House of Commons
Prayers
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Oral Answers to Questions
(9 years, 9 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Chi Onwurah (Newcastle upon Tyne Central) (Lab)
1. What recent assessment she has made of the extent of rural mobile coverage.
The Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Elizabeth Truss)
I start by paying tribute to my predecessor, the right hon. Member for North Shropshire (Mr Paterson), who did so much to champion British food and farming, improve the environment and promote rural growth.
Mobile coverage is vital for rural businesses and households, and 99% of premises already receive 2G coverage. Our 3G mobile data coverage is better than that of many other European countries. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport and I will be working hard to eradicate not-spots.
Chi Onwurah
I welcome the right hon. Lady to her new position. I hope she will ensure that the excellent work she was doing to encourage girls and boys into science, technology, engineering and maths subjects will be continued by the new Minister.
The Prime Minister seems recently to have discovered that it can be quite difficult to get decent mobile coverage in Devon—well, bully for him. Is it not the case, however, that this Government’s abandonment of our universal coverage principle, as well as the bungling of the broadband roll-out, represents a betrayal of the rural economy of absolutely epic proportions?
Elizabeth Truss
I thank the hon. Lady for her congratulations. I am still passionate about science and maths, and getting more women into those areas and indeed into agriculture. Getting more high-skilled people to look at agriculture as a career option would provide a fantastic opportunity. We are investing £150 million in the mobile infrastructure project to help address those areas of low mobile coverage at the moment.
Miss Anne McIntosh (Thirsk and Malton) (Con)
I welcome the Secretary of State to her position and very much look forward to her appearing before the Select Committee. From 1 January, all farm payments will have to be digital by default. In Thirsk and Malton, 22% will have no fast-speed coverage, yet that just happens to be where all the farmers are. Will she hold out a hand of friendship to those farmers to ensure that they can access broadband for their farm payments?
Elizabeth Truss
I will be delighted to work with the hon. Lady and the Select Committee; I am very much looking forward to that. We know that 70% of farmers are already processing their payments online. She is absolutely right that some do not have access to online payments at the moment, which is why the Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, my hon. Friend the Member for Camborne and Redruth (George Eustice), who has responsibility for farming, is making centres available that will be able to advise those farmers and help them get online.
Ms Margaret Ritchie (South Down) (SDLP)
I, too, welcome the hon. Lady to her new position and look forward to her appearance before the Select Committee. We know from the report on rural broadband that we carried out last year that the lack of adequate broadband has been identified repeatedly as one of the key barriers to growth in rural economies. In view of the fact that so much money was allocated to England and to the devolved Administrations, what assessment has been carried out of its effectiveness, given that for topographical reasons many rural areas have not yet received their access?
Elizabeth Truss
I agree with the hon. Lady about the vital importance of broadband for rural businesses in this country and for exports, which I am passionate about promoting. We know that the extent of broadband coverage has increased significantly from 45% of premises in 2010 to 75% now. I agree that we need to do more, which is why I am working on that along with my right hon. Friend the Culture Secretary.
Mr Alan Reid (Argyll and Bute) (LD)
I congratulate the Secretary of State on her promotion to the Cabinet. I was pleased when the Government gave £150 million to the mobile infrastructure project, but have been disappointed at the lack of progress in my own constituency so far. Will she please make it one of her early tasks to look at that project and do whatever she can to speed up progress on it, which is vital?
Elizabeth Truss
I thank the hon. Gentleman. Promoting rural growth certainly will be one of my main priorities, and I believe mobile coverage and broadband coverage are both vital to that objective.
Philip Davies (Shipley) (Con)
2. If she will ensure that all halal and kosher meat is labelled at point of sale.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (George Eustice)
We believe that, in the first instance, it is for food retailers and food outlets to provide their customers with reliable information. I know that my hon. Friend is a long-standing campaigner on this issue, but, as I have explained to him before, the introduction of a compulsory labelling scheme for halal and kosher meat would present challenges, because there is no single unified definition. Nevertheless, the European Commission is currently conducting a review, and we will consider its report when it is published later in the year. [Interruption.]
Philip Davies
That is one way of ingratiating oneself with a new Secretary of State, Mr Speaker.
Is the Minister aware that the Jewish and Muslim communities would be happy with full labelling of halal and kosher meat if all other meat products were also fully labelled to show the method of slaughter? I am sure that many consumers would want to see such labelling. Will the Minister proceed with the introduction of comprehensive labelling showing the method of slaughter, including halal and kosher, given that it clearly commands widespread support?
George Eustice
Thank you, Mr Speaker. I shall do my best,
As I have said, the European Commission is considering the issue. It is most likely to consider whether the animal was stunned or unstunned, because there is a clear definition in EU law. I am aware that groups in both halal and shechita say that they are open to exploring that further, and I look forward to having a dialogue with them and considering the European Commission report when it appears in December.
Jim Fitzpatrick (Poplar and Limehouse) (Lab)
I am very pleased to see that the Minister survived the Prime Minister’s cull. The point that he has made is absolutely correct: it is a question of whether the animal has been stunned or not stunned. It is an animal welfare issue. Is it not the case that the majority of halal meat is from animals that were stunned? Surely that is the line that the Government should be pursuing in Brussels: “stunned” and “not stunned” labelling.
George Eustice
I entirely agree. There is a clear legal definition of “stunned” in EU law, namely that stunning renders the animal insensible to pain immediately. In the case of halal, some 90% of poultry and lambs have been stunned, and we should recognise that fact.
Sir Bob Russell (Colchester) (LD)
Consumers are entitled to know exactly what is going on. Does the Minister agree that what we need in all our slaughterhouses is CCTV to give them that further assurance?
George Eustice
We considered the issue of CCTV in slaughterhouses during our consultation on slaughterhouse regulations last year, and concluded that it would not improve the situation much. Indeed, CCTV had already been installed in some of the slaughterhouses in which problems had been exposed by, for instance, Animal Aid, and it had not prevented abuses. However, we keep an open mind.
Mr Philip Hollobone (Kettering) (Con)
My constituents believe that halal and kosher food should be labelled as such, but if there are already clear EU legal definitions of “stunned” and “not stunned”, what is there to prevent the UK Government from pressing ahead with labelling food in that way?
George Eustice
Having looked into the matter exhaustively, we concluded that if we introduced “method of slaughter” labelling, it would be best to introduce it at European level, because that would be safer and clearer legally. Spain considered introducing a national labelling scheme in 2012, but the Commission ruled against it.
Neil Carmichael (Stroud) (Con)
3. What assessment she has made of the effectiveness of flood defences in Gloucestershire.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Dan Rogerson)
The Environment Agency maintains a strategic overview of flood and coastal erosion risk management. According to its assessment, publicly maintained flood defences in Gloucestershire protected more than 2,500 homes, as well as businesses and agricultural land, from flooding over the winter. A condition assessment following the events of the winter showed that less than 1% of the flood defences in Gloucestershire were damaged by the floods.
Neil Carmichael
What resources will be available in the future so that my constituents, especially those who live along the vale, can be reassured that they will not get wet when flooding really threatens them?
Dan Rogerson
I understand my hon. Friend’s concerns on behalf of his constituents. However, as part of the £270 million we have allocated to repair and maintain critical defences, £4 million has been allocated to Gloucestershire—£1 million to carry out maintenance and £3 million to repair flood risk management assets damaged in the storms, to ensure they are returned to and maintained at target condition for the winter.
Heather Wheeler (South Derbyshire) (Con)
4. What the value to the UK economy of food and drink exports was in 2013.
The Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Elizabeth Truss)
Food and farming is the largest manufacturing sector in the UK. We have fantastic products, and sales are a real success story. Exports of food and drink have increased by £1.2 billion since 2010, to a value of £18.9 billion. Since 2010, we have negotiated 564 market access agreements with 109 countries, including those on pork to China and beef to the USA.
Heather Wheeler
May I start by joining in the congratulations to my right hon. Friend on her new role and welcome her to the Department? Will she join me in celebrating the £210 million investment in the Nestlé factory in Hatton in my constituency, where the production of Dolce Gusto coffee will be centred? Will she congratulate Fiona Kendrick, the chief executive officer of Nestlé, on record exports last year from this south Derbyshire factory?
Elizabeth Truss
I congratulate my hon. Friend on her promotion of food and farming in her constituency and the massive success in securing this investment. It is fantastic to know that coffee produced in Hatton will be enjoyed from Houston to Hannover as a result of this new investment, and I wish this every success.
Dr Alan Whitehead (Southampton, Test) (Lab)
18. Is the Secretary of State concerned about the export of food and drink packaging used in this country? Is she looking at measures to introduce things such as packaging recovery note offsets to ensure that such packaging is recycled in the UK rather than exported?
Elizabeth Truss
The hon. Gentleman makes an interesting point, and that is certainly something I will be looking at and discussing with my junior Ministers.
Roger Williams (Brecon and Radnorshire) (LD)
In 2012 the Agri-food and Drink Export Forum said that it would report on the progress it was making. The organisation is doing good work, so will the Secretary of State tell us what progress has been made and when we will get the result in report form?
Elizabeth Truss
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his question. I understand that the Under-Secretary, my hon. Friend the Member for Camborne and Redruth (George Eustice), who has responsibility for farming, has already had a meeting with the organisation. Like my predecessor, I am passionate about increasing our food exports, as that is very important, and I look forward to working on it.
Mark Lazarowicz (Edinburgh North and Leith) (Lab/Co-op)
Leading voices in the food and drink sector in Scotland have recently made it clear that they see that it is in their interests, as exporters, that Scotland should remain in the United Kingdom and the UK should remain in the EU. The Secretary of State and I probably agree on the first point, but does she agree that it is in the interests of the food and drink sector in the UK that we should remain in the EU and not withdraw from it?
Elizabeth Truss
I agree with the hon. Gentleman’s point about the UK: we are better together and we speak better as a single voice. That is very important. What I would say about the EU is that I have every faith that the Prime Minister is going to secure a fantastic renegotiation so that we have the benefits of trade, but with a reduction in bureaucracy and red tape.
Andrew Jones (Harrogate and Knaresborough) (Con)
There are 400,000 people in the UK directly employed in the food and drink sector, which is the one I was working in before I came here. We still import a higher proportion of our food and drink than any other country in the G20, so may I urge the Secretary of State to continue all the focus on redressing that balance and on exports?
Elizabeth Truss
I completely agree with my hon. Friend about that, which is why we are focusing on opening up more markets to British food—the US market is being opened to beef, which is a fantastic opportunity. But we also need to be encouraging more of our young people to look at food, farming and agriculture as a career, because fantastic skilled jobs are available and we need to make the idea of working in food and farming much more mainstream.
Huw Irranca-Davies (Ogmore) (Lab)
I welcome the Secretary of State to her post and wish her well. She will know that food fraud and authenticity issues and crises, such as the horsemeat scandal, which was presided over by her predecessors, can quickly destroy the value of UK food exports and the confidence of UK consumers in our food industries. Why, then, has the final report of the Elliott review of the horsemeat scandal, promised in the spring, not been published? Will she undertake to publish it before we go into recess?
Elizabeth Truss
We have received the Elliott report and we are looking at it at the moment; it is something that I am absolutely working on. We have made a priority of biosecurity and of ensuring that our food is safe, and we are working hard on that area.
Mr Marcus Jones (Nuneaton) (Con)
5. What steps she is taking to reduce the threat of disease to the UK's plants and trees.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Dan Rogerson)
On 30 April, we published a plant biosecurity strategy, which addresses the recommendations of the Tree Health and Plant Expert Biosecurity Taskforce and sets out a new approach to plant and tree health. We have also produced a prioritised plant health risk register, the first of its kind globally; published a new tree health management plan; undertaken work on contingency planning; continued to commission high quality research; and recruited a senior chief plant health officer.
Dan Rogerson
My hon. Friend is absolutely right to raise this. We have produced a prioritised plant health risk register to identify risk and to agree priorities for action. We have also produced new contingency plans for plant diseases and we will be testing them in an exercise later this year. The measures in the new tree health management plan set out clearly the approaches that we are taking, for example against chalara, phytophthora ramorum and oak processionary moth. As soon as we were aware of a threat to plane trees, we moved quickly to impose an import restriction on them.
Mr Barry Sheerman (Huddersfield) (Lab/Co-op)
May I, through the junior Minister, congratulate the new Secretary of State? I have enjoyed sparring with her in education debates. Sometimes, I have agreed with her, but I have never tried to sit on her. May I send a message on trees and plants? I know that evidence-based policy is what she believes in, so when we are dealing with disease in trees and plants, let us use the evidence and the scientific advice. Can we also do that with badgers?
Dan Rogerson
The Department believes in heeding scientific advice and taking action on it, especially with regard to the issues that are under discussion. The newly appointed senior chief plant health officer, who offers us such advice, is doing incredibly valuable work.
Richard Benyon (Newbury) (Con)
When we see the diseases that are here and that are coming down the track, it is easy to get into a state of despair about how our countryside will look in 10 or 20 years’ time. Will the Minister assure us that we have learned all the lessons from past diseases; that the approach to phytophthora ramorum of destroying millions of larch trees has worked; and that the new chief plant health officer will be able to tackle many of these emerging problems?
Dan Rogerson
My hon. Friend and predecessor is absolutely right to focus on this. As I have said, we have made it a priority in the Department and we have learned the lessons. Any Minister or Department that sat back and claimed they had learned everything would not be telling the truth. We must continually learn from what is out there, and work with colleagues across the world to look for new threats. What we are doing with these contingency exercises is not just to plan for what happens but to walk through it and to ensure that we are aware of the new threats that could arrive in this country.
Julie Hilling (Bolton West) (Lab)
The recent threat of ash dieback and indeed the horsemeat scandal show that the Food and Environment Research Agency plays a vital role in detecting and responding to threats to our natural environment and the food chain. Does the Secretary of State intend to continue with the privatisation of the research agency?
Dan Rogerson
Because FERA has done such excellent work, we are keen to expand its remit so that it works with partners in the private sector to make sure that all that expertise is used to its full effect in this country and to advise other jurisdictions abroad.
Bill Esterson (Sefton Central) (Lab)
6. What steps the Government have taken to respond to recent flooding; and if she will make a statement.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Dan Rogerson)
The Government committed around £560 million to support those affected by the recent flooding. This includes an extra £270 million, to which I have referred in a previous question, to repair and maintain critical flood defences. We are helping households and businesses through the repair and renew grant, council tax and rates relief. Farmers and fishermen are receiving funding for repairs through existing schemes. We are supporting businesses through a £10 million hardship fund.
Bill Esterson
In my constituency, surface water flooding is a big problem. Will the Minister tell us what he is doing to ensure that councils, the Environment Agency and the water companies work together to protect communities such as those in my constituency, especially as councils and the Environment Agency have faced very significant cuts in their budgets?
Dan Rogerson
I know the hon. Gentleman recently raised the flooding in Maghull with the Environment Agency. Watercourses and rivers are the responsibility of the agency, but surface flooding, as he said, is the responsibility of the lead local flood authority. I have been talking to the Local Government Association about chasing all councils to ensure that their plans are in place, so that we can be as reassured about surface flooding as we are about other forms of flooding and that all the procedures are in place.
Caroline Nokes (Romsey and Southampton North) (Con)
On one of the hottest days of the year, flooding may seem a dim and distant memory, but the effects are ongoing in Romsey. Not a single Government Minister has yet been to my constituency to see what needs to be done. Will my hon. Friend care to visit Romsey to see for himself the work that desperately needs to be undertaken to safeguard the town from future flooding events?
Dan Rogerson
Ministers have undertaken a great number of visits across the country and I would be happy to join my hon. Friend in a visit to her constituency. She is right to point out that we are experiencing some hot weather, which brings its own challenges, but we also have the threat of storms over the weekend, so we are keeping a close eye on what might result from them.
Hugh Bayley (York Central) (Lab)
I thank the previous Secretary of State who, in his last few days in office, confirmed to me in writing that the Department will in future publish statistics on flood protection expenditure as official statistics. Will the Minister inform the House when that change will take place and whether, crucially, it will be before the next election, so that we can have clear figures?
Dan Rogerson
I am delighted that my right hon. Friend the Member for North Shropshire (Mr Paterson) was able to write to the hon. Gentleman to reassure him about that approach and I am pleased with the welcome that the hon. Gentleman has given it. We have debated the matter on many occasions. We will now discuss how that change will come in and will introduce it as soon as we possibly can.
Mr David Heath (Somerton and Frome) (LD)
Will the Minister arrange for the Secretary of State to maintain the closest possible contact with Somerset colleagues about Somerset? In particular, can we have an early meeting to discuss the two outstanding issues: the sluice on the Parrett and the Somerset rivers authority?
Dan Rogerson
As my hon. Friend knows, both the previous Secretary of State and I took a close interest in what happened in Somerset and made several visits there. I know that the new Secretary of State will also want to do that. I am sure that she will meet him soon, as will I.
Angela Smith (Penistone and Stocksbridge) (Lab)
The Government’s response to the winter floods was slow and chaotic. Four months on, parliamentary answers from the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs show that, of the £10 million pledged by the Prime Minister to Somerset farmers, only £403,000 has been paid out, and only £2,320 has been paid out to one fisherman in the south-west. The Prime Minister has gone from “money is no object” to “out of sight, out of mind.” What will the Department do to ensure that people get the help they were promised?
Dan Rogerson
I first want to correct the hon. Lady’s misapprehension. The money is not only for farmers in Somerset; it is for farmers across the country. We have received applications from the north and the east, and from other counties in the south-west. Those applications are being approved. Applicants will be paid once the work is carried out, so unless she wants to interfere in those farming businesses and tell them that they must carry the work out in the next week, we will have to wait until the work is actually carried out before we can pay them.
David T. C. Davies (Monmouth) (Con)
7. What assessment she has made of the economic and environmental value of shooting sports.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (George Eustice)
The Government recognise the important contribution that shooting sports make to rural life, the economy and the environment. Although there are no Government assessments or official statistics, I am aware of a recent industry-funded study, which estimated that shooting is worth £2 billion to the UK economy and supports around 74,000 full-time jobs. It also assessed that the industry spends nearly £250 million a year on conservation.
David T. C. Davies
I congratulate the Secretary of State on her new appointment. I appreciate that she and the Minister are busy at the moment, but may I draw their attention to the report by the Sport and Recreation Alliance, which outlines the enormous economic benefits to rural areas that shooting brings? Will the Government continue to support this excellent form of recreation?
George Eustice
As I said, we recognise the value of shooting sports. Indeed, I referred precisely to the report that the hon. Gentleman mentioned. Shooting sports have an important role to play in rural communities and contribute to our economy.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I thank the Minister for that response. Almost 1 million people participate in shooting sports in the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. The recreation is worth £2.5 billion through spending on goods and services. What discussions has the Minister had with the British Association for Shooting and Conservation and the Countryside Alliance about how to complement the good work that they do in the countryside?
George Eustice
Tomorrow, I will be attending the CLA game fair and, among others, I will meet the British Association of Shooting and Conservation and the Angling Trust. I look forward to discussing some of the issues on their agenda.
Stephen Metcalfe (South Basildon and East Thurrock) (Con)
8. What recent reports she has received of progress made by other countries on bovine TB by tackling the disease in both cattle and wildlife.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (George Eustice)
The Government are aware of the success in countries such as Australia, New Zealand, the United States and the Republic of Ireland in tackling the scourge of TB. For instance, in New Zealand the number of infected herds has reduced from 1,700 20 years ago to just 66 in 2011-12, whereas in the Republic of Ireland the number of BTB reactors fell by 65% between 1999 and 2013. All those countries have pursued a strategy of tackling the reservoir of the disease in the wildlife population as well as other measures.
Stephen Metcalfe
As we seek to tackle this dreadful disease, is not one of the main lessons from the countries the Minister listed that while we must be prepared to use every tool available to us, we must also continue to develop new tools that might as yet seem out of reach?
George Eustice
I completely agree with my hon. Friend. The 25-year strategy to eradicate TB, which was published earlier this year, emphasised the fact that no one measure will tackle the problem. We need to pursue a range of measures, and that is why we are constantly improving our cattle movement controls and why we are spending £4 million a year investing in research into vaccines. It is also why we are continuing to develop effective cull methods.
Sheila Gilmore (Edinburgh East) (Lab)
17. The new Secretary of State is not answering this question personally, but perhaps she might do so later. The science clearly criticises the Government’s culling policy and this House has voted twice to end it. When will the Government change their mind? Do we not now have an opportunity, with the new broom, to do so?
George Eustice
I disagree with the hon. Lady. The evidence is very clear that no country has ever eradicated TB without also tackling the reservoir of the disease in the wildlife population. The randomised badger culling trial showed very clearly that in the four years after it concluded there was a significant reduction in the incidence of TB. I meet farmers, some of whom have closed herds but have repeated breakdowns and some of whom have been under restriction for 12 years, and although they are not bringing cattle on or off their farm, they have a reservoir of the disease in the wildlife population.
Mr Robert Walter (North Dorset) (Con)
The Minister will be aware of the disappointment and anger among the farming community in Dorset that the badger cull was not extended to Dorset this year despite the support of both the former Secretary of State and the Prime Minister. Will the Minister reassure the farming community in Dorset that DEFRA is on-stream to roll out effective control of bovine TB in Dorset next year?
George Eustice
As the former Secretary of State made clear in his statement, we listened to the recommendations of the independent expert panel. It made recommendations to improve the methodology of the cull and we are going to implement them this year. Our view is that we should improve and get the methodology of the cull right in the two existing pilots before we roll out new ones. Clearly, we will reassess the situation once this year’s culls have concluded.
David Rutley (Macclesfield) (Con)
9. What progress she is making in reducing the burden of regulation on farmers.
The Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Elizabeth Truss)
We are making good progress in reducing regulation. We are putting in place earned recognition, which sees high-quality farmers benefiting from fewer inspections and less red tape, and now 14 out of 31 inspection regimes allow earned recognition. The Food Standards Agency has reduced dairy inspections by more than 8,000 a year and the Environment Agency’s pigs and poultry scheme is saving members £880 a year.
David Rutley
I, too, congratulate my right hon. Friend on her well-deserved promotion. She will be a champion for rural communities in Norfolk, in Cheshire and across the country. It is vital that we go further to reduce the regulatory burden on farmers so that they can go on doing what they do best. With that in mind, will she tell the House what specific progress we are making under the red tape challenge?
Elizabeth Truss
I thank my hon. Friend for his congratulations and look forward to working with him on this issue, as I know that he is passionate about getting rid of the red tape that hampers farmers in doing what they do best. We intend to improve or remove 56% of the 516 regulations examined by the agriculture red tape challenge. As Secretary of State I want to continue to work to get rid of red tape and box-ticking, focusing instead on the outcomes we deliver in economic growth and environmental improvements. It is the outcomes that matter, not jumping through hoops.
Mr William Bain (Glasgow North East) (Lab)
10. How much her Department has spent on adaptation to climate change; and if she will make a statement.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Dan Rogerson)
DEFRA spent £8.3 million in 2013-14 under its core adapting to climate change programme. This included £4.1 million to the Met Office Hadley centre for the provision of world-leading climate science, and £1.6 million to the Environment Agency’s climate ready support service to help organisations across England adapt to a changing climate. Adaptation is mainstreamed across Government. Other Departments and other DEFRA programmes also fund activities that build resilience to climate change.
Mr Bain
But with the previous Secretary of State having raided the adaptation budget by 40% in the space of just one year, it is actions, not words, that count. Will the Minister take this opportunity to depart from the sceptical views of his former boss, recognise that climate change is a serious threat to our national security and reinstate flood prevention as a key departmental priority?
Dan Rogerson
The hon. Gentleman is right to point out that actions speak louder than words, which is why this Government are spending £3.2 billion on flood prevention and coastal erosion risk management, compared with £2.7 billion in the previous Parliament.
Sammy Wilson (East Antrim) (DUP)
Over the current spending period it is anticipated that £10.7 billion will be spent on subsidies to low-carbon electricity generation, while only £2.2 billion will be spent on flood defences. Does the Minister agree that adaptation measures designed to protect people’s homes would be a much more effective investment than spending money on unilateral mitigation measures which cost jobs, put up electricity prices and give no defence to people in the short run?
Dan Rogerson
I disagree with the hon. Gentleman that it is an either/or situation. Of course we need to invest in adaptation, which is what we are doing, as I set out in relation to flood prevention, but we also need to take action on mitigation, and I am proud of this Government’s progress on our commitments on carbon.
Barbara Keeley (Worsley and Eccles South) (Lab)
T1. If she will make a statement on her departmental responsibilities.
The Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Elizabeth Truss)
I am delighted to have been appointed to this important role and to have such an early opportunity to answer questions. In the 48 hours since my appointment, I have not quite been able to speak to everyone or look at every issue, but I know from my work in Norfolk how vital this Department is. Food and farming and improving our natural environment are central not only to our rural communities, but to everyone in the country, and I want them to be a mainstream concern that everyone is part of. I believe that we can both grow our economy and improve our environment, and I look forward to working with my colleagues to do that.
Barbara Keeley
The M60, the M62 and the M602 run through my constituency, so it is definitely not very rural. We have extremely high levels of air pollution from road traffic. Indeed, the Highways Agency has had to shelve its plans to widen the M60 near my constituency because that would have brought too much road traffic and made our unacceptable air pollution worse. Now that the European Court of Justice has ruled that the Government are failing to meet their air pollution targets, does the Secretary of State know, after 48 hours, what plans Ministers have to tackle air pollution in areas such as mine, to prevent my constituents from suffering respiratory disease and early death?
Elizabeth Truss
Let us be clear. Air quality is very important, as is protecting and enhancing the environment. This is a huge challenge for lots of countries, and it is something I am working on with colleagues to address. We have invested more than £2 billion in measures since 2011 to reduce emissions from transport sources.
Charlotte Leslie (Bristol North West) (Con)
T3. My constituents in Avonmouth suffered an unacceptable infestation of flies earlier this summer. The response from all parties involved, particularly the Environment Agency, was slow: it looked at the source of the problem, which was slow, not at the effect on my constituents, who suffered unacceptably. What will we do to ensure that there are plans in place for such emergencies and that agencies such as the Environment Agency respond quickly to residents’ concerns?
Elizabeth Truss
I understand that we await the final judgment from the Court of Appeal on this issue. I would be happy to meet my hon. Friend to discuss how we can ensure that the Environment Agency takes swift and effective action when such concerns are raised.
Maria Eagle (Garston and Halewood) (Lab)
I congratulate the Secretary of State on her promotion and welcome her to her new job. However, I am appalled to hear the Under-Secretary of State, the hon. Member for Camborne and Redruth (George Eustice), confirm that she is going to continue with the discredited, unscientific, inhumane and ineffective badger cull. Is she aware that Professor David Macdonald, the chief scientific adviser to Natural England, which will have to license the culls, has described them as an “epic failure”, adding:
“It is hard to see how continuing this approach could be justified”?
Will she at least undertake to ask the independent expert panel which reported on the safety, humaneness and effectiveness of year 1 of the cull to report on year 2?
Elizabeth Truss
I thank the hon. Lady for her congratulations. Let us be absolutely clear: the reality is that bovine TB represents a massive threat to our dairy and beef industries. We are looking at the potential loss of over £1 billion of economic growth in our country. We need to look at the best scientific evidence. I have already spoken with the Department’s scientific adviser about this precise subject. We are progressing with our programme, as my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State outlined.
Maria Eagle
That was a disappointing reply. I am afraid that the Secretary of State has just flunked her first test and missed a golden opportunity to put scientific evidence back where it ought to be in DEFRA—at the very centre of decision making. I would be grateful if she answered this question: will she now give an undertaking to ask the IEP to report on year 2 of the culls, as it did on year 1—yes or no?
Elizabeth Truss
Let us be absolutely clear: we are asking Natural England, which is a proper expert body, to assess how the culls are going and look at what we can do in future. We must use every tool in our toolbox to address this threat to our beef and dairy industries.
Roger Williams (Brecon and Radnorshire) (LD)
T4. I draw hon. Members’ attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. I welcome the Secretary of State to her place. She has already demonstrated her commitment to UK food, but does she agree that large supermarkets, such as Tesco, should be encouraged to stock in-season products, such as British lamb, rather than discount New Zealand lamb, during our peak production period?
Elizabeth Truss
I completely agree that British beef and lamb are fantastic products, as is British pork—as an East Anglian MP, I obviously do a lot to promote British pork. I understand that Tesco has entered into a two-year contract with 200 British lamb farmers to help supply British lamb, but I think that we can do more to encourage not only supermarkets to offer local, seasonal food, but people to consume it. That will help our environment and our economy.
Nia Griffith (Llanelli) (Lab)
T2. The Burry inlet in my constituency is once again experiencing mass cockle mortality. Last Thursday, in response to action taken by some of the cockle pickers in my constituency several years ago, the European Commission issued a reasoned opinion in which it named nine agglomerations that are failing to meet the waste water directive, including excessive spills from Gowerton and Llanelli into the Burry inlet, where there are sensitive waters. Although the Welsh Government will clearly be involved, it is the UK Government who are answerable to the European Commission. Will the Minister meet me to discuss this serious issue?
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Dan Rogerson)
I will not seek to unpick the devolution settlement because, as the hon. Lady quite rightly says, this is a devolved matter. The Welsh Government and Natural Resources Wales will be playing a key role in enforcement and in looking for a way forward, as will Welsh Water, but if she would like to write to me with further details, I will be happy to look into her concerns.
Duncan Hames (Chippenham) (LD)
T9. I welcome the Department’s commitment to safeguarding our bee population. Now that the pollinator strategy consultation has closed, when will the Government respond and address public concerns about the effect of pesticide use?
Dan Rogerson
My hon. Friend is absolutely right that this is crucial for the future. We will finalise the strategy when we have received and considered the recommendations from the Environmental Audit Committee’s inquiry into the draft strategy, which was launched in May and is due to report at the end of July.
Mr Barry Sheerman (Huddersfield) (Lab/Co-op)
T5. Does the Secretary of State share my concern that so few young people in our country ever visit the countryside? If she does, will she join my campaign, as many Members across the House have done, to raise £1 million—£5,000 from 200 constituencies would do it—so that more young people from underprivileged schools can visit the countryside?
Elizabeth Truss
I will look into the hon. Gentleman’s campaign. In my previous role as an Education Minister, we introduced the subject of food into the curriculum, both where it comes from and practical cooking, as well as bringing horticulture and agriculture into the design and technology curriculum, precisely to help more children and young people understand where our food comes from and to build the skills they need to work in the food and agriculture industries.
Sheryll Murray (South East Cornwall) (Con)
Small-boat fishermen in South East Cornwall and throughout Cornwall are concerned that a discard ban, along with their tiny share of the UK quota from the EU total allowable catch, will affect their economic viability. Does the Minister agree that repatriation of UK waters should have preceded a discard ban? Will he take forward a request to include repatriation of UK waters in future negotiations?
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (George Eustice)
On the small fleets, I point out to my hon. Friend that we have reallocated some of the unused quota from producer organisations to the under-10 metre fleet. My predecessor, my hon. Friend the Member for Newbury (Richard Benyon), made considerable progress in reforming the common fisheries policy. We now have far greater regional control, with member states multilaterally deciding the management plans, and flexibility on quotas and a legally binding commitment to sustainability.
Bill Esterson (Sefton Central) (Lab)
T6. May I press the Secretary of State to talk to her colleague, the Health Secretary, about how GP services in rural areas are under threat? That is a particular concern in my constituency. I urge her to push this point because they are facing a big threat—bigger than that faced by those in many other areas.
Elizabeth Truss
I will certainly be working with the Health Secretary, along with colleagues in other Government Departments, to make sure that we enhance and protect rural services.
Mr David Nuttall (Bury North) (Con)
I congratulate my right hon. Friend on her appointment as Secretary of State, but is she not just a little disappointed to discover that 90% of her new job is simply to carry out instructions from Brussels?
Elizabeth Truss
I completely agree with my hon. Friend that a lot of red tape is being passed down to us from Brussels. That is why I am determined to negotiate strongly at a European level as well as making sure that agriculture is part of our overall discussions on the EU.
Graham Jones (Hyndburn) (Lab)
T7. My constituents and people around the United Kingdom are facing a cost of living crisis. This Government are not doing enough on water affordability. With fewer than 25,000 people eligible to benefit from social tariffs offered by just three water companies, does the Minister believe that the Government’s voluntary approach is insufficient in helping those struggling to pay their water bills?
Dan Rogerson
When the hon. Gentleman says “voluntary approach”, I assume that he is referring to water companies’ implementation of social tariffs. More companies are taking up the option of bringing in a social tariff, having consulted their customers about whether it is right for their area. The biggest thing we can do for people with regard to water bills is to keep the cost down. We have been clear on this matter in our messages to Ofwat. It has taken action and the companies have responded.
Sir Alan Beith (Berwick-upon-Tweed) (LD)
Was the Department’s press office correct in giving the impression last Friday that at least 20 staff will be retained at Alnwick after Steria’s Shared Services organisation moves its operations from there next June?
Dan Rogerson
My right hon. Friend is understandably taking a close interest in the future of what has been a very efficient office. As he knows, Shared Services, with Steria, has bid for contracts on which it was unsuccessful. However, other DEFRA teams at that location will continue to work there in situ.
Lisa Nandy (Wigan) (Lab)
T8. Earlier in this Parliament, the Secretary of State supported selling off the public forest estate. Does she still?
Elizabeth Truss
We are not going to sell any of the public forest estate. I speak as an MP who has in my constituency one of the largest lowland forests, Thetford forest, which is a fantastic resource for people and nature.
Hugh Bayley (York Central) (Lab)
1. What support the Church of England is giving to food banks.
The Second Church Estates Commissioner (Sir Tony Baldry)
Four in five of the Church of England’s 13,000 parish churches are supporting local food banks.
Hugh Bayley
Three weeks ago, the Living Wage Commission chaired by the Archbishop of York recommended that the voluntary adoption of the living wage by employers could do much to reduce poverty and dependence on food banks. What advice and encouragement is the Church giving to parishes to become advocates and champions in their communities in order to persuade employers to adopt the living wage?
Sir Tony Baldry
I can assure the hon. Gentleman that the Church of England is committed to paying all our staff the living wage. I hope that that will be an excellent example for employers voluntarily to follow where the Church of England is leading.
We understand the broader concerns about food banks. That is why, together with support from the Church Urban Fund and a number of diocesan bishops, I have been, and I am, organising meetings across the country with the Minister for the Cabinet Office to consider the reasons causing people to use food banks and how, collectively, we can move on from them.
Tessa Munt (Wells) (LD)
The Church Commissioners have significant land holdings in and around the village of Westbury-sub-Mendip, and only the Church Commissioners can ensure that the villagers have space to replace their 19th-century school, hall and shop. For some years the parish council and other village organisations have tried, unsuccessfully, to meet the Church Commissioners about their social responsibilities in the village. Could the right hon. Gentleman ensure that those discussions now take place as a matter of urgency, because there are pending planning applications on the Church Commissioners’ land?
Sir Tony Baldry
That is a gloriously ingenious question, but I am not sure whether it entirely follows on from food banks. The Church Commissioners, like any other charity, have a duty to their beneficiaries, who are largely clergy pensioners, in how we manage our investments. We will of course communicate and liaise directly with those who are democratically elected—in my hon. Friend’s case, the local authority—about the appropriate way in which any landholdings we have might be used in the context of the local plan.
Michael Fabricant (Lichfield) (Con)
2. What steps the Electoral Commission is taking to improve registration of UK voters resident in Europe, North America, Israel, the far east and Australasia; and if he will make a statement.
Mr Gary Streeter (South West Devon)
The commission runs awareness campaigns to encourage expatriates to register in advance of all elections in which they may vote. These are predominantly online campaigns aimed at countries with the highest number of British expats. Thanks to the introduction of individual electoral registration, overseas electors can now register online and no longer require another British passport holder to countersign the registration form. That change, supported by the commission, should make it easier for overseas voters to register.
Michael Fabricant
I am very grateful for that answer. Online registration is good news for Brits overseas. My hon. Friend will know that there are some 1.4 million Brits in Australasia and the United States, and 43,000 in Israel. How is he going to advertise the fact that online registration is available to them?
Mr Streeter
The Electoral Commission will continue to get the message across with targeted press releases to English-language papers and radio stations in the countries where there are large numbers of expats, but its predominant means of seeking to do so is through online campaigning and advertising on websites most likely to be read by expats. Of course, all of us who use social media—my hon. Friend is very skilled at using it—can get this simple message across: “You can now register online!”
Mr Speaker
The hon. Gentleman should always be careful not to put divisible propositions to the House. I will leave it there.
Andrew Gwynne (Denton and Reddish) (Lab)
It is important to allow British citizens living abroad to register to vote, but it is also important that they are able to cast that vote and that it can be counted in good time. What discussions is the hon. Gentleman having with the Electoral Commission to improve the ability of people living abroad to have their vote counted?
Mr Streeter
That is a very good point. This is about not just registration but getting the paperwork to the expat so that they can fill it in as a postal vote and send it back in time. The period for so doing has been extended under recent legislation, and that should make a real difference at the next general election.
Miss Anne McIntosh (Thirsk and Malton) (Con)
3. What funds were allocated to church repairs from the Heritage Lottery Fund in each of the past three years.
The Second Church Estates Commissioner (Sir Tony Baldry)
Over the past three years, the Heritage Lottery Fund has awarded just under £75 million to 623 projects to repair listed places of worship in England through the grants for places of worship programme and its predecessor, the repairs grants for places of worship programme, which is operated in partnership with English Heritage.
Miss McIntosh
I am grateful for that reply. It is, indeed, a large sum of money. Will my right hon. Friend use his good offices to persuade the Chancellor of the Exchequer to review the level at which VAT is set on church repairs and make a plea to reduce it to 5%, which would be perfectly legal?
Sir Tony Baldry
I remind my hon. Friend that the Chancellor of the Exchequer has been incredibly generous towards the Church. In May 2012, he and the Government agreed to give £30 million extra a year to the Church so that the listed places of worship grant scheme could enable the equivalent to the VAT bill to be paid on all alterations and repairs to listed buildings. No church should be deterred from undertaking essential repairs and restoration due to fears about the cost of VAT, because they are now covered. The Chancellor made it very clear that he was moving to ease the impact on the churches, in recognition of the massive contribution made by congregations up and down the land to the life of their communities.
Mr Barry Sheerman (Huddersfield) (Lab/Co-op)
The right hon. Gentleman will know that no one begrudges lottery money flowing to protect our great churches, but is he aware that the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills yesterday heartily endorsed crowdfunding as a way for communities to raise money to do good things? Could we interest the Archbishop of Canterbury in crowdfunding so that we can take the pressure off the lottery and use more of its money for other things?
Sir Tony Baldry
I have to tell the hon. Gentleman that the Church of England invented crowdfunding long before anyone else thought of it.
Neil Parish (Tiverton and Honiton) (Con)
4. What progress has been made on introducing individual electoral registration in the last six months.
Mr Gary Streeter (South West Devon)
The transition to individual electoral registration in England and Wales started on 10 June, and it will begin in Scotland on 19 September. Online electoral registration is now available in England and Wales, and electoral registration officers have begun writing to electors to tell them whether they need to provide any more information to register under the new system. To support the work of EROs and to help to raise awareness of the transition, the Electoral Commission launched a mass media advertising campaign in early July, which will run until 10 August.
Neil Parish
I very much welcome my hon. Friend’s answer. Is not the key to registration to be able to do it as close as possible to elections, but to make sure that it is absolutely secure, so that we know that people who want to vote are genuine voters?
Mr Streeter
As usual, my hon. Friend is quite right. Anyone seeking to register online must provide not only their name and address, of course, but their national insurance number. I hope that that will help young people in particular to register, as long as they can ask their parents for their national insurance number.
Sarah Newton (Truro and Falmouth) (Con)
5. Whether any grants have been made from the first world war centenary cathedral repairs fund.
The Second Church Estates Commissioner (Sir Tony Baldry)
Some £4.77 million has been allocated so far from the £20 million Government repair fund for cathedrals. So far, 22 cathedrals have benefited—18 Anglican and four Catholic.
Sarah Newton
I very much appreciate the grant made to Truro cathedral, and the fund’s recognition of the really important role that cathedrals such as Truro play in local civic and national life. Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is important to have an ongoing grant-making process to support the vital work of Truro cathedral and, indeed, of cathedrals all over the UK?
Sir Tony Baldry
I agree with my hon. Friend. It is very good news that Truro has received money to repair the cathedral turrets, which were damaged during recent storms. I think we all agree that cathedrals, apart from being very important centres of religious worship, are centres for regeneration, civic pride and tourism potential. The maintenance and repair of our cathedrals is of course a national imperative.
Fiona Bruce (Congleton) (Con)
6. What steps the Church is taking to tackle human trafficking.
Sir Tony Baldry
The Church of England has been at the forefront of the parliamentary campaign to abolish slavery, and wants to ensure that everything possible can be done to banish slavery from the world.
Fiona Bruce
Archbishop Welby is garnering increasing respect and admiration in many ways, not least for his international travels to meet and strengthen relationships across the Anglican family worldwide. What is the Church of England doing internationally to develop a more co-ordinated Anglican response to the appalling global phenomenon of human trafficking?
Sir Tony Baldry
My hon. Friend raises a very important issue. Of course, the Church of England was at the forefront of the original campaign, with Wilberforce, to abolish slavery in this country, and we are determined to do everything we can to abolish slavery around the world. The Church of England, together with the Roman Catholic Church and other faiths groups in this country, works through the Global Freedom Network, and in our work around the world, we are determined to do everything we can to eradicate modern-day slavery and human trafficking by 2020.
Mr Philip Hollobone (Kettering) (Con)
7. Which groups of voters the Electoral Commission assesses as being least likely to register to vote following the introduction of individual electoral registration.
Mr Gary Streeter (South West Devon)
The commission’s research shows that the key groups who were less likely to be registered to vote under the previous household registration system were younger people, private renters, home movers and people from certain black and minority ethnic communities. Following the introduction of individual electoral registration, the public awareness campaign will focus particularly on those groups. The Electoral Commission will closely monitor and report on progress throughout the transition to IER, including action taken by electoral registration officers to target under-registered groups. Online electoral registration will also help to make the registration process more convenient for all groups.
Mr Hollobone
Will those particular groups be targeted by the Electoral Commission, and how often will the House be updated on progress?
Mr Streeter
The multi-media advertising campaign is indeed targeted on groups less likely to be on the register, but it is for our electoral registration officers to decide what campaign they run in their own locality. My advice to all Members of Parliament is to sit down with the ERO in their locality and to make sure that the campaign they are planning for the next six months is adequate and that registration reaches the hardest-to-reach groups.
Helen Goodman (Bishop Auckland) (Lab)
9. What the next steps are on the women bishops measure following the General Synod.
The Second Church Estates Commissioner (Sir Tony Baldry)
The next step is for the Ecclesiastical Committee to meet on Tuesday, when I hope it will pass the measure that was agreed by General Synod on Monday. That will at last enable women to become bishops in the Church of England.
Helen Goodman
I am very grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for that answer. It is the answer that we have been waiting for the past 20 years to hear. It is very good news for the country and for the Church. I congratulate everybody who secured the result in Synod. When does he think women bishops might be installed, and when does he think they might be introduced into the other place?
Sir Tony Baldry
The answer I feel like giving to the hon. Lady is, “Hallelujah, sister! At last!” After so many years of waiting, the Church of England is going to have women bishops, which will enable it to fulfil its mission as a Church for the whole nation and allow every part of the Church to flourish.
If the Ecclesiastical Committee approves the measure on Tuesday, subject to the agreement of the Leader of the House I hope to bring the measure to this House in September. I think that the other House hopes to deal with the measure early in October. That would enable General Synod to meet formally in November to do the final approval and promulging of the canon. That would enable the Church of England to appoint the first women bishops this year or early next year.
Martin Vickers (Cleethorpes) (Con)
I join my right hon. Friend in welcoming the move towards women bishops. However, for the moment, it is a male preserve. Will he join me in congratulating the Rev. David Court, the new Bishop of Grimsby, who will be consecrated at St Paul’s next week, and wish him well in his work in the Lincoln diocese?
Sir Tony Baldry
Of course. Every bishop in the Church of England is a focus of unity in their own diocese and all bishops undertake incredibly important work. One of the great things about General Synod was that we were able to get agreement for there to be women bishops with no one in the Church feeling hurt or aggrieved. We were therefore able, under the leadership of Archbishop Justin and Archbishop John, to move forward as a united Church.
Child Abuse
(9 years, 9 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Urgent Questions are proposed each morning by backbench MPs, and up to two may be selected each day by the Speaker. Chosen Urgent Questions are announced 30 minutes before Parliament sits each day.
Each Urgent Question requires a Government Minister to give a response on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Yvette Cooper (Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford) (Lab)
(Urgent Question): To ask the Home Secretary to make a statement about child abuse.
The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mrs Theresa May)
The sexual abuse of children is an abhorrent crime which the Government are absolutely committed to stamping out.
In my statement to the House last week, I addressed two important public concerns: first, that in the 1980s, the Home Office failed to act on allegations of child sex abuse and, secondly, that public bodies and other important institutions have failed to take seriously their duty of care towards children. As I informed the House on 7 July, the whole Government take the allegations very seriously. That is why I announced two inquiries last week.
The first is a review led by Peter Wanless, the chief executive of the National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children, with the support of Richard Whittam, QC, of the original investigations that Mark Sedwill, the permanent secretary at the Home Office, commissioned last year into suggestions that the Home Office failed to act on allegations of child sex abuse in the early 1980s. Peter Wanless and Richard Whittam will also look at how the police and prosecutors handled any related information that was handed to them, and examine another recent review into allegations that the Home Office provided funding to an organisation called the Paedophile Information Exchange. Mr Wanless and Mr Whittam are in post and work on the review has begun. Its terms of reference were placed in the Library of the House last week, and I expect the review to conclude within eight to 10 weeks.
Last week, I also announced a wider independent panel inquiry to consider whether public bodies and non-state institutions have taken seriously their duty of care to protect children from sexual abuse. The Home Office has appointed the head of the secretariat to the panel, which will begin its work as soon as possible after the appointment of the chairman.
As the House will know, I asked Baroness Butler-Sloss to act as chairman of the panel and she agreed to do so. However, having listened to the concerns that were raised by victim and survivor groups and by Members of this House, Lady Butler-Sloss subsequently came to the conclusion that she should not chair the inquiry. I was deeply saddened by her decision to withdraw, but I understand and respect her reasons. She is a woman of the highest integrity and compassion, and she continues to have an enormous contribution to make to public life.
Work is ongoing to find the right chairman and members of the panel, and an announcement will be made as soon as possible so that this important work can move forward. I am sure that hon. Members will agree that it is important that the terms of reference for the inquiry are considered carefully. That is why it is right that we should wait until we have appointed a new chairman and a panel, and discuss the terms with them.
I want this inquiry to leave no stone unturned in getting to the truth of what happened and ensuring that we learn the necessary lessons to protect children and vulnerable people in the future. As I said, child abuse is an abhorrent crime that can scar people for life, and the Government are determined to stamp it out. We are working across Government to ensure that victims of historic child abuse who come forward in response to our overarching inquiry get the support and help they need. Our message is clear: the Government will do everything they can to allow the full investigation of child abuse whenever and wherever it occurred, to support victims of it, and to bring the perpetrators of this disgusting crime to justice.
As Members will be aware from the announcement we heard yesterday about the outcome of the National Crime Agency’s operation, which was reported in the media, child abuse is a crime that continues today. I think that that operation shows our relentless commitment to pursue those engaged in online child sexual exploitation, and it was unprecedented in its degree of co-ordination, with the NCA leading and co-ordinating law enforcement efforts that involved 45 police forces across England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland. It has been ongoing for the past six months. People from all walks of life have been indentified, including those in positions of trust, and 660 arrests have been made and more than 400 children safeguarded or protected.
Crucial in investigations of online sexual abuse, and matters of this kind more generally, is the question of access to communications data. The Government are committed to tackling the threat to children online, which is why the Data Retention and Investigatory Powers Bill, which was passed by this House on Tuesday and is currently before the other place, is important. It will ensure that law enforcement agencies continue to have access to another vital tool of communications data. Without access to communications data, the investigative capabilities of public authorities in relation to online child abuse would be significantly damaged, and vital evidence would be inaccessible. If companies do not retain that data and we cannot access it, it will become impossible in future to carry out such operations.
In other areas, the Government are also looking at what actions we can take in relation to this reprehensible crime. That is why in April last year, the Government established a national group to tackle sexual violence against children and vulnerable people, led by the Minister for Crime Prevention, my right hon. Friend the Member for Lewes (Norman Baker). The cross-Government group was established to learn the lessons from some of the recent cases that have emerged and the resulting reviews and inquiries, and as a result of its work we now have better guidance for police and prosecutors, new powers for the police to get information from hotels that are used for child sexual exploitation, and better identification of children at risk of exploitation through the use of local multi-agency safeguarding hubs.
The Home Office will do everything it can to allow the full investigation of child abuse and the prosecution of its perpetrators. The Child Exploitation and Online Protection Centre command of the National Crime Agency works with police forces to investigate child sexual abuse, and has access to specialist officers who could be called on to assist in complex cases. CEOP is already providing support to forces in the robust investigation of child sexual abuse.
For some time, this House has been considering issues arising from historic cases of child abuse. The news yesterday of more than 600 arrests by the NCA, and ongoing investigations into current incidents of child abuse, show that this is not just a problem of the past but is with us today. The Government will do everything they can to work to stamp out child abuse, but there is a wider question for us as a society about how and why these appalling crimes are still taking place today.
Yvette Cooper
I welcome the Home Secretary’s statement and the update she has given the House. She is right to condemn this vile crime that hits vulnerable children and can wreck lives. I also welcome the announcement that the National Crime Agency has safeguarded 400 children and arrested 660 people for child abuse offences as part of a major operation involving many police forces. The House will want to commend the police for that work, and recognise the role of online intelligence and communications data that we discussed earlier this week.
However, The Times reports today that the same investigation has in fact identified more than 10,000 suspects who are not currently being arrested or pursued through the criminal justice system. It appears that those are in addition to today’s crime statistics, which also show a 20% increase in reported sex offences, a 65% increase in reported child abuse images, and a 27% increase in reported rape. While car crime may be falling, the reports of these serious, often hidden, crimes are going up, and people will be deeply shocked by the scale of online crime that is growing alongside the internet. At the same time, there has been a 9% drop in prosecutions for child sex offences and a 75% drop in the number of convicted criminals who are barred from working with children as a result of the Government’s policy changes. There are real concerns about chaos at the Disclosure and Barring Service, which is not providing consistent information about the number of people being barred.
Let me ask the Home Secretary the following questions. Can she confirm that the National Crime Agency has identified more than 10,000 suspects as part of its investigation? What is happening to those 10,000 suspects now? Is it true that the police have decided that they do not have the capacity to pursue them? How many of them does she think pose a direct risk to children? Will they be barred from working with children? Can she confirm that there has indeed been a 75% drop in the number of convicted sex offenders who are being barred from working with children? Does she believe that the police and the NCA have the capacity to deal with the scale of this growing crime? Will any of these issues be covered by the child abuse inquiry, which currently has no chair and no terms of reference?
The Home Secretary will know that I have raised concerns with her over the past few years that the child protection system is currently not strong enough to deal with the scale of the problem that we face. Will she now urgently review Government policy and resources, particularly around online abuse, as well as on the wider issues around child abuse, and rethink the barring system approach? Will she agree to come back to this House in September with an urgent action plan to deal with this very serious crime?
Mrs May
First, may I say that the right hon. Lady is absolutely right to commend the work of police forces, the National Crime Agency and CEOP command? This work is not easy for police officers to undertake. It is very difficult for those who have to look at the evidence of child abuse images. We should recognise the valuable and important work they do, and the work that goes on around them to ensure that perpetrators and others involved in this horrendous crime are brought to justice.
I have made it clear that the work of NCA investigations is ongoing. I am therefore not in a position to indicate anything in relation to how many suspects they might be looking at or the action I might take against those suspects. Those are operational matters and decisions for the NCA to take in consideration with the various police forces involved, but I can assure Members that this is an ongoing investigation.
The right hon. Lady referred to a number of matters, for example the increase in the number of sex offences being reported. That is indeed the case, but what I think we are seeing in the figures is a number of people coming forward with historic cases of sex offences. While that does have an impact on the figures, I think we would all welcome the fact that there are more people now who feel comfortable in being able to come forward with allegations of these sorts of offences. For too long, people have felt that they would not be believed, and have been hiding their own experiences and keeping them to themselves, rather than surfacing them. It is important that they are coming forward. In some of the historic cases that have gone to trial, some perpetrators have been brought to justice. They have been charged and prosecuted as a result of people coming forward.
We are, of course, making sure that resources are available. In my response to the right hon. Lady’s question, I indicated that CEOP resources, which are specialist and expertise resources, are being made available to other police forces. The child abuse inquiry is being set up to ensure that we can learn the lessons from the various reviews that have taken place into historic cases. As part of that, I expect it will want to look at what is happening today: whether the lessons from the past are already being dealt with, or whether there are still gaps in what we need to do. Obviously, one of the areas that has increased in recent times is online abuse.
At the Prime Minister’s summit in November last year, we made it absolutely clear that we are determined to stamp out online child sexual abuse. That is why we have worked with industry to ensure that search engines block images, videos and pathways to child abuse from blacklist search terms used by paedophiles. We are developing a child abuse image database, which will help officers to work more effectively together to close the net on paedophiles and ensure that internet companies can better identify, block and remove illegal images. We have also established the UK-US taskforce to counter online child exploitation. Through that, we are drawing on the brightest and best minds in the industry, law enforcement and academia to stop the internet being used to abuse children. We saw from the National Crime Agency’s operations yesterday the value of setting it up as a strong crime-fighting organisation that has already shown its ability to root out perpetrators of this sort of crime, to deal with them and ultimately to bring them to justice.
Tim Loughton (East Worthing and Shoreham) (Con)
May I add my congratulations to the NCA for yesterday’s successful operation? It is worth noting that of the 660 arrested, very few were people already on the sex offenders register. This is very difficult work and a reminder that we are talking about current abuse going on, in addition to the historic child abuse that we must now investigate. May I suggest to my right hon. Friend that rather than coming forward with a new action plan, as has been suggested, she gives this House a progress report on the child sexual exploitation action plan, which I launched in November 2011, which was multi-agency and multi-departmental? It has been exceedingly successful and no doubt played a major part in bringing a lot of people to justice in yesterday’s operation.
Mrs May
May I commend my hon. Friend for the work he has done in this area over the years? He and I joined this House at the same time, and I know that he has consistently led on child protection issues and has put a lot of work into this area, both when he was children’s Minister and outside that time, and he continues to do so. I will certainly be happy to ask the Minister for Crime Prevention to report to the House on the child exploitation action plan that my hon. Friend developed as the children’s Minister and also on how the group that was set up subsequently is taking that work forward, looking at how it can build on it in a number of other ways, so that we are always looking to ensure that we have the best possible response.
Keith Vaz (Leicester East) (Lab)
May I join the Home Secretary in congratulating those involved in Operations Endeavour and Notarise for the work they have done, which shows the importance of the expertise of CEOP? She is right not to rush in and name a new chair for the inquiry. This needs to be done with care and full consultation, so that the chair can help to choose the panel and fashion the terms of reference. However, I am concerned that not enough is being done by the internet companies. Will she confirm that at the very least she is getting a list or a number of the websites that have been closed down as a result of the summit that took place last November? The public need to be reassured that these websites are being closed. If she gives us regular updates, that would be extremely helpful.
Mrs May
I recognise the right hon. Gentleman’s concern to ensure that as much information as possible is made available to the House on these matters. We have seen action by industry, but we continue to talk to industry about how these issues can be addressed. We will be represented on the UK-US taskforce by my right hon. Friend the Minister for Policing, Criminal Justice and Victims, whom I welcome to his new position in the Home Office. We are working very closely with industry. It is important to ensure that industry is able to undertake the tasks that we wish it to. It is doing that, but we want to work further with industry to ensure that we are getting the blocking and the filtering absolutely right, so that we can have the maximum impact.
John Hemming (Birmingham, Yardley) (LD)
Some of the more serious historic allegations relate to children who were in care at the time of the event. In Jersey, there are allegations that children did not survive to their adulthood to make complaints. In England, the Government still do not record what happens when children disappear from care, using the record “Leaving care for other reasons”. Will the Secretary of State talk to her colleagues in the Department for Education about whether we can record when children disappear from care and why they disappear, so that we can audit the process and ensure that children are safe in care today?
Mrs May
My hon. Friend has raised a very important point about how children in care have been, I think in too many cases, failed by the state over the years. This is not an area where the state can have any real confidence. We should, frankly, look back at what has happened to a number of children in care with deep concern. I will certainly take my hon. Friend’s point up with the Department for Education—and also with the Department for Communities and Local Government, because of local authorities’ responsibility.
Barry Gardiner (Brent North) (Lab)
The Home Secretary rightly spoke of the harrowing effect that working in this area can have on the police officers who have to do this work and see these images. Can she assure the House that the expansion of the work in this area will go hand in hand with an expansion of the care and long-term psychological support packages for those police officers?
Mrs May
Yes. This matter has already been raised. Obviously, the forces and CEOP are aware of the issue that the work can cause for the officers involved and they have programmes and operations in place to support those officers. We shall certainly ensure that those continue.
Sir Edward Garnier (Harborough) (Con)
As the Home Secretary will know, I have followed the problems caused by child sex abuse from the point of view of one who has both acted for somebody falsely accused of it and, as a law officer, dealing with historic child sex abuse cases. The importance of the issues and the motives with which Members question my right hon. Friend about them cannot be understated or traduced. However, will she resist the temptation to provide the House with a running commentary about the police or other investigations, which may distract from the difficult work that the police have to do in dealing with these terrible cases? We want the perpetrators to be brought to justice and convicted rather than there being a constant flow of allegation and counter-allegation, either across the House or in the media.
Mrs May
Yes, I absolutely take my hon. and learned Friend’s point. It is important that the House should be updated on the work that the Government are doing in this area, but of course it is not possible for us to update the House in any ongoing way on investigations. These are operational matters for the police, not matters on which politicians take decisions; those are for the police and the National Crime Agency to take.
It is, however, right that we keep the House apprised of work such as that initiated by my hon. Friend the Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tim Loughton) when he was children’s Minister, and that now taken forward by the Minister for Crime Prevention and the current children’s Minister, so that the House can see the number of areas on which the Government are taking action.
Lisa Nandy (Wigan) (Lab)
Has the Home Secretary given any thought to the new legal powers that may be needed by this child abuse inquiry but may take some time to establish? My understanding is that records kept by the Whips are not subject to freedom of information, but are subject to data protection. If the inquiry panel has no power to hold those data or compel information to be shared, how will it bring justice for survivors?
Mrs May
The inquiry panel that I have set up is not a statutory inquiry panel under the Inquiries Act 2005. What we have made clear, though, is that if there comes a point at which the chairman of the panel believes that its work could better be carried forward as a statutory inquiry panel under the 2005 Act, we will be prepared to change it into such a panel.
Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con)
I am not sure that the Home Secretary quite answered the question put by the hon. Member for Wigan (Lisa Nandy). I think the hon. Lady was trying to get at whether information held in the Whips Office will be available to the investigation.
Mrs May
I repeat what I said in the House when I gave my statement on this matter on 7 July. The Government are making it clear that we will make papers available to the inquiry panel. I would expect others to make available such information as they hold. It is for various bodies—whoever is approached by the inquiry panel—to decide what information they wish to make available. However, as I have made clear, if the chairman of the panel gets to a point where they believe that a statutory inquiry is the best route, the Government are committed to ensuring that we turn the investigation into a statutory inquiry.
Lilian Greenwood (Nottingham South) (Lab)
Does the Home Secretary recognise that there have been allegations about historic abuse in a wide range of institutions, including the former Beechwood children’s home in Nottingham? Will she assure my constituents and those of other Nottinghamshire MPs that if they approach the overarching inquiry, their cases will receive a fair and impartial hearing and they will have access to the proper help and support they need?
Mrs May
I think it important to recognise that the inquiry panel will not itself be able to investigate individual allegations that come forward. It will be looking at what happened in a number of settings such as residential care homes and trying to learn the lessons from that. Individual allegations against a perpetrator, will be handed on to the police for them to investigate, which is entirely proper. We are working across Government to look at people’s ability to raise cases, the manner in which they will be able to do so, and how those cases will be passed on as appropriate, along with the support given to victims. Together with a number of other MPs, my hon. Friend the Member for Wells (Tessa Munt) raised this matter with me earlier this week, and made a number of suggestions about how to take it forward.
Tessa Munt (Wells) (LD)
Bearing in mind the explosion in the number of people willing to report and disclose what happened to them, will the Home Secretary ensure that urgent support and extra training is made available for all police officers, so that victims are not necessarily taken across the country for interview, that interviews are not stopped and started again to allow video conditions, and that inadequate referrals for support are not given to victims and their families, who need help when their lives are completely turned upside down?
Mrs May
My hon. Friend makes some very important points. She raises issues that we are looking at in order to ensure that the best form of support is available. I would like to take this opportunity to commend my hon. Friend for the courage she has shown, which will have given great confidence and comfort to other victims.
Ms Diane Abbott (Hackney North and Stoke Newington) (Lab)
All child sex abuse is horrific, but the Home Secretary will be aware that for many parents, online child sex abuse is particularly frightening because the technology is developing at warp speed, so many children have smartphones, and parents do not feel equipped to protect their children. It is good to work with the industry, but does the Home Secretary appreciate that parents want to know that progress is being made on tackling online child sex abuse—not at the rate that suits the industry, but at the rate that will bring reassurance to parents and families and protection to our children?
Mrs May
Of course we want to ensure that we make progress in a way that can give confidence to parents, who rightly worry about what is happening online. The fact that somebody living thousands of miles away could effectively be in a child’s bedroom through the internet, persuading that child to undertake certain horrific acts is obviously a matter of very real concern. It is right for us to work with the industry, however, which has been responsive on this matter and sees its importance to the public.
Sarah Newton (Truro and Falmouth) (Con)
Will my right hon. Friend join me in praising Devon and Cornwall police officers for their role in Operation Notarise, work with colleagues to ensure that the victims are treated well as they pass through the criminal justice system, and remind the judges of the powers they have to protect such vulnerable witnesses?
Mrs May
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising that important point. I commend Devon and Cornwall police and all the other police forces around the country that were involved in undertaking the operation with the National Crime Agency. My hon. Friend will have noticed that the Attorney-General and the Solicitor-General, whom I welcome to their new roles, have heard her point. I will also make sure that my right hon. Friend the Lord Chancellor and Justice Secretary is made aware of her point about the judiciary.
Mr Jim Cunningham (Coventry South) (Lab)
The Home Secretary mentioned that the police officers were doing a very difficult job. What facilities are available for counselling police officers, and how many officers have needed counselling as a result of the work they are carrying out?
Mrs May
Extensive support is available for police officers doing that job because the problem is recognised. The expertise developed at the Child Exploitation and Online Protection Centre recognises the impact that such work can have on individual police officers. That support is available for police officers who undertake this difficult work.
Roger Williams (Brecon and Radnorshire) (LD)
The Home Secretary has rightly emphasised the importance of multi-agency work in safeguarding and protecting children. Some of those agencies operate under devolved legislation. Will she ensure that her Department and the United Kingdom Government as a whole co-operate fully with the devolved nations of the UK, so that children remain as protected as possible?
Pat Glass (North West Durham) (Lab)
In 2010, the then Secretary of State for Education abolished ContactPoint. At the time, I was happy with the assurance that something more streamlined would be in place shortly, but four years have passed, and it has not yet been replaced. What discussions is the Home Office having with the Department for Education to eliminate this gap in the system?
Mrs May
The Department for Education plays a full role in the work that the Home Office does on this issue, including our work in relation to the national group. However, as the hon. Lady will observe, my hon. Friend the children’s Minister is present, and he will have heard her comment.
Mr Philip Hollobone (Kettering) (Con)
The Home Secretary will know that, thanks to their innovative and enthusiastic police and crime commissioner, Northamptonshire police are developing something of a lead in combating the online exploitation of children, but so much of that abuse is international. What expertise from other countries can we draw on, so that we can be at the forefront of tackling this abhorrent crime?
Mrs May
We recognise that, and we have set up a link with the United States in particular. Obviously, a number of internet service providers are based there. We are working closely with the Americans. The UK-US taskforce, whose meetings will be attended by my right hon. Friend the Minister for Policing, Criminal Justice and Victims, draws on the expertise of people in the industry in both the UK and the United States. We want to get the best brains on this to ensure that we can do the job that we all want to do.
Ian Lucas (Wrexham) (Lab)
In north Wales, 19 people are currently before the courts as a result of Operation Pallial. Will the Home Secretary confirm that if any evidence is unearthed by the inquiries that she set up last week in connection with Government Departments, any information that Departments have will be forwarded to the police so that they can follow it up and prosecutions can take place?
Miss Anne McIntosh (Thirsk and Malton) (Con)
May I press the Home Secretary on the question of the breach of trust to which she referred earlier? She said that trust had been breached on a number of occasions. How can we prevent that from happening again? We must not lose sight of child abuse within families, and of how difficult it is to bring to public attention or prosecution.
Mrs May
My hon. Friend has made a very important point. I think that people will have been deeply concerned, indeed shocked, to learn that the list of arrests undertaken by the National Crime Agency and forces which was announced yesterday included a number of people who had been in positions of trust—such as teachers and doctors—and whom others would naturally have assumed they could trust with their children. This is a very important issue, which is why we have a system of vetting people who will be working with children. Of course, we must also ensure that all those who employ people to work in such positions of trust are aware of their responsibilities.
Susan Elan Jones (Clwyd South) (Lab)
The Home Secretary may not be aware that yesterday I presented a petition to the House concerning the case of an online paedophile who had made and viewed more than a quarter of a million indecent images of children, a number of which were the more serious level 5 images. He was given a two-year suspended sentence and 300 hours of community service. When I wrote to the Attorney-General asking him to review the sentence, I was told that the Attorney-General does not have the power to review sentences of this nature. Why is that, and will the Home Secretary ensure that the Government change the law to give the Attorney-General that power?
Duncan Hames (Chippenham) (LD)
The Home Secretary has told us that if the inquiry panel seeks formal inquiry powers, she will be able to grant that request, which is welcome. Former inquiries into child abuse have resulted in some frustration as a result of tight and inflexible remits; this has even been expressed by those conducting the inquiries. If the inquiry panel wishes to amend its remit during the course of its work, will she be in a position to grant that request?
Mrs May
My hon. Friend makes an important point. I am very clear that the terms of reference should be discussed with the chairman of the panel and not simply be set out by the Government. If the chairman comes to the Government during the course of the inquiry and feels that it is necessary to amend those terms of reference in any way, we will of course look very seriously at that proposal. We have set up the inquiry panel on the model that was used in the Hillsborough inquiry and, having spoken to the former Bishop of Liverpool, Bishop James Jones, in relation to the operation of that inquiry, I understand that people were willing to come forward to that inquiry in a way that might not have been the case under other statutory requirements.
Andrew Gwynne (Denton and Reddish) (Lab)
I have listened carefully to the Home Secretary and I understand that she is saying she cannot confirm the scale of the NCA investigation for operational reasons. However, if—as The Times suggests—the NCA has made a policy decision not to investigate 10,000 suspects because of capacity problems, should not the House be informed of that?
Mrs May
I have made it clear to the House that the NCA investigation is ongoing, both at the level of the NCA and of individual police forces. I suggest that the hon. Gentleman allow the police to make the operational decisions that they need to make. They will of course investigate individuals, but arrests, charges and prosecutions can be brought against people only when the evidence is available.
Chi Onwurah (Newcastle upon Tyne Central) (Lab)
Many Members have referred to the importance of victims of historical child abuse feeling able to come forward. Indeed, the Secretary of State for Health, in his statement to the House on the Savile investigations, made an appeal for victims to come forward. However, when a constituent of mine made contact, the Department of Health apparently had no process in place to respond and could not give any support, as it had had no guidance as to the response it should make. That constituent now seems to have decided not to take their allegations forward. May I urge the Home Secretary to work with her colleagues to ensure that the Departments—and, indeed, individual Members of Parliament—are aware of these matters and have the necessary guidance and support to enable them to offer support to others, as needed?
Mrs May
I am grateful to the hon. Lady for raising that point again. We are talking across Government about what support needs to be available for those people who wish to come forward with allegations of child abuse, and the Department of Health is one of the key Departments we are talking to. Representatives of that Department sit on the national group that is chaired by the Minister for Crime Prevention, my right hon. Friend the Member for Lewes (Norman Baker). The hon. Lady made a further point, which was also raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Wells (Tessa Munt), about making information available to Members of the House. It has been suggested that some kind of hotline could be made available, or some other means by which people could put allegations into the system, so that they could be dealt with. We will obviously ensure that Members are made aware of any such arrangements, so that they can let their constituents know what is happening and help them to deal with the situation.
Sheila Gilmore (Edinburgh East) (Lab)
We have heard from the Home Secretary today and on previous occasions about the good work that the police and others are doing on this issue. It appears, however, that the number of people who have been barred from working with children has actually fallen by 75%. Can she explain this discrepancy or, at the very least, investigate the reasons for it?
Mrs May
The DBS operates in a slightly different way from how it operated previously when it was set up, in that there is automatic barring for people who will be working with children but in certain categories of employment, where people are not working directly with children, people who previously would have been automatically barred are not being so currently. What the DBS does do in its updating service is provide a better system from which ongoing information can be made available to employers. But I make a point I made earlier, which is that employers must recognise the responsibilities they have in considering the individuals they are employing.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
In the 1970s, the most horrible, wicked and depraved abuse of children took place at Kincora boys home in Belfast, with young people scarred for life as a result. Those abuses allegedly involved those in political life, business and the civil service at the time and were overseen by shadowy groups. A child abuse inquiry is taking place in Northern Ireland. Will the Secretary of State say whether the abuse at Kincora boys home is included in that inquiry? If that is not possible, can it be included in the national inquiry?
Mrs May
I will look into the specific case that the hon. Gentleman has raised. I would, however, expect that where other work is ongoing, such as in the child abuse inquiry in Northern Ireland to which he has referred, the inquiry panel we are setting up would, of course, wish to liaise with the work that is being done there to make sure that nothing is falling through the net and that everything is being looked at.
Business of the House
(9 years, 9 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Ms Angela Eagle (Wallasey) (Lab)
Will the Leader of the House give us the business for next week?
The First Secretary of State and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr William Hague)
The business for next week is as follows:
Monday 21 July—Second Reading of the Social Action, Responsibility and Heroism Bill.
Tuesday 22 July—Motion to approve a statutory instrument relating to data retention, followed by matters to be raised before the forthcoming Adjournment, as selected by the Backbench Business Committee.
The business for the week commencing 1 September will be:
Monday 1 September—Debate on a motion relating to hospital car parking charges, followed by a debate on a motion relating to mitochondrial replacement techniques and public safety, followed by a general debate on the position of Hazaras in Afghanistan and Pakistan. The subjects for debate were nominated by the Backbench Business Committee.
Tuesday 2 September—Second Reading of the Pension Schemes Bill.
Wednesday 3 September—Opposition day (5th allotted day). There will be a debate on an Opposition motion. Subject to be announced.
Thursday 4 September—Debate on a motion relating to regulation of the sale of puppies and kittens, followed by a general debate on the future of non-league football, followed by a general debate on the achievement gap in reading between poorer children and their better-off peers. The subjects for debate were nominated by the Backbench Business Committee.
Friday 5 September—Private Member’s Bills.
The provisional business for the week commencing 8 September will include:
Monday 8 September—Second Reading of the National Insurance Contributions Bill, followed by business to be nominated by the Backbench Business Committee.
I should also like to inform the House that the business in Westminster Hall for 4 and 8 September will be:
Thursday 4 September—Debate on stamp duty and the housing market.
Monday 8 September—Debate on an e-petition relating to research funding for and awareness of pancreatic cancer.
If I may, Mr Speaker, I would also like to thank my predecessor as Leader of the House, my right hon. Friend the Member for South Cambridgeshire (Mr Lansley). In the past two years, he has led the successful delivery of the Government’s legislative programme; ensured improved levels of scrutiny by this House; overseen a record number of Bills and measures receiving pre-legislative scrutiny; and piloted continuing reform, making the House increasing relevant to the public. I wish him well for the future and I hope he continues to make a major contribution to public life. Finally, as is customary, may I thank all the staff of the House for their hard work? I hope they enjoy a well-deserved break before the House returns in September.
Ms Angela Eagle (Wallasey) (Lab)
May I associate myself with the wish of the Leader of the House that our staff and all the staff of the House have a restful holiday?
Let me take this opportunity to pay tribute to the right hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire (Mr Lansley), who this week left his post as Leader of the House after two years in the job. May I say how much I have enjoyed working with him, especially in our joint duties as members of the House of Commons Commission, and may I wish him all the best for the future, although the Leader of the House has made an intriguing comment about what that might be?
Once again, I take the opportunity to welcome the First Secretary of State and Leader of the House of Commons, the right hon. Member for Richmond (Yorks) (Mr Hague) to his new responsibilities. I thank him for next week’s business and the provisional business for our first weeks back in September.
On Monday, we will debate the pleasing sounding but completely vacuous Social Action, Responsibility and Heroism Bill—a five-clause Bill that does something that the previous Labour Government legislated for in 2006. The Government could bring in a new law to guarantee rights for victims of crime or deal with the meltdown in probation or tackle the prisons crisis, so can the Leader of the House tell us why they are wasting time with this PR exercise?
This morning, we discovered that the Liberal Democrats had made their most shameless U-turn since their last one: this time it is the bedroom tax. We told them it would create misery and save no money, but their votes got it on to the statute book, and their votes defended it time and again. Given that there is now no majority in this House for the continuation of this pointless and cruel tax, will the Leader of the House make time for an emergency debate before the summer recess so that we can consign it to the dustbin of history?
Less than a month ago, the Prime Minister was leading the charge against Jean-Claude Juncker because nobody knew who he was. Now he has appointed an EU commissioner who has such presence that when he tried to resign from the Government, the Prime Minister did not even notice. Only last month, Lord Hill was telling ConservativeHome that he did not want the role because
“I quite like it at home here in the British Isles.”
When asked if he would accept the job as EU commissioner, he said, “No! No! No!” We know the trouble that was caused when that phrase was last heard in here. Lord Hill might not be a household name, but we really cannot fault his enthusiasm for the job! Two weeks ago, the Prime Minister told my hon. Friend the Member for Llanelli (Nia Griffith) that he would support parliamentary scrutiny of his nominee for the European Commission, so can the Leader of the House set out what form that scrutiny will take and when we can expect more detail?
This week’s super-spun but chaotic reshuffle was supposed to unite the Tory party, but the modernisers are furious, the right is furious, and the Eurosceptics never stop being furious. The Prime Minister says his new Cabinet is a team that represents Britain, but it is 95% white, 77% male and nearly 50% privately educated. That is not a Britain that most people recognise.
The Prime Minister appointed an equalities Minister who voted against gay marriage and sacked his own Minister for modernisation. It is no wonder that the Deputy Prime Minister just said on the radio that
“the head bangers have now won”
in the Conservative party.
I am glad to see that the Leader of the House is settling in to his new role. He spent four years travelling the world. He has rubbed shoulders with Angela Merkel; hobnobbed with Angelina; and now he is stuck with Commons Angela. In the words of the former Education Secretary, I do not know whether he would call that demotion, emotion, promotion or locomotion, but I certainly look forward to it. May I also congratulate him on his success in negotiating a huge pay rise for the Leader of the House in a triumph that surely indicates he has a new career opening up when he leaves Parliament at the next election as a trade union negotiator!
I welcome the right hon. Member for Surrey Heath (Michael Gove) to—I was going to say to his new job as Chief Whip, but he is not in his place. [Hon. Members: “Where is he?”] He has not had the most auspicious of starts. Yesterday, he not only lost his first vote, but he managed to get stuck in the toilet in the wrong Lobby, and nearly broke his own whip. We know all about the former Education Secretary’s love of free schools, independent of any central authority, so I wonder whether he is keen to allow the emergence of lots of free Tory MPs, who do not have to submit to his authority. At least the only book that he can ban now is “Erskine May”. When the Prime Minister asked the Chief Whip to take up his new role, he apparently asked him to become the “hand of the king”. Now, I am no “Game of Thrones” expert, but is it not the case that so far the hands of the king have been variously beheaded, knifed and shot with a harpoon—and all by their own side? I note that the last time a Conservative Foreign Secretary became Leader of the House he helped to depose the Prime Minister a few months later.
As this is our first business questions together, may I just say, “Welcome to the cause”?
Mr Hague
I am very grateful to the hon. Lady, in particular because hardly any of her questions were about the business of the House, but I entirely understand that.
The hon. Lady joined in the tributes to my predecessor. It was not meant to be intriguing to wish him well. I think that it is taking criminology and conspiracy too far to think that an innocent wishing of him well is to be interpreted in some deep way, but I know that the whole House will join in wishing him well. I also thank her for her welcome. I have a great respect for the hon. Lady and look forward to working and sparring with her. She pointed out that the last Conservative Foreign Secretary to become Leader of the House joined in deposing the Prime Minister. I am unsure whether the Foreign Secretary in question expected or wanted to become Leader of the House, whereas I asked for this duty, which I am delighted to take up. I am a strong believer in the power, vitality, role and relevance of the House, as well as in the policies of Her Majesty’s Government and the support of those policies by all coalition parties. I look forward to advancing both those things.
The hon. Lady will have to be careful with some things, such as criticising the nomination of Lord Hill for European Commissioner. This is quite a big glasshouse in which to throw stones, given what happened the last time a commissioner was appointed. Lord Hill occupies the same position that Baroness Ashton occupied when she was appointed by the right hon. Member for Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath (Mr Brown). She was appointed after the most chaotic saga: Lord Mandelson was to be the nomination, then was not, then various other former members of the Cabinet were, and then Baroness Ashton appeared at the last moment. This is a dramatically more orderly process with a strong candidate, whom we will support. I will of course be happy to discuss with the Select Committees what the process should be for the House taking evidence from the nominee. I will have the advantage over the hon. Lady of being able to pronounce Llanelli a little better than her, but that comes from having been Secretary of State for Wales in my extensive political career—
Mr Hague
Well, it is shortly to end—intentionally—but I assure Opposition Members that I am going to enjoy it a lot before it ends.
The hon. Lady joined in welcoming the new Chief Whip and made fun of what he was doing yesterday. Knowledge of who is in the toilets in whatever Lobby is an important piece of information for any Chief Whip. I take it as evidence that he was carrying out his duties very assiduously.
The hon. Lady also commented on the Government reshuffle. The Cabinet will meet tomorrow and eight women will be sitting around the Cabinet table, which is more than ever before. One third of the Conservative members of the Cabinet are now women. The Liberal Democrats intend to catch up in the coming decades. It is an even higher proportion than was achieved under the previous Government and we are proud of that.
The hon. Lady asked about holding an emergency debate on what Liberal Democrats have said today about the spare room subsidy. I do not think we will be able to have an emergency debate on every occasion they change their policy, but—[Laughter.] I am deeply fond of our coalition partners. I helped to negotiate the coalition and despite what I have just said I am enjoying working with my deputy, the right hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Tom Brake).
No representations have been made within the Government about this. It is an important policy and the Government’s policy remains unchanged. There were 1.7 million households waiting for social housing in April 2013 and 1.5 million spare rooms across the working age social sector in Great Britain, so this is an important reform. I look forward to working with the hon. Lady and hon. Members from all parties across the House.
Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)
As the first Back Bencher to be called, may I warmly welcome the First Secretary of State to his post? I hope he does not view this as a gentle full stop to a most distinguished career and that he will be a reforming and great Leader of the House of Commons. Will he, in his remaining year in politics, push the reform agenda forward and, in particular, may we have a business of the House committee? That would transform Parliament and ensure that Parliament was in control of the business. Will he do it?
Mr Hague
I am grateful to my hon. Friend. Having had my first meeting with the Procedure Committee, I do not regard this as a gentle end to my political career. There will be a lot to do, so he need not be concerned about that. He knows that there has been previous discussion about a business committee and that no consensus has been arrived at. I know that there is strong consensus between him and my hon. Friend the Member for Wellingborough (Mr Bone), who is sitting next to him, but that is not a universal consensus, even though it might seem like that to him. I look forward to discussing this with him and to discussing any concern or opinion raised by my hon. Friends or by hon. Members, but there has been no consensus so far.
Mr David Winnick (Walsall North) (Lab)
Will the Leader of the House accept that the most successful Leaders of the Commons have been those who while recognising their responsibilities in the senior ranks of Government have nevertheless in practice borne in mind their responsibility to the House as a whole? Perhaps, despite what he has said, when we come back we could have a debate on the bedroom tax. That would give an opportunity for the Liberal Democrats to explain why they supported it in the first place, without which it would not have become legislation, and why, so near the general election, they have changed their minds.
Mr Hague
I absolutely agree with the hon. Gentleman about the role of the Leader of the House. I hope there will be plenty of evidence of that over the remainder of the Session and I shall endeavour to make sure that there is. On the question of a debate, I have just announced that on the Wednesday of the first week back in September there will be a Opposition day debate, subject to be announced. It is very much open to the Opposition to choose that subject or any other subject they wish.
Mr Charles Kennedy (Ross, Skye and Lochaber) (LD)
In welcoming the Leader of the House to his new responsibilities, may I appeal to the notable and, indeed, readable historian in him as he occupies this important office? Given this week’s events, as yesterday the House of Lords was understandably unhappy about its perception that for the first time in contemporary political history there is no fully fledged Member of the Lords in the Cabinet, and given recent events in the coalition, with the Liberal Democrats’ belated U-turn on the bedroom tax—it would be churlish of me, as I did not support it, not to welcome that—and with what the Conservative side of the coalition is saying about its future plans over the European Court of Human Rights, will he consider over the recess the appropriateness of him or the Prime Minister making a statement to the House about the nature of collective Cabinet responsibility and the conduct of government in both Houses for the remainder of this Parliament?
Mr Hague
I am grateful to my right hon. Friend. He raises an important point about the importance of Cabinet government and collective Government responsibility. On his first point about concern in the House of Lords, there need not be such concern. When the Cabinet meets tomorrow, all full members of the Cabinet and those attending Cabinet have exactly the same rights and join in exactly the same discussion, so it is not a distinction about which there needs to be a huge constitutional debate. My right hon. Friend is a great admirer of politics across many European countries, many of which are used to having coalition Governments and an election going on at the same time, and maintaining the Government working together while parties within a coalition sometimes set out different positions for what will happen after that election. We are a mature enough democracy in this country to be able to cope with that.
Mr Nigel Dodds (Belfast North) (DUP)
On behalf of my right hon. and hon. Friends, I join in warmly welcoming the new Leader of the House to his position and thank the previous Leader of the House for his work on behalf of the whole House. I have no doubt that interest in the business for the following weeks will increase enormously in the remainder of this Parliament as a result of this appointment. Given the right hon. Gentleman’s previous responsibilities as Foreign Secretary, will he consider updating the House regularly about progress in the search for the schoolchildren in Nigeria whose kidnapping evoked an enormous public response? The British Government have given aid and assistance, and it would be worth the House and the public knowing where things stand.
Mr Hague
I am grateful for the warm welcome from the right hon. Gentleman. The United Kingdom remains very strongly engaged not only in the work to find those schoolchildren—we have military assets that have been joining in that—but in working with the Nigerians to ensure that a vastly greater number of girls are able to go to school in Nigeria. When I hosted the Foreign Minister of Nigeria here last month, I announced British assistance to help a million more girls go to school in Nigeria. I know that my successor as Foreign Secretary will want to keep the House updated and it is Foreign Office questions next Tuesday.
Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con)
The right hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr Straw) stepped down from the role of Foreign Secretary and became an excellent Leader of the House. He was the House’s representative in Government, not the Government’s representative in the House. I am sure my right hon. Friend will follow that example. He is very committed to the coalition, and he will know that it is a coalition agreement to have a business of the House committee by the end of the third year of this Parliament. It is slightly past the third year of this Parliament, so when are we going to have that business of the House committee?
Mr Hague
I join in my hon. Friend’s tribute to the right hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr Straw), who was not only an extremely energetic Foreign Secretary but successfully applied himself to the rigours of this job too, and I will follow his example in doing so, although there is a bit of both in representing the House in the Government and the Government’s views to the House. That is understood. These things have to be reconciled. My hon. Friend is a doughty champion of the cause of a business committee. I will be very happy to discuss that with him but, as I pointed out earlier to our hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Sir Edward Leigh), no consensus has yet been established on that.
Mr Speaker
May I point out for the benefit of the House that the hon. Member for Wellingborough (Mr Bone) tends to be at business questions every week and, in my experience, he has never been averse to repetition?
Mr Barry Sheerman (Huddersfield) (Lab/Co-op)
Perhaps I will strike a slightly discordant note, although I get on very well with the Leader of the House as a fellow Yorkshire MP whom I have known for a long time. The world is almost in meltdown in so many places—the slaughter of the innocents in Gaza and the Israeli conflict with Gaza—and he has left the deck at a crucial time. Many people in our country will ask, “Why? We are looking to him as a seasoned and experienced Foreign Secretary to play a leading part in that”, so my welcome is tempered. May we have an early debate on the situation in Gaza? There is time next Monday or Tuesday. The world is distressed indeed at the recent deaths, so may we have a debate soon?
