there. There is not even a pretence of observing international humanitarian law. As the shadow Foreign Secretary has said, no nation on earth could tolerate that, but it is important that the response should be proportionate and that it should observe international humanitarian law. The hon. Lady is also right to say that what has happened in Gaza since the Israeli withdrawal is taken in Israel as a lesson in not withdrawing in the future, and that is a tragedy for all concerned.

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

I have not been here quite as long as the right hon. Member for Mid Sussex (Sir Nicholas Soames), but I certainly share his frustration, and I suspect that it is shared in all parts of the House. It is wholly unacceptable that the people of Israel should be subject to random and indiscriminate rocket attacks, but it is equally unacceptable that the response of the Israeli Government should be disproportionate, contrary to international law and at the expense of civilians, particularly children.

[Mr Hague]

It is. The frustration from all quarters of the House is very clear, and I absolutely share it. The Government have to focus on what we can do to help to bring an end to what is unacceptable for both populations. I think that that is to work diplomatically to bring about an agreed ceasefire, to do our utmost to provide humanitarian relief and to work to ensure that the peace process can be revived.

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

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that among the 173 innocent civilians slaughtered by the Israelis in Gaza was the inhabitant of a disabled people’s home that was hit by Israel, and that a hospital was also hit? Whatever one says in deploring the role of Hamas— I have told the Hamas Prime Minister to his face that I deplore what it does—if this goes on, we shall have yet another cycle, which will be the third so far, and a fourth, and it will go on. Unless the Israelis are willing to make peace, the day will come when the Palestinians explode in anger and despair.

[Mr Hague]

The right hon. Gentleman speaks passionately and sincerely. I can imagine him saying what he said to the face of Hamas. He is right that if the cycles of violence go on, the prospect of peace in the middle east will get further away. That is after an immense effort has been made in recent years to bring the sides closer together and to work on a final status agreement. His warnings should be well heeded by all in the middle east, and they show that our work on the peace process has to go on.

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

While I condemn the violence on both sides of the border, the Foreign Secretary will be aware that, despite the deteriorating situation, the Israelis are still facilitating the much needed delivery of aid. I understand that a large amount of food and fuel went into Gaza last week. What assurances has he had that the flow of aid will continue and will not be stopped by Israel?

[Mr Hague]

My right hon. Friend is right to say that aid is delivered into Gaza. Our message to Israel is that it is important to go further in easing the restrictions on Gaza, including on the movement of commercial goods and persons to and from the Gaza strip. We have not had any assurances about future aid. She raises a very important point. We encourage Israel to do more, rather than less, to ensure that aid is received and that other normal legitimate movements can take place.

[Mr Jack Straw (Blackburn) (Lab)]

The whole House condemns the killing of the three Israelis and the burning of the Palestinian, and none of us has any truck with Hamas. However, for all the vacuous words of the Israeli Government and the Israel defence forces spokesman, is it not clear that they have no regard for international humanitarian law; that they place a completely different and much lower value on Palestinian life than Israeli life; and that the cycle will go on as long as the international community, in an effort to be even-handed, fails to say to the Israelis that the actions that they are taking are completely outwith the United Nations charter and any idea of how a civilised nation ought to behave?

[Mr Hague]

That is why it is important for us to stress the need to observe international humanitarian law, be proportionate and avoid civilian casualties, and work hard on bringing about an agreed ceasefire. I add to what the right hon. Gentleman has said, however. Those who launch waves of rockets from within one of the most densely populated civilian populations in the middle east also bear a heavy responsibility, because they know that any retaliation will severely affect the civilian population. We must bear that in mind as well.

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

Israel has an absolute right to defend itself against terror, but with every civilian killed and every child hurt, the method by which Israel seeks to protect its citizens is more questionable, as are the tactics of those who deliberately place children in harm’s way. Will my right hon. Friend commend the excellent article in Haaretz recently by His Highness Prince Turki of Saudi Arabia, which called attention to the need to re-engage the peace process, and praise it not only for who said it but for where it was published? Will my right hon. Friend redouble his efforts to ensure that both Israeli and Palestinian leaders know that the only policy and course of action that has the wholehearted support of this House is urgent and bold steps to recommence the peace process, so that this wretched cycle of pointless violence can come to an end?

[Mr Hague]

As ever, my right hon. Friend goes straight to the point on this important issue. The article he mentions by His Highness Prince Turki helps to demonstrate that in many nations across the middle east—including powerful nations—there is a real appetite for that peace process, and for bringing the cycle of violence that hon. Members across the House are deploring to an end. That should be heard clearly by leaders in Israel and among Palestinians as they make decisions over the coming weeks.

[Glenda Jackson (Hampstead and Kilburn) (Lab)]

It is generally accepted that there can be no military solution to this or any other conflict, and I believe it is accepted by Hamas and Israel that there can be no military solution. The Secretary of State referred my right hon. Friend the Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire South (Mr Alexander) to the role played by Egypt in the past conflict. What pressure is being brought on the new Egyptian Government—if indeed both sides are prepared to listen to what they have to say and will sit around a table with them to end this utterly pointless and scandalous destruction of human life, particularly women and children?

[Mr Hague]

The hon. Lady is right to say that both Hamas and Israel know there is no military solution, and right to point to the important role that Egypt can play. I would not express it as “pressure” on Egypt—Egypt is a sovereign state that will make its own decisions in its own national interest and hopefully the interests of the wider region, but I have discussed this matter with the Foreign Minister of Egypt. The Egyptian Government at the time of the last ceasefire had much closer links with Hamas than the Egyptian Government do today, so the situation is a little different in that regard—[Interruption.] Those on the Opposition Front Bench say that that may be an understatement, and it is a deliberate understatement on my part. It is a different situation, and that is why the role of other Arab states becomes even more important, and that is why we are talking to many of them about the role they can play in bringing about an agreed ceasefire.

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

With nearly 1,000 rockets fired at Israel in the last week, no one can deny Israel’s right to defend itself and its citizens. Unlike in the past, however, Hamas looks increasingly isolated in the Arab world, with even Iran failing to declare its support openly. The obvious broker in this is Egypt, but interestingly the Secretary of State just said that he has discussed with other Foreign Ministers the possibility of peace negotiations. Will he say more about those talks and which countries he is talking to?

[Mr Hague]

In my statement I gave something of a list of Foreign Ministers with whom I have discussed this matter over recent hours, including, for instance, those of Jordan and Qatar. I do not want to say more, but I can tell my right hon. Friend that real efforts are going on among Arab states to make progress. However, I do not think it would be helpful for me to set it all out on the Floor of the House.

[Angus Robertson (Moray) (SNP)]

The health system in Gaza is under real pressure given the large number of men, women and children who have been injured, and higher-level more complicated medical support is especially difficult. How is the international community able to help supply those services in Gaza, and will the Foreign Secretary update the House on offers that have been made from outside the middle east—such as that from the Scottish Government—to help provide specialist medical provision from outside the region?

[Mr Hague]

I mentioned in my statement how the funding provided by DFID for several international programmes does help with medical supplies and in taking urgent medical cases out of Gaza. It is very difficult to deliver increased assistance under these circumstances, but every effort will be made to do so if circumstances deteriorate further. Other offers of assistance from all quarters, including of course from Scotland, are greatly appreciated.

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

My right hon. Friend referred to the fragile situation in the middle east, saying that it is one of the most fragile for many a decade. The United States has key influence with many of the key players, including Israel and Egypt. Will my right hon. Friend redouble his efforts with Secretary Kerry to see what influence we, combined with the US, can have to stop the cycle of violence? This very weak situation could spiral way out of control.

[Mr Hague]

Of course we have to maintain those efforts. I would hesitate to say to Secretary Kerry that he should redouble his efforts, because I cannot imagine how anybody could make a greater effort. He has conducted literally dozens of meetings himself with Israeli and Palestinian leaders in the past 18 months. I know he is determined to continue that work and it is very important that other nations support it. In the European Union in December, we agreed to make an unprecedented package of economic partnership and support available to Israelis and Palestinians if the peace process succeeds. We will continue with that important offer as all efforts to revive the peace process go on.

[Mr Ben Bradshaw (Exeter) (Lab)]

Given that Secretary Kerry and his own middle east Minister have clearly said that it was the Netanyahu regime’s relentless expansion of illegal settlements that bore prime responsibility for the collapse of the Kerry talks, when, instead of this routine language of condemnation of the settlements, can we instead have some real and meaningful action?

[Mr Hague]

We have said that a heavy part of the responsibility lies—not only this; there have been failures on both sides to take full advantage of the opportunities of the peace process—with the illegal settlements on occupied land. We make our condemnation of that, but we have also taken certain actions, including supporting the recent EU statement of guidelines on doing business with settlements. The right hon. Gentleman will be conscious that our prime effort here is to revive and succeed in the peace process. We therefore use language and adjust our pressure to try to do that, and that remains our best hope.

[Martin Horwood (Cheltenham) (LD)]

The Foreign Secretary is absolutely right to call for a permanent end to these intolerable rocket attacks on Israel, but right too that too many Palestinian civilians and children are dying. Will he consider whether the favourable economic and political relationship between Israel and the EU should now be reconsidered in the light of the Israeli Government’s disproportionate response to these attacks?

[Mr Hague]

As I said to the right hon. Member for Exeter (Mr Bradshaw), we have an important difference on settlements. However, our differences throughout the middle east have not led us to economic sanctions or boycotts on any of the parties to the middle east peace process. I do not judge that that would be the best way to advance the peace process now, or in the immediate future. I absolutely understand the hon. Gentleman’s concern, but our effort has to be focused on reviving the peace process.

[Richard Burden (Birmingham, Northfield) (Lab)]

The Foreign Secretary is of course correct that the latest escalation of tit-for-tat rockets and military strikes brings peace no closer; it just brings death and destruction. He may be aware that I, with other hon. Members, was in Gaza just weeks after the 2008-09 Operation Cast Lead. We saw for ourselves that UN humanitarian centres had been hit by Israeli strikes. As he said, 17,000 Palestinian civilians are now sheltering in UN centres, and the UN reports that 49 of those shelters have already been damaged. As a high contracting party to the Geneva convention, what can Britain do about this, and will he confirm that hitting humanitarian centres is a war crime?

[Mr Hague]

What we do about this is to stress to all involved, as I said, that the response must be in line with international humanitarian law and be proportionate and should not target civilians. I say again that the responsibility for civilians being caught up in this is a wide one, including those who decide to launch waves of rockets from heavily populated civilian areas. Of course, that does not absolve Israel of its responsibilities, and we will continue to remind it of its responsibilities.

[Robert Halfon (Harlow) (Con)]

I ask my right hon. Friend to remember that Israel withdrew unilaterally from Gaza and has faced not just 950 missiles in recent months, but 11,000 missiles since the withdrawal. We know, too, that Hamas uses civilians to protect its missiles, whereas Israel uses its missiles to defend its citizens. Does my right hon. Friend agree that the only way to resolve this terrible situation is to take out Hamas from Gaza in the same way as we would deal with other extreme Islamist groups and stop the funding of Hamas by Iran and the supply of long-range missiles from Iran to Hamas?

[Mr Hague]

Many of those things would help greatly, although they are not things that are within our gift to supply. Part of our message to Iran is to stop the funding of extremist, terrorist or sectarian groups throughout the middle east. We hope there will be a change in Iranian foreign policy; we hope that the authority of the Palestinian Authority will be restored in Gaza; and we hope that Hamas will accept the Quartet principles. We are certainly in favour of all those things, but they are, of course, quite difficult to bring about in practice.

[Rushanara Ali (Bethnal Green and Bow) (Lab)]

In 2010, our Prime Minister described Gaza as being like an “open-air prison”, with its people

“living under constant attacks and pressure”.

The latest escalation of the violence and killing has made matters unbearable. When will our Government, working with the international community, actually apply pressure on the Israeli Government to adhere to international law and humanitarian requirements, because this is just completely unacceptable?

[Mr Hague]

As we have all lamented over the last half hour, the situation is unacceptable, but it is important to bear in mind the wider responsibility for that situation. It is very important for us all to give a clear message to Israel about humanitarian law, but it is also important for those launching rockets from Gaza to stop such unacceptable attacks on Israel—that is very important, too, and it is an indispensable component of trying to deal with the situation. Our effort must be directed at the three objectives I set out in my statement: to bring about an urgent and agreed ceasefire, to provide humanitarian relief and to support a revival of the peace process. There is not a better path than that.

[Andrew Selous (South West Bedfordshire) (Con)]

I unreservedly condemn the rocket attacks on Israel and strongly welcome the Foreign Secretary’s call for a viable and contiguous Palestinian state. What assessment has he made of the possibility of establishing that state, given the settlements that have taken place on occupied territories?

[Mr Hague]

It is still possible to establish such a state. That has been the objective of the work done by the United States, which we have supported and which I mentioned several times, to bring the middle east peace process to success, but the opportunity for that is diminishing as the years and months go by, partly because of the pace of settlement activity on occupied land. Largely because of that, the opportunity is diminishing, and if it is not already, it will soon be the last chance to bring about a two-state solution. That shows the urgency of the situation for Israelis and Palestinians, which adds to the urgency to stop this cycle of violence.

[Fiona O’Donnell (East Lothian) (Lab)]

The greatest threat to Hamas, and the greatest hope for peace, is a sustainable future for Gaza and the eradication of poverty. Does the Secretary of State agree that while the Israeli blockade continues, peace cannot be achieved?

[Mr Hague]

I agree that it is important to ease restrictions on Gaza. The Israeli restrictions on the movement of goods and people do tremendous damage to the economy and the living standards of the people of Gaza, and, in our view, that serves to strengthen, not weaken, Hamas in the long term. An improved economy is essential for the people of Gaza, including the children of Gaza, but it is also ultimately firmly in the security interests of Israel.

[Dr Matthew Offord (Hendon) (Con)]

What assessment has the Foreign Secretary made of reports that Hamas is using Gaza’s largest hospital, Al-Shifa, as a command and control centre to direct rocket attacks?

[Mr Hague]

I do not have specific information about that, but the Israeli Government argue very strongly that civilian facilities are used in Gaza to shield rocket launches and military operations by Hamas, and there is a good deal of credibility in those assertions.

[Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Lab)]

The tragedy of the loss of life in the whole region surely stems ultimately from the occupation of the west bank, the settlement policy, and the current siege of Gaza. What practical steps has the Foreign Secretary taken to criticise Israel for its collective punishment of the people of Gaza, the destruction of water supplies and sewage plants, and the killings of large numbers of civilians, and what sanctions does he now propose to take against Israel for acting against international law in punishing a civilian population?

[Mr Hague]

I go a little further back in my analysis of the root causes, or, as the hon. Gentleman puts it, the ultimate causes, in terms of Israel’s policy. The ultimate cause is the failure to bring about a two-state solution, and there are failings on both sides in that regard. There is the failure to take opportunities in negotiations, and there is the failure by Hamas to adopt peaceful principles that would allow the world to welcome it into negotiations. Those failures exist on both sides, and therefore, for us, it is not a question of sanctions on one side or the other; it is a question of our effort to bring about a viable peace process, and that is where we must continue to place our emphasis.

[Mr Julian Brazier (Canterbury) (Con)]

My right hon. Friend has rightly said that the only foundation for lasting peace and a safe and secure Israel must be a viable and contiguous Palestinian state. Does he agree that there can be no peace until there is an end to the blockade of Gaza in respect of even the most basic economic materials, such as building materials, and withdrawal from the illegal settlements, which prevent any possibility of a contiguous state on the west bank?

[Mr Hague]

Our views on settlements are well known. My hon. Friend is aware of them, and I have reiterated them today As I said in response to earlier questions, we urge Israel to ease its restrictions on Gaza, including restrictions on the movement of commercial goods and persons from the Gaza strip, which only serve to undermine Gaza’s legitimate economy and strengthen Hamas, and we will continue to make that case.

[Lyn Brown (West Ham) (Lab)]

Following the question from the hon. Member for Cheltenham (Martin Horwood)—and while condemning the violence on both sides—I must say to the Foreign Secretary that the right to trade surely comes with the responsibility to uphold basic humanitarian principles. May I urge him to investigate the possibility of a consensus on economic sanctions within the European Union as an effective means of non-violent intervention, delivering Israel to the negotiating table for the desperately needed two-state solution?

[Mr Hague]

I can say honestly to the hon. Lady that there would not be a consensus in the European Union on that. There is a consensus on the statement of guidelines on dealing with settlements that the EU adopted on 26 June, and there is, I am pleased to say, a consensus on the offering of what I described earlier as an unprecedented partnership with Palestinians and Israelis for the European Union—on the offering of that major incentive for the future. On all those things, the European Union is united, but there would not be a consensus on what the hon. Lady has just called for.

[Crispin Blunt (Reigate) (Con)]

When the Minister of State, my right hon. Friend the Member for Faversham and Mid Kent (Hugh Robertson), answered the urgent question two weeks ago following the dreadful murder of the three Israeli teenagers, the Palestinian children death toll due to the conflict had reached 1,406. On Saturday it reached 1,430, including the killing of four toddlers in the course of the last week. Will the Foreign Secretary now say what he has implied: that the Israeli action is disproportionate?

[Mr Hague]

Having been through several of these conflicts, I know there is always pressure in the House, or from others, to adopt totemic words of one sort or another, but I feel our diplomatic effort has to be directed at the things I have described—bringing about an urgent and agreed ceasefire, giving humanitarian relief, supporting the revival of the peace process—while calling for proportionate actions all round, and that is what we will continue to do.

[Mike Gapes (Ilford South) (Lab/Co-op)]

Mr Speaker, I had to dash out to the Committees on Arms Export Controls to make a quorum, but I am now back. I was here at the beginning.

[Mr Speaker]

Order. I applaud the hon. Gentleman’s candour. I rarely fail to notice his movements, but I had not noticed that he toddled out and beetled back, but we can always do with a bit of information.

[Mike Gapes]

The Foreign Secretary has referred to the role of Egypt on a number of occasions. It is reported today that Hamas has said it does not wish to have the Egyptian Government as a mediator, and at the same time seven civilians and one military person were killed in Sinai from fire that was apparently coming from Gaza, or near to it. What does he think can be done to improve the relationships in that part of this area, so the Egyptians can play a positive role in this process to get a solution?

[Mr Hague]

The hon. Gentleman is right to point to those difficult relations, and I made the point earlier—I do not know whether that was during his unnoticed absence—that Hamas’s relations with this Egyptian Government are nothing like as warm, to put it mildly, as with the previous Egyptian Government at the time of the last Gaza conflict. That means there is a less natural role for Egypt in bringing about a ceasefire, as its influence on Hamas is less. Nevertheless it is important to find ways of working with Gaza, including easing humanitarian access through the Rafah crossing, and I hope that Egypt, which is the major Arab nation in the region, will use its full weight to try to bring about a ceasefire agreed on all sides.

[Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)]

Can the Foreign Secretary give us a bit more insight into the thinking of his Israeli counterparts? While we all accept the need for Israel to defend and deter, when he talks to the Israeli Foreign Minister does he get any sense that it must be more difficult for Israel to defend and deter if it is holding an entire people in the largest prison camp in the world in appalling conditions? Does he get any impression that common humanity calls out for peace and justice for the Palestinian people?

[Mr Hague]

Israeli Ministers stress their need to defend themselves against rocket attacks and say any nation in the world facing a barrage of rockets on its major cities would mount a military response. It is, of course, always important to look beyond that, as we are in all our comments across the House today, and to ask how we can break this cycle of violence in the long term, and that means a two-state solution and a viable sovereign state for Palestinians, which is why we have to continue to work for that.

[Mr Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith) (Lab)]

We should not equate the occupied with the occupier. We should not equate a refugee population of 1.7 million imprisoned in a tiny strip of land with the prison guards. We should not equate terrorists firing rockets with a supposedly civilised state systematically killing women and children and elderly and disabled people. Will the Secretary of State accept that if his and other western Governments fail to discriminate between the actions of Hamas and Israel, hundreds of Palestinian civilians will continue to die and the annexation of Palestine by Israel will continue?

[Mr Hague]

I do not see it as a matter of discrimination or failure to discriminate. I think we all agree across the House that there is in the end only one solution to this—not the military solution, but a successful peace process as the shadow Foreign Secretary and others have said. The hon. Gentleman is right to point to the responsibilities of occupiers; the responsibilities of all civilised and democratic states. But we do have to point also to the responsibilities, as I did earlier, of anyone who chooses to launch hundreds of rockets from a densely populated area. They have responsibilities, too.

[Steve Baker (Wycombe) (Con)]

Large numbers of my constituents have expressed the view that the people of Gaza are suffering collective punishment. But is it the deliberate policy of Hamas to put those same people in harm’s way?

[Mr Hague]

There is a good argument for that, and one of our hon. Friends who has now left the Chamber gave an alleged instance of this earlier. The Israeli Government argue that Hamas in effect uses civilians as shields—that one of the reasons for civilian casualties is that rockets are launched deliberately from within heavily populated areas, Gaza itself being a very densely populated area. It is in the nature of the conflict that that happens and that civilians are therefore in the front line, and Hamas bears responsibility for that.

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

No Member of the House can fail to be horrified by the escalation of violence on both sides and by what appears to be the disproportionate response of Israel. More than 200 of my constituents have written to me to ask me to ask the Foreign Secretary what action he has taken to help to secure a ceasefire and, to echo the words of the right hon. Member for Mid Sussex (Sir Nicholas Soames) and my right hon. Friend the Member for Exeter (Mr Bradshaw), what action he will take to help end illegal settlement and to help to continue the economic development in Palestine.

[Mr Hague]

I will not repeat everything I said in my earlier statement, but I hope that the hon. Lady will send to her constituents what I said about everything that the UK has done in recent days to promote a ceasefire—the work we have been doing at the UN Security Council and in the discussions I have had with Israeli and Palestinian leaders and many Arab nations to help bring about an agreed ceasefire. I also gave examples in my statement of what we are doing to help the economic development and state-building of Palestinians. The UK is one of the largest donors in the world to that, and we will continue that effort.

[Andrew Stephenson (Pendle) (Con)]

The Secretary of State is right to say that one of the only ways to break the cycle of violence is to improve conditions in Gaza, where many of the people whom I represent feel that civilians—women and children—are being collectively punished, and certainly are bearing the heaviest price of the terrorist acts committed by Hamas. What more can we do to end the Israeli blockade of Gaza and improve the general condition of people living there?

[Mr Hague]

This is likely to require a more peaceful situation and a much better atmosphere than the one that prevails now. But in any such atmosphere, we will continue to advocate that Israel should ease restrictions on Gaza, including on the movement of commercial goods. I listed what we have done in terms of humanitarian relief and said that the Department for International Development stands ready to do more. The UK will remain in the forefront of providing humanitarian relief to the Palestinian people.

[Mr Khalid Mahmood (Birmingham, Perry Barr) (Lab)]

If I wholly and unreservedly condemn attacks by Hamas, will the right hon. Gentleman wholly and unreservedly condemn the excessive force used by the Israeli Government in targeting residential areas in Gaza, resulting in the indiscriminate killing of civilians—women, men and young children—which is clearly a grave breach of the Geneva convention, while we wait for the middle east process to kick off?

[Mr Hague]

It is important for all of us, on all sides of the argument—I think there is a strong consensus here on the need for a peace process and to break this cycle of violence—to deplore violence and the murder of innocent civilians on all sides. That is what I have done in my statement. That is the clear sentiment, of course, across the House. We want to see a situation where Israel is not subject to rocket attacks from Gaza and Palestinians in Gaza are not subject to Israeli airstrikes in retaliation. That is what we are trying to bring about.

[Mr Mark Harper (Forest of Dean) (Con)]

I am listening carefully to the Foreign Secretary, but sometimes I reflect that if we in this country were subject to the same rocket barrage as the Israelis, we would hear many voices urging swift retaliation. Given that and given the difficulty that any Israeli Government would face in not responding to such attacks, will the Foreign Secretary say a little more about what he is doing with neighbouring states to put pressure on Hamas to stop the rocket attacks on Israel so that we can move towards restarting the peace process?

[Mr Hague]

My hon. Friend is right that any nation faced with this situation would respond to such rocket attacks and would be under immense pressure to do so from its own domestic population. It is important for Hamas to feel the pressure to stop such attacks. That happened after the previous two conflicts, and we saw a ceasefire. It is important that that happens again. I have mentioned the conversations that I have had with Egypt, Jordan and some of the Gulf states about this, so there is Arab pressure and Arab engagement with Hamas to try to bring this to an end. The UK will continue to support that process behind the scenes.

[Fiona Mactaggart (Slough) (Lab)]

I agree with the Foreign Secretary that what is needed is a ceasefire to provide relief to the people of Gaza and to restart the peace process. But is it not too late? In all the 17 years I have been in this House, progress towards a two-state solution has been in reverse. Just last year, the UN predicted that potable water in Gaza would run out by 2016. Palestinian officials are reporting that the Israelis are targeting water and sewerage systems. Before this latest attack, the people of Gaza were spending 30p out of every pound on safe drinking water. How will we ensure that they can live while we carry on this argument?

[Mr Hague]

The hon. Lady asks a very good question on water and sanitation. I think that I pointed out in my statement that some of the aid that we supply through DFID and international agencies is absolutely to help with that, because there are several hundred thousand people without adequate water and sanitation. She is also right that the cycles of violence in Gaza are getting worse. Each one seems to be worse than the preceding one in terms of the devastation that is brought about, the range of rockets that are fired from Gaza into Israel, and the intensity of the Israeli retaliation. The warning is clear to all those involved that without a viable peace process, this cycle of violence will only get worse in the years ahead. That is what we want them to remember whenever a ceasefire is agreed in this conflict.

[Henry Smith (Crawley) (Con)]

Like many Members, I have been contacted by a large number of constituents who are deeply concerned about the security situation in Gaza. On behalf of them, may I ask the Foreign Secretary to continue to press all those involved to ensure that they find a peaceful solution through the US-led process?

[Mr Hague]

Yes, I know that there is very strong feeling, and great anxiety, among many people in this country. We will certainly continue those efforts through this US-led process. We will also do our best, through our humanitarian assistance, to relieve the suffering of many people in every way we can.

[Ms Karen Buck (Westminster North) (Lab)]

With half of the population in Gaza aged under 18 locked in an open prison in one of the most densely urban concentrations in the world, there was never any prospect that children would not be the disproportionate victims of this military action. Now we see tens of thousands of homes without electricity and a rapid deterioration of the humanitarian situation. What urgent representations can the Foreign Secretary make now to ensure that while we wait for the ceasefire, which will inevitably come, we do not see a further worsening of a catastrophic humanitarian situation?

[Mr Hague]

Those are the urgent representations that we are making, including all the ones I have been making over this weekend. The hon. Lady is right to refer to the loss of electricity. However, it seems that 70,000 homes in Gaza lost electricity because of a rocket fired from within Gaza that brought down a power line coming from Israel. So such power loss can be brought about by fire from both sides. We must bear that in mind, but, of course, our urgent representations will go on.

[Mr Philip Hollobone (Kettering) (Con)]

The tragedy of Gaza is that, following the Israeli withdrawal in 2005, the Palestinians had a golden opportunity to create a model of how a Palestinian state would be run to give the Israelis the confidence ultimately to withdraw from the west bank. Instead, however, Hamas took over from Fatah and decided to spend all its money not on vital infrastructure but on building up an arsenal of 11,000 rockets. Where did those rockets come from to get into the Gaza strip? Is my right hon. Friend confident that the Egyptians have closed down the tunnels, the tolls from which fund Hamas in all its criminal activity in the Gaza strip?

[Mr Hague]

My hon. Friend makes a telling point. The history of the past nine years would be different had Hamas or any other Palestinian leaders in Gaza been able to take it in a different direction. However, I have also reiterated today the many criticisms that have been made of Israeli policy. The rockets or their components have clearly been smuggled in, probably largely through such tunnels. Egypt has closed many of the tunnels, which is one thing that has put Hamas under more pressure in recent months, but Hamas has to see that it is pointless to continue with this cycle of violence.

[Shabana Mahmood (Birmingham, Ladywood) (Lab)]

We have had several contributions about the proportionality of Israel’s military response, but we are ultimately discussing innocent people and children dying. With that in mind, at what point does the Foreign Secretary think that we should move from a proportionate to a disproportionate response? Surely the current death toll in Gaza is the clearest sign of a disproportionate and indiscriminate response. Will he declare it as such?

[Mr Hague]

The tragedy is that there are innocent civilians on all sides. People are suffering terribly in Gaza, but the 5 million Israelis who live within rocket range and are running for their underground shelters every few hours are also innocent civilians. Our emphasis must therefore be on doing the things that I have described: promoting a ceasefire; providing humanitarian relief; and reviving the peace process. Those are three clear planks of our policy and I am sure that they are right.

[Mr Rob Wilson (Reading East) (Con)]

I agree with the Foreign Secretary that there is fault on both sides of the argument, and I know that he is doing all that he can to create the conditions for a ceasefire. Does he agree that peace will be possible only if conditions in Gaza, which, incidentally, are appalling, are improved? What more can the UK do to help ordinary Palestinians, who suffer such intolerable conditions even when no military conflict is taking place?

[Mr Hague]

That is an important point. I pointed out earlier that we are providing £349 million of assistance to the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East, to which we are the world’s third biggest donor. Some of that assistance is going into Gaza, but more will be necessary in these circumstances. We are also looking to Israel to ease restrictions on Gaza, because conditions for the people, as my hon. Friend rightly says, are an important component of future peace.

[Cathy Jamieson (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (Lab/Co-op)]

The Foreign Secretary has already acknowledged the importance of access to water and sanitation. What assessment has he therefore made of reports that Israeli aircraft have been targeting water wells? If they have, that is a clear breach of international law.

[Mr Hague]

The hon. Lady will appreciate that we do not at the moment have enough detailed information to be able to assess that ourselves. Those accusations are made against Israel. Equally, as I have mentioned, Israelis allege that Hamas stations military headquarters, facilities or weapons in the proximity of civilian infrastructure and homes. Accusations are made on both sides and we cannot conclusively distinguish between them, which is why we must concentrate on what I have set out.

[Sir Bob Russell (Colchester) (LD)]

Will the Foreign Secretary confirm that the actions of Israeli political and military leaders constitute war crimes?

[Mr Hague]

I think that that relates to the question that I have just answered from the hon. Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun (Cathy Jamieson), in that it is not possible for us at this distance and without a presence on the ground to assess every single thing that happens within Gaza. Strong accusations are made about the targeting of civilian areas and Israelis make counter-accusations that military infrastructure is positioned in those civilian areas, so rather than try to judge things from London it is important for us to concentrate on bringing about an agreed ceasefire.

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

The Foreign Secretary has quite rightly drawn attention to the role of the international community in securing a ceasefire, but can he give his assessment of how likely it is that we will get a cessation of violence in the days ahead?

[Mr Hague]

We must guard against any excessive optimism, because the situation is dire. Nevertheless, in previous such conflicts there has been recognition after some days, as others have said, that there is no military solution and that there is a need for a ceasefire on both sides. I hope that that recognition is there and that the efforts to promote it, which are going on now, will fall on receptive ears on both sides.

[Michael Fabricant (Lichfield) (Con)]

On these occasions—sadly, there are too many of them—the House becomes polarised, so I commend my right hon. Friend for his balanced responses. He will be aware that after the last ceasefire in 2013, 74 rockets and mortars were fired, quite routinely, into Israel and in the first six months of this year, before the kidnapping of the three young Israelis, 133 rockets were fired into Israel. What hope does he have that after the inevitable ceasefire this time round we will not meet again in two years’ time in similar circumstances?

[Mr Hague]

My hon. Friend is quite right about that and that was why I was saying earlier that the cycle of violence has got worse. He is right that, even between ceasefires, a large number of rockets have been launched against Israel, although usually in between ceasefires they have been launched by other groups and not necessarily by Hamas. What distinguishes a period such as this one is that Hamas is engaged in large-scale rocket fire against Israel, which it could control and prevent. He is right to sound a cautionary note about what will happen after any ceasefire and that further intensifies the message that reviving the peace process is very important.

[Barry Gardiner (Brent North) (Lab)]

Israel’s right to defend itself, of which the Foreign Secretary speaks, is not an unconstrained right, yet Israel’s response has been unconstrained. It has been disproportionate and wrong. Heavy bombing in a densely populated area with 100,000 civilians, causing the death of 170 people, a third of them children, is not self-defence; it is barbarism. What leverage does the Foreign Secretary have and will he now apply it to make the Israeli Government reappraise this barbaric and unproductive strategy?

[Mr Hague]

My hon. Friend the Member for Lichfield (Michael Fabricant) spoke about the polarising aspects of this issue and there are passionate feelings about this and about what is happening to people in Gaza. As I said earlier, we must also remember that many hundreds of rockets have been launched indiscriminately against people living in Israel, and rather than refining our value judgments each day, are concentrating on bringing about an agreed ceasefire and urging all sides to abide by international humanitarian law. I think that that is the right thing to continue to do.

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

Mona El-Farra, a doctor working on the Gaza strip, has described in graphic detail the pain and damage caused to civilians in this collective punishment of Palestinian people. I agree with Members on both sides of the House that in the long term we need to tackle the underlying issues with blockades, access to justice and the settlements, but in the short term, what additional pressure can we place on the Israeli Government—particularly as regards the disproportionate and indiscriminate action that they are taking on the people of Gaza—and on Hamas? Will the Foreign Secretary reassure all Members of the House that the tone of today’s statement and the comments being made are being conveyed to them?

[Mr Hague]

Absolutely, and the tone that I have taken today, which I think, judging by the reaction, is shared widely across the House, is exactly the tone of our discussions with Palestinian and Israeli leaders and with others in the region over the past few days. The pressure really takes that form of trying to find the formula for the ceasefire, which other nations are involved in and which we have supported at the UN Security Council—it is diplomatic pressure that is most likely to succeed and has succeeded previously—and then we have to resume the search, as the hon. Lady rightly says, to resolve the underlying causes of the conflict.

[Kevin Brennan (Cardiff West) (Lab)]

The Foreign Secretary has rightly condemned the rocket attacks by Hamas, but does he understand that his unwillingness to condemn as disproportionate the current response by the Israeli Government feeds into a view held by many of our constituents that the lives of Palestinians are not valued as highly as the lives of Israelis in this conflict and does very little to put additional pressure on the Government of Israel to act in a proportionate way when it is under attack?

[Mr Hague]

I can assure the hon. Gentleman and the constituents of all those in this House that we are clear about the equal value of lives all over the world; that applies to Israelis and Palestinians as well. I think our efforts have to be geared to trying to achieve what I set out in the statement, and I do not think it would be helpful to refine our judgment each day about the tactics of each side. We need to bring about an agreed ceasefire, and the diplomatic processes we are engaged in are the best way to do that. That is the best way to save all lives, including Palestinian lives. I do not judge that any other way of doing that would be more effective.

[Mr Liam Byrne (Birmingham, Hodge Hill) (Lab)]

The air strikes, the commando raids and the rocket attacks have got to stop before any more children are killed, but may I press the Foreign Secretary on resolution 1860, on which Britain led back in 2009 and which stated that justice required

“sustained and regular flow of goods and people through…crossings”.

Does the Foreign Secretary not agree that without progress restoring the normality of trade, jobs and growth, we risk trapping the Palestinian people in a cycle of not only violence but despair from which there is no escape?

[Mr Hague]

Yes, I agree. That was an important resolution, and with our EU partners and the office of the Quartet we will continue to press the Israeli Government at ministerial and official levels to ease the restrictions on Gaza. This is an argument that we have never won—that no British Government have won—with Israel, but we will continue to make it. Israeli restrictions on movements of goods and people do tremendous damage to the economy in Gaza and to the long-term prospects for peace.

[Mr Andrew Love (Edmonton) (Lab/Co-op)]

The bleak situation facing the middle east so adequately reflected in today’s exchanges calls for an enhanced role for the United Nations Secretary-General, at least in the context of de-escalation and achieving a ceasefire—it may be that other parties would want to carry the peace process forward. Does the Foreign Secretary agree with that summation that there is a role for the UN Secretary-General, and will he support that at the Security Council and in other forums?

[Mr Hague]

Yes I do. The UN Secretary-General has made clear statements about the need for bold choices on both sides, and the Security Council agreed a statement on Saturday calling for an agreed ceasefire. The UN Secretary-General has to judge what he can achieve in any conflict in the world, but this is certainly an area where we support a strong role for him, as well as for the work of others behind the scenes in trying to lay the groundwork for an agreed ceasefire by both sides.

[Jonathan Ashworth (Leicester South) (Lab)]

Like all Members I condemn the rocket attacks, but like many Members I consider the bombings and aggression that have led to the loss of many innocent children’s lives, damage to schools and destruction of homes to be disproportionate—indeed, many of my constituents feel that they amount to collective punishment. I am sure the Foreign Secretary agrees that there is an urgent need for increased humanitarian assistance. The United Nations Relief and Works Agency thinks that there is a shortfall in its emergency appeal. What representations can the right hon. Gentleman make to his counterparts to ensure that UNRWA has all the resources it needs?

[Mr Hague]

My ministerial colleagues from the Department for International Development were here earlier, and of course I will update them on all other comments made in the House. The scale of our support through DFID for UNRWA will continue, and DFID stands ready to increase that support, as I made clear in my statement, so if the situation continues to worsen, we will intensify our efforts to get humanitarian supplies through to the people of Gaza.

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

I add my voice to those of all the Members who have unreservedly condemned the violence in all the forms it takes in this tragedy. Looking towards the ceasefire, which cannot come quickly enough, will the Foreign Secretary please tell the House what support the British, the EU and the UN will give to projects that foster co-operation and co-existence between Palestinians and Israelis, to build that capacity for a new generation of leaders who are committed to dialogue, peace and the two-state solution?

[Mr Hague]

This is a very important point. The hon. Gentleman will know that our embassy in Tel Aviv and our consulate-general in Jerusalem support such projects, with the encouragement of Members of Parliament on all sides. They are often difficult to bring about because of such a tense and acrimonious situation, but we will continue to do that and we will look at how we can broaden such work in the future.

[Nia Griffith (Llanelli) (Lab)]

We understand the immediate need for a ceasefire and for humanitarian aid, but we must look at the underlying causes, with Gaza under siege and 60% of the west bank now under direct military rule and a seemingly complete failure to halt the continuing expansion of the Israeli settlements. The Foreign Secretary has mentioned how difficult it is to influence Israel in the treatment of Gaza, but those settlements in the west bank are illegal, so surely more could be done there. Can he explain what more could be done to put pressure on Israel in order to deal with the way that it is behaving and therefore to bring forward the peace process?

[Mr Hague]

This, too, is a very important point. Illegal settlements on occupied land are a major obstacle to peace. We believe they should stop. We have our own guidelines on settlement produce in this country, as the hon. Lady knows. We have recently agreed across the European Union a common statement of guidelines on doing business with settlements. This reflects increased international pressure, but of course the ultimate answer to the issue of settlements is a two-state solution; it is to resolve the final status issues. That is the only way in which the issue of settlements will be resolved in the end, and that is why the work led by Secretary Kerry on this is so important.

bill presented

Data Retention and Investigatory Powers Bill

Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)

Secretary Theresa May, supported by the Prime Minister, the Deputy Prime Minister, Secretary William Hague, Secretary Philip Hammond, Secretary Theresa Villiers, Danny Alexander and James Brokenshire presented a Bill to make provision, in consequence of a declaration of invalidity made by the Court of Justice of the European Union in relation to directive 2006/24/EC, about the retention of certain communications data; to amend the grounds for issuing interception warrants, or granting or giving certain authorisations or notices, under part 1 of the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000; to make provision about the extra-territorial application of that part and about the meaning of “telecommunications service” for the purposes of that Act; and for connected purposes.

Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time tomorrow, and to be printed (Bill 73) with explanatory notes (Bill 73-EN).

[Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. In relation to the Bill which has just had its First Reading, if all the motions on the Order Paper today and tomorrow are agreed, the vote on Second Reading will take place in 24 hours and six minutes. If the motion is carried later tonight, we will not be able to table any amendments to the Bill until late tonight. Can you clarify whether you will therefore allow manuscript amendments to be considered tomorrow afternoon?

[Mr Speaker]

Yes. My purpose is to seek to facilitate the House, not to be an obstacle to effective scrutiny. In the circumstances which the hon. Gentleman has pithily summarised, I do not think the normal rules of engagement apply. The House is being confronted, for better or for worse, rightly or wrongly, with a particular arrangement which places very great demands on Members, so yes, I will be very open to the receipt of manuscript amendments. I hope that that assuages the hon. Gentleman’s concerns.

Childcare Payments Bill

Monday 14th July 2014 Commons Chamber

Second Reading

16:54

[The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Nicky Morgan)]

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

Hon. Members will be aware that, as we sit in the Chamber this afternoon, not only is overall employment in the United Kingdom at record levels, but female participation in the work force is at an all-time high. That means that across the country more people than ever before have jobs to wake up for at the start of the day, and pay cheques to take home at the end of the month. That is something that this Government can be proud of having helped to achieve.

However, we are by no means complacent, and we know that we can do more to remove the barriers that still prevent people who want to go to work from being able to do so. That is where the Bill comes in. Tax-free child care will be a simple scheme that is responsive to the needs of working families, whatever their work arrangements. The Bill will provide greater support to parents and, in turn, open up greater opportunities for them.

I would like to use my time at the Dispatch Box this afternoon, first, to remind Members why we are introducing these changes; secondly, to talk through exactly what form these changes will take; and finally, to explain how the changes will differ from, and improve on, the employer-supported child care scheme currently in place.

[Hywel Williams (Arfon) (PC)]

I am grateful to the Minister for giving way so early in her speech. I am concerned that the Bill does nothing about the supply of child care, particularly in rural and disadvantaged areas. How confident is she that the measures she proposes will indirectly stimulate greater provision?

[Nicky Morgan]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for that point. As I am sure he will be aware, my colleagues in the Department for Education, and particularly the Under-Secretary of State, my hon. Friend the Member for South West Norfolk (Elizabeth Truss), have been working to encourage the provision of more places, including by providing £500 to enable child minders to set up new businesses, and through schools and a wide variety of places. He is absolutely right that in order to tackle the issues of child care, we need to think about not only the costs but the supply side. We are confident that there will be places available for all the families who want them.

Let me turn first to the “why”. As hon. Members will know very well—many from their own experiences—every year millions of families across the country are faced with a difficult decision: whether it makes greater financial sense to stay at home and manage child care themselves or to go to work and arrange for someone else to do it.

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

I very much welcome the Government’s approach to tax-free child care, especially for the self-employed. In the past they have been ruled out of help, so the sooner we can put that right, the better.

[Nicky Morgan]

My hon. Friend is entirely right. I will move on to talk about the importance of the scheme for the self-employed and for those setting up or growing their own businesses. I am very pleased that he has raised that at this stage in the debate.

[Charlie Elphicke (Dover) (Con)]

This measure will be welcomed by my constituents in Dover and Deal who work hard but do not get paid a lot of money. How many working families with children will benefit from this important measure?

[Nicky Morgan]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that question. Some 1.9 million working families will have access to the scheme. Of those, 1.25 million will have qualifying child care costs and will benefit under the scheme. As I will explain, more families will benefit under this new scheme than currently benefit from employer-supported child care vouchers.

Of course, for some families there is no choice about who should look after the children, because the parent or parents have to go to work, and must therefore arrange child care. It is worth reminding Members that the research shows that this issue has had, and continues to have, a disproportionate impact on women. The Women’s Business Council, which has done an excellent job in its first year in drawing attention to the barriers women face and suggesting changes to help remove them, has frequently pointed to the way in which child care costs can have an undue impact on women’s careers. Recent survey data from the Department for Education show that more than half of mothers in the United Kingdom who are not in paid work would prefer to be in paid work if they could arrange reliable, convenient, affordable and good-quality child care.

We need to think about what is at stake, not just for the mothers whose careers are held back, and not just for the many fathers who are primary carers and experience the same problems, but for our economy. If we can equalise the labour force participation rates of men and women, the United Kingdom can further increase growth by 0.5% per year. That will be a huge change which could make a real difference to our families and our economy.

Hon. Members will know that the Government have already taken action on this matter. We have funded 15 hours a week of free child care for all three and four-year-olds, which is available to all families, including those where a parent is not working. We have funded 15 hours a week of free child care for the 20% of two-year-olds who are most disadvantaged. From this September, we are extending that offer to about 40% of two-year-olds.

[Jonathan Ashworth (Leicester South) (Lab)]

I apologise for the fact that I am going to have to leave to pick up my own children from child care. Will the Minister confirm that a lot of parents who need access to child care help need it now, and that it was a mistake on the part of the Government, back in 2011, to reduce the child care support that was available when they made cuts to working tax credit?

[Nicky Morgan]

I entirely agree that families need support now. I have been setting out exactly what we have done in extending to 15 hours a week the free child care available for all three and four-year-olds, as well as for disadvantaged two-year-olds. On working tax credit, let me point out that the Government are spending £1.1 billion on the child care element of tax credits each year, so many families are still, rightly, receiving a huge amount of support through the tax credit system. We are proposing an enhancement of the child care offer that we already have.

We are taking action to drive up the supply of high-quality child care provision by legislating for childminder agencies, encouraging primary schools to open for longer, and reducing bureaucracy and red tape for providers—all steps that should help to drive supply up and costs down.

The Bill represents a further step towards helping hard-working families. We are committed to launching the scheme next autumn and rolling it out to all eligible families with children under 12 within the first year of its operation.

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

There is a concern that while single parents can access the new system, families with one parent in work and one not in work would not be entitled to anything. What can be done to assist people in such circumstances? From a Northern Ireland perspective, I know that there will be a legislative consent motion to deal with this legislation, but what advice can the Minister give now, in advance of such an LCM and in advance of the Bill’s implementation?

[Nicky Morgan]

I thank the hon. Lady for making that point, which is certainly of interest to everybody concerned with the issue of child care and who should look after children. I want to be very clear that this is about a choice, for those families who can afford it, in that they can decide that one parent will not be working, at least for a certain period. Of course, however, some families do not have that choice, with both parents needing to work, and there are lone parents who will need to work. For families where one parent is not working, we have introduced the married couples tax allowance, which has been legislated for in the Finance Bill, and those families will be receiving a tax benefit of just over £200 a year. This proposal is very much about enabling parents to play a full part in the labour market. That is why we have brought this Bill forward at this time.

[Ms Ritchie]

I am looking at this issue in a Northern Ireland context, and I am sure that there are many regions in Britain with similar circumstances. What happens if the other partner cannot access full-time or even part-time occupations, which is a reality for many families throughout the UK?

[Nicky Morgan]

Employment levels have gone up substantially under this Government. More people are getting jobs and more hours. As I say, the Bill is about a choice. With more people securing employment, this is about enabling families to make a choice if both parents need to or want to work, or, in the case of lone-parent families, providing support that is more generous than the current employer-supported child care voucher scheme.

The scheme, which launches next autumn, is to be rolled out to all those eligible families with children under 12 within the first year of its operation. The real triumph of the scheme is that it will make hundreds of thousands of parents who are currently excluded from support eligible for it.

The scheme has been designed so that support is available to the self-employed, who play a crucial role in our economy but are currently excluded, and so that it suits the needs of part-time workers, who are very often parents staggering their way back into full-time work, and those parents who are temporarily absent from the workplace—for example, during statutory parental leave. It is also designed to support those couples where one member is in work and the other is in receipt of carer’s allowance or employment and support allowance, by making them eligible for the new scheme.

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

The Minister is reading out a list, but on the question of future roll-out, Opposition Members are very concerned about universal credit, the future of which we spent much time discussing in the Chamber last week. When will additional support be made available for those low-income families, who deserve help with the costs of child care? Is it really the case that 4 million low-income families could be waiting until 2017, and why is there still so much uncertainty around funding this part of the programme for universal credit?

[Nicky Morgan]

I do not think there is uncertainty around that, but there is uncertainty among Opposition Members and I find it staggering that they are criticising and querying universal credit when it is absolutely needed. I think that all Government Members and most people in the Chamber will agree with that. From April 2016, working families will be able to recover 85% of their actual child care costs under universal credit.

[Barbara Keeley]

Where will that be funded from, because there is also a lack of clarity about how it will be funded?

[Nicky Morgan]

I do not think there is a lack of clarity. We have published regulations today and there will be further debate during the Bill’s Committee stage, so may I suggest—[Interruption.] More information and plenty of guidance will be made available to families who might move from universal credit to tax-free child care and to those who might have to move back again. That will be available online and there will be a provision to enable people to get guidance from Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs as to which scheme is most suitable for them.

[Barbara Keeley]

rose—

[Nicky Morgan]

I am not going to give way again. The point is that, under universal credit, families will get support for 85% of their child care costs. In short, this is a system that recognises and adapts to the complexities of modern working patterns. It also goes a long way towards providing the simplicity sought by many parents.

Someone with a screaming child in one arm and a BlackBerry with a screaming boss on the end of it in the other hand does not want to spend their time negotiating a complex and rigid child care scheme. We have therefore been working incredibly hard to ensure that the scheme will be simple, responsive and flexible. It will be easy for parents to register and open a child care account and to access the scheme through online portals. It will be flexible to the changing demands of child care they face. It will allow them to pay in money when they want to, and it will also allow other people to pay in, such as grandparents or an employer. In many cases, it may well be a family member who is keen to support the child’s upbringing. The scheme will also allow parents to spend money on qualifying child care at a time of their choosing, by allowing them to use their vouchers on, for example, summer holiday clubs, not just during the school term.

[Hywel Williams]

The service will be provided online. How confident is the Minister that parents in rural areas such as mine, where broadband is either very slow or non-existent, will not be disadvantaged?

[Nicky Morgan]

That is why this Government are providing a huge amount of money—more was announced last week—to enable communities to get online, including broadband. Many families are already able to access services online and via broadband. Rather than look for problems, it would be helpful if everyone in this House went out and sold the scheme to families, so as to enable them to register and make it a reality.

[Hywel Williams]

rose—

[Nicky Morgan]

I want to make some progress.

On flexibility, parents and families will be able to build up balances in their accounts, to meet the cost pressures of expensive times of the year. The scheme will also provide rigidity where parents need it. Once eligible for the scheme, parents can rest assured that they will continue to be entitled to support for three months, regardless of any changes in circumstances they may experience.

Hon. Members with further questions about the scheme’s practicalities may wish to note that we have today published the draft regulations for consultation. They contain the detailed rules concerning eligibility for the scheme—for example, what qualifying paid work means—and its operation, such as how and when a declaration of eligibility might be made.

[Bridget Phillipson (Houghton and Sunderland South) (Lab)]

In relation to the transparency of the regulations and the clarity of the scheme, will the Treasury publish a distributional analysis so that we can understand how families will benefit? How much will the average family benefit per year from the new scheme?

[Nicky Morgan]

We already have figures showing that for the 1 million families who will gain from the introduction of the scheme, the average additional support will be £600 a year. Obviously, the Government top-up very much depends on how much families put into the accounts for themselves. For example, a working single parent with one child who has child care costs of £5,000 will receive £1,000 of support from the scheme. I will certainly take away the hon. Lady’s suggestion, but the figures are already fairly clear. The level depends on families’ contributions, which will then be matched by the Government.

As hon. Members will be aware, when the tax-free child care scheme is introduced, employer-supported child care will be closed to new entrants. Parents who already receive support through that scheme can continue to receive it in exactly the same way as long as they continue to work for their current employer and the employer continues to offer the scheme. Workplace nurseries will not be affected by the changes.

Those who favour the current arrangements need to remember that under the present system less than 5% of employers offer employer-supported child care, leaving more than half of all employees—as well as all self-employed parents, and most employees on the minimum wage—without support. In contrast, tax-free child care will be available to all working families provided that they meet the eligibility criteria. As such, we expect the scheme to be open to at least twice as many families as the current one.

We expect the new scheme to be much fairer. One of the main failings of existing employer-supported child care is that it disadvantages lone parents by providing twice as much support to couples in which both partners work for employers offering the scheme than it does to single parents. To be completely frank, that does not seem right, so the Bill addresses that unfairness. It will ensure that the level of support provided is determined not by the number of parents in work, but by the number of children in the household. That means that for a family with two children, the maximum level of child care costs supported by tax-free child care will be three times the maximum level supported by employer-supported child care.

It is worth reminding the House that the existing scheme is an inefficient one. At present, employers receive a national insurance contributions disregard of up to 13.8% for operating an employer-supported child care scheme, despite the fact that it generally costs them significantly less than that to run their scheme. We should remember that that taxpayer money is not actually spent on child care support. There will therefore be no employer’s national insurance contributions breaks in tax-free child care once the new scheme becomes available.

We know that many employers value the role they can play in supporting their employees, including by helping them with their child care costs. We hope that such employers will continue to take an active, voluntary role in the new scheme. In fact, many have told us that they intend to do so. Although it may disappoint some hon. Members that the Government have no intention of making any form of employer role mandatory, they should remember that that is because we want to minimise the burdens on small businesses. We also want to maximise the scheme’s fairness so that it is the same whether people are self-employed, employed by a small shop or employed by a huge multinational.

We want to increase the support available to hard-working families with their child care costs as soon as possible. We especially need to support the women of the United Kingdom, who are disproportionately impacted by the complexity and unfairness of the current child care arrangements. The more women we can help back to work—if they want and need to work—then the more people we can get back to work, the more we can drive growth in our economy, the more we can reduce some of the inequalities that still blight our workplaces and the more we can raise the quality of life not only for millions of parents but, crucially, for their children.

I was tempted to say that the Bill represents a baby step in the right direction, but it represents so much more. This is a hugely important change for mothers, fathers, children, families and employers. As such, I am incredibly proud to stand at the Dispatch Box and to commend the Bill to the House.

17:14

[Catherine McKinnell (Newcastle upon Tyne North) (Lab)]

I want to begin by saying that the Opposition welcome any new investment in child care and any extra support for the millions of hard-pressed people—parents and families—up and down the country who are battling to juggle their work and family lives. We are the party that, in government, set the precedent for investing in early years and supporting the families that needed help the most and, as a result, tackling disadvantage and improving the life chances of children. Of course, those are aims and priorities that all political parties now accept, thanks to the progress that was made in that area under the last Labour Government. Welcome though any support is, however, the Bill still falls far short of the mark when it comes to making up the ground that has been lost under this Conservative-led Government in regard to meeting and furthering those goals.

Since 2010, all parents have seen reduced support, fewer child care places and spiralling child care costs. We know that families up and down the country are struggling with this. Investing in early years and focusing support on those families that needed help the most are among the greatest legacies of the last Labour Government, and those principles are now universally accepted by all parties of government. Under Labour, parents benefited from a range of policies and investments that helped more parents, but particularly single mothers, into work and lifted more children out of poverty. As a result, more children were given a better start in life.

[Charlie Elphicke]

Does the hon. Lady accept that, according to the measure adopted by the previous Labour Government, child poverty actually rose under that Administration, and that it has fallen under this Government?

[Catherine McKinnell]

No, I do not accept that. It is tempting for Government Members to quibble about measures and markers, and I know that a lot of time has been spent arguing about how to measure child poverty instead of recognising the desperate increase in it. The Institute for Fiscal Studies has projected that there will be 1 million more children in poverty by 2015 than there were in 2010. Government Members need to be careful when obsessing and arguing about those measurements while ignoring the reality, which is that hundreds of thousands more children are now living in homes that their parents cannot afford to heat, and struggling in households where their parents cannot afford to put food on the table and are using food banks.

When we look back on Labour’s record in government, we are proud of the introduction of the Sure Start local programmes and the subsequent huge expansion of Sure Start centres up and down the country. We are proud of the free part-time nursery education that we introduced for all three and four-year-olds. We are proud of the more affordable and higher-quality child care that we brought in through the employer-supported child care voucher scheme, and of the child care tax credits and the introduction of the early years curriculum. We are also proud of the increased financial support for families with children, including the introduction of tax credits and the increases in child benefit and maternity pay and grants. Those policies and changes were aimed at giving every child the best possible start in life but, perhaps more importantly, they lifted 1 million children out of relative poverty and more than 2 million children out of absolute poverty.

[Chloe Smith (Norwich North) (Con)]

Does the hon. Lady now recognise measures, then?

[Catherine McKinnell]

I genuinely do not understand the hon. Lady’s intervention. Obviously, we recognise that there are measurements of child poverty. The point I was making was—[Interruption.] No, I did not say that I did not recognise measurements of child poverty; we introduced them. What I find unacceptable is that the Government quibble and argue about how to measure child poverty rather than taking the necessary action to deal with a problem that is staring them in the face—namely, an increasing number of children in poverty. As the IFS concluded in 2011, the reduction in child poverty during the first two terms of the Labour Government was

“by far the largest and most sustained since”

figures began in 1961. As UNICEF pointed out when it compared child poverty levels internationally in 2010,

“without UK Government intervention in the form of cash transfers, tax credits and services for children and families, the UK would see a child poverty rate three times higher than its current levels.”

Government Members seem to be quite vexed about this issue, but I think that that is because they have a shameful record. Unfortunately, the story under this Government has been very different from that under the Labour Government. That is the case despite the promise in the Conservative manifesto in 2010 to

“make Britain the most family-friendly country in Europe”.

It added:

“We will help families with all the pressures they face: the lack of time, money worries, the impact of work, concerns about schools and crime, preventing unhealthy influences, poor housing.”

Let us not forget the Liberal Democrats—I am pleased that one of them is here today. Their 2010 manifesto claimed:

“Liberal Democrats believe every family should get the support it needs to thrive, from help with childcare through to better support for carers and elderly parents. Liberal Democrats will improve life for your family.”

Have those promises been translated into reality? We know that parents are facing a child care crunch because child care costs have spiralled, the number of places has fallen and the support that families receive from the Government has been slashed. One consequence is that progress on reducing child poverty has stalled.

[Hywel Williams]

Does the hon. Lady agree with Plaid Cymru that the answer to the child care problem, particularly in areas where there is little or no provision, is a child care guarantee for all, based on the Nordic model that has operated very successfully in Sweden for a long time? Does she agree that she has a role in persuading her Labour friends in the Welsh Government to adopt that model?

[Catherine McKinnell]

We all want to see more child care places. We recognise not only that there is a challenge in meeting the costs of child care, but that we need to do something on the supply side if we are to see the costs come under control. That is why I will set out exactly how Labour has proposed to deal with that issue. Although we support the measures that are being proposed, despite having quite a number of questions to raise about them, we suggest that there are actions that the Government could take today on the supply side to increase the number of child care places that are available, which has been falling.

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

I take issue with what the hon. Lady is saying because of my experiences in my constituency. I have just looked at the data and there are 100,000 more places in nurseries today than there were in 2009. Of course, with that increase in supply, prices are falling.

[Catherine McKinnell]

I do not recognise what the hon. Lady is saying. If she is saying that that is happening in her area, I would be interested to see the data to back that up. We know that 35,000 fewer child care places are available and that prices are rising. Parents out there are struggling with the cost of child care—indeed, the Government accept that it is a challenge for many households up and down the country—and I think that they would find it deeply disconcerting to hear an hon. Member suggest that prices are falling and that everything is fine. Government Members seem to be very detached from the reality that families are facing up and down the country.

[Charlie Elphicke]

Will the hon. Lady tell the House how the number of childminders changed under the previous Government? Does she accept some responsibility for what amounted to a war on childminders by the Labour party?

