House of Commons

Wednesday 22nd October 2014 Commons Chamber

Wednesday 22 October 2014

The House met at half-past Eleven o’clock

Prayers

Wednesday 22nd October 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker in the Chair]

Oral Answers to Questions

Wednesday 22nd October 2014 Commons Chamber

The Secretary of State was asked—

[Glyn Davies (Montgomeryshire) (Con)]

1. What steps he is taking to ensure that the Welsh Government remain fiscally accountable following the next stage of the devolution process.

[The Secretary of State for Wales (Stephen Crabb)]

May I first pay tribute to my predecessor as Secretary of State, my right hon. Friend the Member for Clwyd West (Mr Jones), who worked tirelessly for Wales, particularly over the past year, working behind the scenes to ensure that last month’s NATO summit was such a success for Wales?

The Wales Bill devolves tax and borrowing powers to the Assembly and the Welsh Government, ensuring that they raise some of the money they spend. The new income tax powers are a tool to help the Welsh economy become more dynamic and make the Welsh Government more accountable. I call on the Labour party today to support holding a referendum as soon as possible.

[Glyn Davies]

I congratulate the Secretary of State on his much deserved elevation. Does he agree that the Welsh Government cannot be regarded as a genuinely fiscally accountable governing body until they are responsible for raising public money as well as spending it, and does he accept that this step forward in the devolution process is much more important than devolving power in any other policy areas?

[Stephen Crabb]

I very much agree with my hon. Friend’s comments on fiscal devolution. I believe that this represents the next step for devolution in Wales. Devolving a portion of tax responsibility to the Welsh Government and the Welsh Assembly will create dynamic opportunities for the people of Wales and the Welsh economy, and I believe that the Welsh Government should seize those opportunities as soon as possible.

[Mr David Hanson (Delyn) (Lab)]

When the Welsh Government raise money and spend it, they will potentially be spending some of it on hospital services in Chester, Clatterbridge hospital or the Christie hospital, which are local to me. What does the Secretary of State think about the fact that under his proposals I, as a Welsh Member of Parliament, will have no say about services that affect my constituents?

[Stephen Crabb]

The right hon. Gentleman is referring to proposals for English votes on English laws. There are important cross-party issues, but they also work in reverse. For example, constituents on this side of the border do not have a say in the Welsh Assembly about policies that affect services they use. He has to recognise that we currently have a hopelessly lop-sided devolution arrangement, as he and I, as Welsh MPs, and also Scottish MPs, have a say on laws affecting schools and hospitals in England, but English MPs have no equivalent say on services in Scotland and Wales. That must be addressed.

[Roger Williams (Brecon and Radnorshire) (LD)]

I, too, welcome the Secretary of State to his post and look forward to working with him. I also welcome the Government’s concession on the lockstep in the other place. With that in mind, does he agree that every step forward increases the accountability and maturity of the Welsh Assembly?

[Stephen Crabb]

I agree with my hon. Friend. Giving the Welsh Government fiscal powers for the first time means that they have to raise money as well as spend it, which I think will lead to a much healthier political debate down in Cardiff on real responsibility. It is about not only deciding how to spend the money, but taking responsible decisions on how it is raised, and I think that is a big step forward in the political development of Wales.

[Jessica Morden (Newport East) (Lab)]

2. If he will estimate the potential effect of increasing the minimum wage rate by £1.50 on the economy in Wales.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Wales (Alun Cairns)]

The Government’s increase of 3% in the national minimum wage this year means that low-paid workers are enjoying the biggest cash increase in their take-home pay since 2008. The independent Low Pay Commission is responsible for recommending the level of the national minimum wage.

[Jessica Morden]

About 73,000 people in Wales are in minimum wage jobs, and a quarter of a million earn less than the living wage. Will the Minister commit his party to Labour’s plan to raise the minimum wage to £8 an hour, which would at least start to tackle the scandal of low pay in Wales?

[Alun Cairns]

I am surprised that the hon. Lady raises that question, given that the commitment to £8 an hour by 2020 has been somewhat derided by independent commentators—Alan Milburn himself said that it lacked ambition—because the current projection shows that the minimum wage will rise to £8.23 an hour by 2020.

[Jonathan Evans (Cardiff North) (Con)]

May I take this opportunity to welcome my hon. Friend the Minister to the Front Bench, along with the Secretary of State, and associate myself with the tribute to his predecessor? Is my hon. Friend aware of the work that has been done by the Mayor of London on the living wage, promoting the idea that public authorities themselves have powers when they structure their pay settlements to lift the position of those who are on the minimum wage and on their payroll? In that regard, perhaps he shares my disappointment that the trade unions in Wales have rejected the Welsh Assembly’s plan to do just that.

[Alun Cairns]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising that issue. Of course, it is a matter for employers to pay the living wage. The national minimum wage is set by the Low Pay Commission, but obviously when an employer can afford to pay the living wage, we would encourage them to do so.

[Hywel Williams (Arfon) (PC)]

As the Minister mentioned, Alan Milburn and the Social Mobility and Child Poverty Commission have pointed out that under Labour’s minimum wage proposals, the rate of increase between now and 2020 would be slower than that between 1999 and 2014. Does he agree that what we have heard from the Labour party about an £8 minimum wage shows that the Labour machine is still firmly stuck on the spin cycle?

[Alun Cairns]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his question, which gives me the opportunity to underline yet again Alan Milburn’s point about the lack of ambition among those on the Labour Benches. Only my party cares about low pay and only my party has given, in the past year, the largest increase in the national minimum wage, 3%—more than twice the rate of inflation.

[Hywel Williams]

Does the Minister therefore agree with my contention that the way to achieve a basic but decent standard of life is the living wage, which would benefit 266,000 workers in Wales alone, and in the UK would slash the tax credits bill by £1.5 billion per annum? Clearly, Plaid Cymru’s policy on the living wage is the best for Wales and for the UK.

[Alun Cairns]

Where possible, we would encourage employers to pay the living wage, but the Government’s responsibility is to ensure that the national minimum wage is adhered to. It is set independently, and it is a balanced discussion between employers, Government and employees.

[Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)]

If Conservative Members are so keen on improving poor wages, why did they do everything in their power to prevent the national minimum wage from coming into law? Why do Conservative Ministers regularly accuse the poor of being workshy when actually, in my constituency, many of the most hard-working are those who are hit by a double whammy—low wages and few hours? That means that when they travel to work in Wales they are working a damn sight harder than the Minister ever did.

[Alun Cairns]

We have not only increased the national minimum wage by the largest cash increase since 2008 but taken the lowest earners out of income tax, which means that a full-time employee on the national minimum wage is paying two thirds less income tax. I hope that that is something that the hon. Gentleman would welcome.

[Albert Owen (Ynys Môn) (Lab)]

3. What plans the Government has for further devolution of powers to Wales.

[Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con)]

8. What discussions he has had with ministerial colleagues on the effects of the Scottish referendum result on government policy on further devolution for Wales.

[The Secretary of State for Wales (Stephen Crabb)]

This Government are putting Wales at the heart of the debate on devolution across the UK. I am a member of the new devolution committee chaired by my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House, and I have already met the party leaders from Wales here in Westminster to discuss how we might take forward devolution in Wales as we work towards a fair and lasting settlement.

[Albert Owen]

I, too, welcome the Secretary of State to his new position. I also welcome his moving from being an anti-devolutionist to a pragmatic devolutionist. May I encourage him to go further and become a real devolutionist? When he has discussions with colleagues and others, will he look at moving Government Departments and Government business away from central London to parts of Wales such as north-west Wales so that we can have real devolution and real jobs in those areas of the United Kingdom, and have a more balanced UK?

[Stephen Crabb]

I agree with the hon. Gentleman’s sentiments about the need for real devolutions not only to rebalance the economy of the UK but to rebalance our politics. It is also worth pointing out that the current Welsh Administration in Cardiff is probably one of the least devolutionary Administrations that we have across the UK—they are centralising more in Cardiff. We need devolution within Wales as well as from the UK to Wales.

[Bob Blackman]

I am a big supporter of the Government’s devolution programme and of giving responsibility to the lowest possible level. Does my right hon. Friend agree that there is a concern that certain Labour and Liberal Democrat MPs want home rule for Wales, which would run contrary to the Government’s agenda?

[Stephen Crabb]

My hon. Friend makes a good point. I heard the comments by the First Minister and others, at the end of the Scottish referendum campaign, about wanting home rule for Wales. When I travel round Wales and talk to people and businesses, I find there is an appetite for more devolution, but I do not detect much appetite for home rule. Indeed, support for independence in Wales is at a historic low of just 3%.

[Owen Smith (Pontypridd) (Lab)]

May I add my welcome to the Secretary of State in his new role, and to the Minister? I also welcome the zeal that the Secretary of State has shown for devolution—unexpected zeal, because of course he used not to be so fond of it. For the benefit of the House, will he confirm today that he no longer thinks that devolution is what he once described as “constitutional vandalism”?

[Stephen Crabb]

I pay tribute to the internet research skills of the shadow Secretary of State. He is referring to an article I wrote in 2007, at a time when the position of Secretary of State for Wales was reduced to a part-time job; when there was no fiscal devolution; and when there was an unbalanced, unstable devolution settlement for Wales. I am delighted to be part of a Government who are rectifying some of those wrongs.

[Owen Smith]

I thank the Secretary of State for that clarification. We agree with him that devolution is not constitutional vandalism, but I will tell him what is: a Prime Minister of Britain describing Offa’s Dyke as

“the line between life and death”,

and a Tory Health Secretary hiring the Daily Mail to scuttle around traducing Welsh public services. That is constitutional vandalism and the Secretary of State’s record will be judged not by soft soap and warm words about devolution, but by what he does to condemn the war on Wales.

[Stephen Crabb]

Not a single Member of Parliament with a Welsh constituency could stand up and honestly say, hand on heart, that, when they get out and speak to people on the doorsteps on a Saturday morning, those people do not tell them that the quality of their health services is the No. 1 issue facing the people of Wales. It is wrong of the Welsh Labour party to seek to shut down debate about and scrutiny of the performance of its Administration in Cardiff when it comes to the most important issue for the people of Wales.

[David T. C. Davies (Monmouth) (Con)]

12. Does my right hon. Friend agree that in Wales we have longer waiting times, missed accident and emergency targets since 2009, the worst ambulance response times in the United Kingdom, no cancer drugs fund and a 7% real-terms cut in funding? That is what Labour delivers for the NHS. Does my right hon. Friend agree that only the Conservatives can be trusted to run the national health service?

[Stephen Crabb]

I do not want anybody holding up any part of Welsh economic and social life as a bad comparator. I want Wales to be leading and people to be holding up Wales as a good example to follow. The truth is—I think the shadow Secretary of State would admit this in private—that the Labour Health Minister in Cardiff needs to get a grip, get on top of this issue and really deliver for the people of Wales.

[Mr Mark Williams (Ceredigion) (LD)]

To return to the theme of devolution, one of the great successes of the Scottish referendum was the participation of 16 and 17-year-olds in the process. Yesterday the National Assembly spoke with one voice when it voted on returning electoral arrangements to itself. Does the Secretary of State believe that this is an issue that deserves attention? Increasingly, many young people believe it does.

[Stephen Crabb]

I thank my hon. Friend for his question. I visited Scotland several times during the referendum campaign and saw for myself the enthusiasm with which teenagers were engaging in the discussion. I have yet to be convinced on the argument for reducing the voting age for all elections in the UK, but it is clear that such issues will need to be considered in the future.

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

4. What estimate he has made of the number of people in Wales working on zero-hours contracts.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Wales (Alun Cairns)]

Zero-hours contracts benefit many employers and employees in Wales, but we are committed to taking strong action against abuse by banning the use of exclusivity clauses.

[Chris Ruane]

I thank the Minister for that response, but does he not recognise the negative impact that zero-hours contracts have on family life, the well-being and mental and physical health of individual workers, and morale at work? Under this Government the number of zero-hours contracts has shot through the roof; what can the Minister do to reduce it?

[Alun Cairns]

Again, I am surprised by the tactic used by the hon. Gentleman. If zero-hours contracts are so wrong, why do Labour-run local authorities make active use of them? Furthermore, why do more than 60 MPs make active use of zero-hours contracts?

[Mr Peter Hain (Neath) (Lab)]

In welcoming the new Minister to his post, may I suggest that, instead of trying to do an impression of a jumped-up rottweiler, he should try to understand and recognise the reality of the miserable state of employment for far too many workers in Wales, whether they are on zero-hours contracts, are among the 150,000 who are underemployed and want to work more hours but cannot, or are among the 50,000 people who are being shoved off disability benefits and into a world of work that is mean, difficult and hard?

[Alun Cairns]

The abuse of zero-hours contracts is an important issue and that is why this Government are taking action to ban them. The right hon. Gentleman mentioned people in part-time employment. Only 19% of part-time employees are looking for full-time work. We will take strong action against those employers that are abusing zero-hours contracts, but zero-hours contracts are important to many people, such as carers, to encourage and facilitate their path back to the workplace.

[Nia Griffith (Llanelli) (Lab)]

Over 50,000 workers in Wales are on zero-hours contracts, with all the stress, insecurity and exploitation that that entails. Will the Minister join me in congratulating the trade union USDAW—the Union of Shop, Distributive and Allied Workers—on negotiating annualised contracts for workers with some big retail firms in Wales, giving both sides flexibility but also guaranteed income levels for workers? Will he support Labour’s calls for employees who in reality work regularly to have an automatic right to fixed-hour contracts and the security that such contracts bring?