Mr Hague
The hon. Gentleman makes an important point about the number of crises in the world; any discordant note simply shows the way Yorkshire Members are used to speaking to each other anyway. I know that my right hon. Friends the Foreign Secretary and the Defence Secretary are well on top of all those issues. Having long-running crises in the world does not mean that exactly the same people have to deal with them all the time; there is a balance between experience and renewal, as I said on Monday night. I made a statement, as Foreign Secretary, about Gaza on Monday. I know that my successor will want to keep the House well informed. We have Foreign and Commonwealth Office questions next Tuesday, so there will be an opportunity to discuss this next week.
Robert Halfon (Harlow) (Con)
Last week I met my local nurses’ union in the Princess Alexandra hospital in Harlow to discuss nurses’ pay and conditions and hospital car parking charges. May we have a statement on nurses’ pay and hospital car parking charges so that we can do everything possible to alleviate the problems that lower-paid nurses are facing and ensure that all nurses are paid fairly? [Interruption.] I also ask my right hon. Friend to suggest to the hon. Member for Dunfermline and West Fife (Thomas Docherty) that he keeps his trap shut, because the Opposition do not have a policy on this—
Mr Speaker
Order. That is enough. It is unlike the hon. Gentleman, who is a very competent parliamentarian, but that was tasteless. Also, I say in all courtesy to the hon. Gentleman, whose interest and commitment I always seek to accommodate, that his question was simply too long.
Mr Hague
To give a short answer, my hon. Friend is a strong champion of the national health service, particularly in his constituency, and he is right to recognise the great service given to all our constituents by nurses in the NHS. That is why our priority has been to staff the front line properly, including with over 4,000 additional nurses since the last general election. All NHS staff will receive a rise of at least 1% in each of the next two years. I know that he will continue to raise his concerns, including in the Back-Bench business debate on hospital car parking charges that he has secured in September.
Ian Lucas (Wrexham) (Lab)
The Leader of the House, having set up the Waterhouse inquiry when Secretary of State for Wales, and having been present for part of the previous urgent question, will be aware of the real concern in north Wales that the House should be kept informed over the next few months. Will he have a word with the Home Secretary to ensure that she informs the House of the terms of the new inquiry and about what is happening with the Macur review, which she set up?
Mr Hague
Those are very important issues, as I remember all too well from my time as Secretary of State for Wales. There will be intense and continuing concern in north Wales about them. We have just had an urgent question on the matter, and I think that it was well understood across the House that the terms of reference for what the Home Secretary has announced must be got right and that the right person to lead the inquiry must be found. Indeed, the right hon. Member for Leicester East (Keith Vaz) made that point earlier. I know that the Home Secretary will want to keep the House updated on that and on the other matters the hon. Gentleman raises.
Mike Crockart (Edinburgh West) (LD)
One month ago the Pakistan army launched Operation Zarb-e-Azb against militants in north Waziristan, but it did so without giving any prior notification to the civilian population, in stark contrast to previous operations in Swat and south Waziristan. May we have an urgent statement from the Foreign Office to update the House on what is being done to help the now 1 million internally displaced persons, many of whom fled their homes with nothing, and on what assistance the UK Government and others can give?
Mr Hague
The hon. Gentleman is quite right to raise those important matters and the terrible circumstances for many of the people affected. The Government of Pakistan face a tremendous challenge in establishing order and defeating terrorism in parts of the country, so we should show some solidarity with the Government of Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif in doing that. The hon. Gentleman will have opportunities to raise those matters in Adjournment debates and in Foreign and Commonwealth Office questions next Tuesday.
Mark Tami (Alyn and Deeside) (Lab)
I, too, welcome the Leader of the House to his new job. May we have a debate as soon as possible on ongoing issues at the Passport Office? Staff in my office contacted the MPs hotline yesterday with an urgent case but were told that they could contact the Liverpool office only by e-mail and not by phone. I suggest that the Home Office should invest in some phones for the Liverpool office and some people to man them so that we can get these urgent cases sorted out as quickly as possible.
Mr Hague
The House has been able to discuss over recent weeks the problems that have arisen from a huge increase in demand for passports—the highest demand in 12 years. Of course, it is very important that specific cases raised by hon. Members are dealt with quickly, so I will absolutely inform the Home Office of what the hon. Gentleman has said. We have already deployed an additional 1,200 people as call handlers on the helplines, and we are providing another 300 staff and longer opening hours. A lot of good work is being done in dealing with this, but, as I say, I will absolutely refer to my colleagues what he has said.
Mr David Nuttall (Bury North) (Con)
I start by warmly welcoming my right hon. Friend to his new role in the House. May we please have a debate on the junior individual savings account scheme for young people in care, which was announced in the 2011 Budget and which is operated by the Share Foundation charity? The scheme provides a small capital fund for some of the most vulnerable young people, and 145 young people in the care of Bury MBC currently benefit from it. A debate would give this House the opportunity to explore ways in which it could be used and developed in future.
Mr Hague
I thank my hon. Friend for his welcome. He makes a very important point: over 50,000 junior ISAs for children in care have now been opened, with an initial contribution of £200 from the Government. A young person’s transition to independence is a very critical period, and for care leavers it is even more critical. This is giving people savings and a financial education that they would not otherwise receive, and my hon. Friend can be sure that that will remain a priority for this Government.
Jim Sheridan (Paisley and Renfrewshire North) (Lab)
I think it is fair to say that the Leader of the House got off to a flying start. May I remind him that this year is the 40th anniversary of the illegal occupation of Cyprus by Turkey? Will he therefore arrange for a statement by the Foreign Secretary to inform us of exactly what the UK Government, the guarantor of power, are doing to mark this anniversary to ensure that we do not have another 40 years of illegal occupation?
Mr Hague
As the hon. Gentleman knows, and as I have pointed out before, we have Foreign and Commonwealth Office questions on Tuesday, so there will be plenty of opportunities to raise this. Of course, the UK Government support all those working for a solution to the Cyprus question. We have done a great deal of that in recent months, particularly working with President Anastasiades. Talks in recent months have made some progress, and we will continue to encourage that. I know that Foreign Office Ministers will be able to talk about that.
Philip Davies (Shipley) (Con)
I think everybody in the House is looking forward to my right hon. Friend’s time as Leader of the House, apart, perhaps, from the hon. Member for Wallasey (Ms Eagle), who might not be looking forward to it with as much glee as the rest of us.
Last year, a person already convicted of burglary offences on 65 separate occasions committed another burglary and was still not sent to prison. Surely it is an outrage that a burglar committing a 66th burglary is not sent to prison for many years, let alone avoids prison altogether. May we have a debate on this so that we can look at measures to tackle pathetic sentencing guidelines and even more pathetic judges?
Mr Hague
I know that my hon. Friend is as regular an attendee of business questions as any Leader of the House. He puts his question in a typically restrained way, of course, but he makes a valid point. I am sure that over the coming months there will be opportunities to raise these matters. The Government have achieved a 10% reduction in overall crime, but that does not mean we have attended to everything, and his point is well heard.
Mr Jim Cunningham (Coventry South) (Lab)
Is the Leader of the House aware that last Saturday between 7,000 and 8,000 Coventry City fans demonstrated in Coventry against what has been going on between the football club and the other parties concerned? The Culture, Media and Sport Committee did a report on this some time ago, so when are we going to have a debate on it? Will the Leader of the House bear in mind the fact that the club has not conformed to the rules of the football league? Why can we not have a debate, in general terms, on the football league and how we regulate it?
Mr Hague
I do not want to comment on the details. The hon. Gentleman asks why we cannot have a debate, but there are well-established mechanisms for having a debate, including through applying for Adjournment and Backbench Business debates. I encourage him to take those opportunities.
Chris Heaton-Harris (Daventry) (Con)
I wonder whether we could have a debate on the political career to date of my right hon. Friend. He might occasionally regret it, but he started a number of us off in our elected political careers and it would be a fitting way for some of us to say thank you.
Mr Hague
That is an innovative idea, but I think such a debate would be a little self-indulgent of me and I would be somewhat criticised for it. I am very proud to have helped launch my hon. Friend on his political career with the slogan “In Europe, but not run by Europe” in 1999. I am pleased that it has helped to carry him all this way.
Ms Margaret Ritchie (South Down) (SDLP)
May I welcome the Leader of the House to his new position? Could we have a debate on the reinstatement of the aggregates levy credit scheme, which was halted by the European Commission in consultation with the Treasury back in autumn 2010? It benefited the construction industry in Northern Ireland. Some four years later, it has not been reinstated, despite the fact that much information has been submitted by the Treasury and the Northern Ireland Executive. It is important, because we are in ongoing competition with the quarry industry in the Republic of Ireland and it would bring benefit.
Mr Hague
I understand the importance of what the hon. Lady says and I thank her for her welcome. I do not have any new information to give her, although the Northern Ireland Secretary is in her place and will have heard what she has said. I will also remind the Treasury of what she has said. I cannot offer any immediate debate, but, as I have said, there are well-established channels for going about securing a debate.
Christopher Pincher (Tamworth) (Con)
Will my right hon. Friend find time for a debate on war crimes, particularly those committed many years ago? That would enable us to discuss the 1971 civil war in Bangladesh and the war crimes committed then. I also hope it would encourage the Government to encourage the Bangladeshi Government in their pursuit of a fair and transparent legal process, to ensure that the criminals from 1971 are finally brought to justice.
Mr Hague
My hon. Friend is, of course, right to stress the importance in any country of a fair and transparent process. That is something that I discussed with the Government of Bangladesh in my previous role as Foreign Secretary. My hon. Friend makes a very important and valid point about that. The House has been able to discuss issues of war crimes many times over recent decades. I cannot offer my hon. Friend an immediate debate, but he understands very well how to go about getting one.
John Cryer (Leyton and Wanstead) (Lab)
May I, too, welcome the Leader of the House to his position? The Foreign Office’s loss will be this Chamber’s gain.
Following on from the question asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Huddersfield (Mr Sheerman), could we have a statement on Gaza on Tuesday, after Foreign Office questions? I am aware that the right hon. Gentleman made a statement on Monday in his previous role, but the situation is not just dreadful, particularly given the increasing number of deaths of children, but is changing very rapidly, so could we have a statement on Tuesday?
Mr Hague
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his welcome. My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary will assess the case for a statement in addition to answering questions on Tuesday. I do not want to commit him to that, but it has been our habit over the past four years to have regular statements on developing crises. Of course, the hon. Gentleman is right that the situation continues to develop. There have been further tragic deaths in Gaza. I am pleased that there is a humanitarian ceasefire in force for a short time today, but of course what we really need is an agreed and sustainable ceasefire and a restoration of the ceasefire of November 2012.
Mr Geoffrey Cox (Torridge and West Devon) (Con)
The Supreme Court has recently suggested that our law on assisted suicide may not be compatible with article 8 of the European convention on human rights, and it has issued an invitation to the House to consider that question. When will we respond to the invitation?
Mr Hague
The Prime Minister indicated yesterday that we will give consideration to that matter. It is an important and topical issue, on which there are very strong feelings—not on any party basis—and there is intense interest in the debate about it in the House of Lords tomorrow. I will reflect on when it would be appropriate to have such a debate, as well as on the various means of bringing it about. I cannot yet promise one in Government time.
Keith Vaz (Leicester East) (Lab)
I join Members in their unanimous welcome to the new Leader of the House, and I pay tribute to him for his outstanding work at the Foreign Office. May I take him back to one of his successes—Yemen—and the democratic transition that resulted in the election of President Hadi? The situation is now very critical, with 11 million people in poverty and al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula making enormous gains. May we have a statement or a debate on that? I know we have Foreign Office questions on Tuesday, but we cannot deal with it in just one question.
Mr Hague
I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman, whose knowledge of and concern about Yemen has been remarkable, constant and much respected over many years. He is right that a great deal of progress has been made, as we saw when the Friends of Yemen met in London under our chairmanship a couple of months ago. He is also right that formidable problems remain, and it is now very important that the help the international community has pledged is delivered and used successfully by President Hadi and his colleagues. There has been widespread demand in the House for statements by the Foreign Secretary, and I will not commit my successor to a long list of them—hon. Members will have to use Foreign Office questions—but I know that he will make as many statements as he can about such topical issues.
Mr Alan Reid (Argyll and Bute) (LD)
It has just taken 18 days to repair a mobile phone mast on the island of Islay. That is completely unacceptable, and it is not an isolated incident. Part of the difficulty is that many different telecommunications companies were involved in the repair, and it is difficult to pin down which has responsibility. May we have a statement on how licence conditions might be tightened to make sure that companies have to carry out repairs speedily? After all, people have to be able to make calls in an emergency.
Mr Hague
My hon. Friend makes a point that is very important for his constituents. Eighteen days does seem unusually long and an unacceptable time for such repairs. I will ask the Department for Culture, Media and Sport to respond to him directly, and depending on how satisfied he is by that answer, he may want to press the case for further and wider action.
Karl Turner (Kingston upon Hull East) (Lab)
Given the road to Damascus conversion by Lib Dems on the viciously unfair and punitive bedroom tax, please may we have an urgent debate on that policy, or at least a debate on the apparent hypocrisy of Lib Dems?
Mr Marcus Jones (Nuneaton) (Con)
I congratulate my right hon. Friend on his new appointment. May I also congratulate him on his appointment as the Prime Minister’s special representative on preventing sexual violence in conflict, and thank him for his personal commitment on an issue that affects millions of women, men, boys and girls around the world? Will he make a statement to update the House on how he will take forward that vital campaign in his new role?
Mr Hague
I am very grateful to my hon. Friend both for his welcome and for referring to my role as the Prime Minister’s special representative on that issue. As he and the House will know, I feel passionately about it, and we have begun to make some progress on changing attitudes globally on sexual violence in conflict. A written statement has been published by the Foreign Office within the past few days, which sets out what we will do next to deliver practical change in various countries where this problem has been endemic. I look forward to helping to drive that forward—still working with many other countries—over the next 10 months.
Kate Green (Stretford and Urmston) (Lab)
Will the Leader of the House arrange for the new Minister for disabled people, the Minister of State, Department for Work and Pensions, the hon. Member for Forest of Dean (Mr Harper), to make a statement on the Access to Work scheme, which is often described as the Government’s best kept secret? This morning, I was informed that any contact with the Access to Work electronic mailbox receives the response, “This mailbox is full and cannot receive messages.” With a response like that, it is hardly surprising that it is such a secret.
Andrew Jones (Harrogate and Knaresborough) (Con)
I join colleagues in warmly welcoming my right hon. Friend to his place. Last week, we had the announcement on the local growth deals, which saw funding allocated to colleges across the country, including £4 million to Harrogate college. May we have a debate when we get back from the recess on how important colleges are in our education system because of their combination of academic and vocational qualifications, the offer of apprenticeships and their major contribution to delivering the skills that businesses need?
Mr Hague
I cannot promise such a debate, given all the pressing matters that the House has to deal with, but my hon. Friend is quite right to raise the issue. Indeed, Harrogate college is one of the very long list of things that we are proud of in North Yorkshire. He raises the importance of local growth to our long-term economic recovery, which will be supported not least by last week’s announcement of £6 billion for local growth deals. He highlights the importance of colleges in the education system. I know that he will join me in welcoming the £1 billion that has been put into the Youth Contract for more apprenticeships, work experience places and wage incentives.
Alison Seabeck (Plymouth, Moor View) (Lab)
Lawyers in Plymouth are very angry. The right hon. Gentleman’s constituents and mine are getting pretty desperate in their attempts to find ways to access the law, particularly those who are on low pay. The latest issue is the summer contract changes. Lawyers are becoming very worried that they will not be able to meet the timetable and that law firms will close. Will he please encourage the Justice Secretary to come to the House in September to update Members on the effect of that change?
Jeremy Lefroy (Stafford) (Con)
Our sitting in September will be the last opportunity to debate the future of the United Kingdom before the Scottish referendum. Will my right hon. Friend find Government time to debate that most important of issues for the United Kingdom and the people of Scotland?
Mr Hague
That will be a very important time for the people of the whole of the United Kingdom. The decision will be made by the people of Scotland. The debate will go far beyond this House and will be conducted on the airwaves and doorsteps of Scotland. Many hon. Members will join that debate in September, and that is probably the appropriate place for it to be conducted.
Barry Gardiner (Brent North) (Lab)
One of Britain’s most eminent scientists, a fellow of the Royal Society and the principal of Jesus college Oxford, Lord Krebs, last week published a report that said that, given the Government’s spending plans, two thirds of our flood defences will be inadequate. May we therefore have a debate on the preparation for winter floods in the UK, so that the new Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs can find a new ingenious form of words or some new outrageous statistics to justify what the Government are doing?
Mr Hague
Those are important issues. The hon. Gentleman will know that over our period in government we have spent more on flood defences than was spent in the equivalent period before. I believe that there were many questions about this issue at Environment, Food and Rural Affairs questions today, because it is an important topic. I know that my right hon. and hon. Friends at the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs will be interested in what he has to say and in the work of Lord Krebs. I cannot offer an additional debate, but the opportunities to discuss this matter with DEFRA Ministers will continue.
Tessa Munt (Wells) (LD)
Will the Leader of the House find time to discuss with the Health Secretary why NHS England is refusing to spend any of the extra £42 million that the Department has made available for increasing the use of radiotherapy this year on treating cancer patients with stereotactic ablative radiotherapy, which works?
Mr Hague
As my hon. Friend knows, we introduced the cancer drugs fund which, as my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has said in the House, is not only for drugs but also for innovative treatment. There have been changes in the way radiotherapy is carried out and new technology is used, but as the Prime Minister said—I know this applies to Health Ministers—we would be happy to discuss the matter in more detail with my hon. Friend.
Mr Khalid Mahmood (Birmingham, Perry Barr) (Lab)
Will the Leader of the House make time for a debate on the role of the police and crime commissioners policy that his Government introduced? Such a debate would allow me, and indeed the whole House, to pay our respects and condolences to Bob Jones, the police and crime commissioner for the west midlands who died unexpectedly earlier this month. It would also allow us to recognise that he was a great and committed public servant who was never too busy to meet the people he served. He was a great friend and a great comrade.
Mr Hague
The hon. Gentleman has used this opportunity to pay tribute to Bob Jones. I remember hearing about him, and across the House we are sad to hear of the tragic death of a very fine public servant. I join the hon. Gentleman in sending condolences and tributes to the family of Mr Jones.
Mr Philip Hollobone (Kettering) (Con)
I welcome the Leader of the House to his new role and thank him for the dedication, energy and enthusiasm that he put into the role of Foreign Secretary. Before he became Foreign Secretary, he played a key role on an individual level in negotiating the coalition agreement, going through it line by line, paragraph by paragraph. He will remember that in chapter 24 at the bottom of page 27 are the words:
“A House Business Committee, to consider government business, will be established by the third year of the Parliament”.
Consensus was achieved when those words were written, and I know my right hon. Friend attaches huge importance to upholding the tenets of the coalition agreement. In the last year of this Parliament, will he introduce the Hague reforms, to allow the House of Commons to timetable its own business as long as it allows the Government to get through their legislation?
Mr Hague
That would be quite a mouthful, Mr Speaker. I remember pretty much every line of the coalition agreement—I certainly remember every minute of negotiating it, which was quite a painstaking process. My hon. Friend is right that that commitment is in the coalition agreement, and as he knows it was raised earlier today by two of our hon. Friends. I know there are strong feelings about this issue and consensus on it in part of the House, but I do not think there is consensus across the whole House. I would be happy to discuss the matter further with my hon. Friend, but I do not envisage the situation changing at the moment.
Mrs Emma Lewell-Buck (South Shields) (Lab)
I, too, welcome the Leader of the House to his new position. Despite the Government’s claims that they will tackle false self-employment, construction firms continue to exploit loopholes which mean that people like my constituent, Ron Boyle, are losing hundreds of pounds every month. Will the Leader of the House give the House time to debate that issue and discuss how those loopholes can be closed, so that people like Mr Boyle are not robbed of a fair wage?
Mr Hague
The fair treatment of people in all walks of life and employment is always an important issue for the House, and raising and redressing such matters is part of why we exist. I understand why the hon. Lady has raised the issue, although I do not have a lot of time to give away for debates. That sort of issue can be raised in an Adjournment debate and at questions or through the Backbench Business Committee, and I hope she will go about it in that way.
Bill Esterson (Sefton Central) (Lab)
May we have a debate on GP services? In Hightown in my constituency, the GP practice is staffed by locums, despite promises that a full-time doctor would be employed when a change was made to the running of the practice. Patients cannot get appointments and, as a result, many have to leave and go elsewhere. May we have a debate on GP surgeries in communities such as Hightown, so that we can discuss how to ensure that the decline that patients are experiencing is reversed?
Mr Hague
These issues are discussed often in the House. It is clear that the demand to see a GP has gone up greatly. The Royal College of General Practitioners says that there are 40 million more GP appointments a year than there were five years ago. We are trying to ensure that our resources are focused on increasing the number of clinical staff. We are increasing the number of newly qualified doctors who go on to train to become a GP to 50% by 2020. A great deal is going on to improve these services, but the hon. Gentleman has made his point about his local situation.
Tom Blenkinsop (Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland) (Lab)
I congratulate my constituency neighbour on his new position. Earlier, the right hon. Gentleman said that he will have to come to this place often and reflect the Government’s position to the House. With his new powers, will he give us a statement on whether he supports or opposes the Health Secretary’s confirmation of the decision to close maternity services in Friarage hospital?
Mr Hague
As the hon. Gentleman knows, that decision has been determined by the independent reconfiguration panel and the Secretary of State has accepted its advice. That is what it is for—it is independent. This is the end of a long battle on that particular issue and all of us who were involved have had to accept that. I think that in all such cases the Secretary of State takes its advice. It is very important that there is a strong future for Friarage hospital in Northallerton. We are getting into constituency matters here, but I would encourage the clinical commissioning group and South Tees Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust to set out a very strong and ambitious future for that hospital.
Ian Mearns (Gateshead) (Lab)
I welcome the Leader of the House to his position. Given the location of his very scenic and beautiful constituency, he may be aware of the importance of transport infrastructure expenditure on the prospects for local economies. Given that Northern Rail and Network Rail do not have an investment programme in the next five-year control period for anywhere north of York, may we have a debate on the importance of transport infrastructure expenditure in generating economies, particularly in places like the north-east of England?
Mr Hague
These are, of course, very important issues. It is one of a long list of issues on which hon. Members have asked for debates today. It is evident to the House that it is not possible to agree to debates on all of those subjects. The hon. Gentleman gives his opinion. It is also true that the Government are investing more in the roads than at any time since the 1970s, and, with HS2, more in rail than at any time since Victorian times. Important announcements about transport infrastructure across the north of England have been made recently by the Chancellor and the Transport Secretary, so it is important to have a look at those.
Mr Speaker
I think I can speak for the whole House in saying that we are extremely grateful to the Leader of the House and to colleagues for an invigorating and therapeutic series of exchanges.
Hallett Review
(9 years, 9 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mrs Theresa Villiers)
With permission, I would like to make a statement on the report by Lady Justice Hallett, which is being published today, on the scheme dealing with the so-called “on-the-runs”.
In February, Mr Justice Sweeney ruled that it would be an abuse of process to proceed with the prosecution of John Downey in connection with the Hyde park bombing on 20 July 1982, and the trial was stayed. The Hyde park atrocity resulted in the brutal murder of four members of the Blues and Royals. Seven horses were also killed. Just hours later, another bomb in Regent’s park took the lives of seven members of the Royal Green Jackets. These were appalling terrorist outrages, carried out by the Provisional IRA, for which there could never ever be any justification. So I hope our first thoughts in the House today are with the families and friends of those murdered that day in July 1982. The Government fully appreciate the deep sense of hurt and anger that the collapse of the Downey trial has caused both to them and to victims of terrorism more widely. I would like to repeat the apology I gave in March for what has happened. The Government are profoundly sorry for the hurt this case has caused to all victims of terrorism.
The Downey case highlighted the administrative scheme introduced by the previous Government to deal with so-called on-the-runs. These were people who had left Northern Ireland and believed that if they returned to any part of the UK, they might be arrested in connection with terrorist offences. The Government responded to the widespread public concern expressed about the OTR scheme by establishing a judge-led, independent review of it. I am very grateful to Lady Justice Hallett for taking on that task. Anybody reading the report will be left in no doubt that she has provided us with a rigorous and comprehensive account of the scheme. The Government accept the report and all its recommendations in full.
On the central issue of whether the OTR administrative scheme gave suspected terrorists immunity from prosecution, Lady Justice Hallett is very clear. She concludes:
“The administrative scheme did not amount to an amnesty for terrorists…Suspected terrorists were not handed a ‘get out of jail free’ card”.
The Government have always been clear that if sufficient evidence emerges, individual OTRs are liable for arrest and prosecution in the normal way. So I repeat today to the people holding those letters: they will not protect you from arrest or prosecution, and should the police succeed in gathering sufficient evidence, you will be subject to the due process of law. Lady Justice Hallett sets out the origins, operation and evolution of the scheme. She agrees with successive Attorneys-General that the scheme was lawful. The last letter sent by the Northern Ireland Office was issued in December 2012, and I repeat today that, as far as this Government are concerned, the scheme is over.
The report sets out a number of serious criticisms of how the scheme operated, including significant systemic failures. Lady Justice Hallett states:
“The scheme was not designed; it evolved. As a result there was no overall policy and no overall responsibility/accountability for it”.
She says that the scheme
“lacked proper lines of responsibility, accountability and safeguards…When errors came to light opportunities were missed to rectify them…There was no risk assessment”.
In the case of Mr Downey, Lady Justice Hallett concluded, in line with the Sweeney judgment, that it was not the fact that Mr Downey was sent a letter that caused the trial to collapse, but the fact that the letter contained an incorrect and misleading statement, on which Mr Downey then relied. The report finds that if the scheme had been properly administered,
“John Downey would not have received a letter of assurance”.
She concludes that she can find no “logical explanation” of why Police Service of Northern Ireland officers failed to pass on the fact that Mr Downey was still wanted by the Metropolitan police or why they failed to correct the error once it became known.
Lady Justice Hallett finds that 13 OTRs received the royal prerogative of mercy between 2000 and 2002, and that in all cases this was to release people from having to serve some or all of the rest of their sentences. No pre-conviction pardons were issued. The report criticises the lack of a
“central register of documents recording the use of the RPM”.
While she finds
“no evidence of the UK Government actively seeking to obscure the scheme from the public,”
Lady Justice Hallett states that it
“was not given much publicity and that important groups”
such as victims and their families “remained unaware” of it. The report acknowledges the great hurt and distress that this has caused to many victims. Lady Justice Hallett has found two examples of somebody receiving a letter in error, in addition to the Downey case. She has also identified 36 cases dealt with between February 2007 and November 2008 that she believes should be given priority in the exercise now under way by the PSNI to check whether the change in status from wanted to not wanted can still be justified.
The key question that has arisen is what the Government intend to do next to ensure that there are no more failed prosecutions like that of Mr Downey.
The report recommends that we now
“seek legal advice, in conjunction with the police and prosecuting authorities, to determine whether”
we
“should notify any individuals whose status, as communicated to them, has changed or may change in the future”
and that we
“consider how to mitigate against further abuse of process arguments, for example by confirming to recipients the factual and contemporaneous nature of their letters”.
The Government will act on these and all Lady Justice Hallett’s recommendations, and I give the House this assurance: we will take whatever steps are necessary, acting on the basis of legal advice and in conjunction with the police and prosecutors, to do everything possible to remove barriers to future prosecutions. In taking that forward, I propose to work closely with the devolved Minister of Justice.
The bulk of the report deals with decisions made by the previous Government in respect of their handling of the political process in Northern Ireland. It is not my role to speak for my Labour predecessors as Secretary of State; they are more than capable of speaking for themselves on the role they played and the decisions they took, and they have addressed the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee on these matters. But I will say this: I might not agree with every decision they made in relation to the OTR issue, but whatever differences of emphasis and approach we might have, I recognise that they were dealing with very difficult judgments in very difficult circumstances and that they were at all times acting with sincerity in seeking to move the peace process forward. I emphasise very clearly that Lady Justice Hallett has found no evidence that either politicians or officials ever interfered improperly with the due process of law or the operational independence of police or prosecutors.
The report concludes that the scheme did not impact on police investigations into historic terrorist offences. Police Service of Northern Ireland and Historical Enquiries Team files were not closed. There was no chilling effect.
It is well known that the current Government allowed the checking process to continue after we came to power in May 2010, but both I and my predecessor have been very clear: had we at any time been presented with a scheme that we thought amounted to an amnesty, immunity or exemption from prosecution, we would have stopped it immediately. That would have been consistent with the opposition of both coalition partners to the Northern Ireland (Offences) Bill, introduced by the right hon. Member for Neath (Mr Hain) in 2005, which was subsequently abandoned.
This Government believe in the rule of law, and that applies across the board to everyone, without fear or favour, including those in possession of letters issued under the scheme. There are many lessons to be learned from this episode, not least of which is the crucial importance of continued efforts to find an agreement on the divisive issues of flags, parading and the past.
On dealing with the painful legacy of Northern Ireland’s past, we need a process that is transparent, accountable and balanced, puts the era of side deals firmly behind us and commands the confidence of all parts of the community in Northern Ireland. The Government remain fully committed to working with all parties in Northern Ireland in their efforts to deliver that important goal, and I commend this statement to the House.
Mr Ivan Lewis (Bury South) (Lab)
I thank the Secretary of State for advance sight of her statement and the tone of her response. Today, as we reflect on the findings of Lady Justice Hallett’s report, it is important above all else that we remember the soldiers who lost their lives in Hyde park on that dreadful day in July 1982 and the suffering that their families continue to endure. That act was heinous and, like all terrorist atrocities, totally unjustifiable. The fact that those families are less likely to get either truth or justice will make that suffering worse. That is why the report was necessary. We have apologised for the catastrophic mistakes made specifically in the Downey case.
This inquiry is incredibly important for victims of the troubles and also for the wider public, so that we can address both legitimate concerns and frequently repeated falsehoods as we strive to build a better and shared future for Northern Ireland. We welcome Lady Hallett’s report today and accept her findings in full. Lady Hallett had limited time in which to complete her inquiry, but despite the time constraints she met more than 40 individuals and reviewed thousands of documents to prepare today’s report. We acknowledge her findings, including those that made it clear that there should have been a more systematic approach to the operation and ongoing review of the scheme.
There are lessons to be learned by both the Northern Ireland Office and the Police Service of Northern Ireland. We are of course concerned that there appear to be two other cases in which errors in letters have been identified, and Lady Hallett’s assertion that the PSNI review of cases will take years is also a source of concern. I will return to these points in my questions to the Secretary of State.
We are pleased that Lady Hallett shattered a number of myths. She makes it clear that the scheme was not unlawful, that files on terrorist offences were not closed by the PSNI and, most importantly, she states categorically on the very first page of her report that this administrative scheme was not an amnesty and nor did it ever amount to a get- out-of-jail-free card. We do not believe amnesty is the right approach to dealing with the past in Northern Ireland.
On legality, while Lady Hallett questions the structure of the scheme, she makes it clear on page 144 of the report that the administrative scheme was not unlawful. Furthermore, she goes on to say that
“the Downey ruling is confined to its own facts and is not binding on any other judge.”
On amnesty, Lady Hallett makes it clear on page 28
“that there was no question of the administrative scheme granting an alleged offender an amnesty or immunity from prosecution. It is clear from the views expressed at the time that the Attorney-General would not have agreed to the process had that been the intention or the effect. It is also clear that successive Attorneys-General maintained the same position throughout the life of the scheme.”
Finally, while Justice Hallett is right to conclude that the scheme was not secret, I acknowledge the concern of politicians and others who feel they should have been given more information about the nature and application of the scheme. This includes the First Minister and Justice Minister after the devolution of policing and justice in 2010.
I have a number of questions for the Secretary of State. On page 142, Lady Hallett identifies two further cases where letters issued might have contained errors. Can she update the House on these two cases and inform us what steps have been taken on each? Can she update us on the other inquiries commissioned back in February: the police ombudsman inquiry and the PSNI inquiry? Lady Hallett mentions these in her report and she expects the PSNI review to take “years”. Can the Secretary of State reassure us that the PSNI will be provided with the necessary resources to deliver a full and thorough process that can be concluded in a much shorter time scale?
The Secretary of State will agree that this issue of on-the-runs has opened up wider questions surrounding the use of the royal prerogative of mercy. Lady Hallett mentions on page 143 that she has
“identified no cases where the RPM was used as a pre-conviction pardon for an OTR”
on the lists that she held. Can the Secretary of State update the House on the ongoing investigation about those records that have gone missing from her Department pre-1997?
Finally, and perhaps most crucially, does the Secretary of State now accept that this report reinforces rather than undermines the urgent need for a robust, transparent and comprehensive process to deal with Northern Ireland’s past? It is now clear that the UK and Irish Governments must take a far more hands-on role in supporting Northern Ireland’s political parties to reach agreement both on the past and on parades. Until this happens, one can conclude only that stalemate will prevail, leaving a dangerous vacuum that is being filled by those who seek to undermine the peace process either through political means or, worse still, a return to violence.
As the Prime Minister has said, it would be wrong to be retrospectively selective about key elements of an historic peace process that ended 30 years of violence and terror. It was an extraordinary period, which demanded historic and difficult compromises. However, as a result of that momentous agreement, Northern Ireland has been transformed, and at grassroots level, there are numerous heart-warming examples of reconciliation and normalisation across communities. These changes should never be underestimated or taken for granted.
This remarkable progress did not happen by accident or simply through the passage of time. It would never have been possible without the courageous and visionary leadership of people like David Trimble and John Hume, without the huge risks taken by Gerry Adams and Martin McGuiness in renouncing violence and accepting that the constitutional status of Northern Ireland would only ever change with the consent of the people, or without Ian Paisley Senior’s willingness to reconcile long-standing, deeply held convictions with the democratic will of the people—a position that has been taken forward by Peter Robinson. It never would have happened, of course, without the contributions of many others in Northern Ireland, including right hon. and hon. Members in their places in this Chamber today, who allowed hope to triumph over fear.
I have to say that it would never have happened without the intensive engagement of the UK and Irish Governments working together. In a UK context, John Major deserves credit for starting the process, but what was decisive was Tony Blair’s decision to expend unprecedented prime ministerial capital on achieving peace in Northern Ireland. He was supported, of course, by the extraordinary Mo Mowlam and ultra-professional Jonathan Powell, not to mention successive Secretaries of State and junior Ministers such as the late Paul Goggins, whose memorial service last night was a truly fitting tribute to a very special parliamentarian.
I have to make this point because some would like to use the controversy generated by the on-the-runs as a stick with which to beat Tony Blair and to allow legitimate public concern to distort the truth about a peace process lauded around the world. This peace process, of course, was not a perfect one—there is no such thing—but it is a peace process of which I and my party remain incredibly proud. It has saved lives and allowed the current younger generation in Northern Ireland to grow up largely free from the fear and reality of violence. Let me be clear, Mr Speaker, that this is unlikely to have happened without Tony Blair and his Government. I end by echoing the Secretary of State’s thanks to Lady Justice Hallett for her comprehensive report.
Mr Speaker
Order. I thank the shadow Secretary of State for the seriousness and comprehensiveness of his remarks. I know he will take it in the right spirit if I say that a pressing priority for him at the start of the summer recess will be to get his watch repaired.
Mrs Villiers
I agree with the shadow Secretary of State that this is an important opportunity to remember the victims of the Hyde Park bomb. I think it would be appropriate to read out their names. Those murdered were Lieutenant Anthony Daly, aged 23; Trooper Simon Tipper, aged 19 who died at the scene; Lance-Corporal Geoffrey Young, aged 19 who died the following day; and Squadron Quartermaster Corporal Raymond Bright, aged 36 who died two days after that. A total of 31 other people were injured, a number of them very seriously.
I welcome much of what the shadow Secretary of State said. I think it was appropriate for him to issue the apology that he did. I, too, apologise in clear terms to the Justice Minister and the First Minister for not briefing them on the scheme. It is a concern that the scheme operated in a way that was not as transparent as it should have been, which is one reason why the hurt was caused and why there has been such a great deal of misunderstanding about what the scheme actually involved. That is why I offered that apology, which I repeat today, for not briefing Ministers in the Executive on these matters.
I welcome the fact that the Hallett report shatters myths, as the hon. Member for Bury South (Mr Lewis) said. It emphasises that the scheme was not an amnesty and points out that the Downey ruling depends on its facts and would not necessarily provide a precedent for other cases.
The hon. Gentleman asked me to comment on the two cases in which errors occurred. I reiterate that the Government will follow the advice of the recommendations and work with the police, the prosecuting authorities and the Department of Justice to do everything we can to ensure that errors are corrected and that any barriers to future prosecution are removed. In that regard, I draw attention to paragraph 10.72 in which Lady Justice Hallett comments on the gravity of the mistake and the serious consequences it had for the Hyde Park families. She goes on to say:
“Other mistakes have been made and need correcting. But this can be done in a measured and proportionate way.”
At this stage, it would probably be unwise to comment on the specifics of the cases because it would be the worst possible outcome if anything were said in Parliament to jeopardise future prosecutions in these cases.
The ombudsman and PSNI investigations are independent matters for them, but I have been in close touch with the Chief Constable and know that the PSNI is very much aware of the content of the Hallett report and the mistakes identified. I know, too, that it is taking very seriously the exercise of checking all the cases that went through the scheme. In Northern Ireland questions we discussed concerns about the resources available to the PSNI. I hope these matters will be given the priority they deserve.
The shadow Secretary of State asked wider questions about the RPM. I can confirm that no pre-conviction pardons were issued. The investigation of the records for 1987 to 1997 is continuing. Our conclusion is that, in all likelihood, no central list of RPMs issued during that period was compiled. I am afraid that it may be a case not of a missing document, but of the fact that a document was not compiled in the first place, and that records of the RPMs were kept in the individual cases of the prisoners concerned and were destroyed according to normal routine records management.
I agree with the shadow Secretary of State that this episode reinforces the need for progress on agreeing a process for dealing with Northern Ireland’s past. I hope that the Hallett report will provide an opportunity for all the parties to return to the table and the debates on flags, parading and the past, and that an agreed way forward on these important matters can be found.
Mr Owen Paterson (North Shropshire) (Con)
I welcome both the statement and Lady Justice Hallett’s report. I confirm emphatically, as did Lady Justice Hallett, that if we had felt when we took power in May 2010 that there was a whiff or a hint that an amnesty might have been involved, we would have stopped the scheme immediately. A small number of cases remained, and I was content that there was no question at all of an amnesty. I am very pleased to learn that Lady Justice Hallett has confirmed that.
I think that today is the day on which we should remember the victims. More than 3,500 people were killed. Will the Secretary of State please confirm that police and law enforcement authorities throughout the United Kingdom will continue to pursue the perpetrators of many of these terrible crimes, in order to bring some satisfaction to the relatives of the victims that they will be brought to justice?
Mrs Villiers
I commend my right hon. Friend for all the brilliant work that he did as Secretary of State for Northern Ireland. What he has said is absolutely right.
I hope that Lady Justice Hallett’s report will reassure victims of terrorism that there were no get-out-of-jail-free cards. This was not an amnesty, and if we had inherited a scheme that involved such an amnesty, we would of course have rejected it, as we rejected the Northern Ireland (Offences) Bill. It is, indeed, crucial that police services the length and breadth of the land are rigorous in their pursuit of terrorists, and rigorous in their pursuit of justice for all who have suffered at their hands.
Mr Peter Hain (Neath) (Lab)
Does the Secretary of State agree that this exemplary report demonstrates to the victims who have suffered, and continue to suffer so much, that the scheme was not unlawful, was not an amnesty, and was not a get-out-of-jail-free card, that it did not offer immunity from prosecution, that no Minister involved misled anyone, and that although the scheme was sensitive, it was not secret?
May I put it directly to the Secretary of State that she has a responsibility to take this process forward, to learn from the report, and to bring all the parties together? That cannot be left simply to the Northern Ireland parties. Both the British Government and the Irish Government need to move forward, together with the parties, and address this past which continues to haunt Northern Ireland and all the victims who have suffered.
Mrs Villiers
I welcome the right hon. Gentleman’s praise for the report. As I have said, I think that there are concerns about the disclosure relating to the scheme; I think that it would have been far better if I, and my predecessors, had been more transparent about the way in which it operated. However, I agree with the right hon. Gentleman that it is important for us to revive the all-party talks, and for the parties to get round the table again to discuss the crucial issues of flags, parading and the past. We need to learn from the report.
I can, of course, give the right hon. Gentleman a complete assurance that the United Kingdom Government remain committed to doing all that they can to support the Northern Ireland parties in their efforts on these matters, and that we are working closely with our colleagues in Dublin, who share our determination to do everything possible to facilitate and support an agreement on the past.
Mr Laurence Robertson (Tewkesbury) (Con)
I thank the Secretary of State for giving me early sight of the report. When we look below the headlines, we see that it is very critical of what went on. Lady Justice Hallett refers to evidence given to the Select Committee by Assistant Chief Constable Drew Harris, who said that “95 of these individuals”—those who had received letters—
“are linked in some way or other to 200 murder investigations.”
He later corrected that figure to 295. He added:
“But that linkage may only be intelligence.”
Given the possibility that that intelligence could turn into evidence relating to any of those people, it is rather worrying that Lady Justice Hallett says:
“It is not clear to me…what would happen if fresh evidence should come to light. It is arguable…that this does not sufficiently provide for a change in circumstances.”
Have not this scheme and the way in which it has been run created a very worrying situation in Northern Ireland in respect of bringing people to justice and bringing closure to the victims whom we rightly remember today?
Mrs Villiers
The Chairman of the Select Committee is absolutely right. The report makes some very serious criticisms of the way in which the scheme was operated, and those will have difficult consequences that will need to be dealt with. However, I assure the House that the Government are determined that they will be dealt with. Lady Justice Hallett concluded that the errors could be corrected, and we will do everything in our power to ensure that they are corrected, acting on the basis of advice from lawyers, prosecutors and police.
My hon. Friend has drawn attention to concern about the terms of the caveats that were placed in the letters. Lady Justice Hallett is very clear about the fact that insufficient consideration was given to them. In some cases, they were left out altogether. My colleagues and I will be looking into that carefully to establish what, if anything, needs to be done to ensure that the errors that my hon. Friend has highlighted are corrected.
Mr Shaun Woodward (St Helens South and Whiston) (Lab)
I, too, thank the right hon. Lady for advance sight of the report, and join her in remembering not only the victims of the Hyde Park bombing, but all the people to whom the right hon. Member for North Shropshire (Mr Paterson) referred who lost their lives in the course of the troubles. I also thank Lady Justice Hallett for a very comprehensive report. As a former Secretary of State, I accept all the findings, observations and criticisms contained in it.
There are important things that we need to learn. I have three brief questions to ask the right hon. Lady, in the light of chapter 9 of the report. First, does she accept that the Northern Ireland Office still has responsibility for the scheme, and that it was not devolved? Secondly, does her statement that the scheme is now closed mean that the letters—as Lady Justice Hallett asked—have been rescinded or have not been rescinded? Thirdly, given that the right hon. Lady has made it clear today that the scheme has been closed—which I do not think Lady Justice Hallett fully appreciated—will she now tell us where that leaves the cases that were still under review?
Mrs Villiers
The right hon. Gentleman asked whether the scheme was devolved. As I have said in the House on many occasions, in August 2012 my predecessor and the then Attorney-General decided that it would not be appropriate for the Northern Ireland Office to accept any new cases, and that any fresh cases should be referred by Sinn Fein to devolved police and prosecuting authorities.
A debate has raged on the exact position of the scheme in terms of devolution. I discussed the matter with the Minister of State for Justice this morning. I think that the best way of putting it is that the Northern Ireland Office will not shirk its responsibilities in learning from these mistakes, correcting any errors, and taking any appropriate action that is needed to remove barriers to prosecution. We will do that in partnership with the Department of Justice, and respecting the devolution settlement. Exactly who does what and how it is done will be a matter for reflection in the coming days, and I will undoubtedly update the House in due course.
As for the closure of the scheme, I announced some months ago that it was closed. The Government will not be issuing any fresh “not wanted” indications. As I have made clear today, what we will do is play our part in correcting any mistakes and ensuring that everything that possibly can be done is done to remove any future barriers to prosecutions in other cases.
Mr Andrew Robathan (South Leicestershire) (Con)
On a personal note, I knew Anthony Daly. One can only imagine the pain that the Downey case has caused his family, and the families of the others who were murdered in Hyde park and Regent’s park. I very much regret the judgment of Mr Justice Sweeney, and I join those such as Lord Pannick, the distinguished jurist, who believe that the interests of justice should have trumped the mistake made by the police. Indeed, the allegations made against Downey were so serious that to all laymen such as myself, the judgment was extraordinary. On the subject of the OTR scheme, does my right hon. Friend believe that although the scheme was not secret, it was nevertheless deliberately obscured from public view and kept out of the public domain by the previous Government?
Mrs Villiers
Lady Justice Hallett found no evidence that it was deliberately obscured but, as I have said, it would have been far better if both Governments involved in the scheme had been more transparent about the way in which it operated. If we had been, we would not have faced the misunderstanding, the hurt and the upset that have been triggered as a result of the Downey judgment. It is important that we learn lessons from that lack of transparency and ensure that any future process on the past that is agreed is transparent and accountable.
Mr Nigel Dodds (Belfast North) (DUP)
I want to thank Lady Justice Hallett for her work on producing the report, which was asked for by the First Minister of Northern Ireland. With this statement being made in Parliament, our thoughts should be with the victims of the Hyde park bombing, first and foremost, and with the families of the victims of all terrorism in Northern Ireland. This was a shameful episode in the history of the so-called peace process. The grubby deal that was done between the Blair Government and Sinn Fein, the republican movement, is one of the worst examples of political chicanery that we have come across. There was no parliamentary or public approval, and at times Parliament was deliberately misled.
Lady Justice Hallett has concluded that there was no general amnesty. Certainly as far as our party and the other parties in Northern Ireland are concerned, there is no question of any amnesty, immunity or exemption from prosecution being acceptable, whether through legislation or by the back door. However, for John Downey—and, it now appears, two others—the fact was that there was an amnesty. The question now arises as to what the Government are going to do. I welcome the fact that the Secretary of State has said that the Government “will take whatever steps are necessary, acting on the basis of legal advice…to do everything possible to remove barriers to future prosecutions.” That is in line with her statement on 28 February that:
“We will take whatever steps that are necessary to make clear…that any letters issued cannot be relied upon to avoid questioning or prosecution”.—[Official Report, 28 February 2014; Vol. 576, c. 39WS.]
Can she give us a timetable, and will she assure us that if legislation is necessary, she will introduce it? Will she tell us whether there will be opportunities to question the former Prime Minister, Tony Blair, on his role in this? Will she also tell us what further steps can be taken on transparency in regard to the names of those who received a royal prerogative of mercy and of those who received comfort letters?
Mrs Villiers
I welcome the right hon. Gentleman’s offer of sympathy to all the victims of terrorism. As the representative of a constituency that was, sadly, the site of many horrific murders during the troubles, he is well placed to understand the pain that has been caused to those victims. I acknowledge that his party has always made it extremely clear that no amnesty would ever be acceptable, and I entirely support that position. As I have said, Heather Hallett’s report has confirmed today that there was no “get out of jail free” card. We will act as swiftly as we can to remove barriers to prosecution but, reflecting on the report’s findings, we should be under no illusions as to the legal complexities and sensitivities involved. We certainly do not want to repeat the mistakes of the past by acting in an over-hasty manner. We will keep in close touch with the Police Service of Northern Ireland on these matters, while always respecting its operational independence.
The right hon. Gentleman asked whether there would be an opportunity to question the former Prime Minister, Tony Blair, on these matters. That is really a matter for him and for the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee. On the publication of names, I have said throughout the debate on OTRs that I did not believe that such publication would be appropriate. There are many legal and privacy concerns involved, as well as questions relating to article 2, which is why I am not proposing to publish any names relating to either RPMs or OTRs.
Nigel Mills (Amber Valley) (Con)
In her statement, the Secretary of State said that we needed a process that is “transparent, accountable and balanced”. I hope that she would agree that this scheme was none of those. We have an open justice system and we generally know who is being arrested, charged, prosecuted and acquitted. It is not clear to me why we should not know who felt the need to seek one of those letters. If we believe in a transparent system, we should be able to find out who has received one.
Mrs Villiers
I understand my hon. Friend’s perspective. There are probably many reasons why people put their names forward. Something that comes across clearly in the report is that a number of the individuals concerned were not known to the PSNI at all. I will reflect on what he has said, but I continue to believe that it would not be helpful to name the individuals who were processed through the scheme. In all other respects, however, we need to be as transparent as we can about the steps we will take to remedy the serious errors identified by Heather Hallett, and we need to do all we can to learn from them.
Dr Alasdair McDonnell (Belfast South) (SDLP)
This whole sad Downey saga is riddled with ambiguity, limited information and half-truths, with no thought or respect for the victims. We built a hard-won peace process on truth and honesty, and a very welcome political process flowed from it. All parallel issues and discussions need to be open and transparent. This sad saga brings us back to one salient point that must be made again and again: we have neglected to deal adequately with the past and with the many issues that arise from our difficult history between 1970 and 1998. We are all guilty in this regard. The legacy of the past—the mistakes, the crimes, the murders and the maimings—hangs over us like a massive alpine glacier, and it leaves behind thousands of victims.
Does the Secretary of State accept that, unless the problems of the past are faced up to honestly and transparently and in an accountable and balanced way, they will continue to break off bit by bit and threaten us on a regular basis, month by month, disrupting lives and reopening old wounds? Will she and the Government commit to helping those of us who are working to complete the Haass process, in which dealing with the past is a major issue? Will they commit to ensuring honestly and transparently, and in a balanced way, that we deal with the past and, having dealt with it honourably, we begin to face the future with confidence? Will they ensure that the past is properly and completely finished with and put behind us?
Mrs Villiers
The hon. Gentleman puts the case for an attempt to resolve the issues of the past with great clarity. I fully agree that the legacy of Northern Ireland’s past is a recurrent issue that has the capacity to poison the political debate and to create a block to genuine reconciliation. I therefore strongly agree that, for the sake of peace and prosperity in Northern Ireland, it is essential that we find an agreed way forward and come to terms with the legacy of the past. I can give him the same assurance that he received from the Prime Minister in his meeting with him yesterday—namely, that this Government are fully committed to doing that and that we will play our part in any agreement between the Northern Ireland parties. We will continue to do everything we can to facilitate an agreement between those parties on these important matters.
Mr Philip Hollobone (Kettering) (Con)
Presumably Lady Justice Hallett’s report will be discussed at tomorrow’s Cabinet. This whole on-the-run episode is deeply troubling, but it is also an extraordinary and exceptional set of circumstances. Given the horrific nature of the Hyde park bombing, and the subsequent publication of the report, the question my constituents will want me to ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland is this: in the light of the report, is there now no chance at all that the stay on the prosecution of John Downey can be lifted?
Mrs Villiers
I am afraid the legal advice is that it is almost impossible for circumstances to arise where that stay could be lifted, so I am afraid that decision is irreversible. My hon. Friend is right to characterise this as an extraordinary scheme—that is how it was characterised by Lady Hallett. What I would emphasise is the point made by almost all hon. Members: this was not an amnesty. In describing what it was, I could do no better than use the terms summarised by Lord Reid, who said that this was a scheme to inform
“people who were not wanted”—
for arrest by the police—
“that they were not wanted”
for arrest by the police. It was not a scheme to send letters of comfort to people who genuinely were wanted.
Ian Paisley (North Antrim) (DUP)
Does the Secretary of State agree that it would be a travesty heaped upon an injustice if a single police officer was to be made a scapegoat for this error while Tony Blair was to be elevated to near sainthood by some people? Does she agree that the systemic failures identified in this report clearly show that the Northern Ireland Office made significant errors in the management of all this? Will she go further and recognise that the entire OTR scheme was a gross insult to victims? Pages 204 and 210 of the report contain two lists with redacted names on them. Given that Gerry Adams’ personal solicitor was not able to confirm or deny whether Gerry Adams is in receipt of one of these letters, does the Secretary of State consider it appropriate that if a political leader is in receipt of one of these letters, she should inform this House?
Mrs Villiers
On the last point, I only reiterate that I have no plans to publish the names of the individuals concerned, for the reasons I gave before. I have a lot of sympathy with the hon. Gentleman’s characterisation of the position of the PSNI officers. The report is very clear that there were significant systemic failings in the way the NIO at the time ran the scheme. It was certainly well intentioned, and I think civil servants made strenuous efforts to act appropriately, but the reality is that at a senior level—Ministers at the time will of course take responsibility for this—as the Hallett report makes clear, the scheme was not gripped properly, the risks were not assessed properly, and there were opportunities to identify errors and correct them but those were not taken. All of that means it would be wrong to characterise the result of the Downey case as just being down to the actions of an individual PSNI officer. If the scheme had been run in an appropriate way, it is highly likely that those facts would never have arisen in the first place. That of course is a matter for which all those Ministers in office at the time will take responsibility.
Kate Hoey (Vauxhall) (Lab)
The Hallett report is, of course, comprehensive, but there is something wrong with it: everything was held in secret. Once again, the victims really do not know what people said; they do not know what Gerry Kelly said or what Gerry Adams said, and they are left in the dark. The Select Committee on Northern Ireland Affairs is carrying out its own inquiry and we took interesting evidence, given in public, about the push for and the pressure on the police to get these letters out—that came from somewhere. Lady Justice Hallett says that the scheme
“lacked proper lines of responsibility, accountability and safeguards”.
Surely the real responsibility for all this—whatever he did in terms of getting the peace process—must lie at the very heart of government, with the letters that were coming from the then Prime Minister to Gerry Adams saying, “We are going to sort this.”
Mrs Villiers
As I say, the ultimate responsibility for the scheme has to lie at a political level; civil servants, at all times, were working to a remit approved by Secretaries of State. That is very clear from the report, and it is important that responsibility is taken. On the public taking of evidence, the hon. Lady is a member of the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee, which has had a number of hearings on these matters. They have been helpful in throwing further light on the matters set out in the Hallett report, and indeed it is clear from the report that Lady Justice Hallett has relied on a number of the NIAC evidence sessions.
David Simpson (Upper Bann) (DUP)
The judge has said in her report that the letters were not an amnesty or a “get out of jail free” card, but she fails to call this what it was. My right hon. Friend the Member for Belfast North (Mr Dodds) hit on it: it was a dirty, grubby deal to place republicans, with total disregard for victims. No matter how we paint this up, that is exactly what it was. Does the Secretary of State agree that it is a travesty of justice that, according to evidence that NIAC has received, 95 of those letters went out to individuals responsible for more than 295 murders? The victims are left weeping because, in all honesty, they probably will not get any justice.
Mrs Villiers
I am of course aware of Drew Harris’s evidence to NIAC, but what he said was that there was an intelligence connection between these individuals and a number of terrorist crimes. That of course is not the same as saying that there was evidence sufficient to arrest and it is certainly not the same as saying that there was evidence sufficient to mount a prosecution. So it is important for victims to understand that in these cases where the scheme was operating correctly it was only sending letters to people about whom there was insufficient evidence to justify an arrest. I suppose the other reassurance I can try to give the hon. Gentleman—he and his party are very clear on their views about this scheme—is that the report is very clear that this did not stop police investigations, files were not closed as a result of the OTR scheme and the boundaries were not crossed in relation to political interference; neither politicians nor officials interfered inappropriately with the administration of justice.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Dawn Primarolo)
Order. I am very keen to ensure that all hon. Members get to participate in this statement. I appreciate that the Secretary of State is giving very full answers. May I gently suggest slightly clipped and crisp questions, and crisp answers, as we do have quite a lot of business that we need to move on to?
Mark Durkan (Foyle) (SDLP)
Does the Secretary of State recognise that although Lady Justice Hallett makes it clear at the start of her report that it is not a whitewash, it does leave a couple of black boxes in respect of Operation Rapid, not least the fact that there is little explanation as to why during that period so many cases on the list went from being “wanted” to being “not wanted”? Lady Justice Hallett gave an assurance that there was no chilling effect, but why then the frozen response on the part of the PSNI whenever it clearly realised that mistakes were made in respect to the Downey letter and why the frozen response whenever the Historical Enquiries Team indicated that it had identified possible evidence in relation to Mr Downey and offences in Northern Ireland?
Mrs Villiers
The hon. Gentleman rightly says that there is further work to be done—there is no doubt about that. One important aspect of that work is the police investigation of all of these cases to check whether the “not wanted” judgment was the correct one. The reason Lady Justice Hallett has selected 36 cases as a priority for that investigation is that she believes the police might have been applying the wrong threshold to decide whether an individual was wanted or not wanted. Clearly, therefore, it will be very important to look carefully at those cases, and I am sure the PSNI will do so.
Dr William McCrea (South Antrim) (DUP)
The dirty deal done between the previous Government and Sinn Fein was underhand, and an insult to victims and to all democrats in Northern Ireland. Does the Secretary of State therefore accept that a deep hurt is felt by victims and that the only way to ensure it does not continue is by ensuring that these letters are withdrawn?
Mrs Villiers
I can assure the hon. Gentleman that I will take whatever steps are necessary to remove barriers to prosecution, based on the advice I am given by police and prosecutors. We will do everything possible to ensure that we do not see a repeat of the collapse of the Downey trial in another instance.
Sammy Wilson (East Antrim) (DUP)
The report makes it quite clear on the cover-up of this scheme that the authors and indeed the former Prime Minister and Secretary of State—appallingly—made representations about murderers not being prosecuted. The least we could have expected from the shadow Secretary of State today was an apology, instead of which we got a brazen defence. The Minister has at least apologised for the way in which the scheme was administered, for the ambiguity, and for the fact that the Northern Ireland Assembly and Executive were not informed. Will she now go further and assure us not only that will cases be left open but that she will be request from the police that everyone who has been issued with a letter will have their case reinvestigated, that new intelligence will be sought and that new investigative channels will be looked at so at least the victims can be sure that those who have received these letters will not be able to live in comfort for the rest of their lives?
Mrs Villiers
Let me take this opportunity to repeat the apology that I gave for the lack of transparency and the failure to discuss this scheme. I repeat my concerns about the way in which this scheme as a whole was run, including under my predecessors. I think that has been the cause of much of the distress to victims. The hon. Gentleman asks about the exact steps that will be taken to ensure that errors are corrected and problematic cases dealt with. I counsel against statements of that sort at this stage. We need to be careful to ensure that there is nothing that could be said in haste, which might end up hindering rather than helping a future prosecution. As soon as I am able, I will give further information on how we intend to implement the recommendations. Today, we need to be careful about commenting on specific cases and how they will be dealt with.
Ms Margaret Ritchie (South Down) (SDLP)
I thank the Secretary of State for her statement. We must never forget the victims and the survivors who have suffered. This whole sorry debacle has left a sour taste in the mouths of many people throughout Northern Ireland. Will the Secretary of State confirm that there must be a redoubling of efforts to get back to the talks table to discuss those outstanding issues of the past—parading and flags—and will she confirm that she will come back to this House to explain how she intends to implement those recommendations from Hallett?
Mrs Villiers
I am certainly happy to come back to the House to discuss the implementation of the Hallett recommendations. The hon. Lady will know that I fully support the all-party talks and agree on the importance of their resumption. She will also know that the Prime Minister shares that view, because she will have heard that in her conversation with him yesterday.
Mr Jeffrey M. Donaldson (Lagan Valley) (DUP)
Three of the people proposed for this scheme were proposed by the Garda Siochana. Will the Secretary of State explain how the Irish police service was aware of this scheme, yet Ministers in the Northern Ireland Government were not? Secondly, I understand that up to 15 names were proposed by the Northern Ireland Prison Service. Will she explain the role of the prison service in relation to this scheme, what officials were involved and how they will be held to account?
Mrs Villiers
As regards the names that came from the Irish Government, the Irish Government were involved at various points in the peace process on a number of matters, including this one. As I have said, I regret that Executive Ministers were not briefed at the time. On the prison service, it is not entirely clear how that came about, but it seems that the prison service had a number of individuals on its files who had escaped from prison, and the reason they ended up on the OTR scheme was to establish whether they needed to be sought for a return to prison. It was to clarify the position for the prison service.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I thank the Secretary of State for her statement and her comments that she would have stopped it immediately if she had known. I am conscious of the victims; those are the people I think about. Kenneth Smith, an Ulster Defence Regiment sergeant, was killed on 10 December 1971. His killers escaped across the border. The IRA killer of Lexie Cummings walked out of court and straight across the border and has not returned. Four UDR men were killed at Ballydugan. Eight people were arrested, but none was charged. Some of those are now across the border. The murderers in the La Mon massacre at Castlereagh have also skipped across the border and have risen to prominence in business and political life in the Republic of Ireland. Will the Secretary of State tell us when she will have discussions with the Prime Minister in the Republic of Ireland to ensure that the investigations that will take place in Northern Ireland will mean that those down south who think they have escaped will be apprehended and made accountable?
Mrs Villiers
The hon. Gentleman will appreciate that, contrary to the position in the past, decisions on extradition are now taken by independent police and prosecuting authorities. On that basis, it would be inappropriate of me to raise specific cases with the Government of the Republic of Ireland.
“A New Magna Carta?”
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Dawn Primarolo)
We now come to the first of two Select Committee statements, which will be moved by Mr Fabian Hamilton. He will make the first statement on behalf of the Political and Constitutional Reform Committee, which will last for no more than 10 minutes, during which there will be no interventions. At the conclusion of his statement, I will call Members to put questions on its subject. Members can expect to be called only once. Interventions should be questions and should be brief. Front Benchers may take part in the questioning.
Fabian Hamilton (Leeds North East) (Lab)
Before I begin the statement, I should like to give the apologies of the Chair of the Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham North (Mr Allen), who is unable to be with us this afternoon. I pay tribute to his extraordinary work on this massive report, “A New Magna Carta?”, and thank the staff of the Committee, the Clerks and the other staff for all the efforts they have put into this four-year work.
Last Thursday, right next to the Magna Carta in the British Library, the Political and Constitutional Reform Committee launched its new report on whether the UK’s constitution should be codified. The report marks the end of an innovative four-year inquiry that has involved the Committee working closely with King's college, University of London.
The United Kingdom is one of the very few democratic countries in the world without a codified constitution. As the Cabinet Manual notes:
“There is no single document that describes, establishes or regulates the structures of the state and the way in which these relate to the people. Instead, the constitutional order has evolved over time and continues to do so.”
Among other democracies, only Israel and New Zealand do not have codified or written constitutions.
We are living through a period of considerable political change. Significant developments in recent decades have included devolution in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland; the removal of 90% of hereditary peers from the House of Lords; freedom of information legislation; the establishment of the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom; the introduction of fixed-term Parliaments; and the entrenchment of human rights in our domestic legal system. At the same time, some existing constitutional arrangements have been written down in publicly available documents such as the ministerial code and the civil service code. But these changes have been piecemeal, so, at the beginning of the 2010 Parliament, the Political and Constitutional Reform Committee decided that the time was right to begin a comprehensive evaluation of the United Kingdom’s constitutional arrangements.
The Committee launched its inquiry in September 2010. From the beginning, we knew that this would be an ambitious and unusual Select Committee inquiry, which would be conducted over several years. It has involved working collaboratively with an academic partner, King’s college London, which has produced for us, among other things, an outline of the arguments for and against codification, a paper setting out the process that could be adopted in the preparation, design and implementation of a codified constitution, and three examples of what a codified constitution could look like: a non-legal code, a consolidation act, and a fully fledged written constitution. The Select Committee has published all that research, as well as a fully fledged written constitution, alongside our report.
When it comes to arguments in favour of a codified constitution, the King’s college London research points to the fact that the United Kingdom has a “sprawling mass” of common law, Acts of Parliament and European treaty obligations, and a number of important but uncertain and unwritten conventions that govern administration, but the full picture is unclear and uncertain to electors in our democracy. The research also points to concerns about an “elective dictatorship” and argues that it has
“become too easy for governments to implement political and constitutional reforms to suit their own political convenience”.
A written constitution would entrench requirements for popular and parliamentary consent, because the present unwritten constitution is
“an anachronism riddled with references to our ancient past, unsuited to the social and political democracy of the 21st century and future aspirations of its people. It fails to give primacy to the sovereignty of the people and discourages popular participation in the political process.”
Conversely, the case made against a written constitution in the King’s college research is that it is unnecessary, undesirable and even un-British. The UK’s unwritten constitution is evolutionary and flexible in nature, enabling practical problems to be resolved as they arise and individual reforms made. The research points to concerns that a written constitution would create more litigation in the courts and politicise the judiciary, requiring them to pass judgment on the constitutionality of Government legislation, when the final word on legal matters should rightly lie with elected politicians in Parliament and not unelected judges. There is the simple argument that there are so many practical problems in preparing and enacting a written constitution that there is little point in even considering it. There is no real popular support or demand and, especially given the massive amount of time and destabilising effect such a reform would entail, it is a low priority even for those who support the idea.
The Select Committee deliberately did not take a position for or against a codified constitution, believing that it is for the people of this country to make such a decision. The intention was instead to generate a forward-looking debate alongside the 800th anniversary celebrations of Magna Carta by placing in the public domain the results of our unique, four-year research project. Like Professor Robert Blackburn, who led the research, the Committee believes that a consideration of detailed alternative models, showing how a constitution might be designed and drafted, will inform and advance the debate on the desirability or otherwise of codifying the constitution in one place. There has been a number of attempts to produce an illustrative codified constitution for the United Kingdom or an outline of what such a constitution could contain. What we have published, however, represents the most comprehensive attempt so far to provide different detailed models of a codified constitution for comparison and consideration.
The publication of the report marks the beginning of a national consultation, running until 1 January 2015, to gather opinions on the future of the United Kingdom’s constitution. The Select Committee has asked anyone who is interested to submit their views on three questions. Does the UK need a codified constitution? If so, which of the options in the report offers the best way forward? What should be included in such a codified constitution? I encourage hon. Members to spread the word about our consultation to their constituents and to respond and share their own views. Details of how to submit responses can be found on the Committee’s website. The Committee intends to report on the views it receives before the next general election.
At a time of public disillusionment with the political establishment, in particular among young people, it is a good moment to return to fundamentals. There are few things more fundamental than how the state operates and exercises power and how it interacts with the people. Our constitution should belong to the people of the United Kingdom and not to political insiders or Members of Parliament. It is about our democracy, and so, as the nation celebrates the 800th anniversary of the first Magna Carta, we need to look forward as well as back. What should the Government of this country look like over the next 800 years?
Oliver Heald (North East Hertfordshire) (Con)
In my constituency is the village of Walkern, which was the administrative centre of William de Lanvalei, one of the 25 barons elected at Runnymede in 1215 to ensure that King John adhered to the law of the land set out in Magna Carta. The Walkern history society is doing a fantastic job this year, together with Janet Woodall and funded by the Big Lottery Fund, in celebrating that fact.
Does the hon. Gentleman agree that one of the great concerns about a codified constitution or, indeed, a consolidation is that it would affect this place’s arrangements and the arrangements with the courts? It might lead to a constitutional court being seen as a rival or as taking power away from this place. Does he agree that that would be undesirable? The self-restraint that we have in this place and in the courts is very welcome.
Fabian Hamilton
I am fascinated to learn about the hon. and learned Gentleman’s constituency and the importance that it has in the original Magna Carta. I agree that if a codified or written constitution is not properly drafted, such mistakes could be made and the judiciary, as the King’s college London research suggests, could become extremely politicised. We know from other countries with written constitutions that it is often the constitutional court that makes decisions that should rightly be made by Parliament and by elected Members. All that is capable of being overcome, however, by careful, considered drafting and by asking the people of this country what they want to see in that constitution, if indeed that is what they want.
Stephen Twigg (Liverpool, West Derby) (Lab/Co-op)
I welcome the Select Committee’s report. Working on a cross-party basis, the Committee has done a truly excellent job in producing a weighty document on a serious constitutional and political challenge.
How does my hon. Friend think we can best take the debate forward? He spoke of a national consultation between now and the end of the year. How does the Select Committee propose that we engage with civil society organisations such as Unlock Democracy and Bite the Ballot? How might we best engage with young people in this important debate?
Fabian Hamilton
I thank my hon. Friend for his question. I am sure that, in common with many Members of this House, he regularly visits schools. Many primary schools from my constituency have visited the House of Commons and many young people have been present in the Palace of Westminster these last few weeks. When I talk to school councils, whether in primary or secondary schools, I find a huge interest in how government works, how we run the country and how the House of Commons and Parliament work. It is sometimes hard to unravel and for many to understand, but a debate among schoolchildren, who have that growing interest, would actually serve to inform us as well, because they are the next generation of public representatives of the judiciary and of the electorate and we want their input.
The hon. Gentleman mentioned Bite the Ballot and Unlock Democracy, both of which have given evidence on numerous occasions to the Political and Constitutional Reform Committee, as have many other civil society organisations. We value that important evidence, but we need to spread the message as far and as wide as we possibly can. It is not the main topic of the day, but it is crucial to how Governments and Parliament are run in future and the engagement of the next generation.
Henry Smith (Crawley) (Con)
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for setting out the conclusions of the Select Committee’s report. What evidence was taken from other countries that also have Magna Carta as arguably their most important constitutional document? I am particularly thinking of places that have codified constitutions in the Anglosphere, such as Australia, Canada and the United States.
Fabian Hamilton
Yes, indeed. The hon. Gentleman can see the size of the document, and I commend it to him. I cannot say that I have read it from cover to cover, but I have had a great part as a member of the Committee in creating it. We took evidence from other countries. Of course, we looked at New Zealand, which has an uncodified constitution, and at Australia. Interestingly, we looked at France and at Iceland, which has an older Parliament even than our own. There were many lessons to learn from all those other countries, whether they had codified constitutions, written constitutions or unwritten ones, as New Zealand does. If the hon. Gentleman looks at the report or even scans it, he will find many of those examples both in the body of the report and in its appendices. There is a lot to learn from other nations.
Paul Flynn (Newport West) (Lab)
Although it is right to celebrate the Magna Carta, it is worth noting that the laws of Hywel Dda, which were written 200 years before Magna Carta, gave rights not just to the aristocracy and barons but to all women. There is much that is progressive in the cyfraith Hywel.
Page 348 of the report, on war and armed conflict, suggests that to go to war we should need a two-thirds majority in both Houses of Parliament and a positive legal opinion that approves it. This is a matter that has changed in the convention of the House since 2003, particularly as regards the decision taken by the House on 29 August last year. Does my hon. Friend believe that this will be a major item of discussion and reform?
Fabian Hamilton
I thank my hon. Friend for his comments and question. Yes, of course, this is a new departure even during my brief 17 years here in the House of Commons. It is essential that this House and its elected members have the say in whether this country goes to war and I think that the public were baffled previously as they did not realise that Parliament did not have to give its approval for an act of war between Great Britain and other nations in the world. We need to codify this and to set it in stone, as it were, so that never again can a Prime Minister say on behalf of the monarch that we declare war. Elected Members of Parliament and only elected Members of Parliament should have that right.
Mr Philip Hollobone (Kettering) (Con)
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his statement and praise him and the Committee for the quality of their work. They are bound to win first prize for the largest Select Committee report in this Parliament. Does he agree that a good starting point in reforming the constitution would be to empower this House to decide when it meets and what it discusses? If an event of importance to our nation takes place during one of the parliamentary recesses, it is not the House that decides to recall itself but the Government of the day, which might well be minded not do so. Does he agree that a good starting point would be to introduce a recall mechanism for the House so that it can call itself into session if something important happens either in this country or around the world?
Fabian Hamilton
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his pertinent question. I heard the questions that he put to the Leader of the House earlier today on that very subject and it is absolutely clear to me that the elected Members of this House should have control over their timetabling and over whether they can sit. I am baffled about why that has not happened already, although I know that we had some responses on that from the Leader of the House earlier. I would hope that if there were any codified constitution or written constitution for this country it would set the elected Chamber of our Parliament at its heart. Otherwise, our electors simply cannot understand it when they contact us and ask us to recall Parliament for a debate on whether to attack Syria, Iraq or whoever it might be, only for us to say that it is up to the Government of the day and that we have no power to make that decision. That has to change.
Mark Durkan (Foyle) (SDLP)
I thank my hon. Friend for making this statement about the report. I joined the Select Committee in the midst of this inquiry. Does he recognise, as regards the question that has just been raised, that a codified constitution might provide a more cogent assertion of this House’s authority vis-à-vis the Executive and that it might also answer a constant frustration that we hear from some in this House, as there seems to be an overlap between those who are Eurosceptic and those who are sceptical about a written constitution? Some other countries with codified or written constitutions, such as Germany, have been able to use that constitution to show that their national laws have primacy over European laws and the interpretation of European laws.
Fabian Hamilton
I thank my hon. Friend for that relevant and pertinent contribution. That is exactly why I as a member of the Committee and many other members of the Committee support a written or codified constitution. It would state and assert the primacy of our national Parliament over the sovereignty of the European Union and it would define that relationship far more clearly than the statutes and treaties scattered all over the place, which are not brought together, meaning that we do not really know—and the public do not really know—the relationship between elected Members, the European Parliament and the European Union. Who has sovereignty? Who has primacy? Of course we cede some sovereignty when we sign a treaty, but the fact is that Germany has it right and we need perhaps to emulate its example so that we can show that this House and its elected Members, elected by our constituents, the electorate of this country, have sovereignty over our laws and over some of the laws imposed on us with which we are not happy.
16-plus Care Options
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Dawn Primarolo)
We now come to the second of the Select Committee statements. We will use the same format. The Chair of the Select Committee on Education will make a statement on the report for no more than 10 minutes, during which there will be no interventions taken, then Members will be able to ask questions on the subject of the statement. Again, that will last for approximately 10 minutes in total. I therefore call the Chair of the Education Committee.
Mr Graham Stuart (Beverley and Holderness) (Con)
It is a pleasure to be in the Chamber today with so many members of the Select Committee and other colleagues as we launch our report, “Into independence, not out of care: 16 plus care options”. Our report on 16-plus care options is about a group of young people that is often overlooked and a policy area that is unfashionable and forgotten. We first raised our concerns in our “Children first” report, published in October 2012. During our inquiry into residential children’s homes, the report for which was published in March, we became increasingly concerned about the quality of care and level of support provided for older adolescents as they moved towards greater independence and adulthood, often because of a misguided belief that they are more resilient than younger children.
This inquiry confirmed just how serious the shortcomings of 16-plus care options are. Our inquiry was launched on 22 January and set out the following terms of reference: the kinds of accommodation provided for young people aged 16 and 17 who are looked after by local authorities; the suitability, safety and regulatory nature of alternative accommodation; whether staying put should apply to those in residential children’s homes; and whether the provision of alternative accommodation should be extended to the age of 21.
We wanted to make sure that our inquiry was informed by young people affected by the issues we were considering, so we held an informal seminar at the outset of the inquiry to hear the views of young people and care leavers. We visited Ipswich to see examples of “other arrangements”, as they are described in the jargon, and met local authority officers from the region and service providers as well as the Suffolk children in care council. We had nearly 40 submissions of written evidence from a wide range of witnesses and we heard all evidence from two panels of witnesses before questioning the Minister, who I am delighted to see in his place on the Front Bench.
Our report makes three fundamental recommendations. First, the Department for Education must consult on a framework of individual regulatory oversight for all accommodation that falls within “other arrangements” to ensure suitability while allowing for diversity of provision. These “other arrangements” are those in which 22% of looked-after 16 and 17-year-olds live, and we found that too often they are neither safe nor suitable. Efforts are made to ensure the safety and suitability of provision for children and young people in other settings—childminders, foster carers, children’s homes, schools and sixth-form colleges are each and every one of them regulated and inspected, yet “other arrangements” for some of the most vulnerable young people in this country are not.
Current quality assurance relies on Ofsted tracking a sample of cases. This would not be an acceptable approach for any of the settings that I have just listed, and it should not be acceptable for the accommodation in which some of society’s most vulnerable young people are housed. Individual regulation and inspection is the only way, we believe, to ensure suitability.
The second key proposal is that the DFE must consult urgently local authorities to establish a reasonable time frame for the absolute ban on the use of bed-and-breakfast accommodation for looked-after young people. The Department says that bed and breakfasts are not suitable for this group, yet they continue to be used, sometimes for a long period. We heard shocking accounts of looked-after 16 and 17-year-olds placed in bed-and-breakfast accommodation which was not only unsuitable, but made the young people feel frightened and threatened.
We recognise the negative implications of a hastily introduced outright ban. That is why we urge the DFE to consult local authorities and establish a realistic time frame in which alternative emergency arrangements can be found, settled and established. This will require local authorities to be creative and to work together, but it is vital that the urgency of the situation is not lost. We know from the performance of some councils that it can be done and is being done, so let it be done everywhere and for all.
In the meantime, the message is plain: bed and breakfasts are not suitable and should be used only in extreme, emergency situations, and even then never for more than a few days before the ban comes into force. In addition, local authority children’s services should report to the Department the numbers of looked-after young people placed in bed-and-breakfast accommodation so that we have a clear picture of how much this unsuitable accommodation is being used to house these vulnerable young people.
Our third key recommendation is that looked-after young people living in residential children’s homes should have the right to stay there until they are 21, just as those living in foster care now can, thanks to changes brought in by this Government. We recommend that the DFE extend Staying Put to residential children’s homes. We were not convinced by the Minister’s arguments against an extension of this policy. It may not be in the best interest of some young people, or their preference, to stay in their residential children’s home, but many who are settled and thriving would greatly benefit from the stability of staying put in the home which is their home.
The DFE argues that the quality of children’s homes must improve before it will allow young people to stay beyond their 18th birthday. That argument does not bear much scrutiny. The most recent figures from Ofsted inspections at the beginning of this year show that for overall effectiveness 68% of children’s homes inspected were judged good or outstanding, and just 6% were found to be inadequate. Furthermore, forcing young people to move at the age of 18 from a home that may be judged good or better by Ofsted to unregulated and sometimes unsuitable settings makes no sense.
In addition to these fundamental recommendations, we found that there are several other aspects of 16-plus care options in desperate need of attention, which can be split into three broad areas. First, our report focuses on the planning and preparation for a young person’s move to independence. In particular, young people need to know more and have the chance to say more, while also being given the support and encouragement to maintain the relationships that matter most to them.
Secondly, our report sets out the necessary steps to ensure minimal disruption and maximum stability during a young person’s transition to adulthood and independence. This includes offering a safety net if life takes a turn for the worst; providing support to the age of 25, without exception; and providing the much needed peace of mind as a young person prepares for important exams, by ensuring the stability of their placement at that time. Thirdly, we stress the importance of providing options, be it staying in “other arrangements” until the age of 21, or simultaneously meeting the wish for independence and the need for continuing support through Staying Close, which is where accommodation is provided close to, for instance, a residential children’s home where a young person has developed solid relationships with trusted adults.
We were deeply impressed by the young people we met, who spoke to us openly and honestly about their personal experiences. Their contributions added value to our inquiry and confirmed our view that these young people deserve better. This report is a step towards ensuring that they get it.
Steve McCabe (Birmingham, Selly Oak) (Lab)
I commend the Education Committee on an excellent report. There is a host of questions that I would like to ask, but I know that Madam Deputy Speaker would not want me to do that, so I shall confine myself to one and seek out the Chairman and other members of the Committee on another occasion to explore many of the issues raised in the report, including the use of personal advisers and extending Staying Put.
I was particularly shocked by the bed-and-breakfast revelations. Was the Committee able to form a picture of the likely numbers of young people in care who are required to live in bed-and-breakfast accommodation beyond a period of 28 days? The Committee was right to say that an immediate ban would be problematic and that there should be a period of reflection, but does the Chairman think it advisable for the Government to consider an immediate restriction that ensures that no young person in care can be required to live in bed-and-breakfast accommodation for longer than 28 days?
Mr Stuart
I thank the shadow Minister for his question. We did not specify in the report precisely what that limit should be, but we are entirely in sympathy with that thinking. We would be more ambitious. We think 28 days is outrageously long. A stay of a week would be too long; probably five days would be acceptable. The case that was put to us is that at 11 o’clock on a Friday night—the famous 11 o’clock on a Friday night case—a place must be found for a child. Okay, but by the following Wednesday, the whole power of the local authority, which is in the position of parent, cannot find something different for the child? We found that hard to believe. We did not specify the duration because we wanted to give maximum flexibility, but a lot less than 28 days would be the collective view of my Committee.
Craig Whittaker (Calder Valley) (Con)
I am particularly proud of this piece of work. I think it is one of the best that we have done as a cross-party Committee, of which I am a member. Does my hon. Friend agree that for far too many years the long-term prognosis for far too many of our young people in care has been bleak, and that the recommendations based on the evidence in the report go a long way to rectify some of those injustices?
Mr Stuart
I thank my hon. Friend for his question and for his hard work and commitment in this area and others on the Committee. I know he would join me, as would Members across the House, in recognising the personal commitment of the Minister to make a difference in this area, and that significant improvements have been made under this Government. None the less, outcomes for young people in care in this country for far too long have been bleak, as my hon. Friend the Member for Calder Valley (Craig Whittaker) puts it. When we look at how many people who have been in care end up in prison, in prostitution, or struggling with drug and alcohol dependency, that does not say a lot about the parenting that we have put in place for those young people, and we know that other countries manage to do a lot better, both educationally and in broader terms, to prepare people for adult life.
What better test of a civilisation than how it looks after young people whose families may have disintegrated and failed to provide them with support? What better way to judge that civilisation than by its ability to meet the needs of those young people and make sure that those most vulnerable people get a fair crack at life and are supported all the way into adulthood, rather than too often abandoned at a young and vulnerable age?
Pat Glass (North West Durham) (Lab)
I associate myself with the comments of the hon. Member for Calder Valley (Craig Whittaker). I am particularly proud of this report, which I think is one of the most important that the Committee has produced over the past four years. It contains many recommendations, and I am looking for positive responses from the Government on all of them, but I will mention the two that I think are most urgent. First, we recommend that Ofsted should inspect provision for children leaving care at 16. As the Chair of the Committee said, we would not allow schools, further education colleges or children’s homes not to be subject to inspection by Ofsted, so why should we allow provision for our most vulnerable children leaving care not to be? Secondly, we recommend that Staying Put should also be available to children in children’s homes, who are often taken into care late and are often the most vulnerable. They are the most likely to end up unemployed, homeless, in prison, subject to substance abuse and so on. I am particularly concerned that we get a positive response to those two recommendations and hope that the Chair of the Committee will support that.
Mr Stuart
I very much agree with the hon. Lady. I am pleased to see the newly promoted Financial Secretary to the Treasury on the Front Bench. Even if we were to view that group of people in the driest economic terms, we would see that investing to save by ensuring that they get the stability and support they need when they are at their most vulnerable, which is when they are young, would pay off in the long term. That would reduce the number of people in prison or calling on other services because their lives have not worked out right. I know that Treasury Ministers are always told to invest to save, but here we have a moral need to do the right thing by those young people but also, when we consider how catastrophic the outcomes are for so many of them, an overwhelming economic case. Even in these tough times, we should find the resources and focus them on that group, because we will make proper improvement on every front, as the hon. Lady rightly points out.
Mr Philip Hollobone (Kettering) (Con)
I praise my hon. Friend for his statement and commend his Committee for an excellent report. Were the Secretary of State for Education or the Minister to say to him later, “Look, Graham, we have a lot on our plate at the moment and lots of things we are trying to push through, so which one recommendation could we pursue for you?”, what would his answer be?
Mr Stuart
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that question, despite his attempt to narrow me to one recommendation. I would hate to tempt the Minister into saying that we can have only one recommendation, because the report contains a coherent set of proposals that hang together, and I know that they fit with the direction of travel on which the Government have already set out. None the less, one should always answer the question, so I would ask the Minister to look at the “other arrangements” and ensure that they are regulated. It is not just those who have left care who are in the “other arrangements”, and the number of 16 and 17-year-olds leaving care has been massively reduced under this Government, on which they should be congratulated. Often young people are still in care when they are in the “other arrangements”, so we are still in loco parentis. The fact is that that accommodation is not inspected or regulated, and we do not think that sampling is enough. That is the one thing that, above all else, must change.
Alex Cunningham (Stockton North) (Lab)
The Chair might have anticipated my question by referring to the Financial Secretary to the Treasury. The Chair will recollect the series of visits we undertook and the discussions we had with young people, as he mentioned earlier. They felt abandoned in bed-and-breakfast accommodation. One young woman told us about people braying at her door late at night, and another told us that she had been left for weeks on end in unsuitable accommodation. He and I agree, as does the Committee, that bed-and-breakfast accommodation should be banned as soon as practically possible for young people, but does he also agree that local and national Government need to have, and need to provide the necessary resources to have, proper emergency provisions, perhaps by sharing between authorities, and end the practice that so often puts young people at risk?
Mr Stuart
I pay tribute to the hon. Gentleman for his contribution and the passion he brings to these issues and, quite rightly, to challenging the Government and asking for more on behalf of those young people. He is absolutely right. I know that the personal testimony we heard seared his conscience, as it did mine. We heard those young people consistently and articulately describe the awful situations they found themselves in, such as bed-and-breakfast accommodation with troubled adults around them, in one case knocking on the door of a young woman who was barely 16 years old, inviting her to come to their room. She was traumatised and frightened and, supposedly, in the care of the state.