[Catherine McKinnell]

Perhaps the hon. Gentleman is reading that argument from a Whip’s handout, although I know it is one that Government Members like to quote. The Professional Association for Childcare and Early Years, which I would trust more than I would trust the hon. Gentleman on this subject, has commented specifically on that issue, stating that that statistic has often been quoted in the past few months but it is not one that it recognises. The association does not recognise the statistics that the Government are trying to use to establish the case that Labour let the country down on child care. The reality and experience of households and families up and down the country is that Labour has a proud record of supporting families with children to get into work and with the costs associated with child care, and of ensuring there are enough child care places—certainly not the reduction of 35,000 places that we have seen since the Government took office.

[Charlie Elphicke]

rose—

[Catherine McKinnell]

Does the hon. Gentleman wish to come back and dispute again what the Professional Association for Childcare and Early Years says?

[Charlie Elphicke]

For clarity, I did not speak from some handout. I have been concerned about this issue for a long time, and I garnered research from the House of Commons Library which sets out the official statistics on numbers of childminders. Those numbers were massively reduced under the previous Government, which caused a lot of difficulties for families that I represent in Dover and Deal who are hard pressed and find it hard to afford more expensive child care options.

[Catherine McKinnell]

Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will look again at his House of Commons Library note and explain in his contribution why we have seen 3,000 fewer childminder places since the Government took office. Overall, there is a worrying trend of reducing child care places and rising child care prices, and he will understand that basic economics mean that households up and down the country are struggling to deal with the cost of child care. Many households—particularly women—are making the choice to stay at home because it is simply unaffordable to go out to work.

The Minister spoke passionately about the increasing number of women in work, but she will acknowledge that there is a lot more work to do on that and we still fall behind on maternal employment in OECD comparisons. We need to make progress on that so that parents who want to work can do so and so that child care is affordable.

[Sarah Newton]

There is no complacency whatsoever on the Government Benches about helping those hard-working families who are struggling with the costs of child care. The hon. Lady asked where I got my numbers from. I have just looked, and the Department for Education website’s annual survey of child care and early years providers clearly shows that the number of child care settings has increased and that prices are coming down, although there is still more work to be done. This is not the first time the Labour party has got the numbers wrong so I am not surprised, but she should have the good grace to acknowledge when she is wrong.

[Catherine McKinnell]

I thank the hon. Lady for her clarification, but we know that over the course of this Parliament we have seen a reduction in the number of child care places and an increase in the price of child care. Part-time nursery prices have risen five times faster than pay, and in the past four years alone in my region in the north-east prices have risen by a staggering 50% for households that are already struggling to make ends meet. The average bill for a part-time nursery place of 25 hours a week has gone up to £107, and the average weekly cost of a full-time place has risen to £200 or more. It is hardly surprising that the Family and Childcare Trust has calculated that families are paying more on average for part-time child care than they spend on their mortgage, with some handing over a staggering £7,500 a year more for child care for two children—around 4.7% more than the average mortgage bill.

[Hywel Williams]

What does the hon. Lady make of the argument put forward by the Institute for Public Policy Research that a similar scheme introduced in Australia led to the doubling of child care costs in 10 years, and that the basic flaw of the scheme is that it is regressive?

[Catherine McKinnell]

The hon. Gentleman raises a very important point. We need reassurance from the Government that they have considered the data from experiences in other parts of the globe. Examples show that dealing only with the demand side, supporting parents with child care costs, simply increases the price of child care for families rather than bringing it down. Ultimately, that costs parents and the Government more, because they end up forking out more for a smaller number of child care places.

There seems to be a huge debate about the figures, but official figures show 35,000 fewer child care places across the country. In my region of the north-east alone, we have lost more than 5,000 places. Even the coalition’s flagship offer for two-year-olds, which is due to be extended in October, has floundered, with the child care Minister, the hon. Member for South West Norfolk (Elizabeth Truss), admitting last November that 38,000 of the 20% most disadvantaged two-year-olds—38,000 out of 130,000—did not have the places to which they were entitled. In May 2014, she updated the House on progress, with 10% of the most disadvantaged two-year-olds still without places. Perhaps most worrying of all is that there are 536 fewer Sure Start children’s centres than there were in 2010—an average loss of three a week. That is the figure we have, but the Minister removed the online database last autumn. Perhaps she will comment on this. I would have thought that, given her professed interest in supporting families and dealing with these issues, there would be a desire to continue to monitor the number of child care and Sure Start places available. It is alarming that we can no longer keep track of the figures on the Government website.

In addition to all that, parents have seen the Conservative Government give a £3 billion tax cut to the top 1% of earners, more than three quarters of whom are men. At the same time, parents have seen cuts of £15 billion. Support to families to balance their work and family life, such as tax credits, child benefit, maternity grant allowances and statutory maternity pay, has been reduced. The reductions to tax credits alone have meant that some families have lost up to £1,560 a year, while the House of Commons Library estimates that families with newborn children could be up to £1,725 worse off over the initial two years.

New analysis of the households below average income statistics published earlier this month shows that under this Government it is families with children who have seen the biggest falls in their income, relative to those without children. Since 2009-10, a couple with two children aged five and 14 are on average £2,132 a year worse off in real terms. In contrast, a couple with no children are £1,404 a year worse off. A single person with two children aged five and 14 is on average £1,664 worse off, compared with a single person with no children, who is £936 a year worse off. We know that everybody is worse off, but families with children in particular are bearing the brunt. These figures only reflect tax and benefit changes, and the impact of wages falling relative to prices has left working people on average £600 a year worse off since 2010.

Even more worrying is that new research published last week by the Resolution Foundation suggests that the official statistics may well have underestimated the fall in living standards, because they take no account of the wages of the self-employed. The fall in wages could be between 20% and 30% greater than originally thought. As we know, this could prove particularly relevant to women’s experiences, because according to the Office for National Statistics, women have made up more than half of the growth in the number of self-employed since 2008.

We must not forget that the true impact of this coalition Government’s failure is felt not just by parents, but by their children. The latest HBAI figures show that the progress Labour made in lifting more than 1 million children out of poverty has ground to a halt. Equally worrying, the number of children living in what is deemed to be material deprivation is on the rise, with 300,000 more children living in families that cannot afford to keep their house warm, 400,000 more children living in families that cannot afford to make savings of £10 a month, and half a million or more families unable to afford to replace broken electrical goods. Worst of all, a forecast by the Institute for Fiscal Studies indicates that while Ministers and, clearly, their Back Benchers squabble over how to adequately define child poverty, which seems to be a distraction from their failure to deal with it, almost 1 million more children will be living in poverty in 2020.

[Charlie Elphicke]

The hon. Lady challenged me on my figures. In a House of Commons Library note, taken from the Department for Education and Skills statistical volume, there were 365,000 childminder places in 1997, but by 2010 that number had fallen to 280,000. Does she recognise that that is a really poor record on child care with childminders?

[Catherine McKinnell]

The hon. Gentleman seems to have gone off the subject of child poverty, which is what we were dealing with. Going back to childminders, there was some movement in respect of the database of those registered when the Ofsted registration system came into place. If he is suggesting that he does not support Ofsted registration, I would be interested to hear more of his views.

[Ms Ritchie]

My hon. Friend talks compellingly about properly funded child care and the growing levels of child poverty, and she is characterising the position well. In that regard and in view of the volatility in the labour market, the slight economic upturn and the number of temporary or freelance-type workers, could she explain how those people will be impacted by the Bill’s provisions? Will they find themselves in a more difficult position?

[Catherine McKinnell]

I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention, which brings us back to the issue of child poverty and the importance of child care in supporting families and particularly children in getting out of that situation. She raises an important point, and I shall be coming on to ask some questions about the Bill’s implementation in that regard. Contrary to the impression given by the Minister, there is still a lack of clarity about who will and will not benefit from the changes. I shall reflect only momentarily, Madam Deputy Speaker, on the wider point that my hon. Friend raises. Our very flexible labour market can make it difficult for many parents to manage their child care arrangements. We know that many women, for example, are subject to zero-hours contracts, which can make it very difficult to plan for child care and the costs and availability of child care, when they might not know what hours they will be working from one week to the next. I hope that the Minister will take all those issues into account, particularly in respect of supporting families, which could be dependent on the interaction between the implementation of this policy and universal credit.

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

The hon. Lady mentioned universal credit. Earlier, she was saying how difficult it was to plan for child care. Government Members were surprised that the Leader of the Opposition did not condemn last week’s strikes, because those are exactly the kind of issues that are a nightmare for parents.

[Catherine McKinnell]

I think that the hon. Lady is straying somewhat from the subject of the debate, but I also think that a number of the workers who were involved in Thursday’s strikes were among the very lowest paid, who we know need this child care support and who are struggling to make ends meet. That was one of the motivating factors in the action that they took last week. I therefore do not think that the hon. Lady’s point was entirely irrelevant, but let me now return to the issue that is under discussion, which is child poverty.

There is concern about the fact that much of the progress that has been made has been either halted or, even worse, reversed by the Government’s policies over the last four to five years. The Government are absolutely on track to miss spectacularly their statutory obligations in terms of eradicating child poverty. As their own child poverty adviser Alan Milburn said recently,

“The Government’s approach falls far short of what is needed to reduce, let alone end, child poverty in our country.”

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Mrs Eleanor Laing)]

Order. I must draw something to the hon. Lady’s attention. Child poverty may be ancillary to the Bill that we are discussing, but she said that the matter before us was child poverty, and it is not; the matter before us is the Bill. However, I am sure that the hon. Lady is illustrating her remarks by referring to child poverty, and that she will soon return to the subject of the Bill.

[Catherine McKinnell]

Indeed, the next sub-heading in my speech is “The Bill”, so thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. My point was that child poverty was the issue—the issue in front of us—with which I was dealing before I took a number of interventions. That issue is very pertinent, because we know that the provision of affordable child care is one of the key measures that will help children to be lifted out of poverty. We know that enabling parents to go to work and to be in stable, secure employment is the primary way of enabling them to bring their families out of poverty.

Let me reiterate—in the context of today’s debate and the Bill—that we support any Government action that will help families who are struggling with the child care crunch. However, as we know, this additional support does not do nearly enough to make up some of the ground that has been lost over the past four years. For a number of reasons, there is doubt about how effective it will be even when it arrives, in about a year’s time, and about how much better off families will be. The bottom line is this: the Bill confirms that there will be no help for parents who are facing a child care crunch until after the next election, which means that there will be virtually no help with child care for an entire Parliament under the Conservatives and the Liberal Democrats.

[Ben Gummer (Ipswich) (Con)]

I am glad that the hon. Lady has now returned to the issue that is before the House. She has talked about lost ground. In every single year of the previous 13-year Labour Government, child care costs went up. Last year, for the first time, they went down. Where was the lost ground in those two Parliaments?

[Catherine McKinnell]

Of course child care costs will rise with inflation, but we have seen a spiralling increase. Child care costs have risen much faster than wages, and the increase has been much faster than previous increases in terms of the natural economic cycle. When I talk about lost ground, I am talking about the support that is available to families across the board, which we know has been reduced on a range of fronts—not to mention the reduction in the working tax credits and child care tax credits that are available to working parents. I think that, in introducing the Bill, the Government have recognised that they have a problem, namely that there is not enough support out there for working families. We need to ensure that this Government support, although welcome, goes further. We need to ensure that it goes far enough, and is implemented properly. That is the basis of the questions that I now wish to put to the Minister.

[Bridget Phillipson]

Is it not right that before 1997 child care was simply not regarded as an issue worthy of debate in the way that it is now? The action that the Labour Government took over 13 years brought this issue to the fore for the very first time. Previously people who raised this as a matter for Government to deal with were simply laughed at. For the first time, the Labour Government brought this issue to the fore and regarded it as a matter for Government action, not just for families to deal with on their own.

[Catherine McKinnell]

My hon. Friend makes a powerful and important point, and I think we should celebrate on a cross-party basis the fact that we now have consensus that the Government need to take on board this issue and that addressing it can improve the life chances of families, in particular children. That is a huge credit to the last Labour Government who pushed this issue forward and raised it up in terms of political acceptance and cross-party agreement and as an issue that Government cannot simply turn their back on.

None the less we have seen soaring costs, falling numbers of places and cuts in tax credits for thousands of families and, as a result, in 2015 families will be worse off than they were in 2010. Even when the help arrives, it is unclear who exactly will benefit from this scheme, and even then it is unclear how much better off some people will be and many might legitimately ask whether they will actually be better off. In the Government’s original consultation last August, they estimated that 2.5 million working families would be eligible for support under this scheme, but in their revised consultation, set out in the subsequent consultation response in March, that number was reduced to 1.9 million families, and therefore around 2.6 million children. However, the Government estimate that only two thirds of those 1.9 million working families—so, about 1.25 million—will have qualifying child care costs. As far as I can tell, however, Ministers have never properly explained what that crucial difference is, because clauses 1 and 2 of the Bill define qualifying child care based on two criteria—first, whether the child care is provided by a registered and accredited provider, and, secondly, where one of the main reasons for the child care is to enable parents to go to work—but that does not explain why 1.9 million families are eligible, yet only 1.25 million such families have eligible child care costs. In fact, as far as I can tell, the Bill does not specifically refer to qualifying child care costs anywhere. I see the Minister shaking her head and I am sure she would like to clarify this point.

[Nicky Morgan]

First, I said in my speech that qualifying child care costs would be defined in the regulations that have been published today and that, no doubt, we will be discussing in Committee. In relation to the other two points the hon. Lady raised, first I am sure she welcomes the fact that, as part of the announcements in March, we said tax-free child care must be rolled out much more quickly, which partly accounts for the change from 2.5 million to 1.9 million, as we are much better able to estimate because we are rolling it out over a period of 12 months. Secondly, we must appreciate that some families will want child care but it will not be for the purposes of going to work and therefore the taxpayer will not be paying for it. There is also the element of child care having to be Ofsted registered, and, again, many families will decide that they do not want to access formal child care which is Ofsted-registered as they instead have other child care arrangements. Again, that is something the taxpayer is not going to cover at this stage.

[Catherine McKinnell]

I thank the Minister for that clarification, but I am surprised she thinks it is acceptable that on the day we are debating this Bill on Second Reading we should be able to debate these regulations that have only been published today. I am also very surprised by the comments she makes about the timetable. The Government have obviously had to re-consult on this issue so they are far behind their original timetable anyway, so I am not—

[Nicky Morgan]

Will the hon. Lady give way?

[Catherine McKinnell]

In a moment I will. First, I will finish what I am saying, which is that this is far too little, too late, and no child care support is available from this Government for this entire Parliament, but I would be happy for the Minister to correct me on that.

[Nicky Morgan]

The regulations were published today for this Second Reading debate, earlier than might otherwise have been the case, because I wanted the House to be informed. Moreover, the consultation that we have launched in relation to the delivery providers in no way affects the Bill’s timetable. I would not want the hon. Lady to let the House think that the timetable is affected. It certainly is not. We intend that the scheme will be launched and ready for families to access from autumn 2015, as we have always said.

[Catherine McKinnell]

I was referring to the Government’s original timetable that they are already behind on, but I appreciate that it is intended this offer will be implemented in autumn 2015, as she says. We hope that that will be the case. However I do have a number of questions about the implementation. Unfortunately, Ministers have repeatedly refused to set out the specifics of who will be better off and by how much, or whether people will be better off as a result of these measures. I have tabled a series of written parliamentary questions to try to gain clarity on those points, but disappointingly, although not surprisingly, the answers from the Financial Secretary have not been helpful in the slightest. In many cases, the right hon. Lady has simply failed to answer the questions. It would appear from her responses that the Department is simply not aware of what proportion of families paying for child care will benefit from the Bill, how it will benefit different income groups proportionally, and what the average top-up will be per child once the scheme is up and running. It is hard to believe that the Treasury is not in possession of such data. Surely it is fundamental to understanding what the Bill’s impact might be on the Exchequer, and on children and families.

The only indication that we have about how the Bill will impact on different income groups is from work undertaken by the Resolution Foundation, which suggests that the scheme could be skewed towards higher earnings, which might go some way to explain why the Minister has been so unforthcoming with responses to the various questions put.

[Mark Durkan (Foyle) (SDLP)]

On that very point, has my hon. Friend noted that the Family and Childcare Trust has made it clear that the 1.25 million families that will benefit from this, are only about half or slightly over half of those who are paying for child care costs, and 80% of those who will benefit under this measure are in the top 40% of the income distribution?

[Catherine McKinnell]

My hon. Friend raises an important point and puts forward compelling evidence as to why we need to question the details on this. [Interruption.] The Minister says that it is not true, but if it is not true, why is she not forthcoming with the Treasury data on this issue?

As Gavin Kelly, chief executive of the Resolution Foundation, pointed out, the Government’s decision to increase the spending cap is likely to benefit those on the highest incomes, despite the fact that it is low and middle-income families who are struggling the most with the rising costs of child care, for whom it is acting as a barrier to taking on more work. He said:

“About 80 per cent of the gains from this will flow upwards to those in the top half of the income distribution.”

Throughout the Bill’s passage in the House, we will continue to press for some clear, transparent information from Ministers so that parents can be clear about what they can and cannot expect to receive in support. At the moment, the Bill is completely devoid of any of this information.

None the less, despite a lack of answers from the Minister, there is a curious line in the Bill’s impact assessment, which states that, of those families that the Government say will gain as a result of the new scheme,

“the average additional support they will receive is £600 per year”—

£600 per year on average. That stands in complete contrast to the claims of Ministers who have implied that working parents are all in for a £2,000 child care subsidy. Indeed, the Financial Secretary’s own website, summarising her week of activities when she announced this revised child care scheme in March this year, suggested this was the case. She said:

“The new Tax-Free Childcare scheme which I am guiding through Parliament will provide 20 per cent support on childcare costs up to £10,000 per year for each child via a new simple online system. This will mean an average saving of £2,000 a year per child.”

I hope that she will set the record straight on that point, because her Department’s own impact assessment suggests a very different reality.

I would also like to take this opportunity to probe the Minister on the Government’s plans to support 85% of child care costs for all universal credit claimants. Under the Government’s original plans, only those universal credit claimants who paid income tax—the highest earning claimants—would be eligible for 85% of support. Everybody else would be covered for only 70% of costs. We welcomed these changes as they signified a reversal of the Government’s decision to cut the child care element of working tax credit from 80% to 70% in 2011, a move that we opposed because we recognised that it simply served to hit those parents who needed the support the most. But it would seem that this could be yet another example of the coalition Government giving with one hand and taking away with the other.

As Alan Milburn, chairman of the Government’s Social Mobility and Child Poverty Commission, has made absolutely clear, low-income families could still lose out despite the increase in support for those most in need. He told The Independent on Sunday:

“The Government has taken half a step forward. The announcement that 85 per cent of childcare costs will be met under universal credit from 2016 will help work pay for low-income families. This is very welcome. The sting in the tail is that this £200m expansion in childcare support will come from within the universal credit programme. This risks robbing Peter to pay Paul.”

The Minister did not provide any clarity when my hon. Friend the Member for Worsley and Eccles South (Barbara Keeley) probed earlier in relation to this, but there needs to be some upfront response. How exactly do the Government intend to pay for this increase in support?

There is another key concern. We now know that the universal credit programme is in complete disarray under the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, and the Treasury is refusing to sign off on the programme’s business case, and there are concerns that low-income parents may now be waiting until 2017 at the earliest to receive this welcome additional support. Again, I have tabled a number of written parliamentary questions to ascertain whether this will be the case, and, again, disappointingly but perhaps not surprisingly, the Minister has failed to answer any of these questions. I put it to the Minister today: when can the 4 million low-income families who will be eligible for universal credit expect to receive support to cover 85% of their child care costs? [Interruption.] The Minister says she has said it, so will she give a cast-iron guarantee today that they will be in receipt of these payments by 2016? Will she confirm that at the Dispatch Box? No.

[Mark Durkan]

Does my hon. Friend recognise that whereas the new scheme seems to offer up to £2,000 per child, with no limit on the number of children, child care support under universal credit is capped, so anyone with more than two children is effectively losing out when compared with those who benefit from the new scheme? Would child care accounts not be a fairer way in universal credit as in this scheme?

[Catherine McKinnell]

rose—

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Mrs Eleanor Laing)]

Order. Before the hon. Lady replies to the intervention, I simply draw it to her notice that she has now spoken for 44 minutes, which is more than twice as long as the Minister. I am not stopping the hon. Lady speaking because I appreciate that she is making some very good points and putting questions that have to be put. But before she considers taking other interventions, she might consider that other Members are waiting to speak.

[Catherine McKinnell]

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I am grateful for your guidance.

The final point I want to make concerns the delivery of this scheme. We are now some 14 to 16 months away from when the scheme should be up and running, according to the Government’s revised timetable, yet the Government still have not made a decision—at least publicly—about who will deliver the child care accounts through which parents will access Government top-ups and pay for child care. They originally announced in their consultation response that National Savings & Investments would be their delivery partner, but after ditching that decision and the preceding consultation process, they have backtracked and reopened the consultation process.

Will the Minister tell us why the Government commissioned a £38,000 cost-benefit analysis report by Economic Insight, which recommended an open, competitive market model for delivering child care accounts, and then simply ignored the report’s recommendations and chose an in-house provider, NS&I, instead? Will she clarify who will be delivering the child care accounts under this in-house option, as it is my understanding that the former Economic Secretary to the Treasury, now Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport, awarded a seven-year outsourcing contract to Atos in May 2013 to deliver all customer-facing and back-office services to about 25 million NS&I customers? If the Government continue with the previous plan to have NS&I deliver child care accounts, will the Minister clarify whether it will in fact be Atos delivering them? If that decision is taken, does the Minister plan to renegotiate, or at least revisit, NS&I’s contract with Atos to ascertain whether the company is up to delivering and maintaining accounts to potentially 2 million parents, considering that this would be significantly different from NS&I’s current activities?

[Hywel Williams]

Does the hon. Lady share my concern that National Savings & Investments was only recently held to be in breach of its responsibilities to provide services in Welsh and had to change its services very quickly to conform to its legal requirements? Does that dent her confidence that NS&I might not be able to deliver services to everyone in Wales?

[Catherine McKinnell]

The Government need to reassure us over NS&I’s ability to provide this contract and to tell us whether services will be provided by Atos, especially as Atos’s delivery of universal credit and personal independence payments has been such a shambles. With just a year to go, it is important that Ministers get a grip and make some decisions. As with universal credit, any further delays in implementation will only hurt hard-pressed families who are already struggling with the cost of child care bills.

Let me turn briefly to our proposals for investing in child care which, on top of what the Government are providing today, would deliver a real difference to hard-pressed families who are struggling with the child care crunch. We have said that we will build on previous efforts and extend free child care for three and four-year-olds from 15 to 25 hours a week for working parents. We will give parents peace of mind by setting down in law a guarantee that they can access wrap-around child care—from 8 am to 6 pm— through their local school, if and when they want it.

As with the 15-hour early years entitlement, introduced under the previous Labour Government, the new 25-hour offer would be for 38 weeks of the year, which would mean more than £1,500 of extra support per child per year. It would not demand that working parents spend more and more of their own money on child care in order to receive some cash back from the Government, as this Bill will demand of them. Regardless of what working parents of three and four-years-olds choose to spend on child care, they will be entitled to 25 hours a week for 38 weeks of the year.

We know that having school-age children can be a logistical nightmare for many parents, and that too many of them find it increasingly difficult to find after-school and before-school child care. According to a Department for Education survey last year, 62% of parents of school-age children said that they needed some form of before-and-after school care or holiday care to combine family and work, but of these, nearly three out of 10 of them were unable to find it. That is why Labour will introduce a primary child care guarantee to benefit parents of primary age children, because that is when families most require child care support.

[Charlie Elphicke]

rose—

[Catherine McKinnell]

I will not give way, as I must make progress.

In conclusion, while we welcome any extra investment in child care, the Bill does not make up for how much more families are paying for child care under this Tory-led Government, and it confirms that no help will arrive for parents facing a child care crunch for at least another 14 months. Families have already seen their child care costs rise five times faster than pay. Many already spend more on their child care than on their mortgage. Parents have seen the number of child care places fall by the thousands, and, despite the Prime Minister’s promises to the contrary, too many communities have seen their local Sure Start children’s centres close.

Most stay-at-home mums, as well as working parents, have already said that child care costs are the biggest barriers to their either going back to work or increasing their hours. Working parents and families need help now, not in 14 months’ time. But equally importantly, Ministers need to come clean over who will benefit from this scheme and by how much, so that parents can make an informed decision about which form of support will be most appropriate for them.

We will support the Bill’s Second Reading as we welcome the additional support for families because we know how much they are struggling, but we will scrutinise every detail to get the answers to the questions that we put today, as there are many areas in which the Government are not being up front. Critically, this Bill falls far short of what is needed to make up for the last four years of spiralling costs, falling child care places and cuts to vital support for families. Parents deserve better than that, which is why the next Labour Government will extend free child care for all three and four-year-olds as well as introducing a primary child care guarantee to give parents peace of mind.

18:06

[Priti Patel (Witham) (Con)]

May I say what a pleasure it is to speak in support of this Bill, which I welcome for many reasons, but predominantly for the long overdue support it provides to hard-working parents up and down the country. It shows parents that the Government are on their side as they return to work, fulfil their career aspirations, provide better futures for their families and their children and encounter new opportunities. It is incumbent on the Government to play a positive role in that regard.

I am a parent; my son is five years old. Like so many Members from all parts of the House, I understand the challenges of child care and work-life balance. I also understand that the costs of child care are far too high—to be fair, that was true under the previous Government as well. It is about time that we all faced up to that. Rather than throwing political brickbats across the House, we must start putting across a positive message about supporting hard-working parents and facilitating affordable child care so that everyone benefits, including children. Rather than being partisan and party political, we should realise that this is about children and ensuring that their futures are secure and that parents have access to good-quality, affordable child care. Parents need to feel comfortable that they are putting their children in the right environment—one in which their children will flourish, feel safe and be stimulated.

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

My hon. Friend is making a powerful point about the need for flexibility. Does she agree that for parents with disabled children, the need to extend that provision through to late teens is very important? The provision to extend the scheme up to 17 is particularly relevant for those families.

[Priti Patel]

I welcome my hon. Friend’s intervention. He makes a powerful point. When we consider child care and child care payments, it is important to understand that this one size does not fit all—we all have different child care needs. All our children are different; every family is different. The Bill moves us away from the notion that everybody’s situation is similar. We must support families through all sorts of personal circumstances, some of which are challenging and very difficult. We know that both as constituency MPs and as parents.

One of the biggest challenges and choices that parents face is how to raise their children, so the Bill is not only timely but politically significant—we have not had such a measure before. We live in a society in which the pressures on parents are absolutely enormous, whether because of employment, changing jobs, the labour market, social mobility or the fact that we live in an international and global world. Many companies have different expectations of their employees, but employees are parents, too.

[Sarah Newton]

Does my hon. Friend agree that caring for older relatives is another huge pressure on families? It is so important that the benefits of this Bill will be available to those on carer’s allowance. So many people fall out of work because it is too difficult to work while managing caring responsibilities.

[Priti Patel]

My hon. Friend makes a powerful point, which relates to my earlier comments on everybody’s circumstances being different and the flexibilities outlined in the Bill. The ability to reach out to those with different circumstances and backgrounds is paramount. The Bill demonstrates a depth of understanding of the challenges facing families and households. When both parents work, they find it difficult to decide between the costs of child care, which can be in excess of £10,000 a year, and spending time raising children themselves.

We should remember that child care costs vary across the country and that no generic or standardised level or rate exists. Costs are naturally high in London, the south-east and the east. Many working households spend a lot of their income on child care, partly because people do not necessarily live in the conventional family set-ups in which grandparents might be around the corner and able to offer support. I must be perfectly honest that I rely on such a situation. I tell everybody that I am blessed and that I can do this job only because I have outstanding family support to look after my son.

Child care decisions are often made on cost grounds and the Bill goes a long way to reflect that. Over the past decade, the average hourly cost of child care has increased by more than 67%, which is almost two and half times higher than the CPI rate over the same period. The pay of parents in England will vary depending on what they do. In London, pay levels are slightly higher than elsewhere, but many parents pay hundreds of pounds a week to some child care providers, which means that their families are under pressure and more often than not—we have not discussed this—that pressure ends up on working mothers. They are the ones who sacrifice their careers or put them on hold because child care costs can be so high that they have to decide whether going out to work or staying at home to look after their children is more financially expedient. I have much sympathy with those mothers. Many of my constituents with successful professional careers that they want to continue inform me of the pressures and challenges that they face, including the high costs of child care and commuting costs. Essex is not that far from central London, but most of my constituents and others across the county work in London. They are on a treadmill day in, day out. They face pressures and costs and feel as if they have no choice. If people feel that they have to stay at home, it becomes harder for them to re-enter the work force, which is another reason the Bill is so important. It helps mothers in particular to meet their aspirations, which we should all welcome and support.

The Government deserve credit for recognising the pressures, in addition to soaring child care costs, that families and mothers face and the impact of those pressures on families. As with so many other issues, the Labour party ignored that when it was in government. We have heard lots of rhetoric today, but the reality is that it is difficult, a challenge and a balance. It is easy for the Opposition to talk about the Government today, but we have to remember that the economic policies of the past—uncontrolled public spending—hampered the economy instead of helping families. When families needed help, they were hurt. We know about the negative impact that the downturn and its economic legacy has had on households, so now is the right time to focus on support for hard-working families. The Bill is about support for child care costs, but we want to put an end to the shameful past and what parents had to deal with, and to look forward.

As we heard from the Financial Secretary to the Treasury, the Government have gone a long way to bring in positive and proactive measures to help hard-working households: cutting income tax bills, abolishing Labour’s jobs tax; reducing fuel duty; and supporting private business. That applies particularly to my constituency, where SMEs employ 85% of my constituents. We need the private sector and SMEs to be successful to continue to create more jobs. A million new jobs have been created since 2010. The measures are positive and bring a new dynamic to the employment market. At the same time, low earners have been given support with child care costs, including free child care places for some 40% of two-year-olds. Those are the proactive measures that make a difference to middle and low-income families.

As a Conservative, I instinctively believe that the Government should not only support families, but also help parents to make choices about working arrangements, which is why the Bill is so positive and proactive. Families want to be empowered by Governments to make the right choices for themselves. The Bill helps families to make such choices by alleviating some of the financial pressures caused by child care costs. This package of support will help women who want to continue to work to do so. We are already seeing record numbers of women in work and the Bill will help those who have established a career—or those who are just starting out after having taken time off to bring up their children—to continue to develop and to advance in their profession.

The £2,000 a year of support for families is a substantial amount for the Chancellor to find and should be put in the right context. It has been made possible only because of the controls that have been placed on spending and the reductions in the deficit, which the Labour party has opposed. This Government is on the side of hard-working families. The Bill will benefit not only my constituents but working families across the country through sensible and practical measures. I welcome it as a positive way of supporting families and working women.

18:17

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

I had assumed that my hon. Friend the Member for Norwich North (Chloe Smith) would speak ahead of me, but it is a great pleasure to be called today. You are right to looked puzzled, Madam Deputy Speaker. Why is there nobody on the Opposition Benches? We all know that the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne North (Catherine McKinnell) spoke for 52 minutes to mask the fact that no one else on the Opposition Benches would be speaking. That contrasts with 19 and 20 November 2013, when we debated child care in the Chamber. I am slightly disappointed, because I had a good exchange with the hon. Member for Houghton and Sunderland South (Bridget Phillipson) and I am sure that we could have had a similar debate about statistics and measures. Nevertheless, it is great news that we are finally getting to the Childcare Payments Bill and I am pleased to support it today.

One of the big things about the Bill is that it puts matters into the hands of parents. Instead of having to rely on employers setting up schemes, which I believe only 5% of employers actually set up, we will have a system that is effectively direct. Families with two working parents who earn at least £50 a week will benefit in one way or another from Government help towards child care, recognising that we will not double-subsidise those who receive tax credits or universal credit.

On that note, it is my understanding that we will provide an extra £200 million to support those families claiming universal credit, so instead of having 70% of their child care costs paid, as they do today, they will receive 85%. I am sure that will be very welcome to all working families.

Of course, the very richest in our society—those who earn more than £150,000—will not benefit, but I am sure that they will recognise that we must target a welfare system at the broadest number of people.

[Hywel Williams]

Is the hon. Lady confident that when parents in deprived and rural areas are enabled as proposed, the market will deliver the places?

[Dr Coffey]

I do not pretend to know much about Welsh schools, although my cousin goes to school in Wales and I have many relatives there. I am not necessarily aware of the provision that exists, but I know that this Government are keen to work with schools in England to increase the number of schools choosing to make provision for young children. I do not know what the Welsh Assembly Government are considering, but the Under-Secretary of State for Education, my hon. Friend the Member for South West Norfolk (Elizabeth Truss), has consistently tried to introduce reforms that will make child care provision an attractive career. We are right to press ahead with some of the childminder agencies we are introducing, not through this Bill but separately, to remove some of the administrative burdens that might be deterring people from entering that career. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will encourage such agencies to set up in his area of Arfon, bringing new employment opportunities for both men and women and making provision for working parents.

It is great news that under this Government more women are working than ever before, yet we would like to see even more women—and even more parents—going into work. This scheme is part of our long-term economic plan. We recognise that the cost of our child care is the second highest in the OECD as a percentage of family income; only Switzerland’s is higher. I think that it is fair to say that under Labour the number of childminders decreased significantly and costs went up. Before the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne North springs to her feet—if she is not following the latest reshuffle news on Twitter—let me say that I recognise that that trend has continued, but it is not going on at the same level. [Interruption.] I thank the hon. Member for Manchester Central (Lucy Powell) for referring to my haircut. It was nothing to do with the events that seem to be unfolding on Twitter. I merely got a phone call from my own mother complaining that my hair was too long and, as we know, in these situations mothers know best. I am not a mother, so I have to stick with what my mother tells me.

Let me give a few of the reasons why these things matter. A couple of years ago, the Conservative Women’s Forum undertook an inquiry, in which I think you might have participated, Madam Deputy Speaker, into the executive pipeline of talent. It focused not only on the number of women on boards, but on how we encourage women to get up the executive ladder and, more importantly, on what women can do for themselves, what Government can do and what companies can do. The issue of child care was a running theme throughout the inquiry, particularly for those in junior management. Once people are at a certain level, they probably receive a salary that means they do not have to think about the issue; they can pay for a nanny and even though it might be painful, the costs are not quite so prohibitive. We consistently received evidence that the voucher system was inadequate. It did not cover enough of the cost, it was very limited or, as my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Neil Parish) mentioned earlier, it did not help people such as the self-employed. I am pleased that the Bill extends the provision to almost anyone in work and it is right that we should do that.

It is also fair to say that no one magic bullet emerged as a result of the inquiry to solve some of the challenges in the pipeline of talent or in how we tackle child care, but nevertheless the discussions before the Budget announcements on how to help with tax relief were exactly the issues being brought up by senior executives. I was glad that the subsequent announcement was made in Budget 2013.

The proposals in Budget 2013 were limited to £6,000 of child care costs, which would have meant a maximum benefit of £1,200. I was pleased that after the consultation, to which significant contributions were made, we were able to change the age limit to 12 and, as my hon. Friend the Member for South Swindon (Mr Buckland) has pointed out, to change the age limit for children with disabilities. We also increased the limit to £10,000, with a maximum of £2,000 support. That was the right thing to do, because it recognised the costs of child care. Nevertheless, it is important that we have retained the choice for parents who are in employer-supported child care schemes to stay in that system while recognising that we will close it to new entrants, so to speak. I support that because, understandably, companies have gone to some expense to set up these schemes and they are popular. We should not withdraw one thing simply for the sake of simplicity for the Government.

The hon. Lady from Northern Ireland—I have forgotten her constituency—

[Mark Durkan]

South Down.

[Dr Coffey]

Thank you. The hon. Member for South Down (Ms Ritchie) referred to the situation in which one parent was not working and asked why they would not get support with child care costs. As my hon. Friend the Member for Truro and Falmouth (Sarah Newton) has accurately pointed out, the consultation raised those points and we have extended the provision when there is a working person and somebody on carer’s allowance or employment and support allowance. When people are enjoying parental leave after having children, they should not be penalised if they have children in child care. We do not want any unintended consequences.

I am a strong supporter of the traditional family. I am sure that I am not the only person whose mother did not work initially after having me, although she did start to go back to work as a supply teacher. It is fair to say that although the Government have scarce resources, they are offering both parents the choice to get back into the workplace, as opposed to one person having to choose, for perfectly good reasons, not to return to the workplace. I therefore support the gist of what the Government are saying about restricting support to cases in which both parents are working or the other cases that have been alluded to.

I am surprised that there are no Members in the Chamber from the Scottish constituencies, because, of course, this is a United Kingdom measure, although I am delighted that we have had contributions and interventions from Members from Wales and Northern Ireland. Much has been made of the fact that National Savings & Investments will initially be providing the child care account. You may have read in the weekend press, Madam Deputy Speaker, that if the people of Scotland choose to go ahead with separation, NS&I will not be able to provide accounts to people living in Scotland, as they will effectively become foreign nationals. They might wish to consider that as another element of the question. I am sure that if somebody from the Scottish National party were here, they would leap up and say, “We will have an even better scheme and it will cost less than yours.” Nevertheless, I am sure that the good people of Scotland recognise that that is unlikely to be the case. The Minister might want to consider the issue in her regulations for this provision, but let us not prejudge the outcome of the referendum. I strongly believe that the people of Scotland will recognise that staying together is better for us all.

[Hywel Williams]

Shall I indulge in some karaoke and repeat the words that the hon. Lady used herself? I am sure that Scotland will provide a much better scheme when it is independent.

[Dr Coffey]

The hon. Gentleman would say that, and he has been very loyal to his nationalist friends. I recognise that.

On the timing, I am sure that my hon. Friend the Minister agrees that if we could bring in the scheme tomorrow, we would do so. However, we do not want to repeat—[Interruption.] Does the hon. Member for Manchester Central want to intervene? I think she said that we have been in power for four years, and I recognise that we are bringing this into play rather late in our parliamentary term, but she will know some of the challenges of government from her previous experience. Nevertheless, I would rather we got this right than end up with the fiasco we had over tax credits, which were brought in in quite a rush, with all the accompanying problems. The hon. Member for Manchester Central might be slightly bemused by that, but overpayment of tax credits and trying to reconcile figures and help people out with that is one of the biggest issues in my constituency casework. She will, I think, recognise some of the challenges of bringing in a new system.

The Bill rightly provides that the connections between the different agencies will be updated quarterly. We are not going to get into penalties and going back and forth, but provision is made for recovery. It is important that parents recognise that they should anticipate the potential impact if their conditions change. To be frank, I think the biggest change will occur when people move from one salary bracket to another, or decide to stop claiming universal credit and simply to claim this instead. At least the hurdle or cliff edge when people have to change is fairly black and white.

[Mark Durkan]

Would the hon. Lady like to see a strong information and advice offer built into the scheme, so that people who are having to decide how to navigate between universal credit and the scheme will get advice and without-prejudice, better-off calculations?

[Dr Coffey]

My expectation is that that would happen naturally. I do not want to overplay it, but I think it would be a natural consequence when people say, “I’m coming off universal credit to get this.” It will be a straightforward calculation, which should be readily understandable.

[Hywel Williams]

I wish I could share the hon. Lady’s confidence. I remember when the tax credit was brought in warning the Government at the time that it was complicated. It was to be administered by HMRC, which was not good at giving people money instead of taking money off them. Despite the confidence displayed at the time, HMRC included in its letters such sentences as, “Even though we told you your assessment was correct, it was not reasonable for you to believe this.” That is a direct quote from a tax credit letter. I am afraid I do not share her confidence that HMRC or any agency of Government is completely competent to administer this scheme.

[Dr Coffey]

I understand what the hon. Gentleman is saying, based on the experience of tax credits. That is why I think the Bill deals with it rather well: the period of entitlement is three months. As it is split up quite well into quarters, it should be quite straightforward for parents to make that assessment of what is better for them to get support. Of course, I am sure we all share the aspiration of reaching a stage where everybody is earning over a certain threshold and does not need to make those calculations.

I will not repeat everything my hon. Friends have said about the excellent work being done through nurseries for three and four-year-olds. I will simply reiterate my view that the Bill brings the balance back into the hands of parents and recognises that child care is normally needed all year round. Something that will need to be tackled with child care provided through primary schools by extending their playgroup is how to ensure that continues through the school holidays, but instead of trying to devise a perfect scheme that meets the demands of every single scenario, which is rather difficult when dealing with millions of children and parents, the Bill simplifies and gives people, through the child care account, the ability to build up balances and use the money as and when they need it. What is important is that parents will not pay fees for the accounts. I heard what the hon. Member for Arfon (Hywel Williams) said about online access, but there will be assisted approaches available for those who cannot access the internet. Internet access is the general default in our efforts to get people on to digital services.

I have not been able to speak for quite as long as the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne North (Catherine McKinnell), but I am delighted to say that there are other Conservative Members here, and I did not spend 27 minutes talking about stuff that is not connected to the Bill. It gives me great pleasure to support the Bill. Today is an historic day in Parliament, as we embark upon a piece of legislation that will affect many working families. I hope the Bill has the unanimous support of the House.

18:34

[Chloe Smith (Norwich North) (Con)]

Mr Deputy Speaker, I am sure it took you many minutes to work out who the next speaker would be in this balanced debate that demonstrates that it is the Conservatives who are on the side of carers and hard-working families.

Child care is an important issue for the many working families I represent. I have been talking to lots of mums and dads, nurseries and pre-schools in Norwich, and I have already had the privilege of raising in Westminster Hall and this Chamber points they made about quality and affordability of child care. Too many people are prevented from being able to earn to support their family or to fulfil their career ambitions by the high cost of child care. As we all know, even part-time nursery places can cost thousands of pounds a year—indeed, child care costs have now overtaken mortgage interest payments to become the most significant monthly outgoing for many British families.

[Charlie Elphicke]

I was wondering whether my hon. Friend has noticed the complete absence of any Back Benchers on the Labour side of the Chamber? Increasingly it seems that the Conservative party is not only the party of the workers, but the party of child care as well.

[Chloe Smith]

My hon. Friend puts it extremely well, and perhaps makes my next point for me, which is that the previous Government failed to deal with the problem of child care costs, and it is the present Government, in particular the Minister for Women, my right hon. Friend the Member for Loughborough (Nicky Morgan), who are doing so.

The Under-Secretary of State for Education, my hon. Friend the Member for South West Norfolk (Elizabeth Truss), who is responsible for child care, has rightly said in the past that a changing economy means that parents need affordable and available child care more than ever, and a changing world means that children need a rigorous, rounded education more than ever. We have before us an opportunity to do both things at once. The context is the tax and benefit changes that came into being this financial year. The biggest reforms in a generation, they will create more jobs—indeed, they have already done so—and they are getting more people off welfare and into work. Child care follows from that, so let us see it in perspective. It is only by sticking to those kind of economic actions—a long-term economic plan, in fact—that we will build a more resilient economy and a more financially secure future for hard-working people and their families.

The cost of living cannot be seen in isolation. The British people cannot be flannelled with phony figures. There can be no economic or household security without the honesty and courage to control the public finances. Labour’s old way has failed—Labour Members would argue with that, if they were here to do so. More public spending led to more welfare bills and more government jobs that the country could not afford. They propose in this debate to use a levy they have already spent 10 times over. Why can they not afford parents the respect of some honesty? This Government, on the other hand, are backing businesses by cutting their taxes, so they can create jobs; cutting tax for individuals, so that their job pays; and controlling welfare, so that getting a job pays more. Universal credit is of course crucial and will be one of the most important reforms this Government make. By replacing working tax credit, it should help my female constituent who wrote to me last week to say:

“When I did work we were over the threshold for working tax credits by around £300 yet I would have to pay £12,000 in childcare cost to continue working.”

Let us look at some other current figures. I am drawing now on the Mumdex—the helpful piece of work that Asda does every month. The latest report shows a rise in spending power for the eighth consecutive month, leaving families £4 a month better off than last year. The main cause is a slowdown in essential item inflation, particularly food, clothes and mortgage interest payments—another sign of a sounder economy. Petrol costs fell again, which eased the pressure on household finances—indeed, under this Government, fuel duty is now more than 13p a litre lower than it would have been without our action, so that the average family saves £7 every time they fill up the tank.

Such results in family finances can only come about with control of the public finances, which has entailed serious decisions by the Government about what to spend hard-earned taxes on. Voters have serious decisions to make as well, as the Conservatives appreciate. As a previous Conservative election poster said,

“Don’t just hope for a better life. Vote for one.”

I am delighted that the Chancellor has put public money towards the tax-free child care scheme that we are discussing. It stands to ease costs for families even more, and here are five good reasons why I support it. First, it will be bigger and faster than first outlined, opening sooner and benefiting in its first year 1.9 million working families with children under 12. That is good progress already in the work that has to be done to bring the scheme forward. Secondly, it will be simple, flexible and easily accessible online. Thirdly, for the first time self-employed parents and those working for the great majority of employers who do not offer the existing employer-supported child care scheme will be able to take part.

Fourthly, the scheme will also help those working part time and on the minimum wage because of the low minimum earnings threshold of £50 a week. Fifthly, as my hon. Friend the Member for South Swindon (Mr Buckland) said, it offers more help for parents of disabled children by recognising that assistance ought to continue until the child is aged 17, rather than 12. I know from experience in my constituency how welcome that will be.

This all means that all working families where the parents earn at least £50 a week will have access to Government support for child care costs unless one of the parents earns more than £150,000 or receives support from tax credits, universal credit or ESC. All told, this gives families greater stability and more flexibility to make their own choices about their family picture. A male constituent told me:

“I’m now on £10K a year, at 39 years of age. My wife, an amazing mother, has to stay at home to look after two of our children, as we cannot afford the child care or would be worse off if my wife went to work.”

The personal allowance will rise in April next year to £10,500. My constituent then may be one of the 400 people in Norwich North who will be taken out of tax entirely by the actions of this Government. He will certainly be one of the more than 38,000 people in my constituency who will benefit from our tax changes. Universal credit will address the abhorrent benefits trap, which is reflected in the quote that I just gave. My constituent and his wife may also benefit from the scheme before us today. I welcome the targeted provision of taxpayer-funded child care for families on the lowest incomes.

[Mark Durkan]

On universal credit, does the hon. Lady recognise that there is a disparity, in that child care support under universal credit will not be paid through the sort of child care accounts that are available under this scheme; they will be only for costs that are already paid out, unlike under this scheme.

[Chloe Smith]

I do recognise that difference, and I am confident that the Minister will look at that carefully. I wonder whether we might deal with it in Committee, and whether Labour Members will be there to do so, as they are absent from the Chamber today. I recognise the point that the hon. Gentleman makes. I do not have the answer, but I am confident that the Minister is working on it.

The new provision, however it is implemented, will be targeted. It is important to add it to the provision that this Government have extended for families on the lowest incomes, beginning with all three and four-year-olds receiving 15 hours a week of free child care, and going on to target this offer to the 240,000 poorest two-year-olds. If that is how the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne North (Catherine McKinnell) defines doing nothing in our years in power, I cannot wait, and I am quivering in my boots, to see what she will do when she marshals some Back Benchers to help her into government.

Let me turn to a couple of points about the quality of child care that we all wish to see as we put the Bill through. I want more great child care to be available and to offer parents more choice and flexibility. I would also like it to be easier for new providers to enter the market and for good existing providers to expand, with consequent benefits for affordability and quality. The Under-Secretary of State for Education, my hon. Friend the Member for South West Norfolk, has said that we know that other countries, such as France and Germany, have excellent systems for comparable amounts of Government spending, while also paying staff good salaries and keeping parents’ costs affordable. I hope my hon. Friend the Economic Secretary to the Treasury will reassure us that the implementation of the child care payments scheme will be simple and cost-effective, will work with other Government systems such as universal credit, and will give parents the confidence that they need and deserve in affordable, achievable, good quality child care in this country.

18:44

[Charlie Elphicke (Dover) (Con)]

May I strike a blow for working fathers, who are also parents, in a joint working household, which is the norm in this country? Sharing the child care responsibility and engaging in that work-life balance—that juggle—is increasingly the norm. I welcome the Bill. Tax-free child care will help all working parents, including fathers like me, with child care costs so that they can go out to work and provide greater security for their families.

That matters because it is important that we help all hard-working people who go out, work hard and do the right thing. Providing 20% support for child care costs up to £10,000 is important to help to make that happen. It is a key part of our long-term economic plan. I welcome the fact that the hon. Members for Foyle (Mark Durkan), for South Down (Ms Ritchie) and for Arfon (Hywel Williams) were here today, whereas no Labour Back Benchers whatsoever were present. That says that the Conservative party is not just the party of the workers, but the party of child care, and the party that is modern, forward-looking and concerned about the kind of future we can build for this country and the hard-working families who do so much to make this country great.

18:39

[Lucy Powell (Manchester Central) (Lab/Co-op)]

I am pleased to speak in the debate. The contrasting numbers of Members on the Government and Opposition Benches may reflect our relative ambitions in this place, with those on the Government Benches sporting their new haircuts and trying to get the party strapline in at every opportunity, while my hon. Friends are enjoying drinks with the Leader of the Opposition this evening. Although we have made much progress in this place towards being more family-friendly, perhaps a Monday evening late night debate on child care is not the best timing.

As my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle upon Tyne North (Catherine McKinnell) said earlier, we welcome any investment in child care. Families up and down the country are crying out for better access to child care and more affordable child care. For these reasons it is good that Ministers have finally realised, even if it is a little late in the day, the impact that child care affordability has on family lives. We on the Labour Benches believe that high-quality flexible child care is part of the solution to some of the key challenges facing our country. On the economy, our maternal employment rates, particularly for mothers with children aged between one and four, are poor compared with other OECD countries. Child care is a barrier to growing the economy and boosting maternal employment rates. It is unacceptable that in 2014 women still have to choose between looking after their children and having a career.

Over a third of mothers want to work but are unable to do so as a result of high child care costs. Two thirds of mothers would like to work more hours but are unable to do so because taking on more hours would mean higher child care bills. Improving child care will break down barriers for women and help our economy to grow. For families, this is not just about the number of women in work, as some Government Members have said. Child care can help us tackle gender inequality and the motherhood pay penalty. Although the gender pay gap is negligible for young professional women, for mothers the gap is stark.

Mums not only increasingly want to work, but they have to work. As we know, to lift families out of poverty, two incomes are often needed. The killer point for Members who have talked about more women in work under this Government is that figures show that the pay gap between what men earn and what women earn has increased in the past five years for the first time, and that, by contrast, over the 13 years of the Labour Government, the gender pay gap decreased significantly. This is the measure by which we should work out whether policy is effective.

We know that good quality child care is good for society as well. We know that the most disadvantaged children can start school 18 months behind their peers. Good quality child care can close the developmental gap and equip children with the skills and experiences they need to be successful at school. Quality child care can lay the foundations for our country’s future. It can be a key tool in our early intervention armoury and, as my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle upon Tyne North said, in tackling child poverty. Although we welcome any investment in child care, I believe that in many ways the Bill is a missed opportunity and that it will do little to meet those big policy objectives.

Why is our child care system not working? The price paid by parents is high, yet for too many the quality of child care is patchy. The Government came to office believing that they could solve the problem simply by loosening ratios. That policy failed, and it would not have worked in any case. The Government have failed to address the fundamental problem with supply. We have seen a reduction of over 35,000 in early-years places since they took office. Government Members talk about the increase in reception places at school as though that somehow fills the gap, but they fail to recognise that at the same time the birth rate has increased dramatically, and we are now seeing huge pressure on school and early-years places as a result. The two-year-old offer shows that the system is not working, because a third of local authorities do not have enough places to meet the Government’s own offers.

I have had a number of exchanges in recent months with the hon. Member for Dover (Charlie Elphicke) on childminder numbers. We have seen a dramatic fall of 11% in childminder numbers since this Government took office. There are now 6,000 fewer childminders. It is wrong to say that Labour oversaw a big reduction in childminder numbers as a result of changes in regulation, because Ofsted registration meant that many providers fell out of the system. We heard earlier about comments made by Liz Bayram, who backs up that claim. The Government have done little to increase supply for working parents or parents of disabled children, as the hon. Member for South Swindon (Mr Buckland) mentioned. They have watered down the duty on local government to provide sufficient child care places, and they have also axed the duty on Sure Start centres to provide child care.

All that, taken together, has had a chronic impact on prices. That is why we have seen costs rocketing by 30% since 2010. The Family and Childcare Trust has shown that even part-time child care costs now outstrip the cost of the average mortgage. On top of that, Government policy has had a direct impact on the market. The no-notice changes to tax credits, for example, led to many parents immediately withdrawing their children from day care provision, which had an immediate effect on providers.

The Bill does nothing to address those fundamental issues in our child care market and, in some cases, it makes it worse. That is why Anand Shukla, chief executive of the Family and Childcare Trust, has said:

“Our childcare market is not fit for purpose. It is failing to fill gaps in provision, particularly for those parents who most need childcare; it is failing to drive up quality; and it is becoming more unaffordable for parents despite increased government funding.”

[Hywel Williams]

I am intrigued by what the hon. Lady is saying, because the Childcare Act 2006 obliged all Welsh and English local authorities to ensure that sufficient child care for working parents and those undertaking training or education with the intention of returning to work is available. What happened?

[Lucy Powell]

That is exactly part of the problem here: local authorities no longer have many of those duties, and they do not have the staff or resources to ensure that good local child care markets are acting in that way.

Let me turn to some of the specific measures set out in the Bill. The Government have no plan to control prices. This scheme, on its own, will do nothing to reduce costs, and it could even increase them. It poses a greater risk of price inflation, which is not a good or efficient use of public funding. The Institute for Public Policy Research has show that by 2018 parents will be spending more of their disposable income on child care, even with the tax-free scheme in place. Therefore, although we do not oppose the idea of tax relief for child care, we are critical that the Government have no plans to control costs and use the extra funding to lever in greater quality. Policy evidence is moving much more towards supply-side solutions, such as Labour’s proposals to extend free child care places. Indeed, under previous demand-side schemes there has been price inflation. Have Ministers assessed how the scheme will impact on the child care market and what impact it will have on price inflation?

There will be no help until after the election. The Bill does nothing for families struggling with the costs of child care now. Ministers have cut support for families in this Parliament as child care costs have risen and wages have stagnated. When the policy is introduced, the child care subsidy—that is what it is—will not make up for how much more families are having to pay for child care under this Government, or how much they have lost, as my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle upon Tyne North so clearly set out.

For clarification, the offer for 15 hours of free child care was actually a Labour Government policy, and the idea of the two-year-old offer, which many Government Members mentioned—it is a good policy that I agree with—was actually put forward by the Deputy Prime Minister. He implemented it in the face of opposition from his colleague who claims to be the Minister for child care in the Department for Education.

Also, the numbers simply do not add up. The Government’s presentation of the scheme suggests that families are going to receive £2,000 per child. That is untrue, and only 100,000 of the 1.9 million families eligible for the scheme—one in 20—will receive the full amount. The Government’s own impact assessment shows that most families will gain by £600 a year, which is well below the £2,000 per child that Ministers have been promising.

Many of the scheme’s benefits will go to the very highest earners—those earning up to £150,000 a year—rather than middle and lower-income families, who have been hit hardest. Only 100,000 of the richest families will benefit from the increase from £1,200 to £2,000 a year per child, which is around 5% of eligible families. The extra money for universal credit, although welcome, has to be found within the existing budget, so where will Ministers find it, and will they clarify today when families receiving universal credit will get the extra support for child care? The Minister said earlier that it will be in 2016. Is that a cast-iron guarantee to which we can hold the Government?

The complex relationship between the scheme and universal credit could leave many families far more confused about whether they are better off in work or out of work and on the borderline between moving to and from each scheme. Will the Minister tell us today how parents will know whether they are better off on universal credit or under tax-free child care? How will the Government support parents moving in and out of both schemes.

The scheme is also quite bureaucratic, with heavy running costs, and a number of questions remain about that. Further clarification from the Government about some of the IT that will underpin the scheme would be welcome. Serious questions remain about deliverability. The Minister said earlier that the scheme is on time, but according to the Government’s own timetable, published last autumn, they are now six months behind because they have had to re-consult on some of the scheme’s specifics. That is because Ministers failed to include key details in the first consultation. Can parents be assured that the scheme will be introduced on time?

As I have said, the Government have no bigger vision for child care. The Bill alone, although welcome, does nothing to address some of the fundamental problems in our country’s child care system. I suggest that the Government develop a much bigger vision for child care, as we did when we were in government—we had the child care plan in 1998, the 10-year child care strategy in 2004 and then the Childcare Bill in 2006—and as we are doing now.

I also suggest that, in order to address the supply-side issue, the Government consider enhancing the role of local authorities in provision; ensuring that Sure Start centres expand to include child care provision, rather than being closed; taking action to ensure that prices do not simply increase and that there is more supply-side support; recognising that deregulation is simply not the answer, because we cannot pretend that we can solve the problem on the cheap; making improvements in quality; taking action on supply and on quality staffing and teachers; adopting Labour’s plans to extend free child care from 15 to 25 hours a week; and giving parents a guarantee of wrap-around care before and after school.

18:59

[The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (Andrea Leadsom)]

I thank all hon. Members who have spoken in the debate. Given the incredibly valuable contribution that this Bill makes to supporting working families, it is a great shame that no Opposition Back Benchers wanted to celebrate its arrival. It is fairly safe to say that the vast majority of Members who spoke agree that more needs to be done to support families with child care costs. It is also safe to say that the majority recognise not only the impact that an improvement in this area could have on millions of households but the impact it could have on the wider economy. We largely agree that more should be done to help more people, particularly more women, back into work. However, some Members described their concerns about the specifics of the scheme or the way in which it will be implemented, so I will do my best to respond to as many of those concerns as I can.

For most of us, having a baby is the most rewarding and challenging thing we ever do. It is incredibly hard to juggle home, children and a job, but whatever families choose to do, we recognise that they are best placed to make that choice. With three kids of my own, and having worked only part-time when they were small, I know I sometimes went to work for a rest, so I take my hat off to all the heroines, and some heroes, who choose to stay at home. This Government support you and salute you. Through this Bill, we want to provide more support for working families. That is why we are introducing tax-free child care to help families with the costs so that they can go out and work if they choose to or need to. They are the right people to make that decision, and we support them in that choice.

Some hon. Members implied that we may have over-consulted, but given the number of people this change will affect, and to help to ensure that the scheme works as well as possible, we have consulted very widely on its design over the past year and listened to the feedback we have received. We are considering the responses to our most recent consultation, which closed on 27 June, alongside those we received on the first one, and we will publish our response in due course. Whatever that response says, though, we are confident that the Bill has the necessary flexibility to allow for the delivery of child care accounts through the private sector or the public sector, and through a single provider or multiple providers.

The hon. Member for Manchester Central (Lucy Powell) made various points about who will benefit from the scheme. First, to qualify for tax-free child care, parents need earn only a little over £50 a week, so this is a boost to all families, whatever their earnings. Secondly, the overall system of child care support remains firmly focused on those on lower incomes. In just two months’ time, the Government will introduce a system that entitles 40% of two-year-olds from the lowest-income families to 15 hours of free education every week. In the Budget, we announced that all families eligible for universal credit will benefit from additional support, up to 85% of costs. We need to recognise that many families—not just the poorest but those across all income groups—are seriously struggling with the high costs of child care. While of course we want to focus our help on those with the lowest incomes, those in higher earnings brackets also warrant some support.