[Alun Cairns]

I do support the action taken by the union. After all, the last thing we want is the abuse of employees on zero-hours contracts. However, such contracts offer some people flexibility in the workplace. They offer a great opportunity to encourage more people back into work who would not otherwise be able to work.

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

5. What assessment he has made of trends in manufacturing in Wales since 2010.

[The Secretary of State for Wales (Stephen Crabb)]

Under the previous Labour Government, 83,000 manufacturing jobs were lost in Wales. Our long-term economic plan has made a good start in reversing this decline, with 12,000 manufacturing jobs created since the election. I was delighted recently to visit ConvaTec and Toyota in north Wales to see for myself how two global manufacturers really value Wales as a great place to come and do business in.

[Stephen Mosley]

I welcome my right hon. Friend to his post, and I congratulate him and the Government on the success of the NATO summit this summer. In recent weeks, Airbus has announced a $26 billion deal for 250 new aircraft with India’s largest airline, IndiGo, and a deal for 70 aircraft with a Chinese leasing company. The fact that all those aircraft will have wings built in Deeside in north Wales will generate thousands of jobs, including many hundreds in my constituency of Chester. Will he join me in congratulating the company and its employees?

[Stephen Crabb]

One of my early visits as Secretary of State was to Airbus in Broughton, where I saw for myself just what a fantastic plant that factory is. I spoke to senior management there, but not just that: I got a chance to meet the apprentices and see for myself just what a contribution they are making to Airbus’s success at this time.

[Chris Evans (Islwyn) (Lab/Co-op)]

The Secretary of State will know that General Dynamics in my constituency recently signed a contract for the Scout specialist vehicle platforms. Will he now pay tribute to the previous Labour Government, who were instrumental in bringing General Dynamics to Oakdale, creating hundreds of high-tech, high-spec jobs?

[Stephen Crabb]

General Dynamics is another superb Wales-based company that I have had the pleasure and privilege of visiting in recent weeks. I am very happy to join the hon. Gentleman in paying tribute to whoever was responsible for securing the inward investment.

[Ian Lucas (Wrexham) (Lab)]

When Robin Southwell, the chief executive of EADS, which owns Airbus, addressed the Labour party conference this year, he stressed the importance, from Airbus’s point of view, of Britain remaining a member of the European Union. Does the Secretary of State agree on the importance of that, or does he know better?

[Stephen Crabb]

Being part of Europe is important for Wales-based manufacturers—there is no question about that—but when I talk to businesses all across Wales, they also tell me that our current membership of the European Union imposes burdens and costs. That is why they support the Prime Minister’s strategy to renegotiate our membership with the European Union and get a better deal for Welsh and UK business.

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

6. What recent discussions he has had with Ministers in the Welsh Government on improvements to the rail network in south Wales.

[The Secretary of State for Wales (Stephen Crabb)]

Electrification of the great western main line to Swansea and the valley lines is a transformational project that would deliver a much needed boost to the Wales economy. I am determined to find a way forward for this important scheme, and I am leading discussions with Cabinet colleagues and Welsh Government Ministers to secure this vital investment for Wales.

[Huw Irranca-Davies]

I thank the Minister for that answer. He might not be aware that the two lines with the greatest passenger growth into Cardiff in the past couple of years have been the Chepstow to Cardiff and the Maesteg to Cardiff lines, which have far outstripped other valley lines. Is he surprised to know that there is no Sunday service on the Maesteg line for people who want to get to work or to get into our capital city? Will he discuss this with Arriva Trains Wales?

[Stephen Crabb]

I was aware of that point, and I want to raise that issue with Arriva Trains Wales. The growth in usage of the valley lines is one of the reasons why we need to press ahead and create new capacity and make improvements to all the valley lines.

[Nick Smith (Blaenau Gwent) (Lab)]

Will the delay in the delivery of the electrification of the valley lines mean that the final cost will go up?

[Stephen Crabb]

I hope that there will be no delay in delivering the electrification project for the Great Western line and the valley lines. We are involved in productive and constructive discussions with Ministers in London and in the Welsh Government to find a way to crack on and deliver that important project for south Wales.

[Paul Flynn (Newport West) (Lab)]

7. What discussions he has had with businesses in Wales on the effects of energy prices on their international competitiveness.

[Mark Tami (Alyn and Deeside) (Lab)]

10. What discussions he has had with businesses in Wales on the effects of energy prices on their international competitiveness.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Wales (Alun Cairns)]

We are a Government who listen to business and take action to support business. We have introduced a package of support to tackle the rising costs of energy. Wales Office Ministers have hosted two round-table discussions with energy-intensive industries in Wales to listen to their views on energy prices.

[Paul Flynn]

Yesterday, more electricity was generated by wind turbines than by nuclear power. Instead of putting money into expensive French nukes, why do we not help business by investing in unused Welsh tidal power, which is infinitely available, absolutely predictable, clean, green, British and belongs to us?

[Alun Cairns]

The hon. Gentleman makes an important point. The UK needs a diverse range of energy sources. He mentioned tidal power, and there are some exciting projects around Wales at the moment. That is something I want to be closely involved with.

[Mark Tami]

Tata Steel is a much-valued local employer in Shotton, where it produces high-quality coated products. However, it is competing against foreign companies that have much lower energy costs. What talks has the Minister had with the Department of Energy and Climate Change to address that issue and create a more level playing field?

[Alun Cairns]

The hon. Gentleman raises an important issue. In recent Budgets, the Chancellor has set out important measures that will make a difference, such as capping the carbon floor price and dealing with the indirect costs of the EU emissions trading system and the renewables obligation.

[Kevin Brennan (Cardiff West) (Lab)]

9. What recent estimate he has made of the contribution of the creative industries to the economy in Wales.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Wales (Alun Cairns)]

I recently visited Cwmni Da in Caernarfon, which is a great example of how the creative industries make a vital contribution to the Welsh economy and the cultural life of Wales.

[Kevin Brennan]

I welcome the Minister to his post. He is right that the creative industries are a growing and important part of the Welsh economy. Following the WOMEX conference last year, will he join me in campaigning for the BBC to bring the Radio 2 folk awards to Cardiff next year?

[Alun Cairns]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. I will look positively at his suggestion and will happily meet him to discuss the matter further. He is right about the importance of the creative industries in Wales. He might be interested in the launch of the Cardiff internet exchange, which took place last week, and the launch of Cardiff local television.

[Jonathan Edwards (Carmarthen East and Dinefwr) (PC)]

11. What assessment he has made of difficulties facing the agricultural sector in Wales.

[The Secretary of State for Wales (Stephen Crabb)]

Agriculture is a key industry in Wales, and I recognise the challenges that many Welsh farmers have faced this year. That is why the Government fought hard to achieve the best deal for Wales in the negotiations on the common agricultural policy, and why I welcome the forecast of an increase in Welsh farm income for 2013-14.

[Jonathan Edwards]

What discussions has the Secretary of State had with the Welsh Government and the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs about an action plan to help Welsh farmers, who are being hit by a supermarket price war and Russian sanctions?

[Stephen Crabb]

The Government recognise that Welsh agriculture produces some of the best quality products in the UK. That is why we have talked to farming representatives throughout the summer, and why my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister became the first ever serving Prime Minister to visit the Royal Welsh show this summer. We stay in close contact with farming organisations. We are clear that supermarkets need to work with the farming industry to deliver better returns for farmers.

[Mr Speaker]

There is an opportunity for a free hit on the agricultural sector in Wales. If nobody wishes to seize it, and as we are all present and correct, we will move on to questions to the Prime Minister.

The Prime Minister was asked—

[Andrew Griffiths (Burton) (Con)]

Q1. If he will list his official engagements for Wednesday 22 October.

[The Prime Minister (Mr David Cameron)]

This morning I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others, and in addition to my duties in this House I shall have further such meetings later today.

[Andrew Griffiths]

We must never accept the kind of mistreatment that was suffered by some of my constituents at Stafford hospital. This week we have seen laid bare the extent of the culture of mistreatment in the NHS in Wales. Does the Prime Minister agree that it is time not only for a full independent inquiry into the NHS in Wales, but also for an apology from the Leader of the Opposition for his party’s record?

[The Prime Minister]

My hon. Friend makes an important point. In the NHS in Wales, doctors, nurses and hospital staff are working round the clock to deliver good care, but they have been let down by the Welsh politicians in Cardiff who have cut the NHS. That is why the British Medical Association and Labour Members of Parliament have been calling for a public inquiry in Wales. Even before that, the OECD wants to carry out a comparative study looking at the English NHS and the Welsh NHS. I support that—does the right hon. Member for Doncaster North (Edward Miliband)?

[Edward Miliband (Doncaster North) (Lab)]

Last week 16 leading health organisations representing doctors, nurses and patients warned the Prime Minister that health and social care services in England are now

“at breaking point and things cannot go on like this”.

Why is that happening?

[The Prime Minister]

Absolutely no answer to the question whether there should be a proper inquiry into the Welsh NHS. I will tell the right hon. Gentleman what is happening in the English NHS, for which this Government are responsible: 1.3 million more outpatients being treated; 6 million more outpatient appointments; 2,500 more nurses; and 8,000 more doctors. That is a record we can be proud of. Why? It is because we invested in the NHS in England; Labour cut the NHS in Wales.

[Edward Miliband]

Everyone can see what the Prime Minister is doing. After nearly five years in office he cannot defend his record on the NHS in England. Every time he mentions Wales, we know that he is running scared on the NHS in England. In England we have the highest waiting lists for six years, the longest waits in A and E for 10 years, the cancer treatment target missed for the first time ever, and millions of people cannot get to see their GP. Will he just admit this: the NHS is going backwards, isn’t it?

[The Prime Minister]

Let us have an OECD inquiry. I support it—does the right hon. Gentleman?

[Edward Miliband]

In case the Prime Minister has not realised—[Interruption.]

[Mr Speaker]

Order. At a very early stage there is far too much noise. The public are not impressed. Let us try to operate to a certain standard. If the session has to be run on, it will be run on—it does not bother me.

[Edward Miliband]

The Prime Minister obviously does not realise that he is supposed to answer the questions. I ask the questions at Prime Minister’s questions. The whole country will have noticed that he could not defend what is happening in the English national health service for which he is responsible. Why? It is because four years ago he told us that his top-down reorganisation would improve the NHS; we now know that that is £3 billion down the drain. Will he now admit in public what he is saying in private: his top-down reorganisation has been a total disaster for the NHS?

[The Prime Minister]

I am not only happy to defend our record in the NHS with the extra spending, extra doctors, extra nurses and all the extra treatments, but I want a comparison with the Labour NHS in Wales, which is being cut and has met no targets for cancer or for A and E since 2008. I will allow the OECD to come in and look at the English health service. Let me ask the right hon. Gentleman again: will he let the OECD look at the failures in Wales?

[Edward Miliband]

It is extraordinary—there is no attempt even to answer the question. Instead of smearing the NHS in Wales, the Prime Minister should be saving the NHS in England. The question people are asking is: what will the NHS look like in the future? His own Conservative Chair of the Health Committee says that unless he changes course with his funding plan for the NHS, there will be charges. While he has promised nothing more than inflation for the NHS, we have shown how we can raise £2.5 billion a year over and above that. Why does he not admit that all he offers on the NHS is five more years of crisis?

[The Prime Minister]

What we have seen is that the right hon. Gentleman is totally terrified of Labour’s failures in Wales on the NHS. He will not answer the simplest of questions. Let me tell him what has been happening over the past five years in the English NHS. The former Labour adviser, who worked with him in No. 10 Downing street and now runs NHS England, says this about the NHS in England:

“Over the past five years…the NHS has been remarkably successful…We’re treating millions more patients than five years ago...the NHS has become some £20 billion more efficient…A world-leading genomes programme is harnessing the best of this country’s medical…expertise”

and the global rankings have

“just ranked us the highest performing health system of 11 industrialised nations.”

This guy was obviously a much more effective Labour adviser than either the right hon. Gentleman or the shadow Chancellor.

The right hon. Gentleman is trading unattributable quotes. He quoted one. Let me quote one from a shadow Minister, who I think sums it up:

“We don’t have a policy problem, we have a massive Ed Miliband problem”.

I think we see that in evidence today.

[Edward Miliband]

I have to say that I do not think the right hon. Gentleman is in any position to give a master class in leadership. Two MPs have defected, nine of his 2010 MPs are standing down and every day he changes his policy on Europe.

The Prime Minister did not answer the question. One of the ways he could support the NHS is by funding one-week cancer testing with a levy on the tobacco companies. Why won’t Lynton Crosby let him do it?

[The Prime Minister]

What we are doing is treating half a million more cancer patients every year than were treated under Labour. Let us see what the Royal College of General Practitioners said about the right hon. Gentleman’s policy. It said this:

“a promise will only serve to create a false expectation that cannot be met”.

Like all his promises, it is unravelling in one go.

The right hon. Gentleman spoke about leadership. He only had one difficult leadership decision to make this week and that was to sack his shadow Chancellor. He completely flunked it. It tells you the two things you need to know about Labour: they do not have an economic plan and they do not have the leadership that can ever deal with an economic plan.

[Edward Miliband]

On the right hon. Gentleman’s watch, the deficit is going up by 10%. We have the worst cost of living crisis in a century and he is in total denial on the national health service. The NHS is on the ballot paper in May because it is already at breaking point and all he offers is five more years of crisis. He cannot tax the tobacco companies because his lobbyists will not let him. He will not tax expensive property because his donors will not let him. The British public know they cannot trust this Prime Minister on the NHS, and every day he proves them right.