Bill Esterson (Sefton Central) (Lab)
I add my voice to those of Members who have already said how important it is that the report has been published and that we support this group of incredibly vulnerable young people with all the financial benefits that would come from it. As the report states, the young people in residential children’s homes are often the most vulnerable. That is why its recommendations on extending care to the age of 21 in residential settings are so important. I, too, was struck by the evidence we heard from young people during the inquiry, particularly on the importance of relationships, whether with carers, other professionals, friends or mentors, and the difference that can make to young people. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that support needs to be about extending care to the whole group of people leaving care, the quality and availability of the settings, and the psychological benefits of long-term relationships, both professional and personal?
Mr Stuart
I thank the hon. Gentleman for taking such a close and passionate interest in the subject and for his work on the Committee. He is absolutely right. As we have seen in all the work we have done on child protection and vulnerable children, it has come down again and again to the quality of relationships. That is why it is so important that relationships should be maintained and why we have made our specific recommendations on staying put and on contact with siblings. We heard testimony from young people who did not want to be forced to see their parents but who wanted to see their brothers or sisters, whom they loved and had great relationships with. That needs to be improved.
Extending Staying Put to residential care homes is an expensive option, because the cost of providing a care home place is high. It means that having stabilised someone, they are then given the option—let us remember that they can leave at 18 if they want to; they will not be forced to stay—to remain in a place that is happy to have them, where they want to stay, where they can have stable relationships and from which they can go to college and start to build a life. It is probably the most expensive of the suggestions in our report, so I am delighted to have such a senior and influential Treasury Minister on the Front Bench to hear the arguments, because that truly would be a good investment in the future of the country and the future of young people who have been let down not only by their families, but, too often, by the state.
Bill Presented
National Insurance Contributions Bill
Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)
Mr Chancellor of the Exchequer, supported by the Prime Minister, the Deputy Prime Minister, Danny Alexander, Mr David Gauke, Priti Patel and Andrea Leadsom, presented a Bill to make provision in relation to national insurance contributions; and for connected purposes.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Monday 21 July, and to be printed (Bill 80) with explanatory notes (Bill 80-EN).
Backbench Business
Universal Postal Service
(9 years, 9 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Katy Clark (North Ayrshire and Arran) (Lab)
I beg to move,
That this House believes that the Universal Service Obligation as set out in the Postal Services Act 2011 is under threat from unfair competition from organisations which are rapidly expanding end-to-end delivery services in low-cost, high-density urban areas while leaving high-cost, low-density rural areas to be covered by Royal Mail, the universal service provider; and calls on the Government to instruct Ofcom to bring forward proposals to protect the Universal Service Obligation and the commercial viability of Royal Mail against this threat.
I am very grateful to the Backbench Business Committee for allowing us to have this important, timely, and indeed urgent, debate, given the threat to the universal service obligation. I refer to my entries in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests and advise the House that I have worked with Royal Mail, the Communication Workers Union and Unite the union on the issue in the run-up to the debate.
The London assembly yesterday passed a similar motion expressing concern at the expansion of end-to-end postal services by TNT Post and the ability of such organisations to cherry-pick services that provide the most lucrative work. The assembly was particularly interested in that, as TNT started off providing end-to-end services in London. The motion it passed went further than the one we are considering today, as it called on Royal Mail to be brought back into public ownership.
Royal Mail is the UK’s universal service provider. It is required under the Postal Services Act 2011 to deliver to 29 million UK addresses six days a week, and five days a week for other packets, all being delivered at an affordable, geographically uniform price.
Ofcom became the official regulator of postal services on 1 October 2011. Its primary duty is to secure the provision of the universal service obligation for postal services. It also has a duty, under the Communications Act 2003, to further the interests of citizens and consumers, where appropriate, to promote competition, but its duty to secure the universal service obligation always takes precedence.
There are two types of competition in postal services. The first is downstream access, which allows providers other than Royal Mail to collect and sort mail and then give it to Royal Mail to deliver over the so-called final mile. Obviously, it is not always only a mile, and sometimes it can be less than a mile, but that final part of the process is the part that Royal Mail has a legal obligation to carry out. The other type is the end-to-end service, which is the direct delivery of mail to the customer without any need for Royal Mail to get involved in the process. That is what I will focus on today.
TNT Post is currently Royal Mail’s main competitor in the end-to-end market. In 2012, it launched a direct delivery trial providing a full end-to-end service in west London. Since then, it has rapidly expanded into other parts of London and into Manchester and Liverpool. It plans, by the end of 2017, to cover over 42% of households in the UK, although only about 8.5% of the UK’s geographical area.
Ms Diane Abbott (Hackney North and Stoke Newington) (Lab)
Is my hon. Friend aware of the many complaints about TNT’s service in London because of its use of agency staff, with letters being dumped and put through the wrong letterboxes? It does not just create unfair competition; it provides a poor service.
Katy Clark
Indeed, we are aware of the concerns about the inferior terms and conditions of TNT’s staff compared with those of Royal Mail, and about the service that customers are receiving. Of course, organisations other than Royal Mail are not required to meet the standards of service that it has a legal obligation to provide.
Mr Gareth Thomas (Harrow West) (Lab/Co-op)
I apologise for missing the first part of my hon. Friend’s remarks. Further to the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Hackney North and Stoke Newington (Ms Abbott), when the then Conservative-run council in Harrow decided to use TNT for the delivery of council tax letters, there was a whole series of reports of bad distribution processes—so much so that in the end Royal Mail had to be used to get the letters out in their entirety.
Katy Clark
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that example, which illustrates the problems we are having and are likely to have to a greater degree as time goes on if the expansion takes place in the way that is intended.
Sir Robert Smith (West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine) (LD)
I congratulate the hon. Lady on securing this debate. It is important for people to realise that one of the problems is that while the customer is the person posting the letter, it is the recipient who does not get their bank statement, bill or cheque, and they have no say in that. That is why conditions are an important part of what Ofcom needs to look at.
Katy Clark
Given the hon. Gentleman’s constituency, I suspect that he shares many of my concerns. I hope that we will explore all these issues in the debate.
I do not think the House necessarily fully appreciated that the expansion of TNT would take place quite so rapidly, and that is why this debate is so urgent. This expansion is a direct threat to the universal service because Royal Mail needs the universal service in order to be able to use revenues that it generates in areas where it is easier to deliver mail. In the areas I mentioned—London, Manchester and Liverpool—it is easier to deliver mail and therefore easier to generate profits. It is necessary for Royal Mail to use that work to generate profits to help to cover the rest of the national network.
I represent a large rural constituency in Scotland with islands and many small communities. In many parts of it, the costs of providing a mail delivery service will be quite considerable, no matter how we organise postal services.
Mr David Hamilton (Midlothian) (Lab)
Surely that is the whole point. Royal Mail needs the cross-subsidy to be able to deliver to the sparsely populated areas that my hon. Friend and I represent. That is key, and the ombudsman has to take it into account in relation to fair competition.
Katy Clark
Indeed—he is both a friend and a comrade. I am delighted that he is here today. He represents a very similar constituency to mine.
Members in all parts of the House represent constituencies where we know it will never be profitable to deliver mail. That is why the universal service is so important. It is also important that we ensure that stamp prices are kept at a level that is affordable in all parts of the country.
Mr Iain McKenzie (Inverclyde) (Lab)
Does my hon. Friend agree that we have seen this unfair competition before when the Conservatives were last in power and they privatised British Telecom? The other companies wanted the cities but not the rural areas, and now we see that again with Royal Mail.
Katy Clark
My hon. Friend makes an important point. Perhaps we can enter into that debate on another occasion.
The Government are allowing TNT to cherry-pick the services in more profitable city areas, where its presence has already led to reductions of 14% to 15% in the use of Royal Mail.
Tom Blenkinsop (Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland) (Lab)
I apologise for missing the first two minutes of my hon. Friend’s speech in this very important debate. Does she accept that, although Labour Members voted to maintain the public ownership of Royal Mail, it is now notionally a private company? The USO is about providing a service, irrespective of the company that does it, across the country. There has to be an understanding from the Government, which was missing in Committee when Labour Members argued vociferously that this type of situation would occur, that we need to use a levy on TNT and other private sector companies or look at the structure of how mail is distributed across this country, on a regional basis or otherwise, to make sure that provision is universal.
Katy Clark
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Many predicted that we would face this problem. Indeed, we are here to give a warning that it is already beginning to happen and that action is necessary now—we do not have time to wait. He is absolutely correct that that action is required whether Royal Mail is in the public sector or the private sector—given that most of it is not held by the Government or the work force.
Mr Peter Hain (Neath) (Lab)
I very much support my hon. Friend’s argument. I wonder whether, early in the morning a couple of weeks ago, she heard the interview on Radio 4’s “Today” programme with a business analyst who predicted the end of the universal door-to-door service because, he said, it will be impossible for Royal Mail, faced with this unfair competition, to sustain it. The universal service exists in statute, but does she agree that it is not specified what that means? It could mean collection from a central collection point, not delivery door to door.
Katy Clark
My right hon. Friend is absolutely right. Of course, he has a very long track record and great expertise on these issues. If we do not take action now, then when the House considers this matter in a number of years’ time, there will be serious proposals for a reduction in the kind of service that people receive. We hope that the Government will take action now to make sure that we are not faced with that problem.
At the moment, Royal Mail still delivers 99% of mail in the UK. Our concern is that that situation could change very quickly given the current expansion plans of TNT, in particular, and perhaps other providers as well. Royal Mail itself estimates that TNT’s expansion strategy could result in a reduction of more than £200 million in Royal Mail revenue by 2017-18. The reality is that much of the most profitable section of the market, namely the business mail, is already handled by companies other than Royal Mail. Indeed, that has been the case for a considerable period. There has also been a significant reduction in the volume of letters over the past decade, which also continues to put pressure on the universal service obligation.
Royal Mail is subject to vigorous and rigorous performance standards. Its competitors are not subject to the same standards. There is also no requirement on competitors to report on service standards, as Ofcom says that service standards are driven by market forces. However, as my hon. Friend the Member for Hackney North and Stoke Newington (Ms Abbott) has pointed out, there are many concerns about the poor quality of service that customers receive from TNT in areas where it operates. There are also many concerns about the terms and conditions of the work force, which are considerably worse than those of the Royal Mail work force.
I believe that the motion is moderate. It calls on Ofcom to carry out a full review and to make proposals for regulation to create a level playing field in the postal services market. In particular, I ask Ofcom to consider whether a compensation fund could be established to support the provision of the universal service, which could be used to collect contributions from those that benefit from providing en-to-end service without the requirements of meeting the universal service. I also ask Ofcom to consider whether the general service conditions that currently apply specifically to Royal Mail alone should be extended to apply also to other operators.
We should also consider removing the requirement on Royal Mail to allow other operators to access its network. Hon. Members who visit the postal depots in their constituencies at Christmas will know that the work force have been raising concerns about that issue for many years. There is no doubt that that requirement to deliver mail for others has been a burden on Royal Mail.
Mr McKenzie
It is not only about the commitment to deliver that mail for others; often, Royal Mail also has to sort that mail before delivering it for them.
Katy Clark
My hon. Friend and his family have a great deal of experience in these matters, as do I. He is absolutely correct. I think that the situation is slightly less frustrating for the work force now, because the work used to be even more of a drain on Royal Mail and it made a considerable loss as a result. The financial arrangements have improved slightly, but this is very much an area that Ofcom needs to look at.
John McDonnell (Hayes and Harlington) (Lab)
My hon. Friend has come up with concrete proposals and a recommendation for Ofcom, but is not the problem that Ofcom has no sense of urgency at the moment? It says that it will not institute a review until the end of 2015 and that the 2011 legislation statutorily barred it from establishing a fund for five years, which means that it will not be able to do so until 2016, unless the Secretary of State acts. There is, therefore, a twin responsibility; on the Secretary of State to act in order to enable a discussion about the fund; and on Ofcom to institute the review now.
Katy Clark
There is a great deal of complacency on this issue from not only Ofcom, but the Government. We are seeing the warning signs now and we need the Government to make it very clear that we believe there is a real threat to the universal service. Ofcom needs to look at the matter urgently, carry out a full review and come up with proposals to ensure a level playing field in the postal services market and to protect the universal service.
Sir Robert Smith (West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine) (LD)
I again congratulate the hon. Member for North Ayrshire and Arran (Katy Clark) on addressing this important subject and welcome the decision of the Backbench Business Committee to choose it for debate. It takes up the issue raised by early-day motion 151 and the importance of the universal service.
The hon. Lady has outlined just how important that universal service is, given the diverse nature of postal deliveries. The service ensures that, almost wherever people live—one or two lighthouses are exempt—they can expect post to be delivered at the same price and in the same time frame as anywhere else. As the hon. Lady recognised, that is extremely important in my large and rural constituency, where there is great respect for the knowledge of the posties. I think that the posties’ commitment to public service is sometimes damaging to the institution they work for, because when the white vans are lost and cannot find where to deliver the parcels, it is often the postie who gives them directions and helps them get to their destination. The service is very valuable and important, and it is currently funded by the cross-subsidy from the easier business in the urban areas. That cross-subsidy is crucial to the universal service.
Competition was introduced by the previous Government under the European Union directives, but that competition went further, faster and deeper than it should have and Postcomm saw its role as driving competition rather than protecting the universal service. I remember warning it at the outset that the lost opportunity of going too slow was far less damaging than going deeper and faster and doing permanent damage. The regulator was so worried about not getting the most efficient market that it erred on the other side, which did too much damage. As the hon. Lady has said, that led to the downstream access being set at the wrong price, doing considerable damage to Royal Mail. Competition coming in faster did not give Royal Mail the time to adapt, which it needed to do, because it had inefficient machinery and had invested in the wrong kind of machinery. As a result of the UK going faster than the rest of the EU, EU operators could cherry-pick the upstream business in the UK, but Royal Mail could not do the reverse in other markets, because EU competition was not being driven as fast as that in the UK.
It was important that this Government enshrined the universal service in law, abolished Postcomm and brought in Ofcom to regulate. At least that did something to sort out that upstream competition and level the playing field. Now, however, we have the same concern that, when it comes to the final mile, the cherry-picking is going to go faster than expected by the markets. It is important for the regulator to review that risk, to make sure that we do not again get into a situation where competition goes too far and too fast for Royal Mail to be able to adapt.
The important suggestion from this debate is to consider putting burdens and regulations on rival delivery companies to require them to meet the same standards as Royal Mail, because, if they do not have to meet those standards, they will obviously be able to undercut costs. That goes back to what I said in my earlier intervention: it was very much Postcomm’s philosophy that the customer was not the person having the letter delivered to them, but the person making the decision where to post it. A big commercial organisation may well look at the bottom line when it comes to deciding who to contract its delivery services to, and it is the poor bank customer who never gets their letter who is the victim. The feedback loop means that they have to complain to their bank, which then has to consider whether to change the contract for delivery services. Ofcom should take on board the important suggestion that it should set standards of delivery and quality so that rival companies cannot unfairly undercut Royal Mail.
I will say to Ofcom what I said to Postcomm: if it goes a bit too slowly in introducing competition, we will not get the full benefit of competition as quickly as possible, but if it goes too fast, it will be far more difficult for it to unravel the situation in the end. I urge Ofcom to review the situation and look at the conditions that would protect such a vital service that has served our rural communities so well.
Albert Owen (Ynys Môn) (Lab)
It is an honour to follow the hon. Member for West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine (Sir Robert Smith), a fellow member of the Energy and Climate Change Committee, who spoke in a very measured way. He is right that competition started some time ago, but we are now in a very difficult position.
I want to pay tribute to postal workers for their excellent work in providing services throughout the year in very difficult circumstances and weather. There has been great modernisation in postal services—within the Post Office or Royal Mail—and things have got better, but we now need to deal with the issue of unfair competition.
You would rule me out of order, Madam Deputy Speaker, if I went on about the privatisation of Royal Mail, but that privatisation has set a very dangerous precedent, and issues have arisen from other privatisations. Market forces have served rural Britain badly and, for areas such as mine on the periphery, there is the double whammy of being rural and peripheral. We must do something about that, and I will come on to talk about a model that would fit and would improve the situation: the introduction of a not-for-profit model, stopping short of full nationalisation, is the way forward.
When privatisation went through, concerns were expressed in this House about the universal obligation, and such issues have been raised in the past. Let us be honest, however, that companies will never come to north-west Wales and say that they will deliver the service for the same price as they would in Chester, Liverpool or Manchester. That just does not happen. Our current delivery service on five days a week for parcels and six days a week for letters will not exist in the future. That is the reality when services are opened up to the market.
We have seen that in other privatised utilities, such as British Telecom. The hon. Member for West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine said that lighthouses are exempt, but under the old Post Office those in my constituency had a telephone line, just like buildings in the towns and cities of England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland. They had the same service, with the same infrastructure and pricing, as the rest of the country.
That was when the Post Office was an iconic brand, as Royal Mail is today, and provided a universal service. Following privatisation, however, such areas do not get the same full broadband, or the services and maintenance, but they pay the same price. Mobile phone coverage is patchy across rural areas of the United Kingdom. In my area, we are lucky to get 3G or even 2G, let alone 4G. That is the reality in many parts of the United Kingdom when services are opened up to the market. The pricing is the same— I pay the same for my mobile phone contract as somebody in central London—but people do not get the same service and back-up, which is the danger in such a free market.
There is a way forward. Water was privatised, and Welsh Water has become a not-for-profit organisation, with the profits being ploughed back into the company to improve the service. The service, including the quality of water, is the same across the whole of rural and urban Wales, because the profits are reinvested. There is competition within the system—the company has to comply with European directives on liberalisation—on tendering, and that might work in the postal service. I must say that when my party was in government and intended to make such a change, it did not consider these models. It should have analysed not-for-profit models, because they provide not only a universal service, but a mechanism for competition. Tendering for contracts has to be done under EU regulations so that many people can benefit from such competition. At the end of the day, the customer pays the company and gets a service that is universal across the whole of Wales.
We should look at the iconic brand of the Royal Mail in the same way as water, which has a proven model that will work for the future. I want my constituents and people across rural Britain to enjoy the same standard of service and the same costs, because that is very important in this day and age. Yes, Royal Mail needs to modernise, as it has, but it also needs to keep what I think is the best of British, which is the universal service it provides under the service obligation.
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for North Ayrshire and Arran (Katy Clark) for securing this debate. It is worth putting on the record that there is a way forward. Competition is not the answer: the market has failed in many areas, and it will not serve people on the periphery or in rural areas of the United Kingdom to continue down the road of opening to competition areas that will be cherry-picked by companies only for profits. We want a universal service across the United Kingdom. We will have to fight for that, and we must put in place a model that will deliver it.
Mr Alan Reid (Argyll and Bute) (LD)
I congratulate the Backbench Business Committee on giving us time to debate this important issue, and my constituency neighbour, the hon. Member for North Ayrshire and Arran (Katy Clark), on introducing it in a very measured and sensible way. It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Ynys Môn (Albert Owen), although I must correct him on one point. Before Postcomm introduced licence conditions for Royal Mail, it had refused to deliver to the lighthouse he mentioned, so not everything was perfect in the past.
The universal postal service is obviously extremely important to my constituency, with its scattered population and its many islands, and to all rural constituencies in the country. Royal Mail has an extremely dedicated work force, who go out in all weathers to deliver the mail, often up muddy tracks and in very difficult conditions, and they have a detailed local knowledge that private rivals simply do not have, as in the example given by my hon. Friend the Member for West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine (Sir Robert Smith).
I supported the Postal Services Act 2011 because it enshrined the universal service obligation into law. That means that Royal Mail is legally obliged to deliver to every home and business in the country, as well as to collect from every post box in the country six days a week, at the same price throughout the country. To back up the legal requirement, the Act imposed on the regulator, Ofcom, the legal responsibility to ensure the sustainability of the USO.
We must remember that competition is not new—it did not just start with the 2011 Act—because it was introduced more than 10 years ago by the previous Government, who, in an all-too-familiar story, gold-plated a European directive. Competition means that delivery companies can cherry-pick cheap-to-deliver urban areas, and leave Royal Mail the more expensive job of delivering to sparsely populated rural areas, such as my constituency. As has frequently been pointed out, Royal Mail relies on its cross-subsidy from profitable urban routes to sparsely populated rural routes.
TNT Post has made most use of the ability to cherry-pick the areas to which it is cheapest to deliver. Its end-to-end business has expanded rapidly since it started trials for the service in west London in April 2012. According to Royal Mail, TNT aims to cover about 42% of UK addresses by 2017. As well as cherry-picking areas, companies such as TNT can also cut costs by delivering only on certain days of the week.
Sir Robert Smith
That point is very important. The Ofcom argument is about volume, but such companies are cherry-picking the very high margin, good-quality business.
Mr Reid
My hon. Friend makes an important point. Some forms of high-volume business mail incur lower costs than for people sending Christmas cards or postcards. Obviously, if a company has high-volume mail from a big organisation coming into its system, that is much easier for it to deliver.
In fairness, it should be pointed out that Royal Mail has some advantages. For example, it has a nationwide infrastructure and benefits from economies of scale.
Royal Mail is very concerned about TNT’s plans and sees them as a threat to its ability to deliver the USO. We must always remember that Royal Mail is a private company with a duty to maximise the revenue for its shareholders. Therefore, it may or may not be crying wolf. It is Ofcom’s responsibility to decide whether Royal Mail is crying wolf.
Ofcom has many tools at its disposal to protect the USO. It could impose regulatory conditions on other operators to level the playing field. For example, it could require other providers to deliver over a larger geographical area than just a small urban area or to deliver on more days in the week. Ofcom also has the power to introduce a universal service fund. It can review whether delivering the universal service places a financial burden on Royal Mail and determine whether it is fair for Royal Mail alone to carry that burden. However, that cannot be done before October 2016 without Government direction.
Katy Clark
The hon. Gentleman has mentioned the possibility of a compensation fund, which organisations such as TNT could pay into. Does he agree that organisations that deliver business mail, which they have been able to do for many years, might also be required to pay into such a fund, given the amount of money they make from the lucrative work that they do?
Mr Reid
I agree with the hon. Lady that it is not just TNT and companies like it that would have to pay into the fund, but a wider range of companies. That would be a decision for Ofcom.
If Ofcom finds that there is a net burden on Royal Mail, there is a provision in the 2011 Act that allows the Government to direct Ofcom to establish the universal service fund. That would require other operators to contribute financially to support the universal service. I do not think that we are at that stage yet, but the Government and Ofcom might have to use that power at some time in the future.
Royal Mail has pointed out that it has to meet all the targets that are set by Ofcom and publish its performance against those targets quarterly and annually.
Mike Crockart (Edinburgh West) (LD)
My hon. Friend spoke earlier about whether Ofcom recognises that there are extra costs. Of course, Ofcom did recognise that there were extra costs, but its answer to Royal Mail was that it should change its charging structure and charge other organisations more on a zonal basis. Royal Mail immediately did so, but TNT complained and we are now in a year-long re-examination under the Competition Act 1998. Ofcom tried to provide a way out, but it has not worked. Surely it now needs to come up with something else.
Mr Reid
I certainly agree with my hon. Friend. The universal service is so important for the country that I hope that any reviews or inquiries will be given a high priority and be conducted as quickly as possible, whether they are being carried out by Ofcom or the Competition and Markets Authority.
As I was saying, Royal Mail has pointed out that it has to meet all the targets that are set by Ofcom and publish its performance against those targets quarterly and annually. However, its competitors do not have to meet or publish any targets, other than the figures on complaints. Ofcom should use its powers to set targets for all operators and compel them to meet them. That would provide transparency and allow consumers to make an informed choice between operators.
Mr McKenzie
I fully accept what the hon. Gentleman says about the need for a level playing field. Does he accept that companies might want to produce information on targets to show that they have a process of continuous improvement and that they are providing a good-quality service?
Mr Reid
The hon. Gentleman is perfectly correct. A company that has any ethos at all will want to demonstrate that it is doing a good job. I therefore do not see how rival operators could possibly object to such a proposal.
In an e-mail that it sent me, Royal Mail alleged that TNT has dumped and misdelivered mail. We heard interventions from two London Members earlier who said that they had evidence of that happening in their constituencies. That backs up the need for the publication of performance statistics. Such statistics would show if mail is not being delivered and is disappearing from the system.
Ofcom has stated that before the end of next year, it will commence a review of the impact of end-to-end competition to assess any potential threat to the provision of the universal service. I do not think that it should wait until the end of next year. It should commence the review now because this is such an important service. That would be in the interests not just of Royal Mail and the consumer, but of rival operators. It is in everybody’s interests to know as soon as possible what conditions Ofcom will impose on mail delivery companies. I can see an operator such as TNT complaining if, in two years’ time, conditions are imposed on it that it was not told about before it made the investment. I see no advantage in waiting another 17 months before beginning the review.
My hon. Friend the Member for West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine pointed out that we have been here before with Postcomm, which seemed to prioritise competition over protecting the USO. Ofcom’s most important legal duty is to preserve the USO. That was written into the 2011 Act by a Liberal Democrat Minister. I expect Ofcom to do everything possible to protect the USO. I believe that that means holding a review now. I see no purpose that will be served by waiting another 17 months. If Royal Mail is crying wolf, there is no harm in having the review now, because it will show that. However, if Royal Mail is correct in its concerns, having a review now is essential.
The universal service is essential to rural communities such as Argyll and Bute. Thanks to a Liberal Democrat Minister, the law protects the universal service. Ofcom has a duty to ensure that that legal protection is delivered. As long as Ofcom carries out its duties properly, the USO will be sustainable. However, I believe that Ofcom must carry out the review now.
Mr Mike Weir (Angus) (SNP)
I fully support the motion. From what the hon. Member for North Ayrshire and Arran (Katy Clark) said, the Greater London authority’s motion also sounds interesting and worthy of support.
The universal service obligation is vital to rural areas of Scotland. It is crucial not only for those who receive mail, but for the many small businesses that rely on the service to get their products to customers. The internet is a two-way street, but only if there is a reliable and cost-effective postal service. We are now told that that service is in imminent danger.
We should not be in this position. The danger to the universal service following the extension of competition, the privatisation of Royal Mail and the Postal Services Act 2011 was entirely predictable and, indeed, predicted. The only surprise is that it is happening so soon. Royal Mail cannot escape all blame because, when the Act was going through this House, we were told repeatedly by the Government and Royal Mail that it would not endanger the universal service. They were adamant that the modernisation project would keep prices down and protect the USO. They said that the existence of the USO was a huge plus for the business.
Less than a year after the flotation, Royal Mail is finding that the brave new world of private enterprise is full of difficulties. The company wants Ofcom to undertake an urgent review of the USO because it cannot guarantee that it will remain sustainable due to the impact of privatisation and, in particular, the expansion of TNT, which the hon. Member for North Ayrshire and Arran described in great detail that I will not repeat. Other competitors are cherry-picking the most profitable routes, which is putting pressure on Royal Mail and on its rural routes. That is a far cry from the claim when it was privatised that the universal service was a huge plus for Royal Mail, as it was the only company that guaranteed that it would deliver to every address.
Ofcom’s role, as set out in the 2011 Act, is bound by conditions that mean that, even if it takes on board Royal Mail’s request to look at the operation of the USO, there is no guarantee that it will take urgent action to tackle the problem. Royal Mail is seeking a review by Ofcom under section 45 of the Act, which is headed, “Fairness of bearing burden of universal service obligations”. I remind Members that the options that Ofcom has under those provisions are very limited. The first limitation is that it will inevitably take time for Ofcom to undertake the necessarily detailed review of the universal service. If Royal Mail is correct about the impact that TNT is having, do we have time to wait for Ofcom to decide whether to undertake the review, come to a conclusion and bring in its changes?
Sir Robert Smith
On that point, it would obviously make sense that the sooner it starts, the sooner it will be able to finish the review.
Mr Weir
I do not disagree with that; in fact, I am very keen for it to start, but even with the best will in the world, given previous investigations of this nature, it will take time, and time may be what we do not have. Does anyone really believe that it will be done in a few months? What will be the state of the USO if it takes 18 months or even two years to undertake such a review? What will Ofcom do? Does anyone in the Chamber really believe that the Government would go to competitor companies and say, “You cannot continue to expand” or “You must contract”? I very much doubt that.
It seems to me that its options under the 2011 Act are constrained. Under section 8—no one has mentioned this point so far—the Government could review the minimum requirements in terms of section 33, and therefore reduce the minimum requirements of the service. We should remember that under section 29 of the Act, at all times when securing the universal service Ofcom must also take into account
“the need for the provision of a universal postal service to be financially sustainable,”.
Does that not also open the door, for example, to raising the price of the universal service? I have previously made the point that with the abandonment of price controls over all other services, second-class post is now the only truly universal service, and even that could be at risk under the proposals. Many small businesses have already seen a rise in costs since privatisation, with an increase in first-class costs and small package rates.
The hon. Member for Ealing North (Stephen Pound) recently sponsored a meeting in this House at which Royal Mail presented its case for a review of the USO. I asked it directly whether it was seeking a diminution of the USO, but it denied that. I cannot say that I entirely believed that, but we must be aware that it is one possible outcome of a review, whether or not that is the company’s intention.
Mr Weir
I am not sure that the present Government are sane political parties, but I will let that one go.
The Government will rightly point out that the 2011 Act enshrines the USO in law for the first time. That is true, but during the passage of the Act many of us asked specifically what will happen if the company comes back and says that it can no longer sustain the service. Royal Mail has been privatised, investors have made their profits, and we may well be about to explore the answer to that question.
Tom Blenkinsop
When I asked the current Defence Secretary whether the USO could be changed by statutory instrument, he said that was not the case. He later wrote to me saying that it was the case.
Mr Weir
The hon. Gentleman is right, and as another Member said at that time—I think it was the Minister—such a measure could be rushed through in a wee room upstairs very quickly. That is true, and that is the danger we are now in with the whole process. Will the Minister make it abundantly clear today that protection of the USO was an essential condition of that privatisation, and that whatever the outcome of the review she will not agree to any diminution of the USO? As I said, that could be an outcome of this process, and sometimes we should beware of what we wish for.
Ian Murray (Edinburgh South) (Lab)
The hon. Gentleman is making an incredibly powerful case about the potential consequences on the USO that Ofcom may bring forward. Will he confirm that a statutory instrument upstairs would not necessarily be a full vote of both Houses? It would be a statutory instrument that goes through both Houses.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Mrs Eleanor Laing)
The hon. Gentleman is correct, and it is interesting that he has taken the trouble to inform the House of that fact this afternoon. I thank him for that, but I point out that the hon. Member for Angus (Mr Weir) has the Floor and will continue his speech.
Mr Weir
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. What else could Ofcom do? It could look at section 46 of the 2011 Act, “Contributions for meeting burden”, which we have already discussed, and recommend that all competitors contribute to the cost of running the universal service. As Ofcom has pointed out, however, it is debarred from doing that for a period of five years unless the Minister specifically directs it. Even if the Minister were to direct it, how long would it take to set up such a system, set out the level of contribution, and get it up and running? If the universal service is now in such a condition that Royal Mail is worried about its continuation, do we have time to implement such proposals?
Under the Act, the Government might try to find a company other than Royal Mail that is willing to take on the universal service, but how many of us think that is likely given what we already know about the operation of other companies in the postal market? They are cherry-picking the profitable services, not building a system to compete with Royal Mail throughout the country.
Royal Mail suggests that the way forward is to introduce general universal service conditions that would impose conditions on its competitors to prevent them from cherry-picking urban routes, but also mean that they have to deliver to a much wider geographical area. Again, I leave it to Members to decide whether that is likely, but, even if it is, how long will it take to do that when we are told that we are facing an imminent crisis?
Sir Malcolm Bruce (Gordon) (LD)
Does the hon. Gentleman acknowledge that the biggest threat to the universal service obligation for Scotland is independence, and will he tell the House exactly what a universal service obligation would mean in an independent Scotland? What would it cost to post something from Carlisle to Dumfries?
Mr Weir
The right hon. Gentleman is being typically ridiculous. The universal service is under threat not because of Scottish independence but because of what is happening in this House. It is under threat now—that is what Royal Mail is saying to us—and it is privatisation, supported by him and his colleagues, that is leading to that. Under independence we have committed to bring Royal Mail operations in Scotland back under public ownership, where they should have stayed, and ensure that there is a Royal Mail service in Scotland. If we stay in the Union, we are told not only that we may not have a universal service, but that prices may go up and things may disappear. The right hon. Gentleman should consider a bit more before making such daft interventions.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Mrs Eleanor Laing)
Order. The hon. Gentleman is not taking interventions. Hon. Members can ask once, perhaps twice, but three times is too many.
Mr Weir
I have already taken many interventions from the Liberal Democrat Benches.
Before any of those options can be taken, Ofcom has to make recommendations to the Secretary of State, who then decides whether action is necessary and what action should be taken. Only at that point will any part be played in the whole process by Parliament, perhaps many months if not years after the process has begun. Nothing is likely to happen before the general election, and all that time TNT and others will continue to expand, making it ever more difficult to construct a solution. As Ofcom points out in its briefing for this debate, the competitors have also made complaints about Royal Mail and some of its practices that they claim are unfair, so if this is opened up we run the risk that of all sorts of other things creeping in.
There seems to me to be a contradiction at the heart of the Postal Services Act. We have a private company that has to undertake the delivery of a vital public service, and the only way of enforcing that is through a regulator, about which I have an uneasy feeling given the way the railway industry operates. I believe we need to look further than that and consider wholesale changes to the Act to allow much faster action to protect the USO. I opposed the privatisation of Royal Mail; I still think it was a drastic error, but as the right hon. Member for Gordon (Sir Malcolm Bruce) has pointed out, in September the people of Scotland have a chance to do something about that and ensure that Royal Mail becomes a public service.
Mr Brian Binley (Northampton South) (Con)
I bring the quiet voice of the other party of the coalition.
I congratulate the hon. Member, and my friend, for North Ayrshire and Arran (Katy Clark), on securing the debate. I also thank the Backbench Business Committee. This is a timely debate, one that those on the Front Bench would do very well to listen to. There were some deep concerns when we supported this measure and I am sad to say that some of them have reared their heads earlier than we might have thought. I therefore agree wholeheartedly that we need action and a review very quickly indeed. I hope this debate will prompt the regulator to pursue that review.
The starting point of this debate is my belief in fair competition. That was one of the reasons I decided, in the first place, to support the original move to privatise the Post Office. However, fair competition does of course have parameters.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills (Jo Swinson)
I thank my hon. Friend for giving way. I think it might be helpful to correct that point. The Post Office has absolutely not been privatised. Royal Mail has been privatised. They are two quite separate companies.
Mr Binley
I thank the Front Bench spokesman for that rather pernickety interjection. I will now continue. Of course it has not been privatised—only 70% of its shares have been sold off. We all recognise that point. We know where we are, so there are more serious questions that I would wish the Front Bench spokesman to address, quite frankly. Let us hope we can move on to them.
Fair competition has parameters that need to be well understood. Fair competition needs to take place with a focus on the public interest first of all. That is a consideration we need to hold very closely to our hearts. It is about making sure that the predatory exploitation of a dominant market position does not harm consumers or undermine others who seek to participate in a competitive environment. There are dangers that cherry-picking does, in truth, undermine that. The context of this debate is making sure that the end-to-end postal services in an urban and suburban setting do not undermine the financial sustainability of the universal service obligation, where in my view the overwhelming public interest can be found.
The truth of the matter, and this is a pretty heavy warning that I hope those on the Front Bench will take note of, is that if we are not careful and if action is not taken, we will be driven to the point where the universal service becomes a much more limited service, or is driven to the point where prices are so high it puts itself into a state of extinction. I believe there is enough evidence in the marketplace to suggest that those fears need to be taken seriously.
I believe in the decency of people and especially the decency of the great majority of Royal Mail workers who serve households in every part of the United Kingdom very well. I would like especially to pay tribute to those Royal Mail workers who work, live and provide service in my own constituency of Northampton South. I talk with them very often. I visited them during the passing of the Bill and had sizeable discussions with them—even with Mr Billy Hayes. I pay tribute to him for the way he undertook those discussions. I believe in the basic decency of Royal Mail workers. They are a much-valued part of our national infrastructure. We should give no thought to being anti-union in any way at all, bearing in mind that they have acted in a proper manner and have in many respects taken some pretty heavy knocks from their own specific political point of view. We should pay tribute to them and I am perfectly happy to do so. I repeat that they are a much-valued part of our national infrastructure, especially in the most remote areas.
It is not just in the rural and remote areas where we should be grateful for Royal Mail. There are many outlying areas in places other than the wilds of Dartmoor and the highlands of Scotland. In fact, near to my town of Northampton, many outlying and very small communities rely totally on the postal service. Very often, the postie fulfils a much more important role in terms of social connection than many of us really understand. I am not sure that the companies that are cherry-picking at the moment understand that point of view. Some of the reports we have had back show that the sorts of workers they are beginning to employ perhaps do not fulfil the criteria that most of us would want our postal service workers to fulfil.
I have a firm belief in the universal service obligation, underpinned as it is by statute in the Postal Services Act 2011. Indeed, I sponsored an amendment in the Committee stage to secure the obligation for 10 years, rather than the Government’s original proposal of 18 months. I am very proud of having helped to secure that amendment. However, it seems probable that other players in the postal market will, as they have so far, cherry-pick the operations that offer soft opportunities for profit, leaving the Royal Mail with the relatively less attractive deliveries. The question for the Government is the extent to which the goal of competition in the postal services market should be allowed to undermine the viability of the Royal Mail’s balance sheet. If that viability is allowed to be undermined, that would bring the whole question of the USO into serious danger.
We need to respect the spirit of what was enshrined in the Postal Services Act, as well as the letter of the law. Ofcom needs to ensure that competition in the postal services market does not in any way undermine the USO. That is its task—it is the regulator. I call on it to carry out its duty as we originally intended, both in law and in spirit. The two are not always coincidental. This House is clear that, where a conflict between competition and the USO arises, it is the obligation that should take priority. I hope we will impress that on Ofcom as a result of this debate and in other ways as time passes.
Royal Mail workers, like our constituents, were clear in what was given to them as a clear undertaking in the 2011 Act. An unequivocal restatement of that commitment from the Dispatch Box would be a very welcome response to this debate. I have a number of questions to put that I hope the Front Bench spokesman will answer in her summing up. First, will the Minister confirm that the USO is enshrined in statute in the 2011 Act? On that basis, would it not require a further Act of Parliament to repeal the obligation?
Secondly, the market in which Royal Mail operates is subject to cherry-picking from other operators not bound by the USO. The Government have stated that their policy is that competition should not undermine the USO. What discussions has the Minister had with Ofcom on that and on the precedence of the USO contained in the 2011 Act?
Thirdly, does the Minister accept that the USO rests on the principle of cross-subsidy from the cheaper urban areas towards the greater cost of delivery to rural areas? What change has taken place in the market in the last few years that could alter the balance of competition between Royal Mail and its competitors?
Fourthly, one factor affecting the distribution of power in the postal market is the price of stamps relative to the prices charged by other deliverers. What assurances can consumers expect in future years that Royal Mail’s pricing will reflect the response of postal service users, so as to protect the universal service obligation?
Fifthly, Ofcom has promised to produce a full assessment of the impact of the universal service obligation and competition in the market for the end of 2015. As it is now four years since the passing of the Act, what assessment has the Minister made of any changes that might compromise the universal service obligation, and what impact does she anticipate Scottish independence would have on the economics of the postal services market? Does the Minister recognise that we need a review sooner rather than later? The whole question of competition has moved on much more quickly than we might have thought when we passed the 2011 Act.
In conclusion, let me repeat that I supported the 2011 Act, and I still do. However, I also support the need of the regulator to do its job according to law and the spirit of what the Act was trying to do. I therefore call on the Government to ensure that a proper review takes place much sooner rather than later, and to give us an undertaking that the universal service obligation will remain at the forefront of postal services in this country, even though that might mean laying conditions on those who operate competitor services and even, to a certain extent, an understanding that those services need to provide a levy to subsidise the universal service, if that is necessary to retain it.
Mr Peter Hain (Neath) (Lab)
I commend the hon. Member for Northampton South (Mr Binley) for the excellent points he made, notwithstanding his support for the privatisation Bill. I hope the Minister listened carefully to them, because they illustrate that this is a cross-party matter. There is a genuine fear about what will happen to Royal Mail. In making those points, I must apologise to you, Madam Deputy Speaker, and to the House that I will not be here for the wind-ups. As a former Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, I need to go and answer questions in interviews, following the Northern Ireland statement.
I was privileged to work for the Union of Post Office Workers—as it was called in the 1970s—for 14 years, into its new incarnation, before I was elected to this House. What has always worried me greatly about the competition regime around Royal Mail is that it is not a level playing field. Royal Mail’s competitors are not treated in the same way as Royal Mail. I believe that poses a great danger to the universal service obligation. It does not pose a danger to its existence, which has been provided for in statute under this Government, as has been pointed out—I am not arguing that—although the universal service obligation is not defined.
I should say that my criticisms of the competition regime, which has basically stayed the same with the transfer to Ofcom from its predecessor, apply to our previous Labour Government as well and are not simply against this Government. There has been a failure to understand the fundamental problem in this whole matter, which is that Royal Mail has to deliver not just to Swansea or Cardiff from London, which is easy and cheap to do—straight down the M4. Rather, Royal Mail has to deliver up to valley communities in my constituency such as Cwmllynfell or Rhiwfawr, which is expensive to do, let alone making deliveries in constituencies represented by hon. Members from Scotland or other parts of Wales, for example, or indeed rural parts of England. That is where the cost comes in. The expensive part of the delivery network is getting things not between city centres, which TNT and other competitors love to do—
Mr Hain
I will in a moment—by the way, this applies to Northern Ireland as well, if the hon. Lady was going to correct me.
The easy part, which competitor companies such as TNT obviously seize on, is getting pre-sorted business mail, which is provided to them by the businesses themselves, along with large-scale deliveries from banks, credit card companies and so on. They bring it in pre-sorted cassettes and containers, and then TNT or whoever rushes it down the M4 or whatever distribution network they use. That is cheap to do—indeed, often they dump it back into Royal Mail, so that it has to do the expensive part of delivering to remote areas. That is the problem. I believe it is a matter of urgency—a point made earlier in the debate—that the Government and Ofcom grasp the problem and sort it out. It cannot wait until late next year; that will be too late for the Royal Mail.
If the delay continues, what I predict will happen to the universal service is this. Yes, it will be there in name, but it will not necessarily apply for six days, because that is not in statute. It will not necessarily apply door to door either, because that is not required on a six-day basis. The universal service is required to apply to every address, but “address” is not defined, as far as I know, over six days, and so on. It is therefore no good sheltering behind the commitment in the 2011 Act to honour the universal service obligation. It is not defined, and when we look at the experience elsewhere—in New Zealand, for example, where a similar process was followed—we find a steady erosion of it.
Lady Hermon
I am most grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for giving way and for mentioning the remote areas of Northern Ireland, as well as the remote areas of Wales and Scotland. As he has already mentioned that he is a former Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, will he take this opportunity to put on record the enormous sacrifice and courage of postal workers—Royal Mail workers—throughout the worst of the troubles in Northern Ireland? Many paid with their lives, while others were held hostage or very badly injured in bomb explosions. I would just like him to mention that for the record.
Mr Hain
I am grateful to the hon. Lady for making that point. She is absolutely right: postal workers—postmen and women—were extremely vulnerable in the terror and the troubles. In some instances they paid with their lives and in others suffered terrible deprivation.
That brings us back to the value of the posties we all depend on, especially if we do not live in city centres—we depend on them here as well, but they might be posties from organisations other than Royal Mail. However, we will not find TNT staff delivering up Snowdonia, up in the highlands or in some of the remote areas of Northern Ireland, which Royal Mail had to do during the troubles prior to the new regime—a point the hon. Lady rightly draws our attention to.
Let me emphasise that the problem with this competition regime is that it allows Royal Mail’s competitors to cherry-pick and cream-skim the most profitable mail. The access charges paid by those competitors to dump their mail back into the Royal Mail, to make sure it gets delivered to the final address when it is in a remote area, are pitifully low. Unless we urgently increase those access charges and unless Ofcom gets out of its sleeping trance on this matter, which the Government might have to instruct it to do, if that is required—I ask the Minister to respond to this point in my absence, for which I again apologise—I fear for the future of the universal service, the quality of that service and Royal Mail’s ability to provide it, as it is required to do, but which none of its competitors is so required to do.
Ms Diane Abbott (Hackney North and Stoke Newington) (Lab)
I am glad to have the opportunity to speak about the threat to the universal postal service posed by this defective competition regime and companies such as TNT.
I must begin by thanking my hon. Friend the Member for North Ayrshire and Arran (Katy Clark) for bringing this subject for debate on the Floor of the House. I should also say that I am probably the only Member of the House—certainly the only one here today—who has actually been a postman, although it was a holiday job and it was a few years ago now.
Ms Abbott
Indeed.
The point I want to make is about how defective the competition regime is. The competition is unfair and where TNT has taken over provision in London, it offers a very poor service. That goes to the heart of a competition regime that is not about a genuine level playing field. TNT does not have the obligations of the Royal Mail; its staff do not have the same qualities or the commitment of Royal Mail staff.
In London, mail has been dumped under bushes and TNT workers have delivered all the letters to people living in a close through one door, expecting that person to hand them out to their neighbours. As has been mentioned, TNT workers rely on Royal Mail workers to tell them where to go. All that is not only a threat to the universal postal service, but a poor service.
Something needs to be done about the competition regime so that companies such as TNT are obliged to live up to the obligations that rest on Royal Mail. Otherwise, the consequence will be not just a threat to the universal postal service in remote areas of Scotland, Northern Ireland and Wales, but a threat to the quality of the postal service that we all enjoy.
The uniform penny post was established in the British isles in 1840. That was a tremendous innovation and the basis of the historic universal postal service. We all know that letter and parcel deliveries are part of a golden thread that ties the British isles together. Even though so many people use e-mail and texts nowadays, we can all think of an important time in our lives when we opened a letter.
The importance of the postal service in all our lives, and the commitment and professionalism of postmen and postwomen, should not be understated. I had the privilege of visiting my local sorting office in Stamford Hill, Hackney, just before Christmas; many Members visit theirs at that time. I saw how hard postmen work and how much we rely on a stable work force with a commitment to their work and an ongoing knowledge of their areas to provide the service that all our constituents deserve.
Mr Nigel Dodds (Belfast North) (DUP)
I heartily endorse everything that the hon. Lady has said. I visited the sorting office in my area just before Christmas; the operation at Mallusk is fantastic. The issue comes down to trust. People everywhere in the UK trust the Royal Mail. There is not that trust in any other kind of operation. We interfere with that at our peril.
Ms Abbott
I entirely agree. The issue is about people in Government—not just this Government, but any Government—sometimes knowing the cost of everything but the value of nothing. The commitment, professionalism and decades of service of individual postmen in our sorting offices cannot be valued enough. Although the changes may bear down on costs in the short term, in the long term we undermine the quality of the service and, specifically—this is the point of this debate—we put the universal postal service in danger.
We should really value the unquantifiable aspects of the service that Royal Mail workers provide. We need to stop them being exposed to wholly unfair competition, and the Government and the regulator need to get together as a matter of urgency to do something about the looming threat to the universal postal service.
John McDonnell (Hayes and Harlington) (Lab)
These debates are not good for my health. My doctor advises me to stop being so angry about these issues, but I cannot help but be angry about this. The hon. Member for Angus (Mr Weir) said that what we are discussing was predicted and therefore predictable. I was in the House 10 years ago when the European directive was debated. There were three Labour Members: me, my hon. Friend the Member for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn) and, I believe, Tony Benn. The new Labour Government were then implementing the European directive with zeal, in advance of virtually every other country in Europe. They were putting our postal service out to privatisation in a way that, as was demonstrated even then in that debate, would eventually lead to the threat to the delivery service. It was inevitable.
Thank goodness that we now have my hon. Friend the Member for North Ayrshire and Arran (Katy Clark). The irony 10 years ago was that the former general secretary of the union was then a Minister pushing the legislation through. The Communication Workers Union-associated Members had disappeared that evening; only a limited number of us were here, fighting and arguing in favour of amendments. It was late at night and I remember it well.
We said that the changes would inevitably result in, first, a threat to the postal service and, secondly, in the full privatisation of the Royal Mail. That has happened. It has been done in such a way that we have lost billions as well. This is why I get so angry—what we have done to the postal service in this country is absolute insanity. I remember well the argument put up then: that we could no longer subsidise Royal Mail. But I am subsidising—we are all subsidising—TNT and others now. They do not pay a living wage, so we are subsiding most of their workers through working tax credits and other benefits. That is the irony.
What worries me now is that I believe we are at the tipping point. I repeat what the hon. Member for Angus said: if we do not do something soon, it might well be too late. That is why if we do not act very quickly, we might go past the tipping point and lose it, given the time scales and how slowly Ofcom works. My worry is that Ofcom says it monitors what is happening at the moment and does not feel it needs to act at this time, yet it never defines publicly what the tipping point is. Ofcom does not share information that would demonstrate whether the service is under threat or not.
I listen to the real experts—those whom everyone has cited today and praised to high heaven. They are the people who deliver the mail. They know what is happening on the ground, how they are being undercut by TNT and others and what their prospects are—in the near future, not just the long term. They are saying through their trade union and in direct dialogue that, if we do not act soon, we will lose the universal service.
There is now an onus on the Government to bring Ofcom in and start immediately on two processes. First, there should be an immediate public review. I would welcome it if the Minister went back to the Secretary of State to say that we need to bring Ofcom in now. I would welcome a public meeting involving Ofcom, us and the Minister so that we had full openness and transparency about the monitoring it is undertaking and how it defines where the tipping point will be. What time scale is it working to?
The second issue, raised by my hon. Friend the Member for North Ayrshire and Arran, is about the support fund. As has been said, the legislation barred any action for five years unless the Secretary of State intervened. We have all said it now: we know that the five-year period is too long because we may well miss the boat if the Secretary of State does not intervene now. Government action is a matter of urgency. I think there would be cross-party support on these two measures. First of all, we should bring in Ofcom to define where it is at in the analysis of the tipping point of the threat; and secondly, we should start the work on the support fund now. I say that because, as other Members have said, it will take a while to put in place, so we should at least start the work now so that if it is needed, it is readily available. If it is not, fair enough; it does not have to be enacted in its final form, but let us at least get the work undertaken now. Otherwise, we will all regret that we did not act sooner.
The onus, I am afraid, is on the Government. I say that not in a partisan or critical way because I believe I reflect the views of the whole House across the parties in saying that the Government must feel a sense of urgency. Otherwise, we will lose the service that every Member has praised. If that happens, we will be not only letting down the work force of the Royal Mail, but betraying our own constituents as well.
Ian Murray (Edinburgh South) (Lab)
I am pleased to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell). This is the fifth debate in a row in which I have answered for the Opposition on this subject, and my hon. Friend has always been the last to speak and has been curtailed in his contribution. I hope that he will not listen to his doctor, because we would certainly miss the passion and anger he brings to the Chamber and the good sense that he always talks. I would like to thank, too, the Backbench Business Committee for bringing forward timeously before the summer recess this really important debate. I pay a huge tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for North Ayrshire and Arran (Katy Clark) who, beyond anyone else in this place, has kept this issue of Royal Mail and postal services on the agenda. Without her passion and energy, we would not be able to take forward some of the significant contributions that we all want to see on a cross-party basis. The hon. Member for Northampton South (Mr Binley) was quite right to say that this is indeed a cross-party issue.
It is worth putting the issue into context. It is a six-day, one-price-goes-anywhere service that Royal Mail provides, and its posties deliver to 29 million addresses each day of the week. It is a particularly important service for small businesses as consumers, although we have not spoken much about small businesses in that context today.
The botched privatisation of Royal Mail, mentioned a number of times this afternoon, cost the taxpayer £1 billion and we have seen the architect of it promoted to Defence Secretary. We have lost a national asset that the public did not want to see privatised. The hon. Member for Angus (Mr Weir) was absolutely right to refer to the process in this place. Time and again the Business Secretary has said that “the overarching objective” of privatisation was “to secure” the “universal postal service”. Yet just a few months after that privatisation, we are back here debating the dangers to the universal service obligation. That is why we are calling on the Secretary of State to use any powers he has under section 44 of the Postal Services Act 2011 to try to put pressure on Ofcom to bring this forward, so we can make sure that the USO remains viable.
We know that the volume of letters is in decline. Last year alone, the volume fell between 4% and 6%. The wonderful work of all Royal Mail’s staff to try to cope with that decline is to be commended, but this does underpin the fragility of the universal service obligation. Its sustainability depends on Royal Mail being able to use the revenues from easier-to-serve urban areas to cover the cost of the nationwide network. It does not require a postal economist to see that the geography of the UK means that delivery to the Scottish islands or to rural Wales is an expensive business and can be sustained only by cross-subsidy from more profitable areas. The hon. Member for West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine (Sir Robert Smith), my hon. Friends the Members for Ynys Môn (Albert Owen) and for North Ayrshire and Arran, the hon. Members for Argyll and Bute (Mr Reid) and for Angus and my right hon. Friend the Member for Neath (Mr Hain), who all represent rural constituencies, mentioned that in their contributions.
The genesis of this debate is the need to consider the impact that direct end-to-end competition is having on Royal Mail’s ability to sustain the USO. Royal Mail has submitted a quite extensive report to Ofcom on the effect of end-to-end competition and the threats to the USO, encouraging Ofcom to bring forward the review promised for 2015. The report says in great detail that the alternative providers, especially TNT, have grown quickly and have plans to expand to over 40% of mail delivery by 2017. This expansion will cover only 8.5% of the geography of the UK. It is this “cherry-picking” of low-cost, profitable inner city postcodes that threatens the economics of the USO.
These plans have been calculated by Royal Mail to represent an approximate revenue loss of around £200 million, but it is not simply about profitability; it is about the viability of fulfilling its USO. The end-to-end competition issues are magnified by the lack of a level playing field with rival operators. That was mentioned by both my right hon. Friend the Member for Neath and my hon. Friend the Member for Hackney North and Stoke Newington (Ms Abbott).
Royal Mail is—rightly, I think—subject to a complicated matrix of delivery standards, reporting and service levels, but the competition is not. For example, rival operators are able to cherry-pick when they deliver. TNT Post UK provides an every-other-day service, which reduces its costs. Rival operators are able to cherry-pick the type of mail they deliver—business mail is the easiest to handle and the most profitable—and they are also able to put mail they do not want to deliver back into the Royal Mail system. As right hon. and hon. Members have said, where they cannot deliver, they need to put it back into the system. That highlights the importance of the universal service to rival operators. They require a viable USO to make their own business models work so it is really important for Ofcom to take that into account in any analysis.
Royal Mail’s ability to compete on price is constrained, as we have heard this afternoon, and it is unable to alter downstream access prices that now make up almost 50% of all mail volumes. There is an ongoing Ofcom investigation into access pricing, which the hon. Member for Edinburgh West (Mike Crockart) mentioned in one of his interventions. Rival operators use a plethora of alternative employment contracts which mean that their staff are lower paid and more insecure than those of Royal Mail. That has the potential to create a race to the bottom in postal services which, in turn, has the potential to undermine the universal service obligation.
Many Members have referred to TNT Post, because many of the issues that we are discussing are relevant to its business model. I realise that TNT has become a lightning conductor for concern about the liberation of the postal market and the impact that it could have on the USO, but it should be borne in mind that it is operating according to the regulations that currently apply to it. That is why it is important for Ofcom to look at everything in the round. Major issues involving TNT are well documented, but I know that members of its union, Community, are working closely with the company to eradicate zero-hours contracts and introduce the living wage and better conditions for its work force. It is worth emphasising that it would be very much in TNT’s interest as well for Ofcom to conduct its review now.
We are calling on the Government to pull all the levers that they can possibly pull to encourage Ofcom to bring forward its review. Even if Royal Mail’s arguments, contained in the dusty tome that it has submitted to Ofcom, are found not to be wholly valid, or not as compelling as it has suggested—and the hon. Member for Angus implied that they should be tested—that will be known only once they have been fully investigated. Ofcom’s current programme for the review means that we shall have to wait until the end of 2015, and that could be far too late. Those issues were also raised by my favourite Conservative Member of Parliament, the hon. Member for Northampton South. I am sure that there is a keen socialist hiding somewhere in that Conservative body of his.
If Ofcom began its review now, any recommendations for changes in the regulatory environment could be implemented very quickly to ensure that we do not lose sight of the universal service obligation. There is a danger that the door could be closed after the horse had bolted. Every Member who has spoken today has raised that issue. If Royal Mail is right, the planned 2015 review could be brought forward. Remedial action will be severely limited if that does not happen. Surely it is best for all concerned—Royal Mail, rival providers and, crucially, customers—for the future of the USO to be secured and for what lies on the horizon to be made clear as soon as possible.
Let me list Labour’s proposals for the future of Royal Mail as we approach the 2015 election. We would secure the USO well beyond 2015; we would prioritise the continuation of the inter-service agreement with the Post Office beyond 2022; we would ensure that there was an appropriate degree of price certainty for Royal Mail and its customers; and we would ensure that regulations provided a level playing field for all operators.
Sir Robert Smith
I am sure that, given the badge that the hon. Gentleman is wearing, he will also point out that by voting “no thanks” in the forthcoming referendum we will maintain the universal service for the whole United Kingdom, ensuring that subsidies continue to go to those difficult areas in Scotland.
Ian Murray
I did not want to go into the independence referendum arguments, for two simple reasons: first, they are incredibly complex, and secondly, the issue is not entirely relevant to the debate. I think that we are all slightly sick of the independence referendum. I hoped that we could be “independence free” today, but perhaps that is not possible after all. However, the hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. Whichever way we view the issue, it is clear from the geography of Scotland that it would be much more difficult and expensive to deliver postal services there following independence. Scotland’s postal services are cross-subsidised because of that geography. That is one very simple argument about what would happen to postal services in an independent Scotland.
Ian Murray
I have awoken the beast of Angus. If he will excuse me, I will not give way because of the time constraints—or perhaps I will, just for the sheer fun of it.
Mr Weir
The hon. Gentleman talks of the geography of Scotland, but what we are debating is whether the universal service obligation will continue within the Union. It is the Union that is a danger to the universal service throughout the United Kingdom, not Scottish independence. Scotland, like any other country, can run a postal service to suit Scottish needs.
Ian Murray
I think the hon. Gentleman should go to see the doctor that my hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) sees and perhaps get some advice on how to calm down a little about the independence referendum.
I am looking at the time, so I will conclude now by paying tribute to our posties up and down the country. I went on a round last year with Michael Lunn, one of my local posties from the Strathearn road delivery office, in the most tenemental part of my constituency. I can assure hon. Members that it was quite a hard round without lifts in those tenements. Not only did he deliver the mail efficiently, but he knew where people lived, which buzzers to press to get in when people were at work, whether people were on holiday and whether people were expecting parcels. He knew everything about anybody in his round. When we put it in that context, we see that it is not just a postal service; it is a service to all our communities. It is a valuable social service that we should make sure we do not jeopardise, because if we do, that will be detrimental to everyone in the country.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills (Jo Swinson)
It is a pleasure to respond to today’s constructive debate. I very much congratulate the hon. Member for North Ayrshire and Arran (Katy Clark) on securing it. As a fellow proud Scot, I am pleased that so many Scottish Members have contributed to it, but I am also pleased that all four nations of the United Kingdom have been represented.
The issues I wish to touch on in my summing up are: the importance of the USO; the concerns raised by various hon. Members about competition; and the Ofcom review, which is the main subject of the motion. We have heard from Members from all parts of the House about how vital the universal service is for rural areas. The hon. Member for Ynys Môn (Albert Owen), my hon. Friend the Member for Argyll and Bute (Mr Reid), and the hon. Members for North Ayrshire and Arran and for Angus (Mr Weir) all made points about that eloquently. We were reminded by my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton South (Mr Binley) that this is not purely a rural issue, as the universal service is vital to many towns and suburban areas. It is right that postal workers are held in great esteem in many communities, as the service is hugely important not only to our local economies, but more widely, in society and in communities. That is why, as my hon. Friend the Member for Argyll and Bute pointed out, we have set out the USO in primary legislation—my predecessor, my right hon. Friend the Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Mr Davey), made sure it was written into the Postal Services Act 2011.
I appreciate that the right hon. Member for Neath (Mr Hain) is no longer able to be in his place, but I am sure he will read my remarks in Hansard in order to follow the reassurances I can give about his concerns on the definition of the delivery of a six-day-a-week service to every address. He seemed to take the view that that was not a significantly well-defined definition. Section 31 sets out what must, as a minimum, be included in the USO. On the delivery of letters and other postal packets it states:
“At least one delivery of letters every Monday to Saturday—
(a) to the home or premises of every individual or other person in the United Kingdom, or
(b) to such identifiable points for the delivery of postal packets as OFCOM may approve.”
Clearly there are very few addresses that are, for whatever reason, inaccessible and for which Ofcom can, in those extreme cases, approve a collection point. That definition is very clear, we should be reassured by it, and it is right that this House and the other place have prioritised it by making sure it is in primary legislation.
Mr Weir
I understand what the Minister is saying and I acknowledged that this was the first time the USO was in legislation. Let us consider one thing that Ofcom can do in a review. I believe that section 43(8) states that its
“recommended action may consist of one or more of the following—
(a) the carrying out of a review under section 33 (review of minimum requirements)”.
So if Ofcom does carry out a review under the Act, it could recommend a reduction in the minimum requirements. Will she assure us that she will not accept any such reduction?
Jo Swinson
I am delighted to do so. I have given such assurances from this Dispatch Box, as colleagues have done. Speaking for my party going into the next general election campaign, I can say that that will be our position, and I am sure that other parties can also give their assurances on that. I think that there is absolute consensus across the House that that is vital and should be protected. So it is not something that would be changed. In addition, as we have discussed in the debate, to do so would require a vote in both Houses of Parliament, and that is a significant protection. I hope that that reassures the House on the importance the Government attach to the USO.
Members also raised concerns about cherry-picking and end-to-end competition. Of course competition is not new in postal delivery. It has been more than 10 years now since the EU postal services directive opened up the market. At the beginning, the effect was felt much more significantly in the collection and sorting of mail, with Royal Mail still being responsible for the final mile. That is the area in which there has been more competition.
The right hon. Member for Neath was right to highlight the fact that the expensive parts of postal delivery are to the address not in central London, central Swansea or central Glasgow but in those much more inaccessible, remote locations, where the costs are significant. Of course the principle of cross-subsidy, which was mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton South, is a crucial part of how the universal service can be delivered. One of the ways in which the structure is created so that that cross subsidy can continue is for Royal Mail to have a lot of flexibility—much more than it used to have—to charge different prices to different operators. It can also use zonal pricing so that it can charge more for delivery to remote rural areas when it is being used for that final mail delivery, which accounts for the vast majority of competition that exists within the mail delivery market. That enables it to recoup the costs that it incurs from providing that universal service.
Competition can clearly help to drive efficiency, which I am sure people would agree is a positive thing, but it stands to reason that if that competition took a significant portion of the market, especially in terms of end-to-end competition, it could have an impact on the universal service. That is because zonal pricing is particularly related to the competition that exists when Royal Mail is still delivering the final mile. That is why we have put in place a regime in which Ofcom monitors both the situation and what is happening in the postal market. If necessary, it has further powers to act to level the playing field.
I just want to touch briefly on the quantum that we are talking about today. Members have mentioned TNT delivery, but in the last full year, in 2013, 14.6 billion items were delivered—that is the size of the mail market. Of those 14.6 billion items, 14.544 billion of them were delivered by Royal Mail. I am not saying that Members are wrong to be concerned, but I want to put the matter in context. We are talking about a very small portion, 0.38%, of the overall mail market. Members were right to say that it has grown quickly. In 2012, it was 0.11% of the market. Within the space of a year, the volume of items delivered in end-to-end competition more than tripled. It is important that this issue is looked at closely by Ofcom and that it is kept under review.
My hon. Friend the Member for West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine (Sir Robert Smith) pointed out that perhaps Royal Mail needs to have time to adapt to changes. It is clear that we need to keep our eye on the rate of growth, but we are not yet talking about a level or a volume that would cause concern about the impact on the profitability of Royal Mail. Even Royal Mail accepts that the concern is more to do with the potential for that to happen rather than the situation as it is at the moment.
I just want to clarify which review we are talking about today. Two different reviews are being talked about. Some Members have mentioned section 44. I think that the hon. Member for Angus was looking at a copy of the Bill, because by the time that Bill became an Act, it was section 44 rather than 43. That is the review of the financial burden of the universal service on the provider that Ofcom can be directed to undertake by the Secretary of State. That is not the same as the review that Royal Mail is currently asking for, which is about end-to-end competition. That review is something that Ofcom has said that, as part of its wider monitoring regime, it will do in any event by the end of next year, but it is happy to bring it forward if necessary. This is an area in which there is no specific Government power to direct. I hope to reassure the House on this point.
There is a clear desire for Ofcom to keep a close eye on the impact of competition on the universal service. It seems that there is almost an assumption that that is not currently being considered, but I can tell the House that that is absolutely not the case. I have spoken to Ed Richards, who is in charge of Ofcom, and, as it happens, I will be meeting him later today, which is good timing. Ofcom is clear that it is monitoring the situation in the mail market carefully and intensely. It is not waiting until the end of next year; it is doing so on a monthly basis and is very much on the case, ensuring that it has the information. It also has the power to get access to much more detail than any individual player in the market, having access not only to the details of Royal Mail’s financial position, but also to the business plans of TNT and any other providers, so its visibility is excellent. The review will be started by the end of next year at the latest, but Ofcom has said that it is happy to start earlier if it sees any reason for market changes or any financial impact on the universal service that would mean that it needs to be started earlier.
I am conscious of the time, so I will not stray into the Scottish independence issues, tempted though I am to do so. The exchange between the hon. Members for Edinburgh South (Ian Murray) and for Angus set out that the matter is relevant and that there would be consequences in an independent Scotland for deliverability and the price of the postal service.
I want to finish by picking up on the point made by the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell), because he made a sensible and constructive suggestion that, given the level of interest in the House, which is clear from the debate’s attendance and from the correspondence that I receive as a Minister, it would be helpful for Ofcom to be able to meet MPs to discuss the issue. It is clear that the appetite is there and it would be useful for the regulator to hear MPs’ concerns directly and not just through Hansard. It would also be useful for hon. Members to be able to have a frank discussion with Ofcom about its approach, which I believe would lead to a great deal of reassurance. As I said, I will be meeting Ofcom later this afternoon and so will have the perfect opportunity to put that request. I look forward to hearing the response of the hon. Member for North Ayrshire and Arran to the debate.
Katy Clark
The debate has been extremely useful. I hope that what the Minister says in private is slightly different from what she has said in public today, because she has shown a level of complacency that was not seen in the contributions of Back-Bench Members on both sides of the House. There is a huge amount of concern about the speed at which TNT is expanding its service in the UK and about the impact that that could have on the universal service. I am interested that the Minister is meeting Ofcom later today and welcome the suggestion that Ofcom meet hon. Members, which would be useful. It would also be helpful if Ministers attended the meeting, so I would be grateful if she undertook to do so.
The Minister says that only a small proportion of work is currently undertaken by operators other than Royal Mail, which I made clear in my opening contribution. However, the concern is that TNT’s proposals, which are publicly available and which most hon. Members here have already seen, make clear the speed at which it will expand in this country. As a result, it will be covering a huge number—over 40%—of households, which is different from anything that the House discussed in the various debates that took place—
Katy Clark
I am not sure whether I am able to take interventions when making a closing speech, but if I could allow anybody, it would be the hon. Gentleman given his track record on this issue.
Yes, we have had 10 years of competition, but the lesson that we have learned is that the market does not respond well to competition. The current regime is not protecting the services that we receive. The reality is that we have fewer services now than we did when competition came in. We all remember Sunday collections and twice-a-day deliveries. The road that we are on is extremely dangerous and is a threat to postal services in all parts of the UK. I hope that the Government will take on board the emotion and passion of hon. Members’ contributions today and insist that Ofcom urgently carry out a speedy review.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House believes that the Universal Service Obligation as set out in the Postal Services Act 2011 is under threat from unfair competition from organisations which are rapidly expanding end-to-end delivery services in low-cost, high-density urban areas while leaving high-cost, low-density rural areas to be covered by Royal Mail, the universal service provider; and calls on the Government to instruct Ofcom to bring forward proposals to protect the Universal Service Obligation and the commercial viability of Royal Mail against this threat.
Children with Autism (Education)
(9 years, 9 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Gordon Birtwistle (Burnley) (LD)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered the provision of education for children with autism.
It is a privilege to introduce this debate on the provision of proper schooling for children with autism. I first considered securing such a debate when I was approached by a number of families in my constituency. I asked a question of the then Secretary of State for Education, who agreed that I could meet the Minister, which I did. Following that, I was approached by a number of my constituents who asked me to secure today’s debate. I am delighted to have achieved that and I thank the Backbench Business Committee for allowing it. I am pleased that there are a number of Members in the Chamber today who wish to debate this important subject.
This debate is important in identifying for the Minister the horrifying ongoing struggles, about which my constituents have certainly told me, that children with autism face in getting appropriate education. As a result of poor local provision and unofficial exclusions, thousands of children with autism do not access full-time education. If a young person’s needs are not understood or met, that has both short and long-term implications, which, as my constituents’ experience highlights, can be severe.
We are all aware that autism is a lifelong developmental disability that affects how a person communicates and makes sense of the world around them. It is a spectrum condition, meaning that it affects people in different ways, making awareness and diagnosis even more important. Some children have mild autism and some have severe autism and the idea that one education system fits all does not work. That is one of the major issues that I hope to put forward today for consideration, and I hope that the Minister will look into it in the future.
Henry Smith (Crawley) (Con)
I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on securing this important debate. Will he join me in congratulating the many important local community groups that support children with autism, such as Autism Support Crawley and Autism Sussex, on the help that they give to parents in dealing with the education system, which, as he rightly points out, differs from local authority to local authority?
Gordon Birtwistle
I am grateful to my hon. Friend, who makes a valid point. In my constituency, there are many people, such as church groups and voluntary groups, who do just that. However, we need the local education authorities to recognise the problems. Children with autism, like children without autism, should have an equal right to access good-quality full-time education.
Let me look directly at my own constituency, which is in Lancashire. Lancashire county council, in my view and in that of my constituents, has failed to ensure that appropriate education and support are provided for numerous autistic children. I will give three examples later in my speech. To put it simply, its oversight is causing too many children with autism to miss out on much of their valuable education. Despite local authorities holding the legal responsibility to ensure that all children with special educational needs in their area are identified and supported, it is evident that that is not being fulfilled. In Lancashire no one is accepting responsibility or taking the time to understand the needs of these children. That is happening across the country, so many of the 70,000 school-age children in England are not accessing the education they need to learn, achieve and, more importantly, thrive.
I draw the attention of the House to three of my constituents. One of the cases is especially moving. When I first heard about it, I was distressed, to say the least. It concerns a young lady named Chloe, who is 17 years old. She is now on suicide watch as a result of repeatedly being failed by Lancashire county council since the age of 11. The detrimental impact of Chloe’s lack of education and development as an individual is clear. She was threatened with exclusion from her mainstream school placements up to the age of 13, when she was finally diagnosed with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder and autism.
Children with statements of special educational needs are eight times more likely to be excluded than their peers, and children with no statement are 11 times more likely to be excluded. When Chloe was 14 her family was advised that she would receive a statutory assessment of her educational needs. Lancashire county council failed to undertake this, despite it being recommended by professionals and her parents’ insistence. It took years—not weeks or months, but years—for Lancashire county council educational psychologist Yakub Padia to assess Chloe. After a 20-minute consultation he disagreed with the findings of experienced psychologists who had spent prolonged periods with her, and it was recommended that she be placed in a pupil referral unit, rather than the specialist school recommended by the professionals. Lancashire county council disregarded this and even the advice of the head of the pupil referral unit, who thought it was not suitable for Chloe.
As a teenager Chloe was passed from pillar to post, with a total lack of accurate assessment. Lancashire county council let her down. Chloe felt worthless and rejected. That led her to self-harm and to suffer from depression. She has ended up in a specialist psychiatric unit on suicide watch. Her brothers have had to watch her attempt to hang herself in the family home. Chloe is now emotionally and mentally damaged. Without question, missing out on education leads to poor life outcomes for the child involved and for their families. Chloe’s mum is one of the 50% of parents of disabled children who say they have had to take up part-time work as a result of their child’s exclusion. Chloe is a very sad case.
Steve Rotheram (Liverpool, Walton) (Lab)
I congratulate the hon. Member for Burnley (Gordon Birtwistle) on bringing this important issue to the attention of the House. I was hoping he would go on to paint a picture of how we as parliamentarians can help to destigmatise the condition and break down some of the barriers that people face in their everyday lives in respect of employment and perhaps even diagnosis of their condition. All we have heard up till now is an attack on Lancashire county council. I hope the hon. Gentleman will focus on what we as parliamentarians can do to assist people who have the condition.
Gordon Birtwistle
I am grateful for the intervention. I am trying to explain that people with autism are born with autism. I am trying to find a reason why, in education, we cannot accept this—as a disease or an illness—and work with the families and the children who suffer from this appalling disease. I have met the head of a school not in my constituency, but close by, called Rossendale school. The head said that he could resolve the problem and he has proved that. He has a way of doing that. Unfortunately, Lancashire county council—the hon. Gentleman says that I should not be having a go at it—does not accept that and will not work with the school, which I find pretty hideous, because it needs to do things like that.
Mark Hendrick (Preston) (Lab/Co-op)
I remind the hon. Gentleman that Lancashire county council has 1,435 children and young people suffering from autism spectrum disorder and, as he will hear in my speech, does an excellent job. He omitted from his remarks the fact that Rossendale is a private school and that the council provides excellent state facilities, with specialist experts, and can make that provision available, but he—I am sure that he will expand on this later—is insisting on private education when public education is adequate.
Gordon Birtwistle
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his remarks, but the families of the children I am talking about would totally disagree—they will no doubt be happy to meet him later to explain the serious problems they are having. I am not pushing for private education. Rossendale might well be a private school, and so too might one or two others. All I am saying is that if Rossendale can provide it, why can Lancashire county council not do the same through the state system? Why can the council not be just as good as Rossendale? I do not want to promote a private school; I want to promote extremely good education for my constituents.
Mr Barry Sheerman (Huddersfield) (Lab/Co-op)
The hon. Gentleman—it is difficult not to call him my hon. Friend—will know of my interest in this subject. I am sorry that I arrived a little late to this debate; I was chairing a committee at the other end of the building. I am delighted that he is making this speech. I want to make the point, having chaired the Education Committee when it conducted a major inquiry into special educational needs, that the lack of early diagnosis and early access to psychological and mental health therapy is a problem up and down the country, not just in Lancashire. The length of time it can take for a child suspected of having such a condition to be evaluated and then given the support they need is a national disgrace.
Gordon Birtwistle
I thank the hon. Gentleman. I could not have put it better myself. That is the argument I am making. We are having this debate because I was approached by three families in my constituency. I had thought that this was a small issue. I did not anticipate the flood of e-mails and correspondence I received, and not only from Lancashire, but from all over the country. I agree with it 100%.
We can sit here all day long saying that this is happening all over the country, but what are we doing about it? We need to do something. Why are children with autism and ADHD being tret in that way? As the hon. Member for Preston (Mark Hendrick) has said, Lancashire county council provides education to more than 1,400 young people with autism spectrum disorder, but why are my constituents, who are up in the Gallery, being tret differently from anybody else? Why does the council not treat them in the same way? Why are their children totally different from somebody else’s? Why do they have to suffer? Why does Chloe’s mother have to suffer in that way while other parents do not?
If Lancashire county council delivers such a great service, as the hon. Gentleman says, why is it letting Chloe and her mother down? That is my issue today. I am happy for Lancashire county council to deliver the best service available in the country, but it has to be for everybody, not just the few. My purpose today is to raise the issue with the Minister and ask him to look into it and take it forward.
Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)
My hon. Friend is doing a great service to this cause just by raising it, so he should be proud of himself. Surely the answer to Labour Members’ interventions is that it is a question not of state or private but of looking at each case individually. If a private school happens to be more appropriate, there should not be bias against the fact that it is a private school. We should look at what is best for the child, should we not?
Gordon Birtwistle
I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend. I will shortly come to a case where I got involved in talking about private or public provision and heard stories from the staff at the county council.
The next case is that of a young man called Jack Entwistle, a nine-year-old autistic boy who should currently be enjoying his school holidays but, unfortunately, has already been out of education for three months. He is at a critical age educationally and developmentally, but so far he has been failed by the county council. This is not just about Lancashire county council—it will be happening all over, but I have not met anybody from any other county council area with similar experiences.
Gordon Birtwistle
It might be happening in the hon. Gentleman’s constituency; in fact, I am sure it is. I have been to Huddersfield, and it is a beautiful place that I would always be happy to visit, but I can talk only about the people I know.
Mr Sheerman
May I tempt the hon. Gentleman, who is an old friend of mine, to be more forensic? We need to do better—all of us here in the Chamber today who care about this. He is right: we all see similar cases in our constituency advice services. The real problem, right across the country, is proper early diagnosis, whether in the private or the state sector—it does not matter. What the parents want is early diagnosis so that support and intervention can then take place and the child has a chance to develop their spark of potential in the very best way. We are talking about some very, very clever kids who need support really early on in their careers. If we can share, forensically, information about where the barriers are and why early diagnosis is not taking place, we can be much more effective. We have here a very good Minister who partly trained on my Select Committee at one stage. I know that he is good on this and cares about it, and we can make a compelling case to him.
Gordon Birtwistle
I agree with everything that has been said. Why cannot these diagnoses be done quickly? Why cannot we solve these problems?
Jack received a statement of educational needs at the age of three due to his prematurity and his visual impairment, so his parents should have received adequate support and his needs should have been met as he wanted. Conversely, he has been subjected to humiliation in the school environment, with unfair treatment by a teaching assistant and his recent forced removal from the mainstream school that he had attended for four years. Jack was officially diagnosed with autism in 2012 when he was seven, but he had a problem when he was three. The school declared that it could no longer cope with Jack, who struggled with the transition from infants to juniors.
After several meetings with the county council education authority, Jack’s parents worked well with the school—a state school—to create a suitable environment with the input of a teaching assistant providing additional facilities. Jack thrived and his marks improved. However, the county council has taken away the special needs teacher and now he cannot manage at school. His parents have no trust in placing him in this environment and are currently appealing against his placement. It is wrong that the county council, instead of encouraging Jack’s development, has not considered all his needs. That is what it is all about—considering the child’s needs.
It is more than alarming that the parents had to face more battles to get the county council to amend Jack’s statement to include autism as part of its diagnosis. Why should the parents have to argue with the experts to get a proper diagnosis of the child’s illness? Why on earth do they have to do this? Is it not delivered automatically? Are we not paying the experts within the education authority to deliver this service to my constituents—the parents and the child? That is the big problem.
Steve Rotheram
I want to go back a step or two and express my gratitude to the hon. Gentleman for raising this issue, but not necessarily for the manner in which he is doing so. He is, of course, absolutely right to illustrate the cases of his individual constituents, but an immediate member of my family who has autism went through a similar experience to the one he is describing when Liverpool had a Liberal Democrat council. I say that not because I want to make a party political point, but because this is widespread and happens all the time. We have to understand that this is a condition—it is not a disease—with a spectrum of different conditions within it. It is very complex. That is why early diagnosis and assessment followed by a support package based on the individual needs of the child is the most important thing we can do. I hope we will get to the point where we can work with the Government to see what we need to do better to enable people to get the best start possible in life.
Gordon Birtwistle
I am grateful for that intervention. My only aim is that we all work with the Government and education authorities to come to a conclusion on how to address early diagnosis and to deliver for these young people—who in the main have amazing talents—educational facilities that will take them on, help them succeed and be superb members of the community, and enable them to live normal lives. My argument is that we are not doing that, and the hon. Gentleman obviously agrees with me.
Ian Murray (Edinburgh South) (Lab)
The education system in Scotland is devolved, but, as has been said, this is a problem across the country, because the condition is prevalent across the country. Does he agree that this is not just about local authorities and that there should be proper training for the teaching profession? There is also a body of work to be done on teaching schoolchildren to treat those in their classes who have autism slightly differently and to be a more aware of their condition so that they can thrive in a mainstream environment.
Gordon Birtwistle
Absolutely. I pretty much agree with everything that has been said and most people seem to agree with what I am saying. My argument is that, although the hon. Members for Liverpool, Walton (Steve Rotheram) and for Edinburgh South (Ian Murray) and my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Sir Edward Leigh) have all made amazing suggestions, we do not act on them. While we sit here and talk, why are thousands of young people and families across the country suffering? I have met some of those families and they are at the edge of life. It should not have to be like that. Proper facilities should be provided.
Mr Sheerman
This is the first time I have risen to make an intervention in this House to say something positively nice about the Government: the Children and Families Act 2014, which was passed recently, met an aspiration that I had had for many years, namely that someone diagnosed with special educational needs will have a special relationship with evaluation until they are 25. That is wonderful and we should pay tribute to the Under-Secretary of State for Education, the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mr Timpson) and the Government for it. The sensitive issue, however, is what has happened to services such as child and adolescent mental health services, which seem to be falling apart up and down the country, but the Government are not reacting to that.
Gordon Birtwistle
I am grateful for that intervention and I will address the hon. Gentleman’s comments when I come to the end of my contribution.
Thirdly, I want to talk about a little girl called Honey, who is the daughter of a constituent of mine with a hairdressing salon near my office in Burnley. She is a lovely, lively little girl—she spends time in my office on occasion—who has very mild autism. She had to be moved six months into her final year in primary school due to trauma and threat of exclusion. Basically, she was classed as a naughty girl.
Honey’s new primary school quickly established the need for a statement of educational needs—why had it not been picked up earlier?—and had evidence from an independent educational psychologist to present to the panel. Once again, however, the Lancashire county council educational psychologist reassessed Honey and challenged the independent assessment.
No secondary school place has been arranged for Honey, despite her parents choosing Rossendale school. There may be other schools that are as good as that independent school, but Rossendale is one of the few providers catering for high-functioning ASD children in Lancashire. Honey’s parents’ preference for Rossendale was put to a panel, which rejected it. The panel suggested a special school for severely disabled children, which was named without the parents’ agreement.
Lancashire county council advised the family to look at other options, but every time the family went back to the panel, their wishes were rejected. Naturally, that has had an effect on Honey’s self-esteem, and her anxieties have increased by the rejection of her choice of school. The family therefore appealed to SENDIST––the special educational needs and disability tribunal—against the named school, and asked for Rossendale school to be named. Honey has been in front of a judge, to whom she outlined her future aspirations, of which she has many. However, the family has had no success in integrating her into the school she suggested.
Honey has anxieties and fears connected with the named school. She has now been out of school for more than 12 months, which is detrimental to her health and education. Despite her parents’ request for an annual review, that has been overlooked. Such requests should be considered natural: if somebody asks for a review, it should be accepted.
When I have attempted to speak to the county council about this matter, I have been told many stories. The lady in charge, Charlotte Finch, the SEND integrated assessment team manager, has given me confusing statements about whether Honey or any child for that matter can attend Rossendale independent school or another school of the same quality. She said that no child from Lancashire is to attend the school, but the head of the school has since told me that that is not true. Lancashire county council does send children to Rossendale school, but when I spoke to the council I was told that it did not. Such treatment has created hostility between the child’s family and the council.
Most education authorities, including Lancashire, fail to appreciate and understand the needs of autistic children that I, like countless others, have described. I must stress that those are the first three cases I was approached to help with that I have time to deal with in this debate, but they are by no means my only cases. I have been inundated—and, indeed, saddened—by cases of the many families across Lancashire and the whole country who are suffering the same plight.
Autism must be understood, as must the child in question. Information provided by Lancashire county council and other authorities suggests that they do not have data about the number of children with autism who are out of school. The way in which they store the data means that they cannot be broken down by disability, which is clearly a problem in itself.
Furthermore, there is evidently a problem with Lancashire county council’s approach to autism. According to information that I obtained from an individual involved in a professional capacity with the council, in March the head of inclusion and disability, Sally Riley, held an information and training morning for all school staff about the new SEN code, which has been mentioned today. During it, the number of tribunals was discussed, as was the council’s success in winning them. For me, that is the wrong way round: it is not for the council to win a tribunal against a child; the child should win the tribunal because otherwise they are put out of school. Why do tribunals not understand that children need help? I would be delighted if such a department head at the county council stood up and said, “I’m sorry. We’ve failed every tribunal, and every child has got the school they need.” Unfortunately, however, what is happening is the other way around. The figures highlighted that the council had won more than they had lost, which is disgraceful.
We are running short of time and many other Members wish to speak in this debate, so I will conclude. One big problem is that the family members of children in Burnley have rapidly lost confidence in the education department of Lancashire county council, just as, I am sure, families across the country lose confidence in their education authorities. We need to do something to resolve that situation. I hope that after this debate the Minister will take up the cudgel for children with autism, particularly those in my constituency. As the hon. Member for Huddersfield (Mr Sheerman) said, we need to find out what the problems are earlier and deliver the services sooner. I hope that the Minister will take that up.