The Government recognise that child care costs have risen significantly over the past 20 years and are a huge issue for all working families. During the last eight years of the previous Government, child care costs increased by 50%, but they are now beginning to stabilise. Figures from the National Day Nurseries Association show that the average fee increase across all nurseries in the past year was just 1.5%, which is below inflation. Nevertheless, child care costs remain a massive problem for many parents who find that their income is eaten up by them. We need to extend free entitlement. That is why we are also increasing the supply of child care places and, ultimately, why we are introducing this Bill.

Government Members made some very good points. My hon. Friend the Member for Witham (Priti Patel) expressed her support for this much needed Bill. She said that flexibility in child care arrangements is absolutely vital to families, that child care costs are very high, that Labour’s economic legacy has significantly hurt families, and that it is important that we now provide support for those families in dealing with the costs of child care. My hon. Friend the Member for South Swindon (Mr Buckland), who speaks with such passion on this subject, welcomed the Government’s support for families with disabled children, who will benefit from this support up to the age of 17.

My hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk Coastal (Dr Coffey) welcomed the fact that more women are in work than ever before. She said that mothers often know best what is needed for child care; of course, we all recognise that. She talked about how to deal with the pipeline of talent and the barriers to working that women face. She highlighted support for carers and those on parental leave and welcomed the Bill’s offer of much more support to working women, in particular.

My hon. Friend the Member for Norwich North (Chloe Smith) explained that there is no household security without controlling public spending. She said that the measures in this Bill, while providing support for families, also ensure that we do not, as Labour Members suggest, just throw unfunded money at a project that could deliver more child care, but at an unknown cost to the public purse.

The hon. Members for Newcastle upon Tyne North (Catherine McKinnell) and for Manchester Central asked how many families will be better off and by how much. I assure them that well over 1 million families will be better off, by an average of £600 a year. It is important to note that the Government support provided through this Bill will be 20p in the pound up to a maximum of £2,000 per child per year. The amount of benefit depends on how much families are spending on child care.

Labour Members claimed that there are fewer child care places than there were at the time of the election, but that is simply not the case. In fact, as my hon. Friend the Member for Truro and Falmouth (Sarah Newton) pointed out, the latest figures show that there are about 100,000 more child care places than there were in 2009, and that represents a 5% increase. However, the Government are not complacent. We are working further to increase child care supply by providing start-up grants for new child care businesses, making good and outstanding childminders automatically eligible for early education funding, increasing the child care available in schools, introducing new childminder agencies, and creating simpler regulations allowing nurseries to expand more easily.

Labour Members questioned why parents cannot use the new scheme at the same time as tax credits and universal credit. Families in receipt of tax credits already receive more generous support with child care costs, and this is being extended in universal credit, where support towards the costs of child care will be available regardless of the number of hours worked and will provide support of up to 85% of the costs from April 2016.

The hon. Member for Manchester Central asked about parents who work on zero-hours contracts. The contractual position of parents will not determine whether they are eligible for the new scheme. The Government want to support all working families with their child care costs. Parents on zero-hours contracts will be eligible for the new scheme in the same way as anyone else, provided they meet the eligibility criteria, including the rules on qualifying employment. As I said, parents have to expect to earn a little over £50 a week, on average, during a quarter.

The hon. Lady asked about Sure Start. I would have hoped that Labour Members were delighted that 3,000 children’s centres are open and record numbers of parents and children are using them—over 1 million. It is up to local authorities to decide how to organise and commission services for children’s centres in their areas. Labour Members will know that I am passionate about children’s centres, as I know they are. However, I am extremely concerned when they talk about centres closing when they know full well that, in many cases, organisations have streamlined their administration by putting a number of centres under a hub system. In fact, only 1% of children’s centres have closed.

The hon. Lady asked how the Government will provide advice to enable parents to make calculations and choose between universal credit and tax-free child care. We recognise the importance of providing information and support to help parents make an informed choice about which scheme to access. Therefore, alongside wider guidance and information, we will provide support and online tools for parents choosing from tax credits, universal credit and the scheme under discussion.

The hon. Lady also asked what we are doing to improve the supply side. As I said earlier, we are taking a number of measures, including introducing new childminder agencies, which will help—

[Lucy Powell]

What will that do?

[Andrea Leadsom]

The idea is to promote more support for childminders. The hon. Lady will recognise that, under the previous Government, many childminders fell off the radar, because, as surveys showed, they felt under-supported, over-regulated and overburdened. The idea of childminder agencies is to provide the support, training and guidance that will enable them to go into business, and to support those that are good and outstanding to expand more rapidly.

As a result of the changes under discussion, more working families than ever before will be eligible for support with their child care costs. The Bill will introduce a less complex, more generous system of support, which should result in more parents being able to enter the work force with the confidence that quality, affordable child care is available for their children. The proposals have been welcomed by families and child care providers across the country and by many businesses that realise how important support for families can be in helping them to attract and retain good staff.

In short, this Bill will support the future of our economy and the well-being of our children. As such, I commend it wholeheartedly to the House.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read a Second time.

Childcare Payments Bill (Programme)

Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 83A(7)),

That the following provisions shall apply to the Childcare Payments Bill:

Committal

1. The Bill shall be committed to a Public Bill Committee.

Proceedings in Public Bill Committee

2. Proceedings in the Public Bill Committee shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion on Tuesday 28 October 2014.

3. The Public Bill Committee shall have leave to sit twice on the first day on which it meets.

Consideration and Third Reading

4. Proceedings on Consideration shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion one hour before the moment of interruption on the day on which those proceedings are commenced.

5. Proceedings on Third Reading shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion at the moment of interruption on that day.

6. Standing Order No. 83B (Programming committees) shall not apply to proceedings on Consideration and Third Reading.

Other proceedings

7. Any other proceedings on the Bill (including any proceedings on consideration of Lords Amendments or on any further messages from the Lords) may be programmed.—(Mr Gyimah.)

Question agreed to.

Childcare Payments Bill (Money)

Queen’s recommendation signified.

Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 52(1)(a)),

That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Childcare Payments Bill, it is expedient to authorise the payment out of money provided by Parliament of any increase attributable to the Act in the sums payable under any other Act out of money so provided.—(Mr Gyimah.)

Question agreed to.

Childcare Payments Bill (Ways and Means)

Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 52(1)(a)),

That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Childcare Payments Bill, it is expedient to authorise the restriction of relief from income tax in respect of the provision for an employee of childcare, or vouchers for obtaining childcare, under a scheme operated by or on behalf of the employer.—(Mr Gyimah.)

Question agreed to.



Business of the House (Data Retention and Investigatory Powers)

Ordered,

That, in respect of the Data Retention and Investigatory Powers Bill, notices of Amendments, new Clauses and new Schedules to be moved in Committee may be accepted by the Clerks at the Table before the Bill has been read a second time.—(Tom Brake.)

Respect Policy

Monday 14th July 2014 Commons Chamber

19:13

[Kevin Barron (Rother Valley) (Lab)]

I beg to move,

That this House approves the First Report from the Committee on Standards, Session 2014-15, Respect Policy, HC 321, which endorses proposals for the operation and review of a policy to deal with complaints of alleged bullying or harassment by Members or their staff towards House of Commons staff.

The motion appears in my name and those of the Leader of the House, the shadow Leader of the House my hon. Friend the Member for Wallasey (Ms Eagle), and members of the House of Commons Commission.

I want to make one thing clear at the outset: the fact that the Committee on Standards and the Commission are inviting the House to agree to a policy to deal with allegations of bullying and harassment is not a sign that there is a widespread problem. It shows the reverse: that the Commission wants to be a good employer and that Members of Parliament themselves want to make sure that any incidents of bullying and harassment are dealt with effectively.

Recent events have shown the dangers of not taking action to deal with potential problems. We are no longer in a situation where a quiet word with the Whips might be used to persuade an MP to change his or her behaviour. We need to be able to demonstrate that we do not have a culture of covering things up or of avoiding difficult issues. We also need to make sure that the system is fair and recognises that complaints need to be handled appropriately.

Although we may have very different political philosophies, those who stand for election do so because they believe in social justice, however they define it. It would be perverse for this House to be one of the few places without an effective and visible policy.

This debate and this policy are necessary because MPs are not employees of the House, but we depend on the services provided by those who are employed by the House of Commons Commission. If staff of the House are bullied by their colleagues, management can discipline those colleagues. If we as MPs bully our own staff, they have rights under employment law, as well as the support structures many parties have now put in place.

MPs, however, cannot be disciplined by the House of Commons Commission if they bully or harass House staff. We are in the position of hotel guests or other service users. If this were a hotel, services might be withheld from a particularly obstreperous MP, but that would be going against everything that the House service exists to do. It has never, ever been contemplated.

If it is to be a good employer, the House needs to have a policy in place that tackles the fact that MPs cannot and should not be subject to sanctions imposed by House management, but provides a clear framework for dealing with incidents when things go wrong. The motion gives us the opportunity to do that, and I believe we should agree it not only because we think it is right and that the House should be an exemplary employer, but for reasons of self-interest. Without such a policy, the House of Commons Commission is vulnerable to legal challenge if things go wrong.

The report by the Committee on Standards, which I Chair, briefly sets out the background to this debate. There has been, and there still is, a respect policy, which comes in two parts. The first deals with the informal resolution of disputes between Members and staff, and it remains in force. The second, which dealt with formal action if differences could not be resolved, has been suspended, because in practice it was found to be flawed, not least because it was seen as unfair to the Members being investigated. Investigation was done by a member of House staff and Members had no right of appeal, but staff did. It was quite clearly, in the Committee’s view, flawed in that way and I think most people agreed.

The note on our website on what Members can expect from the House service makes it clear that dignity, courtesy and respect on both sides are central to the relationship between Members and staff. That is generally the case. I have checked before delivering this speech, and there is not a single live complaint about a Member at present.

That is not to say that bullying is inconceivable: I think we all have to accept that it happens in almost every workplace. We operate in a high-pressure environment, and I am absolutely sure that, sometimes, things are said that are almost instantly regretted. Diffidence and patience with the status quo are not natural qualities for an MP, so a framework is necessary in case things go wrong.

The proposed policy strengthens the informal part of the process and revises the formal part of the process, so that investigation is independent and the complainant has no more rights than the person complained about.

The informal part of the process is most important. It requires Members to be told if they have upset a member of staff. I am told that, in most cases, Members have immediately apologised and taken steps to make amends as soon as they know that they have upset someone. It requires managers to look at the wider picture and consider whether difficulties arise because of a lack of capability or resources. If difficulties cannot be resolved, and both parties agree to it, there will be mediation.

These measures should mean that very few cases are taken forward to the formal stage of the process—that is, possible investigation by the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards—but it is right that we should have effective measures to deal with such exceptional cases. If a complaint is made, the Parliamentary Commissioner will review the material. She will decide whether the behaviour alleged is so serious that it meets the high bar of conduct that would have the potential to

“cause significant damage to the reputation and integrity of the House of Commons as a whole, or of its Members generally.”

Members will know that that quotation is from Members’ code of conduct.

As the respect policy itself makes clear, the commissioner may be concerned by a complaint about a brusque response in a highly charged political situation. She has the power to make recommendations to management about the handling of the situation and to settle matters informally, if both parties are willing to do so, even at such a late stage. Where it is appropriate, she will be able to investigate and report to the Committee, which will decide what action to recommend.

We recognise that cases of this kind can be difficult for both the complainant and the person complained about, so they will be handled differently from normal complaints. A far higher level of confidentiality will be observed, and names will be released only if the commissioner concludes that bullying or harassment has occurred. As hon. Members know, when the commissioner investigates the activities of a Member of this House, that fact is currently stated on the commissioner’s website, even though nothing is found against the vast majority of Members. The commissioner—like the Committee on Standards and, I believe, the Commission—thinks that that should not happen in the rare circumstances of these cases.

The Committee did not take the decision lightly to endorse the Commission’s proposals. We wanted to be sure that the existence of the formal stage of the process was not seen as an excuse for management to ignore their responsibilities towards both staff and Members. We consulted every Member of the House, and took comfort in the fact that there were very few replies on that point. We did not agree to this change until we were sure that real measures were in place to prevent problems from arising in the first place, and to stop problems needlessly escalating if they did arise.

We wanted to make it clear that this matter is primarily the responsibility of the management of the House. I welcome the fact that the respect policy recognises that difficulties may arise not simply from a Member’s behaviour, but from other behaviour. At the very first stage, it requires line managers to consider whether there is a resourcing, capacity or other issue that needs to be addressed.

We wanted staff training to make sure both that staff are appropriately trained to deal with what I shall call “customers” in difficult situations, and that managers understand their responsibilities under the new system. We understand that training has begun, and that there will be more training for staff of the House to implement the change.

We wanted it to be clear to everyone that the bar for investigations by the commissioner would be high, and we are satisfied that the new policy spells that out. We were also concerned that the new system should work for staff. We asked the House authorities to assure us that staff whose first language is not English will be adequately supported, and I am glad to say that that is included in management guidance.

We are also grateful to the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards for her work with the House authorities and with us. She worked with the House authorities to make sure that the human resources processes in place recognise that making a complaint to the commissioner is a last resort. She reviewed the procedures for investigation so that there is a separate appropriate procedure for use in such cases. I have already noted the higher level of confidentiality. The new procedure also involves the complainant, as well as the MP, in checking the facts in the commissioner’s memorandum. Both parties will of course have the opportunity to appear before the Committee if there are further proceedings.

There is one final safeguard. The Committee recognises that this is a major change, so we recommend that it is reviewed in the next Parliament, and we invite the House to give the House of Commons Commission, together with the Committee, powers to suspend or renew the policy. I expect the findings of the review to be published and possibly debated, if that is felt necessary.

Let me repeat that I do not expect many cases to be brought under the policy. I do not think that bullying is widespread, but that should not be an excuse not to have an effective means to deal with it. I am sure colleagues on both sides of the House would condemn bullying in any other workplace. This motion gives us the opportunity to make it clear that we will not tolerate it in our own workplace. I hope that the House will agree to the motion.

19:23

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

May I place on the record the thanks of the House of Commons Commission to the Chair of the Committee on Standards, the right hon. Member for Rother Valley (Kevin Barron), for his and the Committee’s work on this very important matter? As with everything it does, the Committee took it extremely seriously, put in a lot of work and came up with something that is thought through and detailed, and does exactly the job we had hoped it would do.

I want to pick up on two of the right hon. Gentleman’s points. The first is that it is absolutely essential that the policy is fair to all parties. It is vital that the House has a respect policy that looks after staff, but it is equally of the utmost importance that it is one in which Members have full buy-in and can feel confident, because otherwise it would not be fair to both sides. The second point is that there are no outstanding complaints at this time. By far the majority of Members treat the staff with the courtesy and respect that they so richly deserve. When it is made clear to them, most Members who have from time to time been errant in their behaviour immediately apologise to the members of staff concerned. The policy is as much a preventive measure as something to deal with a problem, and it puts us into the category of best practice employers. The way in which the right hon. Gentleman framed the opening of the debate is very much what the Commission had hoped for.

I will briefly set out why the policy is so important to the Commission. The Commission is of course the statutory legal employer of House staff, and it therefore has a very important duty of care towards them. Without effective policies on bullying and harassment, the House is more vulnerable to legal charges. There are of course policies in place for bullying and harassment of members of staff by their line managers and employers and for relations between Members and Members’ staff, but there is a gap between members of the House service and Members of the House in that, as was pointed out, we are rather more customers than employers. In that respect, the problem is that unlike the customers of most establishments, who can be shut out by the establishment’s owner if they are felt to be bullying or harassing the staff, it would be unthinkable for Members to be excluded. We therefore require a policy that works, and the respect policy seeks to address that situation.

Notwithstanding the fact that occurrences are very rare, some 7% of staff—nearly 100—experienced some form of harassment, according to a survey of staff, in the previous 12 months. For one in six of those affected, the harassment took the form of repeated incidents involving the same individual. The proportions are small, but that suggests that something like 20 to 25 House staff may experience ongoing problems with one or more individuals.

As the Committee’s report sets out, the policy initially agreed by the Commission in June 2011 proved to be flawed. It was based on policies used by other employers, but it did not fully take into account the special relationship that exists between House staff and Members. I reiterate that the Commission is very grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for taking on this unenviable task. We believe that it has produced something that provides a proper mechanism for dealing with the rare circumstance of the most serious cases. The Committee has concluded that the revised policy is fair to all parties, as I have mentioned. On that basis, the Commission both thanks the Committee and commends the policy to the House for its endorsement.

I should note that, assuming the House agrees to the motion, the policy will come into effect immediately, but it will not be retrospective.

[Kevin Barron]

The hon. Gentleman says that the policy will not be retrospective. However, if somebody has a difficult relationship at the moment, something that has gone on during the past few days, weeks or months might be added to a complaint to the commissioner if she felt that it ought to be investigated. There are no such cases whatever to my knowledge, but just in case there are, I thought that we should mention that the policy would be retrospective in relation to such behaviour over many months or years that is considered at some point in the future.

[John Thurso]

I am most grateful to the Chair of the Committee for intervening to make that point. Of course, at the moment no complaints are extant, so there will be nothing retrospective about complaints that we know about and have dealt with. However, if a complaint is made now, it will of course be subject to this policy.

The House greatly values its staff and the exceptional work that they do in supporting us all. An effective respect policy is a very important part of delivering the Commission’s aim to be exemplary employer. I commend the policy to the House.

19:29

[Ms Angela Eagle (Wallasey) (Lab)]

I support the motion, to which I put my name, on behalf of the Opposition. It states that the House accepts the first report from the Committee on Standards on the respect policy.

I concur with the tribute that the hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (John Thurso) paid to the Chair of the Standards Committee, my right hon. Friend the Member for Rother Valley (Kevin Barron), for the work that he and his Committee have done on this important issue.

Every employer has a duty of care to its employees, and it is absolutely right that the House should be no exception. House staff serve this place with diligence and care, and the least that we must do is to afford them a safe and encouraging working environment and offer them protection against any instances of bullying or harassment, however rare.

After the suspension of the formal stage of the respect policy that was originally endorsed by the House in June 2011, we have endeavoured to replace it with something that works more effectively and that is fair to all concerned. It is therefore right that the House considers the motion to ensure that we have new and comprehensive rules in place immediately.

The changes before us have been explained in detail by my right hon. Friend and the hon. Gentleman, who represents the House of Commons Commission. However, the rules do two important things that I want to highlight. First, they rightly place an emphasis on informal resolution, where it is possible, and emphasise the role of managers in resolving complaints at an early stage. Secondly, they ensure that there is unbiased treatment for the complainant and the person who has been accused. The decision about any formal investigation is taken by the commissioner, who is independent of House staff and Members. Both parties will have equal access to make their case.

As the report notes, the respect policy needs to be fair and be seen to be fair. I am content that the proposals before us meet that test. I am also satisfied that they address the concerns that were raised before the previous formal structures were suspended because of the flaws that my right hon. Friend highlighted so clearly in his excellent opening speech.

It is vital that the changes are well communicated to Members and employees alike. I am pleased that training for staff is already under way. I hope that, after this debate, every effort will be made to ensure that all Members are aware of the new rules. I thank all who have been involved throughout the process of building this package, in particular the Standards Committee and its Chair.

As the report before us states about the new rules,

“the revised Respect Policy is fair to Members and House of Commons staff; has a clear process for investigation; provides both sides with the opportunity to put their case; and provides sanctions for improper behaviour.”

As the report notes, the unions view the changes as the

“basis for an effective and proportionate policy”.

The rules are supported by the House of Commons Commission, as the hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross said, and by the Committee on Standards. They provide a sensible and comprehensive process, and I urge the House to support them.

19:33

[The Deputy Leader of the House of Commons (Tom Brake)]

I am grateful for the contributions of all colleagues and for the support that they have expressed. I will speak briefly in support of the motion.

I thank the Chair of the Committee on Standards and the members of the Committee for their detailed and thoughtful report. During the debate, the Chair set out fully the background to the report, and the consideration and reasoning of the Committee in coming to its conclusions and recommendations.

The report sets out the relationship between the House, in particular the House of Commons Commission, and the thousands of people who come to work on the estate every day. The House is unusual in that many of the people who work on the estate are not employed by the House. That applies most obviously to Members of the House and Members’ staff. As the statutory employer, the House of Commons Commission has a duty of care to those it employs, which includes protecting them from bullying and harassment, including by third parties.

We heard from the spokesman for the Commission how seriously the House authorities, including the House of Commons Commission as the statutory employer, take their duty of care towards staff. It is important to reiterate, as did the right hon. Member for Rother Valley (Kevin Barron), that having a policy does not necessarily indicate that widespread problems exists. In such matters, prevention and planning are better than waiting for difficult situations to arise.

I know that we can agree that all workers on the estate deserve to be treated with dignity and respect. I echo my hon. Friend the Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (John Thurso) and the shadow Leader of the House in expressing my congratulations and those of the Office of the Leader of the House to the staff on the outstanding work that they do for us all in this place.

The respect policy is one of the ways in which the House aims to be an exemplary employer. It might be appropriate at this point to recognise the other good work that has been achieved by the House recently, such as its accreditation as a London living wage employer, the offer of minimum guaranteed hour contracts to all previously casually employed staff and the work to secure a long-term pay deal that paves the way for the modernisation of working practices. I am pleased that, as the shadow Leader of the House said, the unions are supportive of the policy we are debating.

I am grateful for the reassurances that have been offered to Members, particularly by the Chair of the Standards Committee. It is right that the bar for the acceptance of complaints for investigation by the commissioner is high, and that there is a higher requirement for confidentiality under the procedure for inquiries under the respect policy than for the other work of the commissioner. The House should also be reassured by the commitment to ensure that training is provided to ensure that managers are equipped to do their jobs, as was set out by the Chair of the Standards Committee. I note from the report that such training has already been provided to large numbers of staff. As the report states, the policy

“needs to be fair, and needs to be seen to be fair.”

Let me remind Members why the House needs the respect policy that has been developed. It is not right that members of staff do not have an independent process of appeal in respect of unresolved complaints relating to Members or their staff. Nor is it right that staff of the House, however senior, should adjudicate on the conduct of Members. The consideration by the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards, followed by investigation and decision by the Committee on Standards, albeit only after an extensive prior process and where the conduct alleged is serious or prolonged, provides the authoritative and proportionate approach that will protect the interests of all parties.

This has been a helpful debate. I hope that the House will approve the motion so that the policy can come into effect.

Question put and agreed to.

Business without Debate

Monday 14th July 2014 Commons Chamber

Delegated Legislation

Monday 14th July 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

With the leave of the House, we shall take motions 7 to 11 together.

Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 118(6)),

Copyright

That the draft Copyright and Rights in Performances (Quotation and Parody) Regulations 2014, which were laid before this House on 9 June, be approved.

That the draft Copyright and Rights in Performances (Personal Copies for Private Use) Regulations 2014, which were laid before this House on 9 June, be approved.

Local Government

That the draft Local Audit (Delegation of Functions) and Statutory Audit (Delegation of Functions) Order 2014, which was laid before this House on 16 June, be approved.

Energy Conservation

That the draft Green Deal (Qualifying Energy Improvements) (Amendment) Order 2014, which was laid before this House on 16 June, be approved.

Children and Young Persons

That the draft Adoption and Children Act Register (Search and Inspection) (Pilot) Regulations 2014, which were laid before this House on 11 June, be approved.—(Mr Gyimah.)

Question agreed to.

Scottish Affairs

Monday 14th July 2014 Commons Chamber

Ordered,

That Mark Menzies be a member of the Scottish Affairs Committee.—(Geoffrey Clifton-Brown, on behalf of the Committee of Selection.)

Clocaenog Wind Farm (Vale of Clwyd)

Monday 14th July 2014 Commons Chamber

19:38

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

I would like to present a petition to the House concerning pylons that will come from the Clocaenog wind farms. The wind farms are located outside my constituency, but the pylons will lead to St Asaph in my constituency. One wind farm is in place. That is connected by underground cabling. However, four more wind farms are proposed and those will have overground cabling.

The petition states:

The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Government to encourage local authorities to ensure that planning inspectorates recognise and carefully consider local residents’ views when making planning permission decisions and further that the House urges the Government to encourage Denbighshire County Council to show the same consideration to residents’ views in relation to the development of the Clocaenog wind farm as it has in the development of other wind farms.

Following is the full text of the petition:

[The Petition of residents of the Vale of Clwyd,

Declares that Clocaenog wind farm is currently being developed; further that the Petitioners believe that all cables connecting the wind farm to the electricity sub-station should be underground so as to minimise the visual impact on this beautiful area, to minimise the health risks to residents, to limit the devaluation in property prices and to respect the democratic will of the people of Henllan, Cefn Meiriadog and surrounding areas who unanimously voted to endorse the placing of these cables underground; further that Tir Mostyn, the first wind farm near Clocaenog Forest, placed its cables underground; and further that the offshore wind farms off the coast of Rhyl also placed its cables from the seashore to St Asaph underground.

The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Government to encourage local authorities to ensure that planning inspectorates recognise and carefully consider local residents’ views when making planning permission decisions and further that the House urges the Government to encourage Denbighshire County Council to show the same consideration to residents’ views in relation to the development of the Clocaenog wind farm as it has in the development of other wind farms.

And the Petitioners remain, etc.]

[P001366]

VAT Relief (Talking Newspaper Associations)

Monday 14th July 2014 Commons Chamber

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—(Mr Gyimah.)

19:39

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

I am grateful for the opportunity to raise the subject of VAT relief for talking newspapers. For the convenience of Members who may not be familiar with the concept of a talking newspaper, let me begin by explaining what they are and the important service that they provide to people who are blind or partially sighted, or who have some other disability that makes reading a newspaper difficult. There are 500 talking newspapers in the UK and Isle of Man. By and large they are small charities where a group of volunteers will read the contents of a local newspaper on to a cassette, CD or digital recording device. Those are then posted to registered listeners who listen to the recording and return the cassette or CD to the talking newspaper association in time for it to prepare the next edition, usually on a weekly basis.

It is important to emphasise the small, local and charitable nature of these associations. On average, each talking newspaper has 130 listeners and 34 volunteers, and they should not be confused with larger, national organisations that provide an excellent service of national newspapers, magazines and books for people who are registered blind or partially sighted. Their services are provided free of charge and they rely on small-scale local fundraising and grants to provide an income to cover the recording and distribution equipment and running costs.

I should also declare a family interest in this subject. More than 30 years ago, my father—Jim Stewart—and a small group of helpers set up the Hamilton Sound talking newspaper in the town in Scotland in which I grew up. He is still chairman of that today, and more than three decades later over 1,000 editions of the talking newspaper have been produced. I know that its listeners—a couple of hundred or so on average—have greatly valued the service. While national news can easily be accessed by a number of means, it is not always easy for people who are blind or partially sighted to obtain the local news that a local newspaper can provide.

I salute the work that volunteers up and down the country do in their communities to help often vulnerable people keep in contact with the outside world, and in this debate I wish to seek clarification and an update of the VAT rules that affect talking newspapers. For some time, talking newspapers have rightly been able to benefit from some financial assistance in providing their service—for example, they do not have to pay postal charges for the issuing or return of their products. In the 1986 Budget the then Chancellor, Lord Lawson, announced a number of VAT reliefs for charities. That included relieving charities from VAT on

“all recording equipment for talking books and newspapers used by charities for the blind”—[Official Report, 18 March 1986; Vol. 112, c. 178.]

After the 1992 Budget, the then Chancellor, Lord Lamont, extended the relief available to include

“repairs and maintenance of equipment used for talking books.”

The most recent guidance from Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs—notice 701/1 from May this year—states:

“Charities and voluntary bodies caring for the blind and the severely visually impaired can obtain zero-rating for purchases of sound recording and reproduction equipment (or parts and accessories for such equipment) that has been designed or specially adapted for recording or reproducing speech for the benefit of such persons. In the case of reproduction equipment, zero-rating will not apply where the equipment is available for use by anyone other than the blind or severely visually impaired. The zero-rating also covers radios and cassette recorders purchased by charities for free loan to the blind, and the repair or maintenance of any equipment mentioned in this paragraph.”

There is, however, considerable confusion in the talking newspaper community about what is and what is not eligible for VAT relief. Part of that stems from the fact that the technology used by talking newspapers has changed considerably since the original VAT exemption in the 1980s and 1990s. At that time, an original tape recording of the edition was made and copied on to audio cassettes by a high-speed copier. Now, although a minority of talking newspapers still use that traditional method, approximately 80% produce digital recordings.

The confusion stems from the part of the guidance which states that

“zero-rating will not apply where the equipment is available for use by anyone other than the blind or severely visually impaired”.

The onus is on the manufacturer or supplier to come to an agreement with HMRC that the product is designed specifically for blind and partially sighted people. When purchasing sound equipment from a company, the talking newspaper must supply the company with a declaration for the benefit of Customs and Excise, stating that the equipment is exempt from VAT. The problem is that talking newspapers now use equipment such as computers, digital copiers, memory sticks and memory stick players that can be used by the general public and other businesses, and therefore attract VAT. Talking newspaper associations are finding that many companies are not willing to risk applying for a VAT exemption on those products. I received a number of comments from talking newspapers ahead of this debate, and a remark by Bob Finch of Colchester talking newspaper neatly summarises the point:

“Most suppliers just charge the VAT to cover their own backs. I am aware that Kings Audio and Laplock Technology are both selling their versions of memory stick players VAT free, having apparently convinced HMRC that these particular items are only ever going to be used by visually impaired people. I applaud them for doing that, but any other items they or other suppliers sell are charged because they could be used by non-disabled people.”

It is clear that many talking newspaper associations in the country are having to meet a VAT cost that they should not have to meet, given the spirit of the 1986 and 1992 measures, and it is a significant extra cost for what are often very small charities. Brian Sharp of the Forth Valley talking newspaper association told me:

“We have recently transferred all our listeners on to USB memory sticks from both cassette tapes and CDs. The total cost of the project was £11,542 which included £1,247 in VAT”.

Roughly £1,250 is small change for the Treasury but a hugely significant cost for the charity.

There is certainly an appetite in the talking newspaper community for a clarification of current VAT rules, and an updating of them to ensure that the spirit of the original provisions is reflected in new technology that talking newspapers increasingly use. I heard from Janelle Scotland, chair of the Association of Scottish Talking Newspapers, that advice on the matter from local HMRC offices around the country seems to vary, which adds to the confusion. Such a move would be supported by the Royal National Institute of Blind People, which stated:

“Advances in technology mean that most talking newspaper associations are no longer using the kinds of equipment that have historically been VAT exempt; the RNIB urges HM Treasury to extend VAT relief to cover the digital equipment now used to produce talking newspapers.”

I accept that there will always be a risk that VAT-free digital equipment could be misused, but we are talking about a comparatively small number of listeners in the country and a small number of associations. Would it not be acceptable for them to complete a VAT exemption per purchase of equipment outlining the proposed use? Under current postal arrangements the Royal Mail trusts talking newspaper associations to send mail free under the articles for the blind scheme only to blind or partially sighted people, but it reserves the right to carry out spot-checks to ensure that an association is adhering to the regulations. Could HMRC do something similar?

Another possible solution would be to allow talking newspapers to claim back VAT retrospectively. A potential problem is that many talking newspapers will not be VAT registered as their turnover falls way below the threshold, but surely some special arrangements could be made. Perhaps it could be done collectively through the national talking newspaper bodies in Scotland, England and other parts of the United Kingdom, rather than via each individual association.

At the very least, may I ask my hon. Friend to facilitate a meeting between herself, HMRC and representatives of talking newspapers associations to clarify both the current law and what items of equipment are and are not exempt? It is a muddle at the moment and most talking newspapers are small charities whose volunteers are not necessarily well-versed in the intricacies of fiscal policy. I received another good comment from Rob Pearman, from St Albans & District talking newspaper. He wrote:

“It is a problem when some of us are scared of HMRC and we do not actually feel secure on all aspects of the laws and regulations with which we have to struggle. As a child I went to a school where the school rules were headed ‘Ignorance of these rules shall not be taken as an excuse - it haunts me to this day!’”

If a change in the law is required to update the current regulations, I would like the Minister to take this as an early submission for the autumn statement and next year’s Budget. I very much doubt it would incur a significant cost to the Exchequer to bring the regulations up to speed in the original spirit. I am grateful to have had this opportunity to raise an issue that is of considerable concern to these wonderful charities that provide a valuable and much cherished service to some of the most vulnerable members of our communities.

19:51

[The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (Andrea Leadsom)]

I am grateful for the opportunity to speak in this debate. I would like to start by congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes South (Iain Stewart) on his kindness and generosity in securing this Adjournment debate on a very important area of support for people who are vulnerable by virtue of being visually impaired. It is very important that we do all we can to support them. The Exchequer Secretary would normally respond to a debate on VAT. I am speaking on his behalf, but I will do my best to answer my hon. Friend’s questions.

The Government value the important contribution talking newspaper associations make to ensure that blind and severely disabled people can independently remain informed and up to date on current affairs. On the issue of tax itself, I reassure hon. Members that charities are at the heart of the Government’s ambition to build the big society, enabling people to play an active role in their community. To help support this, the Government provide support for charities primarily through more than £4 billion a year in tax reliefs, of which VAT relief makes up £300 million.

Reliefs from VAT are strictly limited under EU law. As hon. Members may know, when the UK joined the European Community in 1973 we successfully negotiated to keep our existing zero rates on items such as children’s clothing, most foods and physical books, newspapers and journals—a derogation from which most other member states do not benefit. Two zero rates of VAT are relevant to talking newspapers. First, a zero rate of VAT is applied to talking books and newspapers for the blind. However, this zero rate is limited strictly to specifically adapted magnetic tape and apparatus designed to reproduce speech for the blind and severely disabled people in our community. Many talking books and newspapers for the blind, as my hon. Friend pointed out, are no longer produced on magnetic tapes and so this relief cannot apply to them. EU VAT rules do not permit member states to extend the scope of existing VAT reliefs or to introduce new ones. As such, it is not possible to amend this zero rate to include talking newspapers that are not on magnetic tape.

My hon. Friend asked whether we can just change that. The European Commission is undertaking a review, including a public consultation, of member states’ application of reduced VAT rates. Among other matters, it is looking into the principle that similar goods and services should be subject to the same VAT rate, and that progress in technology should be taken into account in this respect so that the challenge of convergence between the online and the physical environment is addressed. This principle is regarded as an openness to consider a reduced rate for goods and services such as e-books and newspapers. However, if the Commission did decide to take this view, article 98(2) of the EU VAT directive, which currently excludes electronically supplied services from a reduced rate of VAT, would need to be removed. As most talking books and newspapers now use mainstream technology, I have to tell my hon. Friend that they cannot easily be distinguished from other sound reproduction equipment that is used by the general public. Talking books and newspapers for the general public do not benefit from a VAT relief and therefore attract the standard rate of VAT.

The EU has challenged and commenced infraction proceedings where it has identified member states that have allowed reduced rates, including zero rates, on general purpose products, or where they have extended existing reliefs to include them. However, the Government considered that it was important to ensure that talking books and newspapers for blind and disabled people continued to benefit from a VAT relief. Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs therefore reviewed the legislation and considers that talking books for the blind could come under an alternative zero rate of VAT: group 12(2)(g) in schedule 8 to the UK Value Added Tax Act 1994, under relief for aids for the handicapped. The zero rate of VAT applies to talking newspapers and books if: they are supplied to a blind or disabled person for their personal or domestic use; or if they are supplied by a charity that makes them available for such use by blind or disabled people. This relief applies to items of equipment such as CDs and memory sticks for books and newspapers that are designed solely for use by a handicapped person. This relief is limited to supplies of physical goods and cannot be extended to downloaded newspapers where the supply is a digital service. This is, as I said, because article 98(2) of the EU VAT directive specifically excludes “electronically supplied services” from a reduced or zero rate of VAT.

Turning now to the progress in technology and electronic newspapers more broadly, EU VAT law does allow member states to implement reduced rates of VAT of no less than 5% for certain goods and services listed in annexe 3 of the EU VAT directive, at the discretion of the member states.

One of those reliefs is the supply of books on all physical means of support, newspapers and periodicals other than material wholly or predominantly devoted to advertising. This may sound like it should include electronic newspapers, but, as I mentioned, the EU VAT directive specifically excludes electronically supplied services from the reduced rates of VAT. This means that, where talking newspapers do not fall under the zero rate of VAT as an aid for a disabled person, the UK charges the standard rate of VAT, at 20%, on electronic newspapers and the zero rate of VAT on physical newspapers.

On the related and very important topic of electronic or e-books, many Members will probably be aware that, since 2011, France and Luxembourg have chosen to levy a reduced rate of VAT of 7% and 3% respectively to bring them in line with their VAT rates on physical books. This is creating competitive distortions to economic operators in other member states, and there has been pressure from the industry for the UK to reduce its VAT rate on e-books alongside them. The EU Commission, however, has begun European Court of Justice infraction proceedings against France and Luxembourg and has formally instructed them to apply their standard VAT rates to supplies of e-books. If the UK were to reduce or zero rate e-newspapers, it is extremely likely that we, too, would be infracted.

Furthermore, reducing the rate of VAT on e-books or e-newspapers would be likely to create borderline issues in the wider electronic services market because problems of definition could lead to a widening of the relief through legal challenge and industry changes. This would put revenue at risk in the UK market, which is currently worth over £2.5 billion a year.

The Government remain firmly committed to our ability to maintain the UK’s existing zero rates as we recognise their importance for social reasons. EU law does not permit member states to extend the scope of existing VAT reliefs or introduce new ones. Zero rating all talking newspapers that might be used by the general public, as well as by blind or disabled people, would be an extension of the relief. The EU Commission’s position is clear that talking newspapers, which do not fall under the existing zero rate of VAT, attract the standard rate, as they are electronically supplied services. The UK’s rates of VAT on talking newspapers are therefore in line with EU law and there is no intention to change that, other than in tandem with the Commission’s own review that I mentioned.

I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes South will now have more clarity about when the zero rate of VAT can be applied to talking newspapers for blind and disabled people, and that he and other hon. Members will be reassured that we support the sector and that we will continue to do everything we can to support it.

Question put and agreed to.

20:00

House adjourned.

Petitions

Monday 14th July 2014 Petitions

Monday 14 July 2014

Petition presented to the House but not read on the Floor

Child Protection Law

Monday 14th July 2014 Petitions

The Petition of Monte Arora, a chartered accountant living in London,

Declares that she reported her partner to the police for his drinking in 2006. As a consequence of this she was referred to the local authority children’s services. Over a period of seven years there have been numerous hearings in the family division and her children have been removed from her and put up for adoption. She was unable to get legal aid for the appeal and had to pay around £220,000 to Hughmans Solicitors. Additionally she has had to pay the bridging costs of finance and various medical costs adding up to an additional £200,000. However, the system has refused to return her children to her. It is important to note about this case that according to the court judgments at no stage have the children suffered “significant harm” and that they have been put up for adoption on the basis that they are at the risk of “likely emotional abuse” as a consequence of the mother’s relationship with their father. Their father died in 2013, but the children are still being kept away from their mother. The local authority’s view is that she was dependent upon alcohol. She accepts that she consumed perhaps one or two glasses of wine up to three times a week. She has medical reports from 2013 by Dr Mike McPhillips who stated that he was unaware of any

“current psychiatric reason why she should, not be judged fit to parent her children”;

Sheron Green who stated

“I have no reason to believe that Ms. Arora has misused either Antabuse or alcohol during her appointments with me or outside of the therapy”

and Dr Neil Boast who stated

“I agree with Dr McPhillips that Mr Ball’s (unfortunate early) death improves the prognosis”.

However, the court still refused to accept that she should be reunited with her children. The court has relied upon the opinion of the local authority and its agents which is contrary to Lashin v Russia (Application no. 33117/02) that requires a truly independent assessment for any material decision. The Petitioner believes that the government pressure to increase adoption numbers has destroyed her family. The Petitioner now regrets having asked the system for help as it has destroyed her and her children’s lives.

The Petitioner therefore requests that the House of Commons Justice Select Committee reviews child protection law to ensure that parents get a fair hearing with independent evidence; the House of Commons instructs the Government to stop pressing for ever increasing adoption numbers; and an investigation is started by the Education Select Committee into how public policy should change to fulfil the needs of the large numbers of children wrongly removed from their families.

And the Petitioner remains, etc.—[Presented by John Hemming.]

[P001369]

Local Planning in Hampshire

Monday 14th July 2014 Petitions

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.—[Presented by Mr James Arbuthnot, Official Report, 12 May 2014; Vol. 580, c. 544.]

[P001350]

Observations from the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, received 11 July 2014:

Through our reforms in the Localism Act and National Planning Policy Framework the Government have ensured that Local Plans set the structure in which decisions on particular applications are taken locally. We have encouraged local authorities to get up-to-date Plans in place as soon as possible as this is the most effective way of managing development within a local area. Local Plans will guard against “speculative” or unwanted development by setting the framework in which decisions on particular proposals are taken (whether that decision is taken locally or by the Planning Inspectorate at appeal).

The Government are supporting authorities with advice through the Planning Advisory Service and the Planning Inspectorate. Some 54% of all local authorities have an adopted Local Plan and 77% have published a Local Plan, but ultimately taking forward a Local Plan is for the local authority concerned.

Before a Plan can be found sound, local authorities have to demonstrate at a public examination how they have complied with the legal duty to cooperate. The independent Inspector examining the Hart Local Plan Core Strategy concluded that the council had not complied with this requirement, and the plan was subsequently withdrawn by the council in September 2013. It is understood that Hart District Council are working on a replacement plan but this is not anticipated for publication until October 2015.

Local authorities must continue to make decisions on planning applications alongside preparing plans to guide future development. In determining planning applications, local authorities must have regard to the existing local plan, national planning policy and any other consideration. The National Planning Policy Framework is clear that plans may gain weight in planning decisions before they are formally adopted. New planning guidance published on 6 March 2014 set out where circumstances may justify the refusal of planning permission on grounds that an application would be premature in relation to the emerging local or neighbourhood plan.

The National Planning Policy Framework is clear that, even in the absence of an up-to-date Local plan, applications should not be approved if the adverse impacts would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits; or if specific policies in the Framework indicate that development should be restricted. This ensures that important safeguards are respected.

Removal of Trees from Thirsk Market Place

Monday 14th July 2014 Petitions

The Petition of residents of Thirsk and Malton,

Declares that the Petitioners believe that Hambleton District Council has not explained in detail how it came to its decision to remove five healthy birch trees from Thirsk Market Place; further that the trees were located in a conservation area; and further that the Petitioners believe that no public consultation was undertaken in relation to the removal of these trees.

The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urge the Government to encourage Hambleton District Council to replace the five trees which were removed and further requests that the House urges the Government to call Hambleton District Council to account for its actions.

And the Petitioners remain, etc.—[Presented by Miss Anne McIntosh, Official Report, 16 June 2014; Vol. 582, c. 928.]

[P001358]

Observations from the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, received 11 July 2014:

Local councils are responsible for managing trees on land under their control.

The Town and Country Planning (Tree Preservation) (England) Regulations 2012 exempt local planning authorities from the requirement to give notice before trees in a conservation area are felled by them or on their behalf. The landowner has a duty to replace such trees if they are dead or present an immediate risk of serious harm. Authorities have powers to waive this duty. There is no statutory requirement for authorities to consult the public before felling or replacing trees on land under their control.

In addition, in exercising their planning functions, local planning authorities are required to pay special attention to the desirability of preserving or enhancing the character or appearance of conservation areas.

Local councils are accountable to their electorates and the Secretary of State expects that Hambleton District Council will take note of the views of local people in respect of this matter.

Kidnapped Nigerian School Girls

Monday 14th July 2014 Petitions

The Petition of residents of Sedgefield,

Declares that 200 Nigerian school girls have been kidnapped by Boko Haram and further that the Petitioners believe that more could be done internationally to ensure their safe release.

The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the UK Government to do all in their power to ensure that the 200 kidnapped school girls are released and returned to their families.

And the Petitioners remain, etc.—[Presented by Phil Wilson, Official Report, 5 June 2014; Vol. 582, c. 235.]

[P001356]

Observations from the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Office, received 10 July 2014:

I understand the concerns expressed by those who have signed this petition. The abduction of over 250 schoolgirls in Chibok was a despicable crime and a cruel attempt to deny young Nigerians the freedom to learn and make their own choices in life. The Prime Minister, the Minister for Africa the hon. Member for Boston and Skegness (Mark Simmonds) and I have condemned this appalling act. I am deeply concerned that despite best efforts 219 of the schoolgirls remain missing. We continue to strive to find them.

To prevent similar abductions in future we must combat Boko Haram. This is why we and the international community are supporting the Nigerian authorities in tackling the scourge of terrorism. Through this, I hope we can start to bring peace and prosperity to northern Nigeria.

The British Government have played a leading role in the international response to the abduction of the Chibok school girls and the threat posed by Boko Haram. We have taken the following action:

On 18 April the Prime Minister and I offered support to our Nigerian counterparts. On 8 May the offer was accepted and a team of UK expert advisers visited Abuja.

On 14 May Minister for Africa Mark Simmonds agreed with President Jonathan our support would comprise a surveillance aircraft and a military team to work with the Nigerian, US and French military experts to analyse information on the girls’ location. The UK also pledged £1 million to the UN’s Safe Schools Initiative.

On 17 May I attended a meeting in Paris, also attended by Nigeria, its neighbours and international partners. This meeting agreed measures to strengthen regional counter-terrorism co-ordination.

On 12 June I hosted a follow up to the Paris meeting, in the margins of the Global Summit on Ending Sexual Violence in Conflict. The conclusions included increased levels of co-ordinated border patrols by Nigeria and its neighbours, continued work to place sanctions on Boko Haram and Ansaru and continued close co-operation to look for the abducted girls. The full conclusions are at: https://www.gov.uk/government/news/foreign-secretary-announces-uk-support-following-ministerial-on-boko-haram.

The UK also announced a new package of support agreed with the US and France which included expanded military training and direct tactical assistance to the Nigerian Armed Forces and further assistance for regional security and intelligence co-operation; and

In the wake of the abductions the UK Mission at the UN in New York worked closely with international partners to have Boko Haram placed on the UN al-Qaeda sanctions list. This sent a powerful message of intent from the international community.

I do hope that this reply demonstrates the sincere efforts being made by members of the international community to respond to the abductions and to combat Boko Haram. Please be assured that the UK will remain committed to continuing this important work.

Written Statements

Monday 14th July 2014 Written Statements

Monday 14 July 2014

Oil and Gas Fiscal Review

Monday 14th July 2014 Written Statements

[The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Nicky Morgan)]

Following the announcement at Budget 2014 that the Government would conduct a review of the oil and gas tax regime, HM Treasury is today publishing a call for evidence—“Review of the oil and gas fiscal regime: a call for evidence”. Copies of the document have been deposited in the Libraries of both Houses.

The review comes at an important time for the UK continental shelf. There is still a considerable amount of oil and gas left to recover—up to around 21 billion barrels of oil equivalent—and the Government’s tax regime has helped support record levels of investment to find and extract it. But exploration and production is becoming harder and more expensive, and the UK is facing competition for capital from other countries.

The review will look to ensure the UK’s oil and gas tax regime continues to encourage investment in the North sea and maximises the benefits of the country’s hydrocarbon resources for the economy, while ensuring a fair share of profits for the nation. The call for evidence marks the beginning of 12 weeks of discussion with the oil and gas industry and other stakeholders about the long-term shape of the tax regime.

The deadline for responses is 3 October 2014.

The call for evidence is available here:

https://www.gov.uk/government/consultations/review-of-the-oil-and-gas-fiscal-regime-a-call-for-evidence.

Land Registry

Monday 14th July 2014 Written Statements

[The Minister of State, Department for Business, Innovation and Skills (Michael Fallon)]

Today I am publishing our response to the consultation on the “Introduction of a Land Registry Service Delivery Company”.

Land Registry has recently celebrated its landmark 150th year and continues to be a cornerstone of property ownership in England and Wales. It undertakes a range of functions and responsibilities which are critical to the effective functioning of the property market.

Land Registry has developed an ambitious new business strategy which includes moving complex applications online and automating processes. This requires a complete change both in the way that the business is operated and managed, and in its IT architecture.

In the light of the scale and complexity of this transformation, the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills launched a consultation which proposed to introduce a new service delivery company with the governance and incentives to be able to deliver it effectively.

The consultation received a good response and we have endeavoured to address and clarify the issues raised where possible in the response published today.

Given the importance of the Land Registry to the effective operation of the UK property market, we have concluded that further consideration would be valuable. Therefore, at this time, no decision has been taken to change Land Registry’s model.

It may be helpful to note that measures introduced in the Infrastructure Bill to amend the Land Registration Act 2002 and Local Land Charges Act 1975 are changes required for Land Registry to play a wider role in the property market and to take on responsibility for providing a single, digital local land charge register. The Infrastructure Bill does not include any measures having the aim of changing Land Registry’s model and introducing a new service delivery company.

The Government’s ambition for effective, digital-by-default data services remain an underlying policy objective. The business has already started its digital transformation, which has resulted in the organisation’s headcount reducing by more than half over the last 20 years. This modernisation will continue irrespective of the need to consider further the Land Registry’s commercial model, and will deliver improved services for customers.

The response to consultation is being laid in both Houses of Parliament and is available on: www.gov.uk.

WTO (Accession of Afghanistan)

Monday 14th July 2014 Written Statements

[The Minister of State, Department for Business, Innovation and Skills (Michael Fallon)]

My noble Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Trade and Investment, Lord Livingston, has today made the following statement:

I wish to inform the House that on 23 June 2014 the Government opted in to the Council decision relating to the accession of Afghanistan to the World Trade Organisation (WTO).

The Government have supported the accession of Afghanistan to the WTO on the right terms. In acceding to the WTO, Afghanistan will embrace a series of rules and commitments which form the foundation of an open, transparent and non-discriminatory global trading system and which will provide important guarantees for them and for other WTO members. Accession to the WTO will bring Afghanistan more firmly into the global economy and help make Afghanistan a more attractive place to do business.

Afghanistan’s accession to the WTO is consistent with the UK’s policy of helping least developed countries to take advantage of the international trading system. It is also in line with the UK’s policy of helping to establish a viable Afghan state, to help Afghanistan develop a more dynamic economy and become more able to meet its economic needs without external support.

The Council decision has the effect of extending to Afghanistan the horizontal commitments the UK makes to all WTO members, including in the provision of services by natural persons from third countries, otherwise known as “mode 4”. It is the presence of these mode 4 commitments in the relevant instruments which triggers the UK Justice and Home Affairs opt in.

Preventing Sexual Violence in Conflict: Next Steps

Monday 14th July 2014 Written Statements

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

I wish to inform the House of the next steps in the UK’s preventing sexual violence in conflict initiative (PSVI) following my statement to the House on 16 June 2014, Official Report, column 852.

The aim of PSVI is the eradication of rape as a weapon of war, through a global campaign to end impunity for perpetrators, to deter and prevent sexual violence, to support and recognise survivors, and to change global attitudes that fuel these crimes.

We have made considerable progress since the launch of PSVI in May 2012. There is a new readiness among national Governments and international institutions to confront sexual violence in conflict as a war crime and social taboo, and to introduce practical measures to combat it. The declaration of commitment to end sexual violence in conflict launched at the UN in September 2013 has now been endorsed by 155 Governments. At the global summit to end sexual violence in conflict, which I hosted in June with the special envoy of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, Angelina Jolie, we brought together over 125 countries, eight UN agencies, the major multilateral institutions, over 900 experts and survivors from around the world, and thousands of members of the public who visited the fringe or took part in our social media campaign.

We launched the first international protocol on the documentation and investigation of sexual violence in conflict. Cameroon, Benin and Niger endorsed the Declaration of Commitment to End Sexual Violence in Conflict, significantly increasing its impact in Africa. The federal Government of Somalia presented a national action plan for addressing sexual violence, with the backing and support of the UN and the international community. Ministers of the Democratic Republic of the Congo committed themselves to implementing quickly their national strategy to fight sexual violence and the commitments made through the Declaration of Commitment to End Sexual Violence in Conflict. The African Union announced the launch of a pilot project in the Central African Republic (CAR) to respond to the urgent needs of victims of sexual violence, and will now deploy a team of experts including medical doctors, psychologists, lawyers and police officers under the AU mission in CAR, MISCA. The Libyan Government pledged funding to enact into law the recognition that victims of sexual violence and their families are victims of war, and are therefore entitled to health care, scholarships and rehabilitation services. A number of countries including the UK and US also pledged funds to support survivors of sexual violence.

Our goal now is to embed, once and for all, international acknowledgement and agreement that we can end sexual violence in conflict. We want to see clear evidence that countries are living up to the commitments they have made—by putting in place measures to bring more perpetrators to justice, by providing better support to survivors and by ensuring that this issue remains at the heart of conflict prevention and foreign policy worldwide.

The United Kingdom will therefore now seek:

To implement globally the international protocol on the documentation and investigation of sexual violence in conflict. This will include translating and disseminating the protocol internationally, and providing training that will help national authorities improve investigations and mount successful prosecutions. There must be no impunity for rape and sexual violence in conflict.

To persuade other Governments to incorporate the prevention of sexual violence into their military doctrine and training, including zero tolerance for all such violence, improved military conduct and discipline, and the recognition that this is a vital aspect of conflict-prevention and peace-building.

To ensure that international multilateral institutions adopt measures to address sexual violence in conflict. For example, we will intensify work with the EU to ensure that preventing sexual violence in conflict is included in all common security and defence policy missions and relevant EU external funding instruments, including for training, protection, and support to survivors.

To support the efforts of the African Union and United Nations to ensure that the protection of civilians includes action to prevent and respond to sexual and gender-based violence, zero tolerance of sexual exploitation and abuse committed by UN and AU personnel in peacekeeping settings, and women’s participation and the promotion of gender equality in all peace and security efforts.

To use UK expertise to help national Governments to prevent and prosecute sexual violence in conflict, to improve care for survivors, and to provide training to improve their military and police capability. We will focus this work in the first instance on Libya, Somalia, Bosnia and the DRC and the Syrian National Coalition, to ensure that a future Syrian Government treat this as a priority.

To ensure the reform of national domestic legislation where necessary to enable the prosecution of internationally-recognised war crimes, as part of wider efforts to further promote the universality of the Rome statute of the International Criminal Court.

To ensure global recognition of the dignity, needs and rights of survivors of sexual violence in conflict, and greater support and protection to survivors of sexual violence, including children.

Increased support for human rights defenders, including by lifting legal and administrative restrictions and ensuring that violations against them are investigated promptly and impartially and to hold perpetrators to account.

The formal inclusion of women in peace processes as a new international norm which is implemented in practice.

In support of these goals, the Foreign and Commonwealth Office will:

Maintain preventing sexual violence in conflict as part of the core business of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office—as an essential aspect our work to prevent conflict, promote human rights, and exercise the soft power of the United Kingdom. This includes lobbying for action to address sexual violence in conflict in all countries and settings where it occurs.

Use the networks of UK posts overseas to pursue these objectives, and ensure that embassies will write PSVI objectives into either their country or multilateral business plans where relevant.

Strengthen the UK team of experts, to support an increase in the number of international humanitarian law deployments and the ability to provide a wider package of training to militaries, as well as provide an ambitious level of training to support implementation of the international protocol in Libya, Bosnia, Somalia and the DRC, and in relation to the Syria conflict.

Increase work with other Government Departments who come into contact with survivors of sexual violence in conflict, including through the asylum system and the Crown Prosecution Service, to ensure consistency in across HMG policy commitments and approaches.

Consult non-governmental organisations (NGOs) and survivor groups and their representatives on the further development and implementation of PSVI, and work to strengthen bipartisan support across UK politics for these goals and objectives.

Propose new means of monitoring international progress towards tackling warzone sexual violence.

Use the UK’s influence to promote and increase the participation of women in peace processes worldwide, and to lobby other Governments to do the same.

The Foreign and Commonwealth Office will develop a detailed plan of activity for the next 12 months to implement these objectives internationally and monitor progress.

We will use milestones in the international diplomatic calendar to advance these goals, including the UK Presidency of the Security Council, the NATO Wales summit, the UN General Assembly, the African Union summit, and the G7.

We will maintain strong visible UK leadership, while working to a sense of collective international responsibility and national determination to root out these crimes wherever they occur, so that the cause of ending sexual violence in conflict generates unstoppable global momentum.

Visitor and Migrant NHS Cost Recovery Programme

Monday 14th July 2014 Written Statements

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

The Government have today published the “Visitor and Migrant NHS Cost Recovery Programme—Implementation Plan 2014-16”. This document acts as a statement of purpose and includes commitments for programme delivery as well as announcing policy for increasing cost recovery rates.

The Department of Health is working to create a fairer NHS by improving the systems for charging overseas visitors and migrants to make sure they contribute towards their NHS health care. It is clear that more can be done to increase cost recovery; our independent research estimated that in the financial year 2012-13 we recovered an estimated £73 million, which represented less than 20% of the estimated total possible recovery. To deliver this the Department has been working with the NHS, its arm’s length bodies, and key stakeholders to design and test measures to encourage providers to identify and charge non-EEA visitors and identify and report EEA visitors’ usage of NHS services.

The implementation plan provides a guide to the NHS of how this will be achieved. A key aspect of this is a new financial incentive which will increase the level of cost recovery from chargeable patients from outside the European economic area (non-EEA). This process will enable NHS providers to bill chargeable non-EEA patients at a rate of 150% of standard NHS tariff for the cost of the care provided. The Department intends to lay secondary legislation before Parliament by the end of the 2014-15 financial year to enable this. The Department will keep the rates of the incentives under review to ensure that it is effective and is driving change.

The plan also includes increased scrutiny of the cost recovery from non-EEA patients by NHS providers. This will ensure that their statutory obligation to support NHS sustainability through appropriate identification and charging of visitors and migrants is being met.

These measures will help to underpin and maintain the principles that the NHS will always treat those in urgent need of care and that NHS care is free at the point of delivery for residents. This programme aims to reinforce the fairness of our health service by ensuring that everyone who is not entitled to free health care contributes to the cost of running the NHS.

“Visitor and Migrant NHS Cost Recovery Programme—Implementation Plan 2014-16” has been placed in the Library. Copies are available to hon. Members from the Vote Office and to noble Lords from the Printed Paper Office.

Local Sustainable Transport Fund

Monday 14th July 2014 Written Statements

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Stephen Hammond)]

My noble Friend the Minister for Transport, Baroness Kramer, has made the following ministerial statement:

I am today announcing the successful bids for the local sustainable transport fund 2015-16 revenue funding competition. Almost all eligible local authorities submitted a bid for funding, and 44 were successful. The successful schemes will deliver a range of sustainable transport interventions across England, including enhanced cycling and walking infrastructure, improved bus journeys and better transport interchanges. All bids needed to demonstrate how the proposed programme would deliver economic growth, benefit the environment, influence greater uptake of cycling and walking, improve health and create a more joined-up door-to-door journey for people.

The successful projects will share over £64 million in revenue funding. Each project has provided its own matched contribution; the overall total of this matched funding is over £375 million. This includes over £100 million sourced directly from the local growth fund. This means that for every £1 the Department for Transport will invest through the local sustainable transport fund in 2015-16, local authorities will contribute £5.80 over the six years to 2020-21.

Examples of some successful projects include:

Birmingham will be continuing their ambition to become a premier cycling city through an extension of their cycling ambition programme;

Devon’s successful Access 2 Education programme will be extended to continue their work encouraging students across the country to travel more sustainably to school and training;

Jobseekers in Tamworth will be supported to access employment through cycling training and improved transport interchanges; and

East Lancashire will benefit from a range of cycling improvements, including an enhanced strategic cycle network that will provide links between housing, employment and town centres.