[The Prime Minister]

I will tell the right hon. Gentleman the figures that have come out in the past fortnight: a record fall in unemployment; inflation down to a six-year low; the IMF saying that ours is the fastest-growing economy of any G7 country. That is what is happening. What we can see from Labour is failure and weakness: no economic plan, nothing to offer this country. They are, as I put it last week, simply not up to the job.

[Laura Sandys (South Thanet) (Con)]

Q2. I have founded two small companies and know what it is like to employ people. Will the Prime Minister commend the small businesses in my constituency that have done so much to reduce unemployment by 31% this year and created 720 apprenticeships?

[The Prime Minister]

It is certainly true, as my hon. Friend says, that the reduction in unemployment that we are seeing in every region of the country—some very impressive figures, as she says—is coming about because small businesses feel more able to take people on. Part of that is the help we have given to small businesses by cutting the small business rate of tax and, through the national insurance rebate, by making sure that every small business benefits by £2,000. That is helping to give them the confidence to give people work.

[Sheila Gilmore (Edinburgh East) (Lab)]

A few months ago, I raised with the Prime Minister the case of my former constituent Mr Mohammed Asghar, who was in prison in Pakistan. Since then, he has been shot in prison by a security guard. His family would like him returned to this country under a prisoner transfer agreement. What steps will the Prime Minister take to achieve that?

[The Prime Minister]

The hon. Lady is absolutely right to raise this case. The way this man has been treated is appalling. It is particularly appalling that, as she said, he was shot while in prison, supposedly being protected by the Pakistani authorities. We have raised this case—and I have raised it personally—with the leaders of Pakistan, and we are obviously considering the case for a prisoner transfer, but such transfers had to be suspended in recent years because Pakistan released prisoners whom we had returned to them. So there is a problem there. However, we take this case very seriously and are raising it at every level in Pakistan.

[Maria Miller (Basingstoke) (Con)]

Q3. Young people in my constituency want the security of job opportunities when they leave college. Under Labour, the number of young people who could not get into work rose by a staggering 45%. Will the Prime Minister join me in applauding the companies up and down the country that have taken the opportunity under this Government to create apprenticeships, leading to the steepest fall in youth unemployment since records began?

[The Prime Minister]

My right hon. Friend is absolutely right. In her constituency, the youth claimant count is down by more than 50%, and we are on target to achieve 2 million apprentices during this Parliament, which is far better than anything achieved by the previous Government. For the next Parliament, the Conservative party has said it wants to achieve 3 million apprenticeships, and we have set out how we will pay for it—by continuing to reform welfare and reduce the benefit cap.

[Kelvin Hopkins (Luton North) (Lab)]

Q4. Research by the Medical Research Council has found that more than 6,000 babies are born each year with birth defects and irreversible genetic damage caused by alcohol consumed in pregnancy. In Canada, the USA and other countries, all drinks containers must carry warnings about the dangers of birth defects, but our Government have so far refused to apply the same rule in Britain. Will the Prime Minister now change the Government’s policy and show that Britain cares as much about the well-being of children as Canadians and Americans do?

[The Prime Minister]

The hon. Gentleman makes an important point. Like many MPs, I have met the organisation most concerned with foetal alcohol syndrome and the parents of those who have adopted children suffering from defects arising from the excessive intake of alcohol by their birth parents. I am happy to consider all his suggestions, and other suggestions, because this is a growing crisis in our country and we should do everything we can to stop it.

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

It is 10 and a half months since the tidal surge hit north Lincolnshire and east Yorkshire, and many of my constituents are still out of their homes. Given the importance of the Humber to the UK economy—inward investment from companies such as Siemens, energy generation, petrochemicals and so on—and given that we know another surge will happen in the next 50 years, may I urge the Prime Minister to look favourably on the plan put together by the local authorities and the Environment Agency for massive investment in our defences to ensure we have the one-in-200 years standard we require?

[The Prime Minister]

I congratulate my hon. Friend on his leadership on this issue. He brought a group of MPs to brief me on possible proposals. I also know that he has seen the Chancellor of the Exchequer and is working hard for his constituents in Humberside to ensure we do everything we can. The Government have increased spending on flood defences, and many schemes have been tested in the very high winds of the past few days and have stood up extremely well. We will look carefully at what he says.

[Mr Angus Brendan MacNeil (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (SNP)]

Q5. Before the Scottish referendum, the Prime Minister said:“If Scotland says it does want to stay inside the United Kingdom then all the options of devolution are there and are possible”.Will he unequivocally stand by his promise and confirm that this approach means full fiscal autonomy being on the table and devolving full control of Scottish taxes and spending to the Scottish Parliament, to help create jobs and a more just society?

[The Prime Minister]

I certainly stand by all the promises I made in the run-up to the referendum. Lord Smith is doing an excellent job looking at all the options for devolution, and I am sure we can find a way forward. On keeping promises, however, I hope that the Scottish National party will keep its promise when it said that the referendum would end this question for a generation, possibly a lifetime. I am not sure that its former leader is sticking to that, but I think he should.

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

I am personally grateful to the Prime Minister for the many visits he made to Somerset during the flooding crisis earlier this year. However, despite a lot of good work, two decisions remain outstanding, so may I invite him to come to Somerset again, before it gets too wet, so that he can announce the sluice on the River Parrett and a sustainable funding mechanism for the Somerset rivers authority?

[The Prime Minister]

I would be delighted to return to Somerset, and I am sure that many of my colleagues will be beating a path to Somerset in the coming months, too. I am excited by what has happened with the dredging of the Tone and the Parrett rivers. Multiple teams are out there, and they have made a real difference. They are proving that dredging, particularly on man-made waterways, which is what we are dealing with, can make a real difference. My only disappointment was that I was not allowed to drive the machinery myself—for some antiquated health and safety reasons—but I am sure I will be back.

[Chris Evans (Islwyn) (Lab/Co-op)]

Q6. Scam e-mail and scam mail cost £3.5 billion a year and bring misery to many elderly and vulnerable people right across the country. It is reported, however, by only one in five people. It is the hidden crime of this country. What is the Prime Minister going to do to stamp out scams on the internet, on the telephone and through the post?

[The Prime Minister]

The hon. Gentleman makes an important point, which is a matter of concern to many people. This is the sort of issue in respect of which the National Crime Agency is now able to bring together expertise and combat it properly. Technological advances have also been made in the form of spam and other filters that people can put on their computers so that they get fewer of these e-mails in the first place.

[Henry Smith (Crawley) (Con)]

Will the Prime Minister join me in congratulating Varian Medical Systems in my constituency on celebrating 30 years of high-quality manufacturing? Will he congratulate Elekta Oncology Systems, too, on its plans to expand significantly in my constituency? Does this not prove that high-quality UK manufacturing is on the rise?

[The Prime Minister]

My hon. Friend makes an important point—that we are seeing a recovery in some of the most important high-skill industries in our country, not least pharmaceuticals, medical services and high-end manufacturing. When we look at the jobs created under this Government, we see that some two thirds are higher-skill jobs rather than lower-skill ones. That is all to the good because we want to rebuild the manufacturing base of our country.

[Mr Jamie Reed (Copeland) (Lab)]

Q7. My 10-year-old constituent Maddie Snell was disappointed with the response she recently received from the Prime Minister regarding West Cumberland hospital in England, telling the BBC that he did not answer her question. I am sure that Members of all parties can relate to Maddie’s frustration in that respect. Before the last general election, the Prime Minister promised a bare-knuckle fight to protect maternity services, but it has never materialised. Will he confirm today that every maternity service unit in every hospital in England is subject to a national review?

[The Prime Minister]

I want to see district general hospitals with maternity services within them. We have contributed £70 million to the redevelopment of West Cumberland hospital, together with £11 million to the community hospital in Cockermouth, which has been opened to provide further services. Unlike in Wales, the amount of money going into the West Cumberland is going up. It should be enough to provide good maternity services.

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

Q8. Today Jim O’Neill completes his final City Growth Commission report. Will the Prime Minister and the Chancellor continue their support for Jim to ensure that a future Conservative Government deliver on a northern powerhouse?

[The Prime Minister]

I think Jim O’Neill has done an absolutely first-class job with this report. I shall be seeing him later today, and I want to congratulate him on what he has done. There is a real opportunity here—the Chancellor has spoken about it—to create a northern powerhouse by looking at how we can use high-speed rail and other infrastructure to link up our great northern cities so that we really have a proper rebalancing of our economy. That is what this is all about, and I think that Jim O’Neill’s work is all to the good.

[Mr Frank Roy (Motherwell and Wishaw) (Lab)]

Q9. The Prime Minister will be aware that Tata Steel intends to sell its long products division to the Klesch group, which could have an effect on 15,000 jobs. Given the significance of the British steel industry to the UK economy and in view of Klesch’s history of asset stripping and dumping companies across Europe, does the Prime Minister agree with me that Klesch is not a fit and proper company to own such an important part of our economy, and that the prospect of such a sale merits a direct intervention by this Government in the interests of those steelworkers and the British public?

[The Prime Minister]

I want to see a successful British steel industry as much as the hon. Gentleman does. We have seen some good steps in recent years, with what has happened at Port Talbot and, indeed, at Redcar. I think we should talk to Klesch, judge it by what it says and what it does and give every assistance we can to try to maintain these important businesses and jobs. That is exactly what we are doing. We are looking at all the flexibilities under things such as the emissions directives to see what more we can do. I am sure that the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills and I will be looking into this personally, and will do everything we can to support this important industry.

[Gareth Johnson (Dartford) (Con)]

Q10. When Bluewater shopping centre in my constituency held a job fair recently, there were more jobs on offer than there are jobseekers in Dartford. Will the Prime Minister congratulate Bluewater on its contribution to a 50% fall in unemployment and to what can only be described as a jobs revolution in Dartford?

[The Prime Minister]

I am delighted to join my hon. Friend in congratulating Bluewater. The fact is that the claimant count in his constituency has fallen by 47% since the election. It is noticeable how many jobs are being created in Dartford and in retail. Regrettably, I last went to Bluewater in Dartford to make a speech rather than to go shopping, but perhaps I shall be able to do both next time.

[Nic Dakin (Scunthorpe) (Lab)]

Q11. Will the Prime Minister rule out any further increases in VAT while he remains in post?

[The Prime Minister]

Our plans do not involve raising taxes on ordinary people. What we want to do is ensure that we hold back the growth of public spending so that we can go on cutting people’s taxes. We have taken 3 million people out of income tax. We have given a tax cut to 26 million people. We have cut the tax on every small business in our country. We have set a low rate of corporation tax so that businesses can come and locate in our country. The people who put up taxes are the people who want to put up spending and put up borrowing. That means the Labour party.

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

Our nuclear test veterans greatly welcomed the Prime Minister’s words of recognition during Question Time on 2 July. Given that one in three of their descendants has been born with a serious medical condition, can he update the House—as he promised to do on that occasion—on progress towards an ex gratia payment of £25 million to a charitable fund to help those veterans and, most important, their descendants who are in need?

[The Prime Minister]

I am afraid that there is not a lot more that I can say to my hon. Friend today, but we are looking carefully at what we can do. As he said, we have gone further than previous Governments in terms of recognition of this issue. What I will say is that if we look across the board at the grievances that are held by those who have served in our armed forces, I think that this Government have done a lot to deal with them, and to deal with them correctly. We are the first Government to say that there should be an Arctic convoy medal and to deliver it, and the first Government to say that there should be a clasp for those who served in Bomber Command.

Yesterday, it was an enormous privilege to welcome to Downing street all those who had served in the south Atlantic in connection with the Falklands war but had not been able to get campaign medals because of the rapid cut-off date for that campaign. Under this Government, another 10,000 people who served in the south Atlantic in difficult conditions are getting the medals that they deserve.

[Stella Creasy (Walthamstow) (Lab/Co-op)]

Q12. A year ago, the Prime Minister looked a grieving mother in the eye as she begged him to get the British police involved in investigating the murder of her son in Greece. He said no. This week, at the trial, we discovered that the forensic evidence was compromised. Can the Prime Minister tell us why he sent police to Thailand to pursue a murder case on Friday, and what he will do in order to finally live up to his promise to help secure justice for Tyrell Matthews-Burton?

[The Prime Minister]

What I remember is meeting the hon. Lady last year, with her constituent, and going through all the things that we could try to do to help. My understanding is that Ms Matthews did secure funding from the homicide service for the cost of a legal representative in Greece, and that that also covered her travel costs to attend the trial, as well as costs for key witnesses to give evidence at the trial. I believe that the Foreign Office is also working hard to provide consular service support for Ms Matthews. Of course, we will go on helping in any way we can, and I give the hon. Lady that guarantee today.

As for the case in Thailand, I think that because of the uncertainties over that case and the fact that two British citizens were murdered, it is right to offer the Thai Government the assistance of British police, and for the police to go out there to look at some of the technical evidence in particular. I was very pleased that the Thai Prime Minister agreed to that while we were at the Europe-Asia summit in Milan last Friday.

On all these cases, I am very happy to help, and I should be very happy to hear from the hon. Lady what more she thinks we can do in regard to the important case that she has raised.

[Mr Robin Walker (Worcester) (Con)]

In 2009, under the last Government, the number of young unemployed people in Worcester was more than twice the number of apprenticeship starts, but that situation has now been turned on its head, and the latest figures show that there are almost three times as many apprenticeship starts in the city as there are young unemployed. Does the Prime Minister agree that his plan to create a million further apprenticeships can help us to eliminate youth unemployment?