Mark Hendrick (Preston) (Lab/Co-op)
I congratulate the hon. Member for Burnley (Gordon Birtwistle) on securing this important debate on an issue that is close to the hearts of many Members who are in the Chamber.
Although the hon. Gentleman might not have intended for his speech to be seen as an attack on Lancashire county council, he made many serious accusations against it. As the council is not here in any capacity to defend itself, I think it is important that I respond, as somebody who has spoken to people from the area and county councillors about some of the matters that he has raised.
In Lancashire, 1,435 children and young people have autism spectrum disorder, which is commonly referred to as ASD. Of those children, 1,129 have a statement and 306 are on School Action Plus. Some 698 of those children are placed in mainstream primary and secondary schools, 596 are placed in maintained special schools and 141 are placed in independent, non-maintained special schools. As one can tell from those figures, the three cases that the hon. Gentleman mentioned are very much in a minority and could not, through any statistical analysis, be considered to be indicative of the type of treatment that is going on across Lancashire county council.
Gordon Birtwistle
Does the hon. Gentleman believe that the minority should just be left? Surely all children should receive the same. Is he saying that Lancashire county council has delivered for a lot of people, but not for a minority of people? Should that minority just be left on the scrap heap? Surely he is not suggesting that.
Mark Hendrick
Of course I am not suggesting that. I am suggesting that everybody should have the best possible treatment. I want the three cases that the hon. Gentleman presented to be seen not as the norm, but as the exception. All children deserve the best that Lancashire county council can possibly give them. However, given that Lancashire county council has 1,435 children and young people with autism, I would not want three to be considered to be the norm.
Steve Rotheram
We must all agree, as parliamentarians, that the distressing picture that was painted of the cases of Chloe, Jack and Honey is worrying. We could all bring similar cases to the House. I hope that what we will achieve is to help the family members and carers of people on the autistic spectrum by highlighting programmes such as Autism Initiatives in Liverpool, which provides a signposting service so that family members can get support and access early intervention, assessment and diagnosis. That is essential because autism stays with people for their whole lives, not just when they are at school.
Mark Hendrick
I thank my hon. Friend for his comments. I will go on to speak about the work that Lancashire county council is doing in that area. I would be grateful to hear about his experiences in Liverpool if he makes a contribution later.
Lancashire county council also makes provision for short breaks for children with ASD. It has commissioned more than £182,000 of short breaks provision from local specialist autism services, to provide activities for children during evenings, weekends and school holidays, while also providing their parents and carers with breaks from caring. The most recent attainment data at the end of key stage 2 show that 73% of children with ASD made two levels of progress in English, compared with 94% of all pupils, and that 69% of children with ASD made two levels of progress in mathematics, compared with 93% of all pupils. Given those pupils’ conditions, that is a tremendous achievement. Of children who are statemented with ASD and took GCSEs in mainstream schools between 2011 and 2013, 75% gained five A to C grades, including English and maths, which is well above the national average of 60.8% for all children during the same period.
Lancashire schools have access to considerable expertise on autism provided by specialist advisory teachers and educational psychologists. That is supplemented by rapidly developing school-to-school support, where centres of expertise based at special schools provide an increasing range of guidance and support to their colleagues in primary and secondary schools.
For children and young people with more complex autism, Lancashire’s special schools have developed much greater expertise. All special schools for generic learning difficulties are funded to meet as wide a range of special educational needs as possible. They are all able to provide for pupils with autism, and several have chosen to specialise in autism by developing staff training programmes and allocating substantially increased resources to that specialism. In several cases that has been recognised by Ofsted inspectors.
The hon. Member for Burnley raised issues on behalf of three of his constituents where parents are seeking what is effectively private school education for their children who have autism. The council has identified provision in at least two of our maintained special schools, which are judged by Ofsted to be good and outstanding. In those cases, parents have appealed to the first and upper tier tribunals, which have found in favour of the council—he made that point—and directed that the children go to the maintained special schools. The outcome of a further appeal to the upper tribunal by one of the families is awaited.
All Lancashire’s special schools for learning difficulties —23 in total—are rated as good or better by Ofsted. I fully appreciate that parents, particularly of the three children involved, want to fight for what they see as the best opportunities and outcomes for their children—the hon. Gentleman would want that, as would I. However, the recent behaviour, language and actions of those involved—by that I am referring to the hon. Gentleman—has caused considerable anxiety for many families, while also conveying a partial view of the provision made by the council. For schools that are doing a great deal of good work in this area, the constant bombardment by him in the Lancashire press about those schools and the county council is causing considerable anxiety, not only among staff at those special schools, but among many of the parents of children who go to them. It is one thing to represent parents who are concerned about their children—he is entitled to do that—but that also has an effect, rightly or wrongly, on children and parents in other schools where the council is providing good teaching and provision.
On a number of occasions the hon. Gentleman also suggested that Lancashire county council officers have not been completely truthful about their approach to considering parents’ expressions of preference for special educational placements in independent non-maintained special schools, but the council refutes those allegations.
On the specific examples outlined by the hon. Gentleman, the case of Chloe Wold is a tragedy. Nobody looking at the record could say anything other than that. I concur completely with him about her situation. She has been in this condition for some time and is on suicide watch, and I sympathise totally with the parents in this case.
Gordon Birtwistle
I am interested in what the hon. Gentleman is saying. He has obviously been well briefed by the county council and is answering the debate on its behalf. However, this debate is on autism in schools. I do not understand where he is coming from. I do not really want him to answer on behalf of the county council. I want to listen to his solutions to the problems that my constituents are suffering.
Mark Hendrick
The hon. Gentleman made some fairly serious allegations against the county council and I have received information from the county council that refutes those allegations. If he does not want to listen to that, that is a matter for him. If he wishes to leave the Chamber that is up to him, but I have every right to make these points.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Mrs Eleanor Laing)
Order. This debate is not about a county council; neither is it about party politics or opinions about party politics in a particular part of the country. It is a very serious debate on a serious issue that affects the whole country. So far, everyone who has spoken has been perfectly in order. If the hon. Gentleman who now holds the floor wishes to continue his speech, the hon. Member for Burnley (Gordon Birtwistle), who has already held the floor for a considerable time, really ought to allow him to do so. He is in order.
Mark Hendrick
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. The hon. Gentleman will concur that I was totally in agreement with and sympathetic to the points he made with regard to Chloe Wold. If he is willing to listen to me when he agrees with me but not when he disagrees with me, that is a matter for him.
On the second of the three cases raised by the hon. Gentleman, the school that Jack Entwistle was offered is Pendle View primary school. I will not go into great detail about the expertise and everything else the school offers, but I will quote Ofsted:
“Those pupils who have additional sensory support also make excellent progress, often in short periods of time, because of the high quality and intense support they get.”
The local MP, the hon. Member for Pendle (Andrew Stephenson), visited the school on Friday 15 November 2013. He toured the school and discussed the provision for pupils with special educational needs. He was very supportive and impressed with the work of the school and the specialisms that Lancashire county council provides for children with special educational needs at that school in particular. That gives the other side of the story about the school that Jack Entwistle was offered.
On the final case, Honey Crossley was offered a place at Broadfield specialist school, a Lancashire county council-maintained secondary school. Ofsted said:
“The school’s expertise in promoting learning for students with autism is extensively recognised and respected by many local schools.”
Although the hon. Member for Burnley did not mention this, I understand that he met the Minister—
Madam Deputy Speaker
Order. I am listening very carefully and there is a dialogue going on between two Members of the House. This is a very serious and open debate about a general issue that affects hundreds of thousands of children throughout the whole country. The hon. Gentleman ought to be careful before he quotes another Member who has not said in the House today what he is about to quote him as saying. I warn the hon. Gentleman to be careful and to remain in order. If he wishes to take up a point that the hon. Member for Burnley has made, that is a different matter.
Mark Hendrick
I would make no attempt to address the hon. Member for Burnley other than through you, Madam Deputy Speaker, so it is not a dialogue in the way you indicated.
I will not quote from the Minister concerned. What I will say is that Lancashire county council has received correspondence from that Minister, who confirmed that Lancashire county council’s advice was that the appropriate way forward for parents was through SENDIST, the special educational needs and disability tribunal system, which is on offer to the constituents of the hon. Member for Burnley.
I think I have made the points that would have been made had other people been here for the debate.
Steve McCabe (Birmingham, Selly Oak) (Lab)
I think this is my third meeting with the Minister today. I did not appreciate when we first met at a certain by-election some years ago that our paths were destined to cross quite so often, but it is always a pleasure to see him.
Let me begin by congratulating the hon. Member for Burnley (Gordon Birtwistle) on securing this debate, which is timely on a day when we have just agreed a new draft special educational needs and disability code of practice. He is right to be concerned about the schooling provision for children with autism. I am advised that there are at least 70,000 children with autism living in England, and they deserve access to high quality, full-time education. The hon. Gentleman’s description of the problems his constituents face, particularly Chloe, in obtaining proper assessments and appropriate schooling are sadly all too familiar—a point reinforced by my hon. Friend the Member for Huddersfield (Mr Sheerman), who obviously has a great deal of experience in this area. Early diagnosis is crucial and will become one of the first tests of the Children and Families Act 2014. Will it improve early identification and diagnosis of a child’s difficulties and will the child’s needs be properly considered? As I understand it, it is not for a local authority to select the school; rather, it is the job of the local authority to offer and engage with a range of provision, so that a child can attend the school best suited to their needs.
Mark Hendrick
As I said in my speech, Lancashire county council has 23 such schools. It was in no way indicating any individual school, but did offer a number of schools in several cases.
Steve McCabe
I note that my hon. Friend has made that point.
Research by Ambitious about Autism has found that about 40% of children with autism have been excluded from school on at least one occasion without any valid reason being offered. Many are excluded much more often, of course, and some schools appear to operate a policy of informal exclusion, which makes it difficult for any of us to form an accurate picture of what exactly is happening. We do know that the practice is illegal. I acknowledge the Government’s work in funding exclusion advisers, with their grant to the National Autistic Society. I hope that will help us address the problem of those exclusions.
As the Minister will know, Ambitious about Autism is currently campaigning for every school to have access to an autism specialist teacher. We should try to meet that objective because I am certain that exclusions often result from staff who genuinely do not know what is required of them and feel that they are ill equipped to cope with an autistic child’s particular needs. Obviously, the special educational needs co-ordinator is the key figure in the school, charged with ensuring that appropriate support and assistance is made available to every child with a special need, whether or not they are subject to a statement or an education health and care plan.
Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Con)
I would be surprised if any child with special needs was excluded from school without someone with specialist knowledge having had a look at them. I am assuming that that is what happened. Perhaps the Minister will have an answer.
Steve McCabe
The point is that informal exclusions are not notified or recorded, so the issue is virtually impenetrable. That should be addressed. As I said, to be fair to the Government, they have funded a grant for exclusion advisers who we all hope will help to make progress.
I was talking about SENCOs. At present, the Department for Education does not know how many SENCOs there are across the country, or how many teachers have particular additional skills designed to support autistic children. It might be helpful if we carried out some kind of audit so that we could at least begin to estimate the level of need and the gaps in existing provision.
In theory, a SENCO is involved in the school’s use of the pupil premium for SEN children, although there appear to be no clear guidelines on the extent of that involvement or on how a school secures additional funding from a local authority on the basis of a child’s extensive needs or of having a particularly large number of children with special needs. In fact, it is often suggested that some mainstream schools seek to deter the parents of special needs children, and autistic children in particular, because they struggle to secure additional funding and are likely to be penalised by Ofsted for a decline in results as a consequence of their special needs children, rather than acknowledged for their efforts in supporting them. I am not defending any school’s attempt to exclude or reject children, but we have to acknowledge that how the system is currently loaded does not make things easy for a great number of schools.
When we were dealing with the code of practice, the Minister spoke about how he saw the local offer as a powerful means of highlighting how well a local authority was doing in catering for children with special needs. I do not want to talk about what Lancashire or any other local authority has or has not done, as, frankly, I do not have the detail to hand. However, I acknowledge that the contribution of my hon. Friend the Member for Preston (Mark Hendrick) has provided us with a broader picture of the situation in Lancashire.
Julie Hilling (Bolton West) (Lab)
Does my hon. Friend agree that one difficulty we face is the shortage of educational psychologists, making it hard to get timely appointments to diagnose young people and that, sadly, the cuts have made the situation even more difficult?
Steve McCabe
The real issue is equity of access. People seem to have access to educational psychologists in some parts of the country, whereas there are phenomenal waiting periods in others. Some services claim that they are so overstretched as to be at breaking-point. That is my analysis of what is happening.
To return to the local offer, my view is that it could provide one opportunity for local authorities and specialist providers to co-operate so that every staff member in every mainstream school has access to the support, information, guidance and counselling they might require to help them maintain an autistic child at school. I recently had the opportunity to visit the Treehouse school at the Pears National Centre for Autism Education in London. That provides an example of what can be done to help educate people with autism and to support other schools in the immediate vicinity. It is, of course, a labour-intensive effort, but surely the very term “special needs” implies something more than just the average in mainstream. We have to accept that this will always be a resource issue. Irrespective of the amount of money available, there will always be competition for such resources.
I want to acknowledge that it is not just school-age provision with which we need to concern ourselves, especially when the new Act places obligations to assist people from the age of nought to 25. There is a dearth of decent facilities for children after the age of 16. Let me mention one new college I visited: the Lindridge Trinity specialist college in Sutton Coldfield, which was set up by parents who recognised that there was no provision in their area for their autistic children beyond the age of 16. Even if parents succeed in finding the school that best suits their child’s needs, getting them the education that best addresses the problem and puts them on the best path for the future, they run the risk that once their children reach 16, they simply fall off the cliff, with nothing available for them. As well as trying to address the concerns raised by the hon. Member for Burnley, we need to think further ahead in terms of what the Act requires, particularly in respect of the provision to carry people through to the age of 25.
I congratulate once again the hon. Member for Burnley and other Members who have contributed to the debate. It seems to me that autistic children deserve a full educational opportunity. With the right structure, care and support, they are capable of so much more; it is up to us in this place to make sure that they do not miss out.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education (Mr Edward Timpson)
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Burnley (Gordon Birtwistle), as well as my hon. Friend the Member for Ribble Valley (Mr Evans) and the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent South (Robert Flello) for tabling the debate in order to champion the needs of autistic children. I think we would all agree that this is an extremely important issue that affects parents not just in Lancashire, but in Cheshire, which is my area, and right across the country.
I was reminded by the new Solicitor-General, who was present at the beginning of the debate and who has probably done more than any other Member to support the cause of autism on the basis of both his personal experience and the work that he is doing in South Swindon, that this is our third debate on the subject in the last 18 months or so, which is a rather better return than we had over the previous 10 years. I think that that emphasises how important it is for Members such as my hon. Friend the Member for Burnley, when local cases are brought to them, to take the opportunity to raise them on the platform here in Parliament, so that we can debate the issues more widely.
My hon. Friend mentioned a number of cases, including those of Jack, Honey and Chloe. I have read about their experiences, and was able to discuss them with my hon. Friend last week. He also spoke about the consequences for children of missing out on education, whatever the reason may be. There is no doubt that the parents in such cases feel very badly let down. It is not for me to answer for Lancashire county council, however; the hon. Member for Preston (Mark Hendrick) has given it an opportunity to answer for itself.
Parents have said that they have shared their stories so that other families can find an easier pathway towards better support in the future. We too should learn from their experiences. There are numerous examples which show why it is so necessary for us to change the current special educational needs system. Too many parents find themselves, as one mother has put it, in “an unending battle” with a system that is supposed to help them. Too many find that their children's special educational needs are picked up late, too many have to fight to get different services to work together—services that focus too much on the SEN label rather than on meeting children’s needs and supporting their life outcomes—and too many find that young people lose the protections and rights that they have had at school when they move on to further education.
Although it is right to acknowledge that there is excellent practice and provision out there, it is little wonder that young people with SEN often have such poor prospects, lagging behind their peers at school and college, and being more likely to be out of education, training and employment at the age of 18. I am sure we all agree that that is not acceptable. It is a terrible waste of untapped potential, and of lives that are peppered with missed opportunities. The challenge, issued again today by my hon. Friend the Member for Burnley, is for us—the Government and local authorities, as well as other agencies that are involved with families—to do much better by these children and young people. The Government have recognised that need, and we have been prepared to take on the challenge of truly reforming the SEN system to give all children and young people who are touched by it the best possible chance to lead successful, happy and fulfilled lives.
As the hon. Member for Huddersfield (Mr Sheerman) reminded us earlier, the Children and Families Act 2014 is the most important legislation on special educational needs in 30 years. The reforms that it makes will begin to be introduced in September this year. It will create a clearer, more joined-up approach that will focus unashamedly on outcomes, and will improve the support that is provided during the transition to adulthood. Crucially, it will do much more to involve children, young people and their families through a more integrated, streamlined assessment process, and through a new “birth to 25” education, health and care plan that sets out, in one place, all the support that children will receive across the various services.
Bob Stewart
I presume that the Minister also wants early diagnosis to be part of that plan. The earlier we can make an assessment of young people with autism, the more they will be able to enjoy their lives subsequently.
Mr Timpson
My hon. Friend is absolutely right about that. The code of practice, which the hon. Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Steve McCabe) noted we debated in Committee this morning, has running through it that very premise: in order to ensure we get the support in place at the right time, early identification is key. Bringing health, social care and education services much more closely together will mean better sharing of information about the challenges that children present and understanding what underlying causes prevent them from being able to access education and to learn.
Steve Rotheram
The 2014 Act does not kick in until later this year. Given that this debate has been widely welcomed outside this place, will the Minister commit to a future debate, so that we not only keep this in the public consciousness, but see the effects of the legislation once it starts to have an impact?
Mr Timpson
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for remaining stoic in his efforts to bring this issue to the fore, both in Parliament and in his constituency. It is important that we do not decide that the job has been done, and show no more interest in the consequences, just because an Act of Parliament has been passed. Things work the other way round: in some ways the easy bit has been achieved and the hardest bit is the implementation. That is why we are ensuring, in the run-up to September and beyond, that we have a clear understanding of how it feels for parents and families as the changes start to kick in. I would welcome any opportunity, be it Adjournment debates or other means by which hon. Members can bring these issues to the House, to continue taking a constructive approach to the legislation and the subsequent attempts to put it into place on the ground. We must be mindful that we are asking for a culture change to happen and take hold in many parts of our communities and our countries. The more Members of Parliament and other leaders in our communities show a direct, vocal and public interest in the life chances of children and young people with SEN, the greater prospect we have of getting the culture change we all want to see.
Bob Stewart
May I, too, support exactly what Walton’s voice in Westminster, the honourable scouser, has said: we ought to have more debates on this subject and watch the legislation going through?
Mr Timpson
As I said a few moments ago, this is the third or fourth debate we have had on autism, and we have had many more debates on SEN over the past two years. That can only be a good thing, and it has ratcheted up the interest and understanding of not only hon. Members, but many outside this place, who are now more aware of the importance of bringing forward these changes. They include: a new “birth to age 25” education, health and care plan; the local offer, which the hon. Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak mentioned, outlining what support is available to children with SEN and their families in their area; and the joint commissioning of services by councils and local health bodies.
It is also important to say that the Act protects and extends rights that exist in the current legislation and maintains duties. Schools will continue to have a duty to do their best to make provision to meet children’s SEN, and the Act extends that duty to colleges, too. Councils will, where necessary, continue to have a duty to assess children’s SEN and arrange suitable provision. Again, that duty is being extended to young people up to the age of 25, which is a significant step forward.
The hon. Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak asked about the number and role of SENCOs in schools. Every maintained nursery, primary and secondary school is required to have at least one SENCO, who has received the necessary training, including on the main types of need, of which autism is one. The hon. Member for Bolton West (Julie Hilling) asked about educational psychologists, and I hope she was trying to elicit an answer that gives us a full picture of the current position. What I can tell her is that there has been significant investment in the training of educational psychologists. On average, more than £5 million a year has been invested since 2010. This is the first central support to supplement local authority voluntary subscription schemes, and this year we are increasing supported places from 120 a year to 132. I met the union that represents educational psychologists just this week to talk about how we can move forward in years to come.
The 2014 Act will benefit all children and young people with special educational needs and their families. Importantly for this debate, that includes those with conditions such as autism, which often require specialist support across a number of agencies. I wish now to talk about some of the ways in which the new law will provide for that. Councils will have to integrate education provision with health and social care provision where that will promote the well-being of children and improve the quality of special educational provision.
Health provision, such as speech and language therapy—such therapy is often a necessary requirement for those with autism, and was needed in some of the cases in Burnley—can be extremely important in addressing the communication difficulties that are one of the core features of autism. The joint commissioning duty between councils and health bodies will help ensure that services are available to meet the needs of children and young people in the area. Too often it is reported that parents receive a diagnosis of autism for their children and then are given no information about how they can access support. The purpose of the local offer is to provide information about the support available for disabled children and those with SEN across education, health and social care.
The local offer will be not just a directory of services, but will be drawn up following consultation with children, young people and parents. If autistic children and young people and their parents feel that there is not sufficient provision for them in the area, they will be able to use the local offer to challenge the local authority to improve that provision.
We all know how important early intervention can be for children with autism. By making the new system “nought to 25”, we have strengthened the rights of parents of children aged nought to two to have provision made to meet their child’s needs. Many children with autism also stand to gain from a stronger push for early identification of SEN through initiatives such as the two to two-and-a-half-year health visitor review. We are committed to creating an integrated review from 2015, combining the health visitor review and the two-year-old early years foundation progress review.
Currently about 70% of children whose primary special educational need is autism have an SEN statement as against those who are supported by schools at School Action Plus. That is a higher percentage than most other types of SEN. We expect those children who currently have statements to be transferred on to the new education, health and care plans so they will benefit from the more co-ordinated approach that the plans bring and the new duty on health bodies to arrange the health provision set out in a plan.
With growing awareness of autism, many parents of autistic children quite rightly want specialist provision. Through the Children and Families Act 2014, we are strengthening the right of parents of children with EHC plans to have provision made at independent specialist schools. At present, where the parents of children with SEN statements request a council-maintained mainstream or special school, the local authority is under a conditional duty to name that school and, if it does, the school is under a duty to admit the child. But that does not apply when parents request other types of schools.
From this September—to emphasise the point that my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Sir Edward Leigh) made—when the parents of children with EHC plans request an academy, a non-maintained special school or an approved independent special school, the council will be under the same conditional duty to name that school as if the parent had asked for a local authority maintained school.
My hon. Friend the Member for Burnley and the hon. Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak rightly raised the issue of autistic children being informally and therefore illegally excluded from school. The Government’s view is clear: no child should be unlawfully excluded. Ofsted and the Department will take seriously evidence that a school has acted unlawfully in excluding a pupil. The new statutory guidance on exclusion, which took effect in September 2012, makes it clear that informal exclusion, such as sending children home to cool off, is unlawful. As the hon. Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak reminded us, we are funding the National Autistic Society to pay for exclusion advisers to provide advice to parents and professionals, but we want improvements and will continue to ensure that they happen.
Like other parents, parents of children with autism are keen to have greater control over the provision that is made for their children. Through the Children and Families Act 2014, the parents of children with EHC plans will have the opportunity to have a personal budget through which they can decide on how some of the provision set out in the plan is delivered. For example, parents could use their personal budget to decide which therapist delivers speech and language therapy to their child, rather than having to accept the therapist arranged for them. The increased roles for children, young people and parents and the 2014 Act’s promotion of greater co-operation in decision making will take much of the adversarial nature out of the current system.
However, it would be unrealistic to suggest that the new system will mean that no parents or young people will be unhappy about the provision that will be made in future. Currently, the largest number of appeals registered at the special educational needs and disability tribunal are in relation to children with autism, as compared with other types of need, which gives an indication of the difficulties that parents of children with autism have with the current system. I am sure that some parents of autistic children with EHC plans and young autistic people with plans will continue to disagree with the provision that is set out within. We have preserved the right of parents to appeal to the tribunal to have their appeals decided by an independent body, and we have extended that right to young people, too. Going to tribunal can be stressful for some parents and, if they choose to be legally represented, expensive, which is why, under the new regime, where parents and young people are thinking of appealing to the tribunal, we have given them the option of going to mediation with the council to try and get the disagreements sorted out more quickly in a non-judicial setting. If they fail to get disagreements about the special educational needs provision sorted, they can appeal to the tribunal.
Lastly, young people with autism can find change difficult, particularly the transition to adulthood. The 2014 Act brings together the legislation for school children aged nought to 19 with the legislation on young people with learning difficulties or disabilities in post-16 further education provision up to the age of 25, which means that young people with autism who need more time to complete their education and make that transition will have the opportunity to carry on in education until they are ready to leave.
One often-quoted statistic is that only 15% of adults with autism are in full-time employment, which is depressing, particularly given that, matched to the right job, many people with autism, with their eye for detail and the regularity and consistency of their work, are an absolute godsend for employers. The new SEN system will put greater emphasis on the long-term outcomes for young people, including getting a job. Much greater emphasis will be placed on preparing young people for employment and using routes such as apprenticeships, traineeships and supported internships to help them gain employment.
As the hon. Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak also said, in addition to our debate here, we have also been debating the new nought to 25 SEN and disability code of practice, which will give statutory guidance on the new SEN and disability system. The draft code has been developed after extensive consultation with many people, including the voluntary sector. For example, I met representatives from the National Autistic Society and we listened to its concerns that the description of the four broad areas of SEN in the code did not fully reflect the range and complexity of the difficulties that autistic children and young people can face. The NAS was also concerned that the first consultation draft of the code did not mention duties under the Autism Act 2009 and associated statutory guidance, so we agreed wording with the NAS that makes clear that children and young people with autism can have difficulties across all four areas of special educational needs: communication, cognition, emotional and mental health, and sensory difficulties. The code now makes it clear that, under statutory guidance accompanying the autism strategy, SENCOs should inform young people of their right to a community care assessment and their parents of a right to a carer’s assessment.
As hon. Members will be aware, just passing the legislation to provide for the new system is only half the battle. Successful implementation will depend on people around the country embracing the spirit of the new system. The best areas are already working in a way that we want to spread across the country.
I have listed a number of councils and have been encouraged by the progress that is being made in the run-up to the commencement date on 1 September. The Department has been conducting readiness surveys with all local authorities and the most recent survey shows that 95% of councils have told us that they are on track for September and can manage the changes. I have made it my business to follow up on the progress of authorities that are further behind the curve personally and I hope that that is a sign of how important the Government consider these reforms to be and our determination to improve things on the ground for families.
We know that implementing the changes we want to see will come at a cost. I recently announced an extra £45.2 million of funding in 2014-15 and indicative funding of £31.7 million in 2015-16 to help councils with implementation. That is on top of the £70 million SEN reform grant that councils can use to work with health and others to deliver the changes. We are also giving £30 million of new money between April of this year and March 2016 to recruit and train independent supporters across the whole country to help families navigate the new system.
This debate has been another excellent opportunity to raise in this House not only the importance of the special educational needs reforms that the Government have introduced but how they will affect many people up and down the country who have a child or young person with autism. I thank all hon. Members who have contributed to the debate. Autism is a complex condition, and it requires people to work together to ensure that the needs of individuals and autistic children and young people as a whole are met. I hope that what I have said today reassures hon. Members that the Children and Families Act and the reforms that we are introducing will make co-operative working between children and young people, parents, professionals and agencies a reality.
As ever, my hon. Friend the Member for Burnley has done the House a service by raising this important issue and I hope that it has given him some sense that work is under way to address many of the points he has raised. Of course, I would be the first to say that there is still a lot of work to do.
Gordon Birtwistle
I thank those on the two Front Benches for their contributions to the debate. I also want to express some concern about the contribution made by the hon. Member for Preston (Mark Hendrick). In my speech, I never mentioned the surnames of any of the children and I did not name any of the schools that the hon. Gentleman has mentioned. A briefing containing private family issues has been given by the county council to the hon. Gentleman, and I find that very distressing and concerning.
Gordon Birtwistle
No, I will not give way. I believe that the parents represented in this place today will express some concern about what is going on with the staff of Lancashire county council. I certainly have a right to say that because, as I said—
Mark Hendrick
On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. The Minister has just mentioned the fact that this is an adversarial system. Is it in order for the hon. Gentleman who has raised the debate today not to mention the fact that his daughter-in-law is the speech therapist in one of the cases that he has dealt with?
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)
That is not a matter for the Chair. I am sure that we want to get to the end of the debate.
Gordon Birtwistle
My daughter-in-law is a professional speech therapist and is doing a great job for these people. What concerns me is that the staff at the county council briefed the hon. Member for Preston before hearing anything I had to say, giving the names of the children mentioned in the debate when I did not do that for a certain reason, and giving the names of the schools involved when I did not do that. I only mentioned Rossendale school. I am very disappointed by that and I believe that the parents listening to the debate will be somewhat concerned that the county council is briefing as it is.
In conclusion, I thank the Minister for his comments. I thank the Opposition Front-Bench spokesman, the hon. Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Steve McCabe), for his comments and I hope that what has been suggested works for the children of today and certainly for the children of tomorrow. This disease will not end; it will continue. I believe that we should support the young children who suffer from this appalling condition.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered the provision of education for children with autism.
Royal Assent
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)
I have to notify the House, in accordance with the Royal Assent Act 1967, that the Queen has signified her Royal Assent to the following Acts:
Supply and Appropriation (Main Estimates) Act 2014
Finance Act 2014
Data Retention and Investigatory Powers Act 2014.
Vince Morgan
(9 years, 9 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Alan Johnson (Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle) (Lab)
Vincent Morgan died on the night of 28 December 2012. He was found hanging in his prison cell in A wing of Northallerton prison. He had also swallowed a plastic knife that was found in his oesophagus. Vincent Morgan had committed suicide at 29 years of age.
There has since been an investigation by North Yorkshire police, a report by the prisons and probation ombudsman, a verdict of death by misadventure, and a coroner’s report from which flowed a couple of regulation 28 letters to the Department of Health and the Ministry of Justice. There has been a great deal of activity with practically no light thrown on the central issue, which is why we deal so badly with young people who have mental health problems. How little respect we pay to the wishes of parents in the way we treat these young people in our criminal justice system.
Vincent Morgan was involved in a serious road accident when he was four years old. It was suspected then and is obvious now that this damaged his brain in a way that would become more pronounced as he grew older. However, it was not until 2005 that he was finally diagnosed with chronic long-term psychotic illness—schizophrenia with daily auditory hallucinations—and was prescribed drugs to deal with his conditions. In April 2012 Vince went out with his parents to a local pub and when they returned home he assaulted his father. The community psychiatric nurse allocated to Vince said that his behaviour that night was a response to a new drug he had just been prescribed. The police were called. They advised Vincent’s parents to press charges against their son as the only way to get the medical help he needed. Mr and Mrs Morgan reluctantly signed statements and the case went to court.
The mental health care co-ordinator—the mental health professional—advised against a prison sentence and said that a hospital order would be more appropriate. However, a so-called independent expert, with no knowledge of Vince Morgan and without even examining him or meeting him, said that his mental health condition could be managed in prison. What I can only describe as a vicious sentence of 18 months’ imprisonment was handed down and Vincent Morgan found himself separated from his loving parents for almost the first time in his young life and placed in a prison cell.
Mr and Mrs Morgan came to see me in the summer of 2012 and together we tried to get Vince released on a home detention order. His parents had redecorated his room. Having cared for their son in the eight years since his condition was diagnosed, they wanted him home for Christmas. This was refused, but the date for release was set for 28 January 2013, only a few weeks into the new year. After liaising with various parts of the NHS, Vince Morgan was receiving the mental health treatment he needed in Hull prison and his parents continued to prepare for his release.
Then two things happened. Without any consultation the probation service wrote to this vulnerable young man in his prison cell. Vince, who had a mental age much younger than his years—some have said he had a mental age of eight, some have said 10—and was known to be passive and acquiescent to any request, was told in that letter that upon his release he would not be going home, but to a bail hostel. Vince told his parents about this in a letter from prison dated 5 November. This is important because the Minister will probably have been briefed that this is not the case, but I can tell him quite categorically that the probation service has got this totally wrong.
Incidentally, I wrote to Humberside probation trust on 22 November 2013, just after the coroner’s report, which is the only time I could get seriously involved in these issues. I wrote to the Secretaries of State and all the local agencies, and they all responded within weeks. Humberside probation trust replied to my letter of 22 November 2013 on 27 March 2014—over four months later. In a case such as this, with a young man killed in his cell, and when we are trying to get to the bottom of lessons to be learnt and reasons it happened, one might have thought that the probation trust would take it more seriously.
The probation trust stated in its letter, “No, that’s quite wrong. Vince’s parents were informed of the intention to release him to a bail hostel when he finished his sentence.” It should be borne in mind that I had been campaigning on their behalf to get him released early, but now he was being told that he would not be able to go home, even at the end of his sentence. In a further letter to me, the trust’s chief executive stated:
“Vincent Morgan’s parents were involved in a telephone discussion as early as 6th November 2012 about the possibility of placing him in an Approved Premises. This intention was confirmed at a MAPPA meeting on 21 November 2012 and communicated to Vincent Morgan at the meeting in the prison on 7th December 2012.”
That is entirely wrong. I have the letter from the prison trust given to Vince Morgan in his prison cell, and it is dated 24 October 2012.
With regard to 6 November, I have the postmarked letter that Vince Morgan received—dated 5 November—and that was sent to his parents’ home in Hull to inform them that he had just received a letter stating that he would be going into a bail hostel. The reason they spoke to his parents on 6 November is that the parents had rung the probation trust to ask, “What the hell’s going on? Our son has just told us that he won’t be coming home at the end of his sentence.” That was entirely wrong. I was also told that the parents had been informed in the telephone call, but that was as a result of them ringing the probation service. That was a real failing on the part of the probation service.
The second thing that happened was that Mr and Mrs Morgan received a phone call from Vince to tell them that he had been moved to Northallerton prison. Nobody had informed them. In a statement to the coroner, the offender supervisor at Northallerton, Phil Reeve, said that nobody knew why Vince had been transferred and that
“we wanted to get him back to Hull because we knew his parents were his main visitors and that they might find the travelling to Northallerton difficult.”
Perhaps I should mention at this point that Sharon Morgan, as well as being Vince’s mum, was his registered carer. They did indeed find the travelling difficult, but they were at least pleased to discover that Vince was sharing a cell on C wing with a prisoner who became a mentor to him and who was, together with other prisoners, watching out for his welfare.
It was at Northallerton on 7 December that Vince was told again that he would have to go to a bail hostel, rather than home, when his sentence ended. As was the case with the original sentence, the mental health expert, in the shape of Vince’s care co-ordinator, expressed the view that release to an approved hostel would cause him to reoffend and that, in her view, the preferred option was for him to be returned home.
The ombudsman asked the senior officer in charge of the residential unit at Northallerton whether she knew that Vince had been told that he would not be going home to his mother and father when he finished his sentence. She replied that she did not know. She told the ombudsman that she definitely should have known
“because I know right now that if I’d known that, I wouldn’t have made the decision that I did.”
What decision was she referring to? That is the final act in this tragedy. On Boxing day 2012, Vince Morgan was removed from C wing, from the mentor who had watched over him, and, once again without any contact with his parents, was transferred to what was, in effect, solitary confinement in A block, where he hanged himself two days later.
As was related again and again in the ombudsman’s report and to the coroner, prison officers wondered what Vince Morgan was doing in prison. Health service professionals disagreed with the decision to place Vince in a bail hostel. The offender supervisor at Northallerton said in a report to the coroner:
“Another thing that was discussed in the meeting was the accident that Vince had when he was a child and this might be a cause of his learning difficulties. I couldn’t understand why that link hadn’t been made earlier and why the report hadn’t been completed for court. However I was told that it was done for court but none of it came to the judge. My question, based on my knowledge from working in courts was, why wasn’t a hospital order made against Vince rather than a prison sentence?”
It was not just a prison sentence but an 18-month prison sentence. I echo that: why indeed? Why were not Mr and Mrs Morgan kept fully informed and involved in all the decisions that affected their son? Where is the mysterious report that never came before the judge?
Northallerton prison no longer exists. That is why the ombudsman made no recommendations—there is no prison to make recommendations about. The Humberside probation trust folded in May. The chief executive is now retired somewhere.
The case of Vince Morgan is a tragic example of the appalling way mental health is treated as a poor relation not just of the NHS, as many say, but of every other public agency. The mental health professionals sit round a table with the probation service and others, and their views are discarded: they are overruled. I want to meet the Minister to discuss this case further. I hope the Government use the case of Vince Morgan as the clearest example of how to get things wrong so that we can start to get things right.
Finally, I want to read an extract from a letter that Trevor Morgan, Vincent’s father, wrote to all the various agencies on 27 December, the day before his son died. He had spent the whole of Christmas composing this letter. He says:
“My son is a gentle giant and is well liked by everyone who knows him. Before he became ill…he had a job as a van drivers assistant, which he loved. Since his illness started 8 years ago, my wife, Sharon, and I have looked after him ourselves. Vince very rarely leaves the house, he is a very quiet man and keeps himself to himself. What happened on that night”—
the night he attacked his father—
“was very out of character for him. But, if Vince had been having the right medication at the time, it would never have happened in the first place.”
He ends by saying:
“Please forgive me if you think I sound bitter, my wife and I have never lived for so long without our son, who we love and care for so much. Please, let our son come home on the 29th January 2013. Don’t put him in a hostel, which will be rife with drugs and where Vince would be at risk from others. Once again”,
he says in closing,
“I beg you to let Vince come home to us, the people who love and will look after him.”
If that simple request had been granted, Vincent Morgan would be alive today, and he would be in the care of his devoted parents who remain completely devastated by his death.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Andrew Selous)
Let me begin by thanking the right hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle (Alan Johnson) for securing this debate, which raises some very important issues. First, I would like to offer my profound condolences to Mr Morgan’s parents, Sharon and Trevor, and his whole family.
Every death in prison custody is a tragedy for that individual and their family and friends. Let me assure the House of how seriously the Government take such deaths, which are all independently investigated by the prisons and probation ombudsman and a coroner’s inquest, as the right hon. Gentleman said.
I would like to offer a few comments on Mr Morgan before turning to some of the wider issues highlighted by this very sad set of events. Mr Morgan was serving concurrent sentences of 18 months for actual bodily harm and four months for battery—offences that he had committed against his parents. Initially remanded to Her Majesty’s Prison Hull in April 2012, he served several months there after his conviction before transferring to HMP Northallerton in November 2012 as a standard progressive move. HMP Northallerton was a specialist resettlement prison that has now closed.
Alan Johnson
That, of course, raises a question for the parents. Vince was 28 coming up to 29, so he was an adult, but everyone knew that his severe, chronic mental health problems meant that, in effect, he was acting like a child. Why would the prison service not consult his parents—his mother being his registered carer—about the need to transfer him from one prison to another? How could the transfer of such a vulnerable prisoner go ahead without the parents being consulted?
Andrew Selous
The right hon. Gentleman raises a proper issue about the way in which the families and carers of people with mental health issues are treated generally in our society. Very similar issues have been raised in my constituency. If he will allow me, I will go back, make further inquiries at the Ministry of Justice about that specific point and write to him following this debate. I absolutely understand the very important issue that he properly raises.
Mr Morgan’s conditional release date was 29 January 2013, and planning for his release was under way. However, on 28 December 2012, Mr Morgan was, tragically, found hanging in his cell. The emergency response was prompt, but Mr Morgan was pronounced dead.
Mr Morgan suffered from schizophrenia, and his treatment for this condition continued during his time in custody. As with all prisoners, he was assessed on entry to custody, where he was referred for assessment by the prison mental health in-reach team, and considered for any risk of self-harm or suicide. Staff kept an eye on his behaviour and potential vulnerability to bullying. An assessment for learning disabilities was requested. At the time of his death, Mr Morgan had recently moved wings and a few weeks previously had been informed that he would be required to live in an approved premises, rather than return to his parents house, when he left prison, though that aspect of his release planning continued to be kept under consideration by Humberside probation trust and the multi-agency public protection panel that considered his case.
The coroner’s inquest into Mr Morgan’s death concluded in November 2013. The cause of death was hanging and the jury’s conclusion of death by misadventure noted that there was a failure in the system of transfer of information from health care staff to discipline staff, and that, consequently, problems regarding Mr Morgan’s behaviour were treated as a discipline issue rather than medical.
The coroner made two recommendations to the Secretary of State for Justice. The first was on the involvement of health providers where prisoners requiring in-reach mental health support are to be transferred between prisons. There is a “clinical hold” system in place, which can be used where there are concerns about the suitability of health care provision in the receiving prison. The second was on the information flow from and to prison officers within HMP Northallerton. As has been said, HMP Northallerton has since closed, but a review was undertaken at HMP Hull.
The prisons and probation ombudsman completed his report on Mr Morgan’s death in May 2014. It identified some deficiencies in communications between staff at Northallerton about Mr Morgan’s management, but concluded that it would have been very difficult to foresee Mr Morgan’s action and prevent his death. No recommendations were made.
I reiterate my profound condolences to Mr Morgan’s family. As I have already said, every death in custody is a tragedy for that individual and their family and friends. Safety, decency and security will always remain the priority for the National Offender Management Service. However, every year a number of people die in prison—some through natural causes and some self-inflicted. In 2013, 215 people died in prison custody. Of those, 123 were as a result of natural causes and 74 were self-inflicted.
As the House may be aware, the number and rate of self-inflicted deaths in prisons in England and Wales increased in 2013 and the Government are committed to understanding the reasons for that rise and are seeking to address it. We have put additional resources into safer custody work across prison establishments; this issue affects the whole estate of public and private prisons. The rise comes after a period of some years during which the rate of self-inflicted deaths has been relatively stable, at its lowest level in the last 25 years. In recent years, better treatment of prisoners with drug-use problems and the use of safer cells, with reduced ligature points, have contributed to the reduction in the number of self-inflicted deaths.
There has been recent comment about whether population pressures, organisational changes in prisons and reductions in the number of prison officers have contributed to the rise. However, the picture is not so straightforward, and there is no clear correlation between the existence of such pressures and prisons where self-inflicted deaths have occurred. Known factors appear in a number of deaths. For example, the early days of custody are known to be a period of higher risk. Self-inflicted deaths in custody occur most often in males aged 30 to 39, and most occur by hanging. However, overlaying these known factors are reasons for each self-inflicted death, which are as individual as the person involved. It is therefore essential to support prisoners as individuals—many of them have complex needs, as the right hon. Gentleman outlined in this case—by identifying whether they have particular risk factors, and if so, responding appropriately.
Prisons use the ACCT—assessment, care in custody and teamwork—system to keep prisoners safe. Individual ACCT plans should be opened and closed in line with the assessment of an individual’s risk of self-harm or suicide, and their needs. It is a dynamic process.
Alan Johnson
The Minister is a decent man, and I appreciate that he has come to the Chamber with a brief. It was kind of him to offer to write me a letter, but there is no need for that if he will give me a meeting. We need to discuss these matters in more detail. I have read all that stuff about wraparound care and all such really good stuff. We said the same thing in government, so this is not a party political point. Vince Morgan is a perfect example of how all of that means nothing when it comes to a vulnerable young man, whose parents were concerned but were ignored, and specifically when it comes to the decision not to let him go home at the end of his sentence.
I am sorry that this is a long intervention, Mr Deputy Speaker. The Minister says that Vince Morgan was told of that decision a few weeks before, but I now have absolute proof—from a letter sent to this mentally ill young man back in October—that he was told in his prison cell. All that puts a new complexion on the case, and I would be very grateful if the Minister met me to discuss it.
Andrew Selous
Of course I will meet the right hon. Gentleman. If he contacts my office after this debate, I will make arrangements for us to meet as soon as possible.
I want to respond to a point that the right hon. Gentleman made about Vince’s move to A wing. I think that the right hon. Gentleman referred to it as solitary confinement. Vince was moved to a single cell, but not to solitary confinement. He was deliberately placed near the wing office, and the move was for his own well-being. Prisoners on C wing had complained about Vince, so there were genuine concerns for his safety. It is important to put that on the record.
It is through such individual assessment that staff can be alive to the often overlapping and interconnected factors that may contribute to an individual’s distress, and which can on rare occasions lead to suicide. Those factors may include mental health needs, addressing any disabilities or disadvantages, or simply being sensitive to potential trigger or pressure points that they may experience during their time in custody.
As is well known, the prison population is not representative of the general population in a number of ways. The prevalence rates for personality disorder, psychosis, attention disorders, post-traumatic stress disorder and self-harm are notably higher than in the general population, as are problems with substance misuse and alcohol. Almost 50% of adult prisoners suffer from anxiety and/or depression, compared with 15% of the general population. Experts estimate that prisoners with a learning disability or difficulties may represent as much as 30% of the prison population.
Liaison and diversion services are a vital way in which the Government seek to ensure that when someone first comes into contact with the youth or adult criminal justice system on suspicion of having committed a crime, their health needs are identified, assessed and provided for by appropriate treatment services, and that the police and courts are enabled to make informed decisions about charging and sentencing.
We are investing £25 million in a trial scheme that will place mental health professionals in police stations and courts, and improve identification, assessment and referral services, so that access to health care and social care interventions are improved. That is not about individuals avoiding the appropriate sanction from the criminal justice system, but about tackling some of the underlying issues that can cause people to offend.
For some prisoners with severe mental illness, the most appropriate treatment setting will be a secure hospital. About 900 transfers are made from prisons to secure hospitals each year. However, not all serious mental illness needs to be treated in a secure hospital, and most serious mental illnesses are treatable within prison under the care of a consultant psychiatrist. Prisoners are considered for transfer to secure units only when a prison cannot provide appropriate treatment in the judgment of a responsible clinician. In such circumstances, good liaison between health care teams and other prison staff is essential to ensure that events and decisions that could affect a prisoner’s risk of self-harm or suicide are considered and are known by others.
The whole-person approach to individual case management continues into release planning. The most serious offenders are subject to multi-agency public protection arrangements, which ensure that relevant statutory partners and interested organisations are properly involved in pre-release planning.
I would like to say a few words about families, about which the right hon. Gentleman rightly spoke. We know the importance of family contact and support to prisoners. Phone calls and visits with family and friends make a huge contribution to prisoners’ well-being. Close family members who are on low incomes can apply for assistance towards visits. The support of families and friends is an important component in helping someone to avoid re-offending when they are released from prison. Wherever possible, families are involved in the decision-making process when a prisoner’s accommodation post-release is being considered by the MAPPA panel.
I know that Members will share my concern about every death that happens in prison custody. The prisons and probation ombudsman, to whom I spoke this afternoon, has conducted a lessons learned review of deaths in custody and will publish his report next month. I look forward to seeing the report and to reviewing the recommendations fully so that we learn every possible lesson from what he has to say.
We must remember that prison staff save lives, sometimes through swift intervention when a vulnerable prisoner is literally on the verge of taking his own life and sometimes—this is less easy to know about but is no less real—through the careful and caring management of some of the most vulnerable individuals in society, who have been placed in custody because of the harm they have caused to others in society. That, of course, is no consolation to the family of Mr Morgan, whose death no one was able to prevent.
I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for securing this debate, which has allowed us to consider the complexities of such cases. I may be new in post, but I share his determination to learn the lessons of this tragic incident and similar incidents of this nature so that we can reduce the number of self-inflicted deaths in custody as much as possible.
Question put and agreed to.
Ministerial Correction
(9 years, 9 months ago)
Ministerial CorrectionsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Modern Slavery Bill
(9 years, 9 months ago)
Ministerial CorrectionsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Karen Bradley
The hon. Member for Arfon highlighted the interesting disparity between income levels in the countries from which trafficking victims often travel. Again, one of the strange parts of the crime is that the victims of trafficking often want to be trafficked, if that makes sense, because they feel that they are leaving something worse to go to something better. It is only when they get to their destination, having committed an immigration crime by allowing themselves to be trafficked, that they are exploited as a slave. I am pleased that we have introduced a statutory defence in the Bill that ensures that anyone who has committed an immigration crime, not knowing that they would end up being abused as a slave, will be protected.
[Official Report, 8 July 2014, Vol. 584, c. 259.]
Letter of correction from Karen Bradley:
An error has been identified in part of the speech I gave during the Second Reading debate on the Modern Slavery Bill on 8 July.
The correct statement is as follows:
Karen Bradley
The hon. Member for Arfon highlighted the interesting disparity between income levels in the countries from which trafficking victims often travel. Again, one of the strange parts of the crime is that the victims of trafficking often want to be trafficked, if that makes sense, because they feel that they are leaving something worse to go to something better. It is only when they get to their destination, having committed an immigration crime by allowing themselves to be trafficked, that they are exploited as a slave. I am pleased that we have introduced a statutory defence in the Bill ensuring that victims of modern slavery who have been compelled to commit immigration crimes have additional protection. The court will be able to take into account all the person’s circumstances when determining whether compulsion has taken place.
Westminster Hall
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Backbench business
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Middle East and North Africa
(9 years, 9 months ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Alistair Burt (North East Bedfordshire) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Davies. I thank the Backbench Business Committee, which I know was under enormous pressure for effectively the last bits of Backbench Business time before the recess. The Committee found time for three hours for the middle east, and I appreciate it. I also appreciate the support of many colleagues who agreed that it was important in the circumstances, with so much happening in the region, to have an opportunity to talk about events there.
I should declare some interests. I travel quite a lot in the region. I am not yet sure of all the etiquette relating to interests, but as I have been flying into the region and have been given hospitality in numerous places that I shall mention, I wanted to draw attention to those interests in the register. Last but definitely not least, I am sure that I speak on behalf of all of us in welcoming the new Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, the hon. Member for Bournemouth East (Mr Ellwood), to his brief. The Department is fortunate to have a new Minister who is aware of the area, has spent time there and knows different parts of it well, and who has always demonstrated a strong interest in foreign and middle eastern affairs while a Back Bencher. We all welcome him as Minister.
Accordingly, I thought that the best thing to do would be to set him up right away with a debate on the middle east and north Africa, which would give him and his hard-working officials a great opportunity to be fully briefed. I am sure we all agree that we do not expect him to answer all the key questions on the middle east, of which most of us have two or three in our back pocket that would stump any Government. This does not seem to be the day to throw them in the new Minister’s direction. I can also see from those who are prepared to take part in this debate that he will have an opportunity to hear from experts in the House who have studied the area and care about it deeply, and who have a lot to say and to listen to. There could not be a more ideal introduction for him than this debate.
It is easy to concentrate on all the negatives in the region, so although I shall be as brief as I can, I shall start with some of the positives before going on to look at the problems. I drew the title of this debate deliberately wide. Rather than finding a contentious motion on which to divide the House, I wanted to provide as wide an opportunity as possible for colleagues with many diverse interests in the region to talk about them, whatever they may be. I am sure we will hear about many different things. I shall concentrate a little on the prosperity issues in the region, and then talk about three or four specific areas. That will mean leaving out an awful lot, as we all know, but I am sure that other speakers will fill those gaps by the end of the afternoon.
One of the successes of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office over the last three or four years has been the attention paid to the prosperity agenda. Prosperity matters. It is not simply a question of pounds and pence or of money in the bank for the United Kingdom; prosperity means that people have jobs and opportunities, and their states have an opportunity to prosper as well. Never has that been more needed in the region we are discussing, according to various estimates. I saw an estimate from Deloitte a year or so ago saying that 40 million new jobs will be needed in the next decade to cope with the growth in population. There is an obvious connection between idle hands and problems, and ensuring that people have enough work to do is key to the region.
Accordingly, I am proud of the role that the United Kingdom has played in the prosperity agenda. We can see it demonstrated across the region. In north Africa, for example, the Lord Mayor of London, Fiona Woolf, concluded a seven-day visit last month to Algeria, Morocco and Tunisia. In each country, she met with the Head of State or Government and numerous Cabinet Ministers, including Finance Ministers, and the governors of three central banks. She led informative discussions on the development of the economy in each of the regions, focusing on economic diversification, managing each one’s different and abundant energy resources and developing education, training and qualifications. The north African region, of course, has been the birthplace of the Arab spring, and has been through a series of issues that are far from resolved. Each state is identifiably different from the others, but as part of the future of the region, the prosperity agenda will play a large part, and the United Kingdom can undoubtedly make a contribution.
I shall focus for a second on Tunisia in particular. Although we discuss the difficulties of politics in the region, I have seen far too little in the media recently acknowledging what has happened in Tunisia. Rather than people taking to the streets or political leaders finding reasons for division among themselves, the Tunisians have worked extremely hard to find out how they can come together on a constitution and make new politics work after the overthrow of the Ben Ali dictatorship. We should watch Tunisia carefully and give every encouragement to the development of democracy there.
I pay tribute to the work of the FCO and the British Government through the Arab Partnership to consider what values we hold in common. Instead of telling states, “This is what you should do,” the Arab Partnership has simply offered a menu: “We think these sorts of thing work. Which is right for you in terms of building democracy, a Parliament and a new politics?” I am proud of the work that has been and continues to be done there, including by all the diplomats and officials in the region. I am delighted to mention Tunisia. Its success should counterpoint some of the difficulties in other places.
John Howell (Henley) (Con)
I draw the House’s attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. Why, in my right hon. Friend’s opinion, has the experiment in Tunisia not worked well in other north African countries?
Alistair Burt
One of the first things I learned was how different each state was from the other. It is a bit like wondering why Manchester United are a success and Leeds United are not. Things are definitely different in each of the states. Tunisia, for example, had a broad background in education; the former leader put a lot of time and effort into the education of his country. That is quite a contrast with Libya, for example, where there was effectively no state whatever, with or without Gaddafi. Each state was in a very different place and was different economically, and, frankly, peoples are different from one another. It is best to consider the Arab spring as a collection of different states with similar problems but different identities, and to work individually in each. That has been the success of the Arab Partnership.
Looking beyond north Africa but staying with the prosperity agenda for a moment, I also commend to the new Minister a continuance of the Gulf initiative. The incoming Government in 2010 took the view that an enhanced relationship with our friends in the Gulf would be of benefit. Our relationships, whether on defence, counter-terrorism, energy security or trade and investment, are crucial in that region. Contact and relationships have been deliberately improved and increased, mostly through a huge number of visits. Ministers and others have made 260 individual visits to the region since 2010, including some extremely high-level visits. The region is home to 27% of the world’s sovereign wealth, and our export trade there is larger than to India, Russia and Mexico combined.
That initiative is extremely important. We have a great deal in common with these states, and being adventurous in our relationship, not just on prosperity but on the other things that we hold in common, will be an important sign of the future. I say that because, given approaching events such as the election and, if the Conservative party wins the election, a referendum on Europe in 2017, there may be a slight risk that the FCO’s orientation moves more towards Europe than other parts of the world. Whatever the interests of the Foreign Secretary may be—his great interest in the Gulf was shown in his role in defence—I say to my hon. Friend the Minister that he has a really important role to play in ensuring that the work that has been done on the middle east and the Gulf does not slip away because of other, more immediate political pressures affecting the Foreign Office. Continuing the Gulf initiative would be a good place to start.
Nadhim Zahawi (Stratford-on-Avon) (Con)
I draw the House’s attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests.
Regarding not taking our eye off the ball in the middle east and the Gulf, the United Arab Emirates has certainly made great strides in working with the Kurdistan Regional Government; and our Government issued the first formal invitation to the KRG’s Prime Minister a month ago, and that relationship is developing. However, there are issues and I hope my right hon. Friend will address some of them. The Kurds now find themselves with a very long border with the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria. They are also cut off from Baghdad because their budget has not been delivered since March. And of course, they have a strong bilateral relationship with Turkey and are attempting to sell their oil through the pipeline to Ceyhan and to Turkey, but that in itself has come up against a number of challenges. I suspect that our Government will remain neutral on this matter, but can he address some of those issues—
Philip Davies (in the Chair)
Order. Interventions should certainly be shorter than that one.
Alistair Burt
Unsurprisingly, I have a short passage in my speech relating to Kurdish issues, and I think my hon. Friend will find that I address one or two of those points.
I have a particular relationship with the UAE through my current chairmanship of the all-party group on the UAE, and through a connection with my very good friend, the deputy Foreign Minister of the UAE, Dr Anwar Gargash; I commend such a relationship to my hon. Friend the Minister. The UAE belies some of the easy and rather lazy descriptions that the uninformed make about the Gulf. This is a state where women hold very senior positions; for example, the ambassador to the UN and the Minister in charge of the extraordinary Dubai 2020 Expo are women. It is also a state where people can go to church; I went to church on my last visit to Abu Dhabi.
The UAE is also a state whose prosperity relationship with the UK is singularly important. We will contribute to British firms going to Expo 2020. There is also investment by the Emirates in the UK: the £1.5 billion investment by Dubai’s DP World in London Gateway; Masdar, Abu Dhabi’s energy company, is investing more than £500 million in the London Array, the world’s largest offshore wind farm; and the Abu Dhabi United Group is working beyond London in Manchester, through its connection with Manchester City football club, to encourage the regeneration of the city. Again, I profess a special interest, having been the Minister with responsibility for Manchester and Salford many years ago; seeing the regeneration of that great city has been one of the great highlights of the past 20 years. All that activity shows that the UAE is working with and investing in the UK, which enhances the relationship between the two countries.
Wherever we look around the Gulf, particularly in a state such as the UAE, we see a close partner working together with the UK. I emphasise that point because whatever direction the FCO now goes in, it is very important that the middle east and the Gulf remain uppermost in its mind. I am sure my hon. Friend the Minister will be keen to ensure that that is the case.
Briefly, please do not forget the middle east. Stick with those states that are working through the Arab spring and working with the Arab Partnership. Stick with Libya—it is difficult. Stick with Egypt, which will be a key partner, even though it will inevitably go through difficulties. It has serious human rights and judicial issues to overcome, but its economy needs support if the country is to get anywhere with its democracy. Egypt’s parliamentary elections later this year will be keenly scrutinised to ensure that they are fully inclusive. Certainly, the state has questions to answer, as we all know, but it will be a key partner for the future and in increasing the prosperity of the region as a whole.
In a final point on the values that we hold dear, let me mention that throughout the region religious intolerance and ensuring that there is greater freedom of worship and conscience is another important issue that I am sure the FCO will address. I know that one or two colleagues here today will talk about that specifically
I had the honour yesterday of meeting two young women from Iran who had been imprisoned in Tehran in 2009 for being Christian believers. Maryam Rostampour and Marziyeh Amirizadeh are now free in the United States. They have written about their experiences and make the point that although a rapprochement in Iran in many ways has advantages for all of us, to neglect human rights issues in Iran would be a mistake. They also make the point that it is not only Christians who are suffering; so are Baha’is and others. We know that across the region the agonies caused by differences between Muslim sects have been reflected in the pressures on those of other faiths and of none. I am certain that a greater sense of religious tolerance throughout the region is a value that the UK and this Parliament would strongly profess, and again I urge my hon. Friend the Minister to make that a key part of his work in the region.
Before I sit down, I will address two major issues briefly: first, Syria and, secondly, Gaza. With Syria, it seems that we have a very short attention span for tragedy. One has to do a little bit of searching now in the newspapers to find out that the agony of Syria is continuing. In three years perhaps 160,000 people have been killed, although there are estimates of many more. There is a need to ensure that the truth of what is happening in Syria comes out, rather than a narrative produced by the Syrian regime.
In short, Assad would have us all believe that right from the beginning he was challenged not by his own people but by foreign extremists. That is untrue. There were no foreign extremists on the streets of Damascus when the first brave people asked not for his overthrow but for reform. They were met with torture and violence, and with a deliberate campaign to ensure that more extremists came into the country from outside, because Assad knew that his greatest chance of staying in power was to convince the outside world that he was threatened by terrorists from outside and not from his own country. Sadly, that narrative has had all too much opportunity to succeed.
Mr Khalid Mahmood (Birmingham, Perry Barr) (Lab)
Will the right hon. Gentleman acknowledge that while that uprising took place, there was a serious element of the Muslim Brotherhood within Syria that was promoting much of the violence that took place, as well as the regime’s violence?
Alistair Burt
Disentangling all the various elements of Syria is not an easy job. Disentangling the issues of the Muslim Brotherhood is, of course, a matter that now concerns the UK greatly as it pursues its review of the impact of the Muslim Brotherhood not only on places abroad but on the UK itself. There are different views on whether the Muslim Brotherhood represents a spectrum of opinion, or whether there is a very hard, almost fascistic edge to it in what it wishes to achieve—certainly, there are places and evidence that back that up, and places where it is not sufficiently proved. Nevertheless, the hon. Gentleman is right to raise that as an issue that deserves to be looked at in the Syrian context.
Dr Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)
I remind my right hon. Friend that the Foreign Secretary at the time that we were being asked to intervene militarily in the Syrian civil war himself accepted, and indeed volunteered the information, that there were several thousand al-Qaeda-linked militants fighting alongside the opposition.
Alistair Burt
Yes, there were. I do not want to be drawn or tempted into a rehearing of that debate we had last August. I think the decision made by Parliament then was profoundly wrong and I wish that action had been taken against the Syrian regime for using chemical weapons on its own people, despite the difficulties. Nevertheless, we do not need to go down that route now.
Of course there were already different factions involved by then, but one of the confusions that the Assad regime was able to spread was that all opposition was the same. It is not and it never was. Accordingly, I ask my hon. Friend to look very hard at circumstances on the ground and to recognise that the moderate forces that have been supported by more than 100 nations and entities through the Friends of Syria process, the Free Syrian Army and others, are taking on both the regime and the extreme militants. They deserve our support. There is regular barrel-bombing and killing of civilians. They deserve the opportunity to protect themselves. I say no more than that. There should be no western boots on the ground and no western forces there, just the ability to change the dynamics so that the negotiations for peace have a better opportunity to succeed. I urge my hon. Friend the Minister to keep an eye on that and give whatever support is possible to the moderates who are still fighting on so many different fronts.
As my hon. Friend the Member for New Forest East (Dr Lewis) mentioned a moment ago, the long-standing nature of the crisis has meant that it has spread. There will be another opportunity in due course to discuss issues relating to western intervention or non-intervention. We have had three and a half years of non-intervention to weigh in the balance with Iraq and Afghanistan and to ask, “What are ever the right decisions in these difficult circumstances?”
We know one consequence of this continuing agony: the growth and development of an extreme force now in the region—ISIS/ISIL—which has gone beyond threatening Syria to threatening states nearby. It has, of course, produced an issue for the Kurdish community in the Kurdish region in northern Iraq, protected and saved by the intervention of John Major and the no-fly zone, who now find their circumstances different from those in the rest of Iraq. What is to be done?
First, I think the United Kingdom should look hard at what support it can give to the Kurdish region. For example, an acknowledgement that they need to sell oil to survive, having been starved of funds by the Maliki Administration, would be important. Recognition that now they are looking for support on defence and intelligence, just in case that extremist army comes in their direction, would also be welcome. Counselling and discussion about further steps towards autonomy or independence would also help. Independence for the Kurdish region is a big step that would have serious ramifications, but it is no longer off the cards, because of the break-up of Iraq and, I have to say, the failure of Prime Minister Maliki over a long period, even though he was given every opportunity to bring together Sunni, Kurdish and Shia communities. Whatever may happen in the future, the Kurdish region deserves some degree of security, whether within a federal Iraq with greater autonomy, or something different. The UK needs to be alert to the needs of that region and its people, which we have supported for so long.
Robert Halfon (Harlow) (Con)
I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing this debate. Does he agree that if Kurdistan, one of the few democratic nations in the middle east, wants independence and its people vote for it, the British Government should support their right to have independence?
Alistair Burt
I hear that. If I was sitting at the other end of this desk, in the Minister’s place, I would be equally cagey in my response. I will not ask my hon. Friend the Minister for a definitive answer at this stage. There would be ramifications. Ultimately, the independence of the Kurdish people is a matter of self-determination—my hon. Friend is correct. Bearing in mind all that the Kurdish people—a people subject to chemical attack and the like— have been through for so long, it is important that people listen. This matter should not be dealt with suddenly; it should be worked through with neighbours and friends and the surrounding territories. The Kurdish people deserve to have their voice heard, of that there is no doubt. There is plenty that the UK can still continue to do.
Let me make one last point, because I am conscious that I have taken up a lot of time. I want to finish by talking about Gaza. I have become passionate about the region, and colleagues throughout the House have been kind enough to recognise that. I appreciate what colleagues have said over the past few months. If there is one issue on which that passion has been allied to grief, it is the continuing failure of the middle east peace process and the inability of both Israelis and Palestinians to live in the peace and security to which both are entitled and which both are being denied. What we are witnessing now in Gaza is just the latest instalment of this awful tragedy, which has been far too long-running for all of us. I welcome the news over the course of the morning about possible ceasefire prospects, because the matter is urgent and the kinetic action there needs to stop as quickly as possible on both sides.
Over many years I was solely associated with the Israeli cause, and I appreciate greatly how in office this was never raised against me by Arab interlocutors, who I think guessed rightly that such a background gave me the opportunity to speak with great frankness to my many friends in Jerusalem and Tel Aviv, which I did. My last four years have therefore brought me much closer to Arab and Palestinian leaders and provided greater exposure to the impact of the failure to conclude an agreement on their side. Whether it is the economic and humanitarian difficulties of Gaza or the grief of the Tamimi family in Nabi Saleh, or the parents of an Israeli schoolchild killed by a bomb, I have, like all the rest of us in this Chamber, seen too much despair from too many. I do not need to be told by either side whose fault it is or to listen any more to a catalogue of mutual injustice. For the record, I get it. Both have right and wrongs on their side. They are both my friends. Like the vast majority of those who live in the region, I just want this to stop.
The present round is sadly no different from the rest: it solves nothing on either side. As long as Hamas keeps re-arming, Israel will need to act to remove the threat. As long as Israel does so and as long as the suffering of Gaza and its people—from their Hamas Administration as well as the restrictions of Israel—continues, there will be new recruits, because the political end to the struggle is not co-ordinated with a cessation of hostilities. So it goes on, endlessly, and it is pointless because it does not achieve the objects of either of the protagonists. It just kills.
Israel has a right to protect its citizens from the unique terror of Hamas, condemned by the UK Government as we urged EU partners to proscribe the military wing of Hamas last year. It targets Israelis—actually, it targets Jews; let us be frank—anywhere in the world, contributes to incitement and fires rockets indiscriminately at them, or fails to prevent others from doing so. Israel’s reaction to this is proportionate to the threat, but there is an imbalance in the suffering as a result. Every child killed or hurt and every civilian killed wounds Israel and calls into question the method it is employing to bring security and peace to its people at such a price, just as dreadful injuries condemn those who place children in harm’s way. We cannot go on like this.
My optimism for the excellent efforts of John Kerry, and the quieter work of Tony Blair, has not yet been realised in a result, but might I ask my hon. Friend the Minister not to give up and to ensure the FCO plays its full part in urging that, after this round of conflict is done, we get back to the negotiations for the comprehensive solution, which is the only answer? It is truly not impossible to solve the problem if the will is there, as countless people have said.
I commend the article of 7 July in Haaretz, by His Highness Prince Turki bin Faisal Al Saud of Saudia Arabia, making the point that the 2002 Arab peace initiative still provides a template for a just solution to Israel’s conflict with Palestinians and the Arab world. He writes about the opportunity for both sides in the economic development and political opportunities that would result from an agreement. That the positives of a solution in that area so outweigh the negatives still leaves me gasping that it cannot quite be grasped. However, I hope that, after this round of hostilities, everyone will pile in on both sets of leaders to say, “We dare not have this happen again, in a region where we have learned that things can spiral out of control very quickly.”
The middle east has not been more volatile in recent years. From Lebanon to Yemen, there are latent threats to add to those more obvious, about which I have spoken, but there is still a vibrancy of populations who promise, and deserve, much more. I hope therefore that the UK long continues its historical relationship, for we still have so much to offer our friends throughout the region in terms of peace and prosperity.
Philip Davies (in the Chair)
Order. Before I call the next speaker, I want to let hon. Members know that I do not intend to place a time limit unnecessarily at this stage. However, at least 10 hon. Members wish to catch my eye, so to ensure that everyone gets a fair crack of the whip and has a fair opportunity to have their voices heard, perhaps Members could look to speak for about 10 minutes each.
Mrs Louise Ellman (Liverpool, Riverside) (Lab/Co-op)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Davies. I refer to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests about a visit to Israel and the Palestinian territories.
I thank the right hon. Member for North East Bedfordshire (Alistair Burt) for securing this important, timely debate. In his contribution he displayed both his expertise on the whole area and his sensitivity to the involvement and suffering of so many different parties in that region. I want to focus my comments on the Israeli-Palestinian issue and, in particular, the horrifying events under way in Gaza, but what happens in Israel and the Palestinian territories is of course much affected by what happens in a turbulent neighbourhood. The right hon. Gentleman referred to the hundreds of thousands of people killed in Syria and the millions of people there who have been displaced. That ongoing issue is causing widespread concern.
I start by saying that all civilian deaths are tragic. A civilian death on any side of a dispute is equal to that on the other. It is all tragic and it should all be avoided. It is a great cause for concern that John Kerry’s initiative has, up to now, not succeeded. The overall situation will only be resolved by a negotiated agreement on setting up a Palestinian state alongside a secure Israel. That means agreement on borders based on the 1967 boundaries, on how to share Jerusalem and on dealing with refugee issues on both sides. As long as that is not secured, there will be disputes.
The current situation in Gaza is intolerable. The Israelis withdrew all their 8,000 settlers and soldiers in 2005. Some were withdrawn forcibly by the Israeli army. There followed a short time when Israel and the Palestinian Authority had an agreement. For the very first time, Gaza was ruled by Palestinians, but that was short-lived. Hamas came to power, and it has to be recognised for what it is: a terrorist organisation. It is recognised to be so by, among others, the USA, Jordan, the European Union and Japan. Its 1988 charter—in other words, a recent, modern charter—contains elements that are blood-curdling. It talks about Jews running the worldwide media and Jews being responsible for such things as the French revolution and the Russian revolution. Hamas is a terrorist organisation that will not accept the existence of Israel. It is not interested in boundaries. It finds the concept of the majority Jewish state of Israel as anathema in that region, and that has to be remembered.
What is happening now is that Hamas decided to launch an attack, targeted on Israeli civilians. At the last count, although it may well be an underestimate, some 1,350 rockets have been launched, targeted on 70% of Israeli civilians.
Andrew Percy (Brigg and Goole) (Con)
The hon. Lady is making an excellent speech. Will she confirm the size and scale of the rockets? Some who seek to defend the action from Gaza refer to the rockets as little more than fireworks, but they are a new type of rocket from Hamas with a payload of 300 lb and a range of 100 miles or more. That should not be forgotten.
Mrs Ellman
The hon. Gentleman is absolutely correct. Those rockets are aimed at and landing on places such as Jerusalem, Tel Aviv and Haifa. Munir al-Masri, a senior Hamas spokesperson, stated only two days ago, on 15 July:
“Hamas will continue hitting Israel until the last Zionist leaves the whole of Palestine, from the sea to the river.”
It is pretty clear what this is all about.
The situation is intolerable. Neither the Israeli Government nor any other Government could countenance this targeted attack on their citizens, the aim of which is to kill and to destroy. It is interesting to note the comment made by Gershon Baskin, who is renowned for his efforts working with Palestinians and Israelis to seek peace. Indeed, he was a pivotal figure in the release of Gilad Shalit. He spoke only last week of his absolute despair. He said that he called on the Hamas leadership not to intensify its actions. He knows that his message went right to the top, to Khaled Meshaal, the Hamas leader. With absolute despair, he said that the Hamas leader simply said, “Bring it on.” The situation is extremely grave.
A large number of Palestinian civilians have been killed or injured, which is a matter of deep regret. It is a tragedy for them as much as it would be for Israelis to be injured or killed. The responsibility for the deaths and injuries has to lie with those who decided to put their rocket bases, launchers and headquarters in civilian populations—Hamas. Indeed, a senior Hamas spokesman, Sami Abu Zuhri, said only two days ago, on 15 July:
“The fact that people are willing to sacrifice themselves against Israeli weapons in order to protect their homes is a strategy that is proving itself.”
The Israelis feel that they have to stop those deadly rockets being launched, deliberately targeted at Israeli citizens. The Israelis know that they have to go to civilian areas, and they are consciously and as a matter of policy informing the civilians in those areas about what is about to happen and asking them to leave, because they do not wish to have civilian casualties. It is clear from that statement—there are many others—that the Hamas leadership is gloating over the situation and the death of its own citizens. That is absolutely deplorable and should not be countenanced.
Robert Halfon
I thank the hon. Lady for her thoughtful speech. Are we not in a crazy situation where Israel is being criticised for defending itself too well, because the Iron Dome is stopping many of the missiles and preventing many thousands of Israeli citizens from being killed?
Mrs Ellman
The hon. Gentleman makes a good point. Hamas has been threatening this type of action for a long time. It has clearly stated that it does not accept the existence of the Israeli state and that it will attack it. It has been building up its weaponry; Hamas now holds Iranian weapons. Indeed, recently, in March, Israel intercepted an Iranian ship with a cargo of weapons, including advanced weapons, heading for Gaza and for Hamas. Hamas has been organising itself to attack, so, naturally, a responsible Israeli Government have been preparing for that through defensive means. The Iron Dome was constructed so that the weapons—the shells, the rockets—coming over from Gaza, targeted on Israeli civilians, could be stopped without any Palestinian civilian loss of life. That is what the Israeli Government have deliberately done.
Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Lab)
Is my hon. Friend not aware that in the recent hostilities 200 Palestinians have already died and that water and sewerage works have been targeted by Israeli planes? Does she not think that the siege of Gaza, which has now gone on for a very long time, is a contributory factor? Does she not think that the inability of Israel to recognise Palestinian needs and rights is a major cause of the problem?
Mrs Ellman
My hon. Friend makes some interesting observations. I am well aware of the deaths and injuries sustained by Palestinian civilians. I deeply regret them and think they are a great tragedy, but those civilians were in that situation because Hamas deliberately put its weapons and launching bases among them. As I indicated by referring to the recent comments from Hamas spokespeople, Hamas seems to be gloating and sees its policy as working. On the other factors my hon. Friend mentioned, I go back to the facts I declared earlier. Israel withdrew all its settlers and soldiers from Gaza in 2008. When, a year after that, Hamas, which was then running Gaza, decided to attack Israeli civilians, the Israelis had to take some steps to try to protect themselves.
The solution to this dreadful situation is of course for there to be an overall peace settlement, recognising the rights of the two peoples, the Israelis and the Palestinians, to have their states and to live in security and peace alongside one another in a region that will support them. The Kerry initiative has not up to now succeeded, but no one should abandon hope, and I hope that it can be resumed. It does not mean, however, that nothing can be done. What should be done now is for Hamas to stop sending its rockets against Israeli civilians. The Israelis then would, and should, stop their attacks on the missile sites in Gaza. I hope that that will provide the basis for a long-term ceasefire and, ultimately, lead to a peace in which all peoples of the region can have the peace they deserve.
Robert Halfon (Harlow) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under you today, Mr Davies. I welcome the debate and, in particular, the fact that it was introduced by my right hon. Friend the Member for North East Bedfordshire (Alistair Burt), who was one of the finest Ministers responsible for relations with the middle east that this country has seen in recent times. Few possess both his fairness and his wisdom in dealing with the intricate problems of the region. I am proud to speak alongside him.
I also welcome the debate because at this time of crisis for the middle east it is worth setting out a few home truths. First, we need to acknowledge that the free world has got it badly wrong. Not only has it been the cause of some of the problems, but it has attempted to solve them with quick fixes, rather than real, long-term solutions. Too often, realpolitik has taken precedence over human values, ignoring the fact that freedom is about not only having an election, but the rule of law, tolerance, equality and property rights. Secondly, realpolitik has too often led to appeasement and to working with the very regimes that created the situations. Even worse, we have seen disengagement due to fear, and guilt over past mistakes. That is why we are now told that we have to work with Iran to deal with the problems of ISIS in Iraq, or why we supply arms to dictatorships in the middle east to enhance stability, despite some of those countries’ records of exporting extreme Islamism around the world. Thirdly, instead of supporting the few genuine democracies in the middle east, either we seek to hold them to disproportionately high standards—higher than any other country—or we deny them the right to self-determination.
Let us look at realpolitik and appeasement. The Arab spring could have been a great opportunity, not only for the citizens of the countries involved, but for the free world. For the first time, it showed that the people who were in revolt wanted and cherished the same values that all of us, throughout the world, hold so dear—the values that Roosevelt so accurately summed up as freedom of speech, freedom of worship, freedom from want and freedom from fear. Unfortunately, the west gave mixed signals, in particular in Egypt, where the prevalent attitude has been “better the devil you know”.
The west’s disengagement, however, has manifested above all in Syria. As my right hon. Friend said, there are 160,000 people dead, and there were promises of red lines that never appeared, and chemical weapons attacks, including the September 2012 one on Palestinians in Yarmouk. As we have seen, the result has been a moral vacuum filled by extreme Islamists, who have now spread from Syria to Iraq. We like to talk about moral values, but where were the demonstrations, the moral outrage and the requests for boycotts by VIPs and celebrities when Assad gassed the Palestinians and starved them to death in Yarmouk? The only Palestinians who count in the eyes of the west are those in Gaza. Compromises with oppressive regimes have led us not only to fail those fighting for freedom, but to fail to support those nations that are spreading democratic values across the region, such as Israel and Iraqi Kurdistan.
Let us turn to Israel. In 2005, Israel withdrew from Gaza and disbanded all settlements at great political cost, eventually causing the split of the main Israeli political party at the time. It was envisaged that the successful withdrawal from Gaza would lead to a withdrawal from much of the west bank; that was the point made by the then Israeli Prime Minister, Ehud Olmert. The reality turned out to be quite different. Instead of progress towards peace, Israeli towns faced a barrage of missile attacks from a total of 11,000 rockets fired by Hamas and Islamic Jihad—11,000 since the Israeli withdrawal from Gaza.
In recent months, as has been described, the rocket attacks have extended from towns close to Gaza, such as Sderot, to Tel Aviv and further. Let us not forget that the missiles—supplied by Iran, which has given Hamas financial and material support—have emboldened that terrorist organisation and led to today’s tragic situation. After being dragged into unwanted confrontation, instead of getting support for facing down Islamist terrorist organisations, Israel yet again gets opprobrium from the west.
Similarly, Iraqi Kurdistan, another nation to have suffered genocide, faces daily threats from terrorism, is surrounded by hostile enemies and is denied its right to seek independence, despite having been faced with an economic blockade by Baghdad over the past year. It now faces the terrible threat of ISIS on its borders. Instead of trying to keep together an artificial and broken Iraq, the UK, the United States and their allies should be doing everything possible to help the Kurdistan region to become independent, and to ensure that that part of the middle east remains free and democratic.
Robert Halfon
And safe, as my hon. Friend points out. In recent times, the message from the United States and NATO on all such matters has been confused and disparate. The free world needs to group together to give a clear signal that muscular enlightenment must and will take precedence over appeasement, and that freedom and liberty must and will take precedence over extreme Islamist, terrorist or authoritarian dictatorships. Guilt and fear stemming from past mistakes cannot justify total inaction and turning our back on those fighting for just causes.
We must make it clear that intervention to stop genocide, to stop the use of chemical weapons and to protect people from poverty and starvation, far from being unnecessary, is all the more important. It is not wrong to say that democracy can be dropped from a B-52 bomber; perhaps if we had done so from the beginning, we would not have 150,000 dead in Syria. I hope that the debate is a pointer for us, showing that we should grasp the nettle of muscular enlightenment and the case for intervention and doing the right thing in the middle east, so that the people of the region can enjoy the values that all of us cherish so dearly.
Richard Burden (Birmingham, Northfield) (Lab)
May I draw the attention of the House to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests? I add my thanks and tributes to those of others to the right hon. Member for North East Bedfordshire (Alistair Burt). I pay tribute to his work as middle east Minister, a role that he approached with great sincerity and sensitivity. He has always dealt with me with the utmost courtesy, and I thank him for that.
Robert Halfon
On a point of order, Mr Davies. I should have mentioned my entry in the register of Members’ interests in my remarks. I apologise for interrupting.
Richard Burden
The hon. Member for Harlow (Robert Halfon) and I disagree on many things, and we will disagree in this debate, but frankly there is no reason to caricature the views of those who stand up for the rights of people in Gaza as them not being bothered about the rights of Palestinians in Yarmouk, or about what is going on in Syria. If he looks at the record, that is simply not true.
I will concentrate my remarks on what is going on in Gaza for no other reason than time. I will pose a few questions. Does Israel have the right to self-defence? Yes. Do Palestinians have the right to self-defence? Yes. Can what either the Israeli Government are doing or what Hamas has been doing in the past two weeks be credibly described as self-defence? No. Have the actions of either made the people each said they were defending any safer? Well, there are some answers to that. I will quote Emily Hauser, an American Israeli, who wrote recently in Haaretz:
“I have lived under missile attack, and I have family under attack in the south right now. I do not for one moment doubt Israel’s right to self-defense. But even if we set aside the damage and forget the dead, if we remain incurious about the impact both might have on our enemy’s will to compromise—even if all we consider is sheer efficacy—how can we look at this history and believe that repeating past failures will keep the Jewish State safe? Are you safe now?”
That speaks volumes. If we look on the other side, the answer was given yesterday when those four children had their lives snuffed out while doing nothing other than playing football on the beach. If hon. Members have not read Peter Beaumont’s eyewitness account of that in The Guardian, I suggest they do so.
The point is that it has to stop; the right hon. Member for North East Bedfordshire said that in introducing the debate. Nobody will do the Palestinians or the Israelis any service in this debate by justifying rockets or trying to justify the scale of the attacks that Israel has been making on Gaza. The question is how we can help to stop it.
The first thing is to be serious. We have just heard that there has been a humanitarian ceasefire for a few hours. There was also a very strange ceasefire a day or two ago, of a kind that I have never come across before. It seemed to be announced without even the Americans being involved, which is rather strange in the circumstances. It was announced late one night and accepted by Israel the next morning, when Hamas said it had not even been directly approached and had heard about the ceasefire from the media. If people are serious about ceasefires, they pre-cook them and make sure the back channels work, but those channels did not work on that occasion.
I have been trying to put some feelers out as well—not to Hamas directly, but through people who I know are talking to it. One thing that has come back from that—not from hard-liners, who reject the idea altogether, but from people who are saying that they might be prepared to consider it—is that if a ceasefire is agreed, it will need to involve Islamic Jihad and other militant groups, as well as Hamas, and Hamas will be relied on to police that ceasefire. How will it do that while it is itself the target of air strikes? We do not have to hold a writ for Hamas to work out that there may be a point there. That is why people should use the back channels and take the process seriously, and not just announce things. That is not just my opinion; hon. Members can read the article on ABC News by Ali Weinberg, who said that some of the things going on around that ceasefire were curious—I will say no more than that.
Bob Stewart
I have organised ceasefires—many of them—and there is only one way for a ceasefire to work, which is to have neutral observers on the ground on both sides. I feel that is the way we would have to go to get an effective, decent ceasefire in this region.
Richard Burden
The hon. Gentleman makes a very good point and speaks with a wealth of experience.
The question is, what do we do? First of all, if there is going to be a ceasefire, as we all hope, it has to be serious and it has to work. Secondly, let us not make life any more difficult from our side. Every time Britain supplies arms to Israel—we do not supply arms to Hamas, because there is an arms embargo—we do so under strict criteria called the EU consolidated criteria, with the condition that they are not to be used for external aggression or internal repression. Under the Labour Government—and I think under this Government—use in the occupied territories was seen to run contrary to that condition. Every time there is a flare-up, it is asked, “Were British arms used?” At best, the reply is “We are not quite sure”; at worst, it is, “Probably, yes, they were.” Every time, we say that to Israel, but it happens again, so my first question to the Minister is: are British arms being used? If they are, what will we do to stop it? If we do not know, there should be an arms embargo.
The next point is that if we want a ceasefire to turn into peace, we have to tackle the causes. There is a narrative that says that if Hamas just stopped its rockets, things would be okay—the idea is that quiet will be met with quiet. The last time there was a flare-up like this one was in November 2012. In November 2013 the United Nations—not Hamas, not the Palestinians, but the United Nations—produced a humanitarian bulletin from OCHA, the Office for the Co-ordination of Humanitarian Affairs. I quote:
“November marked one year since the Egyptian-mediated ceasefire understanding between Israel and Hamas, which ended an eight day escalation of hostilities. The year that passed has witnessed the lowest level of violence and civilian casualties registered in Gaza and southern Israel in 13 years. Additionally, there has been limited improvement in people’s access to fishing areas at sea and to farming areas along the fence with Israel. Overall, however, Gaza has seen a deterioration in living conditions. The majority of the Israeli imposed restrictions on the movement of people and goods to and from the Gaza Strip have remained in place, with at least one of them (import of building materials) tightened.”
That same humanitarian report also talked about the growing sanitation and water crisis in Gaza and an escalation in dispossessions and demolitions in East Jerusalem. That was during a period of relative quiet.