The announcement contains a number of projects that will significantly support the Government’s “Moving More, Living More” campaign, which seeks to create a more active nation as part of the physical activity legacy to the Olympic and Paralympic games.

The full list of successful schemes has been published on the Department for Transport’s website at: https://www.gov.uk/government/collections/local-sustainable-transport-fund.

British Transport Police Authority (Triennial Review)

Monday 14th July 2014 Written Statements

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Stephen Hammond)]

My noble Friend, the Minister for Transport, Baroness Kramer, has made the following ministerial statement:

I am today publishing the part 1 report of the triennial review of the British Transport police authority (BTPA).

The BTPA is the non-departmental public body (NDPB) responsible for ensuring an efficient and effective British Transport police (BTP) force for rail operators, their staff and passengers.

The review has been progressed in two parts. Part 1—the core triennial review—has considered the continuing need for the BTPA’s functions and the case for it to remain a NDPB. It has also looked at the control and governance arrangements in place to ensure that the BTPA is complying with recognised principles of good corporate governance.

Part 2 of the review considers a wider range of issues raised by the industry about the effectiveness of the BTPA in the discharge of its functions and the industry’s ability to influence outcomes.

I am pleased to announce the conclusion of the part 1 review and the publication of the report.

The report concludes that the functions of the BTPA are still necessary, that it remains the right body for delivering them and that the BTPA should remain a NDPB.

The report also concludes that the overall level of compliance with good practice on corporate governance is good, with just a few omissions and weaknesses which should be capable of being quickly addressed. The Department for Transport will be taking these recommended measures forward in discussion with the BTPA over the coming months.

I would like to thank Peter Murphy for carrying out a thorough analysis of the BTPA and its governance arrangements, and the BTPA for their assistance as well as all the other stakeholders who were involved during the course of the review including those who were part of the challenge group which was set up to oversee the review.

The review was conducted in accordance with Cabinet Office guidance (Guidance on reviews of non-departmental public bodies, June 2011).

The report is available on gov.uk and I have made available copies in the Libraries of both Houses.

House of Lords

Monday 14th July 2014 Lords Chamber

Monday, 14 July 2014.

14:30

Prayers—read by the Lord Bishop of Carlisle.

Death of a Member: Lord Methuen

Monday 14th July 2014 Lords Chamber

Announcement

14:37

[The Lord Speaker (Baroness D'Souza)]

My Lords, I regret to inform the House of the death of the noble Lord, Lord Methuen, on 9 July. On behalf of the House, I extend our condolences to the noble Lord’s family and friends.

UK National Plan on Women, Peace and Security

Monday 14th July 2014 Lords Chamber

Question

14:38

Asked by

[Baroness Prosser]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what is their implementation plan for the United Kingdom National Action Plan on Women, Peace and Security.

[The Senior Minister of State, Department for Communities and Local Government & Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Baroness Warsi) (Con)]

My Lords, the implementation plan is being developed and will be published before the end of the year. It underscores our commitment to provide clearer monitoring and evaluation of progress on the women, peace and security agenda. The plan will establish baselines to show our current support for women and girls, with key milestones to be achieved by the end of 2015 and final targets to be achieved by the end of the current national action plan in 2017.

[Baroness Prosser (Lab)]

I thank the Minister very much for that response. However, will the implementation plan be accompanied by a fully costed budget which clearly lays out proposed spending across all five of the new national action plan’s outcome areas—including, of course, the one on building national capacity—to deliver the UK’s women, peace and security commitments?

[Baroness Warsi]

The noble Baroness will be aware that this action plan, as currently published, is the third in the series. Although a series of principles have been set out each time, they have not always formed the basis of an implementation plan, so I think that this in itself is a step forward. The National Action Plan on Women, Peace and Security is funded through the Conflict Pool and its successor, the Conflict, Stability and Security Fund, which is about £1 billion-worth of funding. This part of the work will not be ring-fenced but will be done out of that broader Conflict Pool work.

[Baroness Falkner of Margravine (LD)]

My Lords, is my noble friend aware of the Ministry of Defence’s new report Global Strategic Trends out to 2045, which finds that the number of women participating in terrorist groups and in armed resistance movements will increase very significantly in the developing world? Can she tell the House whether the Conflict Pool’s thinking in that regard will apply across the board to the focus group countries listed in the UK’s action plan?

[Baroness Warsi]

My noble friend makes an important point. It is a new and developing area. For that reason, the women, peace and security plan must remain flexible. The MoD is committed to a number of issues under this plan. As my noble friend will be aware, responsibility for the plan is held by three different departments and includes training, employment, deployment and the work around NATO. I will certainly take back the issue that my noble friend raised and find out whether it is part of the thinking.

[Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Lab)]

My Lords, given the vital role that women played in conflict resolution in Northern Ireland, can the Minister explain why the resolution on women, peace and security is not being applied to Northern Ireland, thereby leaving these same women feeling powerless and voiceless? Will the Government look again at this issue following the recommendation of the UN’s Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women?

[Baroness Warsi]

The noble Baroness will be aware that the National Action Plan on Women, Peace and Security relates to foreign countries. Therefore, Northern Ireland would not fall under it. We do, of course, have a national action plan in relation to violence against women and girls, but I am not sure whether it covers the specific issue of women as peacebuilders. I will certainly write to the noble Baroness with information on where that element of work would fall.

[Lord Howell of Guildford (Con)]

My Lords, does my noble friend accept that the Commonwealth network is potentially an enormous pressure group for gender equality as well as for peace and security? Can she assure us that our support for the development of the Commonwealth network is part of the action plan?

[Baroness Warsi]

The national action plan forms the broad basis of work that the Foreign Office, the Department for International Development and the Ministry of Defence do. There are six focus countries where the action plan will be delivered. I do not think that it has been split between Commonwealth and non-Commonwealth countries—it is a broad plan that works across the world.

[Baroness Kinnock of Holyhead (Lab)]

My Lords, is there a specific budget to cover the need for comprehensive in-country consultations with local women’s organisations?

[Baroness Warsi]

There is no specific budget but specific work is being done. Money is available, but it is not ring-fenced in that way. We would not say, “That money has been put aside to consult with women’s groups on the ground”. However, money is available to consult with women’s groups on the ground. It has certainly been done in Libya and in Tunisia. It was, and is, also being done with women from Syria, as happened in the lead-up to the Geneva II discussions.

[Baroness Tonge (Ind LD)]

Will the Minister tell us what the Government propose to do about the incalculable suffering of the women of Gaza as it goes on now? They have no shelter to take their children to. They have very little food and no clean water, and night after night they have to try to protect their children from the obscene war that is being waged on them.

[Baroness Warsi]

My Lords, it is a fact that women and children suffer most in conflict regions, and, of course, Gaza is no exception. I am sure that a number of noble Lords will be interested in and concerned about the situation as it unfolds in Gaza. I will therefore be repeating a Statement later today that the Foreign Secretary will make in about an hour’s time in the Commons.

[Baroness Corston (Lab)]

My Lords, will the Minister tell the House what proposals the Government have for supporting women and human rights defenders in Afghanistan when British troops leave—the women who run the girls’ schools and women gynaecologists who do surgery on female victims of sexual assault? Such women have had their sons abducted and murdered. Surely we cannot leave them to the fate of the Taliban.

[Baroness Warsi]

This is an incredibly important area. I am sure that the noble Baroness met with Samira Hamidi, Parwin Wafa and Dr Dida Pighla last month when they visited, these incredibly inspirational human rights defenders in Afghanistan. As the noble Baroness will be aware, Amnesty International has now raised this issue on a number of occasions. I have commissioned a specific piece of work, and it is apparent from the initial research papers that I am getting back that there is a lot of support for human rights defenders, and specifically women’s human rights defenders, in Afghanistan, but there is also a real problem in relation to these women being aware of the support that is available. There is certainly some work that needs to be done to bring that work together. Some clearer work needs to be done on signposting and possibly on having an arm’s-length body that would take some of this work forward. However, I will certainly keep the noble Baroness updated. This is something that I am acutely aware of.

[Baroness Thornton (Lab)]

My Lords, I congratulate the noble Baroness on making the renewed commitment to fulfilling our obligations as outlined under United Nations Security Council Resolution 1325. I want to return to the funding and resourcing of this, because none of it will happen unless the funding is available. I am slightly concerned that it would be easy for it to be squeezed under these circumstances. If the noble Baroness feels the need for us to mount a campaign to strengthen her arm on this, she has only to ask.

[Baroness Warsi]

I am always happy to have support from the sisterhood. However, I can honestly say that, on this particular occasion, the concern that I have is that if you ring-fence an amount of money, say it is for women, peace and security and appoint somebody to do it, effectively that feels like you have done women, peace and security. I am quite keen for this work to be mainstreamed so that it is part of all the work that we do in relation to human rights, so that every Minister is responsible for women’s rights and so that all the money that is available to the Foreign and Commonwealth Office—and, indeed, to DfID and the MoD—can be made available for women, peace and security. However, if I need the support, I will certainly call upon the noble Baroness.

Health: Dementia

Monday 14th July 2014 Lords Chamber

Question

14:46

Asked by

[Baroness Seccombe]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what steps they are taking to improve the early diagnosis, and to raise awareness, of dementia.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health (Earl Howe) (Con)]

My Lords, in March 2012, the Prime Minister launched his Challenge on Dementia, to deliver major improvements in care and research. NHS England has set the first ever national ambition to improve dementia diagnosis. By March 2015, our aim is that two-thirds of the estimated people with dementia receive a diagnosis and appropriate post-diagnostic support. In May, Public Health England and the Alzheimer’s Society launched the Dementia Friends campaign, a major social movement to improve dementia awareness.

[Baroness Seccombe (Con)]

My Lords, all those who have lived with a loved one with dementia know only too well the heartache and unhappiness it brings to the whole family, without mentioning the financial implications for the family and, indeed, for the country. Does my noble friend agree that the Government must do everything in their power in this ageing society to support, wholeheartedly and urgently, research into this horrible condition? Does he also share my view that the probability of there being a test for early diagnosis around the corner does not mean that we all have to rush to the doctor if we have trouble remembering a few names or even, I understand, if one is losing one’s sense of smell?

[Earl Howe]

My Lords, my noble friend is right on the last point. The advice I have received is that it is perfectly normal for memory to be affected by age, stress and tiredness, and that you should go to your GP only if you are worried. My noble friend is absolutely right about the importance of research because we need to make a step-change in the prevention of dementia and in its treatment and care. Research spending on dementia has increased by nearly 50% since 2010-11. We are on track to meet the target of increasing funding to £66.3 million by 2015 and our ambition is to further double spending over the decade following the end of the present Parliament. My noble friend will also be aware that research was a major focus of the G8 dementia summit last December and the World Dementia Envoy, Dr Dennis Gillings, is leading a World Dementia Council to stimulate innovation in this area.

[Baroness Turner of Camden (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for what he said in response to this Question, but are the Government aware that dementia sufferers should never be left alone too much? I speak from experience because my sister is an Alzheimer’s sufferer. It is not a good idea ever to leave them too much on their own; it simply makes them a lot worse. Many are elderly people who otherwise live on their own and it is not a good idea. I have certainly set up arrangements for people to see my sister regularly, ensuring that she has her medicine and that she sees people every day. In that way, she is getting a lot better than I think otherwise she would, and she is able to participate in the life of the community as otherwise she would not be able to.

[Earl Howe]

The noble Baroness makes a series of extremely important points about the care of people with dementia. She is absolutely right. That is why we need to place greater emphasis on professional training and awareness, not only among NHS professionals but among social care staff, so that they appreciate the full dimension of the condition. Of course, we must remind ourselves that dementia is not a single condition. There are several conditions along that spectrum and each one has its own particular characteristics. We are emphasising to the NHS and local authorities that individual care planning is vital in this area.

[Lord Laming (CB)]

My Lords, will the Minister reinforce the point that he just touched on, that dementia—as a generic term—affects individuals in very different ways? As we have already heard, individuals’ circumstances vary enormously in terms of the position of their carers. Will the Minister do everything he can to ensure that in the future services will continue to respect the unique qualities of the individual who is affected by this condition?

[Earl Howe]

Again, the noble Lord makes a central point. As he will know, dementia can range from mild cognitive impairment to difficulties in organising daily life, right through to confinement to bed and very serious cognitive impairment. Knowing this is very distressing for people in the early stages of dementia. All this is why we are laying such emphasis on NHS staff receiving training. By October 2013, 108,000 NHS staff had received tier 1 training on dementia, and more than 100,000 social care workers have received some form of dementia awareness training through workforce development funding. We are aiming to increase those numbers substantially over the coming years.

[Baroness Barker (LD)]

My Lords, as there are currently no effective drug therapies, will the Minister explain what the incentives are for GPs to make early diagnosis of the condition?

[Earl Howe]

It is generally recognised—although some GPs disagree—that early diagnosis of dementia is vital. It is vital for ensuring that a person with dementia can access the relevant advice, information and care and support that can help them live well with the condition. My noble friend is right that there is currently no cure for dementia, but there are drugs that can help with some of the symptoms and people with dementia have the right to know that they have the condition so that they can better plan for the future.

[Lord Bradley (Lab)]

My Lords, I declare my health interests. The Alzheimer’s Society says that one person in five who suffer from dementia gets no support or information after diagnosis. Will the Minister say what specific actions the Government are taking now to try to improve the situation?

[Earl Howe]

My Lords, NHS England is investing £90 million in diagnosing two-thirds of people with dementia by March next year. We have amended the GP contract so that everyone over 75 has a named, accountable GP and the most vulnerable 2% in each practice will receive an enhanced service. The NHS Choices website has been enhanced. NHS England has provided CCGs with tools and guidance to help them set a local ambition to improve dementia diagnosis. The post-diagnostic support that the noble Lord mentions is absolutely central. There is a post-diagnosis working group to identify what good looks like in this area and roll out best practice.

Economy: Public Sector Net Borrowing

Monday 14th July 2014 Lords Chamber

Question

14:54

Asked by

[Lord Sherbourne of Didsbury]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government by how much public sector net borrowing has fallen between 2009-10 and 2013-14; and what is their forecast for the current financial year.

[Lord Newby (LD)]

My Lords, between 2009-10 and 2013-14, public sector net borrowing fell from £157.3 billion to £107 billion, or from 11% of gross domestic product to 6.6%—a fall of more than a third. The independent Office for Budget Responsibility forecast in March this year—2014-15—that underlying public sector net borrowing will fall to £95.5 billion, or 5.5% of gross domestic product, half its peak in 2009-10.

[Lord Sherbourne of Didsbury (Con)]

Does my noble friend agree that the reduction in the deficit over the past four years has been crucial in generating economic growth and employment? Does he also agree that it is therefore vital that the deficit reduction programme continues? Can he give the House some indication of when we might expect the deficit to be eliminated and the nation’s finances returned to balance?

[Lord Newby]

My Lords, on the current forecast we expect there to be a surplus in 2018-19. At the moment, as my noble friend points out, the economy is growing; we are the fastest growing economy in the G7 in the year to Q1 2014. The most recent employment figures showed that in the past year employment had risen by 780,000 and the claimant count had fallen by 406,000.

[Lord Kinnock (Lab)]

Do not the figures used by the Minister somewhat obscure serious facts about the years to which he referred? In the last four years of the Labour Government, including the crisis years 2008 to 2010, total net borrowing was £329 billion, while in the four years of the current Government total net borrowing has been £104 billion higher at £433 billion. Is not that rise in borrowing over those years a very serious indictment of government policies which have actually retarded growth, increased inequality and shrunk the economy? Is it not time for the Minister to offer something of an apology, rather than a pat on his own back?

[Lord Newby]

My Lords, it is an indictment of the previous Government. In the first year that we were in office, £1 of every £4 spent by Government was borrowed. That was completely and utterly unsustainable, and that is why we are sorting things out.

[Lord Tebbit (Con)]

My Lords, will my noble friend be very careful and encourage others to be careful in their use of the expressions “borrowing”, “deficit” and “debt”? The ghastly facts before us show that debt is rising remorselessly, and it will be, as he has said, some time yet before the enormous pile of debt incurred by the previous Labour Government can be brought under control and reduced?

[Lord Newby]

My Lords, I agree with the noble Lord. The relationship between debt and GDP is set to rise for a number of years more, even as we continue to reduce the deficit.

[Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean (Lab)]

My Lords, given that the Minister answers for the whole House, and given that this Question is about savings and the economy, can he please tell us why a Statement has not been made to the House, yet the Prime Minister spoke this morning at the Farnborough air show about budgetary savings that have led, apparently, to extra expenditure on counterterrorism and cybersecurity? The Prime Minister said that these were very important announcements, and they were indeed. Should they not have been made to Parliament?

[Lord Newby]

My Lords, there are always questions when statements are made outside the House as to whether they should have been made inside the House. If the noble Baroness is concerned about it, she of course has the option of asking an Urgent Question.

[Lord Razzall (LD)]

My Lords, is the Minister prepared to take this opportunity, in view of the questioning, to move from the short to the long-term and comment on last week’s report by the Office for Budgetary Responsibility, which states that by 2050 the public sector borrowing requirement will be more manageable than it would have been were it not for the actions of the coalition since 2010?

[Lord Newby]

Yes, my Lords; my noble friend is absolutely right. The report to which he refers demonstrates two things: first, with an ageing population, there will over a long period be significant pressures on the public finances, everything being equal; secondly, that a number of steps which have been taken with cross-party support, such as raising the retirement age, are making those long-term additional burdens more acceptable and possible to deal with in a sensible fiscal framework.

[Lord Davies of Oldham (Lab)]

My Lords, did not the Government promise in 2010 to balance the books by 2015, and is it not now the case that they will be lucky—well, they will be out of office, but they would have been lucky—to have balanced the books by 2018? Is the Minister aware that in the early months of this year borrowing was £2 billion higher than in the same period last year? So it is not getting better.

[Lord Newby]

My Lords, it is getting better. It has got better in the year up to now. The OBR says that we are on track to reduce borrowing during this year. As the noble Lord knows, there were substantial economic headwinds from the euro area crisis, high commodity prices and the ongoing impact of the financial crisis. I am not sure whether he is really proposing that we should have cut the deficit more quickly by cutting public expenditure further or putting taxes up.

Sport: Accessible Stadia Guidance

Monday 14th July 2014 Lords Chamber

Question

15:02

Tabled by

[Lord Faulkner of Worcester]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government how they plan to ensure that professional sports clubs follow the Accessible Stadia Guidance.

[Lord Faulkner of Worcester (Lab)]

My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper, and declare an interest as vice-president of the charity, Level Playing Field.

[Lord Gardiner of Kimble (Con)]

My Lords, the Government are committed to ensuring that all spectators have enhanced and appropriate access to sporting venues and services, and that professional sports clubs are aware of their responsibilities towards disabled spectators. The Department for Culture, Media and Sport is working with the Department for Work and Pensions on a range of measures to ensure that the rights of disabled spectators are met by professional sports clubs.

[Lord Faulkner of Worcester]

Does the Minister agree that, although some sports are making a real effort, the situation with professional football is, as the Minister for Disabled People said when he wrote to all professional clubs in April, “woefully inadequate”, when it was revealed that only three clubs in the Premier League, the richest league in the world, comply with the requirements for the number of spaces for supporters in wheelchairs? Does he not think that the time has now come for equality law to be properly enforced and the guidelines, which have been in place since 2004, properly implemented and clear new instructions issued to the Sports Grounds Safety Authority?

[Lord Gardiner of Kimble]

My Lords, first, I acknowledge the noble Lord’s tireless work on ensuring that there is greater access for disabled people. Importantly, the Sports Grounds Safety Authority is currently in discussion with Level Playing Field on a revision of the guidance to ensure that it takes account of legislative, technical and other advances that have occurred over the past 11 years. Premier football clubs have considerable means and I think that they should be looking to do very much better.

[Lord Holmes of Richmond (Con)]

My Lords, I draw my noble friend’s attention to the work which will be undertaken by the Equality and Human Rights Commission, in which my interest is declared in the register, to address this specific point: to ensure that when a disabled spectator goes to football, rugby, cricket or whatever sport in this country, we guarantee that they have an inclusive spectator experience. I am sure that my noble friend will agree.

[Lord Gardiner of Kimble]

My Lords, I am delighted that my noble friend is leading on that initiative of the Equality and Human Rights Commission to deliver the sports equality standard programme. Across all sports, we need to ensure that there is an improvement in physical and cultural accessibility. It seems to me that it is a basic right of disabled people to have as much enjoyment from sport as those who are not disabled.

[Baroness Grey-Thompson (CB)]

My Lords, is the Minister aware that certain Premiership football clubs such as Manchester United refuse to sell season tickets to wheelchair users and that it has only 42% of the accessible seating that it should? At other clubs, it is impossible to buy one because of the lack of accessible seating. What steps are Her Majesty’s Government taking to ensure a fair ticketing policy for all spectators and fans?

[Lord Gardiner of Kimble]

My Lords, first, the Equality Act prohibits discrimination against disabled people in the provision of goods, facilities and services. That is precisely why my right honourable friend Mike Penning, the Minister for Disabled People, and the Minister for Sport are so keen to ensure that, in their discussions with all sporting bodies, it is absolutely a fixture on the agenda of those meetings that this greater access is addressed and that clubs which ought to know better do better.

[Lord Foulkes of Cumnock (Lab)]

My Lords, I declare an interest as a former chairman of the Heart of Midlothian Football Club. Is the Minister aware that there is a country which is better than we are at access for disabled people, better at training young people in football, cheaper as far as access to the stadia is concerned and better in terms of all the facilities in the stadium, and whose example we could well follow? That country is the Federal Republic of Germany.

[Lord Gardiner of Kimble]

My Lords, it was quite an extraordinary match last night and, clearly, there are lessons to be learnt for many countries from the ability of those German players. However, it is very important that this country picks up on what we were so successful at in 2012 with the Olympics and Paralympics, as that legacy needs to transcend all sporting stadia.

[Baroness Brinton (LD)]

My Lords, I speak as a season-ticket holder at Southampton Football Club, which is one of the four that meet the requirements. Should training for staff also be ensured? As an away supporter, I often have to sit with home fans, which can be quite difficult, but you can always tell when you are with someone who understands the issue of someone who is in a wheelchair or has other disability problems.

[Lord Gardiner of Kimble]

My Lords, my noble friend makes a very important point: that disabled people—their rights being the same as those who are not disabled—should be sitting among the supporters of whichever side they wish. That is a perfectly sensible and correct thing to do. Clearly, training people is also an important part in providing the facility, as is providing carers to attend with disabled people, which many clubs are undertaking. That is the way forward.

[Lord Rosser (Lab)]

My Lords, do the Government consider the existing equality legislation sufficient to bring about real change in accessibility and the provision of facilities for disabled supporters, particularly at our larger football stadia and arenas? If the Government do so consider, why is that legislation not being used? If they do not consider existing legislation sufficient to bring about real change, how much longer do they intend to wait before passing further legislation that will achieve the desired objective for disabled supporters? I declare an interest as a vice-president of Level Playing Field.

[Lord Gardiner of Kimble]

My Lords, obviously, no one would rule out further legislation if it becomes necessary. I know from looking at the exchanges of correspondence that this is something which the previous Government thought through. Clearly, it is the responsibility of each club to look at how it is dealing with access for disabled people. We think that is the best way to go because legislation can very often be a blunt instrument. We know that the Premier clubs are particularly well able to ensure that they have the necessary adaption, whereas perhaps some other clubs would find difficulties. That is exactly why the Equalities Act 2010 was couched in the way that it was.

Pensions Act 2011 (Consequential and Supplementary Provisions) Regulations 2014

Monday 14th July 2014 Lords Chamber

Motion to Approve

15:09

Moved by

[Lord Bates]

That the draft regulations laid before the House on 17 June be approved.

Relevant document: 3rd Report from the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments. Considered in Grand Committee on 9 July.

Motion agreed.

Legislative Reform (Patents) Order 2014

Monday 14th July 2014 Lords Chamber

Motion to Approve

15:09

Moved by

[Lord Popat]

That the draft order laid before the House on 6 May be approved.

Relevant document: 1st Report from the Regulatory Reform Committee. Considered in Grand Committee on 9 July.

Motion agreed.

Criminal Justice and Courts Bill

Monday 14th July 2014 Lords Chamber

Committee (1st Day)

15:09

Relevant documents: 2nd Report from the Constitution Committee, 3rd Report from the Delegated Powers Committee, 14th Report, Session 2013-14, from the Joint Committee on Human Rights.

Clause 1 agreed.

Clause 2: Specified offences

Amendment 1

Moved by

[Lord Faulks]

1: Clause 2, page 3, line 22, leave out “, (4), (5) and (6)” and insert “and (4)”

[The Minister of State, Ministry of Justice (Lord Faulks) (Con)]

My Lords, Amendment 1 removes references in Clause 2(10) to subsections (5) and (6) of that clause. Subsection (10) makes transitional provision around the application of the “dangerousness” life sentence, imposed on conviction of an offence listed in Schedule 15 to the Criminal Justice Act 2003, which carries a maximum penalty of life where the court considers that there is a significant risk to members of the public of serious harm from further Schedule 15 offences. However, such a sentence could never be imposed for the offences mentioned in subsections (5) and (6) so we do not need to refer to them.

The other amendments are minor changes that correct inconsistencies and lacunae relating to dangerous offender provisions in the drafting of the Criminal Justice Act 2003. Amendment 2 relates to foreign service offences and the extent to which they are treated as previous convictions for the purposes of the dangerous offender sentencing scheme. Previous convictions may be relevant in determining eligibility for an extended determinate sentence or for the “two strikes” life sentence. This amendment ensures that all previous convictions for a member state service offence, which is the equivalent of an offence listed in Schedule 15B to the Criminal Justice Act 2003, can count as relevant previous convictions for these purposes.

As currently drafted, paragraph 49 of Schedule 15B to the Criminal Justice Act 2003 covers only equivalent member state service offences for which the offender was convicted by a court operating in the member state. However, a conviction for a member state service offence could be given by a service court sitting elsewhere in the world. Currently, such convictions are covered for UK service courts operating outside the UK, and we should treat member state convictions in the same way.

Amendment 3 relates to certificates of conviction. There is provision in the Criminal Justice Act 2003 for such certificates to be treated as evidence as to whether a previous conviction is a relevant previous conviction for the purposes of the “two strikes” life sentence. Such certificates could assist in dealing with disputes about, for example, whether a previous conviction for robbery under Section 8 of the Theft Act 1968 involved possession of a firearm. In the former case, the robbery would constitute an offence listed in Schedule 15B to the Criminal Justice Act 2003. However, no similar provision is made in relation to deciding eligibility for an extended determinate sentence. To rectify this anomaly, we are extending Section 232A of the Criminal Justice Act 2003 to Section 226A(2) of the Criminal Justice Act 2003 as well.

Amendment 6 relates to how the court determines the date of a previous offence. Generally, where legislation makes a change to sentencing, provision is made for how the date of an offence should be determined if it is found to have been committed over a period of two or more days or at some time during a period of two or more days. This is helpful because such changes often apply only where an offence is committed on or after the commencement of the provision in question. However, there is no provision of this type in relation to Section 224A of the 2003 Act—the “two strikes” life sentence. This is an anomaly, and we consider that we need to rectify it. I beg to move.

Amendment 1 agreed.

Clause 2 agreed.

15:15

Clause 3: Schedule 15B offences

Amendments 2 and 3

Moved by

[Lord Faulks]

2: Clause 3, page 4, line 11, at end insert—
“( ) Part 4 of Schedule 15B to the Criminal Justice Act 2003 (offences under the law of Scotland, Northern Ireland or a member State other than the United Kingdom listed for the purposes of sections 224A(4) and 226A of that Act) is amended as follows.
( ) In paragraph 49, for “An offence” substitute “A civilian offence”.
( ) After paragraph 49 insert—
“49A A member State service offence which, if committed in England and Wales at the time of the conviction, would have constituted an offence specified in Part 1 or 2 of this Schedule.
49B In this Part of this Schedule—
“civilian offence” means an offence other than an offence described in Part 3 of this Schedule or a member State service offence;“member State service offence” means an offence which was the subject of proceedings under the law of a member State, other than the United Kingdom, governing all or any of the naval, military or air forces of that State.””

3: Clause 3, page 4, line 21, leave out “this section” and insert “subsections (2) to (5)”

Amendments 2 and 3 agreed.

Amendment 4

Moved by

[Lord Beecham]

4: Clause 3, page 4, line 26, at end insert—
“(10) Before this section comes into force, the Secretary of State shall—
(a) consult the Parole Board about the resources required for additional hearings resulting from the implementation of this section; and(b) lay a report before Parliament containing—(i) his assessment of the resources required for additional hearings; and(ii) his plans to ensure that the Parole Board has adequate resources to fulfil the requirements of this section effectively.”

[Lord Beecham (Lab)]

My Lords, Amendments 4, 5, 8 and 16 relate to the obligations imposed on the Parole Board by Clauses 3, 4, 5 and 7. Clause 3 adds terrorism and explosive offences to the category of the enhanced dangerous offenders sentencing scheme. Cases will be referred to the board for a decision about release instead of offenders being eligible for automatic release after serving two-thirds of their term. Clause 4 extends this to all such offenders serving extended determinate sentences. Clause 5 applies a similar provision to other offenders convicted of serious crimes, as listed in the schedule, who will be subject to discretionary rather than automatic release between the halfway and end points of their sentence. Clause 7 creates a new release test for recalled prisoners to be applied by the board under which the Secretary of State or the board has to be satisfied that it is highly unlikely that a prisoner would breach a condition of his licence.

All these measures are likely to increase the pressure on an overstretched and underresourced Parole Board. The Government estimate an increase of 1,100 hearings a year by 2030, rising by an estimated 50 next year, 400 by 2020 and ultimately requiring an extra 1,000 prison places. As the Prison Reform Trust points out, the Ministry of Justice has form in these matters. When indeterminate sentences—IPPs—which we will be debating later were introduced, the ministry, under a previous Administration, estimated an increase in the prison population of 900, but by the end of last year 5,335 people were serving IPP sentences, two-thirds of them beyond their tariff date.

This was in good measure a result of the failure, frequently commented upon in this House and beyond, to provide the necessary resources to the Parole Board to prepare people for release and rehabilitation. As the Prison Reform Trust reported, offending behaviour programmes are scarcely available and limited in their scope and effectiveness, and it is inherently difficult to demonstrate reduced dangerousness and pass the high safety threshold for release. That was in 2010, when numbers were smaller and staffing greater. Moreover, as the Prison Reform Trust points out, the Government’s impact assessment of the provisions of the Offender Rehabilitation Act estimated that 13,000 offenders would be recalled or committed to custody a year, leading to an extra 600 prison places being needed. Have the Government looked into the real impact of the Offender Rehabilitation Act on this situation to date and as anticipated in the near future? Further, what assessment have they made of the effect of the recent Supreme Court judgment in the Osborn case requiring the board to hold more oral hearings, which last December alone had increased by one-third in indeterminate review cases to just under 400 in a month and to 90 in indeterminate recall cases?

The board warned in its annual report, as it appears from today’s Daily Telegraph, that the number of oral hearings could increase from 4,500 a year to as many as 14,000, and at an additional cost of £10 million. What is the Government’s response to this estimate? The Minister has apparently indicated that an extra £3 million will be allocated to the Parole Board. How does that square with the board’s own estimate of the potential cost? What is the Government’s estimate of the impact on prison numbers and on the work of the board of the Secretary of State’s latest headline-grabbing decision that no prisoner may be transferred to an open prison if he or she has previously absconded, which is apparently already building up a backlog of Parole Board hearings? How do the Government expect the board to cope with these pressures when it has already lost 20% of its staff and when its members are now having to use an unreliable video link system to conduct hearings—another example of the problems associated with rushing headlong into the all too frequently costly and inadequately tested application of IT and electronic systems?

All this is set against a background of massive overcrowding in many prisons with the attendant problems that that poses for prisoners and staff, and with the system too often being pared back to one of simple confinement. The chief inspector has spoken of dangerous instability in the prison estate and has pointed out that despite some recent high-profile cases, there is a very low failure rate for release on licence. Further questions arise over the Government’s apparent intention, as reported in the Times on 21 June, to transfer responsibility for the administration of recall cases to the magistrates’ courts. Can the Minister tell us whether this is the Government’s policy, because of course the report may be wrong, and if so, what consultations have taken place with the Parole Board, the Magistrates’ Association, the judiciary and other interested parties? Is there an intention to pilot such a concept before rolling it out?

It really is time for the Government to adopt less of the kind of muscle-flexing populism that is so often exhibited by the Secretary of State and more of the considered approach we have come to expect of the Minister. These amendments are designed to ensure that the Parole Board is fully engaged with any plans to implement these measures and that Parliament has an opportunity to scrutinise and approve their implementation on the basis that the necessary resources will be made available to ensure that the pathway to rehabilitation is properly and securely paved. I beg to move.

[Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab)]

My Lords, I want to add to some of the comments made by my noble friend Lord Beecham on the make-up of the review of the Parole Board. My understanding is that at present Parole Board members can either sit as a single Parole Board member or as two or as three. They can be a mixture of lay people and lawyers. It is of course desirable that the more serious the case, the greater the legal training and the more appropriate the experience of the people sitting on those hearings. I also wonder whether the Minister can comment on the possibility of using lay magistrates to sit on parole hearings. Is this something that the Ministry of Justice is willing to consider? We have a resource in the pool of magistrates throughout England and Wales, so is the ministry considering the use of magistrates in parole hearings? The whole subject of the Parole Board is extremely important, as we have heard from my noble friend Lord Beecham, and is something that needs to be managed very carefully, given the reduction in the resources being made available to it.

[Lord Ramsbotham (CB)]

My Lords, perhaps I may add a word to what the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, has said in amplification of his noble friend Lord Beecham. In addition to saying that £3 million would be made available, the Minister has been quoted as saying that a number of changes are to be introduced to ease the pressure on the Parole Board. In addition to the possibility of lay magistrates being used, as mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, can the Minister outline exactly what those changes are? I am quite certain that the Supreme Court introduced the Parole Board in oral hearings because it was satisfied that the board gave a fair hearing to people, and that was how it operated. I would hate to think of some of the parole decisions being reduced to bureaucratic decisions taken by officials.

[Lord Hope of Craighead (CB)]

My Lords, I shall add a word based on my own experience. It is quite difficults to visualise the work of the Parole Board members unless one has seen them at work. One thing that struck me some years ago when I attended Parole Board hearings from time to time was the huge volume of paperwork generated by individual cases. Of course, the longer a prisoner remains in custody, the bigger the volume becomes. The technique which the Parole Board member has to apply to each case is to work his or her way through the file, which takes a great deal of time, then explain whatever views he or she has reached, based on the information in the file. It is immensely time consuming. My experience was that Parole Board members were extremely conscientious; the people who know best what the effect was of the diminution of resources on their ability to do their job are the Parole Board members themselves, which is the strength of the point that the noble Lord, Lord Beecham, made. I suggest that his amendment deserves a great deal of consideration.

[Lord Faulks]

My Lords, the amendments relate to four clauses, which will have the effect of increasing the involvement of the Parole Board in certain areas. The clauses we are considering are: Clause 3, which adds a number of terrorism-related offences to the enhanced dangerous offenders sentencing regime; Clause 4, which will require all prisoners serving an extended determinate sentence to be referred to the Parole Board before early release can be authorised; Clause 5, which creates a new determinate sentence for serious child sex and terrorist offenders, under which prisoners will be referred to the Parole Board before early release can be authorised; and Clause 7, which introduces a new test for determining whether offenders receive fixed-term or standard recall, and to inform re-release decisions.

Our impact assessment acknowledges that Clauses 4 and 5 will add to the Parole Board’s workload. However, Clause 3 should not give rise to more than negligible impacts, since very few offenders are convicted of the offences in question. In any event, it should not impact on the Parole Board over and above the estimated impact of Clause 4 because, following the changes in Clause 4, all those serving extended determinate sentences will be referred to the Parole Board for early release in any event. We also think that Clause 7 will not have significant effects, because we estimate it will add a very small percentage to the total number of standard recalls that the board currently deals with.

We have looked at the likely impact of these provisions and the time over which the impacts will make themselves felt, and are confident that the additional work that will be created will be manageable. Most of the increase in Parole Board workload will arise from the new determinate sentence created by Clause 5 and Schedule 1, which will apply only to offenders who are sentenced after the new sentence is implemented. Those who commit these offences very often receive substantial prison sentences; under the new sentence, they will serve half their custodial term in prison before they are referred to the Parole Board for consideration for release. All this means that there will be a substantial time lag before these cases start to come through to the board. Our estimate is that the board will see the full impact of changes to early release between 2020 and 2030. We are also supporting the board in dealing with the consequences of the Osborn, Booth and Reilly judgment, referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Beecham, in his helpful remarks.

The Parole Board has established a programme of work to equip itself for dealing with the challenge of providing an increased number of oral hearings. The first phase of that work, which involved scoping the challenge and setting up immediate plans to deal with the increased demand, is now complete. The second phase, which involves developing a new case management model for the future, is under way.

15:30

The board has identified the scale of the increase in workload and the increased capacity needed. Until now, around 550 cases have been listed a month, which has been the board’s maximum capacity. Additional resources have been allocated to facilitate an increased capacity of nearer 750 cases. Determinate sentence parole review cases have been changed to single-member panels to bring them in line with other paper reviews. This has increased capacity from 105 per month to 142, without increasing resource.

Pilots have been set up to trial a new approach to providing support to parole reviews and a new central assessment system. This includes a new approach to listing hearings. In July, panels will be composed of two rather than three members. The board is recruiting additional case managers to increase the capacity for oral hearings.

I, should, however, emphasise that in all these reforms the board is very conscious of the need to maintain the quality of its decisions. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, is absolutely right to emphasise the volume of paperwork that is often involved and the skill and tenacity involved in getting to the bottom of the various pieces of information on a prisoner’s file. It is also important that there should be fair, robust and timely reviews, with the overriding priority of protecting the public.

The Ministry of Justice has provided additional resources to the board to support this work; further funding, in the sum of £1.2 million, was provided in 2013-14. This enabled the board to take measures, including the recruitment of additional staff, to support the increased provision of oral hearings. In addition, the board’s 2014-15 baseline funding has been increased from £10.8 million to £13.8 million.

The key point about these amendments is that a new operating model that provides greater flexibility to manage changes in workflow will have been established well before the board sees a substantial impact from these provisions. We must also remember that the number of IPP cases—a subject of great concern to your Lordships’ House—that the board will have to deal with will decrease over time following the abolition of these sentences in 2012.

I should mention the suggestion in the amendment that Parliament needs a specific duty to scrutinise resource issues for the Parole Board in respect of commencement of particular sentencing provisions. With respect, I am not convinced that this is a practical approach to legislative changes of this type. Potential changes to the workload of arm’s-length bodies are not a rare occurrence. There are already established governance structures to ensure that new pressures on the Parole Board are taken account of and the board is consulted during the budget allocation process. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, is, of course, right that the Parole Board is best equipped to help the Ministry of Justice inform itself of the demands of its work and its nature. As noble Lords will also be aware, the Ministry of Justice is already accountable to Parliament for the discharge of its responsibilities. I do not think that putting such an obligation on the face of legislation would add anything to the current arrangements, and would seem to constitute an undue burden on Parliament.

I was asked by the noble Lords, Lord Beecham and Lord Ponsonby, about the possibility of magistrates taking on some of the Parole Board work. Indeed, there was a story on that in the Times. The Government are considering a number of options to address the impact of the Supreme Court judgment, and no decision has yet been made. The Parole Board does an excellent job in protecting the public but we want to make sure that it continues to do so in the light of these increased pressures.

I should say a little more about Osborn, Booth and Reilly. That decision means that while the Parole Board adjusts its working practices to accommodate this increase in oral hearings, it is likely that there will be some delays. The board is working closely with the National Offender Management Service and the ministry to identify the best way to implement the requirements of the judgment. In the short term, the board has refocused its resources in order to support an increasing number of the oral hearings. In fact, for those noble Lords who are interested, further details of the work can be found at the Ministry of Justice website.

The Parole Board performs an extremely valuable function and it is important that it is adequately resourced and in a position to deal with the demands that sentencing provisions create. We are well aware of that. There is, of course, regular communication between the Ministry of Justice and the Parole Board, and I hope that I have reassured the noble Lord, Lord Beecham, whose concern on the matter is understandable. The ministry is, however, well aware of the issue and I hope that in the light of my response he feels able to withdraw his amendment.

[Lord Beecham]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for his explanations. I do not, I am afraid, find them entirely satisfactory, particularly in relation to the increased workload and its cost. It is, after all, the board’s annual report that suggested that there would be an increase of nearly threefold in the number of hearings—from 4,500 to 14,000—at what it estimated would be an additional cost of £10 million, which, on the Minister’s figures for the current costs, represents a doubling of the cost. Yet the Government’s planned contribution is of the order of £3 million, which is significantly less than was indicated by the board’s figures. There is still an issue here, and that is what lies behind the suggestion that we in Parliament need to take an overall look at the situation as it develops in terms of the adequacy of resources.

The objectives are admirable, but it does not seem to me and, I suspect, some other noble Lords that the Government have fully thought through and costed what is required to deliver the policy—hence the suggestion that the Parole Board be consulted. Consultations are, no doubt, taking place but the results of those consultations, and the implications for staffing and otherwise, should be laid in a report before Parliament in order that it can exercise its job of scrutinising a significant area of public policy that potentially impacts upon public safety. All of us wish the service to work well but it has to be properly resourced, and it is necessary for Parliament to have a role in doing that, given that, on the face of it and for all the Government’s good intentions, they do not seem to have worked it through sufficiently.

At this stage, I will not press the amendment but it is a matter to which we may well return on Report. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 4 withdrawn.

Clause 3, as amended, agreed.

Clause 4: Parole Board release when serving extended sentences

Amendment 5 not moved.

Clause 4 agreed.

Amendment 6

Moved by

[Lord Faulks]

6: After Clause 4, insert the following new Clause—
“Minor amendments
(1) In section 224A of the Criminal Justice Act 2003 (life sentence for second listed offence), at the end insert—
“(12) Where an offence is found to have been committed over a period of two or more days, or at some time during a period of two or more days, it must be taken for the purposes of subsections (1)(b) and (4)(a) to have been committed on the last of those days.”
(2) In section 232A of that Act (certificates of conviction), for “section 224A” substitute “sections 224A and 226A”.
(3) In section 218A of the Armed Forces Act 2006 (life sentence for second listed offence), at the end insert—
“(8) Where an offence is found to have been committed over a period of two or more days, or at some time during a period of two or more days, it must be taken for the purposes of subsections (1)(c) and (5)(a) to have been committed on the last of those days.””

Amendment 6 agreed.

Amendment 7

Moved by

[Lord Lester of Herne Hill]

7: After Clause 4, insert the following new Clause—
“Review of whole life orders
After section 30 of the Crime (Sentences) Act 1997, insert—“30A Review of whole life orders
(1) A prisoner who is—
(a) the subject of a whole life order made under—(i) section 269 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003, or(ii) section 82A(4) of the Powers of Criminal Courts (Sentencing) Act 2000, and(b) has been in custody for 25 years,may apply to the Parole Board for a review of the whole life order.(2) If on an application under subsection (1) the Parole Board is satisfied that the prisoner has made such exceptional progress towards rehabilitation that a whole life order is no longer justified, it shall substitute a determinate tariff for the whole life order.
(3) No fresh application may be made by a prisoner under subsection (1) before the period of five years has elapsed since the Parole Board’s determination of the prisoner’s previous application.””

[Lord Lester of Herne Hill (LD)]

My Lords, the amendment was proposed by the Joint Committee on Human Rights, of which I am a member, in a report published on 14 May and is in the Printed Paper Office. I mention that because I realise that what I am about to say will certainly be intelligible to the distinguished jurists who are present, but ordinary members of the public might be a little puzzled by some of it. I shall do my best to make it straightforward. I am delighted that my friends, noble and learned and otherwise, are supporting the amendment.

In the case called Vinter v United Kingdom, the Grand Chamber of the European Court of Human Rights decided that for life sentences to remain compatible with Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights there had to be a possibility of release and a possibility of review, both in theory and in practice.

Currently, under Section 30 of the Crime (Sentences) Act 1997, prisoners on a whole life order cannot be released except with the discretion of the Secretary of State for Justice on compassionate grounds. The Strasbourg court held that this did not offer sufficient legal certainty. In the recent case of McLoughlin and Newell on sentencing appeals which was decided on 18 February 2014, the Court of Appeal held that the current regime under Section 30 is compatible with Article 3 of the convention because the Secretary of State is not restricted to the medical grounds set out in the Prison Service order, but is under a public law duty to take into account all exceptional circumstances.

The Joint Committee on Human Rights, as I have mentioned, published its report on 14 May. It commended the usefulness of the Government’s European Convention on Human Rights memorandum, which is fully in accordance with our recommendations for best practice by government departments. As the memorandum rightly acknowledges, the fact that the provisions in the Bill bring some terrorist-related offences within the scope of possible whole life orders for the first time directly raises a human rights compatibility issue as to whether the law currently provides sufficient opportunity for a review of a whole life order in the light of the judgment of the Grand Chamber in Vinter, and the position of the Court of Appeal in McLoughlin.

In paragraph 1.23, our report says:

“There is some continuing legal uncertainty, however, as to whether the domestic law, as interpreted by the Court of Appeal, now provides an adequate mechanism for review of whole life prison orders. The Grand Chamber in Vinter was unequivocal that ‘a whole life prisoner is entitled to know, at the outset of his sentence, what he must do to be considered for release and under what conditions, including when a review of his sentence will take place or may be sought’.

The judgment is clear that the procedure for such a review mechanism should be set out clearly in law so that prisoners subject to a whole life order clearly know, at the outset of their sentence, the process by which they may or may not be eligible to apply for a review of their whole life order should they wish to challenge it on the grounds that there are no longer justifiable penological grounds for their continued life detention, including the time when they can expect to be able to make such an application for a review.

In our view, while the Court of Appeal's judgment in McLoughlin significantly clarifies the law, it does not provide legal certainty about these three important aspects of the review mechanism”.

When we asked the Government,

“whether any further measures are required in order to provide the requisite degree of legal certainty”,

they responded, indicated that they were awaiting the outcome of appeal to the Supreme Court arising from one of the appellants in the McLoughlin case. The JCHR said that,

“for the review mechanism to be sufficiently certain, more specific details need to be provided … including the timetable on which such a review can be sought, the grounds on which it can be sought, who should conduct such a review, and the periodic availability of further such reviews after the first review”.

The Bill provides Parliament with an opportunity to remove any legal uncertainty by specifying the details of the review mechanism. That is what the amendment is designed to achieve. That is even more necessary than it was at the time of the JCHR report because of the inclusion by the Government of Clause 24, which makes a whole life order the usual term of imprisonment for murder of a police officer or prison officer and which may result in more whole life orders being imposed.

15:45

Also, the European court’s judgment in László Magyar v Hungary, decided on 20 May 2014, reinforces the reasoning in the JCHR report. In that case, the European court reiterated that a whole life prisoner is entitled to know at the outset of his sentence what he must do to be considered for release and under what conditions, including when a review of his sentence will take place or may be sought.

Our Government submitted a revised action report to the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe on 27 June 2014. As Members of the Committee will know, that is the body charged with securing compliance with court judgments in a supervisory capacity. In the Government’s report to the Committee of Ministers, they asked for supervision of the Vinter case to be closed on the basis that all is now clear as a matter of domestic law after the Court of Appeal’s judgment in McLoughlin.

The view of the Joint Committee on Human Rights—and, if I may say so, my view—is that that is incorrect, and the briefings from the Equality and Human Rights Commission and Justice both support the amendment. I very much hope that in his reply the Minister will be able to respond positively, because it is extremely important that the matter be understood clearly here, as well as in Strasbourg. I beg to move.

[Lord Pannick (CB)]

My Lords, I support everything that has been said by the noble Lord, Lord Lester of Herne Hill. I add simply one point. Amendment 7 would enact what was the practice prior to 1997, except of course that the review prior to that date was conducted by the Secretary of State and not by the independent Parole Board.

I am concerned that there is one reason and one reason only why this Government, and indeed their predecessor, removed the right to a review after 25 years and refuse to reinstate it. The reason is that, as a matter of law, such a review could not lawfully be undertaken by a Minister. The Strasbourg court has repeatedly stated that an independent person must make decisions on release. I would welcome the Minister’s comments on this, but I anticipate that the Secretary of State would be quite content for there to be a review by her or by her successors after 25 years but what she cannot accept is a review by an independent Parole Board. However, as the Strasbourg court has repeatedly stated—and it is surely right—decisions on release should be made by an independent person or body and not by a politician, however wise or experienced she may be.

[Lord Lloyd of Berwick (CB)]

My Lords, for the reasons that have already been given, I support the amendment and I do so all the more willingly because it is very similar to an amendment which I tabled two years ago when we were debating the LASPO Bill. A very significant difference between the two amendments is that I thought that the review should take place after 30 years rather than 25 years. My reason was that 30 years is one of the starting points for determining tariffs under Schedule 21. A defendant with a 30-year starting point and no mitigating or aggravating features would look forward to a review after 30 years but not before. It would not particularly make sense that a whole life prisoner should have a right of review after 25 years when one with a 30-year starting point would have to wait for 30 years, but that is a small detail.

The debate on my amendment took place on 9 February 2012, at col. 390. There were 12 speakers on that occasion. All, except the noble Lord, Lord McNally, supported the amendment. The only reason which the noble Lord gave for not supporting the amendment was that the public was not yet ready for it and, for that reason, the other place would not accept it and there was no point in it passing through this House. During my reply, he said that it would be easier to reach unanimity if we could arrange a joint meeting of both Houses. That is exactly what has now happened in the sense that we have the Joint Committee on Human Rights, which includes Members from the House of Commons and the House of Lords. So far as I know, there was no dissentient voice from any Member of the Commons. Perhaps we may put that objection on one side.

Until 2003, there was no doubt that exceptional progress in prison qualified a lifer serving a whole life tariff for a review after 25 years. Somehow, that right was overlooked when the 2003 Act was being pushed through Parliament. There was no evidence that I know of that the right of review after 25 years was causing resentment or was in any way unpopular with the public. Certainly, those serving these sentences had done nothing that I know of to forfeit the right which they then had. For my part, I cannot believe that anyone in government made a conscious decision to remove this right. It seems almost inconceivable that they would have done, but there we are. All we seek to do in this amendment is to restore to these prisoners a right which they have lost, so far as I am concerned, for no apparent reason.

There are other equally strong arguments to support the amendment. Prisoners serving tariffs of 20 or 30 years are entitled to a review after they have completed their tariffs. It gives them light at the end of the tunnel and provides them with a reason for making progress if they can. In those cases, the review is justified both on practical grounds and on humanitarian grounds. Will the Minister say why those reasons precisely do not apply to those serving whole life sentences? One might think that it should apply all the more so. It cannot be that they are being deprived of this right for some symbolic reason, but if that is the case I would be very glad to hear about it.

I could understand if the Minister said, like the noble Lord, Lord McNally, that this amendment would never be accepted at the other end of the corridor, but I would have no sympathy with him at all if he said that we should wait until the Supreme Court has decided the appeal in McLoughlin. The decision in Vinter is clear: a life prisoner is entitled to know at the start of his sentence what he has to do to qualify for a review after 25 years. It is equally clear that exceptional progress in prison would be a qualifying ground. But Section 30 of the 1997 Act provides that a prisoner can be released only on “compassionate grounds”. A prisoner who has earned his review by making exceptional progress is not being released on compassionate grounds in any ordinary sense of that term. Whatever the Supreme Court may say, we will need primary legislation to change the word “compassionate” or make clear what the word “compassionate” means. I would have thought that we would need a different word or an additional word. That will require primary legislation. I see no reason to wait until the Supreme Court has expressed a view. Indeed, if we had the primary legislation now, maybe there would be no need for a hearing at all. We should, in my view, grasp the nettle now. That is why I support the amendment.

[Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames (LD)]

My Lords, I add only this to the point made by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd, in answer to my noble friend Lord McNally’s response. Not only is the Joint Committee on Human Rights composed of Members of both Houses, but members of all parties agreed unanimously on this report. My reasons for supporting the amendment are threefold. First, it is a matter of simple humanity. Secondly, I agree again with my noble friend Lord Lester and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd, that I do not believe the decision of the Court of Appeal in McLoughlin has put the current position in English law beyond doubt in the light of the clear decision of what is required by the Grand Chamber of the European Court of Human Rights in Vinter. In any event, it is for Parliament to make the law clear on this issue. Thirdly, our obligation to honour our treaty commitments is an absolute one that must not be shirked.

My first point is the point of substance, independently of the convention: a whole life tariff without the prospect of review is incompatible with a humane approach or human rights-based approach to punishment. I remain firmly committed to the principle that one of the primary purposes of punishment is rehabilitation. This is embodied in statute law by Section 142 of the 2003 Act, which is the very Act on which whole life sentences are based. That provides, under the heading “Purposes of sentencing”, that:

“Any court dealing with an offender in respect of his offence must have regard to the following purposes of sentencing”,

the third of which is;

“the reform and rehabilitation of offenders”.

The imposition of a whole life order without any hope of release on rehabilitation grounds is incompatible with that statutory purpose of sentencing. It does not follow that a whole life tariff cannot be imposed by the sentencing court, but it does follow that, when sentencing, a judge should know and the offender should know that there is some prospect at least that in exceptional circumstances there will be a power to enable the offender’s release other than on purely compassionate grounds. Of course, it is understandable that in the case of the most heinous crimes the purpose of rehabilitation comes low down the list, but the absence of any possibility of review except on compassionate grounds, interpreted in the “Lifer Manual” as being, effectively, only in the case of terminal illness, removes hope completely in a way that is inhumane.

My second point is one that has been made: that the judgment of the Grand Chamber in Vinter was unequivocal. The court was absolutely clear that the effect of such an order is that a prisoner cannot be released other than at the discretion of the Secretary of State. I urge on the House the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, that the Secretary of State should not be the decider. There should be an independent body. That release would occur only on compassionate grounds under our statute. The court therefore held that a whole life order of imprisonment violated Article 3, which prohibits inhumane and degrading treatment and torture.

The United Kingdom judge, Judge Mahoney, emphasised that states were free to choose the means whereby they fulfil their obligation to “abide by” the Grand Chamber’s judgment in relation to Article 3. The Court of Appeal’s decision in McLoughlin leaves the position unclear, because the Court of Appeal appears to have held that the existing law permits release on other than compassionate grounds, contrary to the statute and to the finding of the European Court of Human Rights in Vinter. Whatever the Supreme Court may or may not do with McLoughlin, it is, I suggest, now for us in Parliament to make it clear what the law is in this crucial area and to do so in a way that unequivocally honours our treaty commitments.

15:59

This amendment, which the JCHR recommended, respects the statutes permitting whole life orders, and requires service of at least 25 years before a review can be conducted. By the requirement for,

“such exceptional progress towards rehabilitation that a whole life order is no longer justified”,

it puts a heavy onus on the Parole Board before the board can act. The limit on reapplications ensures that the Parole Board will not be faced with a series of unmeritorious repeat applications. However, in setting out a clear framework in law for review and possible release, based firmly on rehabilitation, the amendment complies precisely with what the Grand Chamber held was necessary to comply with the convention, while exercising the latitude allowed to the United Kingdom by the court as to how to implement it.

My final point is a general one, which is frequently made in debates on human rights and other subjects in this House. The UK has a creditable record in the field of human rights and on the rule of law—one that was stressed in the excellent debate that we had in this House at the instigation of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Woolf, last Thursday. It is a record built on centuries of development of the common law. However, it is simply incompatible with respect for the rule of law for us to fail to comply with international treaty obligations, and that means proper and full compliance with decisions of the European Court of Human Rights. Flouting those decisions, based on whether we like them or not, seriously besmirches our reputation. We cannot expect our record to continue to command international respect if our present behaviour suggests that our Government do not respect decisions by which this country is bound. Nor can we expect others to respect the rule of international law if we seek to pick and choose between outcomes we like and outcomes we dislike.

[Lord Davies of Stamford (Lab)]

My Lords, I hope that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd, was right when he said that he did not believe that any member of the Government had ever wished that the right of review for whole life prisoners should disappear. He may well be right, and I would be the last person to wish to challenge his generosity, but I have seen at very close quarters in the course of my political career how really fundamental legal principles can be eroded under the pressure of electoral and demagogic—I can use no other word—considerations. It is enormously important for us in the House of Lords, who are less prone and less open to those pressures than Members of the other place, to be very clear in our minds about the legal principles on which we really do wish to take our stand and which we think are foundational for our legal system.

I support this splendid amendment on the three grounds that have already been touched on in one way or another by those noble Lords who have spoken to it. One is that it undoubtedly increases the humanity, and therefore the justice, of our legal system, which, after all, has been inspired over the centuries by the Christian idea of forgiveness, as well as by other Christian concepts

It also contributes to the efficiency and efficacy of our penal system, because no penal system can really work properly unless it is committed to the concept of rehabilitation. If rehabilitation is excluded or irrelevant for certain classes of prisoner, because nothing they do and no transformation of their character or behaviour can earn them any kind of release, then there is no rehabilitation for some prisoners and rehabilitation therefore ceases to be a general principle that is observed by the penal system in relation to all its prisoners as a matter of course. That leads to a degradation of the spirit and the culture of the penal system concerned, which would be extremely undesirable.

Thirdly, I very much share the view that has already been expressed that it is very important that other penal, legal decisions about the review of prisoners should be taken by independent judicial or quasi-judicial bodies—for this purpose, I accept that the Parole Board falls into that category—and under no circumstances, for the reasons that I mentioned at the outset of my intervention, by a member of the executive branch of government, open to pressures from Back-Benchers, the Daily Mail and God knows who else.

This amendment is extremely timely and I wholeheartedly agree with the view that has already been expressed that the responsibility now lies with Parliament to clarify the law, to make it absolutely clear what we believe the law should be in this particular matter, not to leave matters to the vagaries of jurisprudence, given the considerable uncertainty that has already been created, certainly in my mind, by the Minister’s statement that it is possible to interpret “compassionate” as including all sorts of issues relating to the conduct of the prisoner as well as the prisoner’s health. We are going down a route that would lead to greater uncertainty for the law and therefore greater injustice, which would be extremely undesirable. We have the opportunity to legislate clearly in this House this afternoon and we should take it.

[Lord Phillips of Worth Matravers (CB)]

My Lords, I support this amendment. In Vinter, the Grand Chamber of the Strasbourg court made it plain that a whole life sentence that had no possibility of review, however long the defendant might be detained in prison, constituted inhuman treatment contrary to Article 3 of the convention. In explaining its decision, the Grand Chamber said at paragraph 112 that,

“if such a prisoner is incarcerated without any prospect of release and without the possibility of having his life sentence reviewed, there is the risk that he can never atone for his offence: whatever the prisoner does in prison, however exceptional his progress towards rehabilitation, his punishment remains fixed and unreviewable. If anything, the punishment becomes greater with time: the longer the prisoner lives, the longer his sentence”.

That passage echoes the observations of the noble Lord, Lord Marks, which I endorse.