[The Prime Minister]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Our ambition is to eliminate youth unemployment by making it clear that it is no longer an option to leave home, claim housing benefit and sign on to jobseeker’s allowance when there could be the chance of a job or apprenticeship or some training, and we are certainly committed to helping in every way we can in Worcester. I note that those on the Labour Front Bench, including the shadow Business Secretary, do not even know where Worcester is—he referred to it in a radio interview as Wichita. I think he has been overdoing the country music and needs to get in touch with his inner Worcester woman.

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

Q13. The Prime Minister will, I am sure, agree that the regulatory structure around hydraulic fracturing needs to be scientifically robust. With that in mind, can he explain why in the other place his party rejected amendments that would ensure just that?

[The Prime Minister]

What I want to see is, obviously, a robust regulatory and environmental permissions regime, which I believe we have. I also want us to get on with recovering unconventional gas because I think the greatest proof of how safe this technology is and how good it could be for jobs and energy costs in our country is to demonstrate where it is actually working in some wells. My fear is that many in the other place, and indeed in this place, want to cover this new industry with regulation so that it simply does not go ahead.

[Sir Nick Harvey (North Devon) (LD)]

The Prime Minister will recall that film tax relief existed as a legitimate Government tax policy for 10 years from 1997. Is he aware that Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs is now effectively treating all investors from that period as tax dodgers, even those who produced genuine films and created jobs, as intended? Will he instruct Treasury Ministers to review that approach and meet a cross-party delegation of concerned MPs?

[The Prime Minister]

I am sure that we have all had constituency and other e-mails and casework about this, but I have to say that every time I ask the Treasury about it, it is very clear that the things that are being investigated are abuses and were known to be abuses at the time when people entered into them. I want low tax rates, but tax rates that people actually pay; and where schemes are being used for avoidance, we should be very swift in closing them down.

[Mr Steve Reed (Croydon North) (Lab)]

Q14. The National Audit Office blames a lack of co- ordination across three Departments for the Government’s failure to deport hundreds of foreign criminals, many of them highly dangerous, so where does the buck stop: with the Home Secretary, the Foreign Secretary, the Justice Secretary, or the Prime Minister himself?

[The Prime Minister]

The buck absolutely stops with me; I am very clear about that. I think the NAO has produced a very good report on a difficult issue that we need to get right. We have deported 22,000 foreign national offenders since I became Prime Minister. The report is very clear that since 2013 for the first time we have got a proper cross-Government strategy to deal with this, but it also goes into quite a lot of detail about how there are still too many obstacles in terms of human rights legislation that we need to change. What we have seen from the Government this week is that we are now able to deport people first and they can appeal once they have gone back to their country of origin; and we are reducing the number of appeal routes from 17 routes, which were there under Labour, to just four. We are making progress. The buck stops with me, but I wouldn’t mind a bit of cross-party support for the actions we need to take.

[Dr Julian Huppert (Cambridge) (LD)]

Q15. Will the Prime Minister join me in welcoming the fact that the £800 million contract for older people’s services in Cambridgeshire was awarded to the NHS bidder, in stark contrast to the billion-pound privatisation of Hinchingbrooke hospital tendered by the last Government, who did not even have an NHS bidder in the final five?

[The Prime Minister]

My hon. Friend makes an important point, which is that we want to see an expansion of NHS services. The Labour party claims there is some sort of secret agenda to privatise, but that was the case under the last Labour Government—they fattened up contracts and insisted on only private providers. Under this Government, the NHS is being properly run by those who are clinicians, and they make decisions about the future of our health service.

[Mr David Anderson (Blaydon) (Lab)]

When the Prime Minister was in opposition he always lectured Labour on transparency. May I ask him when he is going to shine a light on the men who were fitted up and jailed in 1973 for the national builders strike? Will he release the papers relating to that case? If he will not, what has the Tory party got to hide?

[The Prime Minister]

I have not looked at this case previously, but I am very happy to take away what the hon. Gentleman has said and look at it. Actually, over recent years we have shortened the period during which papers remain secret, and have released more and more papers. I am very happy to look at the case he raises.

[Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con)]

I have recently been campaigning a lot in East Northamptonshire with the excellent Conservative candidate for Corby, Tom Pursglove. The No. 1 issue on the doorstep is EU migration. Last year, 214,000 people came to this country from the EU. That is not sustainable. What can be done about that?

[The Prime Minister]

My hon. Friend, and the candidate to whom he rightly refers, is absolutely right that we need to get a grip on immigration—wherever it is coming from. This Government have made very big steps forward, closing down 700 bogus colleges. For the first time, we have had an economic cap on migration from outside the EU, and a whole series of rules coming in about benefit claimants, abuse and all those issues. [Interruption.] But I am convinced that there is more we need to do. I do not think the British public are being unreasonable about this. They want control over—[Interruption.] The shadow Chancellor keeps shouting . Let us remember who it was who said we needed to send out search parties to find more immigrants. Let us remember who it was who delivered completely uncontrolled immigration. It was the Labour party and the shadow Chancellor.

On a happier note, I am sure that the whole House will want to unite and congratulate the former Clerk Sir Robert Rogers on his well-deserved peerage.

[Hon. Members]

Hear, hear.

[Fiona Mactaggart (Slough) (Lab)]

My constituents, British citizens Mr and Mrs Mahmood, have been living in Sierra Leone for the last five years. Unsurprisingly, when Ebola spread, they spent their savings coming back to Slough. I have been trying since the beginning of this month to get them some financial support here, and I have failed, despite a promise by the Health Secretary to get a response to me, because they have been rejected on the grounds that they are not habitually resident here. I threatened to raise this issue in this Question Time, and as a result, at 11.59 today I got a reply saying that they would get no support from the Department for Work and Pensions. What is the Prime Minister going to do about people who are fleeing Ebola to come back to the country of their nationality, and who have no resources?

[The Prime Minister]

I am very happy to look at the case the hon. Lady mentions—it must be absolutely terrifying for people who are British citizens, who have a right to come here, and who have fled that country because of all the things that are happening. I am very clear that our first responsibility is to help tackle Ebola at source, in west Africa, and I think it fair to say that Britain is doing more than any other country—barring perhaps the United States—in marshalling resources, troops, health care professionals, training facilities and beds. But I will look very carefully at the decision made at 11.59 today in respect of the hon. Lady’s constituents and see what can be done.

Petition

Wednesday 22nd October 2014 Commons Chamber

Chris Skidmore (Kingswood) (Con)

- Hansard - - Excerpts

I rise to present a petition from the residents of the Kingswood constituency.

The petition states:

The Petition of residents of the Kingswood constituency,

Declares that Cossham Hospital, having previously been threatened with closure, has now received a £20 million refurbishment with a range of new healthcare facilities; further that a Minor Injuries Unit which was pledged as part of the Bristol Health Services plan has yet to be installed; further that the Member for Kingswood has already raised this matter on several occasions in the House of Commons calling for a Minor Injuries Unit to be installed and has collected a petition of over 2,500 signatures calling for the same; and further that the Petitioners support the determination of the Save Cossham Hospital Group who have campaigned for a Minor Injuries Unit.

The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Government to call upon local NHS healthcare managers to honour the pledge made to local people in Kingswood to install a Minor Injuries Unit at Cossham Hospital as soon as possible.

And your Petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray.

[P001391]

Foreign National Offenders (Removal)

Wednesday 22nd October 2014 Commons Chamber

12:34

[Yvette Cooper (Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford) (Lab)]

(Urgent Question): To ask the Home Secretary about the removal of foreign national offenders.

[The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mrs Theresa May)]

I am grateful to the National Audit Office for its report on managing and removing foreign national offenders. As the report makes clear, this problem has beset successive Governments. Let me begin by being clear that foreign nationals who abuse our hospitality by committing crime in this country should be in no doubt of our determination to remove them from it. We removed more than 5,000 foreign criminals from the UK last year, and have removed 22,000 since 2010. I also want to make it plain that, as in many other areas, it falls to this Government to tackle the problems of the past. Quite simply, the Home Office did not prioritise the removal of foreign national offenders before 2005.

It will take time to fix the problems that we inherited. Chief among them, as the NAO report makes clear, are the legal barriers that we face. The countless appeals and re-appeals that have been lodged by criminals attempting to cheat the system cost us all money and are an affront to British justice. That is why we passed the Immigration Act 2014 to clamp down on that abuse. New powers from the Act came into force this week to cut the number of grounds on which criminals can appeal their deportation, from 17 to four, and to end the appeals conveyor belt in the courts. From this week, criminals can no longer appeal against a decision that their deportation is conducive to the public good.

These reforms build on other measures that we introduced in the summer, which are already speeding up the deportation process. In July we introduced new powers to stop criminals using family life arguments to delay their deportation. We have also changed the law so that, where there is no risk of serious irreversible harm, foreign criminals will be deported first and have their appeal heard later. For those who do have an appeal right, they will be able to appeal only once. These new powers are radically reforming the deportation process, rebalancing human rights laws in favour of the British public rather than the criminal.

We are also pursuing joint working between the police and immigration enforcement. Operation Nexus has helped us to remove more than 2,500 foreign nationals during its first two years, including 150 dangerous immigration offenders considered by the police to represent a particularly serious threat. Alongside tougher crime-fighting measures, improved protection at the border and greater collaboration between police and immigration enforcement officers, the Immigration Act is helping us to deliver an immigration system that is fair to the people of this country and legitimate immigrants, and tough on those who flout the rules. The Home Office will look at the NAO’s recommendations carefully and work with the other agencies involved as we continue to build that system.

[Yvette Cooper]

When people come to Britain, they should abide by the law, and the whole House wants to see foreign criminals being deported. The Prime Minister told us that more of them would be, and promised that that was a major priority for his Government. Instead, fewer foreign criminals are being deported each year than was the case in 2010. There were 375 fewer deportations, a drop of 7%, and fewer deportation orders are being served; there has been a drop of 6% since 2010.

It is no good blaming appeals and human rights. The National Audit Office has found that more than a third of failed removals were the result of factors within the Home Office’s control. They include failures to fill in the forms, failures to get the necessary papers and even failures to book the plane tickets that were needed. It is no good blaming the last Government either, because the NAO audit of this Government’s action plan has found poor use of IT, a lack of communication, failure to use the powers available, cumbersome and slow referral processes, inefficiency in processing, over-complicated arrangements and an action plan that it says

“lacks a sufficiently joined-up and structured approach.”

Nearly 40% of cases had avoidable processing delays.

More foreign criminals have disappeared, too. About 190 absconded last year, and there has been a 6% increase since 2010, yet according to the NAO report, there are only 11 staff working on 700 cases, 10 of whom are very junior. Why does the Home Secretary have so few staff working on such important cases? Will she publish the details of the crimes that those 190 people committed?

The NAO also says that we have worse systems than other European countries for preventing foreign criminals from coming in in the first place. The warnings index has not been modernised, and we are one of only four countries in the European economic area that is still not part of the Schengen information system. Our joining it was delayed because of the Home Secretary’s decision to exercise the opt-out on co-operation with Europe and because she is faffing around with her Back Benchers over opting in and opting out. This is putting border security at risk.

The Government are simply not doing enough. Let us take the case of the convicted killer Rohan Murdock who was able to stay in this country in 2012 because, in the judge’s words, the Home Secretary did not “put up a fight”. So it is no good blaming the past or the others; she has been Home Secretary for four and a half years. The system is still failing on her watch and fewer foreign criminals are being deported than when she started. The tough talk is simply not enough. When will she start putting up the real fight we need to get more, not fewer, foreign criminals deported back home?

[Mrs May]

I have to say to the right hon. Lady that that is a staggering response from the representative of a political party that is still debating whether it even needs to respond to the public’s concerns about immigration. I am sorry that she adopted the tone she did. This is a serious subject and we need to recognise and accept the challenges and respond to them. But the NAO report makes it clear, as I said in my opening statement, that this is a long-standing problem—her party did not face up to it when it was in power.

The report also makes it clear that, unlike the Labour party, we have a plan to deal with the problem, and that plan is working. We have removed 22,000 foreign national offenders since 2010. The NAO report makes it clear that the time taken to deport FNOs is reducing. It notes that the number of removals increased by 12% over the past two years,

“largely because of a change in the Department’s approach to deportation”.

It praises Operation Nexus—the work between the police and the immigration enforcement command—which has helped us to remove more than 2,500 foreign nationals in its first two years. We are the first Government to adopt a cross-government strategy on dealing with foreign national offenders. We want to increase the number of removals, reduce the number of foreign offenders in the UK and tackle the barriers standing in our way. Again, the NAO recognises that removing foreign national offenders

“continues to be inherently difficult”.

The report makes it clear that our efforts have been “hampered” by a “range of barriers”, including the law.

The main problem we face is the rise of litigation; we have seen a 28% increase in the number of appeals. That is why we have made the changes that I have set out in the Immigration Act to cut the number of appeals and why we have made it possible for someone to be deported before they can appeal. Those are the most significant changes to deportation appeals since 1971 and far more than we ever saw from the Labour party when it was in power for 13 years. But those things can take us only so far and we are also faced with the impact of the human rights legislation passed by the right hon. Lady’s Government. Only the Conservatives want to scrap the Human Rights Act and fix our relationship with the European Court of Human Rights, which is why we need a majority Conservative Government.

I do recognise that we face challenges and that we have some issues relating to processes to address. That is why I scrapped the UK Border Agency—Labour’s creation—and since then we have seen a change in the attitude being taken by immigration enforcement. But we will not turn these things around overnight. We have expressed our desire to rejoin the Schengen information system, because it can be a tool we can use in dealing with these FNOs. But we have moved on from the days before 2009 when, under the previous Labour Government, there was no mechanism to trace absconders—there is now a team to do that.