I was in the west bank at the end of last year with my right hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn (Mr Straw). We saw dispossessions being threatened and schools threatened with demolition to make way for settlements. Someone might say that I have my own view on the issue and that it is not unbiased, so let us not listen to me; we will listen to the United Nations again. This is from 2 June this year:
“UNRWA is gravely concerned about recent steps taken by the Israeli authorities that appear to advance plans to transfer Palestinian Bedouin communities in the central West Bank, the large majority of which consist of Palestine refugees.”
That report goes on to say that they are
“located in the E1 and Ma’ale Adumim areas, which are slated for further Israeli settlement development. Additionally in recent months, the ICA appears to be intensifying measures that are displacing or threatening to displace many of the Bedouin communities targeted for transfer.”
It simply is not true that quiet is met by quiet. Quiet is met by continued settlement building, displacement and occupation. We should not think that there will be a real and lasting peace unless those things are addressed; there will not be.
Imagine if the tables were turned—that somehow, in that mythical world, the Palestinians suddenly got the kind of military power that Israel has, and said, “We want to build some settlements in Galilee. A lot of Palestinians live there. We want to take over the homes of a few Jewish Israelis and build there.” Are we honestly saying that all the west would say to that is, “That’s not a very good thing to do—please stop”? Of course we would not. We would demand that they stop. We would talk about international law—and we would be right to—and would implement it.
Mrs Ellman
My hon. Friend is talking about important but wider issues. Does he agree that Hamas should stop firing rockets targeted at Israeli citizens?
Richard Burden
I think it was pretty clear from my opening remarks that the answer to that is an unequivocal yes, but that gets us no further. It is a statement of fact that Hamas should stop firing rockets, and that if it fires rockets at civilian areas that is a war crime that deserves to be condemned. It has to stop; I say that to Hamas. However, that does not in any way justify a continued occupation. My point is that unless we tackle that issue we will not move towards peace. In plain speaking, settlement building is illegal.
John Howell
I do not wish to interrupt the hon. Gentleman, who is very passionate about this subject; I simply want to approach it from a different aspect. In November 2012 I was in the region, and it was not very pleasant to be there. Should not the starting point be an acknowledgement by the states surrounding Israel of the borders of Israel and of Israel’s right to exist? That covers a number of the issues that he is addressing.
Richard Burden
Israel absolutely has a right to exist, and I will speak about that when I wind up.
If we accept that continued settlement building is contrary to UN resolutions, the Geneva convention and international law generally, what do we do about it? I am not suggesting any military action against Israel, but I am suggesting that we uphold international law. That means we should have no contact with illegal and illegitimate settlements. We should not trade with them, and we should insist that if Israel wishes to export goods from the settlements, it separates them from goods produced in Israel. If it does not, I am sorry, but the trade preferences that apply to goods from Israel should not apply to goods from the settlements.
I will conclude by responding to the point made by the hon. Member for Henley (John Howell). People say that the Palestinians should recognise Israel. I agree. The Palestinian Authority, including Fatah and the Palestine Liberation Organisation, recognised Israel years ago. It has said that Hamas should recognise Israel. The Quartet takes the view that not only should it recognise Israel, but it should already have done so, in order to get into talks. That demand has never been made of Israel the other way around. Let us think about it. Continued settlement building removes the practical chance of a two-state solution. In practical terms, Israel does not recognise the right to a Palestinian state; in practical terms, it is removing it before our eyes. That is the reality; is it also the theory?
Last week, Prime Minister Netanyahu gave an interview that was reported in The Times of Israel by David Horovitz. It was given in Hebrew, but it has helpfully been translated by The Times of Israel, which is not a Hamas organ, or even a Palestinian Authority organ. I urge hon. Members to read it because it makes Prime Minister Netanyahu’s view of a Palestinian state pretty clear. It says:
“He”—
Prime Minister Netanyahu—
“made explicitly clear that he could never, ever, countenance a fully sovereign Palestinian state in the West Bank.”
That should give us all pause for thought. If we are all in favour of a two-state solution, both sides must abide by that, not as a matter of negotiation, but as a matter of right. If Israel demands, as a matter of right, to be recognised by the Palestinians, it is not wrong and not too much for the international community to say to Israel that as a matter of right it should recognise Palestine. Perhaps we could help that along the way by doing it ourselves.
Robert Jenrick (Newark) (Con)
I thank my right hon. Friend the Member for North East Bedfordshire (Alistair Burt) for leading today’s debate. There have been many fine contributions and as time is short I will confine my remarks to one aspect that has not been spoken about in detail: the security situation in Jordan, a country that I know well having travelled there many times on business in my former life. In fact, I was there the day my predecessor resigned as a Member of Parliament, and I had to return quickly to fight the subsequent by-election.
As many hon. Members appreciate, many people in Jordan and throughout the wider region, particularly in Israel, where I also have friends and contacts, are concerned to ensure that Jordan receives the full support of this country, the US and the US’s allies around the world at a dangerous and unpredictable time in its history. I share the concern of many in the region who believe that the US Government have been missing in action as ISIS, the Islamic State of Iraq and al-Sham, has taken over much of Syria and Iraq. I find that very disturbing and worrying. As the terrorist organisation now turns its sights on such an important ally of ourselves and the west, the Kingdom of Jordan, neither we nor the US can afford to continue to ignore it. This debate poses a good opportunity for me to raise some of the issues that I have heard from colleagues and friends in Jordan and to bring some of the questions to the Minister’s attention.
No doubt the Minister will soon have access to far greater intelligence than I do, but people I have spoken to in Jordan do not seem to think that there is an immediate threat from ISIS or its equivalent of a military offensive, but they are extremely concerned about the potential for terrorist attacks to occur and increase, with a destabilising effect throughout the kingdom.
Before the by-election, I spoke to the Jordanian defence Minister. The Jordanian armed forces seem to be competent, generally non-sectarian and broadly loyal to King Abdullah. They train extensively, as hon. Members will know, with US forces, and receive $300 million in annual US military assistance; there is also some assistance from the United Kingdom. Jordan’s armour and air power seem to be adequate to secure its relatively short 112-mile border with Iraq, and it has gone to a great deal of trouble to fortify its positions along the frontier with Syria. I would be interested to hear the Government’s assessment of the security of that border.
The most pressing concern is that ISIS will establish a support base in Jordan of men capable of and committed to terrorist attacks. From 2002 to 2005, Jordan experienced a series of terrorist attacks, and I was in Amman during one of them. They were perpetrated by a predecessor of ISIS, al-Qaeda in Iraq, a group led by a Jordanian national, Abu Musabal-Zarqawi. I have seen a YouTube video that I would recommend to hon. Members, although it is not pleasant to watch. It was posted in April and sadly is still available on YouTube. It shows Jordanian ISIS members now fighting in Iraq shred and burn their passports. The jihadists, one of whom is seen wearing an explosive belt, describe King Abdullah as despotic,
“a worshipper of the English”,
vowing to “slaughter” him. This is not a light matter but is taken seriously in Jordan. In 2013, Jordan spent some $1.3 billion, nearly 13% of its entire budget, on internal homeland security and national defence. It will continue to do so. The majority is provided by US aid.
The question for this debate is what more can the UK Government do to assist Jordan in the years ahead, particularly with the urgent concerns in the present climate.
Robert Halfon
My hon. Friend’s knowledge of Jordan is very valuable. Does he agree that perhaps one issue involving the Palestinian state could be solved if Jordan were a Palestinian state, given that it was originally part of Palestine in 1921, and even after 1948 the then King of Jordan described himself as the King of Jordan and Palestine?
Robert Jenrick
We have had a good and productive relationship with Jordan for many years. Clearly, if Jordan had taken a more decisive role in running those territories, the position today would be different.
On what we as a country can do and what I would like the Government to do to try to help in Jordan, the first question that my contacts in Jordan raise with me is how can we better enable Jordan to counter military Islamist inroads. Primarily, that is a task for the US, but we have a role to play, part of which is economic support. Jordan is often—inaccurately—thought to be a wealthy country, but parts of it are under-served or economically depressed and there are restive regions that, being economically depressed, tend to become fertile ground for Islamist terrorists. There is certainly a role in encouraging the US, our allies and the key regional allies such as Saudi Arabia and the UAE to increase their financial contributions. Many commentators have asked whether the UK and the US could convene a conference for friends of Jordan, or something along those lines to encourage the monarchy’s western friends and regional allies to contribute more and to ensure greater rapid economic development.
Bob Stewart
I lived in Jordan when I was a boy, in the valley where David killed Goliath, as a matter of record. One of the biggest problems that Jordan faces is that almost half the population seem to have come in as refugees. It is a huge economic problem for this country that is so pro-west.
Robert Jenrick
I agree with my hon. Friend. The difference in terms of development and western views between an area such as Oman and some of those areas with heavy immigrant populations is dramatic and not seen by most business travellers to the region.
The second area I want to touch on is whether the kingdom would benefit from expanded training in counter-insurgency warfare and in detecting improvised explosive devices.
Mr Nigel Dodds (Belfast North) (DUP)
I had the opportunity recently to look at the refugee situation in Jordan, as part of the NATO Parliamentary Assembly. One thing the Jordanians were saying to us is that although they have been extremely generous in welcoming, helping and absorbing refugees, they are concerned about the amount of aid coming, not from the UK and US so much, but from other countries that have not given as much as they should. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the Foreign Office could pressure our allies and friends who have a lot to say about the area into doing more and putting their hands in their pockets to help in a practical way?
Robert Jenrick
Very much so; I echo those comments. The UK has been very generous, as have the US and Saudi Arabia, but many other countries in the world, particularly other European allies of ours, could and should be giving far more. That is a practical role that the UK could play in supporting Jordan.
Returning to my point about counter-insurgency, having spoken to those active in the defence world in Jordan, it seems that the US and the UK could play a greater role in providing counter-insurgency training, and detecting IEDs has been specifically mentioned to me. That is something the Foreign Office and the Ministry of Defence could look into and work with the US on.
My third point is that until Baghdad regains control of its western border, the UK and the US should encourage Jordan to continue aggressive counter-border actions against ISIS. The US has, perhaps controversially, deployed drones over Baghdad to defend the US embassy. I think the Obama Administration should consider moving armed, unmanned air assets over western Iraq to help Jordan establish some form of no-drive area along the Jordanian border to prevent further incursions by ISIS. That could be a bolder move for the UK to push with its US counterparts.
We should be in no doubt that ISIS and its equivalents have the desire and the potential to create a great deal of domestic instability in Jordan, perhaps more than in many other parts of the region, which will no doubt be discussed in the remainder of this debate. In Jordan, there is the potential for this country to act, given Jordan’s size, its relatively short borders and our good relationships with the country. It is somewhere we can get involved productively and successfully and use our strong diplomatic links to have a successful outcome. The pro-west regime in Oman is, in my opinion, too valuable to us, the US and the west to leave things to chance, as perhaps we have over the course of the last year in Iraq.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Davies, and I thank the right hon. Member for North East Bedfordshire (Alistair Burt) for giving us all the opportunity to speak on this subject. I was privileged to go with him to the Backbench Business Committee to ask for the debate, and it will come as no surprise to Members to hear which subject I will touch on. I have spoken on it many times before but it continues to be an issue, and this is a grand opportunity to underline that. I feel extremely passionate about representing those in my constituency, other constituencies and elsewhere in the world who face hardships—in this case, Christians who are persecuted for their beliefs. Today’s debate gives me an opportunity to highlight that issue again.
A century ago, about 20% of the population of north Africa and the middle east were Christian, according to figures from Open Doors, but now Christians make up only 4% of the population due to persecution. That concerns me greatly. The past two months have been littered with stories of Christians persecuted for their faith all across the middle east, such as the case of Meriam Ibrahim, the mother who was imprisoned in Sudan. When hearing that story, I wondered how many other Meriam Ibrahims there are in Sudan whom we do not hear about, because whereas she had access to the American embassy, others did not. There was also the teacher arrested in Egypt for her faith—Pastor Saeed, who remains in prison—and thousands of Christians who have been displaced due to ISIS’s violent takeover. Christians in the middle east are wondering whether there is any room left for them to stay.
Syria continues to rise in the World Watch List. The civil war has seen an increase in violence in general, but the rise of Islamist extremism is putting even greater pressure on Christians. On top of that, most of Syria’s Christians are concentrated in strategic areas of the country that are vital to both the Government and the Opposition’s war efforts, such as in and around Aleppo, Damascus and Homs, making them even more vulnerable, because that is where the war seems to be at this time. Last year, there were countless reports of Christians being abducted, physically harmed and killed, with many churches damaged or destroyed.
Many Christians have become malnourished owing to shortages and the rising price of food and other essentials. Access to water, electricity and communications is very limited. It is perhaps the traumatised children of Christian families who are suffering most acutely; some have lost one or both parents and many also face great dangers, as rebel forces have even targeted Christian schools. There is a perception among terrorist groups that if people are Christian, they are pro-western; they are Syrians first, and that always must be remembered.
Syria used to be one of the easiest places in the Arab world to be a Christian. Until early 2011, its churches were large—accounting for about 10% of the population—and Christians were respected by the Muslim majority. They were allowed to worship and practise their faith without much official interference, but now, with an estimated 600,000 Christians having fled the country or lost their lives as a result of the civil war, there are fears that Christianity will soon cease to exist.
That is made more poignant by the fact that the Church has existed in Syria since biblical times, and we must also remember that the middle east is very much where the Bible stories that we all know come from. In the book of Acts, it was on the road to Damascus, capital of today’s Syria, that Saul was stopped short in his mission to destroy the early Church. It was in Damascus that Saul regained his sight after being struck blind and it was there that he was filled with the Holy Spirit, baptised and began his ministry as an apostle. That is the story in Syria.
In Iraq, following the 2003 US-led invasion of Iraq, there was a huge surge in anti-Christian threats, kidnappings and murders, and the violence has continued ever since. In June 2014, ISIS attacked Mosul, Iraq’s second largest city. We had a debate in Westminster Hall on that a short time ago and I highlighted the threat to Christians in Mosul and the plain of Nineveh. The goal of ISIS is to create a caliphate—an ultra-Islamic state in Iraq and Syria. Although the attackers were relatively few in number, the Iraqi army fled, leaving the militant jihadists to take control of the city. The result was a mass exodus of thousands of citizens; up to half a million according to some estimates. Those leaving included virtually all of Mosul’s remaining Christian population. As refugees, they are living in extreme hardship and extreme fear of injury or death, because they are Christians.
In 2013, a church in Baghdad was fired at by masked men who seriously wounded two security guards. Christian-owned businesses in the area had been the target of bombings the previous day. As well as violent attacks, Christians also suffer significant discrimination, marginalisation and injustice. Hundreds of thousands of believers have fled their homes, reducing the Christian population to a quarter of its 1990 size. Iraq’s Christian community is hardly a western innovation or a colonial relic. It dates from the 1st century, when two of Jesus’s disciples—St Thomas and St Thaddeus, better known as St Jude—preached the gospel in what was then Assyria. There has been a Christian presence in Iraq ever since. As with Syria, Christians are not newcomers to the country. They have as much right to be there practising their beliefs as everyone else. In each of those two countries, there has been a clear Christian presence from an early stage.
In Iran, since Ayatollah Ali Khamenei’s warning in 2010 of the ever-expanding influence and numbers of house churches, the treatment of Christians has rapidly worsened. The regime tries to destroy those who reach out to converts by monitoring services, carrying out arrests, banning the Farsi language services and closing some churches. Attacks against Christian communities have increased and the prohibition of house church activities is enforced much more strictly there than anywhere else, yet the regime’s harsh treatment of Christians only further fuels the flames of church growth. Certainly that seems to be the case in Iran. That said, each of those three countries ranks in the top 10 countries on the World Watch List, and undoubtedly the daily hardships that Christians face are simply unacceptable. The persecution of religious minorities has intensified in Iran since 2005. Almost all Christian activity is illegal, especially when it occurs in Persian languages. That applies to evangelism, Bible training, publishing Scripture and Christian books and preaching in Farsi.
On Wednesday we had an opportunity to hear from some people from Iran. The right hon. Member for North East Bedfordshire spoke about that in his introduction to the debate, and I appreciate that. There are 61 people in prison in Iran today for their Christian beliefs, and it is not known which prison some of them are in. That is a very serious issue for the Iranians. We also had an opportunity today to attend an event organised by the British Parliamentary Committee for Iran Freedom. There are real human rights and equality issues to address there. Freedom of expression and freedom of religion are denied in Iran. Christians are seen as a particular threat to the regime, as their numbers are growing and it is said that children of political and spiritual leaders are leaving Islam for Christianity. There is great interest in the message of the gospel.
As the early Christian author Tertullian noted,
“The blood of the martyrs is the seed of the Church.”
That might be the case in Iran, but it is a reality that our Christian brothers and sisters should not have to face. I again urge the UK Government and the Minister to do as much as they possibly can to bring an end to the violent and sometimes fatal ordeals that those men and women face daily.
Last but certainly not least, I want to speak about Egypt. There, Muslims who convert to Christianity have long faced persecution from family members who punish them for abandoning the Islamic faith. However, in recent years, Egypt’s historical Christian communities have increasingly been targeted as well. The toppling of the Islamist President Mohamed Morsi in July 2013 after a popular uprising raised hopes that the condition of Christians in Egypt might improve. In the short term, that did not happen. Indeed, it was the trigger for a furious backlash against them by angry Islamists. In mid-August 2013, at least 16 Christians were killed and some 60 church buildings destroyed. In the Islamist stronghold of Minya, Christian properties were marked for destruction with a black X.
That was the situation then, but we did see a change. The right hon. Gentleman and I, with others from the Commons and Lords, had the opportunity to attend an event, and we saw quite clearly a sea change in Egypt’s attitude towards freedom of expression, freedom of religion and equality. That is something it has tried to include in the constitution. It is good news to see that happening, at least initially, in Egypt.
Jeremy Corbyn
What the hon. Gentleman has just said about Egypt is interesting. He must be aware, though, that a large number of journalists in Egypt are now in prison—they have been sentenced to very long stretches indeed—many others are under threat and there is a silencing of political and public debate because of the threat to journalists from the Egyptian Government.
Jim Shannon
I accept that and I will give two examples of Christians who have just been put in prison because of their beliefs, so although we have seen some indication of change, a lot of things still need to change. We always work on the basis of the change that we see. Kerolos Attallah was arrested in June for “liking” a Facebook page for Christians from a Muslim background—Knights of the Cross. In court, he was convicted of blasphemy and contempt of religion and was sentenced to six years in prison. I want to put this on the record. Demiana Emad, a 23-year-old social studies teacher, was sentenced to six months for insulting Islam. She
“presented a comparison between religions in ancient, middle and modern ages as mentioned in the curriculum”.
It was very clearly not blasphemy in either case, but the Egyptian Government recently condemned those two people to prison.
The churches in Egypt continue to hope for better times ahead. The new constitution was approved in a referendum in January 2014. Christians and other minorities are granted greater political representation. Freedom of belief is declared “absolute”—that is what we were told—while the freedom to practise religion and establish places of worship is granted to Christians and Jews as well as Muslims. Those are welcome changes, but many people have suffered and lost their lives to get there, so I hope we can work together to bring similar peaceful and fairer treatment for all Christians across the whole of the middle east.
Andrew Percy (Brigg and Goole) (Con)
It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon). I, too, congratulate my right hon. Friend the Member for North East Bedfordshire (Alistair Burt) on securing the debate. He made a first-class speech that many of us could agree with in large part. I, too, draw attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests in relation to visits to Israel and to the Palestinian territories.
I want to speak briefly about the situation in Gaza and our country’s and Government’s support for Israel and its right to defend itself. I make no apologies for repeating some of the statistics the hon. Member for Liverpool, Riverside (Mrs Ellman) gave in her excellent speech on what has actually been happening in Gaza. She mentioned that 1,300 rockets have been fired at Israel since last Monday. That is more than 160 a day. Nine hundred and sixty-six of those rockets have exploded in Israel and 218 have been intercepted by Israel’s Iron Dome defence system.
As I said in an intervention on the hon. Lady, it is frankly disgusting that some people, who would call themselves friends of Palestine, simply refer to those attacks as effectively firing fireworks at Israel. The fact that Israel is strong and has the capability to defend itself through Iron Dome should not in any way diminish our understanding of the scale, range and size of those rockets. Rockets have repeatedly been fired as far as Jerusalem, which is 55 miles from Gaza; Tel Aviv, which is 44 miles away, and even Haifa, which is 100 miles away. That is nothing new, of course, because since the beginning of 2014, 2,000 rockets and mortars have been launched from Gaza into the south of the state of Israel. Since 2001, more than 15,000 rockets have landed in Israel. That is an average of three attacks every day. I wonder how we would respond to such aggression and such threats.
That is not to say that the situation is not intolerable for residents and citizens living in the Gaza strip. I think that all of us in this place, whatever our views on who is to blame for the recent situation, would wish to express our condolences and horror at what is happening there at the moment.
Of course, we have heard some talk of the ceasefire proposal. I take on board in part the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Beckenham (Bob Stewart), but there is no doubt that Israel communicated very strongly its intention to de-escalate, following the Egyptian proposal, and it did embark on that course of de-escalation with a suspension of attacks. What happened in response to that? Hamas did not not know about this proposal, which is what some seem to be implying or suggesting—that because it had not gone via the United States or through certain other channels, it was in some way a surprise to Hamas. It was not a surprise to Hamas. It knew about it sufficiently to be able to reject it, and it answered the proposal with a volley of 50 rockets following the suspension of strikes by Israel at 9 am on Tuesday. The US Secretary of State, John Kerry, also seemed perfectly satisfied with the proposal. He publicly backed it and urged both parties to sign up to it.
Richard Burden
How does the hon. Gentleman know that Hamas knew about the proposal? Who put it to Hamas? What was its response? And at what time of the night did that happen?
Andrew Percy
Hamas knew about the proposal sufficiently to reject it and then to fire 50 rockets in response to it, so I think that tells us all we need to know. And President Abbas seemed to know about it, because he stood up, quite rightly, and urged Hamas to accept it. This is a concern.
[Jim Sheridan in the Chair]
We must remember why we are in this situation and where we have got to. I understand the UK Government’s support for the unity Government. I understand their aims in doing so, and I understand that they have the best of intentions. It is a concern, however, that one of the unity Government’s constituent parties—although it is not actively serving in that Government, which is a technocratic one—does not recognise the state of Israel in its charter, and that it seeks not only the total destruction of Israel but, as my right hon. Friend the Member for North East Bedfordshire said in his opening speech, the destruction of Jewish people around the world. I cannot understand how we can possibly expect to move forward with the unity Government when some of the potential members will not sign up to the Quartet principles. I will not dwell on the subject, but I agree entirely with the points made by the hon. Member for Liverpool, Riverside).
Dr Matthew Offord (Hendon) (Con)
Does my hon. Friend acknowledge that actions in overseas territories, such as Palestinian territories and Israel, have implications for my constituents? The Community Security Trust has said that anti-Semitic attacks have doubled, and of the 50 attacks that have occurred in recent weeks, 30 have been directly attributed to the incidents in those territories. The insistence of Hamas and other organisations on making claims such as we are discussing ends in violence towards my constituents.
Andrew Percy
Indeed, and I am sorry to hear about that. There are many good people who support the Palestinian cause for just reasons, but we must be honest and say that some use the cause for more sinister ends. We have heard examples of those, and they are truly shocking. I have no doubt that everybody here, whatever their view on the conflict, would condemn such actions entirely.
I want to say a little about the Israeli response. It has saddened me that some have bandied about phrases regarding collective punishment and the proportionality of the response. It is incredibly sad that people have died on any side of the conflict, but we cannot conclude, because of the way Hamas acts and the fact that it puts more of its civilians in harm’s way, that Israel’s response must be disproportionate simply because more people have sadly died. Let us be honest about what is going on. Israel does not fire rockets from its civilian population. While we have been debating, the United Nations Relief and Works Agency has confirmed that one of its schools in Gaza has been used as a hiding place for rockets, and the agency is due to make a statement on that shortly. That tells us all we need to know about why there are such large numbers of civilian casualties.
Mr Jonathan Djanogly (Huntingdon) (Con)
I am pleased that my hon. Friend has raised that point. The charge has been raised against Israel that it is committing a crime by firing on families. My hon. Friend’s point is an important one; there is a difference between firing on families because they are families, and because they are being used as a shield to hide army and control centre operations. As far as I have seen, where families have been fired on, Israel has agreed to investigate it, admitting that it is not the right thing to do and quite a different thing from firing on control centres.
Jim Sheridan (in the Chair)
Order. Interventions are getting a bit long. Can we cut them down, please?
Andrew Percy
I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. It is incredibly sad that the situation is such that civilians have been used as human shields. It is distressing that on Hamas’s Facebook page, the Ministry of the Interior and of National Security has advised Gazan citizens to ignore Israel’s warnings to get out. There are even “knock on the door” mortars fired in advance of an attack to warn Gazans of an impending strike but, sadly, Hamas is officially—
Andrew Percy
The hon. Member for Easington (Grahame M. Morris) has not been here for the debate, so I will give way to my hon. Friend.
Robert Halfon
Does what my hon. Friend has said about UNWRA finding out that missiles were being kept in schools not show the truth of the statement that Hamas uses its civilians to defend its missiles, whereas Israel is using its missile defence to defend its civilians?
Andrew Percy
It absolutely does. It is appalling that, simply because there have been more deaths on one side, some people conclude that the response has been disproportionate. Hamas chooses to use civilians in such a way because, let us be honest, the more bodies that are photographed, the better it is for Hamas’s PR campaign. That is a terrible situation, but why else would the Ministry of the Interior be telling its citizens to ignore warnings to leave their homes because of an impending strike? What other reason could there be?
Mrs Ellman
Does the hon. Gentleman agree that his comment about Hamas is verified by the public statement made by Sami Abu Zuhri on 15 July, who said:
“The fact that people are willing to sacrifice themselves against Israeli weapons in order to protect their homes is a strategy that is proving itself”?
Andrew Percy
The hon. Lady puts it perfectly. That is a strategy.
I will move on because time is pressing. What would we do in such a situation? If 65% to 75% of our population was in range—
Andrew Percy
All right. I will give way to the hon. Gentleman, even though he has not been here for the whole debate.
Grahame M. Morris
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman, who is a fellow member of the Select Committee on Health. I apologise for being late; I was presenting a petition at No. 10 Downing street. He is outlining a scenario that has made me wonder: if he had been Defence Secretary at the time of the IRA bombings, would he have advocated the carpet bombing of east Belfast or Kilburn?
Andrew Percy
No, but I would expect my Government to do all that was required to defend their citizens, particularly when the country is a democratic state. That is why I hope Israel will take the necessary steps, to the utmost and to the end, to defend its people and track down terrorists. We are talking about a terrorist organisation as defined not only by the state of Israel but by this country. I would absolutely expect my Government to respond forcefully to such acts of aggression.
I will end shortly because I know that time is pressing, although I would have liked to say something about the humanitarian situation and assistance to Gaza. We all agree that the situation is terrible. I hope that the Minister will continue to affirm this country’s commitment to Israel’s right to defend itself, and that he will push even harder to achieve progress in the middle east, as the right hon. Member for North East Bedfordshire said. The situation must not continue, on either side, for much longer. There must be a renewed emphasis on peace, and rockets on either side will not achieve that. I hope the Minister will confirm the Government’s stance on that matter. Of course, he is new to his role, and I congratulate him on it.
Jim Sheridan (in the Chair)
Order. Colleagues, seven Members have indicated that they wish to speak. Therefore, to get everyone in and give both Front-Bench spokesmen ample time to respond, I must limit speeches to eight minutes. I apologise for being a bad cop, but that is life.
Mr Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith) (Lab)
I have just drawn the short straw. It would be tempting, given the title of the debate, to go on a Baedeker’s tour of the middle east. The right hon. Member for North East Bedfordshire (Alistair Burt) has the authority and knowledge to do so, but I will not be tempted down that route. I will talk, as other Members have done, about the immediate crisis in Palestine and Gaza, not least because I—and, I suspect, a number of Members present—have received several hundred letters and e-mails on the subject from constituents during the past week.
First, however, let me say a few sentences about other interests I have. I entirely applaud the right hon. Gentleman for saying that Tunisia continues to give hope, as it has since the beginning of the Arab spring, notwithstanding the difficulties there have been and, indeed, the fact that there has been some violence in that country. I do not disagree with what he said about the Gulf and Egypt, in the sense that we need to maintain good relations with them, but I hope those will also be critical relations. I hope the new Minister, whom we welcome to his place, will be aware that, in relation to Egypt and, in a smaller way, to countries such as Bahrain, the hopes placed in the Arab spring have failed to materialise in many cases.
I sometimes feel that, perhaps for strategic or other reasons, Her Majesty’s Government are not critical enough of the violent deaths that have resulted from the actions of the state in those countries, of the death sentences handed out in Egypt and of the continued oppression of the majority Shi’a population in Bahrain. However, we need to be even-handed when we address such matters. I should add that, notwithstanding the appalling continuing situation in Syria, the events that have taken place since last summer have shown that the House was right to vote the way it did during the recall, and not to be stampeded into supporting military action. That would have been a catastrophic mistake.
My constituency has one of the 10 largest Arab populations in this country—I always suspected it did, but I now know that, thanks to the 2011 census. Many of my Arab constituents—indeed, not just them, but my Muslim constituents and my constituents more generally—would, I hope, think that what was happening in Gaza was truly shocking. I do not mean just the individual incidents, such as the two disabled people who were killed in a care home, the nine young men who were killed while watching the World cup, the 18 members of one family who were slain and the four children who were killed on the beach—I am not quite sure what strategic target there was there yesterday that meant those four young children were brutally and horribly murdered.
The current count is 227 deaths. There have been 2,000 air strikes, 1,400 homes have been destroyed and 18,000 have been displaced. If hon. Members do not regard that as disproportionate action, I do not really know what is. Listening to some hon. Members, I sometimes wonder what Israel would have to do, and what actions the Israeli defence forces would have to take, to earn their condemnation, just in the interests of simple humanity.
What I find more shocking than the individual deaths or the military action generally, however, is the cynical and predictable way in which Israel, on a cyclical basis, goes about its incursions into Gaza. I visited Gaza with my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Northfield (Richard Burden) three weeks after Operation Cast Lead. In that incursion—it was the last major incursion, but there have been smaller ones since—1,400 mainly civilian Palestinians were killed. According to a very good article in The Independent today by Matt Rowland Hill, these incursions are known colloquially in the IDF as “mowing the lawn”, which means going in—with complete disregard, it seems, for civilian casualties—and trying to curtail any military strength Hamas may have built up.
We can all talk about the role Hamas has played in escalating the crisis, and about the effect of rocket fire. However, I would like to dwell on where we are going with the occupation of Gaza and the west bank. I have come to this conclusion reluctantly, but I fear that, whereas the rest of the world—whether we are talking about the attempt to revive the Arab peace initiative or John Kerry’s recent efforts—is still committed to, and still believes in, a two-state solution, the state of Israel no longer believes in one, and the quote my hon. Friend gave from the Prime Minister of Israel says that in terms.
Bob Stewart
The problem with the two-state solution is that it looks almost impossible to enact. Given the number of settlements—many of them illegal—in the west bank, I just cannot see how we can carve out a two-state solution. We may well have to have a one-state solution where all are equal.
Mr Slaughter
I cannot fault the hon. Gentleman’s analysis, but I would say that what he describes has been the result of deliberate action by the state of Israel over a number of years. It has been brought about partly by the settlement building—that has been the main infraction. There are 500,000 settlers living in East Jerusalem and the west bank, and the pace of settlement building continues. However, Netanyahu said last Friday:
“there cannot be a situation, under any agreement, in which we relinquish security control of the territory west of the River Jordan.”
There is no intention at all in Israel, from the Prime Minister downwards, to allow the creation of a Palestinian state. We therefore have to see what is happening in Gaza and the west bank as the management of the status quo; we can conclude only that Israel wants to put 1.7 million people into a prison. The occupation continues in Gaza and the west bank —under international law and de facto—because the borders are sealed.
The consequence is that Palestinians in Gaza are living in hellish conditions. I have visited Gaza several times, and even when people are not being strafed by jet fighters, fired on from the sea and shelled, 95% of water is still undrinkable, thousands of tonnes of sewage flow into the sea every day, and half the population is dependent on UN handouts. That is the situation to which the Palestinians have been reduced by the deliberate actions of the state of Israel.
Mr Slaughter
I will not, because I will not get any extra time. I apologise for that.
There can be no other conclusion but that the—I use the word advisedly—apartheid state that exists on the west bank, which treats Palestinians as second or third-class citizens, including, increasingly, in the state of Israel itself, is using the cordoning off of Gaza simply to manage the current situation, because that is the one it finds least unacceptable. That situation will continue, and I see no hope of that being altered from the Israeli side.
Therefore, the situation in Palestine can be improved by only one thing: Palestinian unity, further elections, democracy and a recognition by the Palestinian people, wherever they live in Palestine, of the state of Israel. We can then have a mandate for a two-state solution and a recognition by not only Israel, but the rest of the world, including the UK, of a Palestinian state. That is the only thing that will jump-start this process.
The actions of the international community therefore become imperative. My hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Northfield, said that we should not trade or deal in any way with settlements that are illegal under international law. If the Israelis will not separate out, and make clear the difference between, Israeli and settlement produce, we should not enter into favourable trade agreements.
The view that many people in this country had of Israel over many years—that it was a liberal, democratic country—has been tarnished to such an extent that the overwhelming view here, and across the western world, is that Israel behaves as an occupying state and in a tyrannical way towards people who simply want what people in every country in this world want—the ability to live in peace, and self-determination. That is what the Palestinian people want; that is what the state of Israel will not give them. It will be Israel that loses out, just as the Palestinians have lost out, if they lose that support internationally. The demographic changes in Palestine mean that time is running out, not just for the two-state solution and peace, but for Israel itself.
Richard Graham (Gloucester) (Con)
It is a pleasure to join today’s debate. The plaudits heaped on my right hon. Friend the Member for North East Bedfordshire (Alistair Burt) have been considerable. I will not add to those, because he already knows of my respect for him. May I also warmly welcome my former colleague at the Foreign Office to his new place as Minister with responsibility for the middle east? He comes to the fray at a difficult and sensitive time, and we should all wish him good luck in his difficult task.
Today we debate a region that is large; its overall situation is dire and the scale of its humanitarian disaster is enormous. Britain’s contribution to dealing with some of the regional humanitarian crises is considerable. Let me focus, in the brief minutes available, on the situation in Gaza and Israel. My hon. Friend the Member for Harlow (Robert Halfon), who I think has just left, referred earlier to an Israeli policy of “muscular enlightenment”. I have huge respect for my hon. Friend, who has led the way on several enlightened policies adopted by the Government, but I do not think that that phrase is his happiest one. Nor do I think that it is a good description of current Israeli policy.
The truth is that those who make play of the cynicism of Hamas in putting military assets beside, or even inside, schools and hospitals, to explain civilian deaths, need to provide a compelling explanation of how four children on a beach represent a threat, let alone a target. Those who make play of being a democracy answerable to the people need to be able to explain how immediate military action is taken, without charges, against those suspected of murdering three Jewish teenagers, when progress in resolving the murder and burning of a Palestinian teenager so soon afterwards looks very slow. Those who make play of the rule of law must explain what is legal about the entirely illegal settlements, the continued appropriation of traditional Palestinian grazing lands in the west bank, and the destruction of Palestinian homes, particularly in East Jerusalem. Those who make play of shared values cannot be surprised when British citizens, including Jews, who see the level of apartheid on the ground in cities such as Hebron say that that does not reflect our values.
Before anyone leaps to conclusions, my remarks so far are not the opening salvo in a pro-Hamas speech—far from it. Hamas’s continued commitment to the complete destruction of Israel, and its importation of military hardware from Iran, whose leaders share similar views, is intolerable. None of us who live in this country has to deal with the concept of a neighbour whose approach to us starts with the idea of our complete destruction. However, the violence and deaths on each side will achieve little. As the Israeli ambassador recognised the other day, there is no real victory to be had. When a truce is struck, as surely it will be—we must pray for it to happen as soon as possible—Hamas’s military capacity will have been significantly damaged; but its recruitment of enraged young teenagers in Gaza will probably expand, and the emotional support for it, from British Muslims and others, is likely to increase. We will have to see what the impact will be on international support, such as further Palestinian efforts to involve the International Criminal Court.
That will leave us all frustrated, though not, I believe, half as frustrated as the many peaceful citizens whom I have met both in Israel and in Gaza. I therefore think that the Minister is likely to face more pressure, first to support sanctions as described by the hon. Member for Hammersmith (Mr Slaughter) against Israeli businesses based in illegal settlements; and secondly to support with intensity all efforts to get the peace talks started again. Thirdly, perhaps, there will be a question of pressure in some of the international areas that I alluded to. The months ahead, dealing with his new brief, will be difficult for the Minister. We can only hope that we will all try to stand back from being pro-Palestine, pro-Gaza, pro-Hamas or pro-Israel, and look at the issue as a monumental humanitarian disaster, from which few of us emerge with great credit.
Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Lab)
I apologise, Mr Sheridan, because I may not be here for part of the winding-up speeches, as there is a ministerial meeting with the all-party group on the African great lakes region at 4 pm.
I congratulate the right hon. Member for North East Bedfordshire (Alistair Burt) on obtaining the debate. I am sure that when he applied for it and I supported the application, we assumed that it would be about the entire region and north Africa; inevitably, however, in view of the crisis, Gaza and the west bank will dominate the debate. I have recorded relevant interests in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests, having visited Israel and Palestine nine times over the years.
My last visit to Gaza was depressing in the extreme, because I saw a place surrounded by a 1 km wide no-go zone. Anyone who ventures into that zone, whether a farmer or anyone else, will automatically be shot by machine guns placed on the fence between Gaza and Israel. Any fishing boat that goes more than a very short distance from shore will be shot at by Israeli naval vessels, and every day, all the time, surveillance planes, drones and so on fly over the Gaza strip. The people there live under siege and have done for a long time.
I know people in the Gaza Community Mental Health Foundation and Dr Munah Farah well. Their estimation is that at least two thirds of the population of Gaza suffer medical stress from the way they live, with constant food and water shortages, and constant insecurity of supply. That has been happening to those people not for just a few months but for many years. They live in an open-air prison, created and continued by the state of Israel. That is the cause of the deepest anger and frustration among ordinary people in Gaza. We would be angry and frustrated as well, if it was done to us.
Mrs Ellman
My hon. Friend describes a distressing situation; but does he recognise that it arose after Israel removed all its settlers and soldiers in 2005, only for Hamas to take control of Gaza and intensify rocket attacks on Israeli civilians?
Jeremy Corbyn
My hon. Friend has made that point many times. Israel withdrew its unwelcome settlements in 2005, as she points out, but it maintained border control and surveillance. It is not just that there has been bombing recently; there has been regular bombing by Israeli jets of targets along the Gaza strip. I make my point again: no one should live in an open-air prison, facing such horror and continued destruction.
Jeremy Corbyn
No, I will not give way again, because of the time.
Jocelyn Hurndall is a brave woman whose son Tom was shot in Rafa by Israeli troops while he was trying to defend children whose homes were being demolished by Israeli defence forces. In response to an interview given in The Independent by Daniel Taub, she wrote:
“Mr Taub, there is only one Gaza, currently being bombed to pieces by the might and sophistication of Israel’s military”.
She went on to say, in respect of the Israeli victims of any rockets that are sent:
“Fortunately, Israel has the infrastructure, funds and basic materials to build bomb shelters for its people. Palestinians in Gaza and the West Bank continue to suffer: an internationally recognised, illegal military occupation, extreme provocation brought about by settlement-building on Palestinian land in spite of international condemnation, the utter thwarting of prosperity due to closed borders and blocked coast, grossly disproportionate civilian deaths and injuries, the destruction of thousands of homes, and a lack of food, water and medical supplies.”
She describes the situation for people in Gaza.
When there are protests in the west bank, Gaza and, indeed, all over the world about Israel’s actions, surely it is time for the rest of the world to recognise that what is being done by Israel is illegal—it is collective punishment. Settlement building all across the west bank is illegal. It is very hard to see how the much vaunted two-state solution could even be dreamed to be possible given the level of settlements. I will use the word that others get very upset about: a sense of apartheid that has developed in the west bank, where there are settler-only roads, settler-only water supplies and there is settler-only occupation of land. That is the reality of life there.
Yes, there is opposition by Palestinians. Ever since there was an attempt to bring about a unity Government that involved Hamas as well as Fatah, Israel has upped the ante no end on a military basis. However, it is not true to say that everyone in Israel is supportive of Netanyahu or some of the extremists in his Government, or of the far extremists who want to see Israel occupying a large but so far unspecifically identified area. A week ago in Israel, there was a large demonstration of both Palestinians and Jewish people against the policies of the Israeli Government. Indeed, I draw Members’ attention to the Jews for Justice for Palestinians website, which lists eight very interesting points on how peace could come about, including by mutual recognition, by the ending of illegal settlements, and by the rest of the world ensuring that international law is carried out so that Israel is forced to accept that law just as it thinks everyone else should.
We are not going to solve this problem today, but the reaction of the British Government, and of all Governments, to incidents of illegal activity around the world has been rather strange and disproportionate. We have placed sanctions on Russia because of the activities in Ukraine and Crimea; Israel is in breach of a large number of UN resolutions, and it is clearly in breach of international law on both collective punishment and the settlement policy, but no sanctions whatever have been proposed.
In looking for a long-term peace, I urge that we look also at our own historical involvement in the region and the surrounding area. After the first world war, the area was divided up in the interests of the west. The forerunner of that action, the Sykes-Picot agreement, was done in secret and only revealed some years later through files kept in Moscow, and that was followed by the mandate system and the division of the whole region. Israel was established in 1948, and the 1967 war expanded its territory no end. Netanyahu’s policies seem to put no limit on Israeli expansion.
We need to be very serious with Israel about its breach of international law, its expansion policy and its treatment of people. I am critical of anyone who wants to bomb anyone else—I do not see that as a solution—but if a people are kept imprisoned and denied work, hope and opportunity, then consequences follow. Those consequences are great bitterness, great conflict and horrible loss of life. In the past few weeks, 200 Palestinians have died in Gaza, and sadly one Israeli has been killed as the result of one rocket landing. This is wholly disproportionate. It is a horrible way forward, and the demonstrations around the world show just how isolated Israel is and just how isolated are those Governments who think that they can keep on and on apologising for Israel’s behaviour rather than pressure it to do something different. Such Governments are becoming out of touch with the feelings of an awful lot of ordinary people all over the world. Today’s debate gives us the opportunity to say that, at least.
Mark Durkan (Foyle) (SDLP)
Like others, I commend the right hon. Member for North East Bedfordshire (Alistair Burt) for securing this debate and opening it with such a comprehensive look at the situation in the middle east and north Africa. I also want to take the opportunity to welcome the new Minister to his brief; I look forward to his response.
I too want to concentrate on the situation in Gaza and Israel. I come to the subject without interests to declare—I have no particular attachment—but with some experience of living and working somewhere that has known conflict and having been involved in practically all stages of a peace process. I am very conscious that in any situation of long-standing conflict, there needs to be a point at which people realise that they cannot be secure against each other; we can only truly be secure with each other. How that security is found, expressed and contained is different in different situations.
The two-state solution is obviously recommended for Palestine and Israel. We MPs repeat that constantly and we hear it repeated by Governments internationally. As someone with experience of a peace process, I must say that peace processes work well when the process itself starts to establish some of the givens that must be part of the solution. Just as our peace process ended up creating inclusion as a given of the process so that inclusion became a given of the outcome, we have to question why there cannot be more of a semblance of a two-state process in the middle east. That is why, along with other Members, I supported the bid for UN recognition on the behalf of the Palestinian Authority and others. That was not going to create an equal or real two-state situation, but it could have created some semblance of that.
In an intractable conflict situation, when we will all say from the outside that give and take is needed on both sides, the fact is that not all the givens can come from the people involved in the conflict. If external authorities and the international community are involved, they can intervene and use their status to create some of the givens, without surrender or compromise on the part of the parties concerned. That is where I believe the international community has been lax and remiss, not only in the context of the current onslaught that the people of Gaza are suffering, but in relation to the wider situation and our aspirations and support for a wider peace process in Palestine and the middle east.
I suppose it is fashionable for many of us to make the point about how one-sided America’s interest and involvement is, but we have to ask why so much of the other western interest or involvement at a wider level seems to amount to something like a screensaver stance. Images are projected, shapes are thrown and impressions are given, but nothing is really going on in terms of having any significant effect on what Israel is doing in respect of the Palestinian people.
I fully recognise and would defend and argue for the full right of the state of Israel to exist. I want to see that fully expressed by all others, not only in Palestine, but right across the region. That would be part of the prize available in the long-standing Arab peace initiative, which would set all the Arab states on the starting point of recognising the state of Israel and affirming its right to existence. However, despite being offered, that initiative has not been taken forward and used as a basis for anything.
I have listened to other right hon. and hon. Members speaking. I know from our situation in Northern Ireland that when people talk about the atrocities and outrages suffered in one community or territory, it is very easy for people to engage in “whataboutery” over what has been suffered and threatened in another community or territory. I hope we can all agree that we do not want to see civilians threatened, targeted or killed, whether they live in Israel or Gaza, or any other part of Palestine.
The word “terrorism” is bandied about, particularly in relation to Hamas. If “terrorism” means targeting and threatening civilians and civilian space to achieve or enforce a political end or to induce a change in someone else’s political thinking, it is a description that can as easily be attached to what the state of Israel is waging on the people of Gaza. That is precisely what Israel is doing—it is violence aimed at achieving a particular purpose and conditioning a change in political attitude.
I do not accept that there is any moral difference in the anti-civilian violence waged through Hamas rockets and that waged through the firepower of the Israeli defence forces against the people of Gaza. There is no moral difference in my book. Nor am I under any illusion that there is military equivalence between that violence, but that does not make the violence on either side right. There is no military equivalence. I am not trying to say that Hamas rockets are primitive and made out of bins—I am under no illusion about their sophistication—but there is no point pretending that there is military equivalence. People should not use such distracting and misplaced arguments to fail to answer the basic questions.
As other hon. Members have done, we all have to ask how long our moderation would last and survive if we were in the situation facing the people of Gaza. Any situation of repression sows the seeds of violence. When the basic conditions for living are denied, the basic conditions in which people strike out and kill are created. If Israel thinks that it will find security by waging destruction and potentially threatening invasion against the people of Gaza, there is no security there.
I am heartened to hear the number of Members who have referred to it being easy to talk about both sides but that there are people of peace and moderation living in Israel who do not support the current violence being waged by the Israeli defence forces and people of non-violence and moderation in Gaza who do not believe that Hamas’s violence will further their interests or rights, either.
Mark Lazarowicz (Edinburgh North and Leith) (Lab/Co-op)
I am glad for the opportunity to speak in this debate. It is a privilege to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Foyle (Mark Durkan). The wisdom he brings from his experience of trying to get out of conflict in his part of the world is such that we are fortunate to have his contribution to this debate.
I will concentrate on three main points. First, I will say something about the situation in Gaza. Many Members have already spoken about that, but like every other Member, a large number of my constituents have contacted me with their concerns about the situation in Gaza and I want to give voice to some of those concerns. My constituents who have contacted me are horrified by what they see as the powerful Israeli military machine being directed, to a great extent in its practical consequences, against a civilian population. Hundreds have been killed in Gaza, the vast majority civilians; hundreds more have been injured, and houses and basic infrastructure have been destroyed by that military action.
Like others who have spoken, I unreservedly condemn all violence, from whatever quarter it comes in Gaza. It may indeed be the case that the rocket attacks have killed only one person so far, but I fully accept that the very threat of that type of attack will cause terror among the potential victims, so I entirely condemn it. Like other colleagues, I condemn the horrific killing of the Israeli teenagers and the Palestinian teenager. We have all seen pictures of the deaths on a beach and elsewhere in Gaza, and they have horrified and shocked us all. It has to be said that in no way can that violence or the rocket attacks be regarded as justification for the extent of the response from Israeli forces. It seems to me that by any objective standard, the response has to be regarded as disproportionate and unacceptable, and I hope the British Government would condemn it.
Like colleagues, I want to see how we can move forward from the current situation. There were suggestions earlier today of a possible ceasefire, but the latest reports suggest that that is perhaps not as definite as it seemed. Perhaps they were just the preliminary discussions entertained before a ceasefire is actually declared, so let us hope that the ceasefire is brought about very soon, hopefully today. Even if it does come about, that ceasefire should not be regarded as the end of the process. Too often we have seen a ceasefire declared because of world pressure, world attention and the internal circumstances in Gaza, and then, as the world’s attention moves away, the ceasefire begins to disentangle for all sorts of reasons, it breaks down and any attempts to move forward become impossible. A number of steps need to be taken to ensure that, if a ceasefire does happen, it becomes a more long-lasting ceasefire that allows further movement.
The hon. Member for Beckenham (Bob Stewart), who has now left, suggested the presence of international monitors to verify a ceasefire and to ensure that actions are not taken to undermine it. That is a sensible suggestion that should be given more attention by the international community. There also needs to be an immediate supply of humanitarian relief to Palestinians in Gaza as a basis for lifting the blockade of Gaza, allowing the rebuilding of vital services and ending the effective siege that has lasted for such a long time, which has, as my hon. Friend the Member for Foyle highlighted, encouraged some to turn to violence as the only way forward in what they see as an impossible situation. There has to be an end to the illegal settlements on the west bank, which make it impossible to move forward with the peace process. The international community also has to make yet another effort to try to bring about a peace process, which all of us, whatever view we take on the issue, know is ultimately the only way to resolve the crisis that faces Gaza, Palestine and Israel collectively.
What are the UK Government doing with our partners to bring about a ceasefire and to ensure that that ceasefire works? What pressure will the UK Government put on all parties to ensure compliance with a ceasefire? Even in this difficult time, what is the UK doing to ensure that the peace process resumes in an effective way? We all know that step has to be taken.
I have two further brief points that have a certain bearing on what I said about the situation in Gaza and Palestine, but also have a wider bearing on the middle east more generally. First, the experience of so many of the Palestinian people over 70 years has been one of being refugees and displaced persons. That is a salutary reminder of a situation faced not only by Palestinians but by many in that part of the world and elsewhere. We were recently reminded on world refugee day by the Untied Nations High Commissioner for Refugees that, globally, the forcibly displaced population now tops 50 million for the first time since the second world war:
“We are seeing here the immense costs of not ending wars, of failing to resolve or prevent conflict. Peace is today dangerously in deficit. Humanitarians can help as a palliative, but political solutions are vitally needed. Without this, the alarming levels of conflict and the mass suffering that is reflected in these figures will continue.”
We should reflect on that statement, and on the situation, because the worldwide surge in refugees and displaced persons causes so much instability and suffering.
Finally, and briefly, I was not able to take part in the debate on the Syrian refugee programme yesterday as I was attending a Select Committee meeting. Given the promises we have made, it is disappointing that so far only 50 refugees have been found places in the UK under that scheme. The response of the Minister for Security and Immigration yesterday was disappointing. I hope that the UK Government will give a more positive response and fully support the refugee programme for Syria, as we ought to, so we can play our part in the international community’s response to the immediate and pressing demand in that country.
Mr Khalid Mahmood (Birmingham, Perry Barr) (Lab)
It is, as always, a privilege to be under your chairmanship, Mr Sheridan. I thank the right hon. Member for North East Bedfordshire (Alistair Burt) for securing this important debate. I realise that he originally intended to cover a far greater area, which is hugely necessary. I support that. The debate needs to be far wider, because there are issues in the rest of the area that need a serious hearing. That would be useful.
I start by paying tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Northfield (Richard Burden), who has been diligent in his approach to this issue for a long time, even before I came to this place. I also pay tribute to his persistence in trying to act as an honest broker to achieve things. Unfortunately, for a long period, we have not been very successful in doing so.
Let me make it clear that I wholly and unreservedly condemn Hamas attacks and rocket launches. There is absolutely no justification for that, and it should not be a way of trying to move forward. However, the right hon. Member for North East Bedfordshire said that there was no disproportionate action by the Israeli Government and the Israel Defence Forces. I beg to differ. I think that significantly disproportionate action has been taken by the IDF and the Israeli Government, and that there is a significant difference in what is going on, particularly in terms of the hardware available to the IDF: their military air, ground and sea power, and the technology of the Iron Dome missile protection shield.
All that is fine. It is protection, and in defence terms, that is needed. However, defence becomes aggression when people are targeted and restricted to living in a limited area, and then told, “We’ll tap you on the roof to tell you that if you don’t leave, there will be a missile to follow, and you’ll be obliterated.” It becomes difficult for a huge populace squashed into a small land mass. The area is under lockdown. People here have called it a prison, and I do not disagree with that description. The people there have no access by sea or air, and no real access by land. We have discussed how we can get people to move out. Sometimes, even when it happens, four children playing on a beach get killed, so where do those people go?
Jim Shannon
I appreciate the point the hon. Gentleman is making. I think he is aware, like others in this House, that Hamas has used civilians as cover for its activities. I am sure he condemns that as well.
Mr Mahmood
I have no problem condemning it, but I will come to that point later.
A lot of statistics have been bandied about today, particularly by the hon. Member for Brigg and Goole (Andrew Percy), who is not in his place at the moment. I will give a few statistics as well. According to current figures from the United Nations, 77% of Palestinian fatalities so far have been civilians, which raises concerns about respect for international humanitarian law. Some 23 medical facilities and 81 schools have been damaged by shelling; 214 Palestinians have been killed, including at least 164 civilians, of whom 44 were children and 29 women; 1,585 Palestinians have been injured, of whom 435 are children and 282 are women; 1,660 homes have been destroyed or severely damaged, directly displacing 9,900 persons.
We have been talking about people’s ability to move out of that confined space in a difficult area. Whether Hamas uses people as human shields has been mentioned. The problem is that there is no real civil or policing structure left in the area to get hold of what Hamas does. That is the result of continuous bombing of police stations and civil buildings even before Hamas came into power, when the Palestine Liberation Organisation was in control. In a way, that policy allowed Hamas to come to power, by continually weakening the authority that wanted to talk and move forward. Day in, day out, their existence was continually eroded. Then Hamas, for all its ills, was elected. That is what happens when people cannot respond to their situation: they turn to what they feel can get them out of it. What happens in those circumstances is an issue.
The people in that area have no choice. We insist that the UN place people in there to protect the people and do something about it. We should speak to the Arab League and say, “You put some people in there, so we can at least have some sort of stability for the people in the area,” because ultimately, it is they who suffer as a consequence. We try to go back to the peace process. For too long, I have heard about the idea of the peace process. We have not had a proper negotiation at any stage about the peace process. That will not and cannot happen, purely because the settlements continue and the Israeli Government have erected the wall, and because of their treatment of the right of the Palestinian population there to life and a decent standard of civil liberties. Until that is addressed, we will never get to a position where things can be dealt with positively and we can have recourse to a settlement between the two peoples.
We all say that a two-state solution is right—that the Israelis and the Palestinians should both have the right to exist—but how do we bring that into being? We are just talking nonsense, by and large. That is not practical in view of what is going on, until somebody has the gall to stand up to Israel and say, “Look, if you want to sort this out, we have to have new measures and new ways of looking at this. Overreaction to what is going on in Gaza is not a way forward and will not help us.”
Grahame M. Morris (Easington) (Lab)
It is a pleasure, as always, to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Sheridan. I think that I explained the reasons why I was late, and I apologise to the right hon. Member for North East Bedfordshire (Alistair Burt) for being late and congratulate him on securing this important debate.
Unfortunately, at this late stage of the debate much of what I was planning to say has already been covered, so I will spare the Minister and the other Members who remain the injustice of hearing the statistics repeated. However, I would like to say that this issue is not only one for the Palestinian or the Arab diaspora here in the UK and in the rest of Europe. I am the MP for Easington and I declare an interest as chair of Labour Friends of Palestine and the Middle East, because I want to speak about the situation in Gaza and Israel.
This is a social justice issue. I heard many of the comments that Members made today, and frankly some sense was spoken on all sides. However, when someone starts to stretch the truth too thinly, people—even ordinary people and people of limited intelligence such as myself—can start to see through it, and that is starting to happen.
We are at a tipping point for the middle east. The UK Government have a critical role to play, and members of the wider international community could act as honest brokers for peace and take some practical action to tackle the root cause of the conflict, which is—let us be plain about it—the illegal occupation of Palestine. Tackling that would prevent extremism from escalating on both sides.
I will echo the comments not of a member of my party but of the right hon. Gentleman’s party, who spoke during this week’s exchanges following the urgent statement and told the House that he had heard the same responses to the same events for 30 years. I think that was the right hon. Member for Mid Sussex (Sir Nicholas Soames).
Grahame M. Morris
The right hon. Member for Mid Sussex said that he had heard the same responses for 30 years. I ask the Minister this: is it not beyond time that the international community, with Britain at the forefront, lived up to its obligation to end this humanitarian disaster? For 30 years we have seen this happening, and we are having the same debates over and over again, with no progress to report. We can no longer continue to focus exclusively on negotiations. I will do everything I can—I think I will be protesting outside the Israeli embassy on Saturday—to further the cause of peace and a ceasefire. We have to go beyond focusing on negotiations. We cannot continue to ignore the main barriers to peace, which include the failure to hold Israel accountable for its human rights violations. The annexations—
Grahame M. Morris
I will give way only once, because I am very short of time.
Mrs Ellman
I thank my hon. Friend for giving way. There is no doubt that in this long-running tragic dispute there is fault on all sides. However, does he think that the Palestinians are in any way culpable for jeopardising the possibility of peace, when after the Oslo accords were signed the Palestinian Authority—under the leadership of Yasser Arafat—unleashed a series of suicide bombings on the young people of Jerusalem?
Grahame M. Morris
I was going to come on to the Oslo accords and their consequences. I know that my hon. Friend raised issues earlier relating to some of the things that had happened—the reactions and so on—but we have to move on. It is 20 years since Oslo. On the undertakings given, particularly in respect of the withdrawal from Gaza, we are talking about illegal settlements that were set up by Israel and were against international conventions.
The Deputy Prime Minister recently acknowledged the collective punishments dished out to the Palestinian people, which have consequences in terms of brutalising people. As was said earlier, the current military action will, I am sure, degrade the capability of Hamas and other extremist groups to wage an armed campaign against Israel, but sadly it will be counter-productive, because it will radicalise many thousands, or potentially millions, of others in Gaza, the west bank and a number of countries, perhaps even in Europe. The Israelis, who hold all the cards and have all the power and might, have to recognise that the way to peace and justice for both Israel and Palestine is a just and negotiated settlement. We have to tackle the root cause, and we have to hold Israel accountable for its human rights violations, the annexation of Palestinian land and the continued expansion of illegal settlements; they are illegal in international law.
I have had the opportunity to go and see some of these settlements. I was accompanied by Jewish human rights groups, who share the concerns of the international community about some of the things that have been happening, such as the infrastructure network being available exclusively to Israeli settlements and the restrictions on the water resources, which particularly affect the Bedouin Arabs. They have a miserable existence. When I went to see them, I had a vision of a “Lawrence of Arabia”-type situation, with lovely tents and so on, but they live in absolute squalor, moving from place to place, and they are restricted, with the Israeli authorities declaring areas—on a whim, it would appear—to be military training areas or national parks. That is just a clear abuse, and a collective punishment, and it has to stop if we are to see a just and lasting peace.
The Minister is new to his post and I wish him well, because we have had these arguments before, even though I have only been a Member of this House for four years. It is a serious issue and I do not mean to laugh, but his predecessor, the right hon. Member for North East Bedfordshire, will know that we have had lengthy debates and informal meetings, and we have tried every which way to push these things forward in a reasonable and businesslike fashion. I want the UK Government to be serious, and I hope that when my party is sitting on the Government Benches in a year’s time, we will be much more proactive.
We need to replace rhetoric with actions and demand an immediate end to the blockade of Gaza. We have heard from right hon. and hon. Members, including those who have visited Gaza, about the suffering of the people, and about the impact on the water supply, the sewerage system, and the hospitals. We must insist on an end to this blockade, and a complete freeze on illegal settlement growth. We must also halt trade with and investment in illegal Israeli settlements in the west bank. We should support a phased approach to ending the occupation of the west bank and East Jerusalem, and have greater international mediation, with a larger role for the EU. Most importantly, the international community must set out clear parameters, targets and consequences to the failure to end violations in order to make progress. I know that targets are not popular with the Conservatives, but those targets should include sanctions when Israel does not comply.
We must understand the crisis in the wider context, which is a seven-year blockade of Gaza that has left its people facing an absolute humanitarian crisis. We had an excellent debate here in Westminster Hall, in which the impact of that crisis was elaborated on, but it is time to go beyond rhetoric. We need action from the British Government; they must take a lead.
Jim Sheridan (in the Chair)
Order. Before calling the Front-Bench spokesmen, I point out that Mr Burt has indicated that he would like three minutes to wind up the debate after both Front-Bench spokesmen have spoken, if that time can be factored in.
Ian Lucas (Wrexham) (Lab)
It is a real pleasure to see you in the Chair, Mr Sheridan, and to listen to the right hon. Member for North East Bedfordshire (Alistair Burt), who gave a powerful and, of course, knowledgeable introduction to the topic.
I want to range more widely than simply focusing on the Israel-Gaza issue, because there are so many hugely important issues in the middle east and north Africa. I am conscious that that we have said very little at all about North Africa, but of course in the circumstances it was inevitable that we would talk a great deal about Israel and Gaza. The violence and deaths in Gaza, and the firing of rockets into Israel and the casualties arising therefrom continue, regrettably, today. It is imperative that the immediate conflict stops, that we secure a ceasefire, and that we begin a political process that will secure enduring peace. As we all know, that demands leadership and compromise by all parties. However, there is no alternative if this cycle of violence is not to intensify, with more people dead, maimed and traumatised. That is in no one’s interest. There is no purpose in the violence continuing. It achieves nothing; there is no point.
We have had conversations like this before. The Minister is new to his post; he is the third middle east Minister that I have dealt with since I have had this brief. I sense an atmosphere at present of profound change in the attitude towards this intractable issue. I hope that the ceasefire will come, and that we will see that as an opportunity for intense political activity to try to address the problems and issues that we have been discussing.
Of course, we need to extend the ceasefire for as long as possible, but we must take immediate action to offer support on the humanitarian issues in Gaza. We need to work hard to secure a resolution to this conflict, because the other important thing about Israel-Palestine in the middle east is that it is an issue right across the Arab world. It is important to the Arab world’s view of countries such as the United Kingdom, and of Europe and the United States, and it is at the heart of the views of some Arab people that major powers in the region have double standards. Until we take action and secure real progress on this issue, that will undermine our relationships with many of the emerging Governments in the region. That issue demands our attention.
We are, of course, seeing profound change in Iraq. The recent announcement of a proposed referendum by the Kurdish Regional Government casts doubt on the future of Iraq. This, coupled with the horrific violence meted out by ISIS and other terrorist groups, both in Iraq and Syria, has created a febrile environment across the middle east in which established states no longer appear to be in control of their borders. Will the Minister please update the House on what recent discussions the Government have had concerning a referendum in Iraq? What discussions have they had with Iran—I know that there are efforts to have discussions with the chargé d’affaires from Iran—and Turkey about their view of developments in northern Iraq?
In the context of what is happening in the middle east, the four largest powers in the region, Egypt, Turkey, Iran and Saudi Arabia, can play an even more important role than previously. It is striking to me that countries such as Turkey and Iran, with what appear to be fundamentally different foreign policy perspectives in the region, still maintain a working bilateral relationship, despite areas of profound disagreement, for example, on Syria. That means that they can still have a relationship that works. This is a time when the ending of violence and re-establishment of order across the region requires those regional powers to talk and agree to influence those people they communicate with to secure peace and more stability.
The middle east’s current state of ferment is not in the interest of its peoples. legitimate Governments in the region need to find a way of securing stability together, so that economic development can take place. We have not spoken a great deal about that since the right hon. Member for North East Bedfordshire mentioned prosperity in the region, although that is important. He knows that I have travelled a great deal in the region, although not quite as much as he has. It is a region with a huge number of ambitious young people, who have great expectations and want to make progress in their lives, but all the political difficulty is preventing economic stability from being secured. Unless we can get a stable political situation, to enable economic progress to occur, those disappointed expectations will result in a much more dangerous situation. This is something that the Governments of the middle east must ultimately secure for themselves.
There are shafts of light. I am pleased that the right hon. Gentleman mentioned Tunisia. We both mention it because it is an example of a difficult political situation that was addressed by politicians from different parties and traditions with different views, who went through difficult times—individuals, including politicians, were killed because of their views—but they reached an agreed constitution with so-called Islamist parties and parties from a secular tradition and are moving forward. The constitutional committee in Tunisia chaired by Mustapha Ben Jaafar has achieved a great deal and shows that progress can be made. I commend the work of the British Government, through the Arab Partnership, in supporting that. It is important that we use that as an example and give the Tunisian people all the support we can, so that we have an example of progress being made. Tunisia is where the Arab spring started. If there is to be real progress in the region, we need to hold on to that example.
Morocco has also taken positive steps, through initiatives for reform of its constitutional monarchy. It is to be hoped that Algeria—another hugely important country that we have not touched on today—following recent presidential elections, can find a way forward with Morocco to address their historical differences, so that both countries can progress economically. Two countries with a closed border between them cannot achieve progress in trade worldwide when they will not even trade with each other.
We need to try to build on areas of stability, because there are further threats within the region: in the Sahel, extending south into sub-Saharan Africa, where conditions in South Sudan, Sudan, Nigeria, Kenya—
Jim Sheridan (in the Chair)
Order. I am sorry to stop the hon. Gentleman, but the Minister needs time to respond.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr Tobias Ellwood)
It is a pleasure to work under your chairmanship, Mr Sheridan. I thank the hon. Member for Wrexham (Ian Lucas) for his comments.
I am grateful to be able to respond to a wide-ranging, intelligent and informative debate. I join other hon. Members in paying an enormous tribute to my right hon. Friend the Member for North East Bedfordshire (Alistair Burt), who was a formidable Foreign Office Minister and did this Government, and indeed Parliament, proud in strengthening relationships in the middle east and North Africa. I am proud and honoured to follow in his footsteps, as well as those of my right hon. Friend the Member for Faversham and Mid Kent (Hugh Robertson).
Dr Julian Lewis
Although I found myself in the opposite camp over arming the rebels in Syria, I say to my right hon. Friend who secured this debate that I was amazed at the courtesy and forbearance that he always showed, even though we were totally at loggerheads over the issue. I know that was not unique to me; that is the way he behaves with everybody.
Mr Ellwood
I am grateful for my hon. Friend’s intervention—and grateful that it was brief.
I have limited time to respond to what was an amazing debate. Hon. Members can imagine my delight, given the expertise of my right hon. Friend the Member for North East Bedfordshire, that on day two of my appointment I am called to reply to a three-hour debate on the middle east. He paid tribute to the expertise of the House, and I echo that. It has been reflected in today’s debate. I will not be able to cover the 21 countries under my brief, or the details. I have already made a commitment to myself—given the short amount of time and to give time for my right hon. Friend to respond—that I will write to Members in response to the details they brought up. There are, however, a couple of issues that I would like to get on the record.
The Government’s long-term commitment remains as supporting a more secure, prosperous region, with political stability based on open, inclusive political systems and economies, but as my right hon. Friend has outlined so articulately, countries in the region continue to face serious challenges. Over recent weeks, we have seen the escalation of violence in Gaza and southern Israel, and the growing threat posed by the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant, which I saw first hand on a visit to northern Iraq only a month ago.
The situation in Syria is particularly bleak, with tens of thousands of civilian deaths and more than 10 million people in need of humanitarian assistance. Elsewhere, many countries that witnessed uprisings in 2011 continue to take steps towards reform, but their successes are fragile, as we have heard, and need continued support. Recent elections in Libya may be an important step in the country’s transition to a more democratic future, but serious security challenges remain. In Egypt, as has been mentioned, we continue to urge President al-Sisi to uphold fundamental freedoms and rights and to open up the political space.
We have seen progress in Yemen’s political transition, but instability and economic challenges threaten to undermine those efforts. On a more positive note, as my right hon. Friend the Member for North East Bedfordshire has articulated, Tunisia’s drive for an inclusive transition has produced marked progress on the development of political systems needed to bring long-term stability, although the economic situation remains critical.
In the limited time available, I turn to Gaza, which has been the focus of many Members’ attention. As the Foreign Secretary made clear to the House on 14 July, we remain deeply concerned by the escalation of violence in Gaza and southern Israel. Israel has the right to defend itself against indiscriminate rocket attacks, but it is vital that Gaza’s civilian population is protected. The UK has three objectives: to secure a long-term ceasefire agreed by both sides, to alleviate humanitarian suffering, and to keep alive the prospects for future peace negotiations. The UK remains in close contact with Israeli and Palestinian leaders and continues to work with international partners, including the US, Egypt and Arab partners, to support those objectives.
I spoke to our embassy in Tel Aviv today and our consulate general in Jerusalem, which represents British interests in the Occupied Palestinian Territories. Implementation of any 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. We continue to judge that a negotiated two-state solution is the only way to resolve the conflict once and for all. The UK will continue to do all it can to support and advance US efforts to that end. I am sad to report that there are unofficial reports that, while the temporary ceasefire has closed, rockets have been moving from both sides, which is not good news, if that is the case.
To conclude, the region is facing numerous serious challenges and change will continue to be led by the region, not external actors. The UK has an important role to play with the international community in supporting those working to tackle conflict and to build a more stable, prosperous middle east and north Africa, based on strengthened consent and popular participation.
To meet the challenges of this volatile and ever-changing part of the world, we have continued to develop our approach since the uprisings of 2011. Through our Arab Partnership reform—I pay tribute to the work that my right hon. Friend the Member for North East Bedfordshire has done, and we have seen £65 million put into that project this year—we are supporting those who are tackling conflict and implementing reform. We are striking a balance between addressing short-term insecurity and laying the foundations for long-term stability, based on open, inclusive political systems and economies. We must accept, however, that that is the work of a generation, and we should not be deterred by setbacks along the way because, as the Prime Minister has made clear, the success of the middle east and north Africa is not only in the interests of the region, but of the UK and the world.
Nadhim Zahawi
I congratulate the Minister on his appointment. I want to talk about ISIS and Kurdistan. Has he begun to consider a scenario where Baghdad is no longer functional and whether we would then support the Kurds in their fight against ISIS? My other point is the one that I made on oil exports. We remain neutral on that, but other countries, such as Morocco, do not. Has he considered making representations to Morocco and other countries, asking them to remain neutral on that?
Mr Ellwood
I am grateful for that intervention. I heard those issues on my recent visit. They are placed on the record, and I will get back to my hon. Friend with some details on how that might be pursued.
Mr Slaughter
Will the Minister fulfil our obligation under international law by ending trade with illegal settlements? Will he investigate the point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Northfield (Richard Burden) on whether British arms that we supplied are being used in the current conflict by the Israelis? If they are, what will the Minister do about that?
Mr Ellwood
Again, that is one of the issues that I would have loved to touch on, had there been time. I made some notes on the case as the hon. Member for Birmingham, Northfield was speaking, and if I may, I will come back on that. I have some detailed notes, and I would be delighted to respond.
I thank my right hon. Friend the Member for North East Bedfordshire for bringing this important debate to the House. I hope that we will return to the issue. I thank all right hon. and hon. Members for their contributions, and I apologise that I cannot reply in detail now, but I will write to each of those who made a contribution today individually and respond to their questions.
Alistair Burt
I thank all colleagues for taking part in the debate, which demonstrated how important it is to speak rather more about the middle east and north Africa in the House. I hope that we can do so in the future. I thank both Front Benchers, and my hon. Friend the Minister was right to pay tribute to his predecessor, my right hon. Friend the Member for Faversham and Mid Kent (Hugh Robertson), who did a great job. I thank the Minister for his response. I also thank the hon. Member for Wrexham (Ian Lucas); we have been around the world a bit together over the past couple of years and it has always been a pleasure. I have enjoyed his company and the assiduity with which he approaches his role, and I pay tribute to that. It helps the whole House to know that almost every colleague who speaks on the subject is full of knowledge.
The Minister and Members will have found that I was right when I spoke about the experience and knowledge in this place, and I am grateful for the odd reference to things other than Gaza during the debate, not least Bahrain. Bahrain is one of those states that responded quite extraordinarily to the events of February 2011. It got things wrong at the beginning, but its independent report was unique in the context. Nevertheless, it has to continue with the process of reform. The United Kingdom is right not only to keep pressing on that, but to encourage opposition and Government there to come together.
I was also right to recognise at the beginning of the debate that there would be passion and grief associated with our respective views on Israel and Palestine. We have heard a very articulate representation of the differences between competing points of view. As I said in my opening remarks, we have heard all the historical stuff. We know all that. There are rights and wrongs on both sides—we get it. The question is how to move on from where we are. There is more than one disputed explanation of any agreed set of facts in the area.
We are united in the view that we cannot go on like this. The cycle of attack and reprisal is not delivering peace or security to either Israelis or Palestinians. We grieve for each and every life lost, particularly the children. We urge that those responsible move away from cataloguing the rights and wrongs and, this time, tie up a cessation of violence with the bold political steps that are needed. It will be for President Netanyahu and President Abbas to deliver the agreement to their people that we all want to see. If that cannot be done, sooner or later the situation will get still further out of control. As I have said to both on many occasions, each has to recognise that they are no longer each other’s worst enemy. There are things that are worse in the region. Sooner or later, something cataclysmic will happen and we will look back and regret that the opportunity that was there to secure an agreement and secure peace was not taken. The British Government must continue to work with all sides to do as much as we possibly can to secure the agreement that is absolutely necessary.
Question put and agreed to.
Written Statements
(9 years, 9 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Counter-Terrorism Asset Freezing Regime
(9 years, 9 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr David Gauke)
Under the Terrorist Asset-Freezing etc. Act 2010 (“TAFA 2010”), the Treasury is required to report to Parliament, quarterly, on its operation of the UK’s asset-freezing regime mandated by UN Security Council Resolution 1373.
This is the 14th report under the Act and it covers the period from 1 April 2014 to 30 April 2014. This report also covers the UK implementation of the UN al-Qaeda asset-freezing regime and the operation of the EU asset-freezing regime in the UK under EU regulation (EC) 2580/2001 which implements UNSCR 1373 against external terrorist threats to the EU. Under the UN al-Qaeda asset-freezing regime, the UN has responsibility for designations and the Treasury has responsibility for licensing and compliance with the regime in the UK under the Al-Qaeda (Asset-Freezing) Regulations 2011. Under EU regulation 2580/2001, the EU has responsibility for designations and the Treasury has responsibility for licensing and compliance with the regime in the UK under part 1 of TAFA 2010.
Annexes A and B to this statement provide a breakdown, by name, of all those designated by the UK and the EU in pursuance of UN Security Council Resolution 1373.
The following table sets out the key asset-freezing activity in the UK during the quarter ending 30 June 2014:
TAFA 2010 | EU Reg (EC) 2580/2001 | Al-Qaeda Regime UNSCR1989 | |
|---|---|---|---|
Assets frozen (as at 30/06/2014) | £101,000 | £11,0001 | £58,0002 |
Number of accounts frozen in UK (at 30/06/14) | 46 | 10 | 24 |
New accounts frozen (during Q2 2014) | 6 | 0 | 0 |
Accounts unfrozen (during Q2 2014) | 0 | 0 | 0 |
Number of designations (at 30/06/14) | 30 | 363 | 280 |
(i) New designations (during Q2 2014) | 1 | 0 | 6 |
(ii) Delistings (during Q2 2014) | 0 | 0 | 5 |
(iii) Individuals in custody in UK (at 30/06/2014) | 4 | 0 | 0 |
(iv) Individuals in UK, not in custody (at 30/06/2014) | 4 | 0 | 3 |
(v) Individuals overseas (at 30/06/2014) | 14 | 11 | 211 |
(vi) Groups | 8 (0 in UK) | 25 (1 in UK) | 66 |
Individuals by nationality (i) UK Nationals4 (ii) Non UK Nationals | 7 8 14 | n/a | n/a |
Renewal of designation (during Q2 2014) | 1 | n/a | n/a |
General Licences (i) Issued in Q2 (ii) Amended (iii) Revoked | (i) 0 (ii) 0 (iii) 0 | ||
Specific Licences: | |||
(i) Issued in Q2 (ii) Amended (iii) Expired (iv) Refused | 10 2 1 1 | 0 0 0 0 | 1 0 0 0 |
1This does not duplicate funds frozen under TAFA. 2This figure reflects the most up-to-date account balances available and includes approximately $64,000 of funds frozen in the UK. This has been converted using exchange rates as of 30/06/2014. 3This figure is based on ex-designations where the UK freeze forms the prior competent authority decision for the EU freeze. 4Based on information held by the Treasury, some of these individuals hold dual nationality. |
Legal Proceedings
1. The damages claim brought by Gulam Mastafa against a number of Government Departments, including the Treasury, has been stayed behind another case.
2. A judicial review was brought against the Department in relation to the question of whether certain designations should be generally publicised or only notified on a restricted basis. Due to the nature of these proceedings it is not possible to provide any further information.
3. In the quarter to 30 June 2014, no criminal proceedings were initiated in respect of breaches of asset freezes made under TAFA 2010 or under the Al-Qaeda (Asset-Freezing) Regulations 2011, though we have worked closely with the police and CPS on a number of investigations that may result in prosecution. Additionally, one individual was cautioned during the quarter for breach of restrictions in the Terrorist Asset-Freezing etc. Act 2010 that apply to designated persons.
Annex A—Designated persons under TAFA 2010 by name5
Individuals
1. Hamed Abdollahi
2. Bilal Talal Abdullah
3. Imad Khalil Al-Alami
4. Abdelkarim Hussein Al-Nasser
5. Ibrahim Salih Al-Yacoub
6. Manssor Arbabsiar
7. Moazzam Begg
8. Usama Hamdan
9.Nur Idiris Hassan Nur
10. Nabeel Hussain
11. Hasan Izz-al-Din
12. Mohammed Khaled
13. Parviz Khan
14. Musa Abu Marzouk
15. Khalid Mishaal
16. Khalid Shaikh Mohammed
17. Sultan Muhammad
18. Abdul Reza Shahlai
19. Ali Gholam Shakuri
20. Qasem Soleimani
21. A
22. B
Entities
1. BASQUE FATHERLAND AND LIBERTY (ETA)
2. EJERCITO DE LIBERACION NACIONAL (ELN)
3. FUERZAS ARMADAS REVOLUCIONARIAS DE COLOMBIA (FARC)
4. HIZBALLAH MILITARY WING, INCLUDING EXTERNAL SECURITY ORGANISATION
5. HOLY LAND FOUNDATION FOR RELIEF AND DEVELOPMENT
6. POPULAR FRONT FOR THE LIBERATION OF PALESTINE—GENERAL COMMAND (PFLP-GC)
7. POPULAR FRONT FOR THE LIBERATION OF PALESTINE (PFLP)
8. SENDERO LUMINOSO (SL)
5For full listing details please refer to: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/current-list-of-designated-persons-terrorism-and-terrorist-financing.
Annex B—Persons designated by the EU under Council Regulation (EC)2580/20016
Persons
1. Hamed Abdollahi*
2. Abdelkarim Hussein Al-Nasser*
3. Ibrahim Salih Al Yacoub*
4. Manssor Arbabsiar*
5. Mohammed Bouyeri
6. Sofiane Yacine Fahas
7. Hasan Izz-Al-Din*
8. Khalid Shaikh Mohammed*
9. Abdul Reza Shahlai*
10. Ali Gholam Shakuri*
11. Qasem Soleimani*
Groups and Entities
1. Abu Nidal Organisation (ANO)
2. Al-Aqsa E.V.
3. Al-Aqsa Martyrs’ Brigade
4. Al-Takfir and Al-Hijra
5. Babbar Khalsa
6. Communist Party of the Philippines, including New People’s Army (NPA), Philippines
7. Devrimci Halk Kurtulu Partisi-Cephesi—DHKP/C (Revolutionary People’s Liberation Army/Front/Party)
8. Ejército de Liberación Nacional (National Liberation Army)*
9. Fuerzas armadas revolucionarias de Colombia (FARC)*
10. Gama’a al-lslamiyya (a.k.a. Al-Gama’a al-lslamiyya) (Islamic Group—IG)
11. Hamas, including Hamas-Izz al-Din al-Qassem
12. Hizballah Military Wing, including external security organisation
13. Hizbul Mujahideen (HM)
14. Hofstadgroep
15. Holy Land Foundation for Relief and Development*
16. International Sikh Youth Federation (ISYF)
17. Islami Büyük Dogu Akincilar Cephesi (IBDA-C) (Great Islamic Eastern Warriors Front)
18. Khalistan Zindabad Force (KZF)
19. Kurdistan Workers Party (PKK) (a.k.a. KONGRA-GEL)
20. Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE)
21. Palestinian Islamic Jihad (PIJ)
22. Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine (PFLP)—General Command (PFLP-GC)*
23. Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine—(PFLP)*
24. Sendero Luminoso (SL) (Shining Path)*
25. Teyrbazen Azadiya Kurdistan (TAK)
6For full listing details please refer to: www.gov.uk.
*EU listing rests on UK designation under TAFA 2010.
Government Pipeline and Storage System
(9 years, 9 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence (Mr Philip Dunne)
In 2013, the Ministry of Defence (MOD) included provisions in the Energy Act to enable sale of the Government pipeline and storage system (GPSS). During passage of the Bill, Government Ministers were clear that a final decision to sell the system had not been taken and was subject to further work to confirm the case for sale.
Given these assurances it is appropriate for me to provide an update to the House. Work on the sale was carried out in parallel with the legislative process and has extended into this year. MOD and its advisers have paid particular attention to assessing the investment required to meet the stringent safety and environmental standards introduced in the wake of the 2005 Buncefield accident as well as identifying the risks and opportunities for the business in the civilian downstream oil sector. It remains the case that commercial customers account for the majority of the GPSS throughput. MOD undertook market testing earlier this year and considers there to be a significant level of interest in purchasing the GPSS.
We have concluded that sale of the GPSS would allow Government to transfer the financial risks of operating in the downstream oil market to the private sector, while still preserving the GPSS’s military capability and ensuring that national resilience is not compromised.
The Department will now begin the sale process by inviting expressions of interest. The sale will be publicised in the press and through the defence contracts bulletin. MOD intends to complete the sale in the current financial year. The GPSS clauses contained within the Energy Act will be enacted by a commencement order before sale completion.
The Oil and Pipelines Agency which manages the GPSS on MOD’s behalf is today writing to key suppliers and customers informing them of the sale process.
School Funding
(9 years, 9 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Schools (Mr David Laws)
I am today announcing how we will allocate £390 million of additional schools funding to the least fairly funded local areas in England. This will ensure fairer funding of English schools.
When I addressed the House in March on fairer schools funding, I confirmed the Government’s commitment to ensure that, across the country, schools have a fair funding allocation that equips them to provide a world-class education. Since then, we have consulted on a proposal to allocate additional funding to schools in the least fairly funded areas.
The consultation has confirmed that there is an overwhelming consensus that the allocation of funding to local areas across England is unfair.
The proposal we consulted on was as follows. First, we would protect all local authority budgets at the same cash level in 2015-16 as in 2014-15. After this, we would increase the budgets of the least fairly funded local areas by setting minimum funding levels that all areas should attract for their pupils and schools. Where a local area already attracted these minimum funding levels, we would not make any change to the amount of funding per pupil that it received for 2015-16. If a local area attracted less than these minimum funding levels for the pupils and schools in its area, we would increase its budget so that it met those levels.
I have listened carefully to the views of hon. Members and considered over 570 responses to the consultation. I am confirming today that we will allocate extra money to the least fairly funded local areas using the approach we set out in our recent consultation. I have concluded that this is the fairest way of distributing the additional funding we have available. I am pleased to say that we are allocating £390 million additional funding— £40 million more than I announced in March.
Sixty-nine local areas will attract additional funding. My announcement today means that, for example, Cambridgeshire—the lowest funded area in 2014-15— will now receive an additional £311 for every pupil. Northumberland will now receive an additional £307 for each of its pupils and Croydon an additional £278.
Through the additional funding we are making available, every local area’s allocation of funding will reflect a minimum basic per pupil amount and minimum amounts reflecting other pupil and school characteristics. In every local area, this will mean for example that the most deprived pupils in primary schools will attract at least £4,454; in key stage 3 at least £5,820; and key stage 4 at least £6,372, and this will continue to be supplemented by further direct funding through the pupil premium.
In the consultation we published in March this year, we gave an initial indication of how, under our proposal, additional funding might be allocated to local areas. We were clear that these indicative figures were calculated using the most recent data available at that time, and that we would use updated data for the final allocations. We were clear that this meant that the distribution of additional funding to local authorities would be different from the indicative allocations set out in the consultation.
The additional funding that we will allocate to local authorities addresses the unfair distribution of mainstream schools funding. During the consultation I have heard the concern that we will not have a completely fair education funding system until we also reform the distribution of funding for pupils with high-cost special educational needs and for early years pupils. This will be our priority for reform during the next Parliament, alongside introducing a full national funding formula for schools.
In the 69 local areas that will attract additional funding, schools forums will now be able to agree a local funding formula for 2015-16. Our intention is that schools in these areas should receive the full benefit of the additional funding we are making available: the local authority should not hold back the extra funding to pay for centrally provided services. However, I want to be clear that it is for local authorities, in consultation with their schools forum, to decide how they distribute this additional funding between the schools in their area. If it is the collective judgment of a schools forum that there is a better way of distributing funding locally, then schools will not receive a budget that reflects each of the minimum funding levels directly.