The Strasbourg court held that the discretionary power of the Secretary of State to release a whole life prisoner under Section 30 of the Crime (Sentences) Act 1997 did not satisfy the requirement of Article 3 because of uncertainty as to when the Minister would be required to exercise that power. In so holding, it differed from a decision of the Court of Appeal in Bieber, over which I had presided, but as the House has heard, the Criminal Division of the Court of Appeal presided over by the Lord Chief Justice has recently disagreed with the Strasbourg court on this point in the case of McLoughlin.

The Court of Appeal said this about the duty of the Secretary of State:

“First, the power of review under the section”—

that is, Section 30 of the 1997 Act—

“arises if there are exceptional circumstances. The offender subject to the whole life order is therefore required to demonstrate to the Secretary of State that although the whole life order was just punishment at the time the order was made, exceptional circumstances have since arisen. It is not necessary to specify what such circumstances are or specify criteria; the term ‘exceptional circumstances’ is of itself sufficiently certain”.

The court went on:

“Second, the Secretary of State must then consider whether such exceptional circumstances justify the release on compassionate grounds … Third, the term ‘compassionate grounds’ must be read, as the court made clear in R v Bieber, in a manner compatible with Article 3. They are not restricted to what is set out in the Lifer Manual. It is a term with a wide meaning that can be elucidated, as is the way the common law develops, on a case by case basis … Fourth, the decision of the Secretary of State must be reasoned by reference to the circumstances of each case and is subject to scrutiny by way of judicial review”.

One suspects that the Secretary of State may not relish being required to exercise this discretion; nor is it appropriate that the discretion should be exercised by a member of the Executive, as the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, has explained. This amendment would transfer the relevant decision to the Parole Board and define the circumstances in which it would fall to be exercised, with a precision that should satisfy the Strasbourg court.

[Lord Ramsbotham]

My Lords, I support the amendment and in particular the intervention made by the noble Lord, Lord Marks. In doing so, I remind the Committee of one group of people whom I mentioned during the debate to which my noble and learned friend Lord Lloyd referred. I refer to prison staff. I am glad that the noble Lord, Lord Marks, mentioned the word “hope”, because when I inspected prisons in which full life tariff prisoners were held, their governors made the point to me that the fact that those cases could be reviewed, which was not necessarily the same as that they might be released, gave the prisoners hope and therefore enabled them to conform with the prison regime. That was vital for the purposes of the prison staff who had to maintain the regime. It is important in considering this that the role of the staff should not be forgotten.

[Lord Hope of Craighead]

I want to add a footnote to the points made by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Phillips of Worth Matravers, based on my own experience. I became the Lord Justice General of Scotland about 25 years ago. At that time, one of the sentences that was available to a trial judge was a discretionary sentence that a person would be detained without limit of time. It was not a sentence of life imprisonment, but was in effect, as it was put in the case of young offenders, detention at Her Majesty’s pleasure; that is, at the discretion of the Secretary of State.

While I was holding that office, Strasbourg began to pronounce on the compatibility with Article 3 of that kind of system. It was decided in Scotland that the system was no longer maintainable, and what was required of me as Lord Justice General was to examine the cases of all those who had been given that kind of sentence to provide them with a tariff—or, in the Scottish terminology, a punishment part—which would set the date as from which their cases might be considered by the Parole Board. Until that was done, it had been entirely at the discretion of the Secretary of State, and it was thought that that was improper. The system that was devised was to require a judge to review such cases, recognising, as others have suggested today, that it would be incompatible with the convention for the decision to be left with the Secretary of State.

It was a very unpleasant exercise for me as the people who had received those sentences had committed the most appalling crimes. In comparison with life sentences, which sometimes were relatively simple, these people deserved the most condign punishment. Nevertheless, it was decided that they required some kind of certainty, removed from the discretion of the Secretary of State, so that they could plan their time in prison and there could be some method for review. It was not of course for them to be automatically released; that was not the point of it. It was so that their time in prison could be subject to a regime which would give them, as was said by the noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham, some reason for hope that, possibly, in the very long term and in exceptional circumstances, they might be released.

The system being put forward in this amendment is therefore very similar in principle to one which was introduced about 20 years ago in Scotland to cure a similar problem about leaving the matter to the discretion of the Secretary of State. For that reason, I, too, support the amendment as being sound in principle.

[Lord Elystan-Morgan (CB)]

My Lords, seldom can there have been such an array of distinguished supporters for any amendment, and all I seek to add is some very short footnotes.

There are principles of immense worth and significance that are associated with this issue, one of them being, as so many speakers have pointed out, that there is no such thing as an irredeemable prisoner. I remember the very first day that I came here, which was about 33 years ago. A very distinguished judge had said that, in his vast experience, he had not thought that prison had reformed anybody at all. I remember thinking then about the exact wording of Rule 1 of the Prison Rules 1964. The wording was that the prime purpose of punishment should be the reform and rehabilitation of the prisoner. That is not now placed quite as high—it is now third on the list—but it still occupies a prominent place. To deny the prospect, remote though it might be, of redemption and the even more remote prospect of release—this will operate only in a very few circumstances—would be to deny one of the basic tenets of our concept of justice and punishment.

16:15

The noble Lord, Lord Davies, said that it is dangerous that a political officer—that is essentially what the Home Secretary is—should have this awesome jurisdiction in his or her hands and that such a person is open all the time to political pressure. I am not sure that that point is totally fairly made. It is not a question of whether such a person is open to political pressure but whether he is the right sort of person, holding the right sort of qualifications, to make that decision at all.

I was a junior Minister in the Home Office about 46 years ago, so I well understand how Home Secretaries have said to themselves, “This office has been the repository of substantial judicial discretion from time to time”. One has to think only of the awesome power that a Home Secretary had to determine whether a person should be executed or have the sentence commuted to a life sentence. Therefore, there is that tradition, which it may be difficult to shed overnight; I understand that. Nevertheless, it has to be shed, because it is a decision that must be made by a judicial or quasi-judicial body and nothing else.

[Lord Beecham]

My Lords, I must confess that I am somewhat puzzled by the position outlined in the JCHR report and what the noble Lord, Lord Lester, referred to as the Government’s recent pronouncements on it. As he rightly said, the report indicated that the Government would be awaiting the outcome of the appeal in McLoughlin before updating the Committee of Ministers of the actions that they plan to take to implement the Vinter judgment—which implies that the Government are planning to implement the Vinter judgment, but in ways as yet undetermined.

I am sure that the Minister will be able to enlighten us about whether that is in fact the Government’s intention and, if so, what approach they will be taking. If they are awaiting the outcome of that appeal before coming to a conclusion, that is not an unreasonable position for them to take, but the underlying question is whether they intend to implement the Vinter judgment as indicated in whatever decision the Supreme Court ultimately makes on the details of the McLoughlin appeal.

I am also uncertain about the interesting reference that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Phillips, made to a wider meaning of “compassion” and whether that would be a criterion for release. Is that something that the Government are in fact contemplating? Might that form part of their response to the Committee of Ministers in relation to Vinter?

These are difficult cases, and one must hope that we can reach the position where we are not in conflict with the court but that, nevertheless, the balancing interest of public safety is also given due weight. For the Opposition’s part, we await the Government’s response in general and the Minister’s response in particular this afternoon.

[Lord Faulks]

My Lords, I fully understand what lies behind this amendment, which seeks to provide a review mechanism for whole life order prisoners. Mention has been made of hope and redemption, and understandably so. This issue has indeed been raised previously in your Lordships’ House and we were reminded by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd, who has been wholly consistent on this subject, in particular of the debate which he initiated during the passage of the LASPO Bill on 9 February 2012. I am also conscious of what was described by the noble Lord, Lord Elystan-Morgan, as the distinguished support that has been provided for this amendment.

However, I really doubt whether the noble Lords supporting this amendment or the Joint Committee on Human Rights, which suggested it, truly meant to give the Parole Board a sentencing function in the way that the amendment suggests. There is no precedent for this and nothing in the amendment indicates how it might approach the task of replacing a whole life order with a determinate minimum term. There is a real risk that, were this to be the law, it would put the Parole Board in potential conflict with the judiciary—or at least, set up a tension—which would hardly be desirable.

I am glad that the noble Lord, Lord Beecham, mentioned the protection of the public and the nature of a whole life order, because the Committee should not forget that such an order is imposed only where the court is satisfied that the offence is so exceptionally serious that the sentence is justified for the purposes of punishment and deterrence. In those circumstances, the court is fully aware that the offender will then face spending the rest of his or her life in prison, so we are talking about the most serious offences. Indeed, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, referred to that in his equivalent experience in Scotland.

The key concern expressed by your Lordships is to put a clear scheme for review in place for whole life orders. This issue has come to the fore following the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights in the Vinter case, when it found last year that whole life orders without a review mechanism are incompatible with Article 3 of the convention at the point of sentence. However, as has been referred to in the debate, since then there has been domestic litigation and the Government now consider that the Court of Appeal has settled the domestic position in relation to whole life order prisoners. Earlier this year, a specially constituted Court of Appeal heard the cases of McLoughlin, Newell and others, whole life order prisoners who were appealing their sentences including on the grounds of incompatibility with Article 3. The court determined two crucial issues: that whole life orders can and should be imposed in the most exceptionally serious cases; and that the operation of Section 30 of the Crime (Sentences) Act 1997, which deals with release on compassionate grounds, was sufficient to render a whole life order reducible.

The Court of Appeal confirmed that the Secretary of State has a duty to exercise his or, as the case may be, her powers under Section 30 compatibly with Article 3 and must consider all circumstances relevant to release on compassionate grounds. The Court of Appeal found that there was no lack of clarity as to the applicable domestic law. The judgment explained that the power of review under Section 30 arises if there are “exceptional circumstances”—a term which the court found to be of sufficient certainty in itself and which will be applied on a case-by-case basis. Indeed, the Court of Appeal said that “compassionate grounds” should be read in that manner:

“It is a term with a wide meaning that can be elucidated, as is the way the common law develops, on a case by case basis”.

The Court of Appeal therefore concluded that domestic law provides the offender with the possibility of release in exceptional circumstances such that the just punishment originally imposed is no longer justifiable. The court also said:

“We find it difficult to specify in advance what such circumstances might be, given that the heinous nature of the original crime justly required punishment by imprisonment for life. But circumstances can and do change in exceptional cases. The interpretation of s.30 we have set out provides for that possibility and hence gives to each … prisoner the possibility of exceptional release”.

The Court of Appeal, presided over by the Lord Chief Justice, was uniquely placed—authoritatively and conclusively, the Government suggest—to explain how domestic law operates. It has done so in the manner that I acknowledged earlier. As a result, the Government consider that there is no further action that we need to take to give the clarity provided by that judgment.

The Newell appeal has not been allowed, so there is no outstanding domestic litigation following the McLoughlin and Newell case action report. The report sent to the Committee of Ministers sets out the Government’s position. We would not of course simply have said that we should await the Supreme Court position, but it would be idle for a Government to say that they would ignore a decision of the Supreme Court. Had the matter reached that court, the Government would have been mindful of our obligations, but in fact that particular road is now closed.

The Court of Appeal having considered the matter, with its particular experience both of whole life sentences and of the dynamism of the common law to deal with the situations that naturally concern noble Lords, we conclude that the amendment is unnecessary. Notwithstanding its distinguished support and the strength of feeling, we invite the noble Lord to withdraw it.

[Lord Lester of Herne Hill]

My Lords, I am grateful to everyone who has spoken in this extraordinary debate, including the Minister. One has to bear in mind that under Article 46 of the convention there is a duty on the UK to abide by the final judgment of the Strasbourg court in the British case. That duty must be performed not just by the Government, thank goodness, but by Parliament and by the judiciary. When the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe—that is, 47 Governments, including 46 that will be looking at this debate and particularly at what the Minister has just said—next meets to scrutinise whether the UK has in fact properly complied with the judgment, it will no doubt read the debate, including the Minister’s reply, and the report of the Joint Committee on Human Rights with some interest. It will note that three of those who have spoken contrary to the view of the Minister have all exercised judicial power in our apex courts, the House of Lords and the Supreme Court, including the President of the Supreme Court, and they will view with some surprise the notion that the Minister’s view of the Court of Appeal judgment is somehow more significant when looking at the matter than the views of those extremely distinguished jurists, all of whom, as I say, have exercised judicial power at the very apex of our legal system.

I simply do not understand how the Government think they can get away with it. They have already spent years and years, like their predecessors, in trying to get away with their refusal to abide by the final judgments in the prisoners’ voting rights case. By a strange quirk of life, I go to the Committee of Ministers every quarter. I shall not be at the next one but I usually go there because I am deemed to be Cypriot, for the purposes of the Cyprus/Turkey dispute. I observe what happens, without speaking, in the British cases. I have to say to the Minister, who has not had that experience, that our reputation at the moment is right at the bottom. Everyone I speak to—ambassadors, judges, civil servants in Europe—view with astonishment the fact that we now have a Minister of Justice, a Home Secretary and a Prime Minister who feel sick when they read judgments of the Strasbourg court and say so, and who threaten to tear up the convention or, rather, to withdraw from the court’s jurisdiction and the Human Rights Act. One cannot imagine quite what it is like to have lived through a period when the United Kingdom had such a fine international reputation and then to find that the pseudo-democracies of Europe—the dictatorships and totalitarian regimes—say, “If the United Kingdom can do this so can we”.

The JCHR said that this was a probing amendment, and that is what it is, but it is an extremely valuable probing amendment because those experts on penal reform, such as the former Chief Inspector of Prisons, the noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham, and distinguished human rights advocates, within the law or in some other occupation, have all spoken in the same way. I have no doubt that the Government will not get away with it and that the Committee of Ministers will not close the matter, as the Government are now saying, but will demand further explanations. Having said all that, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 7 withdrawn.

16:30

Clause 5: Sentence and Parole Board release for offenders of particular concern

Amendment 8 not moved.

Clause 5 agreed.

Schedule 1 agreed.

Clause 6: Electronic monitoring following release on licence etc

Amendment 9

Moved by

[Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames]

9: Clause 6, page 5, line 35, leave out subsection (3)

[Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames]

My Lords, the purpose of this amendment is quite simply to remove the power proposed in the Bill by Clause 6(3) to provide that the power to impose an electronic monitoring condition be mandatory. Amendment 14, which is also tabled in my name, is consequential upon Amendment 9.

The Committee will no doubt quite understand that the effect of subsection (2) is to amplify and explain the Secretary of State’s power to impose an electronic monitoring condition on the release on licence of prisoners. That is a desirable and sensible condition to be imposed where appropriate. The idea that by subsection (3) a new Section 62A is added to the Criminal Justice and Court Services Act 2000 giving the Secretary of State power by order to make it compulsory to impose an electronic monitoring condition evades explanation, I regret to say. The power under Section 62 already gives the Secretary of State power to make rules about the conditions for the imposition of such a condition. I simply invite the Minister to explain why the fetter on the Secretary of State’s future discretion is needed.

There may be cases where an electronic monitoring condition is not required or is inappropriate. I take as an obvious example the case of a prisoner who is disabled or is to be hospitalised on release. That is recognised in Section 62 as it stands. Making an electronic monitoring condition compulsory seems a retrograde step depriving a Secretary of State who brings it in by order and any future Secretary of State of the power or the right to exercise discretion not to make such a condition in appropriate cases. The amendment is a simple one, and the issue is a simple one. I beg to move.

[The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Harris of Richmond) (LD)]

My Lords, if Amendment 9 is agreed to, I cannot call Amendments 10 to 12 inclusive by reason of pre-emption.

[Lord Beecham]

My Lords, tagging—or electronic monitoring, to give it its official title—is potentially a useful tool in cases where it is necessary to protect the public by, for example, prohibiting contact with named individuals, imposing a curfew or restricting access to particular places. Even so, we are all conscious of the appalling experience with the Government’s favoured all-purpose contractors, G4S and Serco, which resulted in the repayment by those companies in the end of £214 million, roughly equivalent to the total of a year’s savings engendered by cuts to legal aid. Clause 7 takes us, as we have heard from the noble Lord, Lord Marks, into new territory with the extension of the use of this system to prisoners on licence, and that on a mandatory basis. The Chief Inspector of Prisons has been highly critical of this proposal, since in the absence of evidence of absconding or committing offences while on licence this is not, in fact, a significant problem. What is the evidence on which this proposal is based and what is the cost of the equipment and the necessary monitoring? The impact assessment states:

“Though benefits likely to arise from the increased use of ELM have been identified, we are not able to quantify these benefits at this stage … As such, we are unable to calculate impact”.

That is an extraordinary basis on which to import into this legislation a mandatory requirement. It seems, as an approach to legislation, to be matched only by the Home Office’s approach to record keeping.

Dan Jarvis MP, my honourable friend in the Commons, has identified some significant risks. They include the possibility that the technology might not be capable of delivering the service at an economic cost. The use of tagging might not have the anticipated deterrent effect. The new licence conditions might lead to an increase in breaches, such as not wearing the tag, which could lead to more prison places being required. On the latter point, the impact assessment rather weakly admits that the number of additional prison places required, “cannot be accurately estimated”. If ever the Government’s own impact assessment has made the case for properly piloting a provision, this is clearly such a case. Moreover, there is widespread concern about making this a mandatory condition, something that is at odds with the whole purpose of release on licence, which is to help offenders reintegrate into society. One has to ask whether making it mandatory is a provision dictated by the potential contractors’ need for an assured case load and associated financial returns rather than any substantive merits of the procedure.

There is also the unacceptable position that the Secretary of State may impose a code of practice especially about the data acquired through the process without parliamentary approval. The Joint Committee on Human Rights regards safeguards in relation to the collection and storage of such data as crucial. Where are we in relation to the drafting of a code? Amendment 12 deals with this issue.

Amendment 13 calls for an early review of any scheme in order to assess its actual impact on individuals, on reoffending, and on cost. Amendment 11, which we seek to repeat in Amendment 44 applying to secure colleges, would make the contractors subject to freedom of information procedures. Last year, the Information Commissioner asked the Justice Committee, in this respect, if more and more services are delivered by alternative providers which are not public authorities, how do we get accountability? This is particularly relevant in the context of the justice and penal systems, where there have been too many worrying failures and instances of quite disgraceful treatment of prisoners and detainees by such contractors. If, as is quite right, state prisons are subject to the Freedom of Information Act, what possible reason could there be for excluding other providers, including those who are to provide the tagging mechanisms here?

I hope that the Minister can deal with some of these questions, as well as the points of substance raised by the noble Lord, Lord Marks. It is absolutely impermissible for these powers simply to be imposed by order, and on the basis of such flimsy evidence as the Minister produced, to support the extension in the way that the Bill prescribes.

[Baroness Kennedy of The Shaws (Lab)]

My Lords, I know that it is normal that the Front Bench on this side finishes any debate before the Minister answers, but I really have a bad feeling about the clause and I want to support the amendment. The provision smacks to me of the outcome of lobbying by those who will have highly remunerative contracts, if it comes to pass. We are not hearing any costings on this, and I would very much like the Minister to tell us what it is going to cost the public purse. As others have said, there are circumstances in which it is very useful to tag someone when there are concerns about whether they might not respond to the ordinary inhibitions on their liberty during a period of parole, but I am concerned about it being used in this wide way. Behind the provision is the lobbying by those private sector companies that now make a great deal of money out of this very kind of thing. Have any costings been done? How much will it cost the public purse?

[Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede]

My Lords, I want to pick up on the point that my noble friend Lady Kennedy of The Shaws has made and speak to Amendment 13, on the review of this extension of tagging. My honourable friend Dan Jarvis made the point in the other place about possible unforeseen consequences of this extension. I was talking to a magistrate colleague of mine only last week, and she pointed out to me that the new GPS tags are physically much larger than the existing tags used today. That means that they are possibly easier to remove—but there is another possible consequence, in that they need charging much more often. The existing tags do not need recharging because the battery lasts for the length of the period that the person is tagged. Potentially, that raises a whole series of issues with offenders—people out on bail or offenders in the case that we are now discussing—who are not properly recharging their GPS-driven tags. My understanding is that they would have to do it by an induction loop; it would not be a physical connection. That could raise a lot of unforeseen consequences, which is why I reiterate my support for Amendment 13, so that it can be looked at when the provision comes into force.

[Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)]

My Lords, the effect of Amendments 9, 10 and 14 would be, as my noble friend Lord Marks said, to remove from the Bill the provisions which would allow for compulsory electronic monitoring conditions to be imposed on offenders on release from custody. This would leave the use of these conditions on a discretionary basis, as they are now under the Criminal Justice and Court Services Act 2000. I understand that there are some concerns about how these powers will be used. Therefore, it may be helpful if I take some time to explain how the provisions would work and why the Government consider them necessary and important in our drive to deliver a more effective sentencing and rehabilitation framework.

I emphasise that legislation has been in place for some years to provide for the use of electronic monitoring as a condition of release, both to monitor compliance with other conditions, such as curfew or exclusion conditions, and to monitor the offender’s whereabouts as a condition in its own right. The limitations of the current technology have meant that, in practice, electronic monitoring has been used so far simply to monitor compliance with a curfew. However, we are reviewing the electronic monitoring contracts, which provides us with the opportunity to take advantage of new, cutting-edge technology that will enable us to track offenders in the community.

16:45

The new development should enable us to give better protection to victims. Monitoring offenders’ whereabouts will enable us to enforce exclusion zones effectively. In addition, the removal or attempted removal of the tag—which the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, referred to—will raise an immediate alert and the offender can be recalled to custody, if appropriate. The noble Lord also referred to size and other technical elements. If further details are available, I will, of course, write to him.

Location monitoring should also act as a deterrent to further offending. The offender will know that he or she can be placed at the scene of a crime. The information gathered can be shared with the police, if appropriate, making the investigation of crimes more efficient. We consider, therefore, that it is only sensible to take the necessary powers we need to enable us to make the best use of these developments.

Clause 6 provides for a compulsory electronic monitoring condition to apply to offenders who are released from custody subject to conditions—for example, on licence. The clause provides flexible order-making powers. This will enable the Secretary of State to target and prescribe compulsory conditions in various ways. For example, an order may prescribe which offenders must be subject to compulsory electronic monitoring by type of offence, or by type of sentence. We are also providing for the possibility of random sampling for the purposes of pilots.

I am aware that there are concerns that there may be offenders who are unsuitable for compulsory electronic monitoring, as my noble friend said. This may be because of physical or mental health issues, or there may be a practical problem such as not being able to make arrangements for the offender to recharge the battery in the tag. The clause also covers these circumstances as it specifies that the Secretary of State may provide for cases in which the compulsory condition should not apply.

For completeness, I should say that the compulsory licence condition may apply to any adult offenders released subject to conditions. That includes release on temporary licence and home detention curfew as well as standard release licence conditions. Young offenders serving a public protection sentence and released subject to conditions may be subject to compulsory electronic monitoring conditions. However, for other custodial sentences, electronic monitoring conditions will remain discretionary for young offenders.

Amendment 12 would require the code of practice relating to the retention and sharing of the data gathered by location monitoring to be subject to affirmative secondary legislation. The code of practice is intended to make sure that the necessary safeguards are in place for the proper management of this information. This will, therefore, be an important document. However, it is primarily for operational purposes and, as such, is not intended to introduce any new legal requirements. That is why we do not propose to agree its content through parliamentary procedure. It will, of course, comply with the Data Protection Act 1998, but we have committed to consultation on the document, and I assure all noble Lords that that will include consulting the Information Commissioner. The code of practice will also be published.

Amendment 13 provides for a review of the operation of electronic monitoring, in particular to assess the impact of compulsory conditions, within 12 months of this clause coming into force. The clause itself does not, of course, allow the imposition of compulsory electronic monitoring conditions. That can be done only when the order-making powers are used. Twelve months is too short a period to determine any impact on reoffending, but providing for a review within 12 months of the coming into force of the enabling power would tell us even less.

That issue aside, we already have some evidence of the impact of tracking offenders from a pilot in three probation areas in 2004 and 2005. The evaluation found qualitative evidence to show that it: acted as a deterrent because offenders thought that they would be caught if they were to reoffend; was a constant reminder which prompted offenders to think twice when a criminal opportunity presented itself and gave them the spur they needed to walk away; provided offenders with renewed determination to get their lives back together after a period of incarceration; and was perceived by offenders to help stop wrongful identification for crimes they had not done.

There is also some international evidence, in particular from the United States. For example, quantitative analysis carried out in Florida in 2011 on 5,000 medium and high-risk offenders showed decreases in the recidivism rate for all groups of offenders, which were similar in scale for all age groups.

We will not be using the powers provided until the technology has been fully tested, and we are taking powers to roll out compulsory conditions in various ways. This will allow us to learn what works best for different offenders in order to target compulsory electronic monitoring to best effect.

The noble Lord, Lord Beecham, and the noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy, raised the issue of costs—and there are concerns about cost—and the management of the new contracts. We are currently reviewing our electronic monitoring contracts and are confident that this competition will result in the development of state-of-the-art tracking technology. We cannot, however, estimate the costs in advance of the contracts being awarded, and we will manage the new contracts robustly to ensure that they deliver the best possible value for taxpayers. I assure noble Lords that contracts have not yet been awarded; therefore, we cannot give firm dates for the awards now. We intend to tell Parliament as soon as the contracts are signed. Given that the competition is still live and contracts are yet to be awarded, it is not possible to give further details now about costs or when they will be incurred.

I hope that I have demonstrated that there are safeguards to ensure that compulsory conditions are not imposed inappropriately, and that the code of practice will be subject to proper scrutiny without the need for a parliamentary process. I hope that I have also explained why we are taking these powers and the benefits we anticipate from their use.

We must be ready to use innovative ways of managing offenders in the community. It is an important element in our strategy to improve public protection, reduce reoffending and assist in the successful detection and prosecution of crime. Based on my assurances, I hope that the noble Lords will not press their amendments.

[Baroness Kennedy of The Shaws]

Before the Minister sits down, perhaps I may ask a question. Was there lobbying by security companies to have this change in law introduced so that it would be compulsory for all prisoners on licence to have tags placed on them? Was there lobbying to create this change in law?

[Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon]

The noble Baroness asks a pertinent question. Representations are always made in any part of government, but the Government are, as I hope I have indicated, taking these steps forward in line with the concerns that exist and based on the evidence that I have presented to the Committee today.

[Lord Beecham]

With respect to the Minister, he may not be able to answer the question that my noble friend has asked without advice from the Box or elsewhere; but he has not even purported to answer the question. The question is a legitimate one. Perhaps he would undertake to reply to my noble friend and let her and the Committee know whether those who are likely to benefit from these contracts lobbied for this provision to be mandatory.

[Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon]

Of course I will take advice on this, but as I have said already—and the noble Lord knows this as well as I do—representations are made in any form of government. I will of course endeavour to write to the noble Baroness. I will share with the Committee the details of that letter and place a copy in the Library.

[Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames]

My Lords, a great deal of what my noble friend has said in response to these amendments is entirely uncontentious. As I hope I have made clear, I have no objection to discretionary electronic monitoring of prisoners on licence, and no objection to improved tracking, technical improvements or effectiveness. I quite understand everything he said in that score.

My concern was with the element of compulsion added by new subsection (3). I regret that I simply did not understand my noble friend’s response on its drafting. He said that there was somehow a discretion in the order-making power under new subsection (3) that would enable the Secretary of State to take into account cases where it would be difficult, inappropriate or not sensible to impose electronic monitoring. It may be that we are talking about a matter of drafting. In that case, I urge my noble friends to look at the drafting.

New Section 62A provides:

“The Secretary of State may by order provide that the power under section 62 to impose an electronic monitoring condition must be exercised”.

The description of the order-making power states:

“An order under this section”—

which is an order that the monitoring condition power “must be exercised”—

“may … require an electronic monitoring condition to be included for so long as the person’s release is required to be, or may be, subject to conditions or for a shorter period”,

and may,

“make provision generally or in relation to a case described in the order”.

It may be that my noble friend is referring to the entitlement to make provision generally as imposing a discretion. If he is saying that, I would suggest that that no longer complies with the description under new subsection (1) of an order imposing “an electronic monitoring condition” which “must be exercised”. Furthermore, even if he were right that that would somehow allow electronic monitoring conditions not to be mandatory, I would respectfully suggest to him that that is a clunky way of providing for particular cases to be dealt with in accordance with the discretion, which is what I suggest ought to be maintained. However, on the basis that my noble friend will consider the drafting, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 9 withdrawn.

Amendment 10 not moved.

Amendment 11

Moved by

[Lord Beecham]

11: Clause 6, page 6, line 29, at end insert—
“(1A) The code of practice must include a requirement that a person carrying out electronic monitoring who is not a public authority as defined by section 3 of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 shall provide information in respect of the carrying out of electronic monitoring in the same manner as if they were such a public authority.”

[Lord Beecham]

My Lords, the amendment addresses the growing trend of government to outsource the provision of public services to private contractors. Something like £95 billion a year is now tried up in such contracts. They cover a whole range of services, but the Ministry of Justice has been at the forefront of this development in public policy. One thinks of the controversial issue of probation, which we have debated at length, notwithstanding the Government’s initial decision not to include it in legislation. We also have the experience of a number of private prisons—certainly under the previous Government as well, but now clearly to be promoted even further. We have for some time now seen court staff provided to magistrates’ courts and elsewhere by private contractors. We have had the shambles of the interpreter service, again in the hands of contractors. In the Bill we have, as we have already heard this afternoon, provisions about tagging. We will come in due course to the controversial provisions about secure colleges.

Public providers still operating in some of these areas, such as in the case of prisons, have to comply with the provisions of the Freedom of Information Act, but the private contractors do not. That strikes many as a complete anomaly. Why should a private prison such as the Acklington prison in the north-east of England, where I come from, which has experienced great difficulty since privatisation, not be subject to FoI requests when one of Her Majesty’s prisons, perfectly properly, is? Why should those who look after certain detention centres for asylum seekers be immune from FoI requests, particularly given the constant flow of unfortunate stories that we hear from such places, while a public institution is, perfectly properly, accountable? I have already quoted the Information Commissioner’s comments in addressing the Justice Committee last year, but I will repeat them. He asked,

“if more and more services are delivered by alternative providers who are not public authorities, how do we get accountability?”.

Even the Prime Minister is on record as being in favour of transparency. A couple of years ago, he spoke about the power of transparency and why we need more of it. He also spoke of leading the most transparent Government ever. Transparency, of course, has a number of meanings and one can accept that, in a certain respect, his Government is exceedingly transparent—but it is not particularly transparent when it comes to the letting of contracts, particularly to these third-party organisations.

My honourable friend Dan Jarvis said in a debate in Committee on the Bill:

“The rewards that third parties stand to gain need to go hand in hand with the duties of transparency and information sharing. The public should be able to ask … how, and how well, the service they are paying for is being run”.—[Official Report, Commons, Criminal Justice and Courts Bill Committee, 18/3/14; col. 187.]

The Labour Party has pledged to extend the FoI legislation to contractors of public services. Why will the Government not at least match Labour’s pledge to do likewise and extend the freedom of information provisions to these companies, which are carrying out important and, in many cases, extremely sensitive areas of public provision? It would appear that those companies are essentially immune to the same processes that would apply if they had remained in public hands. Particularly given the great concern about the developments in the probation service, it is not time that the Government acknowledged that there is force in this argument and, accordingly, accepted the amendment? I beg to move.

17:00

[Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon]

My Lords, Amendment 11 seeks to impose a requirement on providers of outsourced electronic monitoring services to make information available in the same manner as if they were subject to the provisions of the Freedom of Information Act 2000. It does this by introducing a requirement as to the contents of the code of practice that the Secretary of State will issue under new Section 62B of the Criminal Justice and Court Services Act 2000, to be introduced through Clause 6 of the Bill. The amendment would require private providers not currently subject to the Freedom of Information Act to make information available both in response to FoI requests and proactively through publication schemes.

I assure the Committee that the Government recognise that there are concerns about the position of private providers of public services under the Freedom of Information Act. As noble Lords may know, the issue of outsourced public services was considered in some detail during post-legislative scrutiny of the Freedom of Information Act, carried out by the Justice Select Committee in 2012. The committee recommended the use of contractual provisions, rather than the formal extension of the Freedom of Information Act, to ensure that transparency and accountability are maintained. In particular, the committee said that it believed,

“that contracts provide a more practical basis for applying … outsourced services than partial designation of commercial companies under section 5 of the Act”.

The committee also felt that,

“the use of contractual terms to protect the right to access information is currently working relatively well”.

The Government accepted the committee’s recommendation and later this year will issue a revised code of practice under Section 45 of the Freedom of Information Act to promote transparency about outsourced public services in response to FoI requests. The new code will promote and encourage the use and enforcement of contractual obligations to ensure that contractors provide information held on behalf of public authorities. It will also encourage contractors voluntarily to provide additional information beyond that held on behalf of the contracting public authority where, for example, doing so would help the contracting public authority to provide a more meaningful response to requests.

The Government and the Information Commissioner, referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Beecham, will monitor the effectiveness of the new code. If it does not prove successful, the Government have said they will look at going further, including potentially extending FoI formally to contractors—again, a point made by the noble Lord, Lord Beecham. We believe that our approach represents an appropriate balance between transparency and minimising burdens on business. As a result of these steps, I would argue that the measures proposed through these amendments are unnecessary. Based on the explanation and assurance I have given, I hope the noble Lord will be minded to withdraw his amendment.

[Lord Beecham]

My Lords, I will not press the amendment at this stage, but it is not clear to me why there should be two separate systems, one for private contractors and one for public agencies. The opportunity to raise an FoI request is open to anybody and should apply equally to the two different types of provider.

The Minister and his ministerial colleague in the House of Commons referred to the production of a code of practice. Once again, we are being asked to legislate in a vacuum because we have not seen the code of practice. Nor is it clear whether that code of practice will be subject to parliamentary approval. Perhaps the Minister can indicate whether that would be the case.

However, even if it were subject to parliamentary approval, I still do not see the logic in having two separate systems for the provision of like services, depending on which provider is carrying them out. Surely that will not assist members of the public. It must be difficult for them, as it is for me, to comprehend why there should be two parallel systems when they are looking not so much at the provider as at the nature of the service and any potential problems that might arise.

If the noble Lord cannot deal with that today, perhaps he will consider writing to me—again, sending that reply to the Library—otherwise, this is a matter to which we may well have to return on Report. In the circumstances, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 11 withdrawn.

Amendment 12 not moved.

Clause 6 agreed.

Amendment 13 not moved.

Schedule 2: Electronic monitoring and licences etc: consequential provision

Amendment 14 not moved.

Schedule 2 agreed.

Clause 7: Test for release after recall: determinate sentences

Amendment 15

Moved by

[Lord Beecham]

15: Clause 7, page 7, line 2, at end insert—
“(4B) In considering whether the person is highly likely to breach a condition included in the person’s licence, the conditions shall be reviewed and amended as appropriate to ensure that the person is able to comply.”

[Lord Beecham]

My Lords, I shall speak also to the Question whether Clause 8 stand part of the Bill.

This amendment refers to the provisions in Clauses 7 and 8 dealing with the test for release after recall in the case of determinate sentences. The amendment requires the Secretary of State and the Parole Board to consider, in addition to other factors currently applicable in determining whether a recall prisoner is suitable for automatic release or rerelease when subject to discretionary release, whether the offender is “highly likely” to breach his licence condition. That is the thrust of the Bill as it stands.

At present, the principal consideration is whether release would involve a risk of serious harm to the public. Clause 8 empowers the Secretary of State to change the test by means of an order subject to affirmative resolution. Left as it stands, the “highly likely” test looks to be subjective, and that impression is enhanced by the failure to consider and provide for factors which might contribute to the outcome of a decision to release.

Similar issues arise in relation to the new offence of remaining at large after recall in Clause 10, to which we will come later. As in that case, what is missing is an assurance that the necessary support will be given to vulnerable offenders, especially those with, for example, mental health problems or learning disabilities which seriously impair their capacity to understand even common terms such as “victim” or “breach”, as affirmed in the helpful briefing provided by the Prison Reform Trust. A substantial proportion of prisoners suffer from conditions that affect their capacity precisely to understand the conditions that might be laid upon them or otherwise to conduct what for ordinary citizens would be a simple lifestyle.

The Prison Reform Trust points out that conditions in relation to release and supervision need to be appropriate to the intellectual ability and understanding of the offender in order to comply with the obligations of the Equality Act 2010. It is unclear whether the Government have considered the applicability of the Equality Act to this provision and whether they consider that the provision passes the test.

Amendment 15 would therefore require the conditions in a person’s licence to be reviewed and amended from time to time to ensure that the person is able to comply—that is, that he has the faculties to allow him to comply—and that will usually involve the provision of relevant support for the prisoner in preparing for release and during the period of release. Amendment 16, which we covered earlier, would require the Secretary of State to,

“consult with the Parole Board about the resources”,

and report to Parliament on them, required to deliver that degree of support.

Clause 8 is an unsatisfactory provision inasmuch as it empowers a change in the test by secondary rather than primary legislation, as I pointed out at Second Reading. The noble Baroness, Lady Linklater, who is not her place, put the case even more strongly. She said that the clause gave the Secretary of State,

“an unacceptable degree of power”.—[Official Report, 30/6/14; col. 1593.]

She said that, for that reason, she hoped the House would join her in a stand part debate in relation to Clause 8, thereby restoring the current position, which is that change should be effected by primary legislation. It is regrettably a notable feature of this Bill that, as Justice points out, it creates no less than 30 new delegated powers, of which only eight require approval by affirmative resolution.

That is particularly objectionable in a case where individual liberty is at stake. Albeit that it is conditional liberty because it is release on licence, such is the case with the provisions that we are now debating. I hope very much that the Government will reconsider this. Perhaps, the Minister could indicate what the Government take to amount to the conditions of a test of high likelihood that the Bill expresses as a condition.

There are therefore two grounds for my amendments. The first is the requirement to ensure that the individual can cope with the conditions, and be prepared for them and supported in them. The second is to do with the parliamentary process to ensure that there is proper parliamentary scrutiny by way of primary legislation before changing a test which will interfere with the liberty of the subject. I beg to move.

[Lord Ramsbotham]

My Lords, I support what the noble Lord, Lord Beecham, has said. What concerns me most about Clauses 7 and 8 is that there appears to be no relevant impact assessment of what this means, not just in terms of the numbers of people who will be recalled but in terms of the numbers of people who are sentenced to short-term imprisonment followed by 12 months’ supervision in the community. The overall impact assessment tells us that there will be no impact from the provisions following the Offender Rehabilitation Act, but the impact assessment on Clause 7 says that there is a risk that short-term prisoners in their 12 months’ supervision might impose an impact. That means, as we know, that those prisoners are particularly likely to breach. It is assessed that there could be up to 13,000 short-term prisoners breaching, which will impose a considerable strain on the Prison Service. I ask the Minister whether this impact assessment has been worked out. It seems to me to be quite improper for us to pass an amendment without knowing what the impact will be.

[Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon]

My Lords, as the noble Lord, Lord Beecham, explained, the amendment seeks to require the Secretary of State to review the offender’s licence conditions before deciding whether a recalled determinate sentence prisoner should be subject to discretionary re-release, rather than automatic re-release, on the grounds that the offender is highly likely to breach a condition of their licence if so released. I presume that the aim is to ensure that recalled offenders have not been set up to fail through the imposition of inappropriate licence conditions and then suffer the consequences.

The purpose of this clause is to target those offenders who, while not presenting as a high risk of harm, have persistently failed to comply with probation supervision and any reasonable conditions that have been placed on their licence. More often than not, they are offenders who lead chaotic lives and persistently reoffend. They are offenders who are assessed as highly likely to breach their licence conditions on their re-release after 28 days in custody, thereby resulting in almost immediate further recall.

17:15

We do not believe that there is any useful purpose in releasing and then recalling in quick succession. By giving these offenders a recall subject to discretionary re-release, it underlines the need for their compliance and places the onus on them to demonstrate while in custody that they are prepared to co-operate with those responsible for their supervision in the community. In short, I reassure the Committee that we want to ensure that supervision on licence is as effective as possible and supports the aim of keeping offenders in the community both to rehabilitate them and to reintegrate them into society, which is a principle that I know noble Lords share.

The focus of the clause is to make sure that those offenders who wilfully and deliberately flout their licence conditions are dealt with appropriately. That said, the clause contains precisely the safeguards that the amendment is aimed at and those alluded to by the noble Lord, Lord Beecham. It provides for the Secretary of State to focus on whether an offender is highly likely to continue to breach conditions that are deemed necessary and proportionate. This would, for example, take account of any change in the offender’s circumstances that has for some reason rendered a particular licence condition unsuitable. But we must address the position where offenders wilfully breach their licence conditions and make sure that we protect the public from further offending. I hope that I have been able to provide some reassurance to noble Lords about the operation and intention behind Clause 7.

On the issue raised by the noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham, on the Offender Rehabilitation Act, under that Act those serving less than 12 months who breach their licence conditions can be recalled to prison for a fixed period of 14 days. It is possible in some cases, for example, that where an offender has also received a couple of 14-day recalls, they will meet the new test for a standard recall and become liable to be held for the remainder of their licence period. Of course, with sentences of less than 12 months, the licence period will be very short, so the impact of receiving a standard recall will not be very different from continuing to receive fixed-term recalls. In other words, the impact of the new test for release following recall will be greater for those serving longer sentences, but for very short sentences it will be different from the impact of current recall provisions.

The equality impact assessment was raised by the noble Lord, Lord Beecham, and referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham. We have fully considered the equality impact of this clause. In the drafting, we are in compliance with our obligations under the Equality Act 2010.

Clause 8 makes provision to allow the test for recalled prisoners—the public protection test and the risk of further breach test—to be amended as well. Like the existing power, its exercise may prove necessary in response to a change in the nature and profile of the prison population, or where the wording of the test may no longer properly capture the cases that it is aimed at. I note the concerns raised by the noble Lord, Lord Beecham, about primary and secondary legislation, but in secondary legislation this power will be subject to the affirmative resolution. As noble Lords know, that will allow both Houses to have the opportunity to scrutinise any proposed change to the release test and Members will be invited to approve it.

Based on the comments that I have made and the assurances that I have given, I hope that, if not totally, I have in part addressed some of the concerns of the noble Lord.

[Lord Beecham]

I thank the Minister for his helpful reply and will look carefully at the record to see whether it is necessary to bring matters back on Report. However, I emphasise that the Opposition as a whole—and, I suspect, other members of the Committee—are reluctant to confer on the Government order-making powers of a kind that would interfere with the liberty of a subject without primary legislation to establish them. However, that is a matter that we may consider at a later stage. In the circumstances, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 15 withdrawn.

Amendment 16 not moved.

Clause 7 agreed.

Clause 8 agreed.

Clause 9: Initial release and release after recall: life sentences

Amendment 17

Moved by

[Lord Lloyd of Berwick]

17: Clause 9, page 10, line 12, after “prisoners),” insert—
“(a) after subsection (2) insert—“(2A) Without prejudice to the powers of the Secretary of State under this section, the Parole Board must direct the release on licence of IPP prisoners with a minimum tariff of less than two years.”,”

[Lord Lloyd of Berwick]

My Lords, this amendment concerns prisoners serving indeterminate sentences for the protection of the public under Section 225 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003. The section was repealed in 2012, but there is a backlog of some 5,200 prisoners still serving sentences under it, of whom 3,600 have passed their tariff. At the present rate of release, which is running at about 400 a year, it will be nine years before those 3,600 will be out of prison.

This amendment concerns a particular group of prisoners who were given short or very short tariffs between 2005 and 2007, before the 2003 Act was amended. There are 773 of them. There is also a smaller group who were given tariffs of less than two years after the Act was amended in 2007 and are serving their sentences under different provisions, but this amendment is not intended to affect them. There are good reasons for distinguishing between these two groups: first, the 773 to whom I have referred have been in prison much longer; secondly, we know more about them; and thirdly, and most importantly, they were sentenced before the Act was amended, when judges had no real discretion as to the sentence. They were bound to assume dangerousness if certain conditions were fulfilled and were bound then to impose an indeterminate sentence. The word was “must” and not “may”.

I have a breakdown of how long the 773 have already been prison. It is dated March 2013, and they have of course spent a further 15 months in prison since then. On that basis, 275 of them are now more than six years over tariff, 291 are more than five years over tariff and 198 are more than four years over tariff. I remind noble Lords that these are all prisoners who were given tariffs of under two years, some as little as nine months or even less. I will give your Lordships examples of the sorts of offences that these prisoners committed. In April 2005, Mr Lee was given a tariff of nine months for criminal damage to the flat in which his former wife and children were living. In November 2005, Mr Wells was given 12 months for attempted robbery of a taxi driver. In November 2005, Mr James was given a tariff of two years for unlawful wounding with intent. As it happens, all those three prisoners have since had a successful appeal to the European Court of Human Rights, and I mention them only as examples of the sorts of offences—run-of-the-mill offences, your Lordships may think—which these short-tariff prisoners committed.

I turn to Section 128 of LASPO, which is referred to in Clause 9(3). When Parliament repealed Section 225, it was well aware of the backlog to which I have already referred, so it provided the Lord Chancellor with a power to alter the release test for those prisoners. It need no longer be the same as the release test for life sentence prisoners, nor need it depend in any way on an assessment of risk. It must be obvious, therefore, that Parliament gave the Lord Chancellor those powers in order to speed up the release of those prisoners and so reduce the backlog. It could have been given for no other purpose. But the Lord Chancellor—unfortunately, in my view—has declined to exercise that power.

The reason he gave in February 2013 was that it would not be right to interfere with the decisions of judges, who would have taken risk issues into account. But that reason has no validity at all in relation to the group of 773, since, for the reasons I have mentioned, their sentences were imposed when judges were obliged to assume dangerousness. In any event, when it enacted Section 128 of LASPO, Parliament must have intended the Lord Chancellor to interfere with the sentences imposed by judges; otherwise, what purpose did Section 128 serve?

The second reason given by the Lord Chancellor is that it would be irresponsible, indeed inconceivable, for him to release prisoners whom the Parole Board has assessed as continuing to pose risks. But again, that was surely the whole point of giving him the power to alter the release test. Is it to be said, therefore, that Parliament was being irresponsible in giving the Lord Chancellor that power?

Finally, there is the reason given by the Minister in his letter of 30 April. He said that Parliament did not instruct the Lord Chancellor to change the release test; it gave him discretion to do so. Of course that is true but it is well settled that, where a discretion is given by Parliament, it must be exercised so as to promote and not frustrate the purpose for which it was given; that is a principle that I know my noble and learned friend Lord Brown of Eaton-under-Heywood will develop further. The Minister gave as the reason for not changing the release test that it would not reduce the risk to the public. Of course it would not reduce the risk to the public but that was not the purpose for which the power was given. The purpose, I say again, was to speed up the release of those prisoners, not to reduce the risk.

I suggest that the Lord Chancellor must give better reasons than these for not exercising the power that he has been given. If the real reason is that the release of those prisoners would not go down well with the public, he should give that as the reason openly and then it can be tested, if necessary in court. It would have been far better if the Lord Chancellor had exercised the power he has been given but he has not. The purpose of this amendment is simply to give the Lord Chancellor a gentle push in the right direction.

Of course, I accept that some of those with tariffs of less than two years will be more serious cases than others, but there is one thing that they all have in common. We know for certain the sentence that they would have been given if the IPP sentence, now abolished, had never been invented: they would have been given determinate sentences equal to twice the length of their tariffs. We know that, because that is how the judges fix the tariff in the first place; that is, at half the appropriate determinate sentence. Indeed, one way of dealing with the backlog would be, in the case of short and medium-tariff prisoners, simply to substitute determinate sentences of twice the length of their tariff.

17:30

It follows from what I have said that, if they had been given determinate sentences, they would have been out long ago. No doubt some of them would have committed further offences; perhaps some of them would have been a cause of harm to the public. That is surely a risk which we must take; it is inherent in the whole idea of determinate sentences. The risk involved in releasing these 773 prisoners now is no greater than it would have been if they had been given determinate sentences instead of indeterminate sentences. Indeed, the risk would be less if they were released now in the way that I am suggesting, because they would be released on licence, so that, if they showed any signs of reoffending, they could be recalled.

The prison system depends on punishment being seen to be fair as between different prisoners. That is definitely not the case with those prisoners who, with very short tariffs, are still in prison. I know this from the many letters that I and others have received, both from them and their families. I shall read something in that connection which was said in the report prepared for the Prison Reform Trust in 2010. At page 49 appear these words:

“It strikes us as fundamentally unfair to have two groups of prisoners with identical criminal histories, one group sentenced prior to July 2008, subject to indeterminate preventative sentences, and the other sentenced thereafter, and serving relatively short determinate sentences. The former group will watch the latter leave prison whilst they remain subject to indeterminate preventative detention—detention that was imposed in relation to offences which, by any measure, were of relatively low levels of seriousness”.

I agree with that comment, as I hope will the Committee. I even dare to hope that the Minister may agree with it, or at least give us some reason why he does not. I beg to move.

[Lord Brown of Eaton-under-Heywood (CB)]

My Lords, most of what needs to be said on this amendment has already been said and said eloquently by my noble and learned friend Lord Lloyd of Berwick, who has championed the cause of this desperately unfortunate cohort of prisoners for some time past.

I have added my name to the amendment, however, and speak as one of five Members of this House sitting in an appellate capacity in May 2009 in the case of James, Wells and Lee before those prisoners took their case to Strasbourg. Although in this House we felt obliged to dismiss their appeals, all of us were fiercely critical of the way in which the IPP regime had been introduced in 2004 by the 2003 Act. I observed that it was a most regrettable thing that the Secretary of State had been found to be, indeed had admitted by then to having been, in systemic breach of his public law duty at least for the first two or three years of the regime. That was in the period prior to the 2008 amendments, so it was in respect of the period from 4 April 2005 to 14 July 2008.

The European Court of Human Rights, as is well known, went further than we had felt able to do. In the case of those three applicants, whose tariffs were respectively two years, one year, and nine months, all having been sentenced in 2005, the European Court concluded that,

“following the expiry of the applicants’ tariff periods and until steps were taken to progress them through the prison system with a view to providing them with access to appropriate rehabilitative courses”,

their detention had been arbitrary and therefore in breach of Article 5.1 of the convention. In so holding, the Strasbourg court emphasised, at paragraphs 203 and 204 of its judgment, that those three prisoners had been sentenced during the initial phase of the regime when the sentence was mandatory, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd, has explained, with the judges required to assume dangerousness—in their case—and leaving no room for the exercise of any judicial discretion. It is precisely that cohort of prisoners to whom our proposed amendment is directed and to whom it would apply.

In 2012, at much the same time as Strasbourg was deliberating on those cases, LASPO was enacted here, abolishing the IPP regime from 2012 for all time. Importantly for present purposes, as again the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd, has explained, it introduced a means of improving the lot of those unhappy prisoners who had earlier been sentenced under it. It did this by Section 128, enabling the Secretary of State by order in effect to relax the usual criteria by which the Parole Board decides whether to direct a prisoner’s release.

It is at this stage that I want to make brief mention of a celebrated case, already touched on by the noble and learned Lord and well known to all who are ever interested or concerned in public or administrative law. I refer to the case of Padfield v Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, decided by this House nearly 50 years ago in 1968. There, as here, a discretion had been conferred by legislation on the Minister. There, as here, the Minister had declined to exercise that discretion. I do not pretend that the factual context there was remotely analogous to that here, but I believe that the following, frequently cited passage from Lord Reid’s judgment has a real relevance in the present context, too. This I quote from the report in 1968 appeal cases at page 1030:

“Parliament must have conferred the discretion with the intention that it should be used to promote the policy and objects of the Act; the policy and objects of the Act must be determined by construing the Act as a whole and construction is always a matter of law for the court. In a matter of this kind it is not possible to draw a hard and fast line, but if the Minister, by reason of his having misconstrued the Act or for any other reason, so uses his discretion as to thwart or run counter to the policy and objects of the Act, then our law would be very defective if persons aggrieved were not entitled to the protection of the court”.

If one now asks, “What are the policies and objects of LASPO?”, the 2012 Act, there can surely be no doubt. Parliament was at one and the same time abolishing what by then had become recognised to be an unfair and unsustainable penal scheme, essentially providing as it had for preventive detention, and allowing the Secretary of State by order to abate or at any rate ameliorate the injustices that had arisen from the scheme and which remained from earlier years. The amendment would cut the Gordian knot with regard to the most unfairly treated group of IPP prisoners: those who must by definition have served at least three times—quite possibly, up to 20 times—the length of their tariff sentences. I say at least three times because, by definition, their tariffs were less than two years and they were sentenced before July 2008, which is now six years ago.

For my part, I urge in addition that the Secretary of State should now, at long last, exercise his Section 128 discretion in respect not only of that cohort but of others lucklessly left over from the IPP regime, for example, others sentenced in the earlier years when the court had no option but to pass indeterminate sentences. At the very least, surely the Secretary of State should now direct the Parole Board to reverse the burden of proof. At the moment, prisoners are required to prove that they would constitute no threat to the public on release. Surely that burden should now be placed on the Secretary of State for Justice.

However, for the 773 prisoners who would benefit from the amendment, we suggest that enough is enough. They should simply be freed. No doubt some will reoffend following release, but at least we shall have placed some limit on the ever-growing length of their preventive detention, and that stain will have been removed from our criminal justice system.

[Lord Wigley (PC)]

My Lords, this is my first contribution on the Bill; I apologise that I could not participate at Second Reading. The amendment deals with a matter about which I feel very strongly. I speak as a layman, not as a lawyer; we have heard excellent analysis from the noble and learned Lords, Lord Lloyd and Lord Brown.

At present, on figures I have received today, there are still 5,206 prisoners in the UK serving IPP sentences—sentences that were, as we have heard, abolished in 2012. Of those, 3,575 prisoners have already passed their tariff. As the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd, mentioned, the Parole Board releases about 400 inmates every year at the present rate of release. That means it would take nine years to clear the backlog.

In March this year, I led a debate in your Lordships’ House calling for a rapid assessment of those serving those sentences. I argued that priority should be given to those who were originally given tariffs of two years or less. I will not repeat all the arguments today, but noble Lords may remember that in that debate, I mentioned that when the sentences were first introduced, courts had little discretion in choosing whether to impose an IPP sentence, and many were handed out for offences such as burglary and robbery. One tariff was set as low as 28 days.

I am therefore very glad to lend my support to Amendment 17. I am grateful to the noble and learned Lords, Lord Lloyd and Lord Brown, for tabling it. I warmly support the initiative. I ask the Minister whether he can sleep at night when he thinks of people who have been so long in prison—way beyond the period for which they expected to be there.

17:44

I should say that that argument is particularly potent on account of the Supreme Court’s ruling in October that oral hearings for prisoners should be available in more circumstances than at present. Indeed, the need for extra resources for the Parole Board is even more pressing as a result of that ruling, as has been mentioned on other occasions in this Chamber. Whereas previously, oral hearings were generally granted in cases where it was deemed that that would affect the final outcome of the case, the Supreme Court’s ruling will mean that there will be no such restriction, as I understand it.

It is estimated that the number of hearings before the Parole Board every year will increase from 4,500 to 16,000. That will put further pressure on an already stretched service and add millions to the cost. That is at a time when the number of prison officers has fallen by more than 30% over the past three years.

I do not in theory find contention with the Supreme Court’s ruling, but surely the board will need more resources than the extra £3 million that I understand has been earmarked by the Government. When we consider that each prison place costs £40,000 a year, it would surely make all economic sense to speed up the rate of those prisoners’ reassessments.

It is also likely, in the light of the judgment mentioned by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Brown, a moment ago—that of the European Court of Human Rights in James, Wells and Lee v United Kingdom in favour of the plaintiffs—that more and more prisoners will be taking the Government to court. Noble Lords will remember that the ECJ ruled that detaining individuals serving IPPs beyond their tariff without progressing those individuals’ rehabilitation was “arbitrary and unlawful” and that the Government’s appeal against the decision was rejected in February 2013. Surely the Government are not going to continue behaving in an arbitrary and unlawful manner in this regard. Surely we as a Chamber cannot accept that as a way in which Governments should behave.

The provisions in Amendment 17 would certainly be a step in the right direction, and I urge the Government to respond positively to it.

[Lord Phillips of Worth Matravers]

My Lords, I had the good fortune a week ago to enjoy a superb production of “Fidelio” at Garsington. “Fidelio” is an unusual opera, as it has a happy ending, when miserable prisoners, unjustly detained, are released on the orders of the minister of state. Many have been waiting for the Secretary of State for Justice to procure the release of a relatively small category of prisoners whose continued detention is a flagrant violation of the demands of justice. They are the IPP prisoners who, despite having received relatively modest tariff sentences, were deemed to be dangerous under a statutory presumption that has since been discredited and abolished. Years ago, they completed the terms of imprisonment that were appropriate for their offences. Their continued detention today is shameful. The amendment should not be necessary, and one hopes that the Lord Chancellor will take the necessary action to demonstrate that it is not.

[Lord Ramsbotham]

My Lords, in supporting my noble and learned friend Lord Brown and saluting my noble and learned friend Lord Lloyd on his determined and tenacious momentum on this issue, I want to say just one thing. I am amazed that the Government are not tabling this amendment. As the noble Lord, Lord Wigley, mentioned, £40,000 a year for 773 prisoners is £35 million per year. If you have an overstretched and underresourced Prison Service, surely it makes sense to examine where you could make savings to put the money to better effect, rather than spend it on prisoners who should not be there. I fail to understand why, in the face of all the arguments, all the legal statements and all the evidence, plus the legislation passed in 2012, the Government have not taken the common-sense step of approaching this forcefully themselves.

[Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames]

My Lords, I join other noble Lords in paying tribute to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd of Berwick, for his campaign to achieve justice for IPP prisoners. I remember well the debate on 27 March secured by the noble Lord, Lord Wigley, who raised this issue on that occasion.

The continued imprisonment of those who are serving tariff sentences of less than two years for so long after those tariff sentences were completed, and now long after IPP sentences were abolished by the LASPO Act, is nothing short of disgraceful. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Phillips of Worth Matravers, mentioned “Fidelio”. In that opera, it took the courage of Florestan’s wife Leonore, who, dressed as Fidelio, risked her life to save her husband from unjust imprisonment, to secure his release. All that is necessary for this Government now is for the Secretary of State to exercise his power—given to him, as has been pointed out, by the second limb of Section 128 of the LASPO Act—to introduce a simple presumption in favour of release unless the continued imprisonment of any such prisoner on an IPP can be positively and clearly justified. It is a simple presumption. It meets the justice of the case. It answers any need that remains for the protection of the public. I suggest that this unfairness must be ended, and now.

[Lord Beecham]

My Lords, it is ironic that the Committee meets today, on Bastille Day, as the French Revolution effectively broke out with the release of a number of prisoners on what were presumably indeterminate sentences. I suppose that they might have been lettres de cachet. The House and the Committee are indebted to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd, who has constantly raised this matter.

The noble and learned Lord, Lord Phillips, referred to “Fidelio”. I am not sure whether the Secretary of State would find himself comfortable in the position of the Minister in that opera; perhaps he would be more comfortable in another opera as Gilbert and Sullivan’s Lord High Executioner. Be that as it may, the noble and learned Lord raised a series of questions, implicitly or explicitly, to which we have had no reply thus far. I hope that the Minister will be able to give us some indication of the Government’s thinking, if they have got that far, on the issues raised this afternoon.