I have to say to the right hon. Lady that if she is going to take on an immigration issue, she really needs to look at her party’s record before she does so. Her party opened the floodgates; her party sent out the search parties and said there was no obvious limit to immigration; and her party passed the human rights legislation that made it difficult to deport foreign criminals. The Opposition still will not say that the level of immigration is too high, they still will not say it has to come down and they still defend the Human Rights Act. Perhaps when she says sorry for those things, the public might start to listen to her.

[Philip Davies (Shipley) (Con)]

Is it not common sense that a foreign national should not be released from prison until they can be taken straight to an airport and deported? If any law, such as the Human Rights Act, is preventing that from happening, may I suggest that the Home Secretary comes forward with the necessary legislation and dares the other parties to vote down something that is such common sense to the British people? Is it not also time we started fingerprinting and taking the DNA of foreign nationals who want to enter this great country? Surely that is a small price for them to pay in order to keep people in this country safe from criminals.

[Mrs May]

My hon. Friend is always willing to come forward with practical proposals on this matter. Steps have been taken to deal with those who would otherwise be released from prison, and to ensure that foreign national offenders who are subject to deportation orders are not being released into open conditions. On occasion, immigration judges do release foreign national offenders into the community, and release them on bail, so it is not simply a question of what is happening in relation to people who are in our prisons already. I recognise my hon. Friend’s concern and say that we will continue to look at the measures that we can take to improve our ability to deport these foreign criminals.

[Keith Vaz (Leicester East) (Lab)]

The Home Secretary is right that successive Governments have failed to get a grip of this complex issue, but will she look at some of the Select Committee’s recommendations? For example, when a foreign national is arrested, their records should be checked by the Association of Chief Police Officers’ Criminal Records Office. Fewer than half are currently being checked. On sentence, an e-mail should be sent to the Home Office from the courts; it should not be a fax that is put on the records manually. Finally, the warnings index is just not fit for purpose. We need to sign up to one or two of the databases that will allow us to know who is entering our country, so that we can, if necessary, prevent them from coming here in the first place. Will she please consider those sensible recommendations, which we have made in the past?

[Mrs May]

I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for his points. The Home Affairs Committee has considered this issue on a number of occasions and has taken it very seriously, and we look at the proposals that it makes. Next month the Met will be introducing the full checks against the ACPO Criminal Records Office, so action is being taken in that area. Of course it is under this Government that the links between immigration enforcement and, initially, the Metropolitan police through Operation Nexus were put in place, and that has meant that we have seen more than 2,000 foreign criminals being removed from this country. Operation Nexus has expanded into other parts of the country, and I hope that we see it expanding throughout the United Kingdom. In relation to stopping people coming here in the first place, we have been working on agreements with other countries. Membership of the European Criminal Records Information System, which has been part of the 2014 debate and is one of those areas that we wish to opt back into, is an important part of the process.

[Sir William Cash (Stone) (Con)]

The Home Secretary is completely right in saying that there are inherent problems in the law, and also that the whole matter is very challenging. I am glad to note that the repeal of the Human Rights Act is now being reintroduced, having pushed it through when I was shadow Attorney-General in the years 2001-03. Will the Home Secretary please acknowledge that an even bigger problem is the Charter of Fundamental Rights, which is enforceable by the European Court of Justice? The other day, the European Scrutiny Committee said that the only way to deal with these problems in the European Communities Act 1972 is to amend it. If we do not do that, we will end up having continuing legal problems of the kind she has identified and no solution.

[Mrs May]

My hon. Friend makes a point that he has made on a number of occasions on the Charter of Fundamental Human Rights. I am afraid that he will not get a different response now from that which he has had either from me or other Ministers in the past. The Government believe that amending it will not change the position. He refers to the Human Rights Act and as shadow Attorney-General he did work on this matter. Repealing the charter was a Conservative party manifesto commitment before the last election, and that will be repeated as we move forward to the next election.

[Mr Jack Straw (Blackburn) (Lab)]

May I remind the Home Secretary that, although it is true for certain that we did introduce the Human Rights Act, the Conservative Opposition—she was in the House at the time I think—supported that Act on Third Reading and wished it well. The Conservatives may have had second thoughts since then. Secondly, notwithstanding the Human Rights Act, the numbers of people now being deported, as the National Audit Office report makes clear, have gone down, not up on her watch. How does she explain that, notwithstanding the fact that there has been a ninefold increase, from 100 to 900, in staff working on this issue?

[Mrs May]

I have acknowledged that we need to do more in this area, but one cannot look at what has happened over the past few years without considering the increasing number of appeals. A 28% increase in appeals means a significant delay in the ability of the authorities to deal with many of these cases and deport the individuals. Under this Government, we are changing that and, as I said earlier, this week the measure in the Immigration Act that reduces the grounds for appeals from 17 to four has kicked in. I am sure that will have a real impact on our ability to deport people and to deport them more quickly.

[Angie Bray (Ealing Central and Acton) (Con)]

I am sure that my right hon. Friend will not be surprised to discover that many of my constituents were deeply shocked when they learned that they had been living close to a convicted murderer, a Latvian builder who had come to live in this country. That all came to light during the tragic search for the murdered schoolgirl, Alice Gross, and Mr Arnis Zalkalns has now been found hanged. Nobody knew about his background, not even the police, which must surely be unacceptable. What will be done to improve information sharing so that people are aware of such backgrounds? Is it right that people with a murder conviction are free to come and live in our country in such a way?

[Mrs May]

My hon. Friend raises an important issue and I know that it affects not only her constituents but others who are concerned about such cases. Our thoughts continue to be with Alice Gross’s family after the appalling tragedy that occurred. We are making efforts to ensure that we can get better information about people who come to this country and that we can exchange information to enable us to take action before people come here. We have some arrangements already to identify people of interest entering the UK and, obviously, passengers are checked against certain watch lists. When the UK is made aware of foreign offending, Border Force officers can take action to use that information to exercise their powers to refuse entry. We have been one of the biggest users of the European criminal records information system and we are scheduled under the opt-in proposals to connect to the second-generation Schengen information system, SIS II, which will further strengthen our ability to detect foreign criminals at the border, especially those who are the subjects of European arrest warrants. We are also driving other efforts across Europe to ensure that other countries participate, that we can get those criminal records and that we can take appropriate action that protects the British public.

[Mrs Sharon Hodgson (Washington and Sunderland West) (Lab)]

According to the report, the Government have spent £167,000 on each and every foreign criminal they have managed to deport. Why has it taken the National Audit Office to quantify that spending and what will the Home Secretary do to ensure that taxpayers’ money is spent more effectively?

[Mrs May]

Of course we need to ensure that taxpayers’ money is being spent effectively, but the taxpayers’ money that is being spent on these individuals is spent through police arresting them, through the criminal justice system taking them through the courts and through putting them in prison. I think that taxpayers would think that charging, prosecuting and imprisoning people was a good use of their money.

[Mr Dominic Grieve (Beaconsfield) (Con)]

Does my right hon. Friend agree that the National Audit Office report highlights a number of different causes for the failure to deport and that there is no doubt that the Immigration Act, which she passed through this House, ought to make a significant impact on many aspects of that, particularly in relation to challenges and appeals? Will she undertake to give the House some updates as we come into the spring on how well that is operating in changing things? May I recommend that in doing that she should reflect carefully on whether the manifesto pledge contained in the Conservative party document published at the last party conference is worth pursuing? I must say to her that I think that it will prove singularly ineffective in reaching the further objectives that some people have suggested it might achieve.

[Mrs May]

I thank my right hon. and learned Friend for his comments. He is absolutely right: I believe the Immigration Act will make a difference. The reduction in the number of appeals only kicked in this week, but since July there have been 100 cases of people being removed under the non-suspensive appeals ruling in the Immigration Act, which means that we have been able to deport them before they have a right of appeal in the UK. They have a right of appeal, but it will be from outside the United Kingdom.

On the other matter that my right hon. and learned Friend raises, we have obviously set out proposals to change our relationship with the European Court of Human Rights. I have been very clear all along that no option should have been off the table, including coming out of the European convention, if that is what it took to restore the situation. We have made proposals that we expect will deal with the relationship with the European Court, which is a crucial issue for not just the Home Office but the British public.

[Dr William McCrea (South Antrim) (DUP)]

Home Secretary, when I go into a restaurant for a steak, it is known where the animal was born, what field it grazed in, what other cattle it grazed with, every time it was moved and who killed it. If such traceability is possible for cattle, how is it that this country cannot trace hundreds of dangerous criminals who should have been deported years ago? Does the Home Secretary really feel and understand the frustration felt out there in the community?

[Mrs May]

Of course I understand people’s frustration on the issue. It is this Government who have put in place a specific team, for the first time, to trail and find those absconders and it has been successful in two thirds of the cases it has dealt with. Obviously, we want that to improve but at least we have taken that step.

[Dr Julian Huppert (Cambridge) (LD)]

Paragraph 3.19 of the NAO report talks about the benefits of the EU prisoner transfer agreement. The Ministry of Justice estimates that there will be a further 4,500 removals and £110 million saved. Does the Home Secretary agree that such close working with the European Union is an essential part of what we have to do to deal with the problem and that people who would like to walk away from the European Union will make it much harder?

[Mrs May]

The prisoner transfer agreements are an important element of dealing with the issue. As my hon. Friend will know, there are still some countries in which we need to finalise the agreements and their approach. The prisoner transfer agreement is an important step and a useful tool and that is why it was one of the measures on the list of those to which we wanted to opt back in.

[Tom Greatrex (Rutherglen and Hamilton West) (Lab/Co-op)]

My constituent Elsie Giudici’s son was murdered in the most brutal way by a foreign national in his property in Scotland last summer. His mother has contacted me, concerned that it later transpired that the foreign national had a lengthy history of serious violent crime in his own country. The Home Secretary said that this is a serious issue and I believe that it is. The NAO report states:

“Current information held in the UK on foreign nationals who have committed…crimes in their own countries is less complete than most European countries.”

Will she therefore please explain why that is the case and why, four and a half years after she took office, the situation has not improved?

[Mrs May]

Absolutely. That was a serious and terrible case and our thoughts are with the hon. Gentleman’s constituent. We want to ensure that we have the maximum information available on which to act in relation to those with a violent history who try to come into this country and to ensure that we act properly to remove foreign national offenders. Our ability to do that will be improved by tools such as the Schengen information system, which is already being used by other European nations. We have said that we want to be able to opt back in to the system and to start to use it, which we have not been able to do up until this point.

[Jackie Doyle-Price (Thurrock) (Con)]

The report highlights the case of a sex offender convicted in 2000 as an overstayer who, far from being deported, was given indefinite leave to remain in the country in 2005. The offender is still in the country because of the appeals process that my right hon. Friend has documented. Can she give me an assurance that under this Government people who have been convicted will not then be given indefinite leave to remain?

[Mrs May]

We obviously want a process in which it is possible to deport such people quickly, and that is part of reducing the number of appeals and introducing what are called non-suspensive appeals, which mean that, except in certain circumstances, we can deport them first and they have to appeal from the country to which they have returned. If we can get the system as we intend it to be, people will be removed more quickly. One problem in the past was that people not only made many appeals but stayed in the country for so long that they built up other rights under the then immigration system. That is what we are trying to change.

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

Will the Home Secretary amplify her response to my right hon. Friend the Member for Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford (Yvette Cooper)? Given that the NAO report states that 36% of failed removals in 2013-14 were the result of factors considered by the Department to be within its control, I do not think that her previous answer will suffice.

[Mrs May]

The number of people whom it has not been possible to remove in any particular year is the result of a whole range of issues, and I have to say to the hon. Lady that I have recognised over the years that a change has been needed in the way we deal with those issues. That is precisely why I abolished the UK Border Agency and created the immigration enforcement command within the Home Office. I fully accept that there is more work to do, for example on the links between the Home Office, the courts and the prison system, to ensure that information flows are absolutely up to date so that action can be taken at the appropriate time.

[Michael Ellis (Northampton North) (Con)]

Is it not right that on this, as on so many other matters, we are clearing up Labour’s mess? After all, we got rid of Abu Hamza and Abu Qatada where Labour failed to do so. Is it not also right—I know this as a lawyer—that we got rid of the 17 routes of appeal that Labour established, thereby feeding the legal process? We would also like to get rid of the Human Rights Act, another Labour creation that is causing much of the problem.

[Mrs May]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. We have had to deal with the system we inherited. We have made significant changes to it, which are already starting to show progress, and I am sure we will see considerable progress in future as a result of further changes we have made, particularly on the legal side, as he indicates, such as reducing the number of routes of appeal from 17 to four.

[Paul Flynn (Newport West) (Lab)]

Does the Home Secretary not realise that the report states that more than one in three of the failures to deport are the result of failures within her Department? The Government have been in control for four and a half years now. Can she tell us the precise date when they will stop blaming the previous Labour Government, or the next Labour Government, and take responsibility for this ineptocracy of their own creation?

[Mrs May]

The hon. Gentleman might like to note that the report states that over the past two years removals have increased

“largely because of a change in the Department’s approach to deportation…following concerted caseworking efforts and a change in the Department’s approach…to ensure that all FNOs are considered by a central team for removal, not just those who met the deportation criteria.”

We are taking action. As I have just said, we will continue to look at what more we can do to carry on making progress and ensure that we deal with the challenges we face.

[David Rutley (Macclesfield) (Con)]

It is interesting to note the lack of interest from Labour Members in their own urgent question. I welcome the increase in the number of foreign national offenders deported since 2011-12. Will my right hon. Friend confirm that under the new powers in the Immigration Act there will be a reduction in the number of appeals and that many more people will be removed in the months ahead?