Today’s announcement of an additional £390 million increase in funding will make a real difference on the ground in the least fairly funded local areas, without creating instability and uncertainty in other local areas. We remain committed to taking the next vital steps towards fully fair funding once long-term spending plans are in place after the next spending review.
I will place copies of the documents I have published today in the House Library.
Government Wine Cellar
(9 years, 9 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mark Simmonds)
I have today placed a copy of the annual statement on the Government wine cellar for the financial year 2013-14 in the Libraries of both Houses.
Following the outcome of the review of the Government hospitality wine cellar, this third annual statement continues our commitment that there would be annual statements to Parliament on the use of the wine cellar, covering consumption, stock purchases, costs, and value for money. The wine cellar is now self-funding through the sale of some high-value stock and payments made by other Government Departments to Government hospitality.
The report notes that:
Sales of stock amounted to £56,000 (in comparison to £63,300 in FY 2012-13);
Further funds from other Government Departments added £16,762 to the overall receipts (a slight decrease in comparison to 2012-13);
Purchases amounted to £50,054 (in comparison to £45,866 in 2011-12);
For the second time the highest consumption level by volume was of English wine, at 48% of the total (in comparison to 49% in 2012-13); and
Consumption dropped in 2013-14 by around 13.5%.
International Justice (UK Support and Funding)
(9 years, 9 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mark Simmonds)
I am pleased to provide Parliament with the Foreign and Commonwealth Office’s annual account of Government support for the principles and institutions of international justice in 2013-14, and our plans for funding them in the year ahead. Today is international justice day, a particularly appropriate time to focus on this vital area of work.
The UK’s support for international justice is crucial to our foreign policy. International justice is essential for ensuring that perpetrators of atrocities are held to account for their actions, and that victims see justice done. It makes a valuable contribution to addressing the underlying causes of conflict, helping victims of atrocities and their communities come to terms with the past, and deterring those who might otherwise commit such violations in the future. The UK has continued to support the work of the International Criminal Court (ICC) and the international tribunals to tackle impunity for crimes such as genocide, mass killing, using sexual violence as a weapon of war, and use of child soldiers. This work helps to strengthen the rules-based international system and makes a contribution towards building a safer more secure world.
For calendar year 2013 we provided assessed contributions of £7.5 million to the International Criminal Court, £4.9 million to the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia, £3.5 million to the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda, and £l million to the Residual Mechanism which will take on the essential functions of the former Yugoslavia and Rwanda tribunals when they close. In addition, for the financial year 2013-14 we made voluntary contributions of £920,000 to the international component of the Extraordinary Chambers in the Courts of Cambodia, £100,000 to the Residual Special Court for Sierra Leone, and £l million to the Special Tribunal for Lebanon. The UK also contributed £1.3 million in total to the International Criminal Court trust fund for victims, earmarked for projects which support survivors of acts of sexual violence committed in conflict. This complemented wider UK work to shatter the culture of impunity for perpetrators of crimes of sexual violence in conflict through the preventing sexual violence initiative and the global summit to end sexual violence in conflict.
In November 2013 Charles Taylor, sentenced to 50 years’ imprisonment by the Special Court for Sierra Leone (SCSL), was transferred to the UK at the request of the court. Mr Taylor is now serving his sentence in a UK prison.
As a state party to the International Criminal Court, a member of the United Nations Security Council which oversees the Rwanda and former Yugoslavia tribunals, and a member of the management bodies for the Sierra Leone and Cambodia courts and the Lebanon tribunal, we engaged actively throughout the year to ensure these institutions were run effectively and efficiently.
The coming year will see a great deal of activity on international justice. The International Criminal Court will continue its investigations in eight situation countries: to date 21 cases have been brought before the Court. The International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda will close with its remaining functions transferring to the Mechanism for International Criminal Tribunals. The Extraordinary Chambers in the Courts of Cambodia will deliver a verdict in the first phase of the trial of the most senior surviving members of the Khmer Rouge. And the Residual Special Court for Sierra Leone will continue to uphold the legacy of the Special Court for Sierra Leone.
The UK will continue to support these institutions and make contributions to them over the next 12 months. We will continue to encourage other states to contribute to these courts and tribunals in order to give them more financial security through a broader donor base. And we will continue to ensure they deliver value for money by scrutinising budgets and making sure they make the best use of available resources.
Foreign Affairs Council and General Affairs Council
(9 years, 9 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Europe (Mr David Lidington)
I will attend the Foreign Affairs Council (FAC) on 22 July and the General Affairs Council (GAC) on 23 July. The FAC will be chaired by the High Representative of the European Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy, Baroness Ashton of Upholland, and the GAC will be chaired by the Italian presidency. The meetings will be held in Brussels.
Foreign Affairs Council
Introductory remarks
Baroness Ashton is expected to cover the floods in the western Balkans, and the outcome of the 16 July donor conference. She is also expected to update Ministers on relations between Serbia and Kosovo. I do not expect substantive discussion on either item.
Ukraine
Ministers will have a substantive discussion on the situation in Ukraine. I will use this opportunity to update Ministers on the outcomes of my recent visit. I will seek to ensure that the Foreign Affairs Council will adopt the Council decision establishing the EU advisory mission for civilian security sector reform in Ukraine. Adoption would be an important signal of ongoing EU support for Ukraine’s reform trajectory. I will also stress the need to continue to urge Russia to use its influence with the separatists to de-escalate, and to cut the flow of weapons. I will draw attention to the conclusions of the high-level meeting on Ukraine to discuss donor co-ordination and highlight the need to encourage Ukraine to do more to demonstrate commitment and progress on economic reforms.
The UK will be pushing for Council conclusions that include tasking the European External Action Service to develop further options that keep the pressure on Russia in relation to its illegal annexation of Crimea; to encourage the Commission to pursue further trilateral talks with Russia and Ukraine regarding energy supplies; that support the measured approach being taken by the Ukrainian authorities to regain control of the east of the country; and that encourage all parties to engage with the dialogue process and work towards a sustainable peace in Ukraine.
Iraq
Ministers will discuss the situation in Iraq. While this has stabilised over recent weeks, the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL) and other armed groups remain in control of much of northern and western Iraq. I will emphasise the need for the swift formation of an inclusive Government, as the security response to ISIL will need to be underpinned by a political solution if there is to be a lasting resolution to the crisis. As part of that, I will call for member states to continue pressing all sides to remain engaged in the political process and come to an agreement on candidates for Speaker, President and Prime Minister. I will also encourage member states to consider how best to assist the Government of Iraq in the fight against terrorism, and how to tackle the threat of foreign fighters. The discussion may also cover ISIL’s presence in Syria and the impact that they are having there.
Middle east peace process
Ministers will discuss recent developments in the middle east peace process. The UK will want to ensure the EU sends a clear message expressing its concern at the recent escalation in violence in Gaza and Israel, and urging all sides to take steps to deescalate the situation and avoid any further civilian injuries and the loss of innocent life. Recent events reinforce the need to take steps towards a lasting peace.
Iran
Ministers will also discuss the Iran nuclear negotiations. The joint plan of action, the interim deal agreed by the E3+3 and Iran in November 2013 and implemented from January, expires just before the FAC, on 20 July. The E3+3 are currently working hard with Iran in Vienna to agree a deal. At the FAC, Ministers will discuss the outcome of the talks and any necessary follow-up action required by member states.
General Affairs Council
The General Affairs Council on 23 July is expected to focus on: the Italian presidency work programme; procedure to follow up on European Council conclusions; the Europe 2020 mid-term review; and Lithuania’s accession to the economic and monetary union.
Italian presidency work programme
The GAC is expected to take note of the Italian presidency programme, “Europe, a Fresh Start”, which was published on 2 July 2014. The UK and Italy share priorities on several aspects of the EU agenda, including: growth; jobs; competitiveness; better regulation; and foreign policy in the Mediterranean region. We welcome Italy’s initiatives to boost growth and investment, particularly their focus on strong manufacturing and service sectors; and support for small and medium-sized enterprises. We also share an interest in further growth-focused institutional reforms.
European Council conclusions follow up
The GAC performs an important role in ensuring that the actions mandated in European Council conclusions are properly implemented. The GAC is expected to discuss its conclusions follow-up role, and consider ways to improve this function in the future.
Europe 2020 mid-term review
The GAC will consider the mid-term review of the Europe 2020 strategy for growth and jobs. Discussions for the mid-term review are in early stages. The UK is developing its position but will be fully engaged with the review.
Good progress has been made in improving the stability and integrity of the euro area and it is essential that the EU does not weaken its general commitment to fiscal sustainability.
Accession of Lithuania to the economic and monetary union
The GAC will adopt the legal acts enabling Lithuania to adopt the euro on 1 January 2015. This follows a recommendation of euro area member states at ECOFIN in June and endorsement of the Commission’s proposal at the June European Council. The Commission’s convergence report of 4 June 2014 assessed that Lithuania meets all the convergence criteria for adopting the euro.
British Citizenship Applications (War Crimes Screening)
(9 years, 9 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Security and Immigration (James Brokenshire)
The Equality (War Crimes etc.) Arrangements 2013 and the Race Relations (Northern Ireland) (War Crimes etc.) Arrangements 2013 enable me to subject applications from certain nationalities for British citizenship to more rigorous scrutiny than others for the purposes of determining whether the applicant has committed, been complicit in the commission of, or otherwise been associated with, the commission of war crimes, crimes against humanity or genocide.
The condition for subjecting these applications to more rigorous scrutiny is that the applicant is a national of a state specified on a list approved personally by me for the purpose of the arrangements.
I have now reviewed and approved this list in accordance with our commitment to do so annually. I am satisfied that the conditions set out in the arrangements are met in respect of the countries on the list.
The arrangements will continue to be reviewed on an annual basis and will remain in force until revoked.
Forced Labour Convention
(9 years, 9 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Karen Bradley)
The forced labour convention (the convention) is one of eight fundamental conventions of the International Labour Organisation (ILO). The ILO proposed supplementing the convention by agreeing a recommendation and a protocol on how ILO members should apply aspects of the convention.
The European Commission proposed that a Council decision should be adopted to determine the position to be taken on behalf of the EU during negotiations on the recommendation. The Government, while supporting the implementation of the forced labour convention, did not agree that the EU had the competence to negotiate this recommendation on behalf of the member states, and did not agree that there was an appropriate legal base in the treaty on the functioning of the European Union to allow the Council to agree a decision setting out a common position in relation to an international organisation of which the EU was not a member. The Government therefore decided not to opt in to the JHA provisions with the Council decision. A number of other member states supported the UK position and the Council decision was not adopted ahead of the ILO conference.
The UK, along with other EU member states, supported both the protocol and the recommendation following negotiations at the International Labour Conference, and the ILO has subsequently adopted both instruments.
Forensic Science Regulator (Appointment)
(9 years, 9 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Crime Prevention (Norman Baker)
I am today announcing arrangements for the appointment of the Forensic Science Regulator. Following an open competition adhering to the principles of the Office of the Commissioner for Public Appointments. I have decided to appoint Dr Gillian Tully. Her three-year term of appointment will commence on 17 November 2014.
The Forensic Science Regulator appointment has been filled by Mr Andrew Rennison who completes his term of office at the end of August. I should like to record the Government’s appreciation of Mr Rennison’s contribution in laying the foundations for the regulation of quality in forensic science in England and Wales.
HMCTS Framework Document
(9 years, 9 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice (Chris Grayling)
On 28 March 2014 I announced plans for a programme of reform to deliver a more effective, efficient and high-performing courts and tribunals administration that will improve the services provided to the public at a significantly lower cost.
Following this announcement, the Lord Chief Justice, Senior President of Tribunals and I have agreed that the HMCTS board be reconstituted so that we can secure additional experience and expertise needed to provide robust oversight to the organisation during this ambitious period of change. In view of this, we have agreed some consequential amendments to the HMCTS framework document to allow for the addition of one extra non-executive director, and for the total number of executive directors to be increased for a specific period and specific purpose, on terms to be agreed by the Lord Chancellor and Lord Chief Justice after consultation with the chair of HMCTS.
The amended HMCTS framework document will be laid in both Houses of Parliament today and copies will be available in the Vote Office and in the Printed Paper Office.
Deaths of Service Personnel (Inquests)
(9 years, 9 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister of State, Ministry of Justice (Simon Hughes)
Together with the Minister for the Armed Forces, with responsibility for defence personnel, welfare and veterans, I now make our latest joint statement on progress with inquests into the deaths of service personnel on active service overseas. On behalf of the Government and the nation we thank our armed forces for their immense courage, their unshakeable determination, and for their sacrifice. We especially remember the families of those who have laid down their lives for their country.
In this statement we give information about the open investigations and inquests which the senior coroners for Oxfordshire, Wiltshire and Swindon and other coroner areas in England and Wales are conducting. The information provided shows the position at 14 July 2014.
We have placed tables in the Libraries of both Houses containing information to supplement this statement, indicating the status of all cases and showing whether a board of inquiry or a service inquiry has been or is to be held.
Coroners, including the specially trained cadre of coroners whom we have mentioned in previous statements, continue to work with the Ministry of Defence’s defence inquests unit to make sure that investigations are progressed and completed as quickly and thoroughly as possible. Where appropriate, relevant investigations can now be held in Scotland under section 12 of the Coroners and Justice Act 2009.
Once again we record our thanks to coroners and their staff, the Chief Coroner, visiting officers and to all those, professional and skilled volunteer alike, who help bereaved families to be at the centre of the investigation process.
RAF Lyneham in Wiltshire and, currently, RAF Brize Norton in Oxfordshire, have been the main locations for repatriations of service personnel who have died overseas. Since October 2007 the Ministry of Defence and the Ministry of Justice have jointly made additional funding available to the senior coroners for those coroner areas. This helps them to take service personnel inquests forward in balance with their local caseloads.
Current status of inquests
Since our last statement a further six inquests have been concluded into the deaths of service personnel on operations in Afghanistan. In total there have been 610 inquests into the deaths of service personnel who have died in Iraq and Afghanistan or who have died in the UK of injuries sustained on active service. There has been no formal inquest into three deaths. Two of these deaths were taken into consideration at inquests into other deaths in the same incidents. In the third case it was decided not to hold a fatal accident inquiry into the death of a serviceman who died from his injuries in Scotland, where he had made a partial recovery.
Coroners’ investigations which have been opened
Deaths in Afghanistan
As at 14 July, 21 coroner investigations are open into the deaths of service personnel on operations.
The senior coroner for Wiltshire and Swindon has retained six of the open investigations, and the senior coroner for Oxfordshire has retained nine. The remaining six coroner investigations are being conducted by senior coroners for areas closer to the next of kin. Six hearing dates have been listed—including one hearing listed for yesterday 16 July.
Deaths of service personnel who returned home injured
There are no open coroner investigations in relation to service personnel who have returned home injured and have then died from their injuries.
We will continue to inform the House of progress.
Disabled People's Right to Control
(9 years, 9 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister of State, Department for Work and Pensions (Mr Mark Harper)
The right to control pilot operated in seven areas of England between 12 December 2010 and 12 December 2013. The aims of the pilot were to bring together a number of different funding streams into a streamlined process that allowed disabled people choice and control over how funding for them was used to provide the care, support (including employment support) and equipment they needed; and to test the costs and benefits to public authorities.
The Government remain committed to the principles of personalisation and of providing disabled people with greater choice and control over how the funding they are entitled to is used by them or on their behalf. While the evaluation of this pilot may not have resulted in any measurable impact on outcomes, it was popular with those individuals who exercised their right to control and they valued the greater flexibilities it gave them. It also acted as a catalyst to developing local relationships and partnerships.
Since the right to control pilot began in 2010, developments in Government policy have increasingly recognised the importance of personalisation in the delivery of services. The Care Act 2014 enables greater choice and control for the individual in adult social care and also provides co-operation duties to support partnership working and the flexibility needed to maintain right to control style approaches at local level. We are in the process of introducing personalisation within the context of the disability and health employment strategy, to develop a more personalised approach to delivering employment support for disabled people.
Taking these changes into consideration together with the evaluation findings of the right to control pilot the Government have decided not to roll out the right to control nationally.
As required by the Welfare Reform Act 2009, a report on the operation of the pilot has been prepared, and I will place a copy of the report in the House Library.
Grand Committee
Infrastructure Bill [HL]
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Haskel) (Lab)
My Lords, if there is a Division in the Chamber while we are sitting, the Committee will adjourn as soon as the Division Bells are rung and will resume after 10 minutes.
Lord Teverson (LD)
My Lords, may I raise a procedural issue? I am not sure what the procedure is for Committee but, given that we are talking about zero-carbon homes and climate change and that it is a very hot day, if it gets too hot may we be allowed to relax our standards within Grand Committee—we are not in the Chamber—and remove our jackets? I think I need the Deputy Chairman’s permission to do that in due course.
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon
“Provision in building regulations for off-site carbon abatement measures
(1) The Building Act 1984 is amended as follows.
(2) In section 1(1A) (matters that may be covered by building regulations) after paragraph (c) insert “;
(d) in relation to a building in England, the action to be taken as a result of the building’s contribution to or effect on emissions of carbon dioxide (whether or not from the building itself).”(3) Schedule 1 (building regulations) is amended as follows.
(4) After paragraph 7 insert—
“7A (1) This paragraph applies if building regulations impose a requirement in relation to a building in England as respects its contribution to or effect on emissions of carbon dioxide (whether or not the requirement relates to emissions from the building itself).
(2) Building regulations may make provision for a person to whom the requirement applies to meet it (in whole or in part) by taking action otherwise than in relation to the building.
(3) Such action may include—
(a) doing things which consist of, or cause or contribute, directly or indirectly to—(i) reductions in emissions of carbon dioxide, or(ii) the removal of carbon dioxide from the atmosphere;(b) agreeing with another person that the person will do things within paragraph (a);(c) making a payment or payments to a fund—(i) which is administered by, or by a person acting on behalf of, the Secretary of State, and (ii) the proceeds of which are used to pay (directly or indirectly) for activities within paragraph (a).(4) Provision made under paragraph 4A for the use of certificates as evidence of compliance with building regulations by virtue of action within sub-paragraph (3) may include provision—
(a) for the creation and maintenance of a register for keeping track of the use of certificates for that purpose;(b) about the administration of the register;(c) for charges to be imposed in connection with the registration of any matter in the register or for the disclosure of information held in the register.(5) If building regulations make provision for the creation and maintenance of a register, building regulations must make provision for the register to be administered by, or by a person acting on behalf of, the Secretary of State.
(6) Building regulations may make provision for the creation and maintenance of a fund of a kind referred to in sub-paragraph (3)(c), including provision about—
(a) the administration of such a fund;(b) the purposes for which proceeds from such a fund may be used.(7) Building regulations may make provision about—
(a) the calculation of payments to be made into a fund of a kind referred to in sub-paragraph (3)(c);(b) the maximum payment which may be required to be made into such a fund in respect of a building.(8) Paragraph 8(2) does not prevent building regulations from providing for action within sub-paragraph (3) to be taken in relation to a building erected before the date on which the regulations come into force.”
(5) In paragraph 8(2) (requirement for building regulations not to apply to buildings erected before regulations come into force, subject to exceptions) after “Subject to sub-paragraphs (3) to (6) below and to” insert “paragraph 7A(8) above and”.”
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Communities and Local Government (Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon)
My Lords, I stand for the first time in this new position. It gives me great pleasure to stand in front of the Committee as the Minister responsible. I do so with a degree of trepidation not least because, as soon as we started, there was an intervention from my noble friend. Nothing can unsettle the nerves more right at the beginning of a new Bill that you have just picked up. My noble friend talked about the heat, and it is not that I am asking for special favours but I have an added challenge, which of course is self-inflicted, because we are in the month of Ramadan. If my throat seems to dry up on occasions, I hope that noble Lords will bear with me.
In moving Amendment 93A, I shall speak also to Amendments 98A and 98B. Nearly half of the UK’s carbon dioxide emissions come from the built environment, so improving the energy efficiency of, and reducing carbon from, buildings is essential in enabling us to meet the carbon budgets to which we are committed as part of our contribution to tackling climate change. As noble Lords will know, the majority of these emissions arise from existing buildings and we are taking action on this through programmes such as the Green Deal. However, if we do not tackle new buildings, we only store up problems for the future. By not taking action now, we may find that we have to take forward expensive retrofit. That is why we are bringing forward the zero-carbon homes standard from 2016.
On a personal note, I suggest that this is an area which is in its infancy. It originated under the famous Merton rule. Of course I had the privilege of serving as a Merton councillor and as the cabinet member for the environment when this rule first emerged. It is great to see how this particular issue has taken on a life of its own, and we are where we are today.
We intend to ensure that, from 2016, there is a framework in place so that all carbon emissions associated with the energy used to heat, light and power building services in new homes will be abated. We recognise, however, as did the previous Government, that it is not always technically feasible or economically viable to achieve zero-carbon emissions through on-site measures only. Therefore, to meet our zero-carbon homes standard, and to maintain cost-effectiveness and flexibility for house-builders, we propose to amend the Building Act to allow for the provision of off-site carbon abatement measures to off-set any residual emissions arising from the use of regulated energy.
The Building Act already provides us with the necessary powers to set the zero-carbon target. However, in its current form, it has no provision for the inclusion of off-site carbon abatement measures. Therefore, the new clause sets out enabling powers for the provision of off-site carbon abatement measures. Our amendments will offer developers the choice of carbon abatement routes consistent with the ones we consulted on, such as carrying out retrofit work to existing properties, contracting with third-party carbon abatement providers and paying into a national fund. This “menu” approach to carbon abatement work received widespread support from consultation responses.
In brief, the new clause establishes the necessary powers for the Secretary of State to make building regulations in relation to off-site measures for abating carbon dioxide emissions. These measures could be taken by the developer or by a person on the developer’s behalf, or consist of payment into a fund that invests in carbon abatement projects. It also provides for administrative provisions to be made to facilitate the offsetting of those emissions against emissions from a building. These include provisions relating to the administration, by or on behalf of the Secretary of State, of funds for carbon abatement measures into which allowable solutions payments can be made, and to establishing a maximum level of payment into a fund. There is also provision for a register of certificates showing compliance with the zero-carbon standard by use of allowable solutions to be set up and maintained by or on behalf of the Secretary of State, and for charges to be made in connection with use of the register.
Amendments 98A and 98B are related to Amendment 93A. Amendment 98A provides for the clause to be commenced two months after Royal Assent. Amendment 98B makes the necessary change to the Long Title of the Bill to encompass the clause. These powers will allow developers to off-set residual emissions in a way that is both cost-effective and flexible, thus meeting our joint objectives of a green and growing economy.
I shall respond later in the debate to the specific amendments put forward by the noble Lords, but I hope that I have given the Committee a good sense of what we want to achieve, which will help the debate as we progress. I beg to move.
Amendment 93AA (to Amendment 93A)
Lord Teverson
“(2A) Matters covered under subsection (1A)(d) must be applied to—
(a) from the commencement of these provisions, all buildings or developments consisting of five or more properties, or(b) from 2018 all buildings or developments of any size.”
Lord Teverson
My Lords, I congratulate my noble friend Lord Ahmad on his work today and on his future work on DECC matters. It is excellent to have him with us and to have him involved at this stage of this Bill, which has a long way to go through its parliamentary process. I follow up those congratulations by saying how pleased I was, along with many of my colleagues, to see the Government’s persistence in the Queen’s Speech on this agenda of zero-carbon homes. It is a really important policy and one that started in 2006, under the previous Government. It has been followed through on a trajectory right through to the present day. It is really important.
In Questions in the Chamber earlier today, we had a Question about fuel poverty. We are very aware that the standard of homes that we build now will affect our housing stock for perhaps 50 or 100 years, so it is really important that we get it right now, not just in terms of carbon emissions but in terms of energy costs and the standard of living of our citizens. Therefore, although this is a minor part of the Bill in certain ways, it is very important in terms of future sustainability for our climate and our society.
I congratulate the Government on the DECC side for their publication today, Delivering UK Energy Investment, which I believe is being launched by my right honourable friend Ed Davey, the Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change. In it, we note that the Government have enabled some £45 billion-worth of investment in electricity generation networks from 2010 up to 2013. That shows the strength of the Government’s policy on energy over the past three years, in the time of the coalition Government.
One problem with this Bill is that, although it talks about zero-carbon homes, just as my noble friend the Minister stated, obviously and clearly—and I looked through the Building Act 1984 this morning in the Library of the House to enlighten myself on its schedules—none of this is required for most zero-carbon homes building regulations to be implemented. They are all within ministerial discretion through the building regulations, but the area of allowable solutions covered by the amendments and this section enables the last piece of that jigsaw to be put into place.
We are coming towards the end of the Parliament. Whatever we decide in this Parliament, how building regulations are delivered subsequently is out of our control. We are here now with a very clear view of where we want to get to in the future, and we need to tie some of these things down rather more than they can be at the moment—hence a number of my amendments. They are not all about allowable solutions; they affect some of the more fundamental areas of zero-carbon homes as well. That is the difficulty. As a Parliament and as a House, we do not have a lot of detail on where this is all going to take us and how it will be interpreted; we have only a strategic understanding of that. I would like the amendments to nail down a little more—to find out from my noble friend the Minister and the Government—the intentions in how we deliver this. I was keen not to degroup the amendments, so I ask the indulgence of the Grand Committee—I shall be as brief as I can—by going through the four amendments that I have tabled. I am talking primarily about Amendment 93AA, but I will also talk to Amendments 93AB, 93AC and 93AD.
I move on to Amendment 93AA. I agree entirely with allowable solutions; they are a legitimate and important part of the zero-carbon homes deal. Clearly in certain types of property—flats, multiple accommodation dwellings and apartments—it is quite difficult to get zero-carbon home solutions within the actual building itself, and it is generally accepted that those are needed. When they were first talked about, it was in a fairly narrow sense. In fact, I shall quote the most recent report of the Committee on Climate Change—the Government’s adviser on this sort of thing—which came out last week, Meeting Carbon Budgets—2014 Progress Report to Parliament. On this general area, it states that:
“For new-build homes, Part L has been tightened twice since 2010, as part of Government commitments to achieving a zero-carbon home standard from 2016 in England … In 2010, a tightening of part L resulted in a 25% improvement in energy efficiency for both new-built and extensions compared to … 2006 … A further tightening of Part L by between 8 and 26% was proposed for 2013, as well as a requirement for consequential improvements for extensions and boiler and window replacements”.
But the important thing stated by the Government’s own adviser is, however, that,
“this policy was delayed and watered down, in the end requiring only a 6% improvement in CO2 emissions for new-built homes from April 2014, with no further improvements to extensions or windows and no requirement for consequential improvements”.
We have that difficulty. Then it states:
“Applied to on-site electricity generation the ‘allowable solutions’ mechanism is sensible, given that large-scale off-site generation is often a cheaper way to provide low-carbon electricity. However, when applied to heat and efficiency measures it is problematic. For all new houses policy should require that either low-carbon heating is installed or efficiency is so high that heating requirements are minimal”.
It is that sort of theme that I want to try to get to to make sure that we ramp this up.
An important principle is that, although allowable solutions should be open to be used, they should be used only as a last resort. However, if they are used, I think that they should be able to be used locally. I shall come on to that when I talk about Amendment 93AB.
Baroness Maddock (LD)
My Lords, I strongly support what my noble friend has said about these matters. Can the Minister give us a little more clarity about how we are going to ensure that these changes actually happen? I remember getting terribly excited some years ago about the provision that every new house would have to have a SAP certificate in it. I am forgetting what SAP stands for but it is about the energy efficiency of the house. We passed regulations that said that every new house should have a certificate, but they have never been enforced. If you go into new houses, you will never see one. So when we talk about this, one of my main concerns is: how is it to be regulated?
There is another issue that I have come across. I should declare my interests as a vice-president of the LGA and as president of the Sustainable Energy Association. In my role over the years as a councillor, one problem, particularly when I was in Berwick-upon-Tweed, was that builders would start to build something and then stop. There was nothing we could do to progress it if they did not carry on, so I worry about the abatements. How are we to ensure that they will actually be done? Will there be a timescale? This throws up the problem we have with all this. We are all very keen on it and want it to happen, but most of the detail will be in secondary legislation and regulation. It would be helpful to have indications from the Government about that and to see some of it before we finally pass the Bill.
I am really concerned about how we make sure that it happens. I am told that the building inspectors will of course inspect new buildings. However, supposing that a builder builds a whole block of flats and has not done it properly. What happens to those flats and that builder? If I were doing it, I would quite like to have a few examples of people getting heavy fines if they do not do it in the first place. Again, I do not know how we are going to police that. Regarding the abatement, how are we to ensure that that happens? Will there be a timescale and will people be able to allow that to drift?
I also strongly support my noble friend’s Amendment 93AD, particularly its subsection (d) about community heating. This is a great opportunity to promote community heating and attach people to bigger district heating. I saw that many years ago in Scandinavia, and it is something which I was involved with as a councillor in Southampton, where we set up one of the most successful district heating schemes in the country. It has everything on it from private housing to public housing, schools and hospitals, shops—it has the lot. However, we have been quite slow in getting domestic properties on to community heating schemes, and I hope that what we are proposing here, particularly given the points that my noble friend made, will progress that along the way.
Lord McKenzie of Luton (Lab)
My Lords, we have Amendments 93AAA, 93ZAAA, 93AE and 93AF in this group, which I will speak to as well as commenting on the other amendments. I start by offering my warmest congratulations to the noble Lord, Lord Ahmad, on his promotion. He is not a stranger to CLG matters and certainly not a stranger to local government. We look forward to working with him, at least in the remaining months of this Parliament.
As we have heard, the government amendment facilitates allowable solutions, which are not otherwise already available under the Building Act 1984. However, together with other matters which have gone on, this does not represent the progress on zero-carbon homes that was hoped for and which we believe is achievable. It might be worth quoting from the briefing that I think all noble Lords have had from the UK Green Building Council, just to remind us of the figures, which I think the Minister touched on:
“The UK’s buildings account for 37% of total greenhouse gas emissions, with 66% of buildings’ emissions from homes. The UK is committed to reducing emissions by 50% in 2025 and 80% in 2050. Some of the most cost effective potential carbon savings exist in the buildings sector and Government is looking to this sector to deliver significant levels of carbon savings”.
We would say they have not looked hard enough. In 2006, the previous Government announced that all new homes would be zero carbon from 2016, but this of course will not now happen. It was originally planned for there to be three clear regulatory steps along the way to achieving this, in 2010, 2013 and 2016. The code for sustainable homes, a standard against which all new homes would be rated, was introduced alongside the zero-carbon target. The purpose of the previous Government’s approach was to recognise that small, incremental changes to building regulations from time to time were insufficient to generate the fundamental change that was required within the construction industry, and that clarity was needed on the direction and speed of travel as well as on the ultimate destination. That worked, and it is widely recognised that it had a galvanising effect on the housebuilding industry and on the supply chain, and sparked a bout of innovation in the sector.
After promising early announcements, a series of decisions taken by this Government have reduced the ambition. The zero-carbon target was weakened by one-third when it excluded emissions from plug-in appliances, and they are now allowing a further third to be mitigated off-site through allowable solutions. The standard adopted is also below that recommended by the Zero Carbon Hub. A long-term exemption for small sites is illogical in principle, and we do not yet know how it is to work.
Our Amendment 93AAA would require the Secretary of State to,
“publish a report each year on the progress which has been made towards a carbon dioxide reduction”,
for differing types of dwellings. We propose that the targets should be,
“44% for flats, 56% for semi-detached houses, and 60% for detached homes”.
These are not arbitrary amounts but have been agreed by the Zero Carbon Hub after a significant piece of collaborative work. These are the levels that the industry advises are achievable, and were accepted by the previous Government. By setting the standards at a lower level, as the UK Green Building Council points out, the effect is to transfer more of the carbon savings to allowable solutions, which are generally less easy to verify.
Amendment 93ZAAA, like the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, permits a small-site exemption for a limited period. In this case, the exemption threshold is less than 10 units. Let me be clear that we are opposed to ongoing small-development exemptions. Along with the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, we have a degree of equivocation about identifying any threshold, even for a short period. One could advance the argument that because the Government have been tardy in bringing some of this stuff forward smaller developers perhaps need a bit more time to come to grips with it all. Like the noble Lord, I think it is not necessarily right to equate small developments with small builders or ill equipped builders. There is a big question mark, certainly on an ongoing basis, about the risk of sites being deliberately fragmented to avoid these commitments. The Government have a strong case to answer about why they are pursuing this course.
Lord Jenkin of Roding (Con)
My Lords, I do not claim the expertise of all those who have spoken in this debate so far, but I would like to make one or two points in commenting on the debate that has just happened. I also begin by congratulating my noble friend Lord Ahmad on his preferment. It is extremely well deserved and we look forward to his increasing activity in this House.
The first point that occurred to me in reading the Government’s amendment and the documents that accompany it is that it is clearly a very different concept to that embodied in the Section 106 provisions of the Planning Acts. In that provision, as a condition of gaining planning permission, a developer has to make some other improvement, perhaps by the provision of affordable housing, public space or something of that sort. Clearly, there are some parallels and the discussion that has been held so far on the amendment suggests that the allowable solutions should be closely associated with the development under consideration. To some extent, that reflects the anxieties that have happened over some of the Section 106 conditions that were imposed, which were intended, sometimes, to promote a closer knit, cohesive community, embracing people of different living standards and backgrounds and so forth within a reasonable neighbourhood. Increasingly, developers found it easier to have their affordable housing some distance away thereby, negating the purpose of the planning condition. I hope that that cannot be regarded in any way as an appropriate solution.
Individuals who have a strong commitment to fight climate change and who engage, for instance, in air travel and wish to be able to say, for their own comfort, that they are offsetting their carbon emissions incurred by air travel is an entirely different operation and personal to the individual. Some people regard that as of great importance, and one has to admire their commitment. How effective it is I have no means of judging. But that is quite different from what we are considering here in the zero-carbon homes policies that the Government are promoting. One needs to recognise that on one side and the other, Section 106 and individual offsetting are quite different from what we are considering here.
It is right to remind ourselves about my second point. I am grateful to the Home Builders Federation, which has provided us with some information, some of which I was unaware of. I would be grateful to know whether the Government accept this statement. The federation states that in the UK:
“New housing built today is amongst the most energy efficient in the world and the process of working towards the implementation in 2016 of a zero carbon standard has led to great strides being made by the industry in reducing emissions from new homes”.
In considering these matters, we need to recognise that a great deal has been achieved already. It is a credit to the housebuilding industry and the building industry as a whole how much they are committed to achieving ever-higher standards and lower emissions in their work.
How much difference does it make to the individual? I am never quite sure. Some years ago, under the CERT programme for carbon emissions, I had my house insulated, cavity walls filled, much more effective loft insulation installed and various other things. It was not done under the Green Deal because it was before that, but it was said that it would reduce bills. It is quite impossible to measure that. As one gets older, one needs more house heating, particularly if one is at home all day like my wife. It may help, but I am never quite sure whether it has conceivably reimbursed what we had to spend. Although we got the insulation free as pensioners, we had to spend quite a lot on scaffolding and such things, which was not included in the CERT scheme.
The noble Lord, Lord McKenzie, asked how far the allowable solutions should be for the benefit of the local community. That needs to be carefully considered. If one can do that, it seems to me that there are advantages to it, but how you measure it I am not sure.
Finally on the question of the exemption of small sites, I do not think that those who have spoken so far recognise that there is a conflict of interest here. The tighter that you make the regulations on carbon, the more likely it is that you will stifle investment in housing. When considering the nature or length of time of the exemption, when this country faces a crisis in housebuilding—an amendment was moved by the noble Lord, Lord Best, that made this point very clearly—we must not risk scaring off people who are anxious to develop small sites but would find the cost of doing so to a high standard of carbon emissions would make it uneconomic, so that they back away and the site is not developed at all.
I should be grateful to hear from my noble friend to what extent the Government are taking account of that conflict in determining the nature of the small sites exemption. As may have already been said, I have been told that there is expected to be a consultation on the definition of the small sites exception, and I should be grateful to hear from my noble friend when that is happening, the nature of the questions that will be asked and the parameters in which it will be considered. All I say at this point is that it is important that we get that right and that, in the housing crisis that we face, we do not risk stifling housebuilding investment that might otherwise happen.
Lord Best (CB)
My Lords, I too, welcome the noble Lord, Lord Ahmad, to his new role and welcome the new clauses in the Bill. I want to address the points just made by the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, and pick up the question of the exemption from the full requirements of the zero-carbon standard for small development, which is not yet fully defined.
First, it is extremely important that we encourage small and medium-sized enterprises to get back into business. They were very hard hit in the recession; they went out of business on a big scale when times were hard following 2008. We need to get them back into business if we are to achieve the 200,000 or 250,000 homes a year, or whatever it is, that we need to build. That almost goes without saying.
The big six housebuilders used to do 46% of all the housebuilding in the UK; they now do 70%. Seventy per cent of all new housebuilding is in the hands of that very small number of builders. We need to bring back those small and medium-sized builders. However, I doubt whether this measure is the way to do that. To think that exempting small sites means that small builders will come back into play is a leap of imagination. First, larger housebuilders of course sometimes develop small sites, particularly if they are profitable; or they develop larger sites but in phases. That means that if we choose a threshold of 10 homes, we will discover a whole series of schemes with nine homes being built over a period. Housebuilders like to do things in phases in any case. We may not address the SMEs when we address this. It is not about small builders; it is about small sites, and it may miss the point.
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon
My Lords, first, I take this opportunity to thank all noble Lords for their kind and warm words of welcome. I assure them that I look forward to working with Members from all sides in my new role. There will be times when I am sure that we will agree; there may be other times when we do not; but all discussions will be done in a manner of listening to and acknowledging the great expertise in this field in your Lordships’ House. On this subject, I have sensed that there is a good consensus on the approach of providing off-site carbon abatement measures, but of course a series of important points have been raised. I shall deal with those in responding to the amendments.
Before doing so, I shall deal with the specific issue raised by my noble friend Lord Teverson on the climate change committee’s recommendations on low-carbon heating, such as heat pumps. Rather than specifying what heating to use, the standards in building regulations are technology neutral, giving builders the flexibility to innovate and choose the most practical and cost-effective heating solutions. As we further strengthen standards, builders will increasingly find that they need to include low-carbon solutions such as heat pumps. Of course, heat pumps work best in well insulated homes, and we have already amended building regulations to require that all new homes are well insulated. There is no reason why low-carbon heating such as heat pumps could not be considered as part of the allowable solutions investment to meet the overall zero-carbon standard.
Lord Teverson
I thank the Minister for that comment; that is very useful. I point out one thing to him, which I am sure he is aware of: he is absolutely right about heat pumps and all that, but we know that it is really important to put them in when the house is built. It is difficult to do it retrospectively. Yet the biggest incentive for that is the renewable heat initiative, to which new builds are not entitled. Therefore, I ask the Minister to take away to his colleagues the fact that there is a distortion. The renewable heat initiative is fantastic and a great success but it acts as a barrier to things that need to be done on new builds. It is almost more of a problem to do these things retrospectively. It clearly makes sense to do them beforehand, but the renewable heat initiative can have a distorting effect in this area. However, I very much welcome the Minister’s comments on that approach.
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon
I thank my noble friend for his suggestion and I agree with the principle of what he is saying. Quite often when homes are built, we look to put in heating which reflects the direction of travel that we aim to achieve on carbon from homes, and it is inherently sensible that it is done at the time of construction rather than trying to do it through reconstruction. If nothing else, one hesitates on the carbon emissions which are then created through the reconstruction or part reconstruction of properties.
Amendments 93ZAAA and 93AA seek to determine the scope of the exemption that we have proposed for small sites from the requirements to deliver zero-carbon homes from 2016. My noble friend Lord Jenkin and the noble Lords, Lord Best and Lord McKenzie, all mentioned the importance of helping small housebuilders. As we recognise, small housebuilders do not have the resources of larger housebuilders to respond to new regulations. However, it is important that we design an effective exemption. I assure my noble friend Lord Jenkin that we are committed to a consultation on this very issue and we expect that it will be issued shortly.
It would be wrong to nail down the scope of the exemption in primary legislation before we have had a chance to consider the evidence. On that very issue, noble Lords will be interested to know that the Federation of Master Builders has issued a briefing note with its views on the exemption. The FMB represents all small and medium-sized construction firms, as noble Lords know, and it is very supportive of the proposed exemption. I use that only as an illustration of the need to consult. There will be many views that we must listen to from all sides of the debate.
We want to ensure that the exemption is proportionate and targeted to help small builders, that there are clear criteria as to its application and that it is designed to ensure that it helps only those that it is meant to help. I reassure noble Lords that the key questions about site size will sit at the heart of the consultation.
Lord McKenzie of Luton
Are we likely to see that consultation, and particularly the Government’s response to it, by the time the Bill has completed its passage through the Lords?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon
I will follow up with officials after today’s session and, if that is our intention, we will see whether we can deliver on that. I can do no more than reassure the noble Lord in that regard.
I turn to the various questions that were raised. My noble friend Lord Teverson raised the issue of the small sites exemption, which relates to the 50 units per site threshold. The Government recognise the potential impact on smaller homebuilders, and that is why we have decided on an exemption, as I have already said. The principle will be to ensure that the measure is targeted and proportionate to what we are trying to achieve. I have already said that we hope to issue the consultation shortly.
There are a number of issues that we all want to address specifically in the consultation—for example, the threshold and scope of the exemption and how it is applied. Regarding the site threshold, there has been much press speculation that it could be as high as 50 units. However, for the recent consultation on Section 106 agreements, the threshold was 10 units or fewer. This is likely to be nearer the figure that we consult on. In that respect, I cannot anticipate the Government’s final position but I can say that we will be looking closely at the conclusions of the consultation on the Section 106 proposals as we develop our thinking.
In relation to the timing of any exemption, I do not agree that primary legislation should be used—
Lord Jenkin of Roding
I was drawing a distinction between the Section 106 conditions of planning permission and what we are considering in this Bill. Do the Government recognise that they are not exactly the same? The Minister referred to them in almost the same breath, but they have rather different considerations.
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon
I accept that, and I am fully aware of the impact and application of Section 106 agreements. There are currently two figures. There is a speculative figure in the press. We are developing our thoughts on this. I mentioned the Section 106 consultation—the figure of 10 is nearer to our thinking than 50—merely to give an indication. We will, of course, keep the situation under review. If it becomes clear that the time is right to review the exemption, we will do so, but we do not want to be tied down to a specific timeframe.
Amendment 93AB seeks to limit the off-site measures that a homebuilder can support to those within a five-mile radius of the development. While we are very keen that local projects are supported through allowable solutions, this proposal is not workable. We asked in our consultation whether there should be a spatial limit on off-site carbon measures. Views were evenly matched, but slightly more of those responding did not think the measures should be limited to just those in the vicinity of the development. While we do not want to prescribe that measures should be local only, we want local authorities to participate and local projects to be supported.
There are clear benefits for developers in supporting off-site carbon abatement measures in the locality of their developments. They give visibility that developers are delivering on their obligations. It can enhance the attractiveness of a development if local people feel that it is leading to carbon reduction in their area. In many cases, these projects may be the most cost-effective option. This will be good for the reputation of homebuilders and beneficial to local areas. What we are proposing will allow for local participation, but prescribing that by reference to a specific spatial limit will not work. Even if sufficient appropriate carbon abatement projects existed within five miles of every new housing development, should we force them to be supported at the expense of more cost-effective strategic projects elsewhere? It is likely to be to the detriment of local communities if it means that larger scale measures, such as larger scale community energy schemes, are missed. It would rule out local authorities working together to offer measures which might span more than one authority. Setting a five-mile radius in primary legislation would also end up in a confusing pattern of concentric circles of potential projects over the country which would be impossible to administer.
My noble friend Lady Maddock asked the obvious question. In building generally, we all ask ourselves whether it will happen. I am sure we could share stories about builders and deliverables. Her question was about allowable solutions and how they will be checked. We will build on existing processes in the first instance, but it will be necessary to consider a self-standing approach, which could happen in a number of ways. For example, retrofit is classified as building work. It will be subject to checks under building regulations as now or will be covered by the existing competent person scheme arrangements. This could be supported by a requirement to provide an updated energy performance certificate to show that the improvements are achieving the desired outcome. A mechanism for validating carbon savings already exists under the energy companies obligation, and there is scope to use this example to investigate a similar proposition to cover allowable solutions. Small-scale energy measures would have to demonstrate that they meet energy performance levels which could be converted to carbon savings. There are other quality assurance schemes for other types of measures which could also be called upon, such as the combined heat and power good quality scheme. There will be further consultation with the industry.
My noble friend also asked about energy efficiency and the fear that the consumer would lose out if the developer chose to use allowable solutions. All consumers will benefit from a minimum national standard of energy efficiency and carbon reductions in homes. They will also have good information on other technology used in homes further to reduce carbon emissions and energy costs. The allowable solutions policy benefits society as a whole by reducing carbon emissions across the country without imposing a disproportionate burden on anybody. I am sure that my noble friend agrees that if we look at how housebuilding, home sales and home rentals have developed over the past decade or so, energy efficiency has been at the forefront of much that is part of the offers which are considered.
Baroness Maddock
Before we move on, I may not have put it very clearly, but one of the questions that I was concerned about was the timescales. If builders are required to agree various abatements, will there be a timescale in which they have to carry them out? It slightly worries me that they could do their small site and agree to do the abatements, but maybe not do them until 10 years later unless there is a timescale on them.
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon
The short answer to that is, yes, there will be timescales, but I will get back to the noble Baroness with details about our thinking. It would seem odd to have a situation whereby conditions are set down which do not have time limitations, otherwise it is an open-ended situation. My understanding at the moment is that we still need to set those timescales, but the idea of a timescale is very much in our current thinking.
Amendment 93AC seeks to set a minimum price of £90 per tonne which homebuilders would need to pay into the fund that we are proposing. This would effectively set a floor price for allowable solutions, something only 22% of those who responded to last summer’s consultation thought the Government should do, compared with 59% who thought the Government should set a ceiling price or price cap for allowable solutions.
The consultation sets out three price cap scenarios for allowable solutions: low, which is £36 per tonne of carbon; a middle rate of £60 per tonne of carbon; and, at the higher end, £90 per tonne. As I am sure all noble Lords will agree, getting the price cap correct is crucial. If we set it too low, there is a risk that carbon abatement measures may not be available at or below that price. However, if we set the price too high, we put at risk housebuilding viability, which could seriously stifle much needed future housebuilding provision. I am sure I speak for all noble Lords when I say that none of us wants that.
We received a great deal of conjecture about the pros and cons of the different price caps from the consultation, but received little new evidence to inform that choice. However, it was clear that homebuilders have strong concerns about potential costs and the impact on housebuilding. The Government have therefore committed to undertake further analysis on these impacts before a decision is made. None the less, we know that a price of £90 per tonne of carbon will mean an allowable solutions cost in the range of £2,000 to £3,000 per dwelling, which is by no means an insignificant sum. It was supported by less than half of the consultation responses, and by only 10% of builders and developers. The majority of those who responded to the consultation said that the price cap should be reviewed every three years. That seems a sensible suggestion, and we have agreed to it. However, setting a price in primary legislation would mean finding parliamentary time and an appropriate legislative vehicle every three years to do so.
Amendment 93AD proposes to include in primary legislation a list of carbon abatement actions that may be supported. Last summer’s consultation sought views on whether the Government should set a statutory list or use a criteria-based approach to identify suitable carbon abatement measures. Of the responses, 74% did not support focusing on particular types of measures, and there was a consensus that being too prescriptive would stifle flexibility within the market for allowable solutions. We would be concerned about describing measures in primary legislation. Indeed, including lists of measures in secondary legislation can also inhibit flexibility. We also discussed whether a criteria-based approach might be adopted, so that if a measure met those criteria, it could be supported.
The criteria proposed were: complementarity, such that measures should complement but not displace projects supported separately by other government programmes; market additionality, meaning measures which would not otherwise have been brought forward by the market; cost effectiveness, whereby measures should bring forward cost-effective carbon abatement; verifiable carbon savings, whereby measures should be capable of delivering verifiable carbon savings; and, finally, being of demonstrable benefit to UK citizens. More than 60% of respondents to the consultation considered that these were appropriate criteria.
We also set out a list of potential measures in the consultation, including three of those suggested in this amendment: retrofitting existing private buildings; retrofitting existing public buildings; and connecting existing private buildings to a community heating scheme. The installation of charging points for vehicles, although not included in the list in the consultation, is another measure which we think would be appropriate. The Government will certainly look to provide further information on measures which could be supported, for example through guidance. However, it is our belief that listing measures in primary legislation could, as I have said, reduce flexibility and potentially stifle new measures being brought forward.
My noble friend Lady Maddock raised the issue of not having information on secondary legislation. We want very much to embed this in building regulations because that is the system which homebuilders understand. It means that we can use existing legislative structures and building controls rather than having to invent new compliance bodies. That is why we are taking powers in the Building Act to amend the regulations rather than developing a completely separate set. This is an innovative approach to delivering carbon abatement measures and, as I have said, we want to avoid being too prescriptive in primary legislation. There was also a question about why no secondary legislation is already available. The Government want to work further with industry and others who would need to be informed on the details of the implementation before we put down secondary legislation. I can look into what further information can be made available for discussion at later stages of the Bill.
The noble Lord, Lord McKenzie, said that often when we look at such issues it is a case of, “Yes, that’s good but should we go further?”. The Government have strengthened energy performance requirements for new homes significantly. Indeed, we have strengthened them by more than 30% since we came into office. We have reduced energy bills by £200 on average and are saving carbon. As part of the journey to zero-carbon homes, we now propose further to improve those energy requirements, typically by 20% across the housing build mix. While some might say that we should go further, we have had to strike a balance between what is feasible to raise standards for new homes without imposing excessive costs and unrealistic levels of ambition on homebuilders.
The noble Lord, Lord McKenzie, quite rightly raised the issue of the environment vis-à-vis growth. Evidence supplied by the UK Green Building Council shows that the cost of delivering a zero-carbon home is between £3,500 and £5,000. This is a significant amount of extra money for developers to find. It would not be right, in a still recovering economy, suddenly to require them to find this extra money for every new home delivered. Since 2010, the Government have taken gradual steps towards delivering zero-carbon homes. From 2016, they will be delivered via the right combination of on-site and off-site measures. We will, of course, keep that combination under review.
The noble Lord, Lord McKenzie, also referred to setting the on-site standard and its watering down and asked whether the Government have proposed a weakened on-site energy performance standard rather than the level recommended by the Zero Carbon Hub in the consultation. We have strengthened the energy performance requirements for new homes significantly since we came into office—I have already alluded to this—and as part of the journey to zero-carbon homes we now propose further to improve these energy requirements, typically by 20% across the housing build mix.
Amendment 93AAA deals with two important aspects of the zero-carbon policy commitment: first, how we will set the carbon compliance standard and, secondly, what action we will take to update the House on that policy. Perhaps I may deal with the issue of reporting first. Noble Lords will know that there is an existing provision in the Sustainable and Secure Buildings Act 2004 which can meet the intent of this amendment and would not need the introduction of additional administrative requirements and costs. Section 6 of that Act requires that a biennial report on the sustainability of the building stock is produced and laid before Parliament. It specifies that the report must include building regulations made in the reporting period, changes in the energy and carbon efficiency of the building stock and an estimate of the number of buildings at the end of the reporting period. The intent and content of this existing reporting requirement under the Sustainable and Secure Buildings Act lends itself to the provision of information about zero-carbon homes, and this could offer a less cumbersome way forward to providing and making available to the House and more widely the information being sought. It is also right—and the opportunity exists—for noble Lords to ask for further information through parliamentary Questions.
In relation to the carbon compliance standards that developers may have to meet before applying any allowable solutions, noble Lords may know that we have already set this in line with the requirements of the code for sustainable homes level 4. Homes built to this level will need to have even better levels of insulation, triple-glazed windows and renewable energy systems, such as solar panels. This will reduce carbon emissions by another 20%, compared to current standards across the range of new home types, and reduce fuel costs for homeowners even further. We anticipate annual fuel bills for new homes to be around £700 less than the average existing home.
Noble Lords must not forget that the requirements of the building regulations are already very demanding to meet from a technical viewpoint, and solutions do not come cheaply, particularly for smaller developers, as noble Lords have said. Although we must meet our environmental obligations, we must do so while increasing housebuilding to help to meet the needs of our growing and ageing population and maintaining economic growth. Proposals to raise the regulatory requirements from 2016 will come at an extra cost, which must be manageable. It is on that basis that I argue that a carbon compliance level set at the code for sustainable homes level 4 is the right approach.
I am aware that some consider that the levels we are proposing from 2016 do not go far enough or that we are watering down our ambitions for delivering zero-carbon homes. These views do not take account of the need to balance our green and growth policy ambitions, as I have explained. I am clear that the steps we are taking achieve that necessary balance. We will, of course, keep the position under review, and it may be appropriate in the future to move further to tighten the on-site requirements.
I turn to Amendments 93AE and 93AF. Amendment 93AF seeks to ensure that all regulations made in relation to the off-site abatement of carbon dioxide will follow the affirmative procedure. As we have discussed, we propose to bring forward new building regulations, which are made under the negative procedure. It is my understanding that the Delegated Powers Committee has considered our amendments and has not expressed any concern regarding legislation that would be delegated from it. In particular, it has not recommended the affirmative procedure. However, I reassure noble Lords that the Government already use well established consultation procedures before laying new building regulations. In fact, the Building Act requires the Secretary of State to consult an independent expert panel, the Building Regulations Advisory Committee, on any new regulations before they are laid. The Secretary of State is required also to consult other bodies representative of the interested parties concerned.
The noble Lord, Lord McKenzie, asked a general point on the price cap and further analysis. Further work will be done over the coming months. It is a complex area, as I am sure that the noble Lord recognises, and we cannot commit to a date, but we recognise the importance of resolving the issue.
On the issue of consultation and the Committee on Climate Change, the committee will undoubtedly be an interested body, and we would welcome its views. It already has a formal role to report each year to Parliament on the extent to which government policies, including zero-carbon homes, are sufficient to meet carbon budget targets. There is already a statutory mechanism for the committee to provide its view on the adequacy or otherwise of the zero-carbon homes standards and other government policies, so there is no need make it a statutory consultee in the Bill.
I trust that I have covered all the questions. My noble friend Lord Jenkin asked about the Home Builders Federation’s statement on new homes. I reassure him that we recognise it and commend it as well.
A raft of issues was covered, and I thank all noble Lords for their contributions. I hope that the explanations I have given have provided some reassurance on the concerns raised and the points made. I recognise that after digesting my detailed explanations, noble Lords may wish to come back at a later stage. We will reflect very carefully on the further information that can be made available to the Committee to help further consideration.
Lord Teverson
I congratulate the Minister on the depth of his reply, given the short notice that he had of this debate. It was a very useful analysis of everything. House rules now allow us to use our iPads; I can see that the Minister has an impressive track record in this area in local government. This has been an excellent debate.
I thank noble Lords for their contributions on the small developments amendment. My explanation was inadequate in comparison with that of the noble Lord, Lord Best, which highlighted exactly the potential gaining there can be in splitting up developments. I am reassured by the Minister on that area. Clearly the Government are determined that such attempts to reduce the individual tranches of development will not be used.
Like my noble friend Lord Jenkin, I read the authoritative report from the Federation of Master Builders. It struck me as a denigration of its own profession, saying that smaller builders are not able to do this. I find that hugely disappointing. My experience, like that of the noble Lord, Lord Best, is the opposite. Smaller builders are far more able to provide consistent quality and to use local subcontractors for specialist functions, which these energy and emission-savings regulations would require. Rural communities are nearly always small but are also challenged on energy bills because they do not have access to gas. I am in that situation. I do not plead fuel poverty, but many people in my neighbourhood would because we have no access to gas and have to rely on oil, which I use, or bottled gas, if people are really well off. I cannot afford that luxury. It is a real issue. I ask the Minister and the Government to think again about this exemption.
I accept the Minister’s criticism that the very specific five-mile radius is perhaps not appropriate. I think we all agree that it would be preferable if alternative allowable solutions were implemented locally so that local communities and people in the houses concerned would see some of the benefits. I understand that it will be in the interests of the developer to point out local benefits that come through. In this case, would the Government see that that could be enforced?
It would really concern me if, having got permission for a development with allowable solutions, the developer, having done the sale, decides that it is all a little too difficult. We have seen a renegotiation of affordable housing or Section 106 agreements. Then, because of what they have decided to do in a development in Reading that is controversial, say, they decide to plant a forest in Northumberland after all. That is excellent for Northumberland and great for the climate, but not what the residents of Reading were promised. Will there be a preference for local solutions and, if agreed, will they be enforceable? I ask for the Minister’s thoughts in that area.
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon
I think I said in my response that there are two elements to this. The second element is the impact on the locality. I speak as someone who has sat on a planning committee, as have other noble Lords. I know what happens when you consider planning applications. By golly, I have bashed out quite a few Section 106 agreements, and the whole intention is one of local benefit.
First, as for local authorities setting up their own funds, that is still to be decided, but I suppose that there is an argument to be made that setting up a plethora of individual funds may involve higher overheads. On the issue of prescriptive enforcement, in all planning applications we also look to the importance of building regulations. As I have alluded to in some of the detail that I have given, we also hope that the detail will be tied in with the building regulations. It will be for local authorities to ensure that the building regulations are adhered to.
If there is any further detail beyond that, I will certainly make it available to the Committee.
Lord Teverson
I thank the Minister for that. However, the point I am making is that you can fulfil building regulations by doing something far away; whereas, in a planning permission, there is a specific agreement to do specific things. On the carbon price, going to £90 is one figure. I was trying to make such allowable solutions the last resort and ensure that other solutions—either for the building itself or locally—came first. On electricity charging points for cars, I thank the Minister for his potentially positive reaction; that is excellent.
Clearly, I will not press my amendment. The risk about the price of housing and standards is clear if we look at the automotive industry. It has constantly had regulations on carbon emissions, and there has always been a fight, fight, fight by the automotive industry against all of them. Finally, politicians—at this point, in the single market at the European level—have had the guts to say, “Right, we have had enough of negotiation; we are going to ensure that”. That has happened a number of times on emissions. Has the real price of cars ever gone up over that period? The answer is absolutely not.
The same is true in the area of renewable energy. The cost is constantly coming down. The issue is not the increased price of houses—it may be in the very short term, but I suspect that that may be reflected in the land value rather than the price of the house, because that is the big variable in value and how planning permission works. Before I withdraw my amendment, I sincerely ask the Government not to be completely taken by the argument that the whole of the private industry is centred on efficiency increases and reducing costs. It is completely able to do that; this is not the biggest cost factor; and it is much more important that the future stream of energy costs to the people who live inside—the voters, consumers and citizens—are taken equally into consideration. I think that they should be weighed much higher in the balance. I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Lord Teverson
“Carbon compliance standard for new homes
(1) The Secretary of State must within six months of the passing of this Act make regulations under section 1(1) of the Building Act 1984 for the purpose of ensuring that all new homes built from 2016 achieve a carbon compliance standard.
(2) For the purpose of subsection (1), “carbon compliance standard” means an improvement on the target carbon dioxide emission rate as set out in the Building Regulations 2006 of—
(a) 60% in the case of detached houses;(b) 56% in the case of attached houses;(c) 44% in the case of flats.(3) Any further regulations made by the Secretary of State requiring persons constructing new homes to achieve reductions in carbon dioxide emissions elsewhere than on the site of such homes shall only be applicable in circumstances where the improvements set out in subsection (2) have been achieved.”
Lord Teverson
My Lords, I probably will not detain the Grand Committee for too long on this amendment, as in a way the principle has already been discussed on the amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord McKenzie. From our debates so far, we realise that the regulations really are not about zero-carbon homes; they are an approximation to that and we can never get to it. However, a great deal of consultation has gone on over the years with the building industry. We are always told—I accept it entirely—that one of the things that we need to do is make changes in regulations predictable and signal them far ahead, so that there is a degree of certainty, the producers can prepare and everything runs smoothly for the industry. With the Government and the industry, the Zero Carbon Hub spent a great deal of time coming to standards that would be accepted for 2016, and I admit to disappointment that we have not really got there at present. We have also removed a requirement about appliances within those homes being taken into consideration.
I talked about hope value in terms of planning just now, and my hope value in terms of the Bill is that the Government might reconsider where they go in this area, as we are still far away from zero carbon. I fully accept that we have to be practical, but this is the trajectory that we were expecting, it was negotiated with a large proportion of the industry, and it would be a good model were we able to pursue it. I beg to move.
Viscount Hanworth (Lab)
My Lords, it is little more than a week since we received notification of the publication of the Government’s response to the outcome of the consultation exercise on zero-carbon homes and the so-called allowable solutions. Already there has been a flurry of government amendments to the Bill in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Kramer, based ostensibly on these responses. They have been followed by contrary amendments in the names of the noble Lords, Lord Teverson and Lord Tope. There is clearly a division of opinion among the coalition on these issues.
Much in the Government’s document ought to be considered in detail, but at a glance it is easy to recognise its salient characteristics. It exemplifies the doublethink that we have come to expect of the Government in connection with environmental issues. It also illustrates the perspectives of the persons responsible for drafting the legislation, who have given expression to a kind of neoliberal economic thinking that was at the heart of the Energy Bill which we considered last summer. I shall attempt to characterise those perspectives but, for a start, let me talk of doublethink.
The consultation document on zero-carbon homes and the Government’s response both declare an earnest intention of staunching the emissions of carbon dioxide, yet ultimately subvert these intentions.
Baroness Maddock
My Lords, I suspect that my noble friend will again talk about the balance between getting houses built and imposing regulations, particularly on small builders. Perhaps I may say how much I welcome his presence here as our new Minister for the DCLG. It is indeed a pleasure to have somebody who has served in local government doing that job. I did not say anything earlier, although I should have done, because I am really pleased about my noble friend’s appointment.
I want to raise two points concerning the problems for people who are carrying out what we want them to do in relation to zero-carbon homes. As the noble Viscount has just said, there has been a lot of discussion about this. It is not new—builders have been trying to adjust to this for quite a long time. Therefore, if people are starting to cry wolf, we need to be careful, because they have talked about it for a long time and, indeed, have been part of the consultations on how we are going to achieve zero-carbon homes.
One thing that we have been very bad at in this country is taking on new building methods, which can be more efficient and less costly. I particularly remember being involved in this 20 years ago when I was an MP. In a small village in north Dorset, a housing association had tried to put up more energy-efficient homes, using, as much as it could, off-site construction. Off-site construction can be cost effective, and you get accuracy and can build pretty energy-efficient homes. The thing that still sticks in my mind about it is the almost zero waste from the building site while the homes were being built. I do not know whether any consideration has been given in the regulations on zero-carbon homes as to how much waste from sites is produced.
In trying to get the balance right, I hope that the Government will look at these points and say to builders, “You’ve had lots of time. Use your energies in being imaginative about new ways of making energy-efficient homes, because in that way you can probably drastically reduce your costs and reduce the effect on the environment”.
Lord McKenzie of Luton
My Lords, I want to make a couple of points. It seems to me that the amendment highlights that, whatever the Government’s claim about improvements in the position since 2010, they have not delivered the trajectory that was expected and consulted on, on which there was a consensus and which is reflected in this amendment. That is to be regretted.
The other point that the amendment focuses on is the extent to which you have to deal with abatement on-site as fully as you can before going down the path of allowable solutions. I may have missed it in what went before but I think that that is a point on which it would be very helpful to have clarification—that you have to do as much as you can in relation to these standards and can only take an alternative allowable solutions option to fulfil the rest of the obligation beyond that.
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon
My Lords, I thank my noble friend for tabling his amendment, which has allowed this, albeit brief, discussion. I will attempt to be equally brief in my response compared with my response on the previous group of amendments.
As I said during the discussion on Amendment 93AAA, the carbon compliance levels put forward are well intentioned and while the Government accept that, we believe them to be unworkable. We all share a desire to see the building of energy-efficient homes that reduce carbon emissions and fuel bills, but we believe that at this time this amendment goes too far. We should not forget that the Government have made significant progress to deliver on the commitments that we and the previous Government made to ensure that zero-carbon homes are built from 2016 onwards. Since we confirmed our commitment to the 2016 target for new homes to be zero carbon, we have further strengthened the requirements of the 2006 building regulations, in 2010 and 2014, achieving a total reduction of 30%. In fact, the most recent changes we made to the building regulations, in 2014, will help save home owners £200 on average on their fuel bills compared to the new homes built before we came to office.
We are not stopping there. As I have said already, we have confirmed that from 2016 all new homes will have to meet even higher standards for on-site measures, to be set out in building regulations. These will be set at a level equivalent to that required for a home built to the level 4 standard of the code for sustainable homes. They will also save home owners on average a further £700 annually, when compared to an existing home.
In order to raise or lower the energy requirements for new homes, it is always necessary to consult carefully with industry. We should not forget that we are talking about a technical area that impacts across the construction sector. It would therefore not be workable to deliver the proposed standard within six months. Even if it were, it is not prudent to have such a rigid timeframe for delivery in the Bill—or to set requirements such as this in primary legislation. If, in the light of the consultation, there needed to be any slight adjustments to requirements, we would not be able to do so without new primary legislation. We have said that we will strengthen standards and deliver zero-carbon homes from 2016. That is a clear government commitment, for which we will be held accountable if we do not deliver. Between now and 2016 we will consult widely on how the new and higher proposed carbon compliance standard should be met. We will share that consultation with noble Lords.
I turn to some specific questions. The noble Viscount, Lord Hanworth, and my noble friend Lady Maddock asked about the on-site standard and the watering down. The type and design of housing built in England varies enormously. Some technical solutions for reducing carbon emissions work well in certain circumstances—for example, solar panels on roofs—but in other cases, the cost of the technology outweighs the benefit. Developers need to have choices about how they meet the zero-carbon policy. This will increase competition in the marketplace and help minimise costs. We need to strike a balance between uplifting energy performance requirements and mitigating any negative burdens on the housebuilding industry.
The noble Viscount also asked about regulation and allowable solutions. It is not technically feasible or economic to try to achieve the emissions from on-site measures alone, as we recognised when the idea of allowable solutions was first introduced. As a point of fact, the concept of allowable solutions was of course first proposed by the previous Administration in 2008.
My noble friend Lady Maddock asked about wastage on zero-carbon sites. The Sustainable and Secure Buildings Act requires the Government to report on the reuse of building materials on the site. If there is further detail on the numbers, I will bring it to her attention. She also raised promoting innovation. The drive to high-energy efficiency is in itself driving innovation, which we encourage. That is being aided by various government programmes.
The noble Lord, Lord McKenzie, spoke about doing much of this on-site. I agree. We want to push on-site measures, but they need to be cost-effective and a balance needs to be struck.
I hope that the approach which I have set out here, and earlier during the brief discussion on Amendment 93AAA, demonstrates why this amendment would be problematic in terms of the increased demands on the homebuilding industry and the mechanics of delivering it. On that basis, I hope that the reassurance provided to my noble friend Lord Teverson is enough to encourage him to withdraw the amendment and work with us to deliver a balanced package of zero-carbon measures from 2016 onwards.
Lord McKenzie of Luton
Before the noble Lord responds, perhaps I might come back on a couple of things. At what point in time did the Government move away from the carbon compliance standard that was agreed, and expected to be the consensus, and go to the level 4 alternative? There has been lots of paperwork flying around and, doubtless, we have missed it but can the Minister say exactly when that happened? What was the evidence base behind that, which led the Government to that conclusion? I accept that they may take a view on the imposition of costs and so on, but it is really about the analysis that underpins that. As for allowable solutions, we are not opposed to them; they were reared as a concept under the previous Government, so we have no problem with that. However, I am trying to understand at what point and on the basis of what analysis that change was made.
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon
I think that I have already talked about the analysis, which was based on various consultations and representations that were made. However, the noble Lord was asking specifically about the date. I believe that it was in the Queen’s Speech for this year.
Lord Teverson
My Lords, I thank everyone who has been involved in this debate, and particularly the noble Lord, Lord McKenzie, for bringing up the finer points of my amendment, which I did not get on to myself. Important questions were answered there.
Clearly, I accept that my noble friend the Minister is absolutely right: this amendment is not appropriate to primary legislation and I shall not pursue it today. However, I feel some disappointment that we have managed to move off what I understood was agreed was part of a trajectory. We will judge that in years to come, because we are so aware of the huge task that the Government had with the Green Deal in trying to re-engineer past building stock, which never caught up to where it needed to be. The last thing that we want to do is to be in that position with the houses that are built over the next decade. We do not want to find that we have to go back and retrofit them in 20 or 25 years’ time. I recognise the Minister’s point that there would be a certain amount of inflexibility if we had this provision in the Bill. Therefore, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Teverson
“Zero carbon homes: annual report
(1) The Planning Inspectorate must, before 31 December 2017 and before that date in every subsequent calendar year, prepare a report on compliance with the zero carbon homes standard.
(2) A report under subsection (1) must include, as regards each preceding calendar period—
(a) the number of homes built to the zero carbon standard;(b) the number of certificates issued as evidence of compliance with section 1(1A)(d) of the Building Act 1984 (power to make building regulations);(c) the number of “suitable alternatives” made by people to whom the requirements under paragraph 7A(2) of Schedule 1 to that Act (building regulations);(d) an analysis of the type of “suitable alternatives” made under that paragraph; and(e) the number of instances of failure to comply with the provisions of that paragraph.(3) The Planning Inspectorate must—
(a) present the report to the Secretary of State; and(b) publish the report in a suitable format.(4) The Secretary of State may give the Planning Inspectorate directions regarding—
(a) the form of a report under subsection (1); and(b) the manner in which such a report must be prepared or sent.”
Lord Teverson
My Lords, this is quite a long amendment but it is trying to do something simple, which my noble friend Lady Maddock has already talked about. It is trying to say that there is a whole set of issues around the management and control of building regulations of the sort that we are talking about here. It is difficult enough with building regulations as they are at the minute. I was in local government for a short period—for four years up until last year—and one question that we kept on coming to was whether, although we have those regulations, they are really being applied. It is great for us and the department to say that these are the right things, however high or low those standards are, but if they are not effectively applied, either through negligence or perhaps even through design, that is not very good at all. However, with what we have on allowable solutions at the moment, it is even more difficult to say whether the policy has been effectively implemented.
My last quote from the Committee on Climate Change report for 2014 on progress is probably something that noble Lords will recognise. It says:
“While the tightening of buildings regulations is important for carbon budgets, the actual delivery of carbon savings is not necessarily assured. There has been increasing evidence of a significant gap between predicted performance and in-use performance, with new buildings rarely delivering the expected savings due to a variety of factors (e.g. poor design and installation)”.
That is a very depressing paragraph for all of us, but I am afraid that we probably all experience and see that out in the real world.
With this amendment, I am trying to probe the Government on more than how we are actually going to manage the new process. I would be interested in the Minister’s comments on how effectively the Government think—dare I say?—bog-standard building regulations are implemented at the moment. What evidence do we have? What lessons can we learn? I shall certainly withdraw my amendment, but what would the Government like to bring forward so that we can rest assured that—whatever we agree and is subsequently agreed in building regulations under the Building Act—a job well done is not only when this legislation is passed but when it is implemented? I beg to move.
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon
My Lords, I thank my noble friend for tabling the amendment. I agree that it is important that we have information on the operation of zero-carbon homes standards. As I said on Amendment 93AAA, we need to ensure that the desire for information is dealt with in a way which does not create unnecessary administration. Usefully, there is an opportunity to use existing reporting mechanisms, which will save the need for extra legislation.
In that respect, I have to point out that it would not be the role of the Planning Inspectorate to be involved in reporting for off-site carbon abatement matters, as proposed in the amendment, as those are dealt with through building control, not planning, which is the remit of the inspectorate. To ask the inspectorate to report would require the creation of new systems for it to ask for information from building control bodies, and that would create unnecessary administrative burdens.
I have already outlined the requirements in the Sustainable and Secure Buildings Act 2004 which can meet the intent of this amendment and would not need the introduction of new requirements. For the benefit of noble Lords, it would be useful to repeat what Section 6 of the Act requires. Under that section, a biennial report on the sustainability of building stock is produced and laid before Parliament. It specifies that the report must include building regulations made in the reporting period, changes in the energy and carbon efficiency of the building stock, and an estimate of the number of dwellings at the end of the reporting period. The intent and content of this existing reporting requirement under the Sustainable and Secure Buildings Act lends itself to the provision of information about zero-carbon homes, and could offer a way forward to provide the information being sought to the House and more widely.
My noble friend also asked for other information about what the Government propose. In this respect, we can augment the information already required to be produced for reports under the Sustainable and Secure Buildings Act with information available from the register for keeping track of those certificates, as proposed in our new clause. Our new clause enables building regulations to be made for the creation, maintenance and administration of a new register to keep records of certificates as evidence of compliance with building regulations when off-site allowable solutions are adopted as part of zero-carbon homes solutions.
As we develop the register, we can certainly look to see that it will enable appropriate information to be available. That would avoid the need for separate reporting requirements and additional administrative burdens and costs, of course.
In terms of enforcement and how this would work, nothing proposed removes the fundamental fact that, before buildings can be used, they have to be signed off by a building control body as meeting building regulation requirements. Therefore, a building control body need not accept a certificate provided for off-site carbon abatement measures if there is any doubt as to, for example, the provenance of certificates or the validity of the off-site carbon abatement measures to which they relate. Of course, in the last resort a local authority could prosecute someone who failed to comply with the zero-carbon standard.
My noble friend also talked specifically about the gap between design and performance. Our zero-carbon homes strategy does not stop at strengthening the building regulations alone. We want to ensure that the homes perform as we expect them to. To that end, we support a wide piece of work with the industry being led by the Zero Carbon Hub to ensure that all new homes, when built, save the amount of energy and carbon expected.
The work led by the Zero Carbon Hub is looking at closing the gap between the design and the as-built performance of new homes, and we will consider how best to take forward its recommendations. In terms of practicalities and how the register will operate, we are currently working up the detail, which will be subject of course to consultation. The key elements could operate in a similar way to the register of the energy performance of buildings—namely, that a copy of the certificate would need to be entered on to the register by the person who had produced it at the same time that it was supplied to the developer. We would of course anticipate that information about the number of certificates on the register would be available more widely, subject to appropriate data protection requirements, as is the case with the EPB register.
As for how allowable solutions will be checked, I think that my noble friend raised a question about that in respect of a previous amendment. I mentioned at that point that measures such as retrofit, which are classified as building works, will be subject to building regulations. We could also support this through a requirement to provide an updated energy certificate, while small-scale energy measures would also have to demonstrate that they met minimum energy performance levels, which would be converted into carbon savings.
My noble friend also asked about the effectiveness of building regulations enforcement. A building control survey in November 2011 showed a significant number of interventions by building control bodies. I can of course send a copy of that report to my noble friend and, indeed, share it with all noble Lords in the Committee.
Lord McKenzie of Luton
I think that the Minister said that the report was from 2011. What is the Government’s current assessment of the capacity of building control up and down the country to cope with these obligations?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon
When I put that report forward, I will also provide additional analysis, if it is available. I hope that my remarks and the approach that I have set out demonstrate that we can make economical use of proposed and existing registers and reporting arrangements, and avoid the burden of additional reporting requirements. On the basis of that detailed explanation and the reassurances that I have provided, I hope that my noble friend will be minded to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Teverson
My Lords, again, I thank my noble friend for going through that—quite rapidly, I would say. I will diligently read Hansard when the report is available to go through. I am sure that he shares my concern to make sure that these future regulations are delivered and enforced. I would just stress once again that, when we move into the allowable solutions area, this is not necessarily about a physical thing but something rather more difficult to check. That process needs to be checked a lot more carefully than under present conditions. On the basis that there are already procedures—I thank my noble friend for undertaking to distribute that information, which will be of great interest to the Committee more widely—I am very pleased to beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Lord Teverson
“Commencement of planning changes
Section 33 of the Deregulation Act 2014 (Amendment of Planning and Energy Act 2008) may not come into force until the provisions set out in paragraph 7A of Schedule 1 to the Building Act 1984 (building regulations) come into force.”
Lord Teverson
My Lords, this brings the Committee to an area which I am sure my noble friend is well acquainted with. Currently, Section 1(1)(c) of the 2008 Act is in force. I do not know the full details of the whole Act, but the most important thing in this context is that it is about localism before the age of localism, in that it allows local authorities to ask for and determine standards that are higher than the building regulations that are set nationally. In fact, one could say it is a good example of subsidiarity as well as localism. This was very much identified with Merton.
The Deregulation Bill going through in this parliamentary Session intends, I think quite sadly, to withdraw that aspect of the 2008 Act. Although I recognise that when we get to a zero-carbon standard the provision in the 2008 Act in a way becomes redundant, I am concerned that there should not be a gap between the two so that those local authorities that take advantage of that flexibility suddenly have to stop and then restart once these new building regulations come in.
All this amendment does is to make sure that there is continuity. Coming from a Government who celebrate localism and subsidiarity, I hope that the Minister will be able to consider it favourably, to ensure that this flexibility stays there and that the principles and beliefs which I know he has can be maintained until we have this higher standard across England as a whole. I beg to move.
Lord McKenzie of Luton
My Lords, I support this amendment and agree with it for the reasons advanced. I just take the opportunity to say that I think an equivalent amendment was moved in the House of Commons by my colleagues and voted on, sadly without the support of the Liberal Democrats. One would hope that if we tested this in due course, there might be a reversal, although I hesitate to point that out.
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon
My Lords, with that last comment the noble Lord, Lord McKenzie, has demonstrated again the independence of thinking of our coalition colleagues, at least in the House of Lords. I say nothing more.
The other thing to say is that this is the final group for today and it brings to a conclusion for this afternoon much of the Teverson/Ahmad performance, with a sprinkling of McKenzie. We have addressed several important areas and, in the explanations that I have given thus far, I hope that I have put more detail on to what the Government’s thinking is. I repeat that the important element in all this is that although we may perhaps differ on the speed, and sometimes the approach, I think that the intent and principles behind what the Government are seeking to do are supported across the House and the Committee as a whole.
Turning to the amendment, it is perhaps unusual for us to be debating here the commencement of provisions in another Bill which has not yet completed its passage through the House. However, I recognise the interest in this issue. The background to this is the changes we are making to rationalise and simplify changes to housing standards. The Government announced in March that, as far as possible, we will consolidate necessary standards into building regulations. The Planning and Energy Act, among other things, allows local authorities to set planning policies to require energy efficiency standards above those in building regulations. With the introduction of strengthened building regulations and of the zero-carbon homes standard, this has become unnecessary, so we propose in the Deregulation Bill to amend the Act to remove that provision.
The issue of when we will commence changes to the Planning and Energy Act 2008 in support of zero-carbon policy has already been discussed in the other place. At this juncture, I can perhaps do no better than to repeat what my right honourable friend the Minister for Government Policy said recently in the other place. I am happy to do so here for the benefit of the Committee. Referring to zero-carbon policy, he said:
“We are aware that within that framework, the decision on the commencement date for amendments to the Planning and Energy Act 2008, which restrict the ability of local authorities to impose their own special requirements, must be made in such a way that the ending of those abilities to set special requirements knits properly with the start of the operation of standards for zero-carbon homes and allowable solutions”.—[Official Report, Commons, 23/6/14; col. 153.]
That commitment is on the public record and I have repeated it today. It shows clearly that we are conscious of the need for a sensible transition arrangement. With the explanation that I have given, and my repeating the statement of my right honourable friend, I hope that my noble friend has the reassurance he seeks and that he will withdraw his amendment.
Lord Teverson
My Lords, I am delighted to hear that commitment by the right honourable Oliver Letwin again, representing the positive reaction of the coalition Government of the Conservative Party and the Liberal Democrats to the amendment. I am grateful, too, for the support of the noble Lord, Lord McKenzie, and his Commons colleagues. On that basis, I am pleased to withdraw the amendment.
House of Lords
India
(9 years, 9 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Harries of Pentregarth
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what is their assessment of the new Government of India and the challenge presented by poverty in that country.
Baroness Northover (LD)
We congratulate the new Indian Government on their decisive victory in the largest democratic election in history. Development through good governance was a central plank of Prime Minister Modi’s election campaign. He has announced a government programme that aims to raise economic growth and improve opportunities for the poor.
Lord Harries of Pentregarth (CB)
I thank the Minister for her reply. As she knows, poverty in India is on an enormous scale. It has one-third of the world’s poor and more poverty than the whole of Africa put together. Is she aware that of the 320 million people living below the poverty level, 200 million are Dalits, 50% of Dalit villages have no clean water and 75% of Dalit women are illiterate? In her discussions with the Indian Government on this issue, will she press home the fact that tackling poverty on such an epic scale is integrally linked to tackling also a system that leaves the Dalits and other scheduled castes trapped at the bottom of an oppressive pile?
Baroness Northover
The noble and right reverend Lord makes a very good point. We and the Government of India are well aware of the figures that he outlines. It is encouraging to see that when the President addressed Parliament to lay out the new programme for the new Government, he emphasised that and said:
“My government is committed to making all minorities equal partners in India’s progress”.
DfID is giving a great deal of technical assistance to the Indian Government in this regard.
Lord Paul (Non-Afl)
The Government of India and the Prime Minister are very much aware that the people have voted for him to remove and eradicate poverty. However, there is a very confusing message for the people of India. Will the Minister clarify whether Her Majesty’s Government are more interested in seeing poverty eradicated in India than in strengthening the market for sales of UK military hardware?
Baroness Northover
Again, I quote from the President’s address to the Indian Parliament on 9 June, when he said:
“My government will not be satisfied with mere poverty alleviation but commits itself to the goal of poverty elimination”.
That is extremely encouraging. India is an important bilateral partner for us but, as the noble Lord will know, DfID is strongly engaged to try to ensure that poverty is indeed alleviated, and we hope, eliminated.
Lord Loomba (LD)
My Lords, I congratulate the Government on leading the way in fulfilling the UN target to spend 0.7% of gross national income on aid, underpinned by the forthcoming Private Member’s Bill sponsored by my colleague in the other House, Mike Moore MP. Will the Minister tell us what percentage of the international aid provided by the Government is spent on poverty-alleviating projects in India?
Baroness Northover
I thank my noble friend for his tribute to the Government. I am proud to be part of a Government who have finally met that 0.7% target. Everybody in this House knows how important that is, and how small a contribution it is in financial terms. That is something that we need to get across to the public as a whole. There is a moral case for this; it is extremely important.
My noble friend will also know that, as India grows, it is transitioning to looking after its own people; that is key. I have seen major Indian government projects in place supported with DfID technical expertise. That is the right way to head.
Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)
My Lords, 15 years ago there were just two dollar billionaires in India; now there are 46. The total net worth of the billionaire community in India has climbed from 1% to 12% of GDP. That is enough to eliminate absolute poverty twice over, with enough left over to double spending on health. What steps will the Government take to ensure that this fundamental issue of income inequality is properly addressed at the UN talks on post-2015 SDGs?
Baroness Northover
The noble Lord will know from our own history that poverty alleviation in our country was a slow process. India is moving very fast. Over the past decade, it has moved from having 37% living in extreme poverty to 22%. The important thing, as the noble Lord rightly identifies, is India’s investment in its own people. I have said that what the Indian Government have put on the record is very encouraging, as they seek to eliminate poverty among all their people with, as they stress, inclusiveness in doing so.
The Lord Bishop of Carlisle
My Lords, does the Minister agree that while the gender gap in employment and political participation is narrowing in India, there is still much that needs to be done by the Government for the health and safety of girls and women? If that is the case, can the Minister assure us that this matter will be given the attention it deserves at the Girl Summit being hosted by the UK Government next week?
Baroness Northover
The Girl Summit is extremely important. The right reverend Prelate is right about the gender gap in India, but I also notice that in the budget of last week money was put into trying to ensure that girls attend and are safe in school. I have myself seen a major programme which puts money into the hands of families of girls to try to ensure that they stay in school and have the incentives to be there.
Lord Flight (Con)
My Lords, does the Minister agree that the most important way to reduce poverty in India is to increase its growth rate? It has lagged behind that of China significantly over the past decade for a variety of reasons, whereas China has indeed alleviated poverty dramatically.
Baroness Northover
I agree with my noble friend that growth is essential for reducing poverty. As he will know, Mr Modi has a record in this regard. What he is doing at the moment by investing in that growth, stabilising prices and investing in infrastructure is encouraging because that is how he is most likely to relieve poverty.
Lord Patel (CB)
I return to the point that my noble and right reverend friend Lord Harries of Pentregarth made. The poverty is related significantly to discrimination against a group which is a minority but is comprised of a large number of people: the Dalits. What will the British Government do to help India understand that and reduce the poverty among this group of people?
Baroness Northover
I quoted what the President said at the opening of Parliament in that regard.
Fuel Poverty
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Energy and Climate Change (Baroness Verma) (Con)
My Lords, the recent fuel poverty statistics show that, in fact, fuel poverty fell by nearly 5% in England in 2011-12, the latest year for which data are available. We welcome this modest fall, which was built on a fall in the two previous years. Overall, fuel poverty has fallen by nearly 9% since 2009, but we recognise that it is an extremely complex issue. It is a long-term issue requiring a long-term response.