The first question has already been asked but I will repeat it: why include a provision in legislation and then completely ignore it? Have the Government or, more particularly, the Secretary of State considered using the provision that this Government included in the LASPO Act? If they have, on what basis has that consideration taken place? Has the Secretary of State looked at any cases of the kind to which the noble and learned Lord referred—I would hardly expect him to look at them all—to come to a view about whether it would be right to exercise the discretion that was deliberately placed in his hands? If he has not, why not? What is the Government’s intention in relation to this section of LASPO? Is it to be ignored or is it at all to be used? If it is not to be used, why do the Government not have the courage of their apparent convictions and delete it? If it is to be used, when and under what circumstances will that be?

Questions have repeatedly been asked today about the resources available to the Parole Board to deal with matters of this kind. I asked the general question before to which others, including the noble Lord, Lord Wigley, have now alluded about the increased burden on the Parole Board as a result of recent decisions and the growing number of cases that it will be asked to look at in oral hearings. However, has any specific consideration been given to the resources required to deal with the cases of people who have been in prison for the length of time to which noble Lords have referred? Again, if not, why not?

There may be a concern in respect of some of these defendants as to what would happen if they were released and whether they might to some degree be a risk to the public. What investigations have been carried out to assess the need for investigation and inquiry by the Parole Board in support of those potential candidates for release who have served such a length of time? The overriding question is really therefore: what was the purpose of incorporating the Secretary of State’s discretion in the 2012 Act if it is to be treated as redundant? If it is not to be so treated and there is an intention to do it at some time, why the delay? As we have heard, many cases have been running for an unacceptable length of time. I hope that the Minister will be able to give some assurances that this matter will be seriously addressed and not simply left on the shelf in a way that does no credit to our system.

I think that the previous Government were rightly criticised on matters of this sort, in many respects, particularly in also failing to provide sufficient support for the Parole Board. However, their failure is relatively minimal compared to the looming failure which is likely to affect not only this category of prisoner but others who require the Parole Board’s intervention. I hope that the Minister can indicate, today of all days, that some movement will be made and that the Secretary of State will address himself to the plight of these people, and thereby avoid a further stain on the reputation of the Government in this respect.

[Lord Faulks]

My Lords, we are debating once again the position of current IPP prisoners. The Government abolished that sentence in the LASPO Act 2012, for reasons I need not rehearse. We replaced them with immediate effect so that no further IPPs can now be imposed on offenders convicted after December 2012, regardless of the date of offending. That, as I think noble Lords would agree, is a major step forward. The noble Lord, Lord Beecham, said in the course of his address to your Lordships that the Government who preceded ours had not given the Parole Board sufficient resources. What he failed to do was to acknowledge that it was his Government who brought in this scheme, which has been so much criticised. That scheme has resulted in a number of people being imprisoned and still being in prison; this Government repealed that provision.

However, in respect of IPP sentences already imposed, our position remains that it would not be right or appropriate retrospectively to alter sentences that had been lawfully imposed prior to the abolition of IPPs, particularly because in this case those sentences were imposed with public protection issues in mind. Consequently, prisoners serving IPP sentences are not released unless the Parole Board authorises it.

A number of questions were posed about the Parole Board’s resources, including those from the noble Lord, Lord Wigley. In answer to an earlier amendment, when I think the noble Lord was not in his place, I set out to the Committee the fact that the Government were well aware of the demands, temporary and in future, being presented to them. They had given further resources and were intending to be nimble in responding to the demands that were and would be placed upon them.

[Lord Beecham]

I am sorry to intervene at this point but, as the noble Lord, Lord Wigley, was not in the Chamber when this matter was discussed before, would the Minister care to address the point that I made to him that the Parole Board’s estimate of the increased demand was £10 million a year, which is equivalent to the total budget, while the Government’s provision is proposed to be £3 million? How does that square with the assurance that he is trying to give to the noble Lord?

[Lord Faulks]

The Government and the Parole Board, as the noble Lord would expect, are in frequent communication. It is difficult to be precise about these figures; an estimate is simply that. I assure the noble Lord that the figures in so far as they can be reached are the result of a number of conversations that have taken place regarding predictions about the demand. It is the Government’s position that we are providing the appropriate support for the Parole Board now and its estimate of what will be required in future. I also said—

[Lord Davies of Stamford]

My Lords—

17:19

[Lord Faulks]

Perhaps I might finish this sentence before I sit down. It is of course our intention to respond as appropriate if there are increasing demands.

[Lord Davies of Stamford]

I am most grateful to the Minister for giving way. It is clear that the Parole Board has a serious backlog in this matter. In considering the appropriate budget for the board, have the Government been looking at this matter completely by itself in vacuo or have they been looking at it in connection with the very relevant point made just now by the noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham, that there would be considerable savings to public funds if these prisoners were released, to the order of about £40,000 a year? Is it not the case that the interests of financial rationality and justice are aligned in this matter but that the Government are running counter to both of them?

[Lord Faulks]

I am very surprised that the noble Lord thinks that somehow the Ministry of Justice has failed to notice that it costs the Government a great deal of money to keep prisoners in custody. It is painfully aware of that, and of the cost. However, the ministry is also aware of its obligation for the protection of the public, and it is in balancing these issues that it comes to the very difficult decisions that it has to reach.

It is right that offenders serving indeterminate sentences—IPPs—should continue to be detained post tariff if their detention is necessary for the protection of the public and they are therefore not safe to release. There is evidence that IPP prisoners who take the opportunities presented to them to reduce their risk are beginning to achieve release in greater numbers. Since 2010 the number of IPP releases has grown, and we have seen over 400 IPP releases in 2012 and 2013. The percentage of IPP cases considered where release was ordered was 6% in the 2010-11 report, whereas in the 2012-13 report the figure was 16%.

Of course, we keep the matter under review. The amendment, as I understand it, would effectively lead to the prisoners who are within the scope of the amendment being automatically released, as it would mean that there was no discretion for the Parole Board to do other than to direct release. That is not the Government’s policy, as noble Lords are aware, and I will be unable to accept the amendment on those grounds.

I should also say that there would be difficulties with the amendment as it stands, regardless of the acceptability of the principle. The amendment would add a subsection to Section 128 of the LASPO Act directing the Parole Board to release IPP prisoners who had a tariff of less than two years. Section 128 is not about the duty to release indeterminate sentence prisoners but, rather, gives the Secretary of State the power to change the Parole Board’s release test by order. The amendment, however, appears to direct the Parole Board to release certain prisoners without any consideration of a test whatsoever.

The noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd, to whom I pay tribute, as others have, for his tenacity and his great concern for these prisoners—indeed, concern has been expressed for them all around the House—suggests that the amendment would be a gentle push. With very great respect to the noble and learned Lord, as it is currently expressed the amendment would be a very firm shove indeed. However, I understand that the intention is that these particular prisoners would be released at the point at which they would naturally fall due for Parole Board review, thus phasing their release. Presumably, the retention of the Parole Board’s role in the process is designed to align as much as possible with the current statutory arrangement. However, it would be problematic to give the duty to release to the Parole Board if in fact there was no discretion for the board under this proposal. For these reasons, I do not think that the amendment is the right way to achieve the noble Lords’ objectives.

However, in turning away and facing the principle rather than the detail, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd, has chosen to concentrate on those with tariffs of under two years, who he suggests have been particularly disadvantaged as they could not have received an IPP after the 2008 changes to the IPP statute. In fact, it remained possible to receive an IPP with a tariff of lower than two years until IPPs were abolished, where the offender had a serious previous conviction, and a fair number continued to do so. While between 2005 and 2008 courts were obliged to impose IPPs in certain circumstances, this was only where they found the offender to meet the dangerousness threshold. The statute, however, did not oblige courts to find the offender dangerous if he had a previous Schedule 15 conviction and it was clear that the court need not conclude that a previous conviction made the offender dangerous if it would be unreasonable to do so.

The noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd, and some other noble Lords have seen an analysis of the management information that was put together last year relating to the situation of IPP prisoners who were sentenced before July 2008 with tariffs of under two years who remained in prisons and whose tariff had expired. It is the Government’s view that this analysis supports that position in respect of the group. It provided clear evidence that the continued detention of short-tariff IPP prisoners remains justified and that the Parole Board still considers that in many cases they pose an unacceptable risk to the general public and to themselves. The majority—80 prisoner cases of the 100 sampled—were assessed as at high risk of serious harm, whereas none was assessed as being at no risk of serious harm. Almost all of that sample had had recent parole hearings and were deemed unsuitable for release. However, the fact that 11% of the sample were in fact approved for release clearly also demonstrates that, where risk has been reduced enough to be safely managed in the community, short-tariff IPP prisoners are being approved for release by the Parole Board using the current release test.

I know that many noble Lords keep themselves closely informed of the National Offender Management Service’s ongoing work to enhance support for this group of prisoners, but a brief reprise of those efforts bears repeating. We have come a long way in terms of management and support since the introduction of the sentence. For example, NOMS has made substantial improvements to the waiting times for IPP and other indeterminate-sentence prisoners. Once they have been approved for open prisons, in addition IPP prisoners have improved access to accredited programmes and they remain a priority group for interventions. Sentence planning instructions have been overhauled to emphasise that there are a range of interventions, not just accredited programmes, that can provide useful evidence for parole hearings. This has also been emphasised in discussions with Parole Board members. Measures have been taken to ensure that programmes can be delivered more flexibly, supporting greater access and the inclusion of offenders with more complex needs, such as learning difficulties. NOMS will continue to oversee positive changes to the management of IPP prisoners. As I said earlier, the reality is that IPP prisoners are now achieving release in greater numbers under the current arrangements.

[Lord Thomas of Gresford]

Before the Minister moves on, regulations were passed to permit lie detector tests to be carried out in respect of prisoners who are subject to IPP provisions. Are those tests carried out and, if so, what is the result? I have been informed by an experienced organisation that it is necessary to pass a lie detector test in order to establish that the particular offender is not at risk.

[Lord Faulks]

I am not aware of the question of lie detectors and whether or not they are used. I will write to the noble Lord when I have some information about it.

Measures have been taken to ensure that programmes can be delivered more flexibly, supporting greater access and inclusion, including offenders with complex needs, as I was indicating. I was asked about the case of James, Wells and Lee. The noble Lord, Lord Wigley, pointed out that the decision was that the retention of those prisoners was contrary to Article 5.1 and was therefore an arbitrary detention. I dare say that he will know, from having studied the decision, that the European Court of Human Rights did not hold that the sentence itself was unlawful. It was the unavailability of courses that was considered to be a breach of Article 5.1. I am sure the noble Lord would accept that it is simplistic to suppose that attendance at a course would automatically result in someone being appropriate for release. Clearly, it is carefully managed to ensure that so far as is possible those courses are reached. Those who attend the courses will not necessarily be eligible for or suitable for release. Equally, some who do not will be. However, I accept it is a matter of considerable assistance.

As the noble and learned Lord, Lord Brown of Eaton-under-Heywood, said, the construction of a statutory duty is a matter of the purpose as construed on examination of the relevant statute. In response to a debate about this section, the Lord Chancellor’s predecessor, Kenneth Clarke, said that he would look at progress after the LASPO changes had taken effect. I mentioned earlier that the rate had increased. The position is—I am afraid this is more or less the same answer that I gave in the debate initiated by the noble Lord, Lord Wigley—that there are no current plans to review the release test for prisoners serving IPP sentences whose minimum term has expired, although we continue to use a range of measures to improve their progression and reduce the risk that they pose. The Government’s position is that it is right that IPP prisoners continue to serve their sentence until they are assessed as safe to be released into the community by the Parole Board. The Government were left with this rather crude device by the previous Government. They repealed it, but none the less they have to be extremely mindful of what lay behind the introduction of this provision; namely, the protection of the public. I accept that there is great concern that those who would have received a lower tariff sentence might seem on the face of it to be languishing in prison for far too long. However, there are factors which I have attempted to draw to the Committee’s attention which do not, in the view of the Lord Chancellor and the Government, warrant a change of approach to that discretion.

Of course, it is a matter of anxiety. While others are attending the opera, I am—as the noble Lord, Lord Wigley, would have it—having sleepless nights. However, the duty of the Government remains to protect the public, notwithstanding the persuasive arguments that have been put forward by noble Lords. I ask the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd, to withdraw the amendment.

[Lord Lloyd of Berwick]

Will the Minister explain why releasing these people now would present any greater risk than that they would have presented if they had been given determinate sentences back in 2005?

[Lord Faulks]

They did not receive determinate sentences. With great respect to the noble and learned Lord, it is a hypothetical question because the sentence they received was not a determinate sentence; it was a sentence for the protection of the public. It is therefore the Government’s case that they have to proceed with caution using the processes which exist via the Parole Board to ensure that, before somebody in that position is released, the public are safe so far as reasonable precautions can be taken.

[Lord Lloyd of Berwick]

First, I must thank those who have supported this amendment so effectively, as it seems to me, and say a particular word of gratitude to the noble Lord, Lord Wigley. How good and refreshing it is to hear from a layman, especially one who is able to speak with a certain passion, which we lawyers try to keep in control. It was a very effective contribution.

18:15

I find the Minister’s response wholly unsatisfactory. He has given no answer to the basic question: if there is no intention to use Section 128, why was it included in the LASPO Act 2012? If there really is no intention to use it, would it not be more honourable to have deleted Section 128 in this Bill? It is intolerable to have a power which has been given for a certain purpose which is not being used for that purpose. I will unquestionably bring this back on Report. I hope that between now and then the Government will provide me with further particulars for each of the 773 prisoners serving this sentence with tariffs of less than two years. I want to know what they did, what their tariff was and when they were sentenced. We owe it to these people to take at least that interest in what they are going through at the moment. I hope the Minister will do that. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 17 withdrawn.

Clause 9 agreed.

Clause 10: Offence of remaining unlawfully at large after recall

Amendment 18

Moved by

[Lord Beecham]

18: Clause 10, page 10, line 29, after “fails,” insert “deliberately and”

[Lord Beecham]

Clause 10 creates a new offence of remaining unlawfully at large after recall. When he replies, will the Minister indicate the likely incidence of this offence or at least the basis on which the Government have seen fit to create an offence? How many offenders have broken their conditions and have remained unlawfully at large? That would be a material consideration.

The amendment does not necessarily challenge the creation of the offence, but it seeks to incorporate within the definition of the offence in Clause 10(1) and thereby insert into the Crime (Sentences) Act 1997 a factor which would render a person guilty of an offence if he, while unlawfully at large fails, deliberately and without reasonable excuse, to take all necessary steps to return to prison as soon as possible. The point of the amendment is to address the significant number of offenders, to whom I have already referred in another context, who have mental health or learning disabilities which may well impair their capacity to understand and comply with requirements in relation to recall.

It is important to bear in mind the significant numbers that I have already mentioned. I shall give a little more detail of the percentages involved: 20% to 30% of offenders have learning disabilities or disabilities that interfere with their ability to cope with the criminal justice system; 23% of young offenders have learning difficulties—that is to say, IQs of below 70—and a further 36% have borderline learning difficulties. That is a clear majority of young offenders. More than half of prison staff believe that prisoners with learning disabilities or difficulties are more likely to be victimised or bullied than other prisoners. They are also more likely to have broken a prison rule by several times the number of other prisoners. This is a group of damaged people, largely as a result of learning disabilities.

We know in any event that a very high proportion of prisoners suffer from one or more learning disabilities. Some 70% of adults suffer from one or more of such disabilities, while 80% of young offenders suffer from them. With that will often go problems in communication and comprehension skills, and perhaps even memory problems. Given that, we are dealing with a group of people of whom at least quite a significant proportion will struggle anyway out in the community, whether they are on licence or have ultimately served their sentence. To create a criminal offence that does not take into account those limitations is, in my submission, to veer towards injustice. What is needed is for those factors to be taken into account before bringing these people within the ambit of an offence. This amendment seeks to do that because deliberation assumes the capacity to take a decision which most noble Lords and perhaps most of the population would be able to take without the encumbrance of conditions which might limit that capacity.

The thrust of the amendment is to provide a safeguard. I hope that the Minister will look at it sympathetically. His colleague in another place, Jeremy Wright, seemed to think that the word “deliberately” did not add anything to the question of a “reasonable excuse”, but I suggest that potentially it does. It strengthens the position of those who would find it difficult to cope with the requirements, but it would not exclude those who are capable of deciding on what is required of them and who then make a deliberate decision not to comply. I hope that, either today or by the time we reach the Report stage, the Minister will be able to indicate the number of people who are remaining at large unlawfully at any one time. That would be useful background information to inform the debate at a later stage. I beg to move.

[Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon]

My Lords, I understand totally the sentiment behind the amendment, but the offence is about making sure that, in the most serious cases where offenders have been recalled from licence and have run off to avoid serving their sentence, the courts have the necessary powers to deal with them. I assure the Committee that this is not about locking up as many people as possible or indeed prosecuting them unnecessarily. The offence will not apply to the vast majority of recalled offenders, who are returned to custody within a few days, some of whom are unaware that their licence has been revoked until they are arrested. I understand the aim of making sure that the new offence does not penalise offenders who may remain unlawfully at large through no fault of their own. Clause 10 is carefully framed so that an offender who is recalled to prison will be guilty of committing the offence only if they have been notified of the recall, either orally or in writing, or they can be treated as having been notified of the recall in light of repeated failures to keep in touch with probation as required. If they fail without reasonable excuse to take all necessary steps, they can be returned to custody.

The noble Lord, Lord Beecham, has rightly raised the issue of safeguards. Not all licence breaches lead to recall and there are a number of stages that must be passed before the offence will bite. These provide important safeguards which ensure that the vulnerable offenders whom he mentioned quite specifically are not set up to fail. He will know, as will most noble Lords, that in all circumstances the probation officer and the National Offender Management Service must consider whether the offender’s licence should be revoked and, if so, whether they should refer the offender to the Secretary of State to make the final decision. That judgment is and will rightly remain a matter for the discretion of the professionals who know the offender and the particular circumstances.

The noble Lord also asked how many offenders are currently unlawfully at large. The provision is about those who remain unlawfully at large following a recall to custody from licence. Information on licence recalls and returns to custody is published quarterly and the most recent publication was on 24 April this year. The total number of offenders recalled to prison for the period 1984 to December 2013 who had not been apprehended by 31 March 2014 was 1,050, which represents around 0.6% of the offenders who were recalled during that period. I hope that this information is helpful and I would reiterate that I understand the intent behind the amendment. I hope that the safeguards which the Government have sought to put in place in framing this clause reassure the noble Lord and I trust that he will be minded to withdraw the amendment.

[Lord Beecham]

I am grateful to the Minister for his response and I note the very small percentage of those who fail to respond. Of course, the noble Lord is not in a position to say who among them would fall into the category I have described, and it may be that that is a matter which is worth looking into. However, I presume that it would be for the Parole Board or some other body. In the circumstances, and certainly at this stage, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 18 withdrawn.

Clause 10 agreed.

Clauses 11 to 13 agreed.

Clause 14: Drugs for which prisoners etc may be tested

Amendment 19

Moved by

[Lord Patel of Bradford]

19: Clause 14, page 15, line 24, at end insert—
“(4) Before this section comes into force, the Secretary of State shall lay before Parliament a report describing his plans to ensure that safe and supervised places are provided in which prisoners can take medication which has been prescribed to them.”

[Lord Patel of Bradford (Lab)]

My Lords, in moving Amendment 19 I shall speak also to Amendment 20. Amendment 19 should have been tabled in my name, but unfortunately due to an administrative error my name was not added to sit alongside those of my noble friends Lord Beecham and Lord Kennedy.

Clause 14 enables the Secretary of State to specify in prison rules and rules for other places of detention non-controlled drugs which can be tested for under the existing mandatory drug-testing programme. I generally support the intention behind Clause 14, but I would like to see greater clarity on two aspects: first, on what plans are being made to ensure that suitable provision is in place for people in prison to be able to take prescription drugs safely and so limit the scope for abuse; and secondly, on the incidence of drugs in prison and in particular the effectiveness of drug testing.

In tabling both of these amendments I should declare an interest as the former chair of the independent cross-ministerial committee on the review of drug treatment in prisons which resulted in the publication some years ago of The Patel Report. At the time we were very much focused on the development of the integrated drug treatment system in prisons which commenced in 2006. It has had a considerable and positive impact on reducing the use of heroin and illegal drugs in prison. However, we know that since that time, the demand for prescription and over-the-counter medication in prisons has been increasing, and we have also seen an increase in the use of psychoactive substances, the so-called “legal highs”. We need to consider the use of legal highs alongside the problems around prescription drugs in our attempts to deal adequately with these issues. For that reason, I intend to address both issues together.

Amendment 19 requires the Secretary of State to lay a report before Parliament,

“describing his plans to ensure that safe and supervised places are provided in which prisoners can take medication which has been prescribed to them”.

Amendment 20 requires the Secretary of State:

“Within 12 months of section 14 coming into force … report to Parliament on the incidence of drugs in prisons and the effectiveness of drugs testing of prisoners in prisons”.

Let me first explain why these two amendments are important. Although accurate prescribing data for analgesics are unavailable, a report entitled Managing Persistent Pain in Secure Settings, published by Public Health England last year, gives some startling figures on the scale of analgesic prescribing. A snapshot of just two institutions with populations of 751 and 859 respectively suggested that between 55,000 and more than 350,000 analgesic tablets, excluding paracetamol and ibuprofen, were prescribed in just one month. The Chief Inspector of Prisons highlighted in his annual report last year that the diversion of prescription drugs, such as Tramadol, Gabapentin and Pregabalin was taking place in high security and vulnerable prisoner populations. I know from my own work with NHS England on conducting health needs assessments in a wide range of prisons just how serious an issue this is, and that the growing demand for and diversion of prescription drugs is viewed by both prison staff and the prisoners themselves as a major problem.

18:30

We are also hearing more about the use of psychoactive substances in prisons. This is a serious problem because there are no data at the present time on these legal highs in prisons, as they do not show up on mandatory drug tests and so are difficult to detect and identify. Both these issues—the increasing demand for and potential abuse of prescription drugs and the use of psychoactive substances—present considerable challenges to the prison system and, in particular, to the safety and well-being of prisoners.

It is important that we understand why this is happening. Prisoners are likely to suffer from conditions such as insomnia, anxiety and pain that lead them to seek medicines that can lead to dependence. Some prisons have reported that part of the problem is that prisoners come into prison with prescribed medication that may be considered unnecessary by the prison GPs but has been prescribed by GPs in the community. In these cases, prisoners can be very reluctant to give up or to consider a reduction programme to bring them off these medications. We also have many more people coming into the prison system who are older and more likely to suffer from conditions that require complex medications, including adequate management for pain relief. There is no doubt that managing persistent pain in secure environments presents clinicians with a number of challenges surrounding diagnosis and the management of treatment.

The difficulty faced by GPs in prisons is to distinguish patients who need medication for pain from those who want to misuse it or trade it as a commodity, as diverted medication can result in problems such as drug debts, bullying and the risk of overdose. Some prisons have reported that prisoners can be demanding, and in some cases bullying of doctors and nurses can take place in their requests for painkillers. I was told in one prison that a GP had to press the alarm three times in the past 12 months due to prisoners bullying him for medication that he had refused, as he felt it was not clinically necessary. We also know that nursing staff have to spend large amounts of their time dispensing medications, many of which are controlled or deemed to be a high risk for abuse and/or diversion. Some of the measures they have to take involve random checking of prisoners’ mouths to make sure that they are swallowing their drugs and not holding or concealing them in their cheeks. To avoid this, in some cases, liquid medication, such as liquid Pregabalin, is dispensed instead of tablets. However, this is not always sufficient as we have heard examples of prisoners concealing sponges in their cheeks to absorb the liquid medication. In some prisons, crushed tablets are dispensed to prisoners to prevent them from trading them. Prison officers will also remain with nurses to ensure that medication that is dispensed is taken appropriately. However, in some prisons simply not enough staff are available during the dispensing of medication to prevent diversion and bullying of prisoners.

Noble Lords can understand how dispensing medication is time-consuming and can be stressful for the nurses, prison officers and prisoners. Of course, an easy solution would be to allow more prisoners to have their medication in possession, which means that they keep it in their cells in lockable cupboards. But unfortunately this too can leave them open to bullying. We have examples of greater use of technology to assist security of prescribing, such as the Methasoft iris recognition system, which is currently used to ensure that prescribed drugs are dispensed to the correct prisoner. But again, all these measures take time and resources, and many prisons are not equipped to deal sufficiently well with this increasing problem.

I hope that I have demonstrated just how important it is to have safe and supervised places with sufficient staff cover to ensure that prisoners can take medication that has been prescribed to them. However, having a safe space for the dispensing of medication alone will not resolve the problem. A number of prisons do not have a clear policy on this issue as yet. Some are starting to establish multidisciplinary team meetings to review and address the needs of people on long-term medication and to discuss how to deal with potentially difficult prisoners, and that should be acknowledged. Some prisons are commencing pain clinics in order to reduce the need and consequently the amount of painkillers prescribed. For example, I know of one prison where healthcare staff, including the GP, lead nurses, and the pharmacist, are working together with local hospital anaesthetists and physiotherapists to review all pain medication that is being prescribed and identify alternative ways by which prisoners may be helped to come off or reduce the need for this type of medication. This is excellent work and we need to support more prisons in developing appropriate policies and approaches. That is the intention behind Amendment 19, which will require the Secretary of State to lay a report before Parliament, setting out clearly the plans for ensuring that prisons have sufficient safe places for providing prisoners with medications that have been prescribed for them.

As I hope I have made clear, extending the use of mandatory drug testing will go only part of the way to providing a solution. Many of the drugs that I have described as causing problems are prescribed in prison, so of course will show up on testing—but the use of psychoactive substances, or legal highs, will not, as many of these substances will not show up. Therefore, Amendment 20 seeks to ensure that we have sufficient information not only about the use of drugs in prison but about the effectiveness of the mandatory drug-testing system. Taken together, this review of effectiveness of mandatory testing and the scale of the problem of drug use in prisons, alongside clarification about the plans for provision on safe places for ensuring that prisoners can receive drugs that they need without the potential for abuse, will, I believe, provide us with greater confidence in the likely impact of Clause 14. The clause needs to address the range of complexities and potential solutions to these very challenging issues, and I very much hope much that the Minister will consider these amendments seriously. I beg to move.

[Lord Mancroft (Con)]

My Lords, I listened with great care to the noble Lord, Lord Patel of Bradford, in moving his amendment, and he laid out very accurately for your Lordships the perceived problem of misadministration of various sorts of drugs, particularly prescription drugs, in prison, and the manner in which they are prescribed and taken. The problem that the noble Lord describes to the House is probably entirely right. However, it may not have come over that it is merely an extension of the problem of prescription drugs outside prison. Often in your Lordships’ House we discuss drugs and drug-related crime, but we rarely get around to talking about the fact that, however many people may be taking illegal drugs, many more are addicted to prescription drugs, which causes immense problems for them and their families, as well as for society as a whole. Whether or not that addiction to prescription drugs is causing crime or is related to crime in some way, it is an enormous problem. All those drugs are prescription drugs, which means that they have already been prescribed by a doctor—and probably, as a consequence, misprescribed, or they would not be resulting in addiction and all the problems that stem from it.

We are not dealing with that problem outside prison, with the ordinary population—we are dealing with it incredibly badly. The Department of Health is wrestling with it in a rather inadequate way, and it is bouncing backwards and forwards between the Home Office and the Department of Health, as it has been for many years. I am not entirely sure why, if we cannot deal with it outside prison, we should dump that problem into prison and say to the prison authorities that we cannot deal with it when prisoners are ordinary citizens living in our society, but now that they have been convicted of a crime and are going to go to prison we expect the prison authorities to deal with a problem that we cannot deal with outside.

The noble Lord has accurately identified a problem, but I have some concern over whether Amendments 19 and 20 contain the solution. Perhaps it is the start of a solution—but if we cannot deal with it outside, asking the Secretary of State to lay a report, the results of which we can all guess, even if we do not know the details, does not seem even to get to the start of resolving this problem. I look forward to what my noble friend says in response, and perhaps the noble Lord, Lord Patel, would like to respond before then. However, although I accept the problem, I cannot see that this even remotely touches on a solution.

[Lord Patel of Bradford]

I completely agree with the noble Lord, Lord Mancroft, about the issue of prescription drugs out in the community, given the ludicrous figure of literally 50 million prescriptions—I think—having been issued last year. However, there is a clear distinction between that situation and the situation in prisons. Mandatory drug testing was introduced to test prisoners for heroin in particular. However, following the introduction of mandatory drug testing, many prisoners who had been using cannabis, which stayed in the system for longer, started to use heroin, which stayed in the system for a shorter time. We got over that problem through introducing into the prison estate a very good integrated drug system, which has worked exceptionally well.

However, the drug abuse problem has shifted to prescription drugs. In prison after prison, prescription drugs are used as a commodity. People are being bullied on account of these drugs and violence is associated with them. We do not have the measure of this problem or know the extent of prescription drug abuse. Indeed, we have no idea about the problem of the so-called legal highs, which is clearly a problem in prisons, because the mandatory drug testing simply does not pick up those drugs. Merely to say that we will conduct mandatory drug testing for all drugs will not solve the problem. We need to analyse further how prisoners can safely take the prescription medicines they are prescribed and what policies need to be put in place to provide safe places for them to do so. We need data on prisoners’ prescription medicines and on the incidence of abuse to enable us to move forward on this issue. The intention behind the amendment is to obtain that data and for the Secretary of State to present them to Parliament in a report. That would give us the opportunity to improve the situation.

[Lord Beecham]

I should like to add a further thought and thank my noble friend for putting the case for these amendments so capably. The responsibility for providing medical services in prisons belongs ultimately to NHS England as the commissioners. Therefore, it is not a matter solely for the Ministry of Justice. It seems to me that some interdepartmental discussions on this issue would be timely, if they have not already taken place. There is the sheer cost, of course, of providing prescription drugs for prisoners as, indeed, for anyone else, which, obviously, will be a factor in the mind of NHS England. As regards the general health problems of prisoners, particularly mental health problems, it seems to me that the involvement of the Department of Health and NHS England in looking at the aspects to which our amendments refer would be very helpful. I am not asking for any response on that tonight except perhaps for a nod in the direction that some discussions will be held with NHS England and the department to see whether a more holistic approach can be adopted across the relevant agencies. It would be helpful if such an indication could be given.

18:43

[Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon]

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Patel, for tabling these amendments. I must admit I was somewhat surprised that he was confused that the name of the noble Lord, Lord Beecham, was added to the amendments rather than his. Perhaps it would have been more palatable had he said he had been confused by my good self but, accents aside, there may be more similarities there. The noble Lord raised some very pertinent issues, as did my noble friend Lord Mancroft, in talking about drug issues more generally in society. I have often spoken about this issue at the Dispatch Box in responding to Questions. We also heard briefly about legal highs.

Amendments 19 and 20 both relate to the use of drugs in prisons, although from two different perspectives. I know that the noble Lord, Lord Patel, has laid Amendment 19 in good faith to support the well-being and security of prisoners. However, in all prisons where prisoners are being supplied medicines for the management of either long-term conditions or for the treatment of acute clinical conditions, the safe use of medicines is taken extremely seriously. The noble Lord, Lord Beecham, rightly talked about the role of the NHS. Clinical governance of this process in England and Wales is undertaken by qualified pharmacists commissioned by the National Health Service not the National Offender Management Service or Her Majesty’s Prison Service. I assure all noble Lords that dispensing complies to national guidelines and is risk assessed by pharmacists on a case-by-case basis to ensure that medicines are dispensed in a manner that is safe and appropriate to a custodial environment, including the risks of the diversion of medicines and decisions over whether appropriate medicines can be “held in possession”. These processes are subject to routine audit and assurance in line with guidelines for the management of medicines in the wider community.

Moreover, prison staff are very much aware of prisoners attempting to take medication without swallowing in order to sell or pass on that medication to other prisoners. This is sometimes done in reaction to bullying from other prisoners. Every effort is made to prevent this. The noble Lord, Lord Patel, gave several examples of good practice. I give him the assurance that I will share that with my honourable friend the Prisons Minister and perhaps we can arrange a meeting to explore how this issue can best be addressed across the board. The Government have always held the opinion that where good practice can be shared across the prison estate it should be taken on board. I hope that, given that reassurance, the noble Lord will be minded to withdraw Amendment 19.

Amendment 20 would require the Secretary of State to report to Parliament on the incidence of drugs in prison and the effectiveness of drug taking. I assure noble Lords that the Government take the issue of drugs in prison extremely seriously. Therefore, Clause 14 represents an immediate step to address the challenges facing the Prison Service with the different types of drugs that are being abused by prisoners. I totally take on board the fact that legislation alone, either drafting it or applying it, will not deal with the issue, as the noble Lord, Lord Patel, said, but it is the way forward.

In regard to the incidence of drugs in prisons and the effectiveness of drug testing of prisoners, it is assumed that the question refers to the number of positives for drug abuse found by the mandatory drug testing programme across the prison estate. The effectiveness of the MDT programme is kept under constant internal review, including the range of drugs tested, which will be extended as appropriate. The number of prisoners being tested under the MDT programme and the percentage found to be positive are already published in the NOMS management information addendum. All this information is available on the government website.

As noble Lords are aware, the Ministry of Justice is ultimately accountable to Parliament for the discharge of its responsibilities, including those on the prison estate. Bearing in mind that the information is publicly available, and that noble Lords and honourable Members in the other place can hold the Government and the Ministry of Justice to account, we do not believe that the addition of further reporting requirements is necessary. Given the assurances and the explanations I have provided and the offer of a discussion on how we can introduce best practice, I hope that the noble Lord will be minded to withdraw the amendment.

[Lord Patel of Bradford]

I thank the noble Lord for his response. I agree that he and I are slightly more similar than I am to my noble friend Lord Beecham as we both have hair.

[Noble Lords]

Oh!

[Lord Patel of Bradford]

I assume that was what the noble Lord meant. There was a reason why I grouped together Amendments 19 and 20. One has to have a safe place where prescription drugs can be taken. I accept that there is no problem with qualified pharmacists or GPs giving out the medication; I do not question that at all. What I question is the number of safe places that exist across the prison estate in which that medication can be given out. I still think that there is a major issue with prisoners being able to take prescription drugs safely without facing intimidation and the prospect of being bullied to pass them to others as a commodity.

I understand that the provision on mandatory drug testing was taken from a Private Member’s Bill and, therefore, no impact assessment was undertaken. It would be really helpful, now or at a later stage, to hear whether the impact assessment will take place, especially in relation to MDT. We do not know whether the testing is driving people to use other drugs, and it would therefore be important to have some kind of impact assessment on the use of MDT.

I welcome the meeting with the Prisons Minister to share a number of examples of good practice across the country, but I also ask whether the noble Lord will speak to his colleagues in the Department of Health, as my noble friend Lord Beecham said. This is a major health issue because the doctors and nurses are constantly saying that it is they who have to put up with bullying and are unable to prescribe effectively.

It would therefore be helpful if we could take this to the next level. The wording of these amendments may be improved and demands may be high, but there is some scope for looking further at the level and impact of mandatory drug testing. With that in mind, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 19 withdrawn.

Clause 14 agreed.

Amendment 20 not moved.

House resumed. Committee to begin again not before 8.15 pm.

Gaza

Monday 14th July 2014 Lords Chamber

Statement

18:51

[The Senior Minister of State, Department for Communities and Local Government & Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Baroness Warsi) (Con)]

My Lords, with the leave of the House I shall repeat the Foreign Secretary’s Statement made earlier in another place. The Statement is as follows:

“Mr Speaker, with permission, I will make a Statement to the House on Gaza. The House is aware that, despite intense efforts by US Secretary of State John Kerry, talks between Israel and the Palestinians broke down at the end of April and are currently paused.

Since then there have been several horrific incidents, including the kidnap and murder of three Israeli teenagers and the burning alive of a Palestinian teenager. We utterly condemn these barbaric crimes. There can never be any justification for the deliberate murder of innocent civilians.

These rising tensions have been followed by sustained barrages of rocket fire from Gaza into Israel. Between 14 June and 7 July, 270 rockets were fired by militants into Israel, which Israel responded to with air strikes. Rockets are fired indiscriminately against the civilian population, including against major Israeli cities.

Israel then launched Operation Protective Edge on 7 July. The Israel Defense Forces have struck over 1,470 targets in Gaza, and over 970 more rockets have been fired towards Israel; 240 Israelis have been injured. In Gaza, as of today, at least 173 Palestinians have been killed, and 1,230 injured. The UN estimates that 80% of those killed have been civilians, of which a third are children.

We have acted swiftly to ensure the safe departure of British nationals wanting to leave Gaza. Late last night we successfully assisted the departure of 27 British nationals and Palestinian dependants from Gaza, through Israel to Jordan for onward travel. I am grateful to the UN and FCO staff from London, Gaza, Jerusalem, Tel Aviv and Amman, and to the Israeli and Jordanian authorities, for their work to ensure the success of this operation.

The whole House will share our deep concern at these events. This is the third major military operation in Gaza in six years. It underlines the terrible human cost to both sides of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, and it comes at a time when the security situation in the Middle East is the worst it has been in decades.

The people of Israel have the right to live without fear for their security, and the people of Gaza also have the fundamental right to live in peace and security. There are hundreds of thousands of extremely vulnerable civilians in Gaza who bear no responsibility for the rocket fire and are suffering acutely from this crisis. And the Israel Defense Forces estimate that 5 million Israeli civilians live within range of rocket fire from Gaza.

Israel has a right to defend itself against indiscriminate rocket attacks. But it is vital that Gaza’s civilian population is protected. International humanitarian law requires both sides to distinguish between military and civilian targets, and enable unhindered humanitarian access.

The UK has three objectives—to secure a ceasefire, to alleviate humanitarian suffering, and to keep alive the prospects for peace negotiations, which are the only hope of breaking this cycle of violence and devastation once and for all. I will take each of these in turn.

First, there is an urgent need for a ceasefire agreed by both sides that ends both the rocket fire and the Israeli operations against Gaza, based on the ceasefire agreement that ended the conflict in November 2012. Reinstating that agreement will require a concerted effort between Israelis, Palestinians and the authorities in Egypt, with the support of the international community. All those with influence over Hamas must use it.

We are in close contact with Israeli and Palestinian leaders, our partners and allies. The Prime Minister spoke to Prime Minister Netanyahu on 9 July, and I have spoken to President Abbas, Israeli Foreign Minister Lieberman and Strategic Affairs Minister Steinitz, and Egyptian Foreign Minister Shukri. As Arab Foreign Ministers meet tonight, I have just discussed the situation with the Foreign Ministers of Jordan and Qatar.

On 10 July, the UN Secretary-General told the Security Council that there was a risk of an all-out escalation in Israel and Gaza and appealed for maximum restraint. He had been in contact with leaders on both sides and other international leaders, underlining his concern about the plight of civilians and calling for bold thinking and creative ideas. On Saturday we joined the rest of the Security Council in calling for de-escalation of the crisis, the restoration of calm and reinstatement of the November 2012 ceasefire. We are ready to consider further action in the Security Council if that can help secure the urgent ceasefire that we all want to see. Yesterday, I held discussions in the margins of the Iran Vienna talks with Secretary Kerry and my French and German counterparts to consider how to bring about this objective.

Once a ceasefire is agreed, it will be vitally important that its terms are implemented in full by both sides, including a permanent end to rocket attacks and all other forms of violence. Implementation of that ceasefire agreement must only be part of a wider effort to improve conditions in Gaza. Without that, we are likely to see further such cycles of violence. This should include the restoration of Palestinian Authority control in Gaza, the opening up of legitimate movement and access, and a permanent end to the unacceptable threat of rocket attacks and other forms of violence from Gazan militants against Israel.

Secondly, we will do all we can to help alleviate humanitarian suffering in Gaza. At least 17,000 Gazans are seeking shelter with the UN. Hundreds of thousands are suffering shortages of water, sanitation and electricity; and stocks of fuel and medical supplies are running dangerously low. Over half of Gaza’s population was already living without adequate access to food before the crisis, the large majority reliant on aid and many unemployed. The UK is providing £349 million for humanitarian relief, state-building and economic development up to 2015, and providing around £30 million a year to help the people of Gaza.

The UK is the third biggest donor to the UN Relief and Works Agency general fund. Our support has enabled UNRWA to respond to the crisis by continuing to provide crucial health services to 70% of the population by sheltering 17,000 displaced people, and by distributing almost 30,000 litres of fuel to ensure that emergency water and sewerage infrastructure can operate. DfID is helping to fund the World Food Programme, the ICRC and the UN Access Co-ordination Unit. With our support, these organisations are providing food to insecure people, helping to repair damaged infrastructure, getting essential supplies into Gaza, getting medical cases out and delivering emergency medical care. My right honourable friend the Minister for International Development has spoken to Prime Minister Hamdallah, and DfID stands ready to do more, as necessary.

Thirdly, a negotiated two-state solution remains the only way to resolve the conflict once and for all, and to achieve a sustainable peace so that Israeli and Palestinian families can live without fear of violence. No other option exists that guarantees peace and security for both peoples. I once again pay tribute to Secretary Kerry’s efforts to secure a permanent peace. The prospects for negotiations of course look bleak in the middle of another crisis in which civilians are paying the heaviest price. But it has never been more important for leaders on both sides to take the bold steps necessary for peace. For Israel, this must mean a commitment to return to dialogue and to avoid all actions which undermine the prospects for peace, including settlement activity which does so much to undermine confidence in negotiations. For Hamas, it faces a fundamental decision about whether it is prepared to accept the quartet principles and join efforts for peace, or whether it will continue to use violence and terror with all the terrible consequences for the people of Gaza. The Palestinian Authority must also show leadership, recommitting itself to dialogue with Israel and making progress on governance and security for Palestinians in Gaza as well as the West Bank.

In all of these areas, the UK will play its role, working closely with the US and European colleagues, encouraging both sides back to dialogue, supporting the Palestinian Authority, keeping pressure on Hamas and alleviating the humanitarian consequences of conflict. There can be no substitute for leadership and political will from the parties. The world looks on in horror once again, as Israel suffers from rocket attacks and Palestinian civilians die. Only a real peace, with a safe and secure Israel living alongside a viable Palestinian state, can end this cycle of violence and it is only the parties themselves, with our support, who can make that peace”.

That concludes the Statement.

19:01

[Lord Bach (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for repeating the Statement of her right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary in another place. The spiral of violence that has engulfed Gaza, southern Israel and the West Bank in recent days is bringing terrible suffering to innocent people. Of course the firing of rockets into Israel by Gaza-based militants is rightly condemned by all people of good will. No Government on earth would tolerate such attacks on their citizens, and we recognise Israel’s right to defend itself. In recent days, nearly 1,000 rockets have been fired from Gaza at Israel. At least three Israelis have been seriously injured and there have been other injuries as well.

However, the Foreign Secretary was right to point out that since the start of the Israeli military operation in Gaza only seven days ago, more than 170 Palestinians have been killed and thousands more have been injured. As the Statement said, the United Nations has reported that a large number of those killed, over 80%, were civilians, and a third of those killed were children.

Although this conflict cannot and must not be reduced simply to a ledger of casualties, the scale of the suffering in Gaza today must be fully and frankly acknowledged by all sides. The truth is, of course, that the life of a Palestinian child is worth no less than the life of an Israeli child. Every life is equal, irrespective of religion and nationality. The Foreign Secretary has rightly condemned the horrific kidnap and murder of three Israeli teenagers and the burning alive of a Palestinian teenager. These were truly shocking events but, while those barbaric acts seem the proximate cause of the latest spiral of violence, the underlying cause for this latest crisis is surely the failure over decades to achieve a two-state solution for the two peoples. Does the Minister agree?

The House will remember our debates in 2008-09 and 2012 on what today seems grimly familiar: in Gaza, Operation Cast Lead in 2008-09 and Operation Pillar of Defense in 2012. The same pattern seems to be repeating itself. In 2008-09, Israel declared a unilateral ceasefire; in 2012 the Egyptians brokered one. On both occasions it was clear that the conflict between Israel and Hamas cannot be solved through force of arms alone. I am sure that Her Majesty’s Government recognise that there can be no military solution to this conflict. Does the Minister agree that the scale of the suffering in Gaza, adding to the effects of the continuing blockade, only serves to fuel hatred and embolden Israel’s enemies?

The further isolation of the Palestinian Authority in the face of military action weakens its own domestic legitimacy. Surely that ultimately makes negotiations harder and peace more difficult to achieve. Today, the risk of all-out escalation in the conflict and the threat of a ground offensive action are very real indeed. However, of course—and this should constantly be said—they are preventable if Hamas stops firing rockets at Israel. As Her Majesty’s Opposition, we are clear not only on the need for an immediate ceasefire but that a full-scale ground invasion would be both a disaster for the people of Gaza and a strategic error for Israel. It is vital that our Government, along with allies, now make that position clear to the Israeli Government in the crucial hours and days ahead. I am sure that the Minister agrees with that.

We of course welcome the statements made by the United Nations Security Council on Saturday calling for a ceasefire. The Foreign Secretary spoke of Her Majesty’s Government being willing to consider further action at the UN Security Council if a ceasefire was not agreed. Can the Minister set out what sort of further action might be involved? I am sure that we are all agreed that the United Nations has to take a forthright role in seeking to bring the recent violence to an end.

There have been calls for the United Nations Secretary-General to travel to the region as a mediator between the two sides. Do Her Majesty’s Government support such a call? We all know from bitter experience over many years that a spiral of violence that reinforces the insecurity of the Israelis and the humiliation of the Palestinians leads only to further suffering. For Israel, permanent occupation, blockades and repeated incursions into occupied lands will make peace and ultimately security much harder, not easier, to achieve. Alas, it appears to be not a strategy for peace, more a recipe for conflict.

Of course we welcome all the humanitarian efforts that the Foreign Secretary has set out and that are being made by the Government on behalf of this country. It is very good that Britain plays such a major role. We also welcome the good news concerning the departure of British nationals and Palestinian dependants from Gaza. However, do we not all know after all these years that a humanitarian response, while absolutely vital, is not sufficient? That is obvious from the past few days, and from Israel’s overwhelming military might. I repeat: Hamas, weakened today by al-Sisi’s rise in Egypt and differences with Iran over Syria, can itself revert the risk of an imminent ground invasion by stopping the rocket attacks.

Israel needs more than just tactics for winning the next round of war. It needs a strategy for building peace. This is a time and a crisis that demands not revenge but statesmanship motivated by justice. Only politics and a negotiated solution offer a way forward to peace.

19:08

[Baroness Warsi]

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for his support at what is an incredibly difficult time. He speaks with a sombre tone; I speak with a heavy heart. There is no doubt that, as long as the cycle of violence goes on, the prospects of peace recede. That is why we have called for an immediate de-escalation and a restoration of the November 2012 ceasefire, to avoid further civilian injuries and the loss of innocent life.

The noble Lord referred specifically to the fact that there was no military solution. I agree with him on that. Even as it stands, it is vital that we ensure that all military actions are proportionate, in line with international humanitarian law and calibrated in a way to avoid further civilian casualties.

On the inability to resolve this conflict, the noble Lord spoke about what more could be done. I have stood at this Dispatch Box on many occasions and talked about how the window of opportunity is slowly closing. I quote Philip Gordon, the White House Middle East chief, who said the inability to resolve this conflict—we all carry the responsibility of that—

“inevitably means more tension, more resentment, more injustice, more insecurity, more tragedy, and more grief”.

We have seen that over the past few days. However, I once again return to the fact that only the US can truly move this forward and, among other things, deliver Israel into an agreement. Secretary Kerry is on his way to the region but the noble Lord quite rightly identifies that the situation has now changed, even from 2012. My right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary has been in discussions with a number of Foreign Ministers from the Arab League, discussing how we can ensure that the different parties to this dispute can be brought to the table, because—I go back to saying what I have always said—only a negotiated solution will bring this matter to an end.

19:11

[Baroness Morris of Bolton (Con)]

My Lords, I declare my interests as president of Medical Aid for Palestinians and the Prime Minister’s trade envoy for the Palestinian territories. Even before the current hostilities began, health services in Gaza were in steady decline, with drugs running dangerously low and 300 pieces of essential equipment not functioning. That was before the horrendous lifetime disabilities that have been suffered by hundreds of Palestinians, many of them children. Will the Government do all they can to ensure the necessary medical supplies reach Gaza? MAP is one of only three NGOs to have contributed to dealing with the drug shortage so far, so there is quite a worrying lack of take-up. Will the Government put all the pressure that they possibly can on the relevant authorities to ensure that the patients who need skilled reconstructive surgery outside Gaza are able to leave Gaza? At the moment, only a trickle of patients are getting out.

[Baroness Warsi]

I thank my noble friend for that update. She comes to these matters with great expertise and understanding of the region. On a number of occasions, including before the current situation arose, I have said that it is only right that we work together to ease the restrictions on Gaza. We continue to urge Israel to ease the restrictions, including the movement of goods and persons from and to the Gaza Strip. However, my noble friend will be aware that the United Kingdom is one of the largest donors to the region and we will ensure we continue that support.

[Lord Pannick (CB)]

I thank the Minister for all the work she and the Foreign Secretary are doing to seek to alleviate this truly tragic situation. She referred to a cycle of violence. In addressing this problem, would she agree that it is vitally important not to lose sight of the fundamental point that Hamas is a terrorist group that applauds the killing of Israeli students and which is seeking to kill by missiles as many Israeli civilians as possible? By contrast, the state of Israel pulled out of Gaza and is now trying to protect its population from intolerable missile attacks, which are launched from bases in civilian locations. Israel is doings its best to give warnings. This fundamental distinction between the two parties is symbolised by the actions of Prime Minister Netanyahu, who telephoned the father of the Palestinian boy who was savagely and inexcusably murdered—that is the incident to which the Minister referred—to express the outrage and condolences of the Israeli Government and their people. That action is quite inconceivable from the leaders of Hamas in relation to Israeli citizens.

[Baroness Warsi]

My Lords, I agree that the actions of Hamas in no way add towards bringing this matter to an end. Nor, indeed, do they add to the peace. In fact, the indiscriminate firing of rockets into Israel means this matter is prolonged and made much worse. However, it is important for us to hold on to positive moments, such as the one the noble Lord referred to: the moment when Prime Minister Netanyahu rang the father of the boy who was tragically burnt. We should also hold on to the positive moment when President Abbas said he would give all the support he could to ensure Israel found the kidnappers and killers of the three teenagers. It is important that we hold on to those small positive moments, even in these difficult times.

[Lord Phillips of Sudbury (LD)]

My Lords, the question I ask may be provocative to some, as I take a diametrically different view to that of, for example, the noble Lord, Lord Pannick. Therefore, I first make absolutely clear my total commitment to the right of Israel to exist in peace behind its borders, and make clear that the rights in this convoluted and awful area of the world are not all on one side—not by a long chalk. At the same time, I have been to the West Bank and Gaza four times in the past 12 years, and I have seen for myself the quite appalling circumstance in which the Gazans live. It is not just the Gazans; the people of the West Bank live in a state of permanent humiliation, with the occupying army of Israel, the check-points and all the rest of it.

I ask my noble friend this question. Nowhere in the Statement—it was quite a long one—does one find any reference to the overriding strategic injustice in the region. Israel is not content to exist within the borders set by the United Nations, not forgetting that no one asked the Palestinians; vast numbers of them were pushed out. As I say, I support totally the right of Israel to exist peacefully, but the truth of the matter is, for the last—

[A noble Lord]

Question!

[Lord Phillips of Sudbury]

The question will come soon. Does she not agree that the constant, tenacious determination of Israel to colonise the West Bank—one is told that nearly half a million colonists live in that country and often take the greater part of the resources, water and so on—is the casus belli in this situation? I know from speaking to its leader, Dr Haniyeh, that Hamas withheld any rocket attacks and violence at all for several years, but the extremists in Gaza had to put up with provocation that the Israelis, if the positions were reversed, would not contemplate. Is it not time we said to Israel that we will not go on countenancing this colonisation and, unless they stop it, we, in conjunction with other members of the European Union, will have to apply sanctions to them?

[Baroness Warsi]

I suppose the issue that I take with my noble friend is this: it is important we do not draw parallels between Hamas and the Israeli Government, or indeed try to describe them in a way where we treat them as having equal responsibility. On the one hand, we are dealing with an organisation that is considered to be a terrorist organisation, on the other a state that is a liberal democracy. Israel would be horrified to feel it was being judged by the standards of Hamas.

On the specific issue of settlements that my noble friend raises, we have repeatedly condemned Israel’s announcement to expand settlements in the Occupied Palestinian Territories, including in east Jerusalem. We have consistently said that, as well as being illegal under international law, settlements undermine the possibility of a two-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and those who are working for a sustainable peace.

[Lord Ahmed (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, the Minister mentioned that 80% of those killed have been civilians and that a third of those have been children. How many children have been killed in the three Israeli offensives in 2008, 2012 and 2014? How many Israeli children and how many Palestinian children have been killed?

[Baroness Warsi]

I concur with the noble Lord opposite who said that the life of a Palestinian child is worth no less than the life of an Israeli child and that the life of an Israeli child is worth no less than the life of a Palestinian child. Every child is equal, irrespective of race, religion or nationality. In relation to civilian deaths, I can inform the House that during the 2008-09 Cast Lead operation there were nine Israeli civilian casualties and 759 Palestinian civilian casualties, of which 344 were children. In relation to the 2012 Pillar of Defense operation, there were four Israeli civilian casualties and 90 Palestinian civilian casualties, of which 30 were children. In the current 2014 Protective Edge operation, there have so far been no Israeli civilian casualties and 133 Palestinian civilian casualties, of which 36 were children.

[Lord Kerr of Kinlochard (CB)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for repeating the Statement. The Foreign Secretary was right to talk of the mounting horror of the watchers at what is going on. Israeli friends often accuse one of double standards. They say that we hold them to a higher standard than their neighbours, and that atrocities perpetrated by Israelis are condemned more loudly than those from around. They are completely right: we do hold Israel to a higher standard. Respect for Israeli civilisation, values, culture and history is widespread in this country and that raises the bar, so we take more seriously the behaviour of the Israeli armed forces in recent days. What new action will the Government take to bring home to Mr Netanyahu our abhorrence of the barbarities being perpetrated by a great civilisation?

[Baroness Warsi]

The noble Lord is probably referring to what I said in response to my noble friend—that Israel is a liberal democracy and we therefore hold it to account against liberal democratic standards. There is no doubt that Israel would like to be held accountable against liberal democratic standards because those are the values that it upholds and stands for. It would be wrong for us to try to compare the conduct of Israel as a liberal democratic state with that of a potentially designated terrorist organisation.

[Lord Leigh of Hurley (Con)]

Does my noble friend not agree that the tragedy of Gaza is that, following the Israeli withdrawal from Gaza in 2005, there was a golden opportunity to give Israel the confidence that she could subsequently withdraw from the West Bank but, instead, Hamas took over from Fatah? Rather than building infrastructure and creating a tolerant society, Hamas acquired and fired some 11,000 rockets from 2005, mainly, as my noble friend Lord Pannick said, from densely populated civilian areas, which led to terrible human tragedy. Because they were fired from densely populated human centres, the inevitable action, which had to be taken, led to those terrible deaths, whether they were of Israelis or Palestinians. I do not think it is meaningful to compare one with another; any death in that area is a tragedy. Does the Minister not agree that international pressure on Iran is now needed to stop it supplying these rockets and to stop it supplying funding to the terrorist organisation that Hamas now is?

[Baroness Warsi]

My noble friend makes an important point. This is a matter that has border connotations. The discussion that we are currently having with Iran about its nuclear ambitions and its wish to be part of the international family will also involve discussions with it in relation to its support for terrorist organisations.

[Lord Mitchell (Lab)]

My Lords, we have had 2008, 2012 and 2014, and no doubt when this little incident finishes there will be a 2016 and a 2018. It is very clear that action needs to be taken to solve this problem once and for all. We all have to make a distinction: this is not a Palestinian issue per se; it is also a Hamas issue, and Hamas is a terrorist organisation as every member of NATO would agree. Does the Minister agree that we have to continue making the differentiation between the Palestinian Authority and Hamas as a terrorist organisation?

[Baroness Warsi]

The noble Lord will of course be aware that one of the challenges to the Middle East peace process has always been about making sure that the partners for peace on both sides are those who represent everybody—that is, part of the Israeli state and of the Palestinian people. That is why the Government felt that the technocratic Government who were committed to the quartet principles were a step in the right direction and provided an opportunity for real discussions to take place. We sincerely hope that the current matter is de-escalated and that we get to a point of ceasefire so that we can get back to the negotiating table.

[Lord Palmer of Childs Hill (LD)]

My Lords, I draw to the Minister’s attention the first two sentences of the editorial in today’s Times:

“When Hamas fires rockets into Israel, it is attempting to kill ordinary Israeli citizens. When Israel assaults Gaza, it is attempting not to kill ordinary Palestinian citizens”.

That is perhaps the difference that we ought to emphasise. I am sure that everybody wants an immediate ceasefire. Bearing in mind what the Minister said earlier, is that immediate ceasefire of any real benefit if Hamas, as well as Fatah and the PA, refuses to accept the quartet conditions? Finally, does my noble friend agree that the strategic objective of Israel is to halt the rocket fire? Can she tell the House what she believes Hamas’s strategic objective to be in firing rockets into Israel?

[Baroness Warsi]

Of course, I cannot say what Hamas’s strategic objective is; I speak on behalf of Her Majesty’s Government. In relation to the important point that my noble friend raises, intent is significant. What Hamas is intending by targeting civilians is a matter that we must take into consideration, and of course intent is important so far as concerns the Government of Israel. However, I think that my noble friend will agree that output is also important. Although you may not intend to kill children, if dozens of children are being killed then it is time for a ceasefire.

[Lord Elystan-Morgan (CB)]

My Lords, does the noble Baroness accept that this is a time for recognition of certain realities and for magnanimity? One reality is that 170 people have been killed in Gaza and that is an unspeakable humanitarian tragedy. Another reality is that Israel is surrounded by many enemies who are sworn to bring about its total destruction and elimination. As concerns the hundreds, if not thousands, of rockets that have been fired into southern Israel over the past years, each one was fired in the hope, desire and expectation that it would claim life or bring about maiming. It may be said that rockets have been fired from Israel into Gaza. I ask the House to accept that that is by way of counterbattery fire to try to eliminate the sites that bring about death and destruction in Israel.

What would we do if we were in that situation? During the war, when we were fighting for our existence, we had to bomb Brest and Lorient, the U-boat pens, and we killed thousands of French people. Does the Minister accept that situation? They were not our enemies but our allies. It was part of total war, and part of our defence and the position that we were occupying. Is this not a situation where there must be magnanimity and a complete ceasefire? There must be magnanimity on the part of Israel too as regards the siege of Gaza.

[Baroness Warsi]

The noble Lord makes an important point. It would be almost impossible for us to predict what it would feel like for us to be in that position. I can honestly say that I would not want to envisage being Israeli or Palestinian right now.

[Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean (Lab)]

My Lords, the Statement clearly says:

“International humanitarian law requires both sides to distinguish between military and civilian targets and enable unhindered humanitarian access”.

The fact is that there has been indiscriminate firing of rockets into Israel but, at the same time, the fact is also that Israeli fire has killed 173 Palestinians. Will the noble Baroness tell us what is being done to apply the international humanitarian law to which the Statement refers? She said that there has been contact with Egypt, Jordan and Qatar over what is happening in Palestine. Has there been any contact with some of the very powerful Arab states which also clearly have a very strong influence over Hamas and the Palestinians?