[Mrs May]

My hon. Friend puts his finger on one of the key points: the number of appeals that have led to delays in deportation until now. We are reducing the number of routes of appeal significantly, from 17 to four. We have also introduced the ability to deport people before they appeal so that they are out of the country when they do. As I said in answer to my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Beaconsfield (Mr Grieve), there have been 100 removals prior to appeal as a result of that change in the system.

[Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Con)]

When a foreign national approaches the immigration desk at a point of entry into our country, if a message flashes up on the immigration officer’s screen stating, “This person is of interest to us or is a foreign criminal”, does that officer have any more power to stop that person, or even to deport them, under the current law?

[Mrs May]

When certain information about an individual is available, the systems in place at the border enable UK Border Force officers to stop them entering the country. What is crucial, of course, is that we have a proper exchange of information with other countries on the criminal records of individuals so that we can act on it.

[Henry Smith (Crawley) (Con)]

Can the Home Secretary confirm that approximately 400 of the missing foreign criminals arrived in the country under the previous Labour Government?

[Mrs May]

It is certainly true that a number of cases still in the system predate this Government’s coming to power in 2010, but we continue to work on those cases, as we do on the most recent ones.

[Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con)]

My constituents cannot understand why someone who comes to this country and commits an offence that requires imprisonment is not automatically deported. It is true that things were a mess under Labour, but it is not good enough to say that we are tweaking the system; we have to get to grips with the problem. Why not just deport these people and worry about what the European Court says afterwards?

[Mrs May]

One of the changes we have made in the Immigration Act is to give us the power to deport people before they appeal, except in certain circumstances where to do so would lead to serious and irreversible harm, and I think that goes straight to the heart of what my hon. Friend is saying. However, there are cases where it is genuinely difficult to deport somebody because of lack of documentation, difficulties in being absolutely clear about their nationality, or problems with the country to which we wish to deport them actually accepting them.

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

Some of the higher profile cases in my constituency, particularly in Goole, relate to people who came here under the previous Labour Government’s policy of unlimited immigration from EU accession states. What I and my constituents cannot understand is how any EU national who has a criminal record can get here in the first place, or how they can remain here once they commit an offence. Is it not time that these ridiculous rules on the free movement of labour were torn up so that the system works for British people and my constituents?

[Mrs May]

I will make two points in response to my hon. Friend. First, in relation to dealing with those from the EU who have committed criminal offences, being able to exchange information and know who they are is one of the first steps. That is why the Government have said that we want to rejoin the European criminal records information system and connect to SIS II so that we have that information at the border and can act on it. Secondly, he is absolutely right that the whole issue of free movement, as the Prime Minister said earlier, is one that we feel we need to address. It is something we have been dealing with over the past four and a half years in Europe. We have made some progress in relation to criminal activity, such as sham marriages and so forth, but abuse of free movement is something we need to deal with.

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

The Home Secretary is being incredibly generous to the Opposition. May I ask her to take herself back to her first days in office and clarify for the House just what a mess she inherited and had to work to sort out?

[Mrs May]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. That is exactly the point I was making earlier. Labour has so far refused to apologise for the mess they left on immigration: the fact that they sent out “search parties”; that they have never said that the number of people who came into this country over their period in government was too high; and that we inherited a system in the UK Border Agency that needed radical change. It is no good them just carping about one or two things now. Until they say sorry for what they did, nobody will listen to them.

Bill Presented

Electronic Cigarettes (Advertising and Legal Age of Purchase) Bill

Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)

Geraint Davies, supported by Nia Griffith, Mrs Siân C. James, Sir Alan Meale, Jonathan Edwards, Chris Evans and Liz McInnes, presented a Bill to prohibit the advertising of electronic cigarettes; to prohibit the sale of electronic cigarettes to persons under the age of 18; and for connected purposes.

Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 16 January 2015, and to be printed (Bill 107).

Blood Donation (Equality)

Wednesday 22nd October 2014 Commons Chamber

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

13:09

[Michael Fabricant (Lichfield) (Con)]

I beg to move,

That leave be given to bring in a Bill to allow donation of blood by all male donors on the same basis; and for connected purposes.

Sometimes, Mr Speaker, you just know when something is wrong; when something does not make sense; when something is not fair. How can it be logical that a straight, promiscuous man who might have different partners every night of the year can donate blood, while a gay man in a monogamous, loving relationship cannot, unless he has certified that he has been totally celibate for the past year? How can a nation that has just passed the Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Act 2013 block those same people from donating blood? It used to be even worse. Gay people were banned altogether until the intervention of my hon. Friend the Member for Guildford (Anne Milton), who is in her place, and who, when a Health Minister, rolled back the rules. I pay tribute to her for that. She deserves to be, and indeed is, a gay icon.

Each day in England, about 8,000 people donate blood in hospitals, in blood donation trucks, and even here in the Palace of Westminster. Those in this House who have donated will know that it is a relatively quick process—and if they have been a brave little boy like me, they might even get a sticker from the nurse! It is a truly special act, and our NHS relies on it in order to help people in emergencies, those being treated for some cancers, and those who have liver disease, as well as those suffering from many other illnesses that can be treated only through the generosity of others.

However, there are shortages. Of the eight blood groups, some are much rarer than others, and stocks are extremely low. Indeed, a friend of mine regularly and safely donates relatively rare type O rhesus negative blood, which is badly needed. But he has to tell a lie in order to do so. Safety must be the main issue above all others: safety for patients receiving blood and safety too for those donating blood. Nothing in this Bill should jeopardise that, and that is why it has cross-party support from Labour, Liberal Democrat and Plaid Cymru colleagues, as well as those from my own Conservative party.

Perhaps at this stage it is important to reflect on the historical reasons for our current regulations on gay blood donation. In the early 1980s, when doctors first recognised the connection between blood contamination and the newly discovered so-called gay plague, AIDS, an instant ban was placed on blood donors who were in high-risk categories, such as those who shared needles, those who visited prostitutes and, of course, the gay community—and that was right. Others too, such as people who have visited sub-Saharan Africa, were considered to be at high risk. Most of those categories remain in place to this day.

Many in this House will remember those days when AIDS was a killer without treatment. It had an even higher fatality rate than Ebola has today. It was a killer without mercy. I know what it was like. A young friend of mine in his early 30s, once fit and active, died in 1992 from this awful disease. Thankfully, times have moved on. Today, HIV/AIDS is labelled as a chronic illness and is no longer the killer it once was. Huge advances in medicine and treatments mean that a diagnosis is not a death sentence, but something that can be managed.

More relevant to this Bill, screening is highly efficient and quick. Detection of HIV/AIDS can be made within weeks, and accuracy is near perfect. AIDS and HIV are not the only problems faced when looking at gay blood donation. Hepatitis B also tends to affect the gay community more than other groups and is transmitted in a similar way to HIV. Detection also takes longer—months rather than weeks. With this evidence, I am not arguing that potential gay blood donors pose no risk to the blood pool in 2014. My argument is one of simple logic. If a monogamous, healthy, sexually active gay man has been tested and has neither HIV/AIDS nor hepatitis B, and is not having sex with anyone with HIV/AIDS or hepatitis B, why should he be prevented from donating blood?

During the summer, when I first made my argument for what I call equal blood, I listened to a number of medical professionals explain the dangers of generally lifting the gay blood ban, but there was not a single argument against the simple logic that I have just set out. Logic applies to medicine just as it does to any science. In Europe, four countries have no restrictions whatsoever on gays donating blood, as in several states of the United States, but that is not exactly what I am advocating. AIDS, HIV, and hepatitis B are all still major concerns in relation to blood donation, but I want equal rules to apply to both the straight and the gay communities. If we are to require gay men to be healthy, and to have sex only with other men who have been tested and shown to be healthy before they can give blood, surely that should apply to straight men and women too. We have a shortage of blood donors. Rules that ban those who are healthy, and who clearly pose no more risk than the average straight person, do not make any sense. It is time that this issue is finally addressed by the Government.

I am extremely proud that it was this Government who introduced and legislated on equal marriage. That legislation has made a huge difference to the lives and happiness of many couples. I now hope that, on the same logic, the Government will follow suit on equal blood. An expert medical and scientific committee, independent of the national blood transfusion service, should look at this again, taking scientific evidence from other countries which, on this matter, are now ahead of our own. I hope that its findings will enable even more people to donate blood safely for all, building up our blood reserves in order to save lives and to sustain a very precious lifeline to those most in need. This should also be done because, yes, it is the right thing to do.

Question put and agreed to.

Ordered,

That Michael Fabricant, Sir Tony Baldry, Keith Vaz, Sir John Randall, Tim Farron, Ann Clwyd, Jonathan Edwards, Jim Fitzpatrick, Mr Nigel Evans, Duncan Hames, Steve Baker and Mr Aidan Burley present the Bill.

Michael Fabricant accordingly presented the Bill.

Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 6 March 2015 and to be printed (Bill 104).

Opposition Day

Wednesday 22nd October 2014 Commons Chamber

[7th Allotted Day]

National Crime Agency

Wednesday 22nd October 2014 Commons Chamber

[Relevant documents: Oral evidence taken before the Home Affairs Committee on 14 October 2014, on the work of the National Crime Agency, HC 688. Written evidence to the Home Affairs Committee, on the work of the National Crime Agency, reported to the House on 14 October 2014, HC 688.]

13:18

[Mr Gregory Campbell (East Londonderry) (DUP)]

I beg to move,

That this House condemns the increasing number of illegal activities being carried out by organised criminal gangs in Northern Ireland; notes police assessments that more than 140 such gangs operate in Northern Ireland; and calls for the implementation, in full, of proposals for the National Crime Agency to help deal with this problem, which is particularly prevalent in border areas.

This is an extremely important debate given the context of criminal activity right across the United Kingdom, but particularly in Northern Ireland. In recent months, the police in Northern Ireland have given their assessment that there are between 140 and 160 criminal gangs operating in the Province. The police have also indicated that they would like the utmost co-operation right across the community in dealing with these criminal gangs and attempting not just to stop and stifle their activities but to seize any proceeds from their illegal activities.

Last year the Police Service of Northern Ireland stated:

“It is the PSNI view that if the NCA is unable to operate fully in Northern Ireland, this will have a detrimental impact on our ability to keep people safe…It remains our view that the NCA should only work in Northern Ireland alongside the PSNI, so that operational control ultimately remains with the Chief Constable and nothing proceeds without agreement. There must be complete transparency for PSNI of the NCA’s intelligence, investigations and operational activity. Through such arrangements, the Chief Constable can be held accountable for NCA operations via the Policing Board.”

My reason for quoting that statement at some length is that there have been some “concerns” in Northern Ireland about accountability measures and how they will apply to the operation of the NCA. In fact, the Social Democratic and Labour party and Sinn Fein have indicated, thus far, their lack of preparedness to endorse the NCA.

In addition to that PSNI statement, the Chief Constable has had a number of meetings with various political representatives in order to reassure them that the accountability measures needed are currently in place—he is absolutely clear about that. Therefore, given the scale of the number of criminal gangs that are operating—there are up to 160 of them—and what they could do, not just in Northern Ireland, but in the rest of the United Kingdom, one would have hoped for, and expected to see, total support for the full implementation of the NCA in order to deal with them.

[Naomi Long (Belfast East) (Alliance)]

I appreciate the fact that the hon. Gentleman has raised this matter. Does he agree that there is also a financial cost—not just for Northern Ireland, but for the UK more widely—because civil recovery has been affected by the NCA’s inability to operate fully in Northern Ireland?

[Mr Campbell]

Yes, that is indeed the case. Although that is not the primary concern, it is an additional one to that which I am about to discuss. I thank the hon. Lady for raising it.

[Lady Hermon (North Down) (Ind)]

Following on from the important point raised by the hon. Member for Belfast East (Naomi Long), given the absence of the wonderful and excellent Assets Recovery Agency, which used to operate in Northern Ireland but was, unfortunately, eaten up and extinguished by the Serious Organised Crime Agency, and given that the NCA does not apply to Northern Ireland, what powers of assets recovery do organisations, particularly the PSNI, have in Northern Ireland?

[Mr Campbell]

I thank the hon. Lady for her question. The short answer is that those powers are extremely limited; they are virtually non-existent. I will come on to some of the issues that date back to SOCA operations, which have now been superseded by the NCA.

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

The hon. Gentleman has referred to my party. The SDLP has vigorously opposed any form of criminality at every stage. Will the hon. Gentleman clarify and outline the depth and intensity of accountability he sees in respect of the Northern Ireland Policing Board and the Chief Constable?

[Mr Campbell]

I understand that the Chief Constable has had at least one—possibly even several—meetings with the SDLP and has assured it on the issue of his role and co-operation with the Policing Board by repeating what was said in the May 2013 statement that “nothing proceeds without agreement” in connection with the work of the NCA, and that the Chief Constable is

“held accountable for NCA operations via the Policing Board.”

The hon. Lady will know that members of her party and of Sinn Fein serve on the Policing Board.

[Sammy Wilson (East Antrim) (DUP)]

Does my hon. Friend not find it odd that the hon. Member for South Down (Ms Ritchie) has raised the issue of accountability for the NCA when her party signed up to policing at a time when SOCA had no degree of accountability through the Policing Board? The SDLP had no objections then, but now that we are discussing SOCA’s replacement apparently the whole issue of accountability is important.

[Mr Campbell]

I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention. The point of today’s debate is to say that, while discussions between the Chief Constable and the SDLP continue, there are 140-plus criminal gangs operating through the Republic of Ireland into Northern Ireland and the UK and smuggling not millions, but tens of millions of pounds-worth of illegal drugs. Some of that activity could be prevented by the full operation of the NCA.