Lord Ezra (LD)
My Lords, I thank my noble friend for her Answer. Bearing in mind that fuel poverty arises from low-income families living in badly insulated homes, of which there are more than 2 million in England, does she agree that dealing promptly and effectively with this problem would have two beneficial effects: first, to improve the living standards and health of those affected; and, secondly, through increased energy efficiency, to reduce import dependence?
Baroness Verma
My noble friend raises two key issues, and it is right that we address both of them. Our policy is to improve living standards for people in fuel-poor homes by trying to increase their energy efficiency. Our energy company obligation strikes at the heart of fuel poverty and is seeing nearly 400,000 low-income homes and vulnerable households helped since it started last March. The Green Deal, of course, is also a very important part of our policy approach.
Lord O'Neill of Clackmannan (Lab)
My Lords, can the noble Baroness tell us when the strategy will be announced, which is what my noble friend—whom I am delighted to see back in the House—asked this morning? Those of us who are associated with organisations such as National Energy Action are getting rather impatient at the length of time that this is taking to be produced. The statistics are now available. A number of schemes such as the Green Deal have been a failure, and the Warm Front scheme was withdrawn last year and nothing as yet is in its place. If we are having an improvement in the economy, surely those living in hard-to-heat homes, who are vulnerable and poor, should be among the first to enjoy the benefits of this apparent and claimed return to prosperity.
Baroness Verma
The noble Lord wants to know about the announcement. We will be announcing it shortly. However, we need to make sure that we have got it absolutely right. I would argue with the noble Lord’s assertion that the Green Deal has not delivered. It was started last year, and already more than 230,000 Green Deal assessments have been carried out. Therefore, I beg to differ with the noble Lord’s approach to the Green Deal, and it would be harmful to the industry that is trying very hard to address energy efficiency measures within homes if we have such a negative approach from the party opposite.
Lord Palmer (CB)
My Lords, is it not a scandal that in today’s society fuel poverty has to exist at all?
Baroness Verma
I absolutely agree with the noble Lord. However, since it does, and has been a long-term problem for us, we need to make sure that we have a proper, long-term, well thought-out solution. That is why we will announce a strategy that will address all those issues.
The Lord Bishop of St Albans
My Lords, those who keep a close eye on this area point out that issues of fuel poverty depend on which groups you look at. Clearly, in some groups this is a growing area. Indeed, they assert that there is a connection between the increase in fuel poverty of certain groups and the increase in the number of pre-paid meters that have been installed, partly because it is believed that they are the most expensive way to pay for fuel. In the light of that, can my noble friend tell us what consideration Her Majesty’s Government have given to promoting the five principles on the use of pre-paid meters which were agreed between Consumer Focus and the big six energy companies back in March 2011, to ensure consistency in their installation and use?
Baroness Verma
I am extremely grateful to the right reverend Prelate for his question, which enables me to reassure him and the House that we have looked very seriously at the pre-paid meter issue. We think that people on very low incomes must be among the greater beneficiaries of this policy, which is why we will make sure that through smart meters they are able to top up their meter as if they are topping up a mobile phone, so they have no chance of being cut off when they need their electricity the most.
Lord Grantchester (Lab)
My Lords, on 3 June the Times reported that profits from supplying electricity and gas to households had doubled in the past year. With profit margins from selling gas now over 10%, does the Minister not agree that we need to fix the broken energy market?
Baroness Verma
My Lords, the noble Lord is right, which is why the Government have referred the market to the CMA to look at how the energy markets are operating. We will await the outcome of its work, and in the mean time, Ofgem has the powers, as the noble Lord is aware, to take action against any supplier if it has any supported evidence that shows that they have behaved inappropriately.
Lord Teverson (LD)
My Lords, one of the great barriers to eliminating fuel poverty is that many people in that situation live in private rented accommodation and there is no incentive on landlords to make better the conditions and the cost of energy for their tenants. Can the Minister tell us what the Government are doing to remove that particular barrier and help those people, who suffer from some of the worst fuel poverty?
Baroness Verma
Of course, my noble friend raises another very important point. That is why we are looking at the private rented sector very carefully and trying to make it a priority that we ensure that we raise standards within that sector. We are working very closely with our colleagues at DCLG to ensure that we have the right approach. We are working towards a strategy that we hope will see some much more positive results from this sector. However, my noble friend is right to raise the issue, which we take very seriously.
Poverty and Social Exclusion
(9 years, 9 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Clinton-Davis
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what is their response to the recent findings by the Poverty and Social Exclusion in the United Kingdom research group.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Work and Pensions (Lord Freud) (Con)
This report was published back in March 2013. It says that people were deprived if they could afford less than 42 out of 44 necessities. Under the Child Poverty Act, which this House spent much time on, 1.8 million children are in combined low-income and material deprivation, which is far lower than the 4 million children reported to be deprived in this report.
Lord Clinton-Davis (Lab)
It is not only the Poverty and Exclusion research group that has highlighted what certainly was a catastrophic increase in the percentage of households that fall below society’s minimum standard of living. Does the Minister understand that the concern expressed by that organisation has also been expressed by the Joseph Rowntree Foundation, Barnado’s, and many others, and that it still exists? I prefer the joint views that they have expressed to those of the Government.
Lord Freud
The previous Government put through the Child Poverty Act, which we on this side of the House supported. It is based on some research that comes out regularly on households below average income. That came out last week, and it showed that the proportion of children in relative poverty is at its lowest level since the mid-1980s.
Baroness Howarth of Breckland (CB)
My Lords, it is clear that there are more than 1 million children still in poverty, and the relationship between their welfare and their education is well known. Does the Minister not agree that there should be a great deal of focus on young people who are going to find it difficult to pay for expensive school uniforms and trips? Otherwise they will be seen as different from their peers.
Lord Freud
The noble Baroness is completely right to concentrate on the fundamental causes of poverty, and working with youngsters is clearly right at the heart of that. That is why this Government have taken so many major steps in this area, including introducing the pupil premium and the early years pupil premium, raising teacher quality, and a number of others. I absolutely endorse her concentration on that area.
Baroness Grender (LD)
My Lords, given the importance afforded to education in this report, will the Minister also look at the welcome news in the Ofsted report published yesterday, that there is now evidence that the pupil premium is closing the attainment gap between children who have free school meals and their peers?
Lord Freud
It is clearly vital, as my noble friend says, to close the gap. There are lots of interesting statistics, particularly about what is happening in the London schools that are outperforming—although we do not know exactly how that has happened, and it is vital that we find out. It is the London Challenge, and there are quite a lot of analyses of exactly why that has come about.
Baroness Sherlock (Lab)
My Lords, the long-awaited interim report on the bedroom tax emerged this week. It slipped out at the height of the reshuffle without so much as a ministerial Statement, and it confirms what we knew—that only 4.5% of claimants have downsized, arrears have gone up, half of claimants have cut back on essentials such as food, and a quarter have gone into debt to avoid losing their home. I ask the Minister two questions. First, what assessment have the Government made of the effect of the bedroom tax on child poverty levels? Secondly, given the rather extensive briefing in today’s media that the Liberal Democrats are doing a U-turn on the bedroom tax, is it still government policy?
Lord Freud
Maybe I am not the best person to comment on Liberal Democrat manifesto planning. I can, however, assure the House that the removal of the spare room subsidy remains government policy—and I remind the House that this was coalition policy, which was decided in 2010 at the highest levels of government.
The Earl of Listowel (CB)
My Lords, I warmly welcome the excellent steps that this and the previous Government have taken in improving support for young people leaving local authority care, but may I draw the Minister’s attention to today’s report from the Education Select Committee in the other place, which highlights the fact that too many young people from care are going into bed-and-breakfast accommodation? There is still a lot of work to do, so will he look at that carefully? I also ask him to look at the next iteration of the care leavers strategy, which his department has been involved in, and to ensure that health, particularly mental health, is fully included, so that young people of 16 to 25 leaving local authority care, and the people who support them, have the excellent mental health support they need to avoid those young people entering social exclusion and poverty?
Lord Freud
The noble Earl is absolutely right to concentrate on this issue because this group has traditionally done disproportionately badly. We have taken steps to ensure that these young people are better off in terms of housing than youngsters who are not coming out of care. As regards the mental health issues, it is absolutely correct to concentrate on the fact that a large proportion of people develop long-term disabilities due to mental health issues. We are devoting a lot of energy to consideration of that area.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham (Lab)
My Lords, we have a bedroom tax because the Liberal Democrats voted for it—
Baroness Jenkin of Kennington (Con)
Does my noble friend agree that employment alleviates poverty, and does he welcome yesterday’s unemployment figures?
Lord Freud
It is always a great pleasure to reflect on the fact that we now have the highest rate of employment that this country has ever seen. One of the most interesting figures that I have looked at lately is that which shows what has happened to workless households in the social housing sector. That figure has always been high. It was up at 48.7% when we came into government and never got below 46%-odd at the height of the boom. However, it is now right down at 42.7%. That reflects a major cultural change as we get this country back to work.
Gaza
(9 years, 9 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Tonge
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the consequences of Israel’s recent campaign in Gaza.
The Senior Minister of State, Department for Communities and Local Government & Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Baroness Warsi) (Con)
My Lords, we are deeply concerned by the continuing violence in Gaza and Israel and call on all sides to de-escalate to avoid further civilian casualties. The Israeli people have the right to live without constant fear for their security and Gazans have the right to live with dignity and peace. We are concerned by the deteriorating humanitarian situation in Gaza.
Baroness Tonge (Ind LD)
My Lords, is the Minister aware that according to this morning’s figures—the latest I can get—more than 200 people have been killed in Gaza, nearly half of them women and children; four children have been killed on a beach, nowhere near rocket launchers; nearly 1,400 people have been seriously injured and the same sort of number of homes have been totally destroyed, together with water supplies, power supplies and sewage installations? The chief executive of UNICEF predicts that a generation of young people—
Baroness Tonge
You do not want to hear it: you are going to—young people traumatised and sick and hell-bent on revenge.
Does the Minister agree that we should help Israel to accept the Hamas offer of a ceasefire on condition that both Israel and Egypt open the crossings and the borders are supervised by the United Nations? Does she also agree that by allowing Israel to constantly break international law and act with impunity, we—all of us in this House, present and absent—are implicit in the destruction and suffering of the people of Gaza?
Baroness Warsi
My Lords, I understand the strength of feeling about this matter not just in this House but across the country. It is for that reason that we have been asking for a de-escalation. There is, of course, some hope this morning. Noble Lords will be aware that there has been a five-hour humanitarian ceasefire which was negotiated by the United Nations. We hope that that will form the basis of further discussions later today.
Lord Bach (Lab)
My Lords, as the noble Baroness, Lady Tonge, has been asking her Question and the Minister has replied a precious five-hour ceasefire has been in force. Many noble Lords will have seen the video recording of the unspeakable deaths of the four innocent Palestinian boys playing on a beach. They will also have seen the human misery at the funeral of a 37 year-old Israeli who was, equally unspeakably, killed by a Hamas rocket. Does the Minister agree that the world will find it difficult to understand how a five-hour ceasefire can be agreed, but not a longer and stronger ceasefire that stops this horror?
Baroness Warsi
Of course, my Lords; unfortunately that is the complexity of the Middle East peace process, and of the situation that has existed there for many, many decades. There is nobody in this country who could be unmoved by the tragic deaths that we are seeing as a result of this conflict. As a mother, of course I feel for the death of any child. As I have said before at this Dispatch Box, it is not the natural order to bury your children; the natural order is for our children to bury us. The deaths on both sides are of course tragic events. It is for that reason that this matter has to be de-escalated, and we have to get back to the negotiating table.
Lord Deben (Con)
Would my noble friend accept that there are many who entirely support Israel’s right to continue as an independent nation and to defend its borders, but at the same time believe that there is no hope for peace as long as Israel continues its illegal settlement policy? Does my noble friend accept that Israel is the only so-called liberal democracy that believes that colonisation should be part of its programme?
Baroness Warsi
The noble Lord of course makes strong points. I said at this Dispatch Box only earlier this week that when we have these discussions it is important to emphasise the values upon which countries seek to operate. Regarding the ceasefire, I can say that last night delegations from both Israel and Hamas arrived in Cairo for discussions on the Egyptian initiative which is currently on the table. I understand that President Abbas is in Cairo and is due to meet General Sisi. It may well be that these latest tragic deaths have finally made people stop and think.
Baroness Blackstone (Lab)
My Lords, would the Minister agree that the Israeli Government’s long-standing oppression of the people of Gaza, where 50% of the population are children, can only serve to undermine the long-term security of Israel and its people?
Baroness Warsi
The Government have said on a number of occasions that it is of course in the interests of the Palestinians and, indeed, the Israelis for this matter to be resolved. As long as the underlying issues are not resolved, then neither people in neither country can be safe.
Lord Dykes (LD)
My Lords, will HMG work really hard from now on to ensure that the United States stops automatically vetoing UN Security Council resolutions which bring peace in the Middle East? This allows Israel to disobey international law, as was also said by the noble Lord, Lord Deben. This is absolutely essential, because there have been nearly 40 vetoes since 1968, allowing Israel just to flout international law. I speak as a long-standing admirer of the country of Israel, but not of the present Government’s policies.
Baroness Warsi
My Lords, we felt that progress was being made. Secretary Kerry took a huge initiative in the latest talks. Of course the US wants what we want, which is for this matter to be resolved and for the peace process to be effected.
Child Abuse
(9 years, 9 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Home Office (Lord Taylor of Holbeach) (Con)
My Lords, with the leave of the House, I shall now repeat a Statement made in answer to an Urgent Notice Question in the House of Commons by my right honourable friend Mrs Theresa May, the Home Secretary. The Statement is as follows.
“The sexual abuse of children is an abhorrent crime which this Government are absolutely committed to stamping out. In my Statement to the House last week, I addressed two important public concerns: first, that in the 1980s the Home Office failed to act on allegations of child sex abuse and, secondly, that public bodies and other important institutions have failed to take seriously their duty of care towards children. As I informed the House on 7 July, the whole Government take these allegations very seriously. That is why I announced two inquiries last week.
The first is a review led by Peter Wanless, the chief executive of the National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children, with the support of Richard Whittam QC, of the original investigations which Mark Sedwill, the Permanent Secretary at the Home Office, commissioned last year into suggestions that the Home Office failed to act on allegations of child sex abuse in the early 1980s. Peter Wanless and Richard Whittam will also look at how the police and prosecutors handled any related information that was handed to them and examine another recent review into allegations that the Home Office provided funding to an organisation called the Paedophile Information Exchange. Mr Wanless and Mr Whittam are both in post and work on that review has begun. Its terms of reference were placed in the Library of the House last week and I expect the review to conclude within eight to 10 weeks.
More widely, I also announced last week an independent panel inquiry to consider whether public bodies and other non-state institutions have taken seriously their duty of care to protect children from sexual abuse. The Home Office has appointed the head of secretariat for the panel inquiry, which will begin its work as soon as possible after the appointment of the chairman.
As the House will know, I asked Baroness Butler-Sloss to act as chairman of the panel, and she agreed to do so. However, having listened to the concerns raised by victim and survivor groups, and by Members of this House, Lady Butler-Sloss subsequently came to the conclusion that she should not chair the inquiry. I was deeply saddened by Lady Butler-Sloss’s decision to withdraw but understand and respect her reasons. She is a woman of the highest integrity and compassion and continues to have an enormous contribution to make to public life.
Work is ongoing to find the right chairman, and other members of the panel, to do just that. An announcement will be made as soon as possible so that this important work can move forward. I am sure that honourable Members will agree that it is also very important that the terms of reference for this inquiry are considered carefully. That is why it is right that we should wait until we have appointed a new chairman and a full panel, and discussed them with them.
I want this inquiry to leave no stone unturned in getting to the truth of what happened and making sure we learn the necessary lessons to protect children and vulnerable people in the future.
Members will be aware of the outcome of the National Crime Agency’s operation, reported in the media yesterday. That operation signifies this Government’s relentless commitment to pursue those who engage in online child sexual exploitation. The operation is unprecedented in its degree of co-ordination, with the NCA leading and co-ordinating law enforcement efforts which involve 45 police forces across England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland. It has been ongoing for the past six months. People from all walks of life have been identified, including those in positions of trust.
In the mean time, I can assure the House that work to tackle this reprehensible crime continues. That is why, in April last year, the Government established the national group to tackle sexual violence against children and vulnerable people, which is led by my honourable friend the Minister for Crime Prevention. This cross-government group was established to learn the lessons from some of the recent cases which have emerged, and the resulting reviews and inquiries. As a result of its work, we now have better guidance for the police and prosecutors, new powers for the police to get information from hotels that are used for child sexual exploitation, and better identification of children at risk of exploitation through the use of local multiagency safeguarding hubs.
The Government are also committed to tackling the threat to children online. That is why the Data Retention and Investigatory Powers Bill, which is currently before Parliament, will ensure that our law enforcement agencies continue to have access to another vital tool—communications data. Without access to communications data—the who, where, when and how of a communication but not its content—public authorities’ investigative capabilities in relation to online child abuse would be significantly damaged and vital evidence would be inaccessible.
The CEOP command of the National Crime Agency works with police forces to investigate child sexual abuse and has access to specialist officers who could be called upon to assist in complex cases. CEOP is already providing support to forces in the robust investigation of child sexual abuse, as the arrests reported yesterday make clear.
Child abuse is an abhorrent crime which can scar people for life and the Government are determined to stamp it out. We are working across government to ensure that victims of historical child abuse who come forward in response to our overarching inquiry get the support and help they need. We have ring-fenced nearly £40 million for specialist local support services and national helplines, including more than 80 independent sexual violence advisers.
So our message is clear: the Government will do everything they can to allow the full investigation of child abuse—whenever and wherever it occurred—to support the victims of it and to bring the perpetrators of this disgusting crime to justice”.
That concludes the Statement.
Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)
My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for repeating the Answer to the Urgent Question, although he may be aware that his Answer was somewhat different from the one that was circulated. However, I am glad he referred to this issue, because yesterday’s report that the National Crime Agency has arrested 660 people for online child abuse and sexual assaults is both encouraging and depressing. It is encouraging because it shows that the police give this a very high priority, but it is deeply depressing that there are now reports that thousands more people suspected of accessing child abuse images are known to the police but are not being arrested.
The paramount concern, which I am sure is shared across the House, is to protect children and prevent their becoming victims of abuse. How many of those identified would be barred from working with children? With a 75% drop since 2010 in the number of offenders and people barred from working with children, will the Minister accept that a review of the current child protection system, including the entire vetting and barring system, should be included as part of the overarching inquiry into child abuse and a report presented to your Lordships’ House as a matter of urgency?
Lord Taylor of Holbeach
My Lords, there is indeed no hiding place. We do not know the actual total but we know that it is a large number. We are certainly determined that all those who have been involved in this will be dealt with by the law, as they should be.
The noble Baroness asked about the DBS. As noble Lords will know, the Protection of Freedoms Act encouraged that people who were not working with children should no longer automatically face being disbarred. That was the decision Parliament made in that respect. I agree it is an area that will be examined to see whether there has been any adverse effect, but I do not see that as being the primary cause of this problem. The barring service, in which I have a great deal of confidence, still ensures anybody working with and in contact with children is barred from employment if there are grounds to suspect that they are involved in this sort of activity. That will continue and that is, I am sure, the policy that this House would wish to see continue.
Lord Carlile of Berriew (LD)
My Lords, given the unfortunate circumstance that the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, is no longer to chair the inquiry, is the Minister aware that there are seven extremely distinguished, female members of the Court of Appeal, Lady Justices? Is he aware that the appointment of any one of those seven would be extremely welcome to most Members of this House, and that a number of them, like the noble and learned Baroness, have special experience in dealing with issues concerning family law?
Lord Taylor of Holbeach
I have expressed the views of the Home Secretary and the disappointment that the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, will not be taking this inquiry. The House has shown its feelings on that matter. I do not doubt that we will find a competent person to take the chairmanship and that, in turn, we will find people to join that person in forming the panel that will lead the inquiry.
Lord Laming (CB)
Does the Minister agree that the inquiry that was to be conducted by my noble and learned colleague Lady Butler-Sloss needs to have precise terms of reference? Does he agree that hours spent on refining the terms of reference are important because they could avoid months of challenge?
Lord Taylor of Holbeach
I understand what the noble Lord is saying. The terms of reference will be decided in conjunction with the chairman. Only the chairman can determine where the inquiry should go. We need to have no closed minds on this issue but we have made clear that, while it is not a statutory inquiry, it can become one if the chairman and the panel believe that that is necessary for them to continue with their work. There is no reason why the inquiry cannot make interim reports on matters considered to be essential for the Government to take action on immediately. None the less, I think I made clear in the Statement that I repeated here on Monday 7 July that the whole point is that the inquiry should be deliberative and thorough so that we make sure that the Government can deal properly with an issue that is of concern to the House and to the country as a whole.
Lord Richard (Lab)
My Lords, I echo what people have said about the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss. It is a great shame that she is not doing the inquiry. I have great admiration for her, which goes back a very long time, and she would have done it beautifully. However, I have some problems with the inquiry itself. The Government speak of an overarching inquiry, which I understand. The expectation seems to have arisen that this inquiry will name names—that people will be named in the inquiry and that somehow there will be an exposure of people who are supposed to have committed these dreadful crimes. The inquiry is not a court of law and cannot deal with a defendant as a defendant. It is not a police force, so it will not have the resources of the police and the Home Office to investigate these matters. How do the Government see the inquiry dealing with the issues when names are named, which, as I understand it, the Government want them to be?
Lord Taylor of Holbeach
It is for the police to deal with the apprehension of offenders and to act on information that they have available. It is not the purpose of the inquiry to deal with individual cases. It will be important to make sure that the inquiry separates the police operations from its own investigations and does not, in the process of making its findings known, jeopardise police officers or the proper administration of justice.
Baroness Walmsley (LD)
My Lords, I welcome all the Government are doing to bring the perpetrators of child abuse to justice, but will they do more to prevent it happening in the first place? Hundreds of thousands of people go online and access child pornography on the internet. Some people seem to take the view that, if that is all they do, it does not matter too much. But, of course, every such image of a child on the internet is a child who has been abused, and the people accessing those images are complicit in that crime. There is some overlap between those who access child pornography on the internet and those who go out to contact children and abuse them physically. There is a great deal of controversy over how big that overlap is. Will the Government do more research to look into the overlap between accessing child pornography on the internet and physically abusing children? Will they do more to support those charities that do wonderful work with people who accept their inappropriate urges and want not to offend physically? Organisations such as the Lucy Faithfull Foundation struggle for resources to do this very important work to prevent children being abused in the first place.
Lord Taylor of Holbeach
I could not agree more with the premise of my noble friend’s questions; it is important to support charities. I also agree that viewing images of children online is not a harmless pursuit. It is damaging to those who have been involved in sexual abuse to provide those images, but it also leads individuals on to sexual abuse. That is why we are right to take this view. We have open minds about how the Government should deal with this over time, but I agree with my noble friend that the numbers coming forward suggest that this problem has been made worse by people’s ability to view these images online.
Baroness Howarth of Breckland (CB)
My Lords, it is quite clear that the Government intend not only to look at historical abuse during this inquiry but to ensure that what is happening here and now is firmly within the sights. I hope that the Minister can reassure me on that point. The police officer who dealt with the issues yesterday said clearly that we cannot arrest our way out of this situation. It is absolutely crucial that we get the right programmes in place, as the noble Baroness opposite said, with the present and well defined research that is going on, rather than looking back and getting it wrong.
Lord Taylor of Holbeach
The noble Baroness is quite right. What is the use of the study of history if it does not help us deal with the here and now and the future?
Insurance Bill [HL]
Mesothelioma (Amendment) Bill [HL]
Privileges and Conduct
The Chairman of Committees
That the 1st Report from the Select Committee (The conduct of Lord Blencathra) (HL Paper 21) be agreed to.
The Chairman of Committees (Lord Sewel)
This report follows an investigation by the Commissioner for Standards into the conduct of the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra. In March 2014 a complaint was made on the basis of an article in the Independent that the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, had, in his former capacity as director of the Cayman Islands Government Office in the United Kingdom, signed a contract that would have involved him providing parliamentary services to the Cayman Islands Government. Among the services that the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, in the contract agreed to provide were,
“liaising with and making representations to ... Members of Parliament in the House of Commons, and Members of the House of Lords”.
The commissioner found that by agreeing to a contract that would involve the provision of parliamentary services the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, breached paragraph 8(d) of the Code of Conduct. Although the commissioner found that there was no evidence that the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, in fact provided such services, the content of the contract in itself established the breach.
Paragraphs 129 and 130 of the Guide to the Code of Conduct place on the sub-committee the function of deciding a sanction in cases where there is a breach. The sub-committee’s decision was that the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, be required to make a personal statement of apology to the House in terms approved by the chairman of the sub-committee.
The noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, accepted the findings of the commissioner and the sanction of the sub-committee. He did not appeal to the Committee for Privileges and Conduct. Paragraph 132 of the Guide to the Code of Conduct states:
“If the Member does not appeal to the Committee for Privileges and Conduct in the event of a complaint being upheld, the Committee reports forthwith to the House in the terms recommended by the Sub-Committee”.
I therefore report the findings of the commissioner and the sub-committee to the House. Paragraph 25 of the code states:
“The Sub-Committee also keeps the Guide to the Code of Conduct under regular review”.
The Committee for Privileges and Conduct has asked the sub-committee to carry out such a review.
My understanding is that if this report is agreed today, the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, intends to make his personal statement immediately after the report has been agreed. I beg to move.
Personal Statement
Lord Blencathra (Con)
My Lords, although I never actually provided nor intended to provide parliamentary services to the Cayman Islands Government in return for payment, I acknowledge and I deeply regret that I entered into a written contract under which I was apparently committed to provide such services as one of 14 specified “consultancy services”.
I now recognise and accept that such a contract was in clear breach of the requirement in paragraph 8(d) of the Code of Conduct that Members must not seek to profit from membership of the House by accepting or agreeing to accept payment or other incentive or reward in return for providing parliamentary advice or services. I misled myself into thinking that since it was understood that I would not be making representations in reality, the wording of the contract did not matter. But words do matter. I was wrong and I apologise to the House for that misjudgment.
When the contract was renewed in November 2012, that reference to providing services was deleted, and in March 2014 the contract ended. I deeply regret having breached the code in this way and the embarrassment to the House that I recognise is caused by such conduct. I offer the House my sincere apology.
Arrangement of Business
Baroness Anelay of St Johns (Con)
My Lords, with the leave of the House, it may be helpful if I make a brief business statement regarding our business tomorrow, and indeed for the rest of today.
Tomorrow we have the Second Reading of the Private Member’s Bill in the name of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer of Thoroton. There are currently 128 speakers on the list for Second Reading. If all Back-Benchers were to speak for four minutes, the House would rise at around 8 pm. I give this advisory speaking time as a consequence of taking soundings from around the House, not just within the usual channels—and I am most grateful for the assistance throughout of the noble Lord, Lord Bassam, the opposition Chief Whip; the noble Lord, Lord Laming, the Convenor; and my noble friend Lord Newby—but I have listened over the past two weeks to Peers from around the House and on both sides of the argument, and those who are yet to decide what their opinion may be.
The representations made to me were very firm. Peers felt that if the speaking advisory time was something like three minutes the House would feel that it was inappropriate and might feel restive tomorrow. Clearly the House would like to have a reasonable time to debate the matter. The House overwhelmingly represented to me that it recognises that tomorrow is a very important day in the debates in this Chamber and that we will be debating a matter not only of great importance to every Member of this House but of greater importance to the public around this country. As a result, I therefore advised that if four minutes were the advisory limit, we might be able to aim at a reasonable rising time of 8 pm. It is not reasonable, of course, in our normal terms, but it is reasonable to allow a full and reasoned debate, and also to take account of the fact not only that Peers are here themselves but that our very presence means that all the supporting staff around the House must remain on a Friday too. The view of the House is that tomorrow we want to engage in a very strong debate and reach a conclusion about the Second Reading by the end of tomorrow, with all voices being heard.
I briefly refer to the rest of today. Then I understand that the noble Lord, Lord Bassam, might wish to speak—or perhaps not. Once the House has completed proceedings on the amendments that have been tabled in today’s business, the Data Retention and Investigatory Powers Bill, my noble friend Lady Randerson will then repeat a Statement on the Hallett review. After the conclusion of the Committee stage of the Bill, Members will have 30 minutes within which to table amendments or, if they prefer, to give notice of amendments to the Public Bill Office. If amendments are tabled for Report, it would then commence after the conclusion of the Oral Statement on the Hallett review. If no amendments are tabled, then Report and Third Reading will be taken formally after the Oral Statement. Then the justice and home affairs opt-out debate will follow on from the conclusion of proceedings to the Data Retention and Investigatory Powers Bill.
Data Retention and Investigatory Powers Bill
(9 years, 9 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Phillips of Sudbury
Lord Phillips of Sudbury (LD)
My Lords, Amendment 1 is an amendment of modest pretensions, but I think it significant and worthy of the attention of the House. What it does is address the use of the word “considers” in Clause 1(1) and proposes that that word be replaced by the word “believes”. To make sense of that, I hope that noble Lords will find it helpful if I say that this is a key clause because it gives the Secretary of State the power to issue retention notices to telecommunications operators. As we know, that class of people includes all great companies in the internet and web world. It allows the Secretary of State to issue a retention notice so that they in turn have to retain what are called “relevant communications data” according to that notice.
However—and this is the important point—the Secretary of State can do that only in certain circumstances: namely, according to the clause, when he or she,
“considers that the requirement is necessary and proportionate”.
My dissatisfaction with that formulation is simply that, in Sections 22, 28 and 29 of the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000, which bestow comparable powers on the officeholders there mentioned, precisely the same formulation contains the word “believes” rather than “considers”. In precisely comparable circumstances, where necessity and proportionality must be present, the officeholder concerned has to believe in that necessity and proportionality.
Some may think, “Well, what’s the difference?”—and, indeed, that is the key question. I think that there is a difference. I think that “believes” is a stronger requirement than “considers”. I looked at the Oxford English Dictionary definition of the two words. “Consider” is defined thus: “think carefully” about something—typically before making a decision. On the other hand, “believe” is defined as “accept the truth … of”—feel sure of the truth of whatever it is. That is what I thought before looking up the words in the dictionary, but I was surprised in discussions with the office of the parliamentary draftsmen to find that there is considerable doubt on their part that there is any difference in this context between “considers” and “believes”. If that be so, to agree my amendment will not change the purport of the Bill one iota—but if on the other hand I am right and there is a significant difference, it would be wise and proper of us to insert “believes” rather than “considers”.
Since Clause 1 refers expressly to Section 22 of RIPA 2000, I am bound to say that I think that a court—we have many noble and learned former judges here and I hope that they will add their opinion—would seek, given a difference of wording, to render a difference of meaning as between Section 22 of RIPA 2000 and what will be Section 1 of the Data Retention and Investigatory Powers Act. As a long-in-the-tooth lawyer, that is the way that I am working, which seems to me to be right and proper.
Why do I think that the amendment is worth while? I am at one with a huge number of our fellow citizens outside this place who are extremely unhappy about the whole of this Bill and the method and manner in which it has been brought forward. The fact that, this very day, we are going to complete all stages is an indication of the radical nature of the procedures adopted to push this Bill through, as was the case in the Commons the day before yesterday.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Home Office (Lord Taylor of Holbeach) (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for tabling this amendment. He slightly wandered off it into more general objections, which he might have made at Second Reading yesterday.
On his particular amendment, the requirements in Clause 1(1) of the Bill respond to the European Court’s criticisms of the data retention directive—to ensure that no more data than are required are retained. It is worth reiterating that the judgment concerns the EU data retention directive, not the UK data retention regulations. In the UK we have always taken a tailored approach—if I might use that word—to retention notices. We do not and have never required every communications provider to retain all its data. Ministers have always issued retention notices to selected companies based on the nature of the company and the threat, and we have required the retention only of the data types listed in the schedule of regulations.
Following the judgment, we are putting that good practice in the legislation. This Bill will require the Secretary of State to issue data retention notices to communications service providers on a selective basis: only if she considers the obligation to be necessary and proportionate for one of the authorised purposes. We also add a requirement to keep notices under review. I think therefore that we are in close agreement on what is required.
Ministers have not required an operator to retain data without first going through a serious and careful consideration of the value to be gained by law enforcement and intelligence agencies from the data retained. This Bill ensures that these considerations are law. We feel that it is appropriate for Ministers to “consider” these issues. They have never taken this consideration lightly and I can assure noble Lords that they have no intention of doing so in future. I do not believe that a Minister having due consideration to the issue of a notice could decide to proceed if he or she did not believe that to do so was necessary and proportionate.
In other words, I do not believe that changing the word “considers” would have any material effect. I know that my noble friend met with parliamentary counsel this morning and was told that it does not. Accordingly, I invite him to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Phillips of Sudbury
Before the Minister sits down—I am keen to have his response to this—if, as he now confirms, the Government think that there is no difference in meaning between “considers” and “believes”, why not have consistency between the language of RIPA and that of the Bill so as to avoid confusion and argument in future?
Lord Taylor of Holbeach
If my noble friend had been listening to yesterday’s Second Reading debate, he would have understood that it was the view of the House in general, and certainly of the Government, that the review that will be undertaken will indeed look at RIPA and decide whether the terms stated in it are appropriate for future-proofing the legislation. Meanwhile, the Bill is presented to the House in ways that we believe are appropriate to deal with the problems that I outlined when I introduced it yesterday.
Lord Phillips of Sudbury
My Lords, I regret to say that I find that answer completely unsatisfactory. There is every reason in the world, I suggest, why we have commonality of language, particularly in clauses that expressly relate one to another. If it is felt after the review that the language of RIPA 2000 needs changing, a change could be made to this legislation as well. In the mean time, though, there is going to be confusion, and it is a difficult enough Bill without adding unnecessary complexity to it. However, since no one in the House has risen to support the amendment, I beg leave—with good grace, I hope—to withdraw the same.
Lord Hope of Craighead
Lord Hope of Craighead (CB)
My Lords, this amendment returns to a point that I raised yesterday at Second Reading. As the noble Lord, Lord Phillips, pointed out in moving his amendment, Clause 1(1) is crucial to the whole scheme in the Bill and it is extremely important to get the language of it right. I will not go back over the points that he was making in general support of that proposition, but it is with a view to trying to get the language right that I have raised this issue again.
The Minister will recall that I was drawing attention to the wording of the judgment in the case that has given rise to all these problems, and I will come back to that in a moment. I note that in his reply to my comment, at col. 664 of yesterday’s Hansard, he said:
“The noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope of Craighead, asked why Clause 1(1) does not use the wording of the ECJ judgment. The test in the Bill requires the Secretary of State to consider”—
personally, I would accept that as an appropriate word—
“whether it is necessary to require a provider to retain data, but also whether it is proportionate for that legitimate aim. This is in accordance with the judgment, which also makes it clear that it is necessary to verify the proportionality of any interference with a person’s rights when requiring the retention of data”.—[Official Report, 16/7/14; col. 664.]
The point that I raised, and to which I return, is that the wording of the judgment is more precisely targeted. The reasons for it are explained in the judgment in a certain amount of detail because they draw attention to the concern that members of the public would have—possibly more by rumour and suspicion than by reality, but concern nevertheless—that their private lives were the subject of constant surveillance. It is for that reason that the court went on to say that it was necessary for,
“clear and precise rules governing the scope and application of the measure in question”,
to be laid down. That was in paragraph 54.
The criticism of the directive was that the “clear and precise rules” that were required were not apparent in that directive. Paragraph 65 is the crucial one. It says:
“It must therefore be held that Directive 2006/24 entails a wide-ranging and particularly serious interference with those fundamental rights in the legal order of the EU, without such an interference being precisely circumscribed by provisions”—
the word “provisions” is important—
“to ensure that it is actually limited to what is strictly necessary”.
My amendment picks up two points: the use of the words “objective reasons”, which are in the judgment; and also the phrase “the requirement is strictly” to be added before the word “necessary”. My concern is that, without words that match the judgment, those who seek to criticise or possibly even attack the measure will compare what is in the legislation with what is in the judgment. Lawyers do that all the time. I know that the future of the European courts is perhaps not entirely secure, but the fact is that for the life of this Bill if it becomes an Act, and up until the closure date, both of the European courts are capable of being appealed to. I am quite sure that the last thing the Minister would want is a challenge to this measure on those grounds in those courts.
My amendment is intended to be helpful. I am not trying to undermine the Bill. I am just trying to suggest that the language of it should be more precisely worded. I do not know where the phrase “necessary and proportionate” comes from. The ECJ judgment says that proportionality is part of necessity, so built into the idea of necessity is proportionality. I do not complain about the fact that they are both there—it is a useful combination of words—but it is the other bits, the strict use of this phrase and the need for objective reasons, that are necessary.
If one thinks through the way in which the exercise will be conducted, I have no doubt that the Secretary of State herself will not be taking all these decisions. This formula would, in fact, be instructing those on whom she relies to apply their minds to the requisite standard, and to provide convincing, objective reasons for the measure that is suggested should be taken.
I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, for drawing my attention to an examination of the wording in the draft communications data Bill, as it then was, by the Joint Committee on the draft Bill. In paragraphs 62 to 67, there is a discussion about the language. One point that emerges from that discussion, which is very relevant to what I am trying to say, is that the wording is necessary, having regard to the fact that:
“Once a power is on the statute book”—
as this would be—
“it is available to be used, and also to be misused or abused, at any time in the future”.
Undertakings are all very well, as are all the various other protections that the Minister referred to yesterday as part of the United Kingdom’s system; but at the end of the day, it is the wording that directs the nature of the exercise to be carried out by those responsible for doing it that really matters.
That is why, in my experience, these courts are not all that impressed by what we tell them about how our system operates and the number of regulators and investigations that go on to check that everything is being conducted properly. They will look at the language in the statute. That is why it is so important to get the wording right if this measure is to stand up to scrutiny.
It is with that justification that I move this amendment, in the hope that the Minister will give further consideration to it, in the very short time available, to see whether it would not be wise to tighten up the wording. I think that it is in sympathy with what the Minister himself would wish to be done anyway. It is getting the wording on the face of the Act that matters so much. I beg to move.
Lord Davies of Stamford (Lab)
My Lords, I rise to support the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, in his amendment. Before doing so, I hope that it may be in order to say a word of appreciation to the Minister—on my behalf, but I dare say that I am speaking also on behalf of others who spoke in yesterday’s Second Reading debate—for obviously having worked late through the night with his officials. He produced a letter to my noble friend Lady Smith, a copy of which we all received this morning. I make that point because—given the circumstances of emergency legislation, which always, quite correctly, arouses scepticism, doubt and worry in people’s minds—it is particularly important that the Minister should give very careful answers to the many points raised in yesterday’s debate.
It would be wrong to say that the Minister has answered in this letter every question that was raised in the course of the debate. Indeed, he has not actually answered every question that was raised by the Constitution Committee’s report. For example, the Constitution Committee pointed out that the Joint Committee had said in 2012 that there was some difficulty or doubt about non-British companies being prepared to continue to co-operate, not so much on the retention of data but on the provision of communications content. The Government might have been advised to address that criticism and could simply have said, “Maybe we got it wrong, in retrospect, and should have taken notice of the Joint Committee’s observation back in 2012, rather than ignoring it”. However, that is just one point. I think that the Government have made an exemplary effort in a very short space of time to deal seriously with the matters that were raised in yesterday’s debate. It would be quite wrong for nobody who asked critical questions yesterday to recognise that effort and to thank the Government for it.
Lord West of Spithead (Lab)
My Lords, I support the amendment of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope. After what he said yesterday I did some swotting last night. It is important for the legislation to get this sort of wording right. It is quite divisive legislation because of the speed at which it has taken place. This is a sensible amendment.
Lord Paddick (LD)
My Lords, I also support the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope of Craighead. At Second Reading, the noble and learned Lord made a compelling case for addressing the precise wording in the European Court judgment. With the greatest respect to my noble friend the Minister, his response to that assertion did not quite come up to the level of the case made by the noble and learned Lord. I also support the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Stamford, in that it would not only help lawyers to avoid court cases as a result of not addressing strictly the wording in the judgment but it would also be reassuring to the public to have the wording as suggested in the amendment.
Lord Taylor of Holbeach
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, for tabling his amendment as it gives us a chance to talk about these issues. Perhaps he will not mind if I turn first to the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Stamford, and thank him for his kind words about the work that has been done by my officials overnight. They exemplify the sort of support that the Civil Service can give to Ministers. It has been greatly, I hope, to the advantage of noble Lords to have this information available.
I will deal with the issue that the noble Lord raised, which was the point in the Constitution Committee’s report about why we are dealing with these provisions now rather than in 2012. As the Government made clear last week, some companies have already now started to question whether they are under a duty to comply with their obligations under RIPA. The details are obviously sensitive but, as the Prime Minister made clear, we are approaching a cliff edge. A failure to legislate could result in a damaging loss of capability. We were discussing earlier, when I was dealing with the Urgent Notice Question, an area where that capability was necessary. If companies cease to comply, the security agencies will lose the visibility of what targets are saying to each other and in turn could lose the ability to understand the threat that they pose. The Opposition have been briefed in detail on the issue and the Intelligence and Security Committee is well aware of the challenges that we face. Indeed, I happened to meet the chairman of that committee, Sir Malcolm Rifkind, in the street on my way to work this morning.
Lord Davies of Stamford
I thank the Minister for giving way. I was referring to paragraph 11 of the Constitution Committee’s report, which says:
“It is not clear why these provisions need to be fast-tracked … There is evidence that the Government have known of the problem for some time. The Joint Committee on the Draft Communications Data Bill noted in its report (published in December 2012) that ‘many overseas CSPs [communication service providers] refuse to acknowledge the extraterritorial application of RIPA’”.
The point in the committee’s report was simply that the Government could have reacted to the earlier Joint Committee’s suggestion in 2012 that there was a problem here, a lacuna, a danger. The Government have known that for about two years. It would have been more dignified for the Government simply to say, “On this occasion, we missed a trick. We should have responded then. I’m sorry, chaps. There is a serious problem and we have to respond now”. Everybody would understand that.
Lord Taylor of Holbeach
I am sorry but I have to ask the noble Lord to read in Hansard what I have just said if he fails to be convinced as to why the Government are legislating now. I will leave it at that because I do not suppose that I will convince him on the principle, whatever I say.
Lord Butler of Brockwell (CB)
My Lords, I rise in defence of the Minister because the Intelligence and Security Committee discussed this point with the director of GCHQ on Tuesday morning in the short time available. There have been developments since 2012 that have affected the attitude of the providers—for example, the activities of Mr Snowden. The committee was satisfied that there is a serious risk of loss of visibility of people who ought to be under observation and that the Government’s arguments that this is an urgent matter were justified.
Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)
My Lords, I rise briefly because I think that perhaps my noble friend Lord Davies has been misunderstood. I do not think that he doubts for one instant the emergency situation that necessitates this legislation. His argument is that the Government could have acted sooner. I will not enter into a debate as we had a long debate yesterday, but it remains our contention that the Government could have acted sooner on this issue. But there is a time imperative now on this legislation.
Lord Taylor of Holbeach
I will not argue with the noble Baroness if she wants to make that judgment of things. The Government have to make decisions for themselves on these issues and they do so in the knowledge of the facts, as the noble Lord, Lord Butler, explained to the House. The Government make judgments at the time as to what is necessary, and in this case they have made the right judgment.
We have had a side-show. I now turn to the substance of the amendment in the name of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope. I share his wish to ensure that the new regime for data retention that we are putting in place through the Bill is fully compatible with the European Court of Justice, and that is what we are doing. As I explained at Second Reading, while the EU data retention directive was struck down by the European Court of Justice, the ECJ judgment was about the EU data retention directive. The court did not rule on any member state’s legislation and did not take into account the many safeguards which I explained we have in our domestic regime. Many of the ECJ’s concerns are already addressed by the UK’s domestic legislation. Crucially, the judgment explicitly recognised the importance of data retention in preventing and detecting crime.
Nevertheless, although the UK’s existing data retention regime is already a very strong one, with stringent safeguards and oversight, in order to respond to elements of the judgment, we are extending the existing safeguards in a number of ways. Details of those safeguards are contained in our factsheet on that issue, which is available from the Printed Paper Office. However, I will elaborate on them here.
The regulations made under the Bill will replace the 2009 data retention regulations. They maintain the status quo, while also adding additional safeguards in response to the ECJ judgment. In particular, the regulations set out what must be specified in a data retention notice and factors to be taken into account before giving a notice; place a requirement on the Secretary of State to keep such notices under review; set out the security requirements which apply to data retained under a notice; require providers permanently to delete data when they are no longer under an obligation to retain them; require providers to ensure that data are not disclosed except in accordance with the access procedures in RIPA or a court order; and provide for the Information Commissioner to audit compliance with the requirements of the regulations. A provisional draft of those regulations is also available from the Printed Paper Office.
I am satisfied that with those extra safeguards we are on even stronger ground in asserting that the UK’s data retention regime fully meets the requirements laid down by the ECJ. That judgment does not require us to adopt every single bit of wording in the judgment. On the specific details of this amendment, the test currently in the Bill allows the Home Secretary to consider not just whether it is necessary to require a communication service provider to retain data, but also whether the interference that retention involves is proportionate to that legitimate aim. We believe that that is in accordance with the judgment, which also makes it clear that it is necessary to verify the proportionality of any interference with a person’s rights when requiring the retention of data. The test of necessity and proportionality is a well established legal principle, as the noble and learned Lord well knows, which is already a notable feature of elements of the existing RIPA regime.
I am, as ever, grateful to the noble and learned Lord for sharing his considerable experience and expertise with the House, but I hope he is satisfied that the clause simply seeks to build on those long-standing principles, providing an extended safeguard and appropriately reassuring the public. We have a strong test here, which is fully in the spirit of the court’s judgment. Accordingly, I do not believe that the amendment is necessary, and I invite the noble and learned Lord to withdraw it.
Lord Butler of Brockwell
My Lords, having supported the Minister on the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Davies, may I now say to him that he is being unnecessarily negative about this? He has explained why he thinks the amendment is unnecessary, but he has not explained what the positive arguments are against it. It seems to me that it can only be helpful. Unless there is some positive reason for rejecting the amendment, I would urge him to consider again before Report. The problem is that we cannot repeat this amendment exactly on Report, and it would be difficult to improve on the wording already suggested by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope. I ask the Minister whether he could consider again the idea that this amendment is designed to be very helpful to the Government. The fact that it may not, in the Government’s view, be strictly necessary, does not seem to me a convincing argument as to why it should be rejected.
Lord Armstrong of Ilminster (CB)
My Lords, we are talking about what the Secretary of State considers. I wonder whether the difficulty could be resolved if the Minister were to state formally, on the record in Hansard, that the Secretary of State must consider that,
“for objective reasons the requirement is strictly”
necessary.
Lord Howard of Lympne (Con)
My Lords, I rise with some temerity to disagree with the views expressed from the Benches opposite, but it seems to me, as a matter of principle, that when the Government and the Parliament of the United Kingdom consider how to introduce legislation consistent with a decision of the European Court of Justice, it is the substance of what the Government and the Parliament of the United Kingdom are providing which is important. It should not be necessary, and it would not be a healthy precedent, if Parliament took the view that every time we had to amend our legislation in order to comply with a judgment of the European Court of Justice, it was incumbent upon us to adopt language identical to that found in the judgment. So there is at least the vestige of a point of principle here, and that point of principle leads me to support the view expressed by the Minister.
Lord Carlile of Berriew (LD)
My Lords, I support what has just been said by my noble friend Lord Howard of Lympne. I speak not as a judge but as someone who has drafted many skeleton arguments to take before senior courts, and given a phrase such as “strictly necessary”, I would spend my time in preparing a case by looking for authorities decided by the courts in which there was a difference between the terms “necessary” and “strictly necessary”. I have spent some time doing so this morning, and I have failed to find such a case so far—although of course I will defer to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, if he can find one for me. Judges are often so much better informed than those who appear before them, and I feel a little as if I am in that situation now.
However, speaking for those of us who are paid, sometimes a great deal of money, to create a difference where none exists between a phrase such as “strictly necessary” and the mere word “necessary”, I would say to the Minister: please avoid tautology. It is expensive, and not terribly helpful.
Lord West of Spithead
My Lords, the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Howard, is important, and I accept it. There is a danger of raising a precedent here. On a point of clarity for a simple sailor, may I ask: if an amendment is taken today, is there a mechanism within this urgent high-speed way in which we are doing things to get the change back to the Commons to get it sorted out, or are we talking in a vacuum, because nothing has been organised to achieve that?
Lord Taylor of Holbeach
I am sure the usual channels make arrangements for any such potentiality. I am very grateful to my noble friend Lord Howard of Lympne for the way in which he presented the important point that the British Parliament and British law lie at the bottom of all this. We have had a chance to consider this matter. I do not know whether beliefs have been changed by our consideration of the previous amendment, but at least that consideration has been valuable. However, I still urge the noble and learned Lord to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Hope of Craighead
My Lords, I am extremely grateful to the Minister for his reply and to all those who have taken part in this debate. I wish to make one or two further points. First, the Minister is, of course, right that the judgment was concerned with the directive and not with any UK measure: that is the nature of the jurisdiction it was exercising. However, when lawyers get to work in response to clients’ demands, some of whom have very deep pockets—we are dealing in this field with people who may well be in that category—people start thinking about things and drawing analogies with what is said by courts in analogous situations. That is the significance of the wording of the judgment so far as the wording we have put in the Bill is concerned.
As I think I explained, my intention in bringing this matter before the Committee for discussion is so that we can have a fuller discussion of the detail than we could have had yesterday at Second Reading. There is, of course, a lot of force in what the noble Lord, Lord Howard, says and one does not want to parrot the wording in European judgments just for the sake of it. However, there is the broader point made by the noble Lord, Lord Davies, earlier that there is a reassurance to the public, too, in adopting these words, which were chosen by the European court in order to meet what it saw as a concern about the use of this system. Therefore, I am not disappointed that I brought this matter forward as it requires very careful consideration. I hope that the Minister will think a little more closely about it before we get to Report, although there would obviously be difficulties if I were to bring the matter before the House again. However, for the time being, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Hope of Craighead
Lord Hope of Craighead
My Lords, this is an amendment of a rather different character. It is really a probing amendment and it picks up a point that I also raised at Second Reading yesterday evening. In order to understand the point, one has to know a little more than the wording on the Marshalled List. I draw attention to a provision in the Bill which has to be read together with provisions in RIPA, in particular Section 22. Section 22(6) states:
“It shall be the duty of the … operator to comply with the requirements of any notice given to him under subsection (4)”.
The last but one subsection of that section—subsection (8)—states:
“The duty imposed by subsection (6) shall be enforceable by civil proceedings by the Secretary of State for an injunction, or for specific performance of a statutory duty under section 45 of the Court of Session Act 1988, or for any other appropriate relief”.
However, Clause 4(10) of the Bill seeks to insert in that subsection of RIPA the words,
“including in the case of a person outside the United Kingdom”.
I am not clear whether the enforcement measures which are forecast by the provisions in Section 22 of RIPA are intended to be applied extraterritorially. This is an important point of practice, concerning how one achieves a measure such as an injunction or some other measure by service upon somebody abroad, and then how this is enforced against that person.
I practised for 24 years in the Court of Session, and was its president for the past seven years. I am very well aware of the problems one has in dealing with people outside the jurisdiction. Some of these problems indeed related to people in England, not Scotland, and one had to be extremely careful that measures were in place to enable any order a court pronounced to be enforceable. Underlying this is the point the Minister made yesterday, that because of the challenges which are now being made one wants a system which is properly laid out and is foolproof, which will be effective and will command respect.
My concern is that there may be something lurking here at the very back of Clause 4 which is defective, because it has not been properly explored and thought through. Like the noble Lord, Lord Davies, I was extremely grateful for the letter written by the Minister’s advisers, which covered a lot of ground in great detail. However, on this point there is a reference to my intervention. The very last sentence on the bottom of the third page states:
“Where absolutely necessary, RIPA provides for enforcement by injunction through domestic courts”.
Indeed it does, and domestically there is no problem. The question is whether it is intended that it should be enforceable in courts in other parts of the world, and whether attention has really been given to the mechanisms that would be necessary to achieve that, in discussion with the various courts including the Court of Session. If the noble Lord was able to guide us a little more on that point, that would be extremely useful. It would reassure us that we are passing a measure which will command respect throughout the world, as it is intended to do. I beg to move.
Lord Blencathra (Con)
My Lords, I too thank the Minister for the excellent letter his officials prepared overnight. I am very glad to see that the quality of Home Office civil servants remains as high as it was when my noble friend and I served in the Home Office. I do not wish to follow exactly the point made by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope of Craighead. I did not put down an amendment to remove this provision from the Bill, but I hope that your Lordships will permit me to make a few remarks related to the enforceability of Clause 4 overseas. As I understand it, the whole point about Clause 4 is—as we said yesterday—to give reassurance to the huge American service providers, largely based in California, that they have a legal duty of some sort to comply with. That would allow them to say to all their customers that, while they religiously protected their data, they had been served a judicial warrant or some form of legal prescription from the United Kingdom with which they had to comply.
When the Minister goes back to the department, I would like him to look again at the MLAT system. I do not want a detailed reply from the Box today, just an assurance that he will read about what MLAT does. MLAT is the mutual legal assistance treaty, and we have many of these bilateral treaties with many countries, including one with the United States.
When my committee asked the Home Office why it could not use MLAT for enforcement, it said—rightly—that it was a bit bureaucratic and a bit slow. The Home Office also said that the main problem was that gaining assistance from the United States Department of Justice under MLAT required initiation by the CPS, not the police. It therefore did not regard MLAT as a real, live tool which it could use on a day-to-day basis to investigate crime. The response of my committee was, “Well, if that is what has already been agreed with the United States, but the tyres on that vehicle are flat”—to borrow the metaphor used yesterday by the noble Lord, Lord Armstrong of Ilminster—“and it is going too slowly, go back to the United States and renegotiate a new, faster MLAT as a bilateral treaty”.
I conclude by urging my noble friend not to respond in detail but to give me an assurance that the Home Office will once again take seriously paragraph 253 of our report, in which we ask the department to address this problem forthwith, go to the United States, use our special relationship and see if we can get a faster-working MLAT, which would again be a backstop to help Clause 4 to be enforced in some way in the United States.
Lord Taylor of Holbeach
I can say to my noble friend Lord Blencathra that although I have not read MLAT, I have been present when its provisions have been discussed. He will be aware that one of the provisions that we are hoping to set up involves appointing a diplomat to look at how we handle these matters. Indeed, our whole approach to this issue is about mutual co-operation. It is not adversarial, although we understand that the law has to assume adversarial premises and the definitions that might apply in such circumstances, but that does not undermine what we are trying to achieve.
I am again grateful to the noble and learned Lord for tabling this amendment. He spoke articulately at Second Reading on the difficulties of enforcing warrants across jurisdictions. He is probably mindful of that, given his Scottish experience in relation to English law. I understand that his intention is to improve the prospects for successfully enforcing obligations under RIPA on overseas companies, and clearly none of us could object to that.
Clause 4 makes clear that the obligations under RIPA apply equally to persons overseas who are providing telecommunications services to customers in the UK. It also makes it clear that those obligations are enforceable by injunction through the domestic courts. We have been clear throughout the passage of the Bill that we are not altering or extending the powers under RIPA. Accordingly, the provisions in Clause 4 simply make clear the status quo. It is on that basis that the House of Commons has consented to the Bill, and it is the basis on which it has been presented to this House.
The noble and learned Lord’s amendment would go much further than this, by purporting to allow for the enforcement of obligations under RIPA through overseas courts. As drafted, it would do this only in respect of requests for communications data. However, I assume his interest is in the enforceability of obligations under RIPA more generally. In view of the clear intention of the House of Commons, and of noble Lords who have supported this Bill on the basis that it does not introduce new powers, this is not an amendment that the Government could support. The issue of enforcement overseas is important but it is not a matter that we can address through the Bill before us.
As I have said, the Government’s approach under RIPA has always been to work with companies. We hope that making clear the obligations under RIPA will avoid the need for enforcement action. Where we have no option but to enforce, we believe that the prospect of sanction in the domestic courts—I repeat, the domestic courts—is a threat sufficient to compel many international companies to co-operate. That, however, is not our first position, which is to work with companies. Where necessary, there are established protocols for seeking recognition of a domestic judgment in foreign jurisdictions. It may be possible to strengthen our position in respect of this but these are complex issues of law, and are not matters that we can deal with today, when we are fast-tracking legislation through Parliament. We will look for the new tyre for our puncture when we consider the review that will take place after the enaction of this Bill, which has been introduced in the context of a pressing need to put the law beyond doubt. That is what the Bill is about, and only that.
I appreciate the noble and learned Lord’s intention with this amendment, and his useful interventions, including those at Second Reading, but the amendment is unnecessary. I am sure, though, that the issue of enforcement overseas is one in which subsequent reviews of powers and capabilities will be considered, and in which he will want to take part. I draw noble Lords’ attention to the fact that there is a copy of the paper, Senior Diplomat Draft Terms of Reference, in the Printed Paper Office. It states that one of the tasks of this diplomat will be:
“To consider a range of options for strengthening existing arrangements, including … through Mutual Legal Assistance Treaty systems”—
my noble friend was on the ball there—
“mutual recognition of national warrants; and … direct requests from law enforcement and intelligence agencies to the companies which hold the data”.
That is why this appointment is seen as being so important. I hope that with those assurances, a clearer view of the Government’s objectives in bringing this Bill forward, and having had an opportunity to consider the issues that the noble and learned Lord has raised, he will withdraw his amendment.
Lord Hope of Craighead
My Lords, I am grateful once again to the Minister for his helpful and full reply. I take absolutely the point that it is not the intention in the Bill to expand the existing law, and it would certainly not be my wish to disrupt that policy, which would be contrary to the basis on which the Bill passed through the other place.
I am still left in some doubt as to the purpose of Clause 4(10), which excited my interest, because it states,
“including in the case of a person outside the United Kingdom”.
I am tempted—but I shall not succumb to the temptation—to ask the Minister for an example of case where it would matter whether that provision is in the legislation. It may be that some nods and winks would give colour to the suggestion that this kind of thing may have happened in the past. It is because I have great difficulty in visualising the purpose of the provision that I am still in a state of some concern as to whether it is useful to have it there at all. I am not, however, asking for it to be removed. In view of what the Minister has said, I am happy not to press the amendment, which would add additional words. I shall leave it at that and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Phillips of Sudbury
Lord Phillips of Sudbury
My Lords, the amendment is also in the names of the noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy of The Shaws—who unfortunately cannot be here, although those who heard her speak last night will have a good idea of what she might have said—the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, and my noble friend Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts.
We have something of a paradox of timing in relation to the Bill, in that, as we all know only too well, this measure has been rushed, helter-skelter, through both Houses. It is fair to say that the vast majority of Members in both Houses are deeply worried by all that but have none the less accepted the view of the Government as to the need for that expedition. On the other hand, we have a sunset clause in the Bill—designed to be some sort of reassurance—requiring the Act to be repealed in two and a half years’ time, at the end of 2016. The point behind the amendment is self-apparent, namely that if six months is too short—that was the proposal in the other place, that the repeal should take place at the end of this year—to wait two and a half years hence is too long. That is why we have suggested a repeal date of 31 December next year.
It is common ground that this complex measure—I think the noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy, called it “obscurantist”, and she is a lawyer—which is wedded to RIPA 2000, itself a highly complex piece of legislation, needs review and is being reviewed from various quarters, as we have heard from my noble friend Lord Taylor. I am sure we are all very grateful for that. However, is it not also the case that, because we have not had a chance to consider the Bill properly, we do not know whether there are serious lacunae in it? The proposition of those of us behind the amendment is that to wait two and a half years before anything must be done about those deficiencies is just too long. We have suggested this compromise of a year and a half from now.
I finish by repeating the importance of the Bill for our reputation as a House of Parliament and for Parliament as a whole. Although we may be satisfied that what we are doing is necessary, appropriate and proportionate, I am afraid millions of our fellow countrymen are not of that view. There is therefore a wider issue behind this amendment. It will provide some reassurance that the delay—it will be seen as such—in allowing a thorough review of this legislation, which will find an outlet and remedies by the end of next year, is a reasonable compromise; to leave it for two and a half years is not. I have that phrase of John Pym, in the other place in 1642, ringing in my ears. He said in that tense Parliament that we must not lose the,
“vigour and cheerfulness of allegiance”,
of our fellow Britons. I beg to move.
Lord Rooker (Lab)
My Lords, I oppose the amendment. I was unable to speak yesterday. I do not propose to make a Second Reading speech, but I wish to make a case for the Bill to remain as it is. I first draw attention to my declaration of interest in the register as a member of the independent surveillance panel, put together by the Royal United Services Institute for the Deputy Prime Minister’s work, which will go on for the next year and beyond the next election.
Frankly, we need time to do the job: 18 months is not long enough. I am not even going to use the excuse of a potential change of Government after the general election. The fact is that it is important that the sunset clause is there and it is important that it cannot be extended: it will go. However, time is needed to do the job properly. It is not as though nothing is going to happen for two and a half years. It will take two and a half years to pull together the reviews of RIPA and the other reviews that are taking place to bring legislation to Parliament very early in 2016, because this will finish at the end of 2016. The idea that it has been left to the last minute is nonsense. We need that time to do the job, and to explain and consult.
Public trust has to be secured. I am convinced that the fair-minded public, when they are treated as mature adults, will support an accountable system for interceptions and surveillance, rather than take what is said by unaccountable NGOs and newspaper editors. Contrary to what was said earlier on, the public have no idea what exists in the system in terms of these arrangements. We have to look at the use of modern technology.
Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts (Con)
My name is on this amendment. The noble Lord, Lord Rooker, always speaks with vigour and passion about his points. He will understand that I would like to come to the point on the timetable in a moment. He did not address the point made by my noble friend Lord Phillips that the legislation has lacunae—gaps—in it which need to be filled as quickly as possible. This is a simple amendment and I will not detain the House for long.
I and other Members accept that the Government have to have this Bill. We have had concerns about extensions and clarification of powers, and concerns about whether new technology—metadata and so on—entitles a greater degree of investigation of our personal freedom than is perhaps understood by the Government. My noble friend on the Front Bench has done his very best to reassure us. I add my thanks to those of others that he has received for having taken the trouble to produce overnight the long letter answering our questions. The bottom line is that the security services and the police have told us that they need this Bill. They deserve our support because they work long hours unsung on our behalf to keep us safe. Therefore, this is a Bill they must have.
Equally, it is recognised that this is a flawed Bill and that the Government would rather not be in the uncomfortable position in which they find themselves. Moreover, it is a flawed Bill being applied to a flawed substructure; namely, the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act. Those of us who were here last night had the pleasure of hearing my noble friend Lord Blencathra—despite the cheap jibe about eggs to which the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, referred—do a demolition job on RIPA, at the end of which there was hardly a brick on brick left standing. He described the Bill as not fit for purpose. Therefore, the shorter the time that these two pieces of inadequate legislation remain on the statute book, the better for our society.
As my noble friend will say—and as the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, made clear in his remarks—time is needed for research, reflection and consultation, and rushing is not a good idea. The issue is the length of time. Clearly, I could not have put my name to an amendment that stated that it should be six months, which would not provide the appropriate time to carry out those detailed negotiations. In 12 months from now, we shall be in the middle of a general election campaign. Such campaigns are bound to be conducted in primary colours to gain public attention. We are balancing the difficulties of issues of privacy and national security that have nuances and require light and shade, which do not lend themselves well to the hurly-burly of a general election campaign.
I do not think that 12 months would have worked, either—but that does not mean that 12 months cannot be used to undertake some of the preparatory work to which the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, referred. This is not primarily a party-political matter; it is a matter of national security, and how we balance privacy and the need to keep us all safe. My feeling is that a great deal of work could be done during those 12 months and a set of recommendations could be made available to an incoming Government in May to June 2015.
Bearing in mind that this is a very important matter and that we understand that we must get on with it, there is a balance of advantage for making sure that we move as quickly as possible—not to put another patch on the tyre but to have a new tyre on the statute book which is fit for purpose. Given the importance that we attach to this, I do not believe that the timetable of 18 months from now is unachievable.
In conclusion, I gently say to my noble friend on the Front Bench, who has put up with a lot, and to the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, that they have fallen victim to one of Parkinson’s laws. Members of your Lordships’ House will recall that C Northcote Parkinson had a number of laws, one of which was that the task expands to fill the time available for its completion. There is a real danger here that we will fall foul of that. This is too important an issue to be left to fester for a minute longer than it needs to, which is why I think that 18 months, with vim, vigour and resolution, is not unachievable.
Lord Carlile of Berriew
My Lords, I join those who urge my noble friend not to be attracted by the arguments presented this afternoon for reducing the time available for the full consideration of these matters. I also join those who thank him for the assistance we have been given in the letter that was sent this morning to some, and possibly all, of us who are present. I also thank his officials who put up with some pestering telephone calls this morning, certainly from me.
I remind your Lordships that the sunset provision does not provide for revival of this legislation by statutory instrument. The sunset provision ensures that the legislation falls completely on 31 December 2016. We therefore have to allow due and proper time for consideration of these matters.
I join the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, in what he said. I am sure that the House was very pleased to hear that he is a member of the RUSI panel that has been put together with some difficulty and over considerable time at the behest of the Deputy Prime Minister. As I understand it, the panel will consider a substantial amount of evidence, not just from within the United Kingdom. It will be making comparisons with other jurisdictions, and the range of talents on the panel goes right across the disciplines that deal with this issue. We have to allow time for the RUSI panel to do its work.
A number of other reviews are also taking place. Shortening the timescale for the new legislation would undermine the extremely important review of RIPA, which will be a thorough and systematic review of the Act. Let us not forget that completely new legislation has to be in place before the end of 2016. We know in this House that, very properly, that legislation will be the subject of detailed debate. We know that some of my noble friends—I am looking at my noble friend Lord Strasburger who quite properly will be one of those—will put down amendments that will challenge some of the thinking behind the legislation that will be presented. That legislation will take some months to go through this House and we must be ready for it with reviews that have really looked at every issue.
Perhaps I can be forgiven for using a couple of words of Latin, which would probably be deprecated by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, if he were sitting in court. I am pleased to see that he is shaking his head. Perhaps this is the time when we should—
Lord Hope of Craighead
I come from Scotland where Latin is still spoken by lawyers. We did not adopt the approach of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Woolf. I am very happy to listen to Latin words—and perhaps I will understand them as well.
Lord Carlile of Berriew
Not so long ago, I went to Cranston’s tea rooms in Glasgow and tried to order some lunch. Plainly it was because Latin was being spoken that I had such difficulty. What I was going to say, using two words of Latin, was that perhaps this is a time when we should festina lente.
Baroness Kidron (CB)
My Lords, my name is also on this amendment. The question of public trust has been raised, and this amendment is an attempt to restore public trust. The Minister referred yesterday to the overwhelming support in the other place for this emergency legislation. Of course if one looks at the vote in terms of numbers alone he is completely correct. However, the most cursory glance through the past two days of Hansard reveals that even those who support this Bill have grave reservations about a system of warrants that very experienced legal colleagues are suggesting may prove unenforceable, and about whether this Bill has answered all the findings of the ECJ reservations over whether Clause 4 represents an extension of powers. Very importantly, there are also reservations about the level of understanding of the technology itself, and exactly what gathering “who, what, when and where” can mean for the individual. These reservations have been expressed in other places, such as the Constitution Committee and the Law Society, and among senior legal experts as well.
Like others, I absolutely accept that the noble Lord has done his utmost to reassure the House on all points. Even if he is completely correct that this indeed represents business as usual, there remains the outstanding case that this Bill is a response to the ECJ ruling hurried through in fear of an impending judgment in the domestic courts, and that it is sitting on top of RIPA legislation that is generally accepted as inadequate. This Bill has gone through the House so rapidly that it is impossible for it to incorporate effectively all the expertise and views that have been given.
It is not overwhelming support for the legislation that has resulted in there being only four amendments this morning. It was the lack of time to articulate and design useful and necessary clarifications without undermining the needs of the security and intelligence services, which, I say again, nobody present would wish to do. A sunset clause two and half years hence gives no comfort to those who suspect that this Bill came to the House deliberately without time to challenge it. December 2015 is a reasonable time for review, parliamentary scrutiny, public debate and collective agreement. Three days certainly were not. I commend the amendment to the House.
Lord West of Spithead
My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Phillips, spoke to me before the debate to ask if I would be supporting this amendment, so I have thought about it in some depth, and the answer is that I cannot. I am very supportive of my noble friend Lord Rooker’s comments. What he said about that toxic word “snooper” is exactly what I said in my speech yesterday at Second Reading. It is a very bad and emotive term, for the reasons that I gave then. I support a number of the other things that my noble friend said as well.
Both Houses are clearly in accord that the maintenance of these powers is critical for the safety and security of our people. Removing this provision before something has replaced it is an absolute nonsense. Having been involved over a number of years in this sort of legislation and this sort of work, it is clear to me that, in reviewing something like RIPA, if we are to do it properly, there is no way that we can achieve something in place of this provision in such a short time, because it will be removed. As the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, mentioned, it will have gone before we could do it. Actually, it will be tight to achieve it even by December 2016. We need to do a proper review. We will need something like a new communications data Bill. We so nearly got one before political shenanigans stopped it happening, but we need to look at this and go into great detail in reviewing RIPA. All this has to be done. It is extremely dangerous to try to shorten these timescales. It would be a dreadful mistake to make it any earlier than December 2016.
Lord Butler of Brockwell
My Lords, having supported the Minister in response to the noble Lord, Lord Davies, and having criticised him in response to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, in this case I support the Government and agree with those who oppose this amendment.
If we pass this amendment we would find ourselves in exactly the same danger as we are with the provision of this Bill. We would be presented with a Bill in the latter part of 2016 that would be very urgent and the House would have inadequate time to consider. Although two and half years seems a long time, let us consider what is going to happen in the mean time. The independent reviewer of terrorism legislation has been asked to carry out a thorough review of the RIPA legislation. I understand that his timetable is to try to complete that by the time of the Dissolution of this Parliament, by May of next year.
The Intelligence and Security Committee is similarly carrying out a review. This autumn we plan to have public hearings where those who are critical of the legislation can have their say. I hope that that will generate a public debate and allow these issues to be widely discussed; that will be very valuable. We also hope to reach a conclusion by the end of the Parliament. Indeed, we had better, because there will be a new committee after that. The election will be in May of next year. The new Government will come in with quite a short time before the Summer Recess, when there will be other urgent things to do. It has been suggested that there should be a Joint Committee of the two Houses to look at the conclusions of the reviewer of terrorism legislation, and those of the Intelligence and Security Committee. It will want to have time to consider that. It really will not be practicable to reach a position where properly considered legislation can be introduced until we are well into 2016.
Two and a half years may seem a long time, but when one considers that those are the sensible and necessary steps before legislation is introduced and passed, it follows that the end of 2016 really is the earliest possible date when we can expect to have properly considered and satisfactory legislation in place of the Bill that we are passing today.
The Earl of Erroll (CB)
My Lords, I have not intervened earlier because I have been doing lots of other things, but I wanted to intervene on this amendment and say that I think that this is a sensible approach. I cannot believe that you can produce this Bill within a couple of weeks and then say that we cannot do something better in a year and a half. It seems that we are trying just to push the boundaries out, and the question is why. It tends to be the people who can see the challenges, who come from a senior executive background, who are trying to get this sorted out, and I can see their point.
We need to consider some of the principles behind the amendment, which is why I fully support it, and we need to discuss those principles very early on. The issue is not the technicalities in the Bill, the definitions of communication data and metadata; we know that we need to do this for the purposes of finding terrorists, enforcing the law and stuff like that. The real challenge is posed by that old bit of Latin—which I might as well use, as we are now using Latin—sed quis custodiet ipsos custodes? Who watches the watchers? Who guards the guardians? We should remember the line that is supposed to come after that, which I will say in English: they keep quiet about the girl’s secrets and get her as their payment. Everyone hushes things up. That is the trouble. If corruption runs high enough, you get the Cambridge set—was it four or five by the end of it all? You get J Edgar Hoover.
That sounds as if I am painting a hugely black picture, but there is danger there, even more so now that we have rolled together—for the purpose of catching terrorists and people in serious and organised crime, which we have had to do—what used to be our external forces, GCHQ and MI6, responsible to the Foreign Office, and our internal police, which was MI5 and is now basically the NCA. In America the CIA and the FBI were kept separate. We have started to bring our forces together because of things falling between the cracks. This means that we are potentially giving huge powers to internal police. Therefore, how those at the top are to be watched is of vital importance.
Lord West of Spithead
My Lords, I am sure that the noble Lord is not for a moment suggesting that corruption is involved in this. I understand why there needs to be proper oversight, but surely the noble Earl does not mean to mention words like corruption in connection with the way in which this matter is being approached.
The Earl of Erroll
I am sorry; I am not suggesting that there is any at the moment at all. There has been historically—the Cambridge set. There are problems with people at the top from time to time.
The Earl of Erroll
Yes, treason rather than corruption. I do not mind what you want to call it—whatever. All I am saying is that we in Parliament are here to protect the people. We happen to have the senior members of the Executive here as well, which is very useful for holding them to account. But they have to be double-hatted and remember that they are putting in place processes for their successors.
The noble Lord, Lord Rooker, made the point about the public needing to be reassured that the people at the top are being watched. We are seeing enough conspiracy theories emerging in the press at the moment about rings protecting themselves. We do not need any more of those suggestions. That is why I think we need an earlier debate on this. It is not about the technical part of it; it is about reassuring the public that we have the right checks and balances at the top. That is not technical; it is about how we watch people.
Lord Paddick
My Lords, I want to say just two things. The majority view of this House yesterday at Second Reading was dissatisfaction with the lack of time for public consultation and parliamentary scrutiny of this legislation, not dissatisfaction with the sunset clause. The last thing we need to do is to recreate that problem by not allowing enough time for public consultation and parliamentary scrutiny of the whole area of RIPA and the associated legislation.
Baroness Kennedy of The Shaws (Lab)
My Lords, I support the amendment to have the timetable brought forward because two and a half years is a very long time. While I want to put to one side ideas of conspiracy theories, I do think that there is a hope that somehow the current high level of interest in this will dissipate and that the usual British torpor about what happens with the security services will settle itself back on to our society and we will become unquestioning again. This is about kicking it into the long grass; this is really about postponing it for as long as possible because by that time people will have forgotten the disclosures that we recently had through Snowden and others. We should be concerned to ensure that we act while people are interested and concerned about these issues because they are pressing and very important to a vital and vibrant democracy.
It is important that we have proper scrutiny of the activities that are done in our name at whatever level in our society, and we have to have proper controls. What I am concerned about is when I hear about the setting up of Joint Committees and so on because we always know that the people who are put on to such Joint Committees are hand-picked. There was a period in my life where I remember this happening with the vetting of juries. They are hand-picked to be people who are already very much on the side of protecting the security services.
The security services are vital to the interests of our nation but they need to be questioned. They need to be questioned with some scepticism at times and I am not sure that we get that when people become comfortable in the security committees, as we have seen, and scrutiny is not of the level that it should be. So if we are going to set up these committees and so on, I hope we will see on them the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson, and some of the people who have been niggling at these issues and asking the questions that were not asked about rendition and so on. There was a complacency in this House and elsewhere about some of the things that happened, which we should have been much more scrupulous about. I hope that when we come to set up committees we will see a greater variety of presences than the ones we have seen until now.
I do not think that two and a half years is the right period of time; 18 months would be perfectly satisfactory and I urge that we look to a shorter period because it concentrates minds while minds are concentrated on this issue.
Lord Hope of Craighead
My Lords, I should confess that when some of us went up to the office yesterday evening, I asked to put my name down in support of this amendment but I was told that since four people had already done so, there was not room for my name. The fact that my name is not on the amendment gives me a little more freedom to think about the issue.
I was anxious to support the amendment because the public, for some of the reasons that have been given by the noble Baroness and others, will be suspicious about the length of time that seems to have been taken in order to allow this measure to survive until it has expired. But I am persuaded by what the noble Lords, Lord Rooker, Lord West and Lord Butler, have said, and also by what was said yesterday evening by the noble Baroness, Lady Lane-Fox. The Minister may remember that she was chiding us for being hopelessly out of date and telling us that the whole thinking about the descriptions of the various mechanisms that we use needed to be revised. There is a great deal of work that has to be done to get the legislation right and to get it modernised, and the last thing we want, quite frankly, is to cut ourselves off by having a timetable that we have to work to in order to put legislation in place that will replace the measure we are talking about today.
I confess that I have changed my mind. I regret disappointing those whom I was seeking to support yesterday evening but I think the wiser course is to leave the date as it is, although there is certainly something to be done by way of public relations to persuade the public that the date has been well chosen for very good reasons.
Lord Dubs (Lab)
My Lords, I was not able to take part in the debate yesterday. I must say that I find the discussion on this amendment slightly bewildering.
If the Bill said “2017”, would we be having a different debate or would be saying, “It has to be 2017 because we need that long”? I do not know, but I have the impression that when officials were drafting this, they would have said, “What date shall we put in? Let’s play safe and make sure we have enough time”, and so 2016 arrived. Was it a result of a lengthy period of consideration and working out what has to be done or was it simply the officials—I do not blame them—saying, “Let’s play safe, let’s have a date that is going to be okay”?
I understand the difficulty and we do not want to do something so rushed that we have botched legislation, and there is a danger of that. But I do not know from the outside just how long it would need. I just fear that we have a longer period of time than is necessary. I am not sure what it should be. Clearly, the work can start tomorrow on this, can it not? There is no reason why not. That would give 18 months; if that is not long enough, then two and a half years. I would have thought that the time to get on with it would be very soon. Frankly, I am not sure so I am still agnostic on the date.
I wish the amendment said that the provisions will be repealed “not later than 31 December”, then the Minister could say that he will do his best to make it earlier. As it is, we are stuck with a date that is immovable.
Lord Wills (Lab)
My Lords, I came with an open mind to this debate and I am afraid I have to say to the Minister, for whom I have great respect, that I am now minded to support this amendment. The reason for that, quite simply, is that the overriding priority for all of us must be the reassurance of the public, whose security lies at the heart of this whole debate, and the public are suspicious of the motives of those in power, as my noble friend Lady Kennedy has just outlined. The later the date, the more suspicious they become, so there have to be compelling reasons for this longer period. We are not talking about doing this in three weeks; we are talking about 18 months and I have not heard anything by way of a month-by-month account of why this extra time is needed. So unless the Minister can say something to provide detailed, compelling arguments for this extra time being necessary, I am minded to support the amendment.
Baroness Smith of Basildon
My Lords, this has been a long and interesting debate. I do not know if my noble friend has had the opportunity to hear the whole debate today, or the debate we had yesterday, but three clear issues came out of yesterday’s debate.
One was the widespread acceptance in your Lordships’ House that there was a gap that had to be plugged as a matter of urgency. There was also deep dissatisfaction—and I think some anger—with the Government’s use of the fast-track procedure. It is unsatisfactory and I think that view came across very clearly in the debate.
There is also deep dissatisfaction with the current situation, whereby we seem to amend our laws on this issue by a sticking-plaster process. The problem comes up and we deal with it now. It was very clear from yesterday’s debate—this was the point made by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope—that we must keep pace with the technology, the changes and the information presented to us. We have failed to do so. RIPA, which was passed in 2000, is now hopelessly out of date. We recognise that that needs urgent consideration.
The amendment suggests that we shorten the period in which we may give further consideration to bringing new legislation. The amendment in the other place, which was tabled by my right honourable friend Yvette Cooper is now Clause 7 of the Bill. I am surprised that those who tabled this amendment did not seek to make changes to Clause 7 as well. Clause 7 is crucial in this whole debate and was central to our support for this legislation. Clause 7(3) says that the independent reviewer, a man whom this House has made clear, as it did yesterday, it holds in the highest regard and the deepest respect,
“must, so far as reasonably practicable, complete the review before 1 May 2015”.
The Minister can confirm this or otherwise, but I understand that, following that review, there would be a Joint Committee of both Houses, where Members of your Lordships’ House and the other place with, I hope, a broad range of opinions—I agree entirely with my noble friend Lady Kennedy—will examine the evidence presented by the independent reviewer.
We have two choices. We can start the work now—there should be some issues that we can look at now—but the substance that the independent reviewer will look at I would expect us to examine, take on board and introduce in legislation. Either this is just a sop and we ignore anything the independent reviewer says and get the legislation through earlier, or we take the views of the independent reviewer seriously and ensure that what he says is taken into deep consideration when we are looking at legislation.
One of the comments made was about public confidence and trust. The public have a right to wonder what we are doing when we pass fast-track legislation. We bring this out of the blue, we put it in context and we expect trust on legislation. That is a big ask. That is also why there has to be some public engagement on these issues, as was clear from yesterday and today’s debates, and this forms part of our demands with this legislation. Obviously, there are details of security information that cannot be given to the public, but the public are entitled to a lot more information that is available now and are entitled to know the context in which data are held. Like my noble friend Lord Rooker, I think that when it comes to the private company-held information, as well as public statutory information, the public have a right to know. We have only to click on the internet and look at something, and for days afterwards somebody knows what you have been looking at because it is there every time you go on to Google or look at something else again. We have a duty to engage the public in that. However, that duty will not be done tomorrow or next week. It will be done in the context of the report from the independent reviewer.
The noble Lord, Lord Carlile, made a very important point when he reminded us that the sunset clause will stop. This is not a sunset clause to reintroduce the same legislation. This is to bring in a completely new framework under which we operate on these issues. That is not something that we should take lightly. We can start working but we need the report of the independent reviewer as well.
As much as one looks at an amendment such as this and instinctively thinks we do not need so much time to deal with it, when one examines the issues there is a strong case for bringing in completely new legislation, which needs time to be done properly. The public cannot be reassured if we continue with sticking-plaster legislation and fast-track legislation, which is completely unsatisfactory.
Lord Taylor of Holbeach
My Lords, it has been very useful to have this debate. It is our last amendment in Committee and it sums up so much of what we are trying to achieve. I am very grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, for laying out so clearly the issues that are before the Committee today. It is clear that the Opposition, the Government and coalition partners have been talking about how best to deal with this issue. We have come to the conclusion that replacement legislation for RIPA needs to be properly considered and that we need to look at where we are. We need proper consideration of future legislation. We are also clear that, while we are passing this particular element today, it needs sunsetting—and it needs sunsetting absolutely when its time has expired. However, we would be reckless to try to set a date when we will then prevent the proper operation of the discussion that we all agree is necessary in Parliament, and with the public in the larger world, about this issue.
The Government do not take lightly the requirement for fast-track legislation, but we have taken this forward with the support of the Opposition, and we have included in it an absolute sunset clause, as is right and appropriate. This is so that Parliament can return to the issue after all the other issues have been discussed. Indeed, Parliament must return to it because this sunset clause is absolute and there is no room for its extension.
Noble Lords have queried the requirement for the speed of the legislation. I repeat that we have particular and urgent circumstances. Earlier, I repeated to the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Stamford, things that I had said at Second Reading. He is not in his place at the moment, but he will confirm that I made it clear that there were urgent considerations and that we were on a cliff edge, as the Prime Minister has said. However, the Government understand fully the wish of noble Lords, which has been expressed in almost all debates, to review this area. That is why it is so important that time is allowed for an independent review before the election, hence Clause 7 in the Bill and a Joint Committee review after the election. That is not kicking the can down the road; it is just making sure that when we return to this with legislation, we do so with legislation that has the support of Parliament and has been properly considered. At the same time, it also makes sure that, whoever wins the election, the Government presenting legislation can do so with the public having been fully engaged in the discussion on the issue.
This amendment would change the date when the Bill ceases to have effect and bring it forward to 31 December 2015. While this date is a year later than that proposed in the House of Commons, I do not believe it will give the sort of time that we need for the reasons expressed by the noble Baroness, Lady Smith. The debates that have taken place in this House have made that absolutely clear. While we have no option but to act swiftly now, festina lente is a sensible approach to finding the new solution for the future. The technological changes we are facing—someone pointed to the speech of the noble Baroness, Lady Lane-Fox, yesterday—and the balance between security and liberty, should be looked at with a view to the longer term. We will set up, as I have said, in the Bill a review of the investigatory powers and their regulation to be headed up by the current independent reviewer of terrorism legislation, David Anderson QC. He will report by 1 May 2015, just before the general election. I believe we should be discussing this sort of issue at that time. We need to be realistic. None of us knows who will form the Government after the election. We all have our own views; we sit on opposite sides of the House. However, decisions need be made in the light of information that should be available to Parliament as a whole.
Lord Judd (Lab)
The Minister is being very persuasive, as was my noble friend in her pertinent analysis. What I am concerned about in all this talk of Clause 7 is that the reviewer must report to the Prime Minister by 1 May next year. Are we trying to open up a public debate on these issues or are we not? If we are, Parliament should debate that report before we go into the general election.
Lord Taylor of Holbeach
That is not the deadline that has been agreed by the party leaders. After all, 1 May is a deadline; it does not mean that the independent reviewer will not report before then if he feels that it is satisfactory to do so. It is important to remember that the presence of a sunset clause, while it is absolute in its end date, does not mean that legislation could not be considered before that time if a Government decided that they were in a position to present it in Parliament.