[Baroness Warsi]

I think I said at the beginning that it is important that those who exercise influence in relation to both parties use that influence to make sure that we bring both parties back to the negotiating table. The situation is different from what it was in 2012. The situation in Egypt has changed. The number of people who seek to have, or have, any influence over Hamas is much reduced. It is therefore important that we keep open our discussions with our allies and partners in the Arab world to make sure that they do all that they can to bring this matter to a ceasefire. Certainly, we will do all that we can with our allies and partners to do the same.

[Baroness Meacher (CB)]

My Lords, the Statement recognises the grotesque—

[Lord Wallace of Saltaire (LD)]

I am afraid that we are past 20 minutes and we are out of time.

Republic of Sudan: Human Rights

Monday 14th July 2014 Lords Chamber

Question for Short Debate

19:32

Asked by

[Baroness Cox]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what is their assessment of human rights in the Republic of Sudan.

[Baroness Cox (CB)]

My Lords, I am deeply grateful to all noble Lords contributing to this debate. As I have visited South Kordofan and Blue Nile State, which are currently suffering Government of Sudan genocidal military offensives, I speak with a heavy heart from first-hand evidence. These two areas will be my primary focus. I must also mention ongoing atrocities in Darfur, violations of human rights elsewhere in Sudan and the problems of the Beja people, whom I have visited several times.

First, in Darfur, President al-Bashir continues his assaults unabated and now, alarmingly, supports the notorious Janjaweed. The widely respected Enough Project claims:

“The U.N. Security Council mandated that the Sudanese government disarm its Janjaweed militias a decade ago. This never happened. Now, many of those same men are moving across the country on government command, burning civilian areas to the ground, raping women, and displacing non-Arab civilians from their homes … Unlike the Janjaweed fighters from the past, however, Sudan is not keeping the Rapid Support Forces (RSF) at arm’s length. Instead, these fighters boast full government backing and formal immunity from prosecution due to their new status as members of the National Intelligence and Security Services … the Sudanese government’s continued support of Janjaweed groups has become much more clear … Sudanese diplomats have thrown their political capital behind the group and boast that they successfully blocked the U.N. Security Council from issuing a statement criticizing the RSF … these forces have not restricted their crimes against humanity to … Darfur … their first act was to lethally suppress peaceful protesters during the September 2013 demonstrations in Khartoum”.

The Government of Sudan’s brutal suppression of freedom of speech, the press and civil society is documented in the 2014 World Press Freedom Index by Reporters Without Borders and illustrated by the recent closure of Salmmah Women’s Resource Centre. Will the Minister say what representations have been made by Her Majesty’s Government concerning increasing violations of freedom of speech, the press and civil society?

Another grave concern is the Government of Sudan’s denial of freedom of religion and belief. The notorious barbaric sentences and treatment meted out to Meriam Ibrahim, with the death penalty for alleged apostasy, 100 lashes for adultery and her treatment in prison, where she gave birth in shackles, may be heralding more widespread persecution of non-Muslims that does not hit the headlines and may be carried out with impunity.

For example, there are reports of another apostasy case in El Gadarif against another Christian woman, Faiza Abdalla, whose family had converted to Christianity from Islam before she was born but kept their former Muslim name. When she told authorities that she was a Christian, she was arrested and incarcerated under suspicion of having left Islam. A court has terminated her marriage to her husband, a lifelong Christian from South Sudan, on grounds of adultery. What representations have Her Majesty’s Government made to the Government of Sudan concerning this case and other gross contraventions of the right of freedom of religion and belief?

I turn to the horrendous situation in South Kordofan, especially the Nuba mountains, and Blue Nile State. I visited these areas with my small NGO, Humanitarian Aid Relief Trust. We witnessed Antonov aircraft targeting schools, clinics, markets and people working on their crops and we saw the terror that drove them to hide in deadly snake-infested caves in the Nuba mountains or desperately to seek shelter in river beds and under trees in Blue Nile. We visited villages where hundreds of people had died of starvation. They are now deserted because of recent bombings. We saw the fresh craters. This ruthless killing of civilians reflects al-Bashir’s commitment to turn the Republic of Sudan into an Arabic, Islamic state through ethnic and religious eradication of black Africans and non-Muslims.

A report by the Sudan Relief and Rehabilitation Agency on 7 July documents this genocide. It is entitled, “Sudan Government offensive drives 1.1 million civilians to brink of starvation”. The report states:

“A carefully conducted survey, carried out at great risk by workers in the field, has revealed the scale of the looming catastrophe … in Southern Kordofan and Blue Nile States … The dry season offensive—launched by the Sudanese Armed Forces in January this year—has driven civilians away from their homes and their farms”,

with the Government’s deliberate strategy,

“to use of starvation as a weapon of warfare … In many locations food has been all but exhausted, water is scarce and essential medications are nowhere to be found. Nearly one million civilians in South Kordofan and around 100,000 in Blue Nile states have fled from the areas of conflict. A further 400,000 people in South Kordofan are now internally displaced, hiding in the caves … President Omar al-Bashir … launched an operation called ‘Decisive Summer’ in January 2014 … The Sudanese Armed Forces were reinforced by the Rapid Support Force, which included members of the notorious Janjaweed … Schools and homes were destroyed. On 1 May the Mother of Mercy Hospital in … Southern Kordofan, was damaged after six bombs were dropped in the hospital compound from a Sukhoi-24 fighter … The African Union, led by former South African President, Thabo Mbeki, has been attempting to mediate … His efforts have been backed by the African Union, the United Nations and the wider international community. But the intransigence of the Government of President Omar al-Bashir has resulted in an impasse … The Sudanese government has also refused to allow President Mbeki to make a visit to South Kordofan, Blue Nile and Darfur, so that he can see for himself the scale of the devastation the Government military and their associated militia have inflicted on ordinary people”.

An aid organisation that cannot be named has sent me the following message:

“Between the dates of June 7th to 16th of 2014, our staff compound, food convoys, and warehouses were bombed in 8 intentional attacks over the course of 9 days by approximately 37 bombs and 73 rockets … unmanned surveillance drones were sighted prior to the majority of the attacks ... The organization strongly believes that these attacks are further evidence of the GoS’s clear, sustained, and unapologetic attack against humanitarian actors .... A country ... should not use the withholding of food and medicine as weapons of war to kill its own people”.

The Government of Sudan refuse to allow aid organisations access to these regions. However, HART has very responsible partners who have delivered food with funds that we have been able to provide. We met communities in those remote areas, some of whose people had already died from starvation and bombardment. They were poignantly grateful, saying, “Thank you for the food. This means we can stay in our own land. Even if we die from bombs we prefer to die in our own country than to have to flee to exile abroad because we have no food”. Will Her Majesty’s Government consider cross-border aid operations to the people in these states? There are reliable partners who will account for funds provided and ensure that they reach the civilians who are now dying from starvation and lack of any medical care.

The Islamist guru in Khartoum, al-Turabi, has declared his intention to take his militant Islamist ideology through Africa from Sudan to Cape Town. The international community continues to allow Khartoum to fulfil its ethnic and religious cleansing with impunity. There is a real danger that those seeking to resist militant Islamism will fail, leaving the way wide open for the expansion of this lethal ideology far beyond the confines of Sudan. Many of those currently dying are Muslims as well as Christians and traditional believers.

There are clear national and international legal obligations to act. The SRRA appeals to the UN Security Council and the international community to: declare the situation in the two areas a humanitarian emergency requiring an urgent response from all actors; demand that SAF immediately halts its aerial bombardment and air strikes against civilians; require the Government of Sudan to lift restrictions on the delivery of food and other humanitarian items and to permit UN agencies and other independent international organisations immediate free and unhindered access to needy civilians to stave off mass starvation and provide medical care; to press the Government of Sudan to agree a cessation of hostilities with regional and international monitoring mechanisms; to consider the most effective means, including air drops, to access those civilians trapped by ground attacks and lack of roads; and to urge national and international authorities to conduct independent investigations into allegations of summary executions, detentions and torture inflicted on the basis of ethnic and political affiliations of individuals in the two areas.

Whenever I and other noble Lords have raised these issues in debates, and the question of sanctions, which could have an impact on the culture of impunity, we have been told that Her Majesty’s Government wish to continue to talk to Khartoum. While we appreciate the importance of dialogue, it has been apparent over two decades that al-Bashir’s Government are very happy to talk—and to continue killing while they talk. The people of Sudan have suffered far too much for far too long. They look to the United Kingdom for help, believing, as I do, that we have a particular historical responsibility. We are also members of the troika with continuing responsibility for the implementation of the CPA. They will read this debate with acute interest and deep concern. I sincerely hope that they will not be disappointed by the Minister’s reply.

19:43

[Lord Cope of Berkeley (Con)]

My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady Cox, is remarkable for her vigour and tenacity in standing up for so many of the most oppressed people in the world. I congratulate her on it. Some years ago, it was my duty to withdraw the Conservative Whip from her. Some might take that as a hostile act, but she never seems to mind.

My interest in this debate stems from a small charity called Kids for Kids, of which I am a patron. It is a highly focused UK charity, which works only in Darfur to help people to stay in their villages rather than be forced to flee into the vast camps as refugees. Its first programmes, which still continue, were about lending goats to starving families, hence the name. I hear about Darfur in particular through this charity. It has a big enough task because Darfur is the size of Spain.

To be driven from one’s home and livelihood is to be deprived of a most basic human right. The camps do amazing work, but nobody wants to leave their homes and land in order to be dependent day by day and year by year on food handouts. Over the years, drought and sheer poverty have been powerful drivers, creating refugees as well as waves of sickening violence, particularly from militias. NGOs such as Kids for Kids can and do help to fight drought with wells; they can fight poverty and malnutrition with goats, donkeys and agricultural advice; but NGOs cannot fight violence. That has to be done with politics. The international agencies have worked to bring about agreement and find solutions, but have not succeeded and the situation keeps getting worse.

This year so far, another 250,000 Darfur people have become refugees. Some say it is more like 500,000—the figures are not clear. They are added to the 2 million to 3 million Darfuri residents already displaced and in camps as refugees, many for some years. That is out of a total population of 7.5 million in Darfur in 2008. The Abuja agreement of 2005 and the Darfur peace agreement of 2006 have not brought peace. The Doha Document for Peace in Darfur, signed in 2011, might still provide a basis for a settlement, but it simply has not worked so far or been implemented properly.

The Sudanese Government have to take primary responsibility, but the UN and other states like ourselves have, as the noble Baroness made clear, an important role to play and we must recognise that we have not yet been effective. Can the Minister tell us what progress has been made since the Security Council resolution was adopted in April? Can the UN-African Union Mission in Darfur be given new vigour and impetus to make a difference to this appalling situation?

After more than a decade of violence, the whole area seems to be getting stuck in a permanent state of violence, with millions of permanent refugees. It is getting like Palestine, which we were discussing a few minutes ago, where UNRWA does its best for millions of refugees from half a century ago but who are still refugees, where UN resolutions are flouted with impunity and where violence is seen as the only way forward.

Violence is no solution in Palestine or, for that matter, in Darfur. Agreement must be found by negotiation. The bitterness does not deteriorate over time; it festers and feeds on itself. It leads to appalling inhumanities and the crushing of all human rights. As the noble Baroness indicated, it exaggerates religious and tribal differences to lethal degrees over a short time. Peace efforts must be redoubled in Darfur and the whole of Sudan to bring about more inclusive government and more equal treatment.

19:48

[Baroness Kinnock of Holyhead (Lab)]

My Lords, I, too, pay tribute to the noble Baroness, Lady Cox, who relentlessly and courageously supports those denied fundamental freedoms, who are excluded and marginalised, and who are too often forgotten. The noble Baroness earns the respect of us all.

The first six months of 2014 have brought devastation, death and destruction to Sudan on a scale not seen since the height of the genocide in Darfur from 2003 to 2005. In 2013, violence caused a further 460,000 new internally displaced people. So far in 2014, another 215,000 people have been forced to flee their homes and 3.5 million people in Darfur—half the population—are in need of humanitarian assistance. There are still 300,000 Darfuri refugees in camps in Chad.

Sudan faces a terrible humanitarian disaster but, tragically, it has slipped off the international agenda. Political freedoms, religious freedom and freedom of speech are under attack, newspapers are censored and banned. Access to justice is rare. There is evidence that torture, beatings, rape and other inhuman punishments are routinely used. Sudan, as the FCO report says, is the country that makes most use of the death penalty. In Darfur, reports of human rights abuses have considerably increased. Sexual, gender-based violence almost doubled in the last quarter of last year. The chief prosecutor of the ICC has described reports of “disturbing” abuses in Darfur to the Security Council. There are also very grave concerns about the denial of children’s rights to education, to nutrition and to the freedom to be children and not to be forced into the army. LGBT rights are routinely denied. Anyone identified by the authorities is fined, flogged, stoned or imprisoned, and can even face the death penalty. Human Rights Watch says that human rights abuses,

“are intensifying in Darfur, making accurate, timely public reporting on human rights abuses more important than ever”.

Does the Minister agree that it is shocking to learn that, in Darfur, public reporting of abuse has all but ceased and that the latest report by the UN human rights commission was as long ago as in January 2009? In 2004, the United Nations Security Council mandated the Sudanese Government to disarm their Janjaweed militias. They never did, denying any close connection with the violent Arab militia. Now, in 2014, as the International Criminal Court’s chief prosecutor has said, the Janjaweed have been trained and rebranded as the Rapid Support Forces and are attacking unarmed civilians in Darfur, and North and South Kordofan, with impunity.

Far from distancing themselves from the destruction caused by the RSF, the Sudanese Government admit that it is a vital part of their campaign to eliminate what they describe as a “rebellion” or “insurgency” in the marginalised areas of Darfur, South Kordofan and Blue Nile. The behaviour of the Sudanese RSF has been so ruthless that several Sudanese politicians who usually in the past have supported the regime obediently have spoken out and been jailed as a consequence. At the start of the year, President Bashir warned that 2014 would witness,

“the end of all tribal and ethnic conflicts and insurgency”,

through a military campaign called the “Decisive Summer” mobilisation. He meant it, and he has pursued that objective remorselessly.

Recently, the UN Secretary-General ordered a commission of inquiry into the poor performance of UNAMID, the peacekeeping force in Darfur, following evidence that human rights abuses are extraordinarily frequent and that it is sending misleading reports to the United Nations and to the African Union. In addition, UNAMID is failing to protect vulnerable civilians, which leads to serious abuses of human rights as women who face violence and rape are denied protection, as has been the case in Darfur, and more generally in Sudan, for far too many years. Meanwhile, the Sudanese authorities continue to place daily restrictions on the activities and movements of UNAMID, other UN agencies and humanitarian aid groups.

The US Commission on International Religious Freedom has reported that Sudan is among the least free and tolerant countries on earth, ranking it with Iran, North Korea, Burma and Saudi Arabia. Freedom House gives Sudan its worst ranking, as does Transparency International. None of this augurs well for a genuine national dialogue. For these reasons, the UK must surely not fund any part of the forthcoming 2015 election process due to take place in Sudan, because there is absolutely no basis for us to believe that those elections will be free, fair or credible.

Meanwhile, the Doha peace process has stalled, lacking credibility in the eyes of many in Darfur. The UK has invested time and effort in Doha, but most civil society groups are calling for a more comprehensive dialogue that includes all marginalised areas, considers devolution of power to the regions and provides a fully revised constitution that guarantees the rights of minorities.

Against that background, I must ask the Minister what the UK’s position is on demands being made by civil society organisations. Is she aware that 60 of Sudan’s laws violate its own constitution? Will the Minister assure the House that the UK is strongly pressing Sudan to respect the many international and regional conventions and treaties it has signed guaranteeing the human rights of its citizens irrespective of ethnic background or faith?

My final point relates to the engagement of the UK in the negotiations taking place on dropping Sudan’s external debts. Will the Minister confirm that UK officials participated in the technical working group on Sudan’s external debt, which met most recently in Washington in April? Will she agree that, as long as these talks go on, Sudan will have no pressing reason to respect its obligations under international human rights law or, indeed, its own promises to the African Union and the UN? Surely the Minister will recognise and agree that UK actions count for much more than our occasional words of condemnation of the regime in Khartoum.

It is almost 10 years since the UN Security Council first reported the situation in Darfur to the chief prosecutor of the ICC. Last month, the ICC urged the Security Council to support efforts to ensure that the individuals indicted in war crimes cases in Sudan’s Darfur region are delivered to The Hague for prosecution. What has been the Government’s and the Security Council’s reaction to this ICC demand for urgent support at this time? Does the Minister agree with the chief prosecutor that there has now to be a dramatic shift in the council’s approach to arresting Darfur suspects? Is it not starkly clear that the regime in Khartoum will change only when our pressure includes the enforcement of outstanding Security Council resolutions imposing targeted smart sanctions on the architects of the continuing suffering and misery of the people of Sudan? If we delay, they prevail—and millions suffer horrifically.

19:57

[The Lord Bishop of Carlisle]

My Lords, I, too, am most grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Cox. Unlike her, I cannot claim to be an expert on Sudan, but some of my colleagues who would normally speak on this issue have been unavoidably detained today in another debate of some importance to the church at the General Synod in York. I am very grateful for this opportunity to contribute to this debate because the human rights issues it raises are of such enormous significance, not only for the individuals directly concerned but for the way in which we direct our foreign aid and conduct our foreign policy.

With regard to foreign aid, there is clearly a real humanitarian crisis in Darfur, as we have heard, especially in the mountainous northern part of Sudan which borders Egypt. We have already heard about the thousands of refugees, but famine is also endemic there. One colleague who visited recently talked to people who were reduced to eating leaves off the trees. The population of that bit of the country is still predominantly Christian, and government help or support is virtually non-existent. What is more, aid agencies are able to offer little assistance due to the dangerous conditions, the poor infrastructure and, as we heard earlier, the periodic refusal of the Government to let them in. This means that the local Christian diocese has to shoulder most of the burden of caring for people who are in desperate need, and of attempting to feed them when its own resources are pitifully small. Have Her Majesty’s Government given any consideration to providing aid, and so helping to meet people’s basic human rights to food and drink, through the church in that part of Sudan? Heroic efforts are being made to alleviate desperate need, but funding is urgently required.

Where foreign policy is concerned, that leads on to the way in which human rights, and religious freedoms in particular, are being flouted in Sudan. The recent case involving Meriam Ibrahim, which has already been mentioned, and the closure of the Salmmah Women’s Resource Centre, illustrate this all too graphically. In theory, Sudan has ratified the optional protocols of the UN human rights conventions but, in practice, increasingly Sharia interpretations of the 1991 criminal code are having a devastating effect on many lives.

For instance, Lubna Hussein was sentenced to a lashing for allegedly dressing indecently in public by wearing trousers. Intisar Sharif was sentenced to death by stoning for adultery. Indeed, offences such as adultery, apostasy and armed robbery all have fixed sentences that include death by hanging, stoning, crucifixion or whipping. These penalties are clearly at odds with the basic freedom from physical harm which the Human Rights Act entails.

I would therefore be most grateful for some indication from the Minister as to any pressure that is being or could be applied to the Government of Sudan to ensure that they begin to respect their religious and cultural minority groups. In particular, I wonder what we are doing at and through the United Nations to press the Sudanese Government to honour the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, including and especially Article 18, which relates to religious observance.

20:01

[Baroness Morgan of Ely (Lab)]

My Lords, the foreign affairs teams in the Lords and the Commons have been extremely busy lately with increasing problems all over the globe. From the invasion of Ukraine to chaos in Iraq to the crisis in Syria—and today we have been discussing the latest crisis in Gaza—the international community has to consider and act on many serious conflict and human rights situations, which occupy its time, energy and commitments, so I am grateful to the noble Baroness for ensuring that our focus has been brought back to the topic of human rights in the Republic of Sudan. As my noble friend Lady Kinnock suggested, Sudan seems to have fallen off the radar recently. It is not a new topic—although it has perhaps been overshadowed by other recent conflicts—but it does need our urgent attention.

The hope for a lasting peace in the region that was felt when South Sudan split off from Sudan and became an independent nation has sadly not been translated into reality. Sudan remains politically fragile, it has a heavy debt burden and the economy is in a dire situation. On top of this, serious internal conflicts continue, particularly in Blue Nile and Southern Kordofan, as has been mentioned. In recent months there has been a serious and deeply troubling escalation of violence in Darfur and with South Sudan, and there have been access restrictions for major aid agencies, many of which are critical for food distribution. In fact, my own brother has recently been stopped from carrying out humanitarian aid in Sudan.

There is an urgent need to create a favourable environment within which Sudan can address the underlying and long-term causes of its internal conflicts. This necessitates upholding human rights, including the freedom of expression, and a cessation of hostilities, both of which are essential for this process to be successful. Regrettably, we have not seen these essential elements for building peace and maintaining the rights of the people of Sudan in the actions of the Sudanese Government.

The Government continue to arrest human rights defenders, journalists and political leaders. The recent case of Meriam Ibrahim, a Sudanese Christian mother who was sentenced to death by hanging for “apostasy” and flogging for “adultery” while eight months pregnant, was brought to international attention. Along with others in the House, I welcome her release from prison. However, she is still unable to leave Sudan because further charges remain against her. We must remember, however, that this is just one case which has captured the international community’s attention. Religious persecution remains widespread within the country, as was mentioned by the noble Baroness, Lady Cox, and the right reverend Prelate.

In June, Amnesty International highlighted the fact that family members of three Sudanese activists who remain in detention without charge in Khartoum have reported that they show signs of torture and ill treatment. Human Rights Watch has raised concerns that:

“Despite the secession of South Sudan and the end of the transition period in the 2005 Comprehensive Peace Agreement, during which Sudan adopted an Interim National Constitution, the government has yet to pass a new permanent constitution”.

There are grave concerns about widespread impunity for serious human rights violations because Sudanese law grants immunity to law enforcement, military and security agents—and, as the noble Baroness, Lady Cox, and my noble friend Lady Kinnock, said, the Janjaweed militia. Will the Government use all available channels to push for a review of the Sudanese criminal code, which currently permits torture and human rights abuses?

The implementation of the Doha Document for Peace in Darfur has been slow and the main armed groups are mistrustful of the process. The process for a lasting peace necessitates the involvement of all stakeholders, from civil society to armed groups, and there are concerns that President Bashir’s “national dialogue” is associated with traditional elites and is not inclusive. I ask the Minister: what will the Government do to ensure that President Bashir’s national dialogue initiative becomes a process capable of reaching a more comprehensive solution?

The humanitarian situation in areas of conflict within Sudan is cause for significant concern and, with the disruption to planting and future harvests under threat, is likely to rapidly deteriorate. The violations of human rights by the Sudanese Government, pro-government militia groups and anti-government armed groups include indiscriminate aerial bombardments, arbitrary detentions, torture and ill treatment of detainees, extrajudicial executions and the forced displacement of civilians.

Since the beginning of this year, there have been huge numbers of newly displaced persons. In Darfur, 500,000 people were displaced in 2013, a significant increase on previous years. In South Kordofan and Blue Nile, more than 1 million people have been forced to flee their homes, while at least 230,000 live in refugee camps in South Sudan or Ethiopia. In total, about 2.3 million people have been displaced. On top of this, in the past few weeks there has been increasing evidence of the forcible removal of Eritrean refugees and other asylum seekers to home countries, which the UNHCR has labelled “an act of repression”. Is the Minister aware of this, and have representations been made to the Sudanese Government on this issue?

There are serious problems with restrictions on access for international humanitarian agencies such as the ICRC and the UNHCR due to the introduction of administrative obstacles, including travel permits. The suspension of the ICRC’s operations in Sudan, as of February 2014, is particularly worrying. What more can be done by Her Majesty’s Government to increase pressure on the Sudanese Government to allow access for humanitarian agencies?

Although the international community has for years expressed concern about human rights abuses in Sudan, it continues to deal with Sudanese leaders who have been indicted by the International Criminal Court on counts of war crimes, genocide and crimes against humanity. Will the Minister therefore clarify whether assistance is still being given to British trade missions in Sudan? Does she agree that we should warn British companies of the corruption and other serious problems that they face when trading in the country?

The Sudanese Government’s systemic violations of the freedom of the press and civil society are of great concern. It is imperative that the British Government unite with their allies around the globe to put pressure on the nation’s leaders to seek a resolution to the conflict and underline the fact that the country’s economic, social and political development is at stake.

So many innocent people are being affected by the political games and military manoeuvres directed by the leaders of the country. The Sudanese conflicts are having an unbearable impact on basic human rights, including the right to food, shelter, life and education.

20:10

[The Senior Minister of State, Department for Communities and Local Government & Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Baroness Warsi) (Con)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Cox, for raising the important issue of human rights in Sudan. The dire human rights situation in Sudan is central to our engagement in that country both through our embassy and through the joint FCO/DfID Sudan Unit in London.

Let me respond to the noble Baroness, Lady Morgan, and other noble Lords on how we tackle these challenging circumstances. First, we lobby the Government of Sudan on human rights abuses and demand greater transparency and accountability. We also provide tangible support to specific projects. This year, for example, our embassy is offering support to the establishment of a human rights law centre in Khartoum. Our support will also help strengthen human rights monitoring within the country and develop the capability of civil society organisations within Sudan, a point to which the right reverend Prelate referred. In so doing, we are able not only to make a difference on the ground but to maintain contact with a wide network of human rights defenders, who are essential to our work. We also speak out on issues of concern through both ministerial and ambassadorial statements and through social media. We have become involved in cases of huge concern such as that of Meriam Ibrahim, the woman who was recently sentenced to death for apostasy.

The noble Baroness, Lady Kinnock, referred to a whole spectrum of human rights abuses. Another way in which we challenge such abuses is by supporting the work of the UN independent expert on human rights in Sudan. We welcomed his statement on human rights during his recent visit to Khartoum and look forward to seeing his final report at the Human Rights Council in September as it will provide us with an opportunity to highlight our concerns and debate some of the issues that were raised.

The noble Baroness, Lady Kinnock, referred to the ICC. We continue to make it clear to the Government of Sudan that the international community expects compliance with the arrest warrants for the ICC indictees. We equally expect other Governments who are parties to the Rome statute to comply with their legal obligations. In common with other EU countries, we have a policy of having no contact with fugitives from the ICC.

The noble Baroness, Lady Cox, referred in some detail to Darfur. She deserves huge credit for her work to keep in the public eye this appalling conflict in the two areas in Darfur, often displaying great personal courage in finding the latest information. The turn of events in Darfur is heartbreaking. Only this afternoon, my honourable friend the Minister for Africa has been discussing the conflict there with Mohamed Ibn Chambas, the head of UNAMID and the AU-UN Joint Special Representative for Darfur. The most recent report of the UN Secretary-General made it quite clear that it was the Government of Sudan and their rapid support forces who bore primary responsibility for the widespread abuses against civilians, including horrific sexual violence against women and girls and the looting and burning of houses. We have made it clear to the Sudanese Government in the strongest terms that such actions are not only wholly unacceptable but undermine their apparent aspiration for a national dialogue. The Secretary-General’s report also made it clear that the armed opposition, in particular the Sudanese Liberation Army’s Minni Minnawi faction, bears heavy responsibility for civilian displacement.

The escalation of aerial bombardment and the apparent targeting of hospitals by the Sudanese armed forces are appalling and we condemn them in the strongest terms. Ultimately, the conflict will be resolved only if both the Government and the SPLM- North can approach negotiations convened by President Mbeki and his high-level panel with serious intent, as they are required to do by UN Resolution 2046.

The noble Baroness, Lady Cox, referred also to cross-border aid. We do not believe that going down the route of providing cross-border aid is the right thing to do at this stage, given the sensitivities, risks and difficulties involved in monitoring where it goes, but we genuinely keep these policies under review and are always open to further discussion. I am sorry that that is not the news the noble Baroness wanted to hear today.

My noble friend Lord Cope referred to the Darfur refugees. We have raised this matter repeatedly with the Government of Sudan, calling for humanitarian access to those refugees, and the Minister for Africa spoke to the Foreign Minister of Sudan on 28 April. Lynne Featherstone from DfID again raised the situation on 20 May. At every opportunity, both within the Security Council and directly with the Sudanese Government, we press for compliance with all UN Security Council resolutions and sanctions regimes. It is important that UN Security Council follow up its decision to refer the situation in Darfur to the ICC. We have consistently raised this point in the Security Council and will continue to do so.

The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Carlisle and other noble Lords raised the truly appalling case of Meriam Ibrahim, which has quite rightly inspired worldwide condemnation. I am proud that the UK led the way in calling for her release through statements by the Prime Minister and other senior Ministers. It is a great relief that Meriam Ibrahim has now been released, but we are concerned that she is still unable to travel. As the right reverend Prelate will know, the issue of freedom of religion or belief is one of the six key priorities in my human rights brief and is a personal priority for me. I have been at pains to detail what we mean by freedom of religion or belief, which includes the freedom to have a belief, to manifest that belief, to change that belief and not to have a belief. It is important that we make sure that that is detailed in that way when we have those discussions. The right reverend Prelate will also be aware that we now have a sub-group on freedom of religion or belief as an advisory group within the Foreign Office. The work of that group will also inform our responses to cases such as that of Meriam Ibrahim.

We are also aware of the case involving Faiza Abdalla and other apostasy cases before the Sudanese court. Although the full extent of those cases is not documented, it is clear that Meriam Ibrahim’s case is not an isolated occurrence and the broader issues of religious freedom still need to be addressed in detail. We are working with local Sudanese partners to investigate those cases and continue to call on the Sudanese Government to abide by their international obligations to uphold every citizen’s right to freedom of religion or belief. Of course, those obligations are enshrined in Sudan’s constitution and, indeed, in the very religion which Sudan purports to follow.

The noble Baroness, Lady Kinnock, spoke about the freedom of the press. Of course, that is a vital component of a genuinely open and transparent national dialogue process. Our embassy in Khartoum regularly raises that in discussions with the Sudanese authorities. During his visit to Sudan in January, my honourable friend the Minister for Africa met Sudanese journalists and editors and stressed to senior members of the Sudanese Government the importance of open, democratic space and respect for fundamental freedoms. Our embassy, with the British Council, is jointly funding the Thomson Foundation programme to build capacity for Sudanese journalism, including media training and a sponsored visit to London by Sudanese newspaper editors.

The noble Baroness, Lady Kinnock, also raised the issue of women’s rights and the PSVI. She will be aware both of the work that we are doing in the build-up to the Girls Summit, where we are encouraging Sudan to be represented, and in relation to the Ending Sexual Violence initiative, where we are pressing the Sudanese Government to take forward some of the summit’s recommendations.

The noble Baroness, Lady Morgan, raised the issue of torture. Of course we are deeply concerned at the reports of individuals being tortured while in detention. The visit by the UN independent expert has highlighted the urgent need for those claims to be fully investigated by the Sudanese authorities. Although we welcome the release on Friday of Mohammed Saleh, whose case was specifically raised by the independent expert with the Government, we still feel that more needs to be done by the authorities fully to investigate all claims of torture.

The right reverend Prelate spoke specifically about delivering aid through churches. Aid is given directly to NGOs in Sudan. However, access is limited by the Government of Sudan to certain areas and it may well be that using faith communities could be a way forward. I know that those matters were raised directly with the Foreign Minister of Sudan on 20 May this year.

My noble friend Lord Cope spoke about the strategic review of UNAMID. That review is already showing signs of improved efficiency. We are currently in internal discussions on the mandate renewal, which is due in August next year. The Minister for Africa, Mark Simmonds, met the head of UNAMID only today to discuss that. If anything has come out of that I will certainly write to my noble friend to update him.

The noble Baroness, Lady Morgan, spoke about access for humanitarian agencies, of which ICRC’s suspension is part of our concern. We have made clear to the Government of Sudan that ICRC is an independent organisation with a distinct mandate conferred by the international community, including Sudan, and thus plays a unique role in helping victims of armed conflict and other violence. As a party to the Geneva Convention, Sudan is obliged to allow the ICRC to implement its international mandate. Lynne Featherstone, the DfID Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, reiterated that when she met Foreign Minister Karti on 20 May.

The noble Baroness, Lady Kinnock, asked about debt relief. We are not negotiating debt relief with the Government of Sudan. We have been clear that the Government of Sudan can achieve debt relief only through the Heavily Indebted Poor Countries process, which includes making serious attempts to reduce poverty, including by ending internal conflict. Sudan cannot realistically expect to achieve debt relief until it makes serious efforts to end its internal conflicts.

The noble Baroness, Lady Cox, raised the issue of sanctions. We would not rule anything out. The suggestion of sanctions is of course interesting, and I will certainly read Hansard as to the specific suggestions that she made, but a number of international mechanisms are in place that we should focus on: UNAMID and the strategic review ensuring that it is efficient and working is one; Sudan at the Human Rights Council is another; the African Union high-level implementation panel calling on both sides to engage in serious mediation over the two areas is another. So there are various levers that we can use.

In conclusion, at face value, the national dialogue launched by President Bashir earlier this year is to be welcomed, but it is clear, not least from the examples raised in this debate, that the Government’s recent actions are undermining their stated intentions. National dialogue leading to real reform is what Sudan desperately needs, so we should continue to remind the Government of Sudan of that commitment; to welcome positive steps such as the release of three political detainees last week; and to support those moderate voices within the Sudanese Government and society who are pushing for reform.

We can do that only by remaining engaged but, at the same time, we should continue to condemn the appalling actions of the Government whenever we see them, from South Kordofan to Darfur. We must ensure freedom of religion, freedom of the press and the protection of other human rights. The case of Meriam Ibrahim shows that the weight of UK and international pressure can make a real difference, but the challenge for all of us now is to ensure that that pressure leads to a fundamental change in attitude and approach from the Sudanese authorities. We must get to a point where there will no longer be a need to raise individual cases because the Government have come to understand that respect for human rights is vital for their own good governance. We will continue to push that.

I was asked a number of questions in today’s debate. I hope that I have covered most of them. If I have not, I am sure that noble Lords will write to me and I will answer them more fully. Once again, I am grateful to the noble Baroness for providing an opportunity to discuss this important issue.

Criminal Justice and Courts Bill

Monday 14th July 2014 Lords Chamber

Committee (1st Day)(Continued)

20:23

Clause 15: Restrictions on use of cautions

Amendment 21

Moved by

[Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames]

21: Clause 15, page 15, line 30, leave out from “except” to end of line 32 and insert “where the regional Chief Crown Prosecutor certifies that, in his or her opinion—
(a) prosecution would not be in the public interest, or(b) prosecution for the offence would be inappropriate having regard to the circumstances of either the offender or the offence.”

[Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames (LD)]

My Lords, the purpose of these amendments is twofold. The first purpose is to widen the discretion to give the cautions allowed by Clause 15, which, as your Lordships will know, is headed, “Restrictions on use of cautions”. I preface what I say by making it clear that I fully accept that it is desirable to be reasonably restrictive about giving cautions where normally a prosecution would be the proper response to an admission of guilt. That is of course particularly important where the offence concerned is a serious one. Yet the scheme of the Bill is to permit a caution only if there are exceptional circumstances relating to the person or the offence in three categories of cases.

The first category is in the case of indictable-only offences, where,

“a constable may not give the person a caution”,

unless it is,

“in exceptional circumstances relating to the person or the offence”—

I will call that the “exceptional circumstances” test—and,

“with the consent of the Director of Public Prosecutions”.

The second category of offences is of those triable either way which appear on a list of what one would expect to be the more serious offences. That would meet the “exceptional circumstances” test but it would be the constable who gave the caution and there would be no need for the consent of the Director of Public Prosecutions. The third category would deal with all other triable either-way offences—that is, those not on the serious list—and to offences triable summarily. The “exceptional circumstances” test would apply in those cases only to repeat offences: that is, offences that are similar to an offence for which the offender has been convicted in the previous two years. That leaves cautions available on an unrestrictive basis only in respect of those less serious either-way or summary offences which are, effectively, first offences of their type.

I suggest that the “exceptional circumstances” test is too restrictive; “exceptional” is a very strong word. An offence is not exceptional, for example, where it is a minor offence of its class or because the circumstances in which it was committed are otherwise such that a prosecutor might reasonably take the view that more harm than good would be done by prosecution. Dealing with the circumstances of the person, such circumstances would not be exceptional if a former recidivist is well on the way to rehabilitation and a repeat minor offence can be seen as an isolated lapse, where a prosecutor can reasonably and responsibly—and presently often may—take the view that a prosecution would serve no public purpose.

I start on these amendments from the position that there is no reason to undermine the traditional test for prosecutors and not to respect that test. That test requires, first, a likelihood of conviction and it is generally satisfied where there is an admission, as it is a precondition to giving a caution set out in this clause. However, the test also requires the prosecutor to be satisfied that a prosecution is in the public interest. I cannot see why, if that second-limb test is not met—so that a prosecutor does not think a prosecution is in the public interest—even in the absence of exceptional circumstances, the right to administer a caution should be removed and a caution should not remain within the range of possible actions to be taken where there is to be no prosecution. I suggest that there may be many cases—perhaps fewer, I concede, in the indictable-only category—where there has been an admission and a prosecution is inappropriate, and where a caution would nevertheless remain a sensible disposal. In such cases, I see no reason why a caution, which is often an effective disposal, should be available only in first-time summary offences unless the very high hurdle of exceptional circumstances can be surmounted.

The second reason for these amendments is that the decision-maker being provided for is, I suggest, wrong. The Bill provides, first, that the decision-maker in any indictable-only offence is to be the Director of Public Prosecutions, and that in any other case the decision-maker is to be the constable giving the caution. I suggest that the Bill has this wrong in both categories. Surely cautions should not generally be a matter for the DPP, even in indictable-only cases. It is of course likely that, even in indictable-only cases, a decision to caution instead of to prosecute will be taken in cases at the less serious end of the spectrum for that class of offence. It is surely not necessary that the DPP should be involved in a decision to caution in that case, wherever it occurs.

20:30

The amendment suggests that the decision-maker should be the regional chief prosecutor of the Crown Prosecution Service in any case. This, I suggest, is right on two bases: first, that the decision-maker should be a prosecutor, not the constable administering the caution; and, secondly, that the decision should be made at a regional level, even in cases of indictable-only offences. It is my suggestion that the last or only word should not be that of the constable who is to administer the caution, and I invite the Committee to take the view that the CPS is best placed to take the decision—in consultation with the police as appropriate, of course, where they take the view that a prosecution is inappropriate.

Our amendments set out the same tests throughout, and the tests would be that the regional chief crown prosecutor certifies that, in his or her opinion, either that prosecution would not be in the public interest or that prosecution for the offence would be inappropriate, having regard to the circumstances either of the offender or of the offence. Those tests applied uniformly would mean that more serious offences were no doubt far less likely to be thought suitable for a caution, but it is right that the test either way should have regard to the public interest.

The code that we suggest in all three types of offences is a logical one. It would preserve the distinction between first and subsequent offences for minor offences that were either summary or not on the list of more serious offences that were triable either way. I commend Amendments 21 to 23 to the House. I beg to move.

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab)]

My Lords, this group of amendments applies to Clause 15, which concerns the use of cautions. Cautions have been used for many years as an effective tool in the toolbox of the police officer and the criminal justice system in general, to give a proportionate response to low-level offending where the offender has admitted the offence. There have been issues where it looks as though cautions have been used for offences that look to warrant a more serious response. The public rightly get concerned about reports of cautions being used in cases of serious violence or sexual offences.

I should say first that the Opposition support the sentiments behind the clause. Our amendments in this group, and our intention to oppose that the clause stand part of the Bill, are just to ensure that there is a debate in your Lordships’ House and to probe and test the Government’s thinking on these matters at this stage. Depending on their response, we may want to bring some of this back on Report.

The amendments moved by the noble Lord, Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames, were interesting and may prove to be a better way of dealing with the issues at hand. However, I do not want to come to a conclusion on that matter just yet; I want the issue probed much more in your Lordships’ House.

It would be helpful, certainly to me and perhaps to the whole House, if the Minister could set out in responding what he thinks the exceptional circumstances are. On the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Marks, about the public interest, I need to know what the difference is and where both noble Lords are on this question. If the Minister could give us some indication of that, I would be very grateful.

Will the Minister help me further? Clause 15(2)(b) talks about,

“the consent of the Director of Public Prosecutions”.

Will it be the DPP or his staff who decide these matters? If that is the case, is the noble Lord, Lord Marks, not correct that the regional prosecutor may be the right person to go to? His amendment may have some merit on this issue.

The amendment in the group tabled in my name and those of my noble friends Lord Ponsonby and Lord Beecham would insert the word “senior” before “police officer” in Clause 15(5). We still leave it as the decision of the Secretary of State to specify the rank by order, but putting the word “senior” in the Bill makes it clear that Parliament’s intention is that these important decisions to create an exception—to determine whether exceptional circumstances have to merit this decision—need to involve a senior officer.

[Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab)]

My Lords, I understand that I am speaking after my Front Bench friend, but I want to make a couple of points. I understand from the noble Lord, Lord Marks, that the general intent of this group is to lower the hurdles by which cautions would be administered as a whole. He set out very clearly a different approach, but I think it is right to say that it is a lowering of the hurdles as a whole. As he said in his introduction to the amendments, we have seen a reduction in the number of cautions which have been administered in recent years.

I want to make a point that I have made in other contexts. The Government have set up scrutiny panels to review the appropriateness or otherwise of cautions that have been put in place. I thank the Minister for writing to me about this scheme. There are various pilot schemes which are following models in different parts of the country. They are in their very earliest stages and do not cover the whole country. Therefore my question for the noble Lord, Lord Marks, is about whether it is a bit premature to bring these sorts of amendments forward, when we do not have a proper answer to the question about whether the scrutiny panels are properly reviewing cautions and whether the group of people who sit on those scrutiny panels are satisfied that cautions are being appropriately administered. We do not even know exactly how those scrutiny panels will report their findings, let alone what those findings are. I understand that this is a debating point and that these are probing amendments, but I wonder whether putting forward this alternative approach is a bit premature.

[Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames]

I invite the noble Lord to deal with the proposition that his question ought to be referred to the Minister. Clause 15 is extremely restrictive of the use of cautions, and if it is premature to reform the rules for the use of cautions or the regime under which cautions are administered, as the noble Lord suggests, it is surely premature to reform it in the very radical, restrictive way proposed by Clause 15. The noble Lord is right to suggest that my amendments reduce the restriction, but at the same time they nevertheless preserve some restriction. The radical amendment is the new clause.

[Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede]

I take the point the noble Lord has made. I was really seeing this in the wider context of not just cautions but of out-of-court settlements as a whole. As we know, in London, for example, there are many tens of thousands of out-of-court settlements. Many of them are not cautions but other forms of out-of-court disposals which should be addressed by the scrutiny panels as and when they are running. Nevertheless, the point the noble Lord, Lord Marks, made is a fair one, and I acknowledge it.

[Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)]

My Lords, although some of the contributions were about the group that follows and the stand part on Clause 15, I will speak to the amendments in this group. If noble Lords have any additional comments when we get to the next group, I shall cover the specific issues relating to Clause 15 at that time.

The amendments tabled by my noble friend Lord Marks, while well intentioned, would have a detrimental effect on how simple cautions are administered. It is only right and proper that cautions are given only when justified. Serious offences should be prosecuted and offenders should not be able to get off with a simple caution. It is therefore right that the decision to administer a simple caution is taken at the most appropriate level commensurate with the offending behaviour. The propositions set out in Clause 15 follow the review of simple cautions conducted by the Government last year and were developed in conjunction with the police and the CPS.

Perhaps I may refer briefly to Clause 15. It already creates the appropriate levels of authorisation based on the seriousness of the offence when deciding whether to give a simple caution. Amendment 21 would affect the provisions on indictable-only offences. The clause provides that a simple caution can be given only for such an offence where a police officer determines that there are exceptional circumstances and the Director of Public Prosecutions consents. The noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, asked for examples of exceptional circumstances and when it would be appropriate for the police to administer a repeat caution. I do not want to be drawn at this juncture into trying to determine what “exceptional circumstances” should or could mean. They are operational matters that would be unique to each case. However, there is specific guidance to this which is used by the police, and those factors are taken into account when determining where there are exceptional circumstances. Specific examples include the age of the offender, culpability, remorse and the mental health of the offender.

The rank of the police officer will be specified by order made by the Secretary of State. However, we anticipate that the order will specify the rank of at least superintendent. This mirrors the position in the current guidance on adult simple cautions. The amendment would remove the senior police officer from the decision-making process. In practice, the role of the DPP will be undertaken by the Crown Prosecution Service. The regional office of the CPS should be best able to determine for operational reasons who should make a decision about whether a simple caution for an indictable-only offence should be given, and it is not right that we should restrict this to the regional chief crown prosecutor. In practice, the chief crown prosecutor may well determine that the decision is his or hers to make, but we should not be so prescriptive as to set this out in legislation.

Amendments 22 and 23 would require the regional chief crown prosecutor to decide whether to give a caution for a specified either-way offence, and separately non-specified either-way and summary-only offences where the offender has been convicted or cautioned for a similar offence within the last two years. The clause as drafted makes it clear that these decisions must already be taken by a police officer of a rank specified by the order made by the Secretary of State. It is envisaged that the Secretary of State will determine that the decision to give a simple caution for a specified either-way offence will be made only by an officer of at least the rank of inspector. For non-specified either-way offences and summary-only offences, it is envisaged that an officer of at least the rank of sergeant will determine whether a simple caution should be given. Escalating all these decisions to the regional chief crown prosecutor would hugely slow down the decision-making process to administer a simple caution and would increase the burden of bureaucracy on both the police and the CPS. In difficult cases the police can always consult the CPS. It is also worth noting that the public interest test in Amendments 21 to 23 is already exercised by the police and, where relevant, the CPS under the existing guidance on simple cautions when determining whether to give a simple caution. It is also anticipated that revised guidance will require the public interest test to continue to be exercised in the same way, and therefore there is no need to replicate this in statute. It is a level of detail that is best set out in guidance.

Amendment 24 seeks to ensure that a senior police officer would determine whether there are exceptional circumstances such that a simple caution can be given where it otherwise would not be, and whether an offence is similar to a previous offence. It is only right and proper that simple cautions should be given only when justified. Serious offences should be prosecuted and offenders should not be able to get off with a simple caution. It is therefore right that the decision to administer a simple caution is taken at the most appropriate level commensurate with the offending behaviour.

20:45

Clause 15 provides an order-making power to enable the Secretary of State to set out the minimum rank of police officer authorised to decide whether exceptional circumstances exist, such as to justify the giving of a simple caution and, in certain circumstances, when the previous offence was considered similar. I understand that my noble friend and other noble Lords wish to ensure that this will be a senior police officer by making it a requirement on the face of statute. The guidance published by the Ministry of Justice sets out that decisions on indictable-only cases need to be taken by a superintendent, and decisions on repeat cautions for non-specific either-way offences and summary-only offences need to be taken by a police officer of at least the rank of inspector. It is anticipated that these restrictions will be carried forward into the order made under Clause 15(5).

The amendment would create some ambiguity as to what “senior police officer” actually meant, and whether it applied to a constable of a particular rank or above. We should avoid such ambiguity and, by exercising the power in Clause 15(5), there will be no such ambiguity. With that reassurance, I hope my noble friend will be minded to withdraw his amendment.

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark]

Could the Minister reflect on the comments that he made earlier? I am sure that we will come back to this on Report. He talked about exceptional circumstances and the noble Lord, Lord Marks, talked about the public interest, but we need a bit more information rather than just saying that these are operational decisions. We may be poles apart here, or it may be nothing at all, but I want to test that further. Perhaps we can come back to that on Report.

[Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames]

I suspect that the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, has hit on the heart of this. I agree with my noble friend the Minister that it might have been sensible to deal in this group of amendments with Amendment 25 and the subject of the level of police officers. Perhaps, left as it is, we will deal with it later.

I suspect that my noble friend’s answer has not dealt with the gap that may exist between a prosecution that a prosecutor takes the view is not in the public interest and a case in which there are no exceptional circumstances, so that a caution is not available. My suggestion to the Committee is that there ought to be a choice between a prosecution on the one hand and a caution on the other. My noble friend has not dealt with the case whereby a prosecution is not in the public interest and a caution is not available under this clause because exceptional circumstances are not satisfied.

The other suggestion that I invite my noble friend to consider before Report is whether the test of exceptional circumstances, which the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, mentioned, and which is dealt with in a number of cases relating to different statutes, is not simply too harsh, and that “contrary to the public interest” or “inappropriate prosecution” is a better test. But with those observations and knowing that my noble friend will consider it, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 21 withdrawn.

Amendments 22 to 24 not moved.

Amendment 25

Moved by

[Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames]

25: Clause 15, page 16, line 6, leave out paragraph (a)

[Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames]

My Lords, as I suggested a moment ago, this amendment deals with matters that we dealt with in the previous group. It would omit the provision that it is,

“for a police officer not below a rank specified by order … to determine … whether there are exceptional circumstances for the purposes of”,

Clause 15. Therefore, the amendment really goes with the amendments that remove the requirement for there to be exceptional circumstances. It also goes with the view that I expressed in introducing the previous group of amendments—that it really ought not to be simply for the police to determine a question such as whether there are exceptional circumstances to justify prosecution, therefore meaning that there would not be a prosecution but there would be a caution. It ought to be the prosecutor who takes both decisions.

I shall speak also to Amendment 26, on which Amendment 27 is consequential, merely removing the passage providing for the affirmative resolution. Amendment 26 would remove subsection (7) which provides:

“The Secretary of State may by order amend this section so as to provide for a different period for the purposes of subsection (4)(b)”.

Subsection (4)(b) simply sets out a two-year period, which is the period within which a previous offence must have been committed. I fail to see how later experience will help the Secretary of State or anyone else determine whether two years is the right period. Given the experience of the criminal courts, the Committee knows whether repetition within two years is right. Experience is unlikely to change that because there is no doubt that an arbitrary period has been selected as in more cases than not it will be judged to be about right. In some cases, an offence committed three years ago ought not to be disregarded; in other cases, an offence committed a year ago ought to be disregarded. I simply do not understand why we should need an order-making power to change that two-year period.

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark]

My Lords, as I said on the previous group of amendments, we support this clause and the intention to oppose its standing part of the Bill is just a device to enable a debate to take place.

These amendments in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Marks, would remove the power of a police officer to determine whether there are exceptional circumstances under which an individual can be cautioned, and would also remove the power of the Secretary of State to change the period of time from the current two years which can be taken into account and counted as a previous conviction. It is important to provide a police officer with the ability to make this determination. I was pleased to hear the comment about a senior police officer being involved. The proposal to remove a power of the Secretary of State in this regard is not one that we are persuaded to support. However, I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Ahmad, will explain the intention behind these powers and the government process for determining whether they should be used. What parliamentary process will be used? It is important that there is adequate opportunity for robust challenge and scrutiny of what the Government are doing. I have no other remarks to add on cautions other than to say that there is concern about their use for indictable offences. We support the intention behind the clause.

[Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon]

My Lords, I thank my noble friend for tabling the amendment. I also thank the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, for his general support in principle for the intention behind Clause 15.

Clause 15 places restrictions on the use of simple cautions by a constable. Simple cautions provide a means for a constable to deal with a person aged 18 or over who has admitted to committing an offence in England and Wales. A caution is primarily designed for dealing with low-level, mainly first-time, offending. While the use of cautions has been falling, it is clear that there are problems with how they are being used in certain circumstances.

The Government are clear that serious offences should always be brought to court. The Ministry of Justice publishes non-statutory guidance on how a simple caution should be used and the circumstances when a caution would not be considered appropriate. These provisions stem from the simple cautions review, which was itself prompted by public concern about the apparent misuse of simple cautions by the police for seemingly serious offending behaviour. The review set out to examine the way in which simple cautions were being used and consider the need for any changes to ensure that there continues to be public confidence in the use of simple cautions.

The outcomes of the review were published in November last year and concluded that simple cautions should not be used for indictable-only offences and certain serious either-way offences. These include possession of a knife, offensive weapon or firearm in a public place, offences involving child sex abuse or child pornography, and supplying Class A drugs. The MoJ guidance on the use of simple cautions was updated as a result and provides that a simple caution should be given for these offences only where a senior police officer believes that there are exceptional circumstances. I heard what the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, said about further discussions on this. I am sure that we will have further detailed discussions on definitions.

The guidance also makes it clear that for all other offences a simple caution should not be given where a person has been convicted or cautioned for a similar offence in the past two years. The Government have now decided to put these restrictions on the use of simple cautions on a statutory footing. This clause therefore provides that a simple caution may not be given for indictable-only offences, unless there are exceptional circumstances to be determined by a senior police officer, and the Crown Prosecution Service also needs to consent.

This clause also provides that a simple caution may not be given for certain serious either-way offences unless there are exceptional circumstances to be determined by a senior police officer. The list of serious either-way offences subject to this restriction will be set out in secondary legislation. Furthermore, for the remainder of either-way offences and all summary-only offences, the clause provides that a simple caution may not be given where the offender has been convicted or cautioned for a similar offence within the previous two years, unless there are exceptional circumstances. The clause provides for the minimum rank of a senior police officer who determines whether there are exceptional circumstances and whether the previous offence was similar to be specified in secondary legislation. The two-year period between current and previous offending behaviour may also be amended by secondary legislation.

Our priority is to stop the cycle of reoffending and ensure that serious offences are dealt with by the most appropriate method. Criminals should not get caution after caution for committing the same offence time and time again, often for serious offences. The public needs confidence that cautions are being used appropriately. This clause helps ensure that this happens and will provide clarity for front-line practitioners. In developing these proposals we have worked carefully with the police and prosecuting agencies to ensure that simple cautions are used effectively and appropriately. The clause should therefore stand part of the Bill. I give this explanation in order to highlight some of the detailed reasons for the Government’s thinking behind Clause 15.

Amendments 25, 26 and 27 would remove the Secretary of State’s power to specify, by way of order, the minimum rank of police officer who will take certain decisions. The amendments also remove the Secretary of State’s power to change the two-year period when considering previous offending history in relation to non-specified either-way offences and summary-only offences. By tabling Amendment 25, my noble friends Lord Marks, Lord Dholakia and Lady Hamwee would remove the power to specify by order the minimum rank of police officer who may determine exceptional circumstances—for example, when giving a simple caution for an indictable-only offence or a specified either-way offence, and when giving a simple caution for a non-specified either-way offence or summary-only offence where the offender has been convicted or cautioned for a similar offence in the past two years. This means that there would be no restriction as to the rank of officer that would be able to make these decisions under Clause 15(2)(a), 15(3) and 15(4). This would mean, in effect, that the most difficult decisions as to whether to administer a caution for the most serious offences, and for repeated offences, could be taken by the most junior constable. This plainly cannot be right.

The simple cautions review made specific recommendations on the rank of officer that ought to take certain decisions. These recommendations were taken forward in the revised guidance on simple cautions, published by the MoJ on 14 November last year. It is anticipated that the order-making power, exercisable by the Secretary of State in relation to determining the rank of officer who can make such decisions, will replicate the provisions of the guidance. Namely, a superintendent or rank above will need to make the decision that exceptional circumstances exist so as to give a simple caution for an indictable-only offence. In addition, an inspector or rank above will need to decide that there are exceptional circumstances that justify giving a simple caution for a specified either-way offence or for a non-specified either-way offence or summary offence where the person has been convicted or cautioned for a similar offence in the past two years. It is important that we are clear on who can make these decisions and that there are restrictions on it.

Amendments 26 and 27 would remove the ability of the Secretary of State to amend the two-year period within which repeat cautions should not normally be given in relation to non-specified either-way and summary-only offences. This is a necessary provision. We are basing the two-year period on the same period set out in the guidance published by the MoJ that currently determines how simple cautions for such offences should be given. There may in the future be reasons to extend or, indeed, shorten the time period. The Government may wish to determine that repeat simple cautions should not ordinarily be given unless there are exceptional circumstances within a five-year period or, conversely, within a one-year period. This is the first time that we are placing statutory restrictions around the use of simple cautions, and there needs to be flexibility in order to ensure that the restrictions work properly. It is also worth noting that any such order made by the Secretary of State amending the time period must be made by the affirmative resolution procedure, and so Parliament will have a say in any change proposed.

I know that I have given a rather detailed explanation of the Government’s position but, in doing so, I hope that I have given enough reassurance and detail that my noble friend will be minded to withdraw his amendment.

21:00

[Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames]

My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for his detailed explanation as to why the Government resist Amendment 25, particularly since I hope I made it clear that the amendment is effectively contingent on the “exceptional circumstances” test not being adopted and on the police not being responsible for the decision-making. I fully accept that, if that test stays and if the police are to make the decision, then a senior officer should be in charge.

I also make it clear by repetition that I, along with the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, fully accept, as I said at the outset of the previous group, the need to be restrictive about giving cautions where normally a prosecution would be the proper response to an admission of guilt; I accept his point that that is the more important in serious cases. My question to the Government, which was echoed by the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, is simply whether “exceptional circumstances” is the right test, and how it is to be administered. I appreciate the indication that there will at least be discussions that take this forward. On that basis, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 25 withdrawn.

Amendment 26 not moved.

Clause 15 agreed.

Clause 16: Section 15: supplementary

Amendment 27 not moved.

Clause 16 agreed.

Amendment 28

Moved by

[Lord Faulks]

28: After Clause 16, insert the following new Clause—
“Alternatives to prosecution: rehabilitation of offenders in Scotland
In Schedule 3 to the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974 (protection for spent alternatives to prosecution: Scotland), at the end insert—“9 (1) The powers conferred on the Scottish Ministers by—
(a) paragraph 6, and(b) section 7(4), as applied by paragraph 8, may be exercised to make provision relating to reserved matters and are not subject to the restrictions imposed by section 29(2)(b) or (c) of, or Schedule 4 to, the Scotland Act 1998.(2) In this paragraph, “reserved matters” has the same meaning as in the Scotland Act 1998.””

[The Minister of State, Ministry of Justice (Lord Faulks) (Con)]

My Lords, this amendment is required in order to address a legal competence gap that has been identified by the Scottish Government in relation to the exercise of enabling powers in Schedule 3 to the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974, to which I shall refer as the 1974 Act. Following on from the Children’s Hearings (Scotland) Act 2011, the Scottish Government would like to legislate to specify occasions when the normal rules relating to the disclosure of spent alternatives to prosecution from a children’s hearing should not apply.

To achieve this, the Scottish Government need to exercise powers in Schedule 3 to the 1974 Act to specify the types of employment and proceedings that are excluded from the protection of the 1974 Act and, therefore, where a person may need to disclose a spent alternative to prosecution. These powers can be found in paragraph 6 of Schedule 3 and Section 7(4) as applied by paragraph 8 of Schedule 3 to the 1974 Act.

Scottish Ministers already have the power to legislate in respect of exceptions and exclusions relating to spent convictions in reserved areas. However, because paragraph 6 and paragraph 8 of Schedule 3 were inserted into the 1974 Act by an Act of the Scottish Parliament, these provisions cannot be exercised to make exclusions, modifications or exceptions in relation to reserved subject matters.

A transfer of functions order, as was made in 2003 in relation to convictions, cannot be made here because the relevant powers were conferred on the Scottish Ministers by an Act of the Scottish Parliament rather than on a Minister of the Crown by a Westminster enactment. Therefore, the amendment will insert a new paragraph into Schedule 3 to the 1974 Act which will state that Scottish Ministers can exercise the powers in paragraph 6 and Section 7(4) as applied by paragraph 8 without the relevant restrictions in Section 29 of the Scotland Act 1998. This will allow the Scottish Ministers to set out exclusions, modifications and exceptions in relation to alternatives to prosecution which are given by children’s hearings in Scotland in the desired way.