[Ian Paisley (North Antrim) (DUP)]

The situation goes even further. According to the police today, there has not been one single civil recovery of a crime asset since the NCA took over, because the PSNI does not have the surge capability to do that. We are actually losing our ability to make civil recoveries.

[Mr Campbell]

I thank my hon. Friend for making that point, which is a damning indictment of those who still hold back from offering support for the full implementation of the NCA. I note from recent reports that, while meetings between the police and the SDLP continue—they do not appear to have come to a satisfactory conclusion—Sinn Fein has not responded to requests from the Department of Justice for a meeting about the issue. That is the scale of the problem we face.

[Mr David Hanson (Delyn) (Lab)]

The Bill that established the NCA received its Second Reading almost two years ago and this issue was raised by every member of the Bill Committee. Does the hon. Gentleman think that the Government have a duty of care to bring the parties and the Minister of Justice together to discuss and finalise the issue?

[Mr Campbell]

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for that question. I agree that the Government have a responsibility because, while the delay and failure to fully implement the NCA continues, our young people—not just in Northern Ireland; I will come in a moment to how far this penetrates—are suffering as a result of criminal operations.

[Mr Nigel Dodds (Belfast North) (DUP)]

Further to the point raised by the Opposition spokesman, the right hon. Member for Delyn (Mr Hanson), does my hon. Friend share my frustration that when the Government here are asked to comment on these issues, their view often seems to be, “Oh, the parties in Northern Ireland can’t get this matter sorted out”? The Library briefing paper notes that the Secretary of State has referred on a number of occasions to problems within the Northern Ireland Executive if they cannot agree. We should put the truth out there: the fact of the matter is that the vast majority of parties want to make progress, except for the two nationalist parties.

[Mr Campbell]

I thank my right hon. Friend for that intervention. Virtually every party in Northern Ireland, with the exception of the SDLP and Sinn Fein, is in favour of the full implementation of the NCA.

[Mr Andrew Robathan (South Leicestershire) (Con)]

I agree entirely with the right hon. Member for Delyn and with the hon. Member for East Londonderry (Mr Campbell). I happen to think that there are some very good people—indeed, they are my friends—in the SDLP. I may disagree with them, but generally I think they are decent people. I thought, however, that they took the Labour party Whip, so does not the Labour party have a responsibility to put a little bit of pressure on its friends?

[Mr Campbell]

I look forward to the discussions between the SDLP and the Labour party resulting in that pressure being applied. I thank the right hon. Gentleman for specifically indicating, when he was in office, where the problems were in relation to this matter. I hope that that will be repeated by those on the Government Front Bench today.

[Ms Ritchie]

In my previous intervention, I asked the hon. Gentleman to specify the level of accountability between the NCA, and the Policing Board and Chief Constable. So far, he has not specifically dealt with that request, but perhaps he will do so in his further comments.

[Mr Campbell]

I repeat what I said on the previous occasion. The Chief Constable and the Policing Board appear to be totally content with the level of accountability and co-operation that will exist. I am afraid that the onus is on those who say that there is a lack of accountability. After having been reassured that there is no such lack and after it was indicated at several meetings that there is no reason or rationale for continuing to object to or oppose the implementation of the National Crime Agency, there is an onus on those who say that to explain why it is the case.

I now want to turn to a very relevant, important and topical issue that demonstrates the nature of the problem we face. Last month, a combination of security services boarded a yacht off the Irish Republic and detained the people on it, who had up to €80 million-worth of illegal cocaine. The cocaine was bound in part for the Irish Republic, but informed sources from the Irish Republic have indicated that the vast majority of it was for the United Kingdom. Of course, as we all know, the Republic of Ireland has a land border with the United Kingdom. Part of the reason why the authorities in the Irish Republic were able to apprehend the haul successfully in international waters off their coast was the co-operation of the National Crime Agency.

As a result, I tabled a question to the Justice Minister in the Northern Ireland Assembly last month. I asked him what the response would be if a similar consignment were to arrive on our shores from Northern Ireland waters, and we endeavoured to get the same level of co-operation to ensure that it did not reach land on the North Antrim or the County Londonderry coast—[Interruption.] Or anywhere—even the South Down coast. His written answer states:

“In a situation such as that outlined in the question I would expect the PSNI to be involved. There may also be a role for the NCA, the UKBA and HMRC to play. The role of the NCA would be limited, if the operation was in Northern Ireland territorial waters, as drug operations fall into the devolved sphere.”

The Northern Ireland Justice Minister is absolutely clear that if we have another consignment that comes close to our coast like the one I mentioned—it has not been the largest such consignment—the National Crime Agency will have severe limitations in helping to deal with that haul.

[Mr Jeffrey M. Donaldson (Lagan Valley) (DUP)]

Is it not the case that if drugs of that nature land in Northern Ireland, it is not a matter just of having an effective response to organised crime, but of the young lives that are being destroyed by the paramilitary organisations that continue to act as organised gangs, including in the constituency of the hon. Member for South Down (Ms Ritchie)?

[Mr Campbell]

I thank my right hon. Friend for that point, which I want to come on to. The consequences of the failure to implement the National Crime Agency are catastrophic.

[Naomi Long]

The hon. Gentleman is being very generous in giving way. In a number of significant PSNI investigations at the moment, the key and pertinent criminal associates, their infrastructure and organisation are based outside Northern Ireland. The NCA is much better placed to take the lead on those issues because it obviously has an international reach, but it currently cannot do so. Does he agree that that not only compromises investigations in that it limits the role of the NCA, but that it stretches the PSNI’s resources at a time when they are already extensively stretched?

[Mr Campbell]

I thank the hon. Lady for that comment, which is very true. Only in the past two weeks has the Chief Constable indicated the scale of reductions in normal policing in Northern Ireland that result from the budgetary changes that he has to implement. That will further compound the issue.

Some six years ago, a consignment arrived, also via the Irish Republic, that totalled €700 million-worth of cocaine. That of course predated the National Crime Agency; it was when SOCA was in operation. I mention those drug operations for the reason given by the hon. Lady. These drugs are doing untold harm to people not just in Northern Ireland, but in the entire United Kingdom. The Republic of Ireland market would not have provided even a toehold for €700 million-worth of cocaine. The report on 7 November, when the haul was located, said that the vast bulk of the cocaine was bound for the United Kingdom market.

The problem does not just apply to a small part of the United Kingdom; it will be felt in every constituency across this United Kingdom. On the streets of our cities, young people will be sold dope or illegal substances that have come from the shores of the Irish Republic and through Northern Ireland to the GB market. There is therefore an onus on everyone, particularly the SDLP and Sinn Fein, to sign up to the implementation of the National Crime Agency. I must say that Sinn Fein may well have associates who benefit from the failure to implement the National Crime Agency. I fully accept it when the hon. Member for South Down (Ms Ritchie) says that the SDLP has no such hang-ups and no such associates, and that is all the more reason to sign up to the agency that will help to stop the problem.

[Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Con)]

What my hon. Friend has just alluded to stirs me to ask: how many of the 160 gangs operating across the border into Northern Ireland does he estimate are linked to paramilitary organisations?

[Mr Campbell]

That is a very pertinent question. When that question has been put to the police, the response has generally been, “Very many of them”, although I have not seen any figures indicating exactly how many the police believe are so linked. Many paramilitary groups have stopped their so-called politically inspired campaign and have now moved on to money laundering, illegal fuel and, of course, drug smuggling.

[Mr Donaldson]

Will my hon. Friend add the misery of human trafficking to that list? As he is aware, the Assembly passed a Bill that has put Northern Ireland ahead of the rest of the United Kingdom in tackling human trafficking, but we have a back door through which this human misery and this crime is being perpetrated. We really need all the parties to sign up to closing that back door.

[Mr Campbell]

I thank my right hon. Friend for that intervention. He is absolutely right. Just this week, the Assembly has made further progress in the implementation of that legislation. That again is an issue with which the National Crime Agency could help us.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

Further to the point that was made by the hon. Member for Beckenham (Bob Stewart), is it not fair to say that no criminal gang in Northern Ireland could operate without the say so of the paramilitaries on either side of the community?

[Mr Campbell]

It would be extremely difficult for an efficient organised criminal gang to operate in any part of Northern Ireland without at least the tacit support, acknowledgement and say so of the paramilitary groups on either side. Whether there is a specific connection, an endorsement or just an allowance for the gang to continue, that is certainly the case.

[Dr William McCrea (South Antrim) (DUP)]

Bearing in mind the seriousness of the implications of what we are discussing for all constituencies in Northern Ireland, is it not significant that the hon. Member for South Down (Ms Ritchie) has been left on her own? The hon. Member for Foyle (Mark Durkan), who is always here, and the leader of the SDLP are absent. Does that not send a message in itself?

[Mr Campbell]

I look forward to the full participation of all SDLP Members. I hope that they will appear before the conclusion of our deliberations.

To conclude, many members of the paramilitary groups, who were engaged for almost 30 years in brutality, murder, mayhem and destruction, have moved on to issues of a more financial nature, such as how they can glean their illegal and ill-gotten gains from various darker sides of society. The police are reasonably sure where and how those people operate, and are fairly confident that they can inhibit their activities. However, they can do so only when they have not just the full support of the entire community, which I am confident they have, but all the resources and manpower and womanpower they need to tackle such activity. The knowledge, expertise and information of the National Crime Agency will be a central part of that. It has knowledge of the international community and international policing. The two examples to which I have alluded are the tip of the iceberg. The €80 million last month and the €700 million six years ago were from just two operations that were apprehended. The police believe that many more operations are ongoing or have got through the net. The net needs to be tightened. The organisation that can help tighten it is the National Crime Agency.

I hope we will send a message today to peace-loving and law-abiding people in Northern Ireland and across the UK that the net is tightening. More importantly, we will send a message to the criminal gangs, the drug dealers, the human traffickers, those who break the law, those who depend on loopholes and those who depend on political parties that should know better allowing them to drive a coach and horses through those loopholes that their days are numbered.

13:43

[The Minister for Policing, Criminal Justice and Victims (Mike Penning)]

It is a privilege to speak in this debate on behalf of Her Majesty’s Government. I had hoped, given my previous role as Minister of State for Northern Ireland, that this debate would not be necessary. I am sure that all Members across the House held that hope. I have the Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland beside me and the former Minister of State for Northern Ireland, my right hon. Friend the Member for South Leicestershire (Mr Robathan), behind me. We have all worked hard to avoid getting to this position.

It is important that the tone of this debate is correct, because what we are trying to do is to protect people. I will talk about protecting people not just from terrorists, but from paedophiles. I want to protect people’s children from the abhorrent things that are going on. We have not been able to help Northern Ireland with those matters as we have other parts of the country.

I do not want to speak for too long, because the debate started slightly late owing to the urgent question and it is important that everybody who needs to speak has time to do so, particularly those who represent Northern Ireland constituencies. However, it is important that I set out, particularly for the hon. Member for South Down (Ms Ritchie), the guarantees that have been given on how the NCA would operate in Northern Ireland to ensure that it protects all the people of Northern Ireland, just as it protects everybody else in this great nation of ours.

I say strenuously that there have been huge negotiations over a protracted period. I left the Northern Ireland Office more than 18 months ago. There have been many discussions, many of them bilateral, not only within the Northern Ireland Assembly and Executive, but with Ministers in the Northern Ireland Office.

I pay tribute to the excellent job that David Ford has done. I worked closely with him when I was Minister of State for Northern Ireland. He was open and honest, and his intention is purely and simply to ensure that the people of Northern Ireland have the best police force and are safe in their homes, no matter where they come from. I also pay tribute to Matt Baggott, who was an exemplary Chief Constable. Since becoming the Minister for Policing, I have heard from other police forces around the country that people literally stand up and applaud when he walks in the room. That very often happens when any officer from the Police Force of Northern Ireland walks in. That is a tribute to the work that they do. I pay tribute to their bravery and the work that they do, just as I pay tribute to all police officers across the United Kingdom.

We have made it clear that the director general of the NCA would not be able to task the Chief Constable of the PSNI directly. We have provided that the director general of the NCA cannot be designated with the powers and privileges of a constable in Northern Ireland. We are committed to consulting the Department of Justice for Northern Ireland on the preparation of the NCA’s annual plan, so that it knows exactly what we are doing. We have provided that the Home Secretary must consult the Department of Justice for Northern Ireland before setting any strategic priorities or changing the NCA’s framework document.

The negotiations in Northern Ireland have gone much further than the Crime and Courts Act 2013. Police primacy in Northern Ireland would remain with the Police Service of Northern Ireland if the NCA operated there, and its agreement would be needed before the NCA operated. The NCA would be answerable to the Northern Ireland Policing Board. These details have been set out before, but it is important to set them out again today. When operating in Northern Ireland, the NCA would be subject to the Police Ombudsman for Northern Ireland and Criminal Justice Inspection Northern Ireland. The NCA would need the agreement of the police force prior—I stress, prior—to the use of covert techniques, such as covert human intelligence sources.

The accountability of the NCA in Northern Ireland will be completely different from that in any other part of the United Kingdom in order, understandably, to address the concerns within Northern Ireland.

[Sammy Wilson]

I thank the Minister for outlining in great detail the degree of accountability the NCA would have in Northern Ireland. Will he compare and contrast that with the scrutiny the NCA faces in other parts of the United Kingdom to illustrate just how far the Government have gone on this point?

[Mike Penning]

As I said, the way in which the NCA operates in the rest of the country is set out in the Crime and Courts Act 2013. The matters that are specific to Northern Ireland, to which I have just alluded, have come from the negotiations with the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland and the work of David Ford. That is different; those sorts of understandings are quite specific and I wanted them put on the record. The issue has been debated extensively in Northern Ireland, and I want to put any fear away once and for all in this debate and address Northern Ireland’s concerns, because those issues are specific to Northern Ireland.