Creating a committee is entirely appropriate and democratic, but it will take time. I do not believe that committees are stuffed with placemen. My noble friend Lord Strasburger, who holds very strong views on this issue, was part of the joint scrutiny committee chaired by my noble friend Lord Blencathra which considered this Bill.
Lord Strasburger (LD)
For the past year or so, the Minister has resisted all the efforts by me and others to engage in a conversation or debate on these matters. I congratulate him on his sudden and total conversion to the idea that there should be a national debate and a review of RIPA.
Lord Taylor of Holbeach
I take that chiding. I am big enough to cope with it. I do not think I have ever failed to answer this House when it has asked me to consider a matter of this nature.
Clearly, Parliament will want to judge both the report of the Joint Committee and the new legislation that replaces this Bill. It will be a new Parliament; it will be a new committee. It will not be the committee chaired by my noble friend Lord Blencathra. The amendment would make it difficult for this to happen. It would also curtail proper public debate about this issue. I am not a last-minute convert in the way that my noble friend Lord Strasburger has described. I believe in transparency; I believe in talking about issues that concern the public. That new legislation will set out new powers and capabilities for the future—potentially wide-ranging powers. The legislation that we have before Parliament today just maintains the status quo, and we have heard the understandable concerns about the pace of its passage.
Perhaps I might say something in response to the speech by the noble Lord, Lord Rooker—I nearly called him my noble friend; I should not say that. He talked about language and the way we communicate difficult ideas. He referred to the problems that elites and those of us with responsibility have in talking to the public as a whole—the use of language. I could not agree with him more. All Governments and all Parliaments must seek to identify through language. It is the thing that we have in common; it is the way in which we communicate with each other; it is the way in which I hope that I am convincing the noble Lord, Lord Judd, of the reason for having this particular date. Language is important.
Lord Judd
I am really grateful to the Minister for taking my point. If we really believe what he is saying, and I do not doubt for a moment that he is absolutely sincere, the public have the right to be in the picture before they decide how to cast their vote in a general election, because these issues are central to the whole purpose of government. From that standpoint, the anxiety of the public is that it is all a closed club that is dealing with this in the parliamentary context. If we are going to take the report so seriously and are putting so much emphasis on Clause 7, it is a great shame that we will not get the public in on the act before the election takes place.
Lord Taylor of Holbeach
What the noble Lord is talking about is political leadership. Political leadership, I am sure, will mean that there are opportunities to discuss this matter during a general election.
This has been a good debate, and I am quite happy that we have had to discuss this issue, but I urge the noble Lords who have proposed the amendment to withdraw it.
Lord Phillips of Sudbury
My Lords, I agree with my noble friend that this has been an excellent and worthwhile debate. On behalf of my co-sponsors, I thank all those who have taken part.
We have a wealth of experience in this place, which has been demonstrated today wonderfully well. I shall be quite frank: my views have been influenced by what has been said. So long as the Minister was serious, as I am sure he was because he is a sincere man, and so long as the tenor of what he said is carried into effect in the time ahead of us—namely, that, as he put it, the Government will make haste but take the public of this country into consideration in defining and putting together the new legislation to come—it is appropriate for this amendment to be withdrawn. The arguments made about the timescales, especially given the forthcoming general election, seem to me to be correct. On that basis, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Hallett Review
(9 years, 9 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Wales Office (Baroness Randerson) (LD)
My Lords, with the leave of the House I will now repeat a Statement made earlier today by my right honourable friend Theresa Villiers, the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland. The Statement is as follows.
“Mr Speaker, with permission I would like to make a statement on the report by Lady Justice Hallett on the scheme dealing with the so-called on-the-runs.
In February, Mr Justice Sweeney ruled that it would be an abuse of process to proceed with the prosecution of John Downey in connection with the Hyde Park bombing on 20 July 1982 and his trial was stayed.
The Hyde Park atrocity resulted in the brutal murder of four members of the Blues and Royals. Seven horses were also killed and just hours later another bomb in Regent’s Park took the lives of seven members of the Royal Green Jackets. These were appalling terrorist outrages carried out by the Provisional IRA for which there could never, ever be any justification. So in this House I hope that our first thoughts today should be with the families and friends of those murdered that day in July 1982. The Government fully appreciate the deep sense of hurt and anger that the collapse of the Downey trial has caused both to them and victims of terrorism more widely. I would like to repeat the apology I gave in March for that. This Government are profoundly sorry for the hurt that this case has caused.
The Downey case highlighted the administrative scheme introduced by the previous Government to deal with so-called on-the-runs. These were people who had left Northern Ireland and believed that if they returned to any part of the UK they might be arrested in connection with terrorism offences. The Government responded to the widespread public concern expressed about the OTR scheme by establishing a judge-led independent review of the scheme. I am grateful to Lady Justice Hallett for taking on this task. Anybody reading the report will be left in no doubt that she has provided us with a rigorous and comprehensive account of the scheme.
The Government accept the report and all its recommendations in full. On the central issue of whether the OTR administrative scheme gave suspected terrorists immunity from prosecution, Lady Justice Hallett is very clear. She concludes:
‘The administrative scheme did not amount to an amnesty for terrorists ... Suspected terrorists were not handed a “get out of jail free” card’.
The Government have always been clear that, if sufficient evidence emerges, then individual OTRs are liable for arrest and prosecution in the normal way. So I repeat again today to the people holding these letters: they will not protect you from arrest or prosecution and, should the police succeed in gathering sufficient evidence, you will be subject to the due process of law.
Lady Justice Hallett sets out the origins, operation and evolution of the scheme. She agrees with successive Attorneys-General that the scheme was lawful. The last letter sent by the Northern Ireland Office was issued in December 2012 and I repeat today that, as far as this Government are concerned, the scheme is over.
The report sets out a number of serious criticisms of how the scheme operated, including significant systemic failures. Lady Justice Hallett states:
‘The scheme was not designed; it evolved. As a result there was no overall policy and no overall responsibility/accountability for it’.
The scheme,
‘lacked proper lines of responsibility, accountability and safeguards … When errors came to light opportunities were missed to rectify them’,
and,
‘there was no risk assessment’.
In the case of Mr Downey, Lady Justice Hallett concluded, in line with the Sweeney judgment, that it was not the fact that Mr Downey was sent a letter that caused the trial to collapse; it was the fact that the letter contained an incorrect and misleading statement on which Mr Downey relied. The report finds that if the scheme had been properly administered,
‘John Downey would not have received a letter of assurance’.
She can find no ‘logical explanation’ of why PSNI officers failed to pass on the fact that Mr Downey was still wanted by the Metropolitan Police, nor why they failed to correct the error once it became known.
Lady Justice Hallett finds that 13 OTRs received the royal prerogative of mercy between 2000 and 2002 and that in all cases this was to release people from having to serve some or all of the rest of their sentences. No pre-conviction pardons were issued. The report criticises the lack of a,
‘central register of documents recording the use of the RPM’.
While she finds,
‘no evidence of the UK Government actively seeking to obscure the scheme from the public’,
Lady Justice Hallett states that it,
‘was not given much publicity and that important groups’,
such as victims and their families, ‘remained unaware’ of it. The report acknowledges the hurt and distress that this has caused to many victims.
Lady Justice Hallett has found two examples of somebody receiving a letter in error, in addition to the Downey case. She has also identified 36 cases dealt with between February 2007 and November 2008 which should be given priority in the exercise now under way by the PSNI to check whether the change in status from ‘wanted’ to ‘not wanted’ can still be justified.
A key question has arisen as to what the Government intend to do next to ensure that there are no more failed prosecutions like that of Mr Downey. The report recommends that we now,
‘seek legal advice, in conjunction with the police and prosecuting authorities, to determine whether’,
we,
‘should notify any individuals whose status, as communicated to them, has changed or may change in the future’,
and that we,
‘consider how to mitigate against further abuse of process arguments, for example by confirming to recipients the factual and contemporaneous nature of their letters’.
The Government will act on these recommendations and I give the House this assurance. We will take whatever steps are necessary, acting on the basis of legal advice and in conjunction with the police, the Justice Minister and prosecutors, to do everything possible to remove barriers to future prosecutions.
The bulk of this report deals with decisions made by the previous Government in respect of their handling of the political process in Northern Ireland. It is not my role to speak for my Labour predecessors as Secretary of State; they are more than capable of speaking for themselves on the role that they played and the decisions that they took. Yet I will say this: I might not agree with every decision that they made in relation to the OTR issue but, whatever differences of emphasis and approach we might have, I recognise that they were dealing with very difficult judgments in very difficult circumstances and that they were at all times acting with sincerity in seeking to move the peace process forward.
I emphasise that Lady Justice Hallett has found no evidence that either politicians or officials ever interfered improperly with due process of law or the operational independence of police or prosecutors. The report concludes that the scheme did not impact on police investigations into historic terrorist offences. PSNI and Historical Enquiries Team files on terrorist crimes were not closed. There was no chilling effect.
It is well known that the current Government allowed the checking process to continue after we came to power in May 2010, but both I and my predecessor are very clear: had we at any time been presented with a scheme that we thought amounted to an amnesty, immunity or exemption from prosecution, we would have stopped it immediately. That would have been consistent with the opposition of both coalition parties to the Northern Ireland (Offences) Bill introduced by the right honourable Member for Neath in 2005, which was subsequently abandoned.
This Government believe in the rule of law, and that applies across the board to everyone, without fear or favour, including those in possession of letters issued under this scheme. There are many lessons to be learnt from this episode, not the least of which is the crucial importance of continued efforts to find an agreement on the divisive issues of flags, parading and the past. In dealing with the painful legacy of Northern Ireland’s past, we need a process that is transparent, accountable and balanced, which puts the era of side deals firmly behind us and which commands the confidence of all parts of the community. The Government remain fully committed to working with all parties in Northern Ireland in their efforts to deliver that important goal. I commend this Statement to the House”.
My Lords, that concludes the Statement.
Lord McAvoy (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for repeating the Statement. I endorse her initial comments about our thoughts today being with the relatives and friends of the soldiers who lost their lives in Hyde Park. The suffering of those families, as with the families of other victims of terrorism, will go on for who knows how long.
Her Majesty’s Opposition welcome Lady Justice Hallett’s report today and accept her findings in full. We acknowledge those findings, including those that make it clear that there should have been a more systematic approach to the operation and an ongoing review of the scheme. There are lessons to be learnt by both the Northern Ireland Office and the Police Service of Northern Ireland.
We are pleased that Lady Justice Hallett shatters a number of myths. She makes it clear that the scheme was not unlawful and that files on terrorist offences were not closed by the PSNI. Most importantly, she states categorically on the very first page of her report that the administrative scheme was not an amnesty, nor did it ever amount to a “get out of jail free” card. On legality, while Lady Justice Hallett questions the structure of the scheme, she makes clear on page 144 of the report that the administrative scheme was not unlawful. On amnesty, she makes clear on page 28 that:
“there was no question of the administrative scheme granting an alleged offender an amnesty or immunity from prosecution. It is clear from the views expressed at the time that the Attorney General would not have agreed to the process had that been the intention or the effect. It is also clear that successive Attorneys General maintained the same position throughout the life of the scheme”.
While Lady Justice Hallett is right to conclude in her report that the scheme was not secret, I acknowledge the concern of politicians and others who feel that they should have been given more information about the nature and application of the scheme. This includes the First Minister and Justice Minister after the devolution of policing and justice in 2010.
Most crucially, if we are going to move forward, do the Government accept that the report reinforces, rather than undermines, the urgent need for a robust, transparent and comprehensive process to deal with Northern Ireland’s past? We contend that it is now clear that the UK and Irish Governments must play a far more hands-on role in supporting Northern Ireland’s political parties to reach an agreement on the past and parades. Until this happens, one can conclude only that stalemate will prevail, leaving a dangerous vacuum to be filled by those who seek to undermine the peace process through either political means or, worse still, a return to violence.
As the Prime Minister has stated, it would be wrong to be retrospectively selective about key elements of an historic peace process that ended 30 years of violence and terror. I came into the other place in 1987 with a longstanding interest in Northern Ireland through my own family and my wife’s family, one from the unionist side and one from the nationalist side. I remember that period well and I well remember my time on the Northern Ireland Select Committee, with friends like Peter Robinson, James Cran from the Conservative Party and the late, great Eddie McGrady. It was an extraordinary period that demanded historic and difficult compromises. However, as a result of that momentous agreement, Northern Ireland has been transformed. Over the past 15 years, PSNI figures demonstrate the dramatic fall in all forms of sectarian violence, casualties, bombings, shootings and murders. These rapid improvements in the security situation have led to a striking change in the local economy and the international profile of Northern Ireland. In addition to the official bodies, at grass-roots level there are numerous heart-warming examples of reconciliation and normalisation across communities. These changes should never be underestimated or taken for granted.
Tribute must be paid to the many individuals who contributed to that process, including noble Lords in this Chamber. There were historic compromises from the unionist side in accepting the peace process and, Sinn Fein would maintain, historic compromises on its part too. Through it all, the guiding light and assurance must be that everyone who signed up to the agreement agrees that the constitutional status of Northern Ireland will only ever change with the consent of the people. Many people made that compromise and we owe it to them to continue doing that.
Credit should also go to the intensive engagement of the UK and Irish Governments working closely together. In the UK context, Sir John Major deserves credit for starting the process; if a start is never made, you will not get anywhere. However, it was Tony Blair’s decision to expend unprecedented prime ministerial capital on achieving peace in Northern Ireland that was decisive. I make that point because some would like to use the controversy generated by the on-the-runs as a stick to beat Tony Blair with and allow legitimate public concern to distort the truth about a peace process in which so many people, including, as I have said, some in your Lordships’ House, played a part. No one is saying that it is a perfect peace process—there is no such thing—but it is a peace process of which I and my party remain incredibly proud. It has saved lives and allowed the current younger generation in Northern Ireland to grow up largely free from the fear and the reality of violence. Frankly, this would not have happened without Tony Blair and his Government.
I remember the time well. I was in the Whips’ Office and I played a small part liaising with various parties. Not only is my party proud of the peace process but we as the Westminster Parliament played a leading role in it collectively. The co-operation that came from all corners of both Houses and from all political parties was outstanding. Therefore, while this is a difficult situation that we need to learn from, it should not be used to undermine or diminish the achievements that we have made collectively so far.
Baroness Randerson
I thank the noble Lord for his recognition of the complexity of the situation. The noble Lord raised a number of different points, and I will do my best to address most of them.
In relation to the recognition that there were systemic problems that led to the problems that the Downey case revealed, the Northern Ireland Office is already reviewing its procedures. The Permanent Secretary is leading that work, which is under way. The noble Lord referred to the fact that the report shatters some myths. It is important to note that Lady Justice Hallett emphasised the importance—in her very last paragraph, I believe—of people not making political capital out of this situation. She also emphasised in the report that the misrepresentation of the scheme has caused anguish to the families of victims. It is important to remember that the law officers and legal officials who appeared not just before Lady Justice Hallett but also before the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee have all emphasised that this was a legal scheme.
My right honourable friend the Secretary of State has apologised for failing to brief Ministers of the Northern Ireland Executive. She recognises that that was a failing. She is now, however, working very closely with the Justice Minister in Northern Ireland to deal with the outcome of this review. I recognise—and the noble Lord emphasises this point—that Northern Ireland continues to rely on leadership. There have been outstanding men and women of great courage across communities in Northern Ireland in recent years who have stood up for their beliefs and for peace. We must hope that that process continues. I have to say that I first visited Northern Ireland in the late 1990s and when I go back now I am always struck by the progress that has been made. Devolution has changed the centre of gravity and it is important now that it is the devolved Administration that need to take the lead. The Government fully recognise the complexity and difficulties that the previous Government were facing over many years of the peace process.
Lord Alderdice (LD)
My Lords, I welcome the Statement from my noble friend and identify these Benches with the concern for the victims who have been spoken about by noble Lords on both sides of the House. However, we must do more than simply speak about our concern for the victims. We must act in a way that shows real concern.
A number of things have been revealed in this report—it is more than 270 pages long, so it is difficult to get a full assessment of it in such a time. Already it seems to me that some of the assessments are mistaken, including some of those identified in the Secretary of State’s comments. For example, she said that,
“the bulk of the report deals with decisions made by the previous government in respect of its handling of the political process”.
It seems to me that the bulk of the report is not about the decisions but about the process that led to the decisions. It is quite clear that the process was shambolic and was a whole approach to government from the very top. Decisions were not taken in a formal and proper way. I know that to have been the case during the process itself.
I agree with the noble Lord, Lord McAvoy, about not taking it to pieces and certainly not behaving retrospectively. However, some of us made criticisms at the time about the way in which it was being handled. Subsequently, many of the problems that we continue to experience are because of the unwise ways of reaching decisions about prisoners, weapons, dealing with the past and issues of that kind. It is quite clear that time after time Lady Justice Hallett identifies the failure to keep any list of pardons and the failure to keep any account of the decisions that were made. I think that this Government, as well as any future, never mind past Government, must learn about process. It is not sufficient to have this kind of sofa government, or any emblem of it, particularly when one is dealing with matters that are serious life and death issues and matters of law.
We have to go back and revisit those things to learn from them—not just to be critical, but to learn that we should not behave in that way again. I am afraid that the evidence is that the lesson has not yet been learnt. The Secretary of State is now saying, quite properly, that she will make sure that she informs Ministers in the devolved Government. That means that they were not properly informed before. We had a Bill yesterday where we were looking at legislation about arrangements for the NCA, and so on. It was quite clear that there was no discussion at an early stage with the Government of the Republic of Ireland and the Justice Minister there. I know that because I raised it with the noble Lord, Lord Taylor of Holbeach, and the reply was almost, “What a shocking suggestion”. The fact is that we should have been doing those negotiations.
Of course we should not be unhelpfully critical, but we are here to hold government to account and to try to improve the processes. It is quite clear that some of those processes were seriously mistaken. As an emblem of that, I will put a specific question to my noble friend. Given that these letters gave reassurance, and were meant to give reassurance, to individuals that at the time of their issue they were not wanted for questioning by the PSNI or other forces, and given that we are told that the PSNI and others have not closed the cases, will the PSNI be formally withdrawing letters, or otherwise formally notifying individuals concerned if and when intelligence, information or evidence comes to hand that changes their status back to being wanted for questioning? I ask because if there is not a proper, formal scheme of withdrawal instigated, arrests and subsequent court cases could well be endangered again, as in the Downey case. I ask my noble friend for assurance on that, not because it is the only question but because it is symbolic of some of the failings of the past.
Baroness Randerson
My noble friend asked about the royal prerogative of mercy and the failure to keep lists. In fact the royal prerogative of mercy is not used only in relation to terrorism cases. It is used very much more widely and it was used much more frequently in the past. Legislation has changed and enables the justice system now to deal with issues such as early release from prison in a different manner. It has simply not been the custom to keep lists of this nature, and I would say that in regard to the Northern Ireland Office investigations, it is not the case that the problem related entirely to the time of the peace settlement and the time of devolution. It predates and goes well back into the last century.
My noble friend referred to poor administration and organisation. The report by Lady Justice Hallett is very clear about the areas of poor administration. The key point she makes is that it was a system that evolved and was not created. The Government acknowledge that as time went on and the scheme developed and grew, failure to take the opportunity to review, update or risk assess the scheme added to the problems of the scheme.
My noble friend asked whether the Government were thinking of withdrawing the letters because of the dangers of impairing prosecution. Lady Justice Hallett recommended that the Northern Ireland Office should seek legal advice in conjunction with the police and prosecuting authorities on what to do in cases where errors may have been made. That process is already under way. The Police Service of Northern Ireland is reviewing all the cases. Lady Justice Hallett makes clear that that review will be thorough and will take years rather than months. However, she made clear that the judgment in the Downey case stood on its own facts; it was a judgment in the first instance which should not be applied to any other examples, and was not binding in any other cases.
I think my noble friend did us all a great service in drawing our attention again to the victims in this, for whose families today will not be easy. It is important to remember the names of those who died: Lieutenant Anthony Daly, Trooper Simon Tipper, Lance Corporal Jeffrey Vernon Young and Squadron Quartermaster Corporal Major Roy Bright. It is important that, as we have these discussions here today, we hold them in our minds and thoughts.
Lord Rogan (UUP)
My Lords, I also welcome the Statement. As we read the Hallett review, I agree with the noble Baroness that we should never forget the innocent victims.
Unlike the noble Lord, Lord Alderdice, I will be critical. This has been a sorry debacle, which has given no credit to the Blair Government—or, indeed, the current Secretary of State for Northern Ireland. For many months now, it has undermined confidence in the rule of law. The people of Northern Ireland have seen that members of a specific terrorist organisation appear to have been given, at the very least, a letter of comfort that indicates that all is forgotten and they can come home to the United Kingdom in the knowledge that they will be free from prosecution and can live a life of comfort—unlike their victims. That clearly was the implication and interpretation given to the leadership of Sinn Fein/IRA, who requested these letters in the first instance.
Much has been said about transparency, or the lack of it, regarding this matter. I will ask the Minister a specific question. Can she inform the House why and when the Government of the Irish Republic were made aware of this scheme, and why the Northern Ireland Executive and parties in Westminster were not so informed?
Baroness Randerson
The noble Lord referred to the nature of the scheme, and for the absolute clarity of the House here today, I will repeat that this was not an amnesty and it was not intended to be an amnesty. Lady Justice Hallett is quite clear on that. The Downey judgment was the result of an error in an individual case that should not have occurred, not as a result of the general design of the scheme.
The noble Lord asked a specific question about the Irish Government. The Irish Government had been involved in discussions with the UK Government over the period of the peace process. They had been closely involved in discussions and, for that reason, they were aware of the scheme. I repeat that, of course, the devolved Executive of Northern Ireland should also have been consulted and informed, and should have known about it in an official format.
Lord Lexden (Con)
My Lords, I will make four points. First, does my noble friend agree that this was a wholly dishonourable scheme because it conferred benefits and assurances on one small group of which everybody else was kept in ignorance? Secondly, since it was a dishonourable scheme, why did this Government allow it to remain in being from 2010 until 2012? Thirdly, my noble friend may recall that in a Question in April I asked for assurances that the police force in Northern Ireland would be given not just resources but also every encouragement to pursue the cases against terrorist suspects, to secure the evidence and bring them to book. What progress has been made?
Fourthly, I will touch upon the Sewel convention, of which my noble friend made a great deal in the Answer to a Question by the noble Lord, Lord Empey, yesterday. The Sewel convention provides that the Government at Westminster will not normally take action in areas that are devolved to the Northern Ireland Executive. Since 2010, security and justice have been so devolved. Why were the Executive kept in complete ignorance?
Baroness Randerson
My noble friend refers to this as a “dishonourable scheme”. It is clear from the coverage given to it in the extensive report of Lady Justice Hallett—which is very detailed and thorough; one must be grateful to her for her efforts—that the scheme could have in principle applied to those who were not necessarily republicans. Indeed, I believe one name was supplied from the unionist community.
It is, however, an issue of logic that members of the unionist community do not tend to go on the run to the Republic of Ireland. They would be much more likely to have stayed in the UK. Over the years, some members of the unionist community were, I believe, the subject of the royal prerogative of mercy.
Why did the current Government continue the scheme? By the time of this Government, it was dealing with smaller numbers of people: 45 cases have been considered since May 2010 and 12 letters were sent by the Northern Ireland Office since May 2010, stating that on the basis of current evidence the person concerned was not wanted by police. Two further “not wanted” indications were sent by the PSNI without involving the Northern Ireland Office. However, the current Government have issued no letters since December 2012. It is important to repeat again that the Government regard the scheme as finished.
My noble friend raised the Sewel convention. Of course, as a result of that convention and the fact that devolution had occurred, the Northern Ireland Executive should have been fully involved. I have said this, and the Secretary of State has made it clear in her Statement and apologised for the fact that they were not formally briefed.
Lord Cormack (Con)
My Lords, as one who was chairman of the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee in another place for the whole of the previous Parliament, it is clear to me that this matter was not as well handled as it should have been. However, one understands that there was a passionate desire not to see the peace process unravel. I understand that fully. We have to recognise that we have a power-sharing Executive in Northern Ireland and a Deputy First Minister who very recently had an audience with Her Majesty the Queen, and I am very glad that it happened. I would much rather have that happen than have a return to the Troubles. However, we have to maintain the rule of law and reach a tidy conclusion. I wonder if we might not consider all those who are guilty of terrorist offences and are prepared to admit their guilt eligible for the royal prerogative of mercy, and those who are guilty and not prepared to admit it would be liable to prosecution. The sooner we can ensure that the PSNI devotes all its resources to combating current crime, rather than investigating past crime, the better.
Baroness Randerson
My noble friend is absolutely right to emphasise the passionate desire at that time to make sure that the peace process did not unravel. We must never take progress for granted. It would be quite possible for there to be major problems even now.
My noble friend makes some interesting points on how problems that this administrative scheme was designed to deal with might be dealt with under a scheme that involved pardons. There have been numerous ideas and attempts at cracking this problem. None of them has been fully satisfactory but many great minds are at work on this issue and I very much hope that people will continue to keep this at the forefront of their mind. It is a problem that has to be solved in one way or another, but it is not something that this report in itself will solve.
Lord Morrow (DUP)
The noble Baroness has stated that the Government accept this report in its totality. She has quoted from the last paragraph of that report, and I, too, will quote from it. It says:
“One catastrophic mistake has been made and it cannot be undone. The families of those killed in the Hyde Park bombing have no choice but to come to terms with that fact, as devastating as I know it has been for them”.
Does the Minister accept, if there is to be a restoration of confidence in the community in Northern Ireland, that it is imperative that whatever happens from this day forth has to be done in an open and transparent manner?
The Hallett report also makes a number of recommendations. Can the Minister assure us that all those will be implemented? Can she give us a timescale? Can she also assure us that, in the event of further or new legislation being required, there will be no hesitation in bringing that forward as early as possible?
Baroness Randerson
The noble Lord points out some significant words at the end of this report that make very difficult reading for the families of the victims of that bombing. He asked about the timescale for implementing the recommendations. I have already said that the Government accept all the recommendations and indicated that in some cases work is already under way in dealing with the issues. However, it is important that we do not set a timescale. The work of the PSNI, which faces significant recommendations of its own, has already begun in reviewing all cases. However, it would be totally inappropriate to put an artificial timescale on that because the emphasis of that work must be on thoroughness rather than speed in order to ensure that the work is done properly and will stand up in court if tested. That certainly does not suggest that the Government are putting any of this off; the work is currently under way.
Data Retention and Investigatory Powers Bill
(9 years, 9 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Home Office (Lord Taylor of Holbeach) (Con)
My Lords, I thank the officials who have supported me during the course of this Bill on behalf of all Members of the House. It has been a testing time for them but they have done it in an exemplary fashion.
Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)
My Lords, it has been a difficult process on this Bill and I thank the Minister for his customary courtesy in ensuring that we have had access to information and in being prepared to meet with Members across the House. I thank his officials, who have made themselves available to us beyond the call of duty. I also thank the officials of your Lordships’ House, who have had to work in double-quick time on the amendments that have been tabled and have all done so with courtesy and great kindness to Members.
Justice and Home Affairs: United Kingdom Opt-Outs
(9 years, 9 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Taylor of Holbeach
That this House has considered the United Kingdom’s Justice and Home Affairs Opt-Outs.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Home Office (Lord Taylor of Holbeach) (Con)
I hope that noble Lords will excuse me while I change horses. I am here to update the House about negotiations on the so-called 2014 decision. Before I do so, I begin, once again, by expressing my gratitude for the work of this House in scrutinising these important matters. This Government are extremely grateful that this House—the EU Committee in particular—has undertaken to look at this issue in such detail. We consider it important that Parliament is given every opportunity to consider this matter fully.
Last July, the Government explained that we had decided to exercise the opt-out, and we have now done so. However, we were also clear that we had listened carefully to the views of our law enforcement agencies and prosecutors. We concluded that a number of measures subject to the opt-out add value in the fight against crime and the pursuit of justice and that it would therefore be in our national interest to seek to rejoin them. This House considered the matter in full and endorsed the Government’s decision to seek to rejoin the measures set out in Command Paper 8671.
Before opening formal negotiations with the European Commission, the Council and other member states, the Government listened carefully to the views of noble Lords and considered thoroughly the excellent reports of the EU Committee of the House. Those reports reached well considered conclusions that the Government took into account during negotiations. Good progress has been made in these negotiations and I am pleased to be able to report that we have reached an “in principle” deal with the Commission on the non-Schengen measures that fall under its purview. We have also made good progress on the Schengen measures, with the outline of a possible deal now clear. This matter was discussed at the General Affairs Council on 24 June, but some technical reservations still remain. Discussions continue with the aim of allowing those reservations to be lifted. Negotiations are still ongoing but the Government have been clear throughout this process that we would update Parliament as appropriate and I am honouring that commitment today.
I am acutely aware that the EU Committee of this House has said that Parliament was not involved early enough in the process. While I would not entirely agree with that sentiment, it is something I hope noble Lords will understand the Government are seeking to address by holding a debate on the issue today.
On 3 July the Government published Command Paper 8897, which includes the full list of measures that were discussed at the General Affairs Council, and impact assessments on each of those measures. That fulfils the Government’s commitment to provide those impact assessments and further demonstrates our commitment to parliamentary scrutiny of that matter. However, noble Lords might find it helpful if I set out exactly what changes have been made to the list of 35 measures between the opening of negotiations and now.
Two measures originally on the list of 35 that the Government wished to rejoin—one relating to CEPOL, the European Police College, and the other to freezing orders—have been “Lisbonised” by the new CEPOL measure and the European investigation order respectively. As a result, those measures are no longer subject to the opt-out and fall off the UK’s list.
The UK will also no longer seek to rejoin the European Genocide Network, but will instead rejoin the European Judicial Network. That follows submission of further evidence from the Lord Advocate in Scotland, Frank Mulholland, the Crown Prosecution Service and other member states on the operational benefits of the measure and practical examples of its use in tackling crime. I also know that the EU Committee felt strongly that we should rejoin this measure, and I hope that it is pleased with this outcome.
The UK will not rejoin the Schengen handbook, as other member states consider that measure to have been superseded by other measures. However, we will rejoin the SIS II networks measure—a technical measure others consider linked to our participation in SIS II. As recommended by the EU Committee of this House, the Government will also rejoin three Europol implementing measures.
Finally, the UK will no longer seek to rejoin the special intervention units measure. The Commission considers that measure to be linked to the Prüm decisions, which the UK will not seek to rejoin. We have neither the time nor the money to implement Prüm by 1 December, so it would be senseless for the United Kingdom to rejoin it now and risk being infracted. Despite considerable pressure from the Commission and other member states, that remains the case.
We all want to see the most serious crimes—such as rapes and murders—solved and their perpetrators brought to justice. In some cases, that will mean the police comparing DNA or fingerprint data with other European forces. When 30% of those arrested in London are now foreign nationals, it is clear that that is an operational necessity. Therefore those comparisons happen already, and must if we are to solve cross-border crimes.
The Government would be negligent in their duty to protect the British public if that issue were not considered carefully. We cannot rejoin Prüm on 1 December and will not seek to do so. However, in order that Parliament can also consider that matter carefully, the Government will produce a business and implementation case and run a small-scale pilot, with all necessary safeguards in place. We will publish that by way of a Command Paper and bring the issue back to Parliament so that it can be debated in an informed way. We are working towards doing that by the end of next year.
The Government will also not seek to rejoin the probation framework decision. As the Government have made clear, the measure has not yet been used, and there are serious questions about how it might work. Of course, we have no principled objection to sending prisoners back to serve their probation or community sentence in their home country, and we have taken into account the potential of this measure as indicated by the EU Committee. We have therefore indicated to the Commission that we will take another look at the measure when there is enough evidence of it working and of its impacts to see whether there would be benefits to the UK from taking part. To support that decision, we will publish for Parliament an assessment of the potential impacts in due course.
I know that many were sceptical that a deal could be done. However, I am proud to say that we have very nearly done it, and the Government are clear that this is a good deal for the United Kingdom.
Lord Boswell of Aynho (Non-Afl)
My Lords, I am pleased to speak today in my capacity as the chairman of the European Union Select Committee of your Lordships’ House, and to follow the Minister, who has brought some good news to us and who, characteristically, has done his best to explain this extremely complex topic.
I am preceding my colleagues, who will speak on behalf of their sub-committees today, and other noble Lords who I am always very pleased to see participating in these European debates. They will be able to go more into the detail of these complex opt-out decisions, because, frankly, they and their sub-committees have conducted the scrutiny leg work. That has resulted in two excellent reports, published—as is the convention, in the name of the Select Committee itself—some time ago, in April and October of last year. The House has debated them and the issue of the opt-out on numerous occasions before. I think therefore that the House will appreciate it if I keep my own remarks brief.
In broad terms, we are pleased that most of the recommendations of our reports have been followed—I know that others will make their contributions where there are specific points of difficulty or disagreement. I acknowledge readily that Ministers in this House have been helpful in the handling of the decision process. Nevertheless, I must record with some sadness rather than anger that the process has been made more difficult than might have been needed. Our committee has relied on the timely provision of information with which to consider the decisions being taken under the very complex Protocol 36. Occasionally—or perhaps one should say sporadically—we have met with a recalcitrant approach to this on the part of departments. However, in a sense that is in the past, and on the whole, as the Minister indicated, on the substance we are on the same page and in broad agreement with what the Government propose.
Within and beyond that, I will raise two specific points. First, a highly illogical and rather disturbing approach seems to have been taken by government in relation to the impact assessments laid before Parliament recently. I can assure the Minister that this is not just a long-running saga, because it is of immediate and contemporary interest also. That document as published ran into the hundreds of pages, but it was unindexed, lacked a contents page, and contained only the impact assessments for the 35 measures opted into, presented in what appeared to be a somewhat shaky batting order. It certainly was not an easy or user-friendly document to read.
Alongside the presentation of the impact assessments, it could appear that the evidence had been selected to support the decision, rather than the decision in each case being based on the evidence. No impact assessments were made—or as far as we are aware even conducted—on the 100-odd measures not being opted into under Protocol 36. I point out for new readers that it will be clear from the Minister’s remarks today that this is a shifting number—they jump in and out of that particular figure for adoption or not.
We have had the benefit of an assessment of the impact of the 35 measures that the Government now propose to opt in to, but it is not a particularly illuminating story in relation to the overall picture. I therefore ask the Minister: are assessments being conducted on the impact of not opting in to certain measures? Will the Government be sharing their rationale for not opting in to each of these measures? Was their decision in each case based on the evidence of the impact assessment?
I appreciate that some measures have been, in the terrible jargon, “Lisbonised”—that is to say, wrapped up under the treaty of Lisbon—and it would be redundant to opt back in to them, so there is no need for us to do so. For all the others, we are genuinely not clear about what assessment has been made of the impact of not opting in to them, and I request that this should be considered and completed. At the very least, I would have expected the Government to provide impact statements for the quite small minority of recommendations that we put forward in our reports and that they have decided not to opt back in to—in other words, as far as this House is concerned, the particular measures under current contention.
My second point is perhaps a less technical one, but it is no less important. It concerns transitional arrangements and measures. The Minister did say something about those, and I think we can take some relief from the fact that we appear to be moving towards an agreement with the Commission on the readoption, or reinsertion, of these measures. I still have a simple request for him: can he please give the House his assurance that, when the opt-out comes into force on 1 December—in the absence of measures being readopted—where measures have not yet been accepted by that date, transitional measures will be in place, that those transitional measures will have been well considered, and that they will cause the minimum disruption, or in certain cases even potential danger, to the public from their not having been adopted as substantive measures because of the process that we are engaged in?
Lord Stoneham of Droxford (LD)
My Lords, I am pleased to be speaking in this debate primarily on behalf of the noble Baroness, Lady Corston, who chairs the European Justice, Institutions and Consumer Protection Sub-Committee, of which I am a member. She very much wanted to speak today, but because of the short notice of the debate, unfortunately that did not prove possible.
Before I speak on behalf of the committee, however, I would like to make several personal remarks. This House has debated the 2014 block opt-out on numerous occasions—most recently in May—and I do not intend to return to the wider questions raised by this issue, except to say that although it has been a rather convoluted process to get where we are, and there have been several slip-ups on the way, in terms of providing information, we have largely arrived at a reasonably acceptable situation.
After reading the debate in the other place on this subject the other week, I think I should perhaps even congratulate the Secretary of State for Justice and the Home Secretary on dealing with the political problems on their own Benches in the Commons. In fact, I hate to think what would have happened if the disciplines and the support of the coalition had not been in place.
Protecting our involvement in the European arrest warrant is all-important. Clearly some reforms were required to improve its working, but it is fundamental to our criminal justice system, and a classic example of where concessions on our own national sovereignty have to be used to pursue our wider national interest and get control of situations where we would otherwise be powerless. It is also clear from our discussions that those who hope that a replacement of the European arrest warrant by a bilateral treaty would be a way of getting around the jurisdiction of the European Court of Justice will be disappointed. As we know, Denmark has been required to submit to the jurisdiction of that court as a condition of the agreement and the treaty with the European Union.
Our own committee’s opinions on these matters have been clearly expressed in the two reports that we undertook with our colleagues on the Home Affairs, Health and Education Sub-Committee, which is now chaired by the noble Baroness, Lady Prashar. There are, however, three questions relevant to the Motion before the House today that I wish to put to the Government.
The first concerns a clear difference of opinion. Both the reports undertaken by the two sub-committees on the Protocol 36 decision recommended that the Government opt in to the framework decision on probation decisions and alternative sanctions; the measure is often referred to as the European probation order. The UK has not implemented it. The European probation order provides a basis for the mutual recognition and supervision of suspended sentences, licence conditions and alternative sanctions such as community sentences, where an individual has been sentenced in one member state, but is ordinarily and lawfully resident in another—or where someone wishes to go to another member state and that member state is willing to supervise the sentence.
The two sub-committees had no doubt that this measure had the potential to provide benefits for the management of offenders on a cross-border basis, and that the Government had nothing to gain by not implementing its provisions. During our inquiries, the Government told us that they had concerns about the proper implementation of this matter, and we therefore suggested that these should be resolved at a European level, in the interests of all participating member states. In their formal response to the second of our reports, the Government said that they had looked at this measure “carefully” and that, although they supported the principle behind it, they did not consider,
“that its benefits outweigh its risks”.
In the Government's view, the main risk lay in the fact that the proposal would allow,
“different practices amongst Member States ... in the event of a breach of a Community Order”.
Some states would approach such a breach domestically, while others would return the individual to the issuing state.
I note that the European probation order is not among those measures that the Government will be seeking to rejoin. Can the Minister therefore tell the House what steps were taken, in discounting this measure, to resolve the Government's concerns with other member states on the operation of the proposal? What is the timetable now for the Secretary of State, in the other place, to say that the Government will look at this matter again in due course? What will be the timing of the assessment that they plan to make?
This question leads me to the second issue I wish to raise today—the quality of Command Paper 8897, which the noble Lord, Lord Boswell, has already referred to. Leaving aside the generally poor standard of the document, which has already been addressed, but drawing again on the example of the European probation order, I am minded to ask the Minister how he believes that members of the relevant European sub-committees tasked with advising the House on European matters are supposed to assess the individual merits of opting in to such a measure—or not, as the case may be—when we have not been furnished with the impact assessment detailing the ramifications of the probation order.
Finally, the third matter that I will address takes me back to the European arrest warrant. Members will be aware that this is one of the 35 measures that the Government have chosen to opt back in to. In March, Royal Assent was given to the Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014. This wide-ranging Act included provisions that amended the Extradition Act 2003, which in turn gives effect in the UK to the framework decision introducing the European arrest warrant. The 2014 Act introduced a proportionality test into the operation of the European arrest warrant in the UK. Can the Minister confirm that the provisions of the 2014 Act dealing with the European arrest warrant are compatible with the framework decision, and that the 2014 Act will not, once the UK opts back in to the European arrest warrant, give rise to infringement proceedings by the Commission?
Baroness Prashar (CB)
My Lords, I, too, will concentrate on process, which I am sure will be dealt with by the former chair of my sub-committee, the noble Lord, Lord Hannay. The noble Lord, Lord Boswell, also commented on that.
The two sub-committees of the EU Select Committee recommended that the Government should provide Parliament with regular reports on the progress of the negotiations and show flexibility regarding any issues of coherence raised by the Commission. It is therefore welcome that the Government have been flexible. It is also welcome that we have this debate to consider opt-ins and opt-outs. I am very grateful to the Minister for updating us on this.
As we heard, on 3 July, the Government laid before Parliament Command Paper 8897. However, that document is very inaccessible. For example, the impact statements are unnumbered and unindexed. It is disappointing that such an inaccessible paper was laid on such a complex issue. It does not make the sub-committees’ consideration of these issues any easier.
Furthermore, in a debate on 8 May in this House, the noble Lord, Lord Hannay, who was then the chairman of Sub-Committee F, argued that there should be impact assessments of measures the Government did not intend to opt back in to as this, too, would have an impact on the UK. As he said:
“That impact could be neutral, positive or negative, but it is an impact”.—[Official Report, 8/5/14; col. 1622.]
It is disappointing that we do not have those impact assessments.
As we heard from the Minister, the negotiations on the overall package have not been concluded but agreement has been reached in principle. When the package was discussed at the General Affairs Council on 24 June, some member states expressed technical reservations, as we heard. It is important to know whether these technical reservations will result in any changes to the list, or in changes to the classification of measures as Schengen or non-Schengen.
Furthermore, there is no reference to the data protection framework decision, which has been reclassified by the Commission as a non-Schengen measure. Do the Government agree with this? I am grateful to the Minister for explaining about the measures that have been “Lisbonised” and what is in and what is out. Nevertheless, it is misleading to refer to them as the 35 measures. As we need to focus on the measures that the Government will be opting back in to, it is important to know whether the Government’s list is the same as that of the Commission. It would be helpful to have an explanation of the reasons for the changes, and whether these were demanded by the Commission or by other member states. How were these changes agreed and on what basis?
The two sub-committees concluded in their report last year that the Government should seek to rejoin the 35 measures already identified but should also seek to rejoin an additional set of measures such as: implementing measures related to Europol’s continued operation; the framework decision on combating certain forms and expressions of racism and xenophobia by means of criminal law; the European Judicial Network; the European probation order and the Convention on Driving Disqualifications. I am pleased that the Government have decided to opt in to the European Judicial Network and the measures relating to Europol. All this is welcome. However, like the previous speaker, I would like to know what the timetable is with regard to the European probation order. I was pleased to hear that the Minister sees the potential of that measure but it would be useful to be told what the plan is for the future.
I very much hope that the Government will continue to pay heed to the sub-committees’ recommendation that the Government provide good quality, accessible and timely information to inform future consideration of these matters.
Lord Bowness (Con)
My Lords, as we continue to debate this important matter it becomes for me more and more like one of those television series billed as new but which are in fact repeats of previous programmes with minor updates, which certainly bring us no closer to a finale.
My noble friend the Minister set out the present position for the benefit of the House. I am sure that we are all grateful to him for that. I will not repeat the arguments made by my noble friend Lord Stoneham of Droxford and the noble Baroness, Lady Prashar, who, as the respective chairmen of the relevant EU sub-committees, gave your Lordships a clear exposition of the current situation. Having been involved with the first report, it is enough for me to say that I share their concerns without exception. I also share the concerns of the noble Lord, Lord Boswell, about the failure to provide an impact assessment in respect of those measures that the Government do not wish to join.
Concerns about the timetable are as relevant today as they were when they were expressed in the first report of your Lordships’ committee in 2013. I have always believed that ensuring continuity in the application of those measures is of vital importance and that exercising the block opt-out was unwise given that there has never been any suggestion that the measures into which we do not want to opt back have any serious or detrimental effects on the United Kingdom. To have done so was of benefit only to those who wished to strike a pose and say, as they have said, that they had brought some power back from Brussels. It is wholly illusory, and our political effort and capital might have been better spent on some of the more important issues which face the European Union and its member states.
In May of this year, when the matter was last discussed, I said that I had a feeling of apprehension, if not depression. It may be something to do with the state of my health but that feeling continues. Why is that? It is because we have still not concluded our discussions in Brussels which would enable us to put a final package before Parliament. ln the other place, there are demands for separate consideration to be given to the European arrest warrant. We have moved from the position adopted in our debate in May, when my noble friend Lord Taylor of Holbeach expressed the hope that the second and final vote could be taken prior to this impending Summer Recess. However, in fairness, he qualified his hope—no doubt, in the light of experience—by adding that it would in any event take place,
“well ahead of 1 December”.—[Official Report, 8/5/14; col. 1621.]
Last Thursday in another place, my right honourable friend the Justice Secretary said at col. 548 of Commons Hansard that,
“we still have to complete some areas of discussion in the Council, so I cannot say that we have finally resolved all the issues in Brussels”.
He added, at col. 549:
“We still have work to do in … Brussels and in both Houses of Parliament”.—[Official Report, Commons, 10/7/14; col. 549.]
Will my noble friend tell us what these issues are, what the work is, and how long it is proposed that it should take?
By my calculations, which may not be wholly reliable, there are some 136 days until 30 November, out of which we take some 70 days of parliamentary recess, leaving us 66 days to bring this to a conclusion in Brussels, have a proper debate in both Houses and a vote. We are taking ourselves to the brink over some very important matters.
In conclusion, we cannot undo the opt-out and the Government will have to live with any consequences which may flow from it but I hope that we can at least learn from this experience—namely, that negotiations in Europe take time and you cannot take other institutions and states for granted as they, too, have positions and concerns. In the light of this, I trust that if my noble friends are tempted to bring the European Union (Referendum) Bill back to this House, they will bear in mind the extreme danger of trying to put detailed negotiations, the details of which we do not know, in a straitjacket by imposing a referendum date of 2017. That exercise will make this opt-out performance, which has taken nearly two years since the Prime Minister first announced it somewhere in Brazil and is not yet completed, look like an afternoon tea party.
Lord Sharkey (LD)
My Lords, I have the privilege of being a member of your Lordships’ EU sub-committee dealing with home affairs, health and education. The issue of the opt-out and opt-ins has been of concern to the committee and to the House for some time. I have lost count of the exact number of meetings, evidence sessions, witnesses, reports and debates that have addressed the issue of Protocol 36, but I do know that on 23 July last year this House debated and approved the Government’s then list of 35 JHA measures they proposed to rejoin. In our debate on the opt-out and opt-ins on 23 January this year, I repeated that I still thought that the Government’s selection of those 35 measures was both well chosen and coherent. I also repeated, as I do again now, that I thought that the whole exercise was completely unnecessary. In that debate, along with other noble Lords, I urged the Government to add a further four measures to the list of 35.
As has already been said by the noble Baroness, Lady Prashar, these were the framework decision on combating certain forms of expression of racism and xenophobia by means of criminal law, and rejoining the European Judicial Network, the European probation order and the international convention on driving disqualification. I also noted that there were other technical measures that the Government would probably have to rejoin in order to properly implement Europol council decisions.
While the set of rejoin measures before us today, as we have heard, is not the same set as we debated in January, there are still 35 measures on the list. However, this is a coincidence and it is mildly confusing. This is because, essentially, five measures from the original list have been dropped and five new measures have been added. At least, I think that that is the case. The documentation on all this is very far from straightforward. The Home Secretary herself, in the Commons debate last week, was momentarily uncertain about the status of certain measures.
Command Paper 8897 is not a lot of help. Other noble Lords have remarked on its lack of a table of contents, the lack of an index to the impact assessments, and to their apparently random ordering. Of the five new additions to the list, three appear to be technical measures necessary for continued participation in the Europol decision, which is what we expected. One new measure is also technical or quasi-technical, and this is to do with the requirements for the Schengen Information System II, and is wholly unobjectionable. In fact, it is welcome. The final new addition is the rejoining of the European Judicial Network. Your Lordships have argued strongly for this in the past, and I am very pleased to see it reappear.
Five rejoins were proposed in January which have now been dropped. They included two that have been “Lisbonised”, or in other words amended, repealed or replaced by post-Lisbon measures. One further missing measure is the setting up of a network of contact points in respect of persons responsible for genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes. However, as the Minister has said, this has been replaced by the inclusion of the measure to join the European Judicial Network.
One final missing measure is the improvement of co-operation between special intervention units of member states in crisis situations. The Government wanted to rejoin this measure, but would not do so if this involved participating in the Prüm decisions, as the Commission asserted that it did. As the noble Lord, Lord Taylor of Holbeach, has already said, the Home Secretary made it clear in the House of Commons that we have neither the time nor the money to implement Prüm by 1 December. She said that it would be senseless for us to rejoin it now and risk being infracted. I agree with the last part of this, and I am glad that the Government have agreed to run a small-scale pilot to test the implications of running a fully Prüm-compliant system.
However, all this does raise a question. We wanted to rejoin the special intervention measures because we thought it was in the national interest, but now we are not going to. Can the Minister explain what we lose as a result? What is the damage or loss to our national interest as a result of not joining the measure which they set out to join? In this exchange of five measures in and five measures out, the Government have not included three out of the four additional measures recommended by our committees. They have not included the racism and xenophobia measure, nor the absolutely uncontroversial and very sensible international convention on driving license disqualification. Very disappointingly, they have also not included the European probation order.
In the debate in the Commons, the Justice Secretary repeated his commitment to looking again at the measure when there is enough evidence of it working, to see whether or not there would be benefits to the UK in taking part. He also committed to publishing an assessment of the potential impacts of taking part. This is not what the committee proposed, but at least it will keep the issue alive. The debate in the Commons is also instructive for other reasons. There were 23 speakers in all, 18 of whom were Conservatives. The debate reads very like the recording of a rather bitter family disagreement.
All this confirms my view that the whole enterprise has been a sad waste of time. The Government have provided no evidence that any of the measures they are opting out of is in the least harmful to the United Kingdom, and they have declined to produce impact assessments for any of these measures. That does raise the question of why they are bothering. Some commentators have said that the whole exercise has been designed to satisfy Tory Eurosceptics in the House of Commons, but if you read last week’s debate that certainly does not seem to have worked out very well.
It is not only the absence of any evidence of harm in the opt-outs that is disappointing. There is a new absence that is even stranger. In evidence to our committee, the Justice Secretary relied heavily on the possibility of unexpected judgments from the ECJ as a reason for opting out of the list of measures. I have carefully read the impact assessments in the Command Paper, and there is no mention anywhere in any of them of the possibility of adverse or unexpected rulings by the ECJ. Can the Minister explain why this rationale for opting out does not appear in the impact assessments? Do the Government now believe that the possibility of unexpected ECJ rulings is not a reason for opting out of the measures?
Finally, there has been sharp criticism today of the process the Government have adopted in dealing with Parliament on this whole matter of Protocol 36. I do not propose to repeat all that criticism—although I have already noted the unsatisfactory nature of the latest Command Paper—but I will say that I am glad to see the current list. I am glad to hear the Justice Secretary repeat his promise to the House of Commons of a vote on a finalised list. When the Minister replies, would he reassure us that that this commitment also extends to this House?
Lord Hannay of Chiswick (CB)
My Lords, the Minister has introduced our debate today with his customary clarity and courtesy. If I have some critical things to say about the Government’s handling of Protocol 36 of the Lisbon treaty, of the block opt-out and of the reinsertion negotiation—which looks as if it may now be close to closure—that in no sense detracts from my respect for the way that he has managed the debates in this House. I rather suspect that he, like me, would have felt some relief if this had indeed marked the final parliamentary stage in this saga, but that is not to be. I understand from what the Home Secretary said in the other place that there will be a full debate and vote there at the conclusion of these proceedings. Like the noble Lord, Lord Sharkey, I would be grateful if the Minister would confirm that the same will be true in this place.
I will not weary the House with a detailed reprise of the previous stages of our debates. Suffice it to say that your Lordships’ EU Select Committee remained unconvinced by the Government’s case for triggering a block opt-out in the first place. We also found serious fault with the Government’s failure to live up to their original commitments on consultation before they took any decisions, and we believe that the list of reinsertion items should have been a bit longer. All that is now water under the bridge. Last July, this House—unlike the other place—endorsed the list of 35 reinsertion measures in Command Paper 8671. I hope that some lessons will be learnt for the future and that some of the mistakes made will not be repeated.
Command Paper 8897, the White Paper that we are debating today, lists and provides impact assessments for 35 measures that we hope to rejoin on 1 December. As the Minister made clear, those measures are not in all respects the same as the 35 that we debated last July, five having fallen by the wayside for reasons that other noble Lords have mentioned, and five having been added to the list, some of them drawn from the list suggested by your Lordships’ Select Committee in its second report last October. I express gratitude for the fact that these measures in our proposal of last October have been rejoined, or are candidates for rejoining. I note with some amusement, however, that the Home Secretary did not care to attribute much credit to this House for the additions to the list, nor—I was fascinated to see—did the Order Paper in the House of Commons even refer to the two extremely lengthy reports prepared by this House. Among the long list of reports from Select Committees, it referred to all the fairly content-free reports that the Commons’ own committees produced, but did not refer to the reports from your Lordships’ House. I deduce from this that the length of the corridor is quite long.
In any case, the Minister has explained the list, and the additions show some flexibility which is to be warmly welcomed. Your Lordships’ House can, as I say, claim credit for some of that. I only wish that the list of additions could have been a bit longer. I remain completely baffled by the rationale for our refusing to proscribe the crimes of xenophobia and racism. I do not think that that is in the sense of what are known as British values, and I am sad that we have not rejoined that.
On the matter of impact assessments, the ones before the House have been provided in a very short time before our debate, and in an even shorter time before the debate in the other place. I do not think that that was very satisfactory. Having examined the debate in the other place, I did not notice a great appetite for grappling with anything as complex, detailed or factual as the impact assessments; but, nevertheless, they did not have very long to think about them. That really is not the way to handle parliamentary process. Moreover, we have still not been given any impact assessments for the 90 or so measures we are not going to rejoin, despite repeated requests for them to be provided—most recently today by my noble friend Lady Prashar and others who spoke in this debate. Withdrawing from these measures will of course have an impact. I do not imagine that the Minister is going to rise at the end of this debate and tell us that it will not have an impact. If he does, he will of course have to answer the question: why on earth are we withdrawing from them if there is no impact? Let us assume that they do have an impact. In that case, Parliament deserves to be told what that impact is. It has not been. I think that that was a bad way of handling this, and I continue to think so.
I think that it is right to dwell for a moment on one other specific item that is on the list of measures that the Government wish to rejoin, the European supervision order, which provides for our citizens and, indeed, the citizens of other member states who are indicted in another member state and extradited under an arrest warrant, to be bailed in their own country until such time as their case is brought to court. This is, of course, the sovereign remedy to the injustice that occurred in the notorious Symeou case, when one of our citizens languished in a Greek jail for many months before being brought to trial. Had we respected the deadline in the European supervision order legislation—which we agreed to ourselves—we would have introduced that legislation in this country in December 2012. But we did not. We did not respect that deadline and so the European supervision order was caught up in the cat’s cradle of Protocol 36, block opt-out, reinsertion, et cetera. Now the earliest it will become available—the possibility for a British citizen to be bailed in this country if they are accused of a crime in another member state—is December 2014. For two years, therefore, British citizens have been deprived of any possible recourse to that relief. That is not an outcome of which we can be unduly proud.
That said, I pay tribute to the tenacity and flexibility with which the Government have handled the last year of complex negotiations in Brussels. Credit needs to be given—and I would give it—to everyone from Ministers down through officials and members of the UK permanent representation, who I know have put in a huge amount of time on this. In fact, as I have said in previous debates, this Government did not devise the infernal machinery of Protocol 36, they were handed it when they took office.
Are there any wider lessons to be learnt from this episode? One is that it is in our national interest to participate actively in the European Union’s justice and home affairs work if we are to combat effectively the rising tide of serious international crime. Noble Lords might not have thought that from listening to last week’s debate in the other place, redolent as it was with references to every statute from Magna Carta onwards being trampled under foot—but that, fortunately, was the conclusion of the Government as well when they decided to rejoin the 35 measures that we are discussing today, and when, on a day-by-day basis and in a pragmatic way, they opt in to new justice and home affairs measures. It is the view that was endorsed by this House last July.
As we approach decisions on these other tricky issues relating to our EU membership, let us not forget that it is seldom a clear black and white issue, and that flexibility and a spirit of compromise can often produce the best result.
Lord Inglewood (Con)
My Lords, I shall make only a short intervention in today’s debate. I chair your Lordships’ post-legislative scrutiny committee on the Extradition Act 2003. We are at a very early stage in our work. We have heard some evidence but we have reached no provisional conclusions at all. However, one thing is absolutely clear to us. The effect of not opting back in to the European arrest warrant is to tear up Part 1 of the Act. There is no time now to put in place any form of alternative arrangements for the countries listed in Part 1 of the Act—our European Union colleagues—because the legal status quo ante no longer exists.
We have heard plenty of criticisms about the domestic implementation of the framework decision directive and of the framework decision directive itself. However, there are other ways of dealing with that other than simply not opting back in.
In the real world, the only way open for us to continue to have extradition arrangements with our closest neighbours, with whom we have freedom of movement, is to opt back in. Not to do so in practice will precipitate anarchy. To do that would be very foolhardy, to put it in parliamentary language.
Lord Foulkes of Cumnock (Lab)
My Lords, I am very pleased to follow that brief but very powerful intervention from the noble Lord, Lord Inglewood. I start by very sincerely commending the Minister for his diligence. If I am right, he has been on parade on the Front Bench every day this week. He dealt with the Bill before this, of which he did every stage throughout the whole of yesterday and today, and now he is dealing with this business. He must have done something awful in a previous life to deserve that. I certainly think that he, more than any of us, will have a well-deserved holiday the week after next. I know where he is going; I am sure he will enjoy it. I hope I am not going to be too hard on him today, but like my noble friend Lord Hannay I will be a little hard on the Government.
I agree absolutely and completely with the noble Lord, Lord Sharkey. This has been a totally unnecessary and costly exercise, one that has kept us, the Government and the other place preoccupied for far too long, when, as has been said by a number of Members on both sides, we could and should have been doing many other more important things. This opt-in, opt-out, opt-in, opt-out was described by one member of our European Union Committee as a sort of European hokey-cokey. That is what it has become. The way it has been dealt with has become a bit of a farce, but it is a matter of great seriousness.
As my colleague the shadow Home Affairs Minister in the other place, the right honourable David Hanson, said, what was supposed to be the Government’s great show of repatriation and Euroscepticism—the great opt-out—has in fact become the great opt-in. That is shown by the number of important measures we are opting back in to. Any idea of a great repatriation has been mere window dressing for the purposes of the right-wing, anti-European Union Back-Benchers. From time to time I find it irritating that one person in particular, Sir William Cash—I am a friend of his in a number of ways—should have such a huge influence on the way in which the Government determine their European policy. It is astonishing. It is about time he was stood up to. My noble friend Lord Hannay was saying how much the other place seemed to ignore our report. I hope we will stand up to them in our European Union sub-committee and say that we want to ensure that these matters are considered rather more conscientiously and in a more balanced way than is done by the chairman of the European Scrutiny Committee in the other place.
Let us look at what has happened. Some of the measures we are opting back in to are major, important measures, and we are rightly opting back in. The European supervision order allows British subjects to be bailed back to the UK rather than spending months abroad awaiting trial. That is very important. The prisoner transfer framework decision helps us to remove foreign criminals from British jails. We are rightly opting back in to both those important things, as well as the measure providing for joint investigation teams, the European criminal information system and the Naples II convention, which is the principal tool for customs co-operation. Why did we even contemplate opting out of them? Many of the ones we are opting out of, to give this whole exercise some very small degree of credibility, are very insignificant and minor matters. As my right honourable friend David Hanson said, they are,
“not relevant, not appropriate and not needed now”.—[Official Report, Commons, 10/7/14; col. 500.]
For example, we are opting out of a directive on international crime that closed down years ago. Measures on cybercrime and mutual legal assistance that we are opting out of have been superseded by other measures to which we have signed up. Measures such as accession never applied to us in the first place. Therefore, it is of no import that we are opting out of such measures. We are opting out of some other measures simply because we have legislation dealing with those issues already. For instance, the Bribery Act 2010 and hate crimes legislation mean that we do not need some of the measures that we are opting out of.
The fact that we are signing up to so many important measures, and that many of the measures we are opting out of we are not doing on the basis of repatriation, shows that the Government’s critique of Europe holding far too much power and far too much jurisdiction over us is overblown. Let us remember that it is a Conservative Home Secretary who is pursuing this strategy, which basically now admits and agrees that a lot of these measures are absolutely necessary. These are not federalist land grabs by the European Union. I hope that this debate will provide an opportunity for a message to go the House of Commons to treat this matter seriously.
Finally, I hope that the Minister will give us a clear indication in his reply as to when this matter will be finalised. The noble Lord, Lord Bowness, who in many ways is my noble friend, spelt out the timetable and the number of days that there are in which we are able to make this decision. We will not be back until the middle of October and this has to be done by the end of November. There is not a lot of time for it to be done. As we know, not just Europe but Whitehall will be on holiday for a good few months. I hope that the Minister will give an indication in his reply as to when we will come to a decision. As a member of the European Union Committee, I am glad to have the opportunity to talk on this matter. I hope that those Members of this House opposite who I know are aware of the importance of our membership of the European Union will stand up and be counted and face up to some of the people at the other end who are not quite as enthusiastic as we are.
Viscount Bridgeman (Con)
My Lords, perhaps I may echo the remarks made by the noble Lord, Lord Hannay, about the infernal mechanism by which the Government inherited the opt-in opt-out measures perceived by those outside these Houses and in Whitehall as a sort of vacillation. As the noble Lord said, the Government had no option but to take account of these.
My right honourable friend Theresa May put it succinctly in a Statement in another place in July 2013 when she said:
“For reasons of policy, principle and pragmatism, I believe that it is in the national interest to exercise the United Kingdom’s opt-out, and rejoin a much smaller set of measures that help us to co-operate with our European neighbours in the fight against serious and organised crime. I also believe that Her Majesty’s Government must strike the right balance between supporting law enforcement and protecting our traditional liberties”.—[Official Report, Commons, 9/7/13; col. 180.]
From the remarks made by my noble friend the Minister, I am pleased that the Government are taking some cautious steps towards achieving that aim.
In view of the Minister’s remarks, some of what follows may be slightly historic. In the past, objections were raised about a potential loss of control of domestic police and criminal justice authority. Opponents were also concerned that the UK’s common-law tradition would be undermined. It is the view of Sub-Committee F that both these measures are in the national interest and are vital to our national security. We also argue that the measures would provide the benefits of legal clarity, making a stronger and more consistent application of measures throughout the EU.
The experience so far is that there is no risk to the common-law tradition from any police and criminal justice measures or judgments. Withdrawing from either Europol or the EAW would result in the UK having to rely on less effective means of co-operation and a series of bilateral agreements, and a loss of influence over future criminal justice policy. It is the view of the sub-committee that these police and criminal justice measures have an important role to play alongside domestic courts in safeguarding the rights of citizens and upholding the rule of law.
Europol has undergone a most effective period under the direction of Mr Rob Wainwright of the United Kingdom. With the increasing development of global crime, the sharing of data and intelligence is absolutely essential. Should we be outside Europol, any sharing of data would be a matter of concessions and good will, which would be a far from satisfactory means of operating. I am pleased to see the noble Lord, Lord Blair, in his place, as well as seeing the noble Lord, Lord Stevens, earlier in this debate. I read the transcript of Mr Wainwright’s evidence and he was specific that the measures being taken in Europol had the complete support of the national chiefs of police in the United Kingdom. Nevertheless, the possible ceding of domestic police powers is a sensitive issue with the public, and I should welcome the Minister’s assurance that in the opt-in negotiations Europol will not be given the power to direct police forces of the United Kingdom.
Much has been said in this debate about the European arrest warrant. This has been in operation for some 16 years. Let us be clear that this is not the perfect system for apprehending and repatriating criminals across EU borders. There have certainly been cases of pre-trial detention in poor prison conditions—but these could occur under any alternative systems of extradition. I am convinced that as it now stands the EAW works well. Any other system would inevitably make the extradition more protracted and cumbersome, potentially undermining public safety. The great advantage of the EAW as it has been developed is its speed. Extradition from countries such as Spain, which in pre-EAW days would have taken years, can now be accomplished in a matter of weeks.
I must remind your Lordships that this measure has over the years of its existence been progressively refined. For example, the Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act, to which my noble friend Lord Stoneham referred, contains measures to ensure that an arrest warrant can be refused for minor cases. The European investigation order can be used to enforce fines, where police forces and prosecutors can share evidence and information without requiring the extradition of a subject at the investigation stage.
The prisoner transfer framework decision, also referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Foulkes, can be used to enable UK citizens extradited to and convicted in EU member states to be returned to the UK to serve their sentences here. In certain circumstances the EAW issued in other member states can with their permission be withdrawn, and this measure can be used to enable sentences to be served in the UK. The mechanism also makes use of the growing practice of videoconferencing, for instance. The noble Lord, Lord Hannay, referred to the European supervision order. I will take this opportunity to say that the noble Lord gave tremendous leadership to our committee—and in my case a great degree of education. This mantle has been taken on with great distinction by the noble Baroness, Lady Prashar.
In our follow-up report on EU police and criminal justice measures and the UK’s 2014 opt-out decision, we made it clear that there were a number of other measures that the UK should seek to rejoin. These measures have been discussed at length in this debate. The report concluded:
“We are concerned that the Government have given insufficient consideration to the possible substantive and reputational damage of not seeking to rejoin these measures”.
I noted the letter to my noble friend Lord Boswell from my right honourable friends the Home Secretary and the Lord Chancellor. They have addressed some of these concerns. In particular I am pleased that the Government will seek to rejoin the European Judicial Network, which was one of the recommendations in our report. My noble friend’s reply to the letter from my right honourable friends drew attention to a number of documentary points that needed clarification—I say that with some delicacy—and in particular to the remarks in their letter on the deal reached “in principle” and to the,
“technical reservations expressed by some member states”.
Like my noble friend, I await with interest the clarification from my noble friend the Minister.
I am grateful for the Minister’s assurance that there will be full parliamentary scrutiny of the progress of these negotiations. I am grateful also that we have been assured of this and, with other noble Lords, that this House will be included in these debates.
Lord Judd (Lab)
My Lords, it would be quite wrong to go through this debate this afternoon without expressing a real word of appreciation to the noble Lord, Lord Boswell, for his strategic leadership, and to the chairs of the two relevant sub-committees, the noble Lords, Lord Bowness and Lord Hannay, and currently, of course, to the noble Baroness, Lady Prashar, and the noble Baroness, Lady Corston. We are fortunate to have the calibre of leadership that these five people have provided and do provide on these matters.
I keep thinking back to the evidence that we took in our inquiries in preparation for these debates. What became increasingly powerful was the evidence from all the people working on the front line of this aspect of our national security that it was very important indeed to be engaged in the European institutions. One after another, they kept telling us that the quality of the work would be undermined if we were not engaged. Of course, that is hardly surprising because the reality in which we are living is that large-scale—massive-scale, sometimes—international crime is international; it does not respect national boundaries. Therefore, international co-operation is indispensable.
It is equally clear that other matters of home affairs cannot be solved within national boundaries and that they require international co-operation. Of course, the European Union provides a very practical and real opportunity for that co-operation to take place in its various institutions. I think that it is very sad indeed that in all the debate about whether or not we should remain in Europe, dominated as it is by insularity and, even worse, xenophobia, there has been a failure in leadership to explain to the British people why membership is indispensable to their well-being.
Back in the 1970s, I was the Minister of State in the Foreign Office who had responsibility for Europe. Even in those days, I was beginning to be concerned because the culture was that you went into a meeting in Europe and you had to come out and say to the British media, “I fought for the British people and I withstood these European dangers and I upheld British interests”. Of course, the real challenge for leadership is to understand—and to enable the British people to understand—that we cannot look to our interests as a community within Britain without looking to the well-being of the European Community of which we are a part, because we are inseparable from that community in terms of the challenges and threats that present themselves, and we need to co-operate in order to be able to meet those adequately.
From that standpoint, I think that opting back in to the provisions that are now before us is crucial. I wish we had never been through this exercise because, like others, I feel that it has undermined our whole strength and negotiating position within Europe. In fact, if I may say so, one heartening thing from my standpoint is what happened recently with our former Leader of the House going to Europe, because I think he is exactly the sort of constructive, positive person that one needs participating in those institutions. I, for one, wish him well. I think that he has great ability if he brings it to bear in these spheres. But he will be absolutely helpless if he is not supported by a culture in our country among the political leadership which says that the work he is doing is essential because the interests of men, women and children in this country in terms of their security and safety is dependent on this effective co-operation with our European partners. From this standpoint I hope that the negotiations go well.
There is only one other point I would like to make. I thought that the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Boswell, in his introductory remarks was so important. There is a very big danger, because just supposing that we have not concluded the agreement for our opt-back on some of these arrangements, what on earth will happen on 31 December? There is going to be a real threat and danger to the British people because there will be nothing in place. If I may refer back to the lively debate we have just had on another matter earlier today, one of the arguments applied by those who were in favour of what was before the House was that we simply had to have something in place. We could not suddenly pull out of all the current arrangements because that would be irresponsible. Well, if that applies there, believe me, this will apply in the realm of security and the fight against global crime.
I hope desperately that we are successful, but it behoves this House, of all places, to provide the kind of principled, cultured and informed leadership in the debate that says, “Do let’s stop this introspective nonsense. Let us recognise that we are going to build a strong future for the British people by success on these fronts”.
Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab)
My Lords, this has been a useful and important debate today on the home affairs and justice opt-outs that the government are exercising. The first duty of any Government is to keep their citizens safe and this debate enables the House to consider these important issues and explore the actions taken by the Government. The opt-out of approximately 130 justice and home affairs measures and the opting back in to certain measures before 1 December must not be damaging to the law enforcement agencies and the important work they are doing.
We on these Benches are not against opt-outs in principle. These opt-outs are only possible because of a provision negotiated by the previous Labour Government when signing the Lisbon treaty in 2007, but your Lordships’ House will want to have further assurances from the noble Lord, Lord Taylor of Holbeach, that the Government have got their thinking right and that our national security and the fight against crime are not compromised.
I also think at the end of this process someone should look at what we have gone through—the administration, the cost—and examine what has been delivered. I am not sure who that should be—possibly the Public Accounts Committee or the Home Affairs Committee in the other place. Certainly there has been a lot of cost for not much delivered.
The noble Lord, Lord Taylor of Holbeach will be aware of the Members in his own party, in addition to those on these Benches—in fact, Members on all sides in this House—who are concerned that we have a process that delivers very little benefit, for a lot of work and a lot of expense, with not very much to show for it in the end, as my noble friend Lord Foulkes of Cumnock said.
We believe in retaining our co-operation with Europe on policing and criminal justice matters. Can the Minister address why the Government did not secure guarantees of agreed opt-ins on these important crime-fighting measures before exercising this opt-out? That would have been a sensible precautionary measure. I was, however, pleased to hear from the noble Lord that discussions have gone well and we hope that agreement is very close.
We must not forget that there are thousands of organised crime groups in the EU involved in drug trafficking, people trafficking, cybercrime, online child exploitation, kidnap, money laundering in addition to terrorism and threats to our national security. Cross-border crime is a reality and we need 21st century tools to meet this challenge.
I have told the House before that I had the privilege of visiting the police unit in London that deals with card fraud. I saw examples of how criminals were using every modern technique to steal people’s money. It is cross-border and it does not stop at Dover. The only way to catch the perpetrators who are stealing money from our citizens, costing the banks millions of pounds and bringing misery to hardworking families is to have cross-border co-operation with other law enforcement agencies across Europe. It has been raised before, but can the Minister give his reaction to the concerns expressed that the new arrangements will not be in force in time and that without sufficient transitional measures there would be a gap in terms of the UK’s capability to carry out its work against international organised crime and terrorism? Can the Minister give the House an absolute assurance that that will not be allowed to happen and that provisions will be in place? I agree with the comments made by the noble Lord, Lord Boswell, when he expressed concerns about the measures that have not been Lisbonised and how the impacts have not been properly assessed, and I agree with his comments about the transitional arrangements.
I am pleased that the Government have decided to opt into the European arrest warrant. The UK has deported more than 4,000 people under this scheme to face justice and more than 600 have been returned to the UK to face justice here. There are numerous examples of criminals being brought to justice thanks to the European arrest warrant. On 24 March this year, Francis Paul Cullen, who committed serious sexual assaults on children over a period of three decades while serving as a priest in Nottinghamshire and Derbyshire was brought to justice. He fled the UK in 1991, but finally, after 22 years on the run, he was extradited from Spain on a European arrest warrant. He pleaded guilty earlier this year in Derby Crown Court and was sentenced to 15 years in prison—justice, finally, for his victims.
As the noble Viscount, Lord Bridgeman, mentioned, under the provisions in existence before the European arrest warrant—that is, the 1957 European Convention on Extradition—Francis Paul Cullen’s 22 years on the run would have rendered him immune from prosecution by the Spanish authorities, because they have a statute of limitations which means that he could not come back to the UK.
There is also the case of David Heiss, who murdered British student Matthew Pyke in September 2008, was arrested in Germany a month later and brought back to the UK the following month. Before the European arrest warrant, Germany did not surrender its own citizens to any other country and had a constitutional bar on them doing so. Without the European arrest warrant, it is possible that these two criminals would not have faced justice in a British court. My noble friend Lady Smith of Basildon has previously quoted Beatrice Jones, whose mother, Moira Jones, was abducted, raped and murdered by an EU national. Beatrice Jones said:
“He fled the country but because of the dedication … of Strathclyde police along with the cooperation of Slovakian police, he was arrested and extradited back to this country”.
At the other end of the scale, no one wants to see trivial matters clogging up the courts, wasting time and costing money. The principle of proportionality is therefore important. I welcome the plan whereby a judge will consider whether the alleged offence and likely sentence are sufficient to warrant someone’s extradition. Can the Minister give the House an absolute assurance that the European arrest warrant will be in place to be used on 1 December 2014?
There are other measures that I am pleased that the Government have indicated that they are opting back into, including five of the six mutual recognition agreements. It is right that in areas where financial penalties of more than €70 are imposed—for example, road traffic offences—people can be pursued.
It would be helpful to the House if the Minister could give more information on the Government’s thinking in respect of the judgments in absentia framework decision and the European supervision order. These measures contain important protections for defendants, and the second measure provides that non-custodial pre-trial supervision may happen on a voluntary basis in the defendant’s home member state. I agree with the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Hannay of Chiswick, in that regard.
The previous convictions framework decision, which requires courts to take account of a defendant’s previous convictions in any other member state to the same extent as they would previous national convictions, is another important measure in the fight against crime.
It is good that the Government are opting back into the prisoner transfer framework decision, which provides for the transfer of foreign nationals who are EU nationals to serve their sentence in their home country provided that they have more than six months to serve. However, I am not sure that there has been the speed or number of transfers that we would all like to see. The House will be aware that it costs about £40,000 to house a prisoner here in the UK. I remember the Prime Minister making much noise before the last general election about the number of foreign criminals in UK jails. Four years later, I have not seen that much followed through. When are we going to see a real reduction in the number of foreign criminals in our jails?
The probation measures framework decision is the one measure that the Government are not opting back into, as your Lordships have heard earlier. Again, it would be helpful if the Minister could go into some more detail as to why the Government have taken that decision and what would have to happen for them to opt in to it—I know that they have indicated that they may do that in the future.
As I said earlier, most of the areas where the Government have decided not to opt back in are of a minor or trivial nature. In other cases, the Government intend to follow the provision and believe we have sufficient powers to deal with the issues that arise. What is the process for keeping this under review? Can the Minister confirm that, if as part of any review the Government decided that opting back in the future would be a good thing, they would actually do that?
We are not against opt-outs in principle, but we have concerns about how this set of opt-outs has been handled. Many other noble Lords have expressed that concern in this debate. Concerns have been expressed about the adequacy of planning for opt-ins and in particular the provision of transitional measures in the event of agreements not being reached in time. As I said earlier, if you examine what actions are being taken by the Prime Minister, you wonder what they amount to. I am firmly of the opinion that this is an expensive and lengthy exercise that does not deliver very much. Is it not the reality that this whole exercise is an attempt to deal with the difficulties that the Prime Minister has with his Back-Benchers in the House of Commons—the noble Lords, Lord Stoneham of Droxford and Lord Sharkey, made reference to that, too—as well as with the wider Conservative Party and UKIP, which of course the whole Tory party is terrified of? It has been found out, however, as there is no real repatriation of power. Instead, the UK is doing the right thing and opting into a variety of measures because it is important to do so.
I also associate myself with many of the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Bowness, about the waste of political capital and how our energies could be much better spent elsewhere in Europe. Like the noble Lord, Lord Sharkey, I have actually looked at a number of European debates in the House of Commons. When I read the contributions of Conservative Members I am reminded of what UKIP meetings look like. Like other noble Lords, I welcome the decision to rejoin the European Judicial Network and the three Europol measures. However, I ask the Minister to explain further why we are not joining the European Genocide Network.
In conclusion, I join other noble Lords in thanking the noble Lord, Lord Taylor, for the way in which he has handled these matters. I like the noble Lord very much and any criticism I have given from the Dispatch Box is not directed at him personally but at the Government. He has much to report back to the House and I look forward to hearing from him.
Lord Taylor of Holbeach
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy of Southwark, for the kindnesses he has shown, particularly in his last remarks. He made a number of comments about the current political scene. I have very long memories of this issue in politics, so I do not think that it is necessarily very productive to go down other, party-political routes. In fact, we have a tradition in this House of trying to deal with these matters on their merits. I think that the way we handle these debates is very much to our credit.
I thank all noble Lords who have spoken. A lot of points have been raised, which is hardly surprising, as this is a broad subject—even though it is confined to the JHA opt-out matters, there is a lot of detail. I am going to do my best to reply to points that have been raised, but I hope that noble Lords will be happy if I write one of my usual commentaries on the debate. I find that a very useful way of informing the House. Indeed, in considering this matter, I know that it is nice to have things on the record, but it might be something for those who keep the official records to make a note of letters sent by Ministers, or at least to make them available on the website and not just in the Library, so that noble Lords can be aware of those things for the future. I suggest that as a modernising idea, as it is frequently the case that Ministers need to write in order to provide a proper answer that cannot be given in a debate.
I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Boswell, for his chairmanship of the Select Committee and the leadership that he shows on these issues in the House. The noble Lords, Lord Judd and Lord Kennedy of Southwark, both raised the question of transitional arrangements with the Commission and what is going to happen on 1 December. It is not the intention to have a gap between the date on which the opt-in will take effect and the point at which the UK can rejoin the measures. We place a great deal of importance on the issue and believe that it is in everyone’s interest to try to eliminate any operational gap between our opt-out taking effect and our continued participation in the measures that we formally apply to rejoin. If it is necessary to use transitional measures, we consider that transitional arrangements could be used to preserve the legal effects of measures that the Government have said they will rejoin, where there is a short operational gap.
The noble Lords, Lord Bowness and Lord Foulkes, asked when we think that the negotiations will conclude. I think that that is a matter that all noble Lords are aware of—that is, we have made good progress on these negotiations. An in-principle agreement has been reached with the Commission on a package of 35 measures. I say, “a package” because it is not the original package, as was rightly pointed out by the noble Lord, Lord Hannay. However, negotiations with member states are continuing and we are confident of concluding a deal ahead of 1 September so that this operational gap will not occur.
Lord Bowness
My Lords, I thank my noble friend for giving way and I apologise for being troublesome. While he is dealing with this point, perhaps he could tell the House—and I understand the difficulty with negotiations—whether in fact discussions are taking place about transitional arrangements in parallel with the main negotiations. Were we to get much closer to 30 November, it would then be rather late to start putting those transitional arrangements together.
Lord Taylor of Holbeach
This is a wise Government and all these matters are considered. That is not our ambition. Our ambition is to achieve agreement by that time. There will be an update. We have updated Parliament up to now and we will continue to give Parliament opportunities for scrutiny of the process in future.
The noble Lord, Lord Foulkes, again raised the question of whether this was part of the Prime Minister’s promise to start repatriating powers from the EU. It is a decision that flows from the existing treaty and its protocols that were set in place by the Lisbon treaty, negotiated by the previous Government. If we had done nothing with regard to the opt-out, the default position was that the UK would become subject to Commission enforcement powers and the full jurisdiction of the European Court of Justice. The decision to opt out means that a much smaller set of measures will be subject to ECJ jurisdiction and Commission enforcement powers. We believe that that is what the British public would expect us to do, given that the negotiations conducted by the previous Government led to Protocol 36.
The noble Baroness, Lady Prashar, whom I congratulate on stepping into the shoes of the noble Lord, Lord Hannay, asked whether there was a list of measures subject to the opt-out. We are currently working on producing a full consolidated list of measures that the Government consider subject to the opt-out, and we will provide that shortly.
My noble friend Lord Bowness asked: if the majority of these measures are defunct, in no way harmful to the UK or positive, why bother exercising the opt-out at all? I hope that I have given him some idea of why we thought it was important to deal with this. The ECJ should not have the final say over matters concerning substantive criminal law or our international relations in matters like extradition. That is why the Government will not rejoin over 20 minimum-standards measures on sensitive matters such as racism and xenophobia, or the EU/US extradition agreement. I am clear that our Parliament should have the final say over our laws on these matters, and the Government should be able to renegotiate bilateral arrangements as we think fit.
A number of noble Lords asked why the Government had produced an impact assessment for only 35 measures, not for the full list. The Government have been consistently clear that we will provide Parliament with impact assessments on those measures that we will seek to rejoin. I remember saying that in previous debates. Command Paper 8897 is the fulfilment of that commitment. The UK will not be bound by the rest of the measures from 1 December, and there is therefore no need for an impact assessment.
There was some consideration of the European arrest warrant. As noble Lords will know, we have decided to opt back into the European arrest warrant. We have listened to our EU partners and the UK law enforcement and prosecution agencies, as well as the view of Parliament and indeed our European committees, on this. Critics of the EAW have come to a balanced conclusion on how the EAW can be improved and retain its obvious practical and law enforcement benefits but provide better safeguards for people subject to EAW law. We are satisfied that the reforms made to the EAW will help to address these concerns. My noble friend Lord Stoneham asked whether EAW amendments to domestic law are compliant with EU law. We are confident that they are compliant and are happy to provide more detail by way of the letter I will be sending. We will be able to elaborate and I hope that that will be to the benefit of noble Lords generally.
My noble friend Lord Sharkey said that many of the measures that the Government want to withdraw are more likely to be susceptible to negative ECJ judgments. As I have said throughout this process, the Government are concerned about the risk that the court could make unexpected adverse decisions on the interpretation of pre-Lisbon measures. Given the prospect of an unexpected judgment, and concerns about the drafting of measures and the difficulty of altering EU legislation, we believe that minimising the possibility of an adverse judgment is a sensible and pragmatic approach. It is only correct that the Government consider carefully whether to accept the formal jurisdiction of the ECJ before seeking to rejoin measures. We accept that there is always a risk attached in terms of ECJ jurisdiction if we decide to participate. However, in certain cases it will be in the national interest for the UK to participate and the Government will accept that risk, given the wider benefits of the instrument in question. That is the judgment that rightly rests with the Government in these cases.
My noble friend Lord Sharkey also asked about the special intervention units and whether we wish to rejoin in order to maintain participation in an operational police network at the EU level, called Atlas. We now know that we can continue working through Atlas even if we do not participate in the special interventions unit. This has been confirmed by the Commission, so we will lose nothing by not joining that measure. My noble friend Lord Bridgeman was concerned about whether the UK would rejoin Europol and whether it could force national police forces to act. We confirm that Europol will not be able to force national police forces to act.
A number of noble Lords, including my noble friends Lord Sharkey and Lord Stoneham of Droxford, the noble Baroness, Lady Prashar, and the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy of Southwark, asked what steps were taken at EU level to resolve the problems with the probation measure and what is the timetable for our reconsideration of this? This is quite a complex issue but I think that I have time to address it, because noble Lords will be interested. As the Government set out, it is not in the national interest to rejoin the probation measure at this stage. It is unclear how it would work in practice and we have no evidence to demonstrate that the benefits to the UK outweigh its risks.
We did, indeed, discuss these issues with the Commission. However, we were not able to resolve them. One key issue is that only 14 member states have so far implemented it—and to date it has never been used within those 14 member states. Therefore, we have no practical illustrations of how it would work. We were unable to determine the likely impact of rejoining the measure. In due course, once the probation measure has been used and implemented more widely, and there is sufficient evidence to analyse it, we will reconsider participation after making a full assessment of its impact. I will keep noble Lords informed on progress on that particular measure.
My noble friend Lord Bowness asked about transitional measures and I sought to answer him. I have had a supplementary note to the effect that, in case transitional measures are needed, the matter is being considered in a working group in Brussels; this is parallel to the wider negotiations. Our aspirations are that these transitional measures will not be necessary, but they are being discussed.
That concludes my contribution to the debate today. I thank noble Lords for again presenting the views of the European Union Committee and of this House on an important subject. I will be writing a commentary and look forward to continuing dialogue on these issues. I understand that we have a debate on Tuesday on aspects of the Stockholm agreement. This is not going away. It is a live issue as far as I am concerned, as I am sure it is for other noble Lords.