The amendment is an important step in helping the Scottish Government to implement their policy concerning the rehabilitation of child offenders and shows how this Parliament can demonstrate its ability to legislate effectively for Scotland. I hope that the Committee agrees that this is a sensible and pragmatic solution and that noble Lords will support the amendment. I beg to move.

Amendment 28 agreed.

Amendment 29

Moved by

[Lord Beecham]

29: After Clause 16, insert the following new Clause—
“Stop and search of children below the age of 10
In section 1 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 (power of constable to stop and search persons, vehicles etc.), after subsection (2) insert—“(2A) Where the person is below 10 years of age, an appropriate adult must be present before the search may be undertaken.””

[Lord Beecham (Lab)]

My Lords, this amendment was provoked by a disturbing article in the Guardian on 1 July, based on the recently published report of the inquiry into children and the police by the All-Party Group on Children, chaired by my noble friend Lady Massey. It appears that, in 22 police forces that replied to a request for information, 1,136 children under the age of 10—well below the age of criminal responsibility —were subject to stop and search between 2009 and 2013. The Met could not supply figures for 2009-11. The number of children under the age of 18 subject to this process across 26 forces exceeded 1 million.

There have been reports on this issue in the past, including one in November 2009 relating to children from BME backgrounds, and one in January 2010 on searches of 11 year-olds. In January this year, it was reported that 500 such searches had been carried out in Scotland on children under the age of 10, including 72 on children aged only seven or younger. It is apparent that there is no effective code of practice governing the carrying out of such searches, or even of properly recording them. For example, police forces were unable to say how many looked-after children had been stopped and searched. Some forces do not even record a child’s name, address and date of birth, although some do. Only 20 of the forces had separate custody facilities for children in their police stations.

The Home Office has reviewed stop-and-search powers, but the all-party group’s inquiry suggested a number of improvements relating to the collection of data, including ethnicity, and specific guidance on safeguarding and child protection, especially for vulnerable children in care or at risk of abuse or exploitation. When a child is taken to a police station for the purposes of a search, he or she has a right to have a parent present. Some forces make an effort to take a child home before searching.

The Bill contains a welcome provision in Clause 20 to require an appropriate adult to be present when a caution is given to an offender under the age of 17. The amendment, which is designed as a probing amendment, would extend that principle to stop and search so that an appropriate adult would have to be present, particularly during the search. The stopping is not necessary something an appropriate adult would be present for, but the search, which is a more personal intervention, should be in the presence of an appropriate adult. As it stands, the amendment applies to children under the age of 10, but perhaps thought should be given as to whether that age remains too low—after all, it is below the age of criminal responsibility. In Scotland, consensual searches—searches the child simply agrees to—will now no longer be carried out on children aged under 12.

I hope the Minister will agree to consider this amendment and come back on Report possibly with an improved version. It seems important that this process, if it has to be undertaken, should be undertaken in as sensitive a way as possible, preferably in the presence of a parent, but, if not, at least of an appropriate person independent of the police force. I hope the Minister will look kindly on the suggestion and perhaps work with the Opposition to see whether we can reach an agreed position on it. I beg to move.

[Lord Faulks]

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Beecham, for drawing the Committee’s attention to this issue. The purpose of the amendment is to extend the safeguards provided in PACE codes of practice C and H, covering custody procedures, to provide children under the age of 10 with an appropriate adult in public settings where a stop and search is carried out. While this is a laudable aim, the Government do not consider the amendment desirable, as we consider the existing provisions in law and codes of practice are sufficient for the purposes of ensuring that children are treated appropriately. For instance, there are already important safeguards attached to Section 1 stop and searches. These include the obligation on the police to provide key information to the person being searched about the purpose of the search and the grounds for searching, and ensuring that the person subject to the search understands the procedure. In addition, a person can be detained for the search only for as long as is reasonably required to allow the search to be carried out. Therefore, the period of time for which an individual can be held for the search is strictly limited and proportionate.

Indeed, in terms of the time that individuals are detained, were there to be a requirement for an appropriate adult to be called in a stop and search context, this would require the police to arrange for provision in all public settings and at all times, which would entail detaining children for significant and disproportionate periods of time. This would also mean a significant strain on police time and resources.

There is also Section 11 of the Children Act 2004, which places the police under an obligation to make arrangements to safeguard and promote the welfare of children when exercising their functions. The statutory guidance accompanying this duty requires the police to ensure that appropriate training is in place to enable police to deal appropriately with children.

In respect of the police’s use of stop and search, those are just some of the safeguards in place which apply to children, and they are entirely appropriate given the nature of the procedure.

The principal function of an appropriate adult is to explain and demystify the criminal process at the police station following arrest and detention. For example, the police interview, the meaning of the caution, the individual’s rights within the police station context and so on would need to be explained. However, these considerations do not apply to a brief stop and search encounter, which is about confirming or allaying a police officer’s reasonable suspicion that an individual may be in possession of something they should not.

I am aware that this proposed measure was mentioned in the recent All-Party Parliamentary Group for Children report on children, published this month. The group’s initial report stated that,

“APPGC Officers will continue to consider recommendations on the stop and search of under-10s for our final report, including ... whether”,

stop and search,

“should only occur in the presence of an appropriate adult, carer or parent or in the family home”.

In answer to the noble Lord, the Government will consider the group’s conclusions in its final report on this matter, but for now, without adequate consideration and consultation, we are not convinced that this measure should be introduced in legislation.

Finally, on 30 April, as the noble Lord said, the Home Secretary announced a comprehensive package of measures designed to reform the way that stop and search is used. The measures are designed to ensure that these powers are used fairly and effectively and in a way that engenders community confidence. These measures should impact positively on all sections of the community, including children. For these reasons, I respectfully ask the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment.

[Lord Beecham]

My Lords, I confess to being somewhat disappointed by the Minister’s response. We are talking here essentially about very young children, and much of what he said would be relevant certainly to adults and possibly to adolescents, but children aged 10 or under will be going through a process that is not systematic and with apparently no clear national guidance on how these things are to be conducted. Indeed, as I said, the fact that even the recording of what has happened is not uniform suggests that there is certainly a need for a coherent code. I also still urge consideration to be given to the suggestion in the amendment that an appropriate adult be available, particularly for younger children.

I do not know what timescale the Minister envisages for the production of any further guidance or indeed how long it will take the APPG to produce a second report. However, even if it is not possible before Report to reach a conclusion on whether the parliamentary group believes that it is necessary to amend the Bill, I hope that we can emerge from this whole process with a coherent approach in which the issues that the APPG has raised are addressed and in which legislation or guidance is uniformly adopted by all relevant agencies, including of course the various police forces.

I particularly invite the Minister to look at the Scottish experience. Scotland has taken a very clear decision, which is in any event quite different from the one that we now apply here. I hope that there will be some conversation with interested agencies north of the border, irrespective of the outcome of the referendum, in order to ensure that the best possible practice is implemented when we are dealing with children of this age in England and Wales. Having said that, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment at this stage.

Amendment 29 withdrawn.

21:15

Clause 17: Ill-treatment or wilful neglect: care worker offence

Amendment 30

Moved by

[Baroness Finlay of Llandaff]

30: Clause 17, page 17, line 3, leave out subsection (1) and insert—
“( ) It is an offence for an individual who has the care of another individual by virtue of being a care worker to ill-treat or wilfully neglect that individual in a way that amounts to a serious and substantial departure from the duty owed by the care worker to the individual in all circumstances and causes the avoidable death of, or serious harm to, that individual.”

[Baroness Finlay of Llandaff (CB)]

My Lords, Clause 17 creates a new offence of ill treatment or wilful neglect that is likely to result in hundreds of additional criminal investigations of healthcare professionals, including doctors. The problem is that Clause 17 does not indicate a threshold for the offence against the individual care worker. The Medical Defence Union, which has 128 years’ experience defending healthcare professionals, the Royal College of Physicians, of which I declare that I am a fellow, the BMA, of which I am president, and the Foundation Trust Network are all concerned about this. There is a concern that the police would have little option but to investigate any doctor accused of ill treatment or wilful neglect, even in those cases where charges or prosecution might appear unlikely.

The Department of Health’s consultation that preceded the proposal for the new offence suggested that it would apply only where the alleged crime was so severe that it would merit a criminal sanction over and above any action taken by a regulator, such as the General Medical Council for doctors. The Department of Health has consistently suggested that only the more serious instances of such ill treatment or neglect would give rise to the prosecution of care workers. My concern is that this is not clear in the way in which Clause 17 is worded.

Clause 18 would create a similar offence for organisations providing care. It specifies that for the offence to apply the,

“provider’s activities are managed or organised in a way”,

that means there is,

“a gross breach of … duty of care”,

that the provider owes to the individual. Clause 18 appears to envisage the offence applying only where the conduct alleged falls far below what can reasonably be expected of the care provider, so there is a threshold.

These specifications appear absent from Clause 17. The practical effect of the difference between the two clauses is that the threshold for an organisation is far higher than that for the individual worker. It is of particular concern for doctors because, if allegations of ill treatment or wilful neglect are made to the police, it is very likely that, in the absence of Clause 17 specifying a higher threshold, there would be very little option but to investigate.

If, as the Department of Health suggests, the aim is to prosecute only the most serious cases, the threshold in Clause 17 should indicate where the proper level of criminality lies. To achieve that, the amendment suggests that a threshold similar to that of Clause 18 is built into Clause 17. In addition to the offence applying where there is ill treatment or wilful neglect, it should be necessary for that to represent a gross breach of the care worker’s duty of care to the individual.

Let me illustrate that with a fictional scenario, although it is based on a realistic type of incident that could easily happen and could give rise to such allegations. A patient is terminally ill and becoming restless. The doctor intends to prescribe a dose of pain relief for breakthrough pain and something for the restlessness, and the family knows that. However, the doctor is suddenly called away to a young man who is in a peri-arrest situation. He was admitted as an emergency with suspected meningitis. The doctor is then called to resuscitate another patient in an adjacent bed. That resuscitation is successful, so she is there for much longer than she would have been if it had been unsuccessful. By then, the results have come back on the man who has been confirmed as having meningitis and she is involved in instigating life-saving treatment. She then rushes back to the ward to find that the terminally ill patient has died without having received the additional analgesia or drugs for agitation that she had intended to prescribe at the point at which she was called away.

The family, understandably distraught, contact the police and allege that the doctor wilfully neglected their mother. As well as the hospital inquiry and a GMC referral, the police then have to investigate the doctor for wilful neglect. If that doctor is then suspended because there is an ongoing investigation, which could take up to six months, the hospital will have to employ a locum. Even if the police conclude that the investigation is not founded and do not bring any charges, the GMC concludes that there are no grounds for referral for fitness to practise and the hospital exonerates the doctor, that doctor has been out of the workforce during the investigation. She may be so seriously damaged by having tried to do her job to the best of her ability but appearing to fail, she may well think twice about continuing in medicine. We know that that is a problem now with some young doctors who find the stresses so great that they are opting out.

Throughout England and Wales there is a prosecutorial discretion, and if a new criminal sanction of wilful neglect is introduced without any indication of the threshold at which it should apply to individual practitioners, it is worrying. I suspect that scenarios not dissimilar to the case that I have described will happen, and not infrequently. They will principally affect both doctors and nurses. If the intention is that the sanction should be applied only in the severest of cases, and I believe that that is what the Department of Health intends, that should be clear in legislation. If it is not, another unintended consequence is that it could jeopardise transparency and candour, which goes in absolutely the opposite direction to the policy intention.

There are other amendments in this group which I support and will speak to only briefly. The inclusion of volunteer work is important because there are an increasing number of doctors who have retired and who are working as volunteers with groups such as asylum seekers and refugees. In fact, they have another problem already because they do not get tax relief against their NHS pensions for this completely voluntary work, even though they have to pay their GMC registration and maintain their defence union subscription. They are quite severely out of pocket to the tune of many hundreds of pounds for what you could say was the pleasure—indeed, they do it out of vocation and for job satisfaction—of working as volunteers with these very hard-to-reach and deprived people who are in difficult situations. They are often dealing with victims of torture. These doctors are not doing easy work as volunteers.

The other amendment in this group makes it clear that the concept of clinical judgment should be included. That becomes extremely important. There is a lot of guidance now within clinical practice, but it is only that: it is guidance and not as firm as a lot of people think. It is often based on the best research evidence available, but in every case it has to be interpreted for the individual. At the end of the day, it comes down to considered clinical opinion. One would hope that every doctor weighs things carefully in the balance and comes to a considered conclusion about what they are doing, but it would be damaging to patient care if that interpretation of guidance were jeopardised and there was a formulaic approach to the management of patients by imposing a risk-averse approach. We have seen the dangers already when you end up with a protocol-driven approach rather than an interpretation of guidance. We saw disasters with the Liverpool care pathway, which was well intentioned but poorly rolled out and so forth. I hope that the Government will also accept that concept of clinical judgment. I beg to move.

[Baroness Barker (LD)]

My Lords, very rarely for me, I want to disagree with the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay. We usually bat on the same side, but not tonight. My reason for disagreeing is quite simply that these provisions in the Bill have come about because of the considerable amount of work done by my colleague Paul Burstow. He came up with these proposals in consultation with people who had been well and truly at the coalface of the investigations into Mid Staffs and Winterbourne View. They have not been drawn up lightly.

I disagree with the starting point of the case that the noble Baroness put forward. She said that these provisions will inevitably lead to hundreds of investigations of doctors. However, that will only be if there is reason to investigate. Her amendment would severely undermine the deterrent effect of this legislation. The first part of Clause 17 says:

“It is an offence for an individual who has the care of another individual by virtue of being a care worker to ill-treat or wilfully to neglect that individual”.

That is a very powerful statement, and some of us are already beginning to be involved in training people within the health and social care field. We are already beginning to discuss the issues with people who run charities, asking them whether they know that this piece of legislation is coming along. It is beginning to have quite a profound effect on people about what they are supposed to do.

I have to take issue with the noble Baroness’s amendment where it goes on to add another three lines to the end of that subsection and to introduce two tests. First, it says somebody has to act,

“in a way that amounts to a serious and substantial departure from the duty owed by the care worker to the individual in all circumstances”.

I can understand that, although I am not exactly sure what it adds. However, the bit that I really find wrong is where it adds,

“and causes the avoidable death of, or serious harm to, that individual”.

One of the reasons Paul Burstow drafted his proposals as he did was the recognition that it is very rare for any health or social care provider suddenly to become a dreadfully malevolent or neglectful place. Usually, when there is bad practice, it is the accretion of pressure, slipping standards and lack of good management that bit by bit builds up to the point where people are unsafe. Part of the reason for framing this as it is was to tackle that sort of stuff, which can be devastating in its own way. We are talking not just about the physical health of people but their mental health. It was to cover that as well.

I will simply say to the noble Baroness that I understand where she is coming from and the bodies whose views she is representing to us. There is already a great deal of legislation under which members of the medical profession can find themselves the subject of an inquiry for misconduct; that really will not change. Although her amendment in particular—there are others in this group—would not fatally undermine this clause, it would put a huge dent in it and introduce a fair amount of, dare I say it, wriggle room for medical defence lawyers to get somebody off the hook. I may be wrong, and she may be proved right, but on balance what this clause does as written is to plug the gap that there has certainly been in social care, if not in the NHS, whereby front-line workers carried the can and those who were in positions of trust and oversight walked away when they should not have done. On balance, I do not accept her argument. No doubt the Minister will reply to it.

21:29

[Baroness Finlay of Llandaff]

Perhaps I might clarify. I certainly agree that mental harm is as serious as physical harm. I do not differentiate between the two. The problem is that there seems to be a different threshold between the two clauses, and I did not hear anything in what the noble Baroness said to point out that there was the same threshold between the two clauses. My concern is that, in the example I gave, the junior doctor would be the one who would take the rap. The organisation may have been disorganised and overstressed its staff and expected them to work unrealistically, but its threshold is set differently, and that is my concern.

[Baroness Barker]

That is exactly the point that Paul Burstow was trying to cover. If you back into that, I think you will find that the fears the noble Baroness is raising are addressed by looking at all of this section in totality.

[Lord Beecham]

My Lords, I will briefly mention Amendment 33, which I tabled in the light of representations from the Medical Protection Society over a range of issues. It struck me in particular that it was important to offer protection to registered medical practitioners who are exercising their clinical judgment, as opposed to other matters that they might, as it were, stray into. But where it is a matter of clinical judgment, that should surely be a defence which would displace the possibility of a prosecution for the range of offences set out in Clauses 17 to 22. I hope the Minister—I take it that it will be the noble Earl, Lord Howe, who will be dealing with this—will agree that it is important to protect clinical judgment in that way and that this amendment will be acceptable to the Government.

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark]

My Lords, at Second Reading I made reference to this and other clauses in this section of the Bill. I said I believed that the Government were attempting to,

“close the loophole that Professor Don Berwick identified in his review of the events that took place at the Mid Staffordshire NHS Foundation Trust”,—[Official Report, 30/6/14; col. 1620.]

although of course these amendments have much wider implications for a wider group of employees looking after vulnerable people, as the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, outlined. These clauses were added late to the Bill during its passage through the Commons and I do not believe that they were looked at in any great depth there. As I said at Second Reading, it seemed odd to me that volunteers were not also included in these clauses, so I hope the noble Earl can address that in his reply.

We have wonderful people working in the caring professions here in the UK and we have wonderful volunteers helping people, but we must be clear that an abuser who exploits people could easily be in either group. Look at the horror story of the actions committed by Jimmy Savile. He was a volunteer at numerous establishments that were caring for vulnerable people. He was never an employee at any of the hospitals he visited but it appears he had power, influence and keys, and the system in place failed his victims for decades.

There is always the risk of unintended consequences and we need to be very careful that these clauses do not create a culture where healthcare professionals would have their normal, everyday clinical decisions open to criminal investigation, as the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, and my noble friend Lord Beecham outlined. I do not for one minute believe that that is the intention of the Government but we have to be very careful that that is not what is created or what people believe has been created. So the amendment moved by the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, is very welcome as she attempts to bring clarity to the issues and talks about,

“a serious and substantial departure from the duty owed by the care worker to the individual in all circumstances”,

that,

“causes the avoidable death of, or serious harm to, that individual”.

For the same reasons, my noble friend Lord Beecham and I tabled Amendment 33, which makes it clear that clinical medical judgment exercised by a registered medical practitioner is excluded.

These are very serious matters. I hope that the Minister can address the points that I have made about volunteers and the whole question of the sanctions being applied only to the most serious cases, as well as those about harming transparency and improving excellence in care made so well by the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, and my noble friend Lord Beecham.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health (Earl Howe) (Con)]

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, and both noble Lords for tabling these amendments, which give me the opportunity to explain the Government’s thinking behind these important new offences of ill treatment or wilful neglect.

The Government are clear that the ill treatment or wilful neglect of users of health or adult social care services by an individual paid to provide those services is never acceptable. It is for this reason that we accepted the recommendation of Professor Berwick and the National Advisory Group on the Safety of Patients in England to introduce a new, clear and specific criminal sanction for those guilty of ill treatment or wilful neglect. However, Professor Berwick’s original recommendation proposed that the offence should apply only in the most egregious cases, where the ill treatment or wilful neglect caused “serious harm or death”—in effect, a harm threshold. Amendment 30 would create a similar threshold by requiring both a “serious and substantial” departure from a care worker’s duty towards the victim and that the conduct must cause serious harm or avoidable death.

When we were developing these new offences, we gave careful consideration to these very issues. For us, it raised a number of difficulties. For example, if you set a harm threshold, you are effectively saying that any ill treatment or wilful neglect that fails to cause sufficient harm to meet that threshold can be tolerated. Similarly, a situation could arise where two people are subjected to the same behaviours by the same care worker with the same intent, but one is much more seriously harmed than the other. I cannot see how it can be fair that the lesser harmed victim cannot have the protection of the new offence simply because they have been fortunate enough not to suffer really serious harm.

We exposed these very concerns in our consultation on the formulation of the offence earlier this year. The overwhelming majority of those who responded supported our proposal that the offence should focus on the conduct of the care worker, not on the outcomes for the victim. The way in which the noble Baroness’s amendment is framed puts the focus of the offence back on to outcomes. Someone could be subjected to wholly unacceptable ill treatment or wilful neglect but the perpetrator could have a defence if they could show that their conduct did not meet the “serious and substantial departure” threshold of the noble Baroness’s amendment, that the harm suffered was not sufficiently serious or that the victim’s death was unavoidable.

I also have some concerns about that phrase “serious and substantial”. Guaranteeing an objective and consistent interpretation seems to be fraught with difficulty. I fear that care workers could find themselves with less certainty about when the offence might bite, rather than more.

This brings me to the other point I want to make in respect of Amendment 30. It relates to the imaginary case study that the noble Baroness put before us. We recognise that it is important that there should be clarity around the types of behaviours which will be captured under this offence, and I understand the concern expressed by some that, without this, there is a risk that care workers could be less willing to be open and honest when things go wrong.

There are a number of issues to consider here. First, and most importantly, it must be remembered that the underlying premise on which the offence is predicated is that any neglect must be wilful; that is, deliberate, or else completely reckless as to whether the conduct will cause harm. In the case of ill-treatment, the courts have interpreted this as being ill-treatment that was intentional or reckless. I can assure the Committee that this is in practice a high bar to get over. Demonstrating that that is the case to the standard of proof required in criminal law will not be easy. Nor do we want it to be. We know that the vast majority of care workers would never dream of setting out to ill-treat or neglect those in their care. In the example given by the noble Baroness, a balancing of priorities is taking place. The offence would not cover that situation, but accidents and genuine mistakes do happen, and we have formulated the offence to make it clear that such situations will not be captured by it, no matter how serious the outcome may be for the patient or service user. Care workers need have no fear that being open and honest when such an accident or mistake occurs will place them at risk of prosecution under the offence.

Other safeguards will be in place, besides the fundamental protection given by the formulation of the offence itself. As with a whole range of criminal offences, the Code for Crown Prosecutors means that a public interest test will have to be met before a prosecution is brought. Moreover, even in the unusual event of an alleged victim or their family deciding to pursue a private prosecution, the care worker has protection. They can exercise their right to refer the case to the Director of Public Prosecutions for scrutiny, who will have discretion to take over the case and close it down.

With regard to Amendments 31 and 32, I am aware that in his remarks at Second Reading the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, raised the issue of whether the ill-treatment or wilful neglect care worker offence should include volunteers. We considered that very carefully during the development of these offences. Indeed, we again addressed the issue directly in the consultation in March. We know, of course, that it is not only formally employed care workers who can ill-treat or wilfully neglect those in their care. Sadly, it can happen in many situations, as the noble Lord rightly pointed out, but his amendments would bring a vast number of people within scope of the offence because “volunteer” has a wide interpretation. Family carers; people who provide assistance to friends or neighbours by, for example, taking them shopping or to medical appointments; people who help out in nursing homes at meal times; volunteer patient transport drivers—all such people, and more, would be caught by the amendments.

Our view is that there is a significant difference between those employed to provide these services and those who do so voluntarily. Paid arrangements give rise to a formal obligation to provide services to a reasonable standard. That represents a significant and important difference from informal arrangements, where there is no element of prescribed obligation. I am sure that it is not the intention to make subject to the criminal law all those people who, from the goodness of their hearts, are willing to give of their time and effort to help others.

I would add that we do already have in place arrangements to provide safeguards in such situations. For example, the Care Act 2014 includes provisions explicitly relating to the powers and duties of local authorities to assess and meet the needs of informal carers, such as friends and family carers. Moreover, where an individual is volunteering in, for example, a day centre or nursing home, there are nowadays statutory duties on the operators of those facilities to carry out appropriate checks on the suitability of the individual to do that work and ensure that they receive training in health and safety, safeguarding and other procedures necessary to provide protection for the users of that service. It is no longer the case that someone could just walk in off the street, offer their services and come immediately into contact with vulnerable patients or service users.

It is the Government’s view that these arrangements provide adequate safeguards in these specific circumstances in a far more proportionate way than applying this offence would do. The latter would also risk putting people off volunteering for fear of prosecution, however unlikely that prosecution might be in practice.

I turn finally to Amendment 33. Although I can readily understand the motive behind it, I have to say that I cannot agree that it is necessary, even on the “for the avoidance of doubt” basis which the amendment adopts. We have been clear from the outset that matters involving the exercise of informed clinical judgment by any healthcare professional, not just registered medical practitioners, should be outside the scope of these ill-treatment or wilful neglect offences. We addressed this explicitly during the consultation exercise and the offences have been formulated to ensure that this is the case. I reiterate my earlier remarks about the key element being that of wilfulness. There has to be intent to ill treat or neglect, or recklessness as to whether the perpetrator’s actions or omissions will cause ill treatment or neglect, for the offence to bite. For a surgeon making decisions about the relative priorities of two patients or the best course of treatment for a particular condition, the implications and effects of their decisions will be uppermost in their minds. They will be all too aware that their decision may cause further delay or discomfort in the short term, even though the longer-term outcome may be better, but in taking these sorts of decisions healthcare professionals are not deciding deliberately to ill treat or neglect. They are taking decisions in what they believe to be the best interests of the patient, taking into account other priorities. I cannot see how a doctor who can demonstrate that they have followed appropriate clinical practice and professional standards in exercising their clinical judgment would fall prey to this offence.

21:45

[Lord Beecham]

I can quite understand the Minister saying that he cannot see that. However, is there not a danger that members of the public will not see it that way? If this amendment were to be adopted, it would send a clear message to the public that clinical judgment is outside the scope of the general provision. Is that not something worth achieving? I cannot see that it costs anything in terms of the Government’s policy and its implementation. However, it sends a clearer signal not just to the profession but to those who might feel that they should have recourse to the law when it has resulted from clinical judgment. It would be better to make that clear from the outset in the legislation.

[Earl Howe]

I come back to my earlier point: the bar is set high here because wilful neglect has to involve ill treatment that was intentional or reckless. The courts have traditionally interpreted that in a very narrow way, which is as it should be. I say this again and on advice: we do not believe that a doctor exercising his or her clinical judgment would fall within the scope of that offence.

I should make a couple of other points here. Amendment 33 refers only to “a registered medical practitioner”. The implication of that would be that other types of healthcare professionals exercising clinical judgement would not be excluded because they are not specified. So, for example, a triage nurse working in an A&E department would have very reasonable cause for concern about the kind of clinical judgments that they have to make perhaps not being outside the scope of the offence, because they are not explicitly mentioned in the Bill. Clearly, I would not want to create that kind of confusion and I am sure that the noble Lord would not either.

I hope that I have been able to demonstrate that the Government have worked hard to ensure that a whole range of issues and concerns were properly considered in the formulation of the new offence of ill treatment or wilful neglect. In particular, I hope that I have been able to reassure the noble Baroness and the noble Lords on their specific concerns and that she will now feel able to withdraw her amendment.

[Baroness Finlay of Llandaff]

I am grateful to the Minister for such a full response to the amendment that I moved and to the other amendments. For the record, I make it absolutely clear that ill treatment or neglect is never, ever acceptable by anybody. I am certainly not trying to make wriggle room for anybody. It is clear in the way that this debate has gone that it is about the intention of the worker, and if they were badly intended—if they had mal-intent—then they should duly be picked up and indeed suffer the consequences of the harm that they may have inflicted.

I hope, though, that the Minister will consider that the guidance that goes with this needs to set out clearly the issues that we have debated today, as well as the point raised just now by the noble Lord, Lord Beecham, which relates to all the clinical professionals. As the Minister has just said, it is not just doctors; it will be nurses, physiotherapists and lots of others who will be exercising clinical judgment. There is something important about being clear that clinical judgment has an important role because of the message that it gives to the public, who may feel vexatious against the outcome of a well intentioned clinical judgment that, for whatever reason, just did not go right—not even that a mistake was made but just that the disease process, their expectations and the way that they interpreted the communication have perhaps been mismatched.

I hope that we might be able to have further discussion with the Minister about the issues around this. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 30 withdrawn.

Amendments 31 and 32 not moved.

Clause 17 agreed.

Schedule 3: Ill-treatment or wilful neglect: excluded health care

Amendment 33 not moved.

Schedule 3 agreed.

Clause 18: Ill-treatment or wilful neglect: care provider offence

Amendment 34

Moved by

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark]

34: Clause 18, page 18, line 27, after “adult,” insert—
“( ) a director of a body corporate or unincorporated association which provides for or arranges for the provision of care as set out in paragraph (a), under specified circumstances to be set out by the Secretary of State within 12 months of this Act coming into force,”

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark]

My Lords, I will be brief. This amendment was tabled by me and my noble friend Lord Beecham. It seeks to close what we thought was a loophole in the clauses that the Government introduced here. It seeks to introduce a criminal liability on a director of a corporate body or an incorporated association for failing to sack employees who have committed an offence of ill treating or wilfully neglecting an individual in their care. That seemed to us to be a serious omission on the part of the Government. As I said in my contribution on the previous group, these clauses did not get a huge amount of scrutiny in the other place; they were added very late. We think that this is a serious omission and that the Government should look at it very carefully. The amendment is a probing one, designed to get a response from Government at this stage. We may want to come back to it on Report, but I would be grateful if the Minister could give us his views on this. I beg to move.

[Earl Howe]

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for giving me the opportunity to deal with this important issue of individual liability, where a care provider offence has been committed. Professor Don Berwick was very clear, in his recommendation on the creation of the offence, that it should apply to organisations providing care as well as to individual care workers. We completely agree with that principle; however, we have deliberately formulated the offence in respect of care provider organisations somewhat differently from the care worker offence, for two reasons. First, we wanted to try to ensure that the care provider offence could be applied to an organisation as an entity in its own right, without the need to first identify and convict an individual of sufficient seniority within the organisation’s management hierarchy so that they could be seen as the controlling mind of the organisation. That is why Clause 18 is modelled on the corporate manslaughter offence. Secondly, we wanted to ensure that the focus of the care provider offence was unequivocally on the provider organisation as a whole. We deliberately chose not to create a situation where attention could be deflected on to an individual such as a director when the offence had been committed by the organisation’s board acting as an entity, not as individuals. The intention is that the care worker offence will apply in respect of individuals, with the care provider offence capturing organisational failings that have allowed ill treatment or wilful neglect to occur.

It seems to me that this amendment would risk creating exactly that possibility of deflection away from the organisation by specifying that in certain circumstances an individual director of a care provider organisation is to be treated as a care provider in their own right, irrespective of the activities of the remainder of the board. Moreover, given the way the care provider offence is structured, I have to say that I think there would be some difficulties in making out the elements of it in relation to an individual director. For example, I fear that the historical difficulties in extrapolating the existence of a relevant duty of care from the organisation as a whole to an individual director could also arise here, and if that duty cannot be demonstrated then the offence cannot apply in any circumstances.

Nevertheless, I reassure the noble Lord that it is the Government’s policy to strengthen corporate accountability in health and social care and to hold individuals to account where they are responsible for failings in care. It is for this reason that we are introducing a fit and proper person test for directors of care providers. Directors will also be liable for the care worker offence when committed by them. Also, Clause 22(2) to (5) clarifies that a conviction for the care provider offence would not preclude an organisation being convicted for a breach of the proposed new fundamental standards for health and social care or a health and safety offence on the same facts, if this were in the interests of justice. It would therefore also be possible to convict an individual on a secondary basis for such an offence under provisions such as Sections 91 and 92 of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 or Section 37 of the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974. This ensures that existing liabilities are not reduced as an unintended consequence of the new offence.

I am afraid that it seems to me that the noble Lord’s amendment would be in direct contradiction of the Government’s position on how the care provider offence should be applied. I am therefore unable to accept it. I hope that the explanation I have given will enable the noble Lord to withdraw the amendment.

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark]

I thank the Minister for his explanation. I shall reflect on it. My only intention is to protect people and staff and that, where people or companies have done wrong, we deal with them properly. The points that he outlined may provide sufficient protection and guarantees. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 34 withdrawn.

Clause 18 agreed.

Clauses 19 to 22 agreed.

Amendment 35

Moved by

[Lord Beecham]

35: Before Clause 23, insert the following new Clause—
“Identity theft
After section 9 of the Fraud Act 2006, insert—“9A Identity theft
(1) A person is guilty of an offence if, knowingly and without reasonable cause, he uses a means of identification of another person or a fictitious person.
(2) A person who is guilty of identity theft is liable, on summary conviction, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 6 months or to a fine not exceeding the statutory maximum (or both).
(3) The Secretary of State may by regulations set out what constitutes a defence under this section.””

[Lord Beecham]

My Lords, the law understandably frequently struggles to keep pace with changes in society, and this is never more apparent than in these days of rapid developments in technology, which increasingly include cybercrime. We are constantly reminded of the necessity of protecting our identities from the predators of the cybersphere who seek to access personal information, often in order fraudulently to access financial details and make off with our savings and investments. Our banks remind us of the dangers of phishing and most of us will have received heart-rending pleas for help purporting to come from relatives or friends allegedly stranded in some foreign country. A friend of mine discovered that someone she knew had been taken in by just such a ploy and had sent the fraudster £1,500 that she could ill afford. My friend felt obliged personally to make good that loss.

There is a multitude of ways in which identity theft can be deployed, and it is clear that fraud generally is rising, by 25% a year on the latest figures, while convictions are falling. Sometimes the individual victim may be recompensed by his or her bank or via insurance, but ultimately the cost is passed on to customers at large. Identity theft is therefore never a victimless crime. As the Home Office Select Committee averred:

“Online criminal activity which defrauds victims of money is often not reported to or investigated by law enforcement”,

agencies. We are therefore unable to measure the true extent and cost of identity fraud, especially when perpetrated through technology.

22:00

It is true that there are a number of discrete offences that could be relevant, six in the Fraud Act 2006, and others in the Criminal Justice Act 1987, the Forgery and Counterfeiting Act 1981 and the Theft Act. However, what is surely needed is an overhaul both of the legislation and the practice of dealing with this insidious crime. My noble friend Lady Smith sought to introduce such an amendment to the Serious Crime Bill, but apparently it was not ruled in scope. Interestingly, it would appear that only three police forces have a cybercrime strategy, which is clearly inadequate in the face of the rising incidence of attempted and actual theft, with which virtually every user of a computer will be familiar, even if only from warnings and the experience of others.

The Government have so far expressed unwillingness to take the suggestion of a new offence forward. Admittedly, it does not have the resonance, however empty, of such eye-catching measures as the “bash a burglar” provision in the anti-social behaviour Bill of last year, or even some of the gimmicks that adorn the present Bill. Nevertheless, I hope that the Secretary of State and the Home Secretary will look again at the issue from the perspective of both departments. I take it that that is why the noble Lord, Lord Taylor, is here. We need action to strengthen the law and to resource adequately the investigation and prosecution of this crime. It is a serious and growing problem, and I would be disappointed if the Government do not react more positively to the suggestion that is made here, not only by me but by others who are concerned to protect the public from this constant threat, all too often realised at great personal loss. I beg to move.

[Lord Faulks]

My Lords, I am very grateful to the noble Lord for his introduction to this amendment. Of course, he is right to identify the increasing danger of fraud in the cybersphere, something acknowledged in the Serious Crime Act. He was also right to refer to the fact that there are other offences that deal with fraud—in particular, the Fraud Act 2006, which already includes offences that would apply to anyone who assumes a false or non-existent identity to commit fraud. In particular, Section 2 sets out the crime of fraud by false representation, which would cover a person pretending to be someone else for the purposes of making a gain for himself or another.

While identity theft is not in itself a criminal offence, the use of a false identity for fraud purposes is. Therefore, the amendment as drafted has difficulties, because it would also apply to innocent persons—for example, to persons who collect a parcel using their relative’s identification from the post office, which is currently permitted. However, the Government take the issue of identity crime extremely seriously and are pursuing a number of initiatives to prevent it. A multiagency strategic group, led by the Home Office, has been formed to reduce the threat to the United Kingdom. The group is engaged in a range of activity to tackle the problem, such as strengthening the issuing processes of government documents, improving data-sharing of false identities, and taking down websites that offer false documents for sale. There is a national policing identity crime champion. The City of London Police is leading this work and is currently developing an identity crime strategic threat assessment, working closely with the National Crime Agency.

The Government recognise that there are often particular challenges in dealing with the consequences of identity theft. These challenges relate to the difficulty of identifying and catching offenders, rather than to a lack in the criminal law. The Government are working with banks and credit card companies, promoting technical solutions to the problem and working to help the victims of such crimes. We are working with the credit reference agencies to provide a free service for anyone who has had their personal details used fraudulently. The credit reference agencies liaise with each other and the banks to restore compromised personal credit records. The service can be accessed by contacting Experian, Equifax or Callcredit. We are also addressing the scale of this issue and establishing identity crime trends over time, through the Crime Survey for England and Wales.

We are not in any way complacent but I hope that my response to the noble Lord’s very real and appropriate concerns about identity crime has satisfied him that the Government are well aware of the issue and are responding appropriately. In those circumstances, I respectfully ask him to withdraw his amendment.

[Lord Beecham]

I will, of course, withdraw the amendment. However, if I may say so, I am slightly disappointed by the Minister’s rather complacent tone in relation to where we are in this situation. I do not detect a properly co-ordinated response between the Home Office and the Ministry of Justice where the police service is concerned. This matter bears further examination. If, as the noble Lord says, it is currently under consideration, I wonder whether there is any possibility of a report being made before we get to Report stage. If that is not the case, I will be tempted to bring something back at that point. However, I am happy to enter into further discussions in the light of any progress made by the Government in drawing their various strands together. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 35 withdrawn.

Clause 23: Corrupt or other improper exercise of police powers and privileges

Debate on whether Clause 23 should stand part of the Bill.

[Lord Blair of Boughton (CB)]

My Lords, I draw attention to my registered interests. I am advised that it is the correct procedure—in view of the hour, it seems a very appropriate procedure—for me to speak only once to introduce my objections to both Clauses 23 and 24. Clause 23 deals with the introduction of a new offence of police corruption and Clause 24 introduces a mandatory whole life term for the murder of a police officer or a prison officer while on duty. I spoke at some length at Second Reading on 30 June and I do not intend to do so again or to rehearse all the arguments I made then. However, it is probably necessary for me to make clear that I regard police corruption as a cancerous evil which is ever present and which I and other noble Lords who were police officers have successfully investigated. Even more directly, I give way to no one in my abhorrence of the murder of a police officer or prison officer while on duty, particularly, but not exclusively, because someone tried to murder me.

Noble Lords speaking in support of removing these clauses from the Bill will make their own points but my first covers them both. Curiously, although they cover significantly different aspects of criminal law, the two clauses are connected by a simple proposition: they are bad law and they are unnecessary law because they are symbolic legislation, which I have heard before in your Lordships’ House is normally a reprehensible idea. The purpose of this proposal is to strike them out. It is, of course, in the nature of a probing amendment which will not be pressed to a Division but it seeks to ask the Minister and, if I may so request, the Front Benches of other parties to explain—I hope, in some detail—why this symbolic legislation should be embraced. The noble Lord, Lord Beecham, has just spoken of gimmicks; there may be some right here.

As regards Clause 23, I am absolutely certain that there is simply no lacuna. There is simply no gap to be filled between the Bribery Act 2010, some residuary clauses in the Prevention of Corruption Act 1916 and the common law offence of misconduct in public office. The Minister has just mentioned other offences in relation to the amendment just moved by the noble Lord, Lord Beecham. That was part of his argument for why that amendment should not pass. Exactly the same position applies in this case. No investigator or prosecutor has ever suggested to me that there is a difficulty in framing a charge in relation to police corruption. Subsection (11) of the clause confirms that by insisting that this legislation does not affect the common law offence of misconduct in public office. If there is no gap in the law, why introduce some new legislation? I think that my noble friend Lord Dear will flesh out a number of other professions to which such a law could equally logically—or perhaps equally illogically—be extended, as I did at Second Reading. However, I should also point out that the offence created by this legislation is exceptionally broadly and loosely drawn and will bring with it pointless investigations and contested trials.

I have heard it said that the clause is being introduced as a response to previously uninvestigated allegations of corruption—there were plenty of previously investigated allegations of corruption—in the case of the racist murder of Stephen Lawrence, and to the so-called “plebgate” events. I would only point out to noble Lords on all sides that it is normal to allow such investigations and court cases to come to an end before deciding to legislate further. Mr Ellison QC should now be allowed to finish his investigation; and the contested libel cases—I emphasise the plural—concerning who said what to whom outside 10 Downing Street should be allowed to come to court before judgments are made before introducing this sort of legislation.

Clause 24 is worse—much worse. It is not only unnecessary and populist but genuinely dangerous to the lives of police and prison officers—as I alluded to at Second Reading by quoting the case of Harry Roberts, who is still serving a life term 48 years after the murder of three police officers in 1966. There is simply no evidence of judicial complacency when sentencing those convicted of murdering a police or prison officer on duty.

The noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd of Berwick, who has appended his name to this Question on whether Clause 24 should stand part of the Bill, cannot be in his place, but I know that if he were here he would have reflected that, shortly after the abolition of capital punishment in 1965, a number of attempts were made to make an exception by retaining capital punishment for the murder of a police officer. These attempts were always defeated for exactly the same reason that I referred to at Second Reading and shall set out again briefly. If the murderer of a police officer has escaped from the scene, he or she will be aware that if this legislation is passed, he or she, if apprehended, will face life without parole. There is no incentive for him or her to surrender, and no further penalty can be given to him or her for killing more police officers. Why not entrap them? Why not go out in a deluded blaze of glory and take more hated police officers with them? It is “suicide by cop” as it is known. This measure is simply dangerous, unhelpful and totally misguided.

It is interesting only a small number of Back-Benchers are in your Lordships’ House at the moment—all of them former police officers, and all of whom object to this clause for that reason. I should be fascinated to hear why the different political parties support these clauses.

[Lord Dear (CB)]

My Lords, I shall speak to Clause 23, although my comments could equally well apply to Clause 24. I accord entirely with the last remarks made by the noble Lord, Lord Blair. I also remind noble Lords of my record in dealing with police corruption and malpractice. I emphasise the fact that I do not in any way diminish the seriousness, importance and reprehensibility of any abuse of office. Any corruption is reprehensible, particularly by those in authority. That of course includes police officers.

As has been said—and I will not go through it in detail—the current law is adequate and all-embracing. It captures all the possible misbehaviour and misconduct of those in public office, including police officers. The proposal does not add one jot to the armoury of offences that prosecutors can deploy. In fact, when reading jurisprudence at university, I well remember it being said that it was a universal truth that repetitious legislation—one offence after another, all dealing with exactly the same principle—was odious. I, too, would be interested if the Minister could tell us why it is such a good idea at the moment.

I notice that Mr Jeremy Wright MP, Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice, said:

“The public expect the police to act with honesty and integrity at all times”.

He went on to say that the Government felt that the best way to proceed was,

“to create a new offence of police corruption that applies solely to police officers”.—[Official Report, Commons, 17/6/14; cols. 1020-1.]

He said that this would be alongside the existing, broader common-law offence of misconduct in public office. The new offence in the Bill carries a maximum sentence of 14 years. Misconduct in public office carries a maximum sentence of life imprisonment. The safety net is there.

22:15

The noble Lord, Lord Blair, has already trailed what I might well say in cataloguing other examples of where this might lead us. I am pleased to do so. If we open the gates with this example, with the current focus on paedophilia why not single out teachers for a paedophilia specific offence, and ignore the offences committed by priests, youth leaders, parents or the many others who have dealings with young people? If one is looking at conspiracy to pervert the course of justice, why not single out solicitors in new legislation, leaving barristers and others to wave from the wayside? Why not pick up accountants for offences of fraud and ignore those who are employed in banks, stock brokerage or anything else? Indeed, one wonders why the police need to be picked out for this at all.

I hope that it is not an attempt to take a flying kick at the police at a bad time. It comes hard on the heels of a vigorous condemnation of the Police Federation at its annual conference a few months ago. There is much wrong with the police service at the moment. I have said so on the Floor of your Lordships’ House several times. Some of it is bad luck, most of it is bad management and some of it is bad leadership. But Clause 23 will do nothing to help at all.

I reflect on one thing. The opening paragraphs of the report in 1962, more than 50 years ago, of the Royal Commission on the Police, said:

“The maintenance of law and order ranks with national defence as a primary task of government. It is an essential condition of a nation’s survival and happiness”.

Successive Governments have shrunk from the opportunity of bringing in a royal commission on the police to look at the totality of policing. Much has happened in the past 50 years. There is now a huge opportunity to change the police for the better. There is a public appetite for change and a huge concern inside and outside the police service. There has never been a better time. Where is the vision to carry out that change?

We have seen a sprinkling of alternatives and of what might be called reform. The much-vaunted and splendid report by Tom Winsor contains much which has yet to be implemented. We have seen the establishment of a College of Policing, not to be confused with the staff college, and we have seen attempts to change the way in which pay and allowances are negotiated. Overall, however, it is a piecemeal approach. We do not need the approach set out in the Bill. Corruption is well known and can be dealt with, as has already been said, by the existing law. We need to look at ethics: getting the right people in at the top—leadership, professionalism and structure.

When Robert Peel set out in 1829 what he called his “new police”, he realised that the time had come. The time has certainly come today to address the structural, leadership and ethical issues boldly, transparently and incisively, and not to go in with what I might call, with the greatest respect to the Front Bench, a sticking plaster and cheap, repetitious suggestions. This will do nothing to improve the police service. It will do much to damage it.

[Lord Condon (CB)]

My Lords, I declare my interests in policing as a member of the Association of Chief Police Officers, and as a former commissioner and senior police officer. I first congratulate the Government on its resolve to deal with police corruption, past and present. Many wrongs have been righted that were long overdue. However, I share the reservations expressed by the noble Lords, Lord Blair and Lord Dear, on Clause 23, and expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Blair, on Clause 24.

The challenge in dealing with police corruption is not the absence of relevant offences; it has always been the inability to establish credible, usable evidence of such behaviour. A new offence does not mean that the job is done and police corruption is ticked off the list of things to do. The fight against police corruption requires a well resourced and confident Independent Police Complaints Commission; profound ongoing ethical and cultural change in the police service, as suggested by the noble Lord, Lord Dear; and vigilance that is sustained at all times, not just at the point of a particular scandal. All I ask the Minister to acknowledge on Clause 23 is that it is but a small piece of a much larger endeavour, which seeks to sustain and improve ethical policing, and deal with police corruption.

During my time in your Lordships’ House I have heard from all sides, and from the noble Lord, Lord Blair, that symbolic legislation is rarely good legislation. Clause 24, which my name is attached to in questioning, feels like a piece of symbolic, public relations legislation. There is no evidence that judges do not view the murder of police or prison officers with the upmost seriousness and sentence accordingly. I share the same concern articulated by the noble Lord, Lord Blair. The clause means well, and I thank the Government for it, but I am not being patronising in saying I hope they have thought through what could be the extreme implications of it. It may be only rare cases, but I fear that a criminal on the run who has—or believes he has—murdered a police officer has nothing more to fear if whole life sentences are in place. With a warped mind in such circumstances, they might seek to shoot, stab or bludgeon their way out of an arrest scenario—or seek suicide by policeman, as mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Blair.

I do not feel strongly opposed to either of these clauses, but I have reservations relating to Clause 23, for the reasons I have said. I have a nagging fear that Clause 24 could have a perverse effect. All I seek from the Minister at this point is whether there has been sufficient consultation with the police service, as currently organised and led, relating to Clause 24. Can he reassure me that my fears are perhaps old fashioned and outdated?

[Lord Paddick (LD)]

My Lords, I briefly rise to support the noble Lords, Lord Blair and Lord Dear, on Clause 23. I spoke on this issue at Second Reading. I do not want to repeat what the noble Lords have already said very clearly and eloquently, but one of the reasons that was given for this new piece of legislation was that it would include the corrupt activities of police officers while off duty. However, in the Plebgate case, to which the noble Lord, Lord Blair, has already referred, one officer has been successfully prosecuted and jailed for misconduct in a public office. That officer was not on duty at the time of the offence—indeed, he was not even at the scene of the event. Therefore, I should like to hear from the Minister in what way this new legislation adds to the offence that is already successfully used to prosecute police officers for misconduct in a public office.

The noble Lord, Lord Dear, has a distinguished record in tackling police corruption, particularly in relation to the West Midlands serious crime squad. I believe that if the noble Lord is opposing Clause 23 then the Minister should listen very carefully to what he has to say.

I could not put the reasons for opposing Clause 24 any better than the noble Lords, Lord Blair and Lord Condon. The arguments that they have put forward are compelling. If a series of former senior police officers in this House are saying that the provisions of Clause 24 are both unnecessary and dangerous, I respectfully suggest that my noble friend the Minister should listen.

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark]

My Lords, like other noble Lords, I want to speak to both Clauses 23 and 24 to aid your Lordships’ House.

The Opposition cannot support the noble Lords, Lord Blair, Lord Dear, Lord Condon and Lord Paddick, in opposing Clause 23. I have heard very clearly the points that they have made concerning police officers being public servants with special provisions being made for them. They are obviously highly respected individuals and public servants but, with that, they carry great responsibility and great power. Where those officers exercise that power or privilege improperly, there can be tremendous consequences for the individuals concerned. That is the concern that we have on these Benches and it is why we will support the clause as it stands.

Moving on to Clause 24, the murder of a police officer is of course a most serious crime, and it is right that anyone killing a police officer in the course of their duty should receive a substantial jail term. This clause would make that a whole life term. My colleagues in the other place supported the Government, as we do today on the Opposition Front Bench. The noble Lords, Lord Blair, Lord Condon and Lord Dear, have all been senior police officers and have all expressed grave reservations about this provision, saying that it is unnecessary. Like the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, I very much hope that the Minister will meet the noble Lords and other representatives and look at this issue very carefully. The last thing that anyone wants to do is to agree to a Bill that puts more people’s lives at risk. I am very worried about that. We must look carefully at what they have said and talk to them about this issue because it would be madness to do anything else.

These are very difficult issues. Obviously everyone wants to root out corruption at any level. Regarding Clause 23, the consequences for the victims of police corruption are very serious.

[Lord Faulks]

My Lords, this has been an excellent debate, distinguished by the contribution of four very senior and experienced police officers. Also, the helpful contribution of the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, added to the debate. The noble Lord, Lord Paddick, is quite right: the Government should plainly listen to what police officers with such experience and who are so respected in your Lordships’ House have to say.

The noble Lord, Lord Condon, ranged over a number of issues in respect of the police. He stressed that the police were in something of a crisis at the moment but, at the same time, he said, absolutely correctly, that they need to be properly resourced and that there ought to be a competent Independent Police Complaints Commission. So far as that is concerned, the Government have given the IPCC a range of new powers. It has already received £2.4 million to strengthen its capabilities. In addition, from this financial year, we will transfer £18 million from police forces to the IPCC to enable it to do all serious and sensitive cases, including corruption work.

22:30

The Committee will recall my right honourable friend the Home Secretary’s Statement of 6 March on the findings of the Ellison review, which my noble friend Lord Taylor of Holbeach repeated in this House. In that Statement, Mr Ellison’s findings of corruption by Metropolitan Police officers in the investigation of the murder of Stephen Lawrence were set out, as was his finding that evidence was not passed to the Macpherson inquiry that should have been. The Home Secretary characterised these findings as “profoundly shocking” and many of your Lordships agreed with her. In her Statement, my right honourable friend set out a number of responses to the issues identified by Mr Ellison, one of which is the new offence of police corruption set out in Clause 23 and is the subject of the first of our two debates.

At Second Reading, the noble Lord, Lord Blair, said:

“Police corruption is an evil; it is a permanent and corroding threat”.—[Official Report, 30/6/14; col. 1571.]

In today’s debate, he described it as a cancerous evil. There is absolutely no dispute among any noble Lords who have spoken about the evil of corruption. As well as having been a distinguished commissioner of the Metropolitan Police, the noble Lord, Lord Blair, was also a member of Scotland Yard’s Anti-Corruption Command, then known as CIB3. He is therefore extremely well placed to speak on this issue.

It is also common ground that the public have the right to expect that the police will act with honesty and integrity, treating all those with whom they come into contact without fear or favour. Where officers act corruptly, as identified by Mr Ellison in his report, the public expect police officers to be held to account through the criminal justice system. That is why a number of criminal investigations are under way, as was indicated in the debate, to follow up the lines of inquiry identified by Mr Ellison.

My noble friend, Lord Paddick, another distinguished former senior officer of the Metropolitan Police, asked at Second Reading whether this offence was necessary in view of the common law offence of misconduct in a public office. In this debate, the noble Lords, Lord Dear, Lord Blair and Lord Condon, have also called into question the need for the new offence. Of course, the Government have the greatest of respect for the noble Lords’ collective, extensive experience in policing matters, but I regret that they do not agree with their views that this new offence is unnecessary and that the common law offence, of many hundreds of years, of misconduct in public office is sufficient to deal with police corruption.

One of the key issues in recent cases of corrupt behaviour by police officers has surrounded the element of the common law offence which requires that a public officer must be “acting as such” for the offence to apply. However, we have been made aware of other cases where the existing offence has not been applicable, which was why the Government have brought forward this offence. Such conduct includes one former senior officer who attempted to obtain a discount on a new car because of the office he held at the time. Prosecutors have advised us that they have been unable to bring criminal charges in this case and in others because they do not fall within the scope of either the common law offence or any other offences. This Government believe that these cases represent serious breaches of the public’s trust in the police and that they should be punished by the application of the criminal law, potentially resulting in a significant custodial sentence. That is why we have brought forward the new offence set out in Clause 23.

The noble Lord, Lord Dear, referred to the fact that the new offence has a shorter maximum sentence than the common-law offence and questioned whether that is an indication that corruption is treated seriously. Of course, common-law offences, as the noble Lord will know from his studies, like misconduct in public office, have no maximum sentence, so it is always theoretically possible for a court to hand down a sentence of life imprisonment. However, that is something of a historical anomaly and we are not aware of anybody ever having been sentenced to life imprisonment for misconduct. Indeed, if we look at recent sentences, we can see that the average sentence length in 2012 was less than two years—21.2 months to be precise. The new offence sets a clear maximum sentence for the worst cases of corruption of 14 years’ imprisonment so that judges will be able to gauge where in the range of seriousness a particular case sits and pass appropriate sentences. We would expect the average to exceed two years.

We recognise that some of the powers of police officers can also be exercised by a range of other public officers. However, the only officers with the full range of powers and privileges are those sworn to the historic office of constable and those officers of the National Crime Agency who have been designated as having such powers, which is why Clause 23 focuses only on those officers. I appreciate that there have been some concerns that by introducing this new offence it may appear that the Government are singling out police officers over other public officials. I respectfully suggest to the Committee that the law already singles out police officers in a sense, by granting them a wide range of coercive and intrusive powers. The Government consider that, because of their unique position of power, police officers should be held to the highest standards of behaviour.

I accept that there may well be instances where the existing law will be adequate to cover the elements that can also be found in this particular offence. In an ideal world, all offences would be hermetically sealed, one against another. There is quite often, as noble Lords with experience in these things can testify, a choice of a number of offences and a degree of overlap between the two. But we consider that this sentence is appropriate. We should make it absolutely clear that we are not dealing with something that happens every day. Her Majesty’s Inspectorate of Constabulary, where the noble Lord, Lord Dear, served with distinction in the 1990s, has been clear in recent reports that corruption is emphatically not endemic in the police. Equally, I am sure that we have all had cause to be grateful to the men and women of the Metropolitan Police Service who keep us safe here at the Palace of Westminster. Police officers up and down the country work hard to protect their communities and never know what they may face around the next corner—anything from a lost tourist to a dangerous or even armed suspect.

However, in order that police officers can carry out their duties with the trust of the public, it is important that the public have faith in the honesty and integrity of all police officers. Punishing and deterring corruption through this new offence will help to reinforce the public’s trust in the police. I hope that the Committee will agree with the Government’s position that serious misconduct by police officers for personal gain should constitute a criminal offence and that, to bring that about, Clause 23 should stand part of the Bill.

Before putting the matter formally to the Committee, I will also deal with Clause 24, which provides guidance to the courts in determining the appropriate minimum term to be imposed under a mandatory life sentence for murder. The current adult starting point for the murder of a police officer or prison officer in the course of their duty is 30 years. The effect of the clause is to add such a murder to the category of the exceptionally serious cases in which the court should normally start by considering a whole life order for offenders aged 21 and over.

This change would not mean that a whole life order will be imposed in every case. The court will always have the discretion to impose the appropriate sentence based on all the facts of each case. That is the position now where the starting point is 30 years for these cases. The final minimum term may be higher or lower than that when all the circumstances of the individual offence are taken into account by the judge. A starting point of a whole life order will still require the judge to consider all the facts and determine whether the case falls to be considered as exceptionally serious. If not, the court will consider the appropriate minimum term.

During the debate, the noble Lord, Lord Blair, pointed to the possible effect on an individual of a change in the law of this sort. An individual would have to be particularly familiar with the niceties of the criminal law to appreciate perhaps that of course a life sentence was not in fact mandatory but would depend on the facts. Even if a life sentence was passed, as we discussed earlier today, there is provision for the compassionate release provisions contained in Section 30 of the Crime (Sentences) Act 1997 to apply, which were recently considered by the Court of Appeal in the McLoughlin decision. The court said, among other things, that it was entirely consistent with the rule of law that such requests are considered on an individual basis, against the criteria that circumstances have changed so exceptionally as to render the original, justifiable, punishment no longer justifiable.

We would respectfully say that, although these things are really a matter of assertion, this should not result in a worsening of the behaviour by someone potentially facing a very serious charge, since the final term may be higher or lower once all the circumstances are known by the judge. The starting point is that a whole life order will still require the judge to consider all the facts and to determine whether the case falls to be considered as exceptionally serious; if not, the court will consider the appropriate minimum term.

We ask police and prison officers to take on a vital role in keeping us safe by managing difficult and dangerous offenders, which they do every day as part of their routine duties. It is this that sets them apart from others who provide a public service. The Government consider that the unique role that they play should be recognised and that those who murder police and prison officers carrying out their duties should know that they face the severest sentences.

[Lord Blair of Boughton]

My Lords, I am most grateful to the Minister and to the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, for their comments. I am afraid that I still feel we are in the world of assertion, as the Minister said, rather than of argument. He may not be able to do this, but I would be most grateful if he could assist me by providing me with some of the advice that he has received in relation to the corruption offences. The scenario that he just described, of a senior police officer misusing his position but where no prosecutor could find a way to suggest that that was an offence under the bribery or whatever Act, or that it was misconduct in a public office, sounds a little unusual to me.

I am most worried, as I think are other noble Lords who have spoken, about what I shall now refer to as the “perhaps” clause. The Minister very much emphasised the word “perhaps”, saying that an offender in these circumstances would perhaps not be familiar with the law and so on. The fact is that as soon as you mention “whole life tariff” to a criminal, he or she—it is almost certainly a he—knows what a whole life tariff is and that it means that you might as well take five cops out as one cop. It is that simple. I would be grateful to speak to the Minister a little further about this, particularly to answer the question that the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, raised about the level of consultation with senior police officers and the Police Federation at the moment. I am pretty clear that the objections that I have raised are familiar to them: they have been familiar to generations of police officers since the then leaders of the police service objected to there being capital punishment for the murder only of a police officer or a prison officer.

[Lord Faulks]

I would be happy to talk to the noble Lord before Report.

Clause 23 agreed.

Clause 24 agreed.

House resumed.

House adjourned at 10.44 pm.