[Lady Hermon]

I am grateful that the Minister—an outstanding former Minister in the Northern Ireland Office—is replying to this important debate as the Minister of State for Policing, Criminal Justice and Victims. Given the assurances that he has already outlined about the accountability of the National Crime Agency if it were to operate in Northern Ireland, does he agree with the vast majority of people in Northern Ireland that the Social Democratic and Labour party and Sinn Fein are being completely irresponsible? I apologise to the hon. Member for South Down (Ms Ritchie) for saying this, but her party has left Northern Ireland in the position of becoming a honey pot attracting drug dealers, human traffickers and criminal gangs to that part of the United Kingdom.

[Mike Penning]

I hope that during the debate I will convince the hon. Members for South Down (Ms Ritchie) and for Foyle (Mark Durkan) that the right thing to do, with the assurances that are in place, is for their constituents and the people of Northern Ireland to take this issue on board. As I continue with my remarks I will elaborate on why it is so vital to the people of Northern Ireland to have the NCA there.

[Keith Vaz (Leicester East) (Lab)]

May I re-emphasise what the hon. Members for North Down (Lady Hermon) and for East Antrim (Sammy Wilson) have said? The director general of the National Crime Agency, Keith Bristow, recently appeared before the Home Affairs Committee. We see him at most only twice a year, so the settlement in Northern Ireland is much better as far as the accountability of the NCA is concerned.

[Mike Penning]

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his comments. His lending weight to this argument is ever so important.

The continuing peace process in Northern Ireland cannot stand still; it must progress and go forward. Some political parties in the five-party coalition in the Executive have concerns, and we have heard examples of the effects of not having the NCA in its full capacity—it does operate with some capacity—in an area of the United Kingdom that has the only land border. I do not mean that criminalisation in the Republic of Ireland is different from any other part of Europe, but that the situation is fundamentally different because of our open border with the Republic.

We have heard about the number of gangs—that is the polite word for them these days—and people who come together to disrupt, corrupt and sometimes brutalise our communities, whether in England, Scotland, Northern Ireland or Wales. As has been alluded to, however, it goes further than that. Organised gangs are smuggling cigarettes or diesel—I hope the new marker works as it is important for the economy of the Province to prevent such smuggling. Where do the profits go? As a former Northern Ireland Minister, I know where some of that money goes, and it is truly frightening. As we have seen, a paramilitary organisation—it loves to call itself the new IRA, although I always found it difficult to call it that—wants to continue to disrupt the peace, and kill and maim innocent people in Northern Ireland.

[Mr Robathan]

Does my right hon. Friend think that any parties in the Northern Ireland Executive receive assistance from some of the money made from serious and organised crime?

[Mike Penning]

When I was Northern Ireland Minister I did not see any evidence of that. It was alluded to on many occasions, but I did not see any evidence. Earlier we heard about the views of some individuals, but I will not be drawn on that issue at the Dispatch Box as I do not think it will be useful to the debate.

Whether it is smuggling or old-fashioned thuggery, we know that organised crime takes place in Northern Ireland, and in many ways differently from other parts of the United Kingdom. Let me turn, however, to one area that is close to my heart. I did not manage to get to the Conservative party conference in Birmingham—the first time I have missed my party conference in many years—because I was in Washington at a conference of the global alliance against child sexual abuse online, which was about protection from paedophiles. It was, I think, the most serious event in my political career at which I have sat down, debated, and worked with other countries. We know that Operation Notarise has exposed a huge, unbelievable number of people who are willing not only to watch unbelievable images, but to participate in and help fund such abuse of children.

While at that conference, a figure was given to us by experts, I think from Canada—I think this will be the first time this figure has been mentioned in the UK—which is that 1% of the sexually active male population of the world has paedophilic tendencies. Online, this issue has affected every community in this country. Operation Notarise managed to pass to police forces around the country evidence and work from the NCA that has resulted in more than 600 people being arrested, but that did not happen in Northern Ireland. The importance of the work that the NCA does touches every family in this country. It would be able to touch every family in Northern Ireland, but it cannot at the moment.

[Mr Hanson]

I agree with the Minister about the need for Northern Ireland to be involved with the National Crime Agency on that issue. On the number of incidents of online child abuse reported to the NCA, a range of press reports have mentioned 20,000, 30,000, 40,000 or 50,000 cases. In the interests of transparency, will he help the House by detailing how many cases he believes have been given to the NCA, as well as the numbers of those who have been prosecuted?

[Mike Penning]

I think the best figure was given to the Home Affairs Committee yesterday, and a huge amount of work needs to be done. As the head of the NCA said only yesterday, it is unrealistic to say that we will be able to go after, prosecute and convict in every single case—the honesty was refreshing, but we will continue with that work. The figure given yesterday of 50,000 was not definitive. I do not know why the right hon. Gentleman is pushing the issue as that figure is public and in most of the papers today, and it is not relevant to the situation with the Northern Ireland NCA. Today’s debate covers work that is perhaps not in traditional areas, such as the gang culture, paramilitaries and so on.

I say to all political parties in Northern Ireland, and to its people whom we represent—as a member of Her Majesty’s Government, I represent everybody in that way, whether we have devolution or not—that we must look enormously carefully at what the NCA could do. Rather than looking at the problems that it might possibly cause, we should consider what is factually correct.

[Sammy Wilson]

In those last remarks, is the Minister not illustrating the point that was made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Belfast North (Mr Dodds)? This is not an issue for the people of Northern Ireland. The people of Northern Ireland want the National Crime Agency. This is not even a matter for the parties generally in Northern Ireland. It is a matter for two specific parties. Why is the Minister not willing to name them and shame them?

[Mike Penning]

As the hon. Gentleman knows, I am neither shy nor bashful in naming those who are responsible. The two political parties that have so far not agreed are the SDLP and Sinn Fein. Sinn Fein is not here. That is its choice, at the end of the day. I hope that the SDLP, in response to the debate and the careful, rational way in which we have put the special provisions in place in Northern Ireland, can be convinced—the other party may be listening to the debate elsewhere—that this is harming constituents. It is harming the people they are put in place to protect. Rather than having such an ideological position—we need to wipe away the ideology—we need to get the NCA working in Northern Ireland like it does in the rest of this country. We need to stop funds going to people whom we do not want them to go to, and we need to protect the children. That is what we are elected to do and that is what the public expect from this debate. I want to put it on the record now that Her Majesty’s Government will support the motion. This is a very important debate.

14:01

[Mr David Hanson (Delyn) (Lab)]

I, too, welcome today’s debate. For the avoidance of doubt, I am very pleased that the hon. Member for East Londonderry (Mr Campbell) tabled the motion. Like the Government, the official Opposition want to see the motion implemented and will support it should there be a Division. We have been bringing this matter to the attention of the Government for a number of years. We did so during the passage of the Crime and Courts Bill in the House on Second Reading, in Committee and on Report, and have done so on regular occasions since then. I have no doubt that the PSNI—under Matt Baggott and, since June, George Hamilton—is doing its best in difficult circumstances, but we want to see the motion implemented.

[Mike Penning]

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for giving way. I should have said this during my remarks. I pay tribute to the shadow Minister and the former shadow Secretary of State for Northern Ireland. We worked very closely on many issues and there was no party politics. I think it is right and proper to say that we had many discussions on this matter while I was in office and I am sure they continued after I left.

[Mr Hanson]

I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman. As a former Northern Ireland Minister and Policing Minister, I know there have been a number of occasions when there has been cross-party agreement. Indeed, today there is cross-party agreement on a number of real concerns about the lack of NCA operation in Northern Ireland. There is agreement on the fact that organised crime brings fear and violence to our communities. Overall, it costs some £20 billion to £40 billion each year.

There is a specific problem in Northern Ireland. David Ford, the Justice Minister who chairs the Organised Crime Taskforce in Northern Ireland, has said that there are potentially up to 180 gangs—even more than the figure mentioned by the hon. Member for East Londonderry—operating in Northern Ireland. Criminal gangs in Northern Ireland are not just involved in, dare I say, traditional criminal activity, but are now turning to computer-based cybercrime and are dealing in rural areas. Gangs that have historically strong links to both republican and loyalist paramilitary groups are involved in criminal activity that impacts on not just the daily lives of constituents in Northern Ireland but constituents across the United Kingdom as a whole.

The Organised Crime Taskforce compiled a range of findings. It found that criminal gangs in Northern Ireland are involved in drugs, human trafficking, fuel fraud, killing, abusing and preying on society. There is an increase in the number of incidents of online extortion. Individuals are being targeted. Dissident republican groups, which continue to be a threat to the peace process and to the stability of Northern Ireland, are heavily dependent on organised crime. Members of the Ulster Volunteer Force and the Ulster Defence Association are involved in extortion, loan sharking, robbery, drugs, burglary, theft, money laundering, ATM thefts, food waste crime, food fraud and plant theft. All of those are organised crime issues that Matt Baggott and George Hamilton, as Chief Constables in Northern Ireland, have addressed and continue to address. However, the NCA would bring an additional layer of support and international co-operation across the whole of Europe, and national co-operation across the United Kingdom.

[Mr Robathan]

The right hon. Gentleman will not receive many compliments from me of course, but I respect him from his time in Northern Ireland and since. I think he is a very sincere person. There is not a scintilla of difference between us on this issue. He has been raising it since before I had even heard of it, so I pay tribute to him for that. Surely his party can have some influence on its sister party, the Social Democratic and Labour party, which takes the Labour Whip. Surely it would be a good step forward if the SDLP, which as far as I am concerned is a legitimate and decent party, signed up to the NCA now and put aside its bewildering objection.

[Mr Hanson]

I take what the right hon. Gentleman says. I have said publicly and privately to my hon. Friends that I think they need to sign up to the NCA operating in Northern Ireland. I respect their opinion. From my time in Northern Ireland I know how difficult policing issues are, and how difficult it has been over many years to get Sinn Fein and the republican movement involved in policing in Northern Ireland. The main thrust of my argument is that we are where we are and we have been where we are for some time. There is a duty of care on the Government, as well as on Justice Minister David Ford, the Northern Ireland Assembly and the political parties, to get resolution on this issue. I will quote from the Belfast Telegraph this week:

“David Ford: NCA impasse leaves children at risk of sex abuse…Justice Minister David Ford said that the PSNI is being put at a ‘distinctive disadvantage’ in the fight to keep young people safe due to the limited powers of the National Crime Agency here.”

If that were only the case now then it would still be of crucial importance, but that was the case 12 months ago.

[Lady Hermon]

rose—

[Mr Hanson]

I will give way to my hon. Friend.

[Lady Hermon]

I am most grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for giving way and for referring to me as his hon. Friend. That is very kind of him indeed. I am very pleased, as other hon. Members will have been, to hear him publicly invite the SDLP to accept the full remit of the NCA in Northern Ireland, as well as in the rest of the United Kingdom. Will the right hon. Gentleman confirm that he, as the shadow Policing Minister, and his colleague the shadow Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, have also sought and held meetings with Sinn Fein and their absentee MPs to encourage them privately—and publicly if he puts it on the record this afternoon—to accept the full capacity of the NCA in Northern Ireland?

[Mr Hanson]

May I just help my hon. Friend by saying that I am the shadow Immigration Minister? Owing to my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Erdington (Jack Dromey) being elsewhere and the debate being Home Office-led, I have drawn the important straw—not the short straw—to deal with this issue today.

I will confirm that to the best of my knowledge, since I left responsibility for this area 12 months ago, my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Erdington and our Northern Ireland team, my hon. Friends the Members for Ealing North (Stephen Pound) and for Bury South (Mr Lewis), have been engaged with all political parties to try to resolve this issue as a matter of some urgency. We do so because 12 months ago, when the NCA began operations, David Ford was saying the same thing as he said last week. On 7 October 2013, in a report by BBC Northern Ireland, he said:

“I haven’t lost hope that we will get full political agreement that…will…see the NCA operational and discussions are ongoing to see if we can get that political agreement”.

What has been happening these past two years? If I had been Northern Ireland Minister, as I was proud to be for two years, and this had been coming down the line, I would have been driving forward with my hon. Friends the Members for Foyle (Mark Durkan) and for South Down (Ms Ritchie), with Sinn Fein Members, who do not attend the House but are still involved in discussions, and with other parties to resolve this matter, and I certainly would not have abolished the Serious Organised Crime Agency. The Crime and Courts Bill, which abolished SOCA, had its Second Reading and Committee stages two years ago and has now been in operation for a year. I would not have gone through all that without reaching agreement. I appreciate the Minister’s tone, but how urgently are he and the Northern Ireland Office working to get the parties round the table to reach an agreement on the measures Mr Ford has announced?

[Ian Paisley]

I sat on that Committee with my right hon. Friend, and we proposed that the Government set a deadline and that if the parties could not agree they implement the NCA anyway. This was subsequently raised in the Select Committee, and the Northern Ireland First Minister agreed with the strategy, yet still the Government have not pushed to deliver it.

[Mr Hanson]

It is important that the Minister respond to that point.

[Naomi Long]

So does the shadow Minister believe that the Government should implement the NCA provisions without the negotiation, which would have consequences for devolution? I believe the matter is serious enough that it ought to happen. There have been negotiations with the Department of Justice and the Government and proposals are in place for addressing the issues of accountability. The problem is simply the complete unwillingness of other people to recognise that things have shifted in the interim.

[Mr Hanson]

I shall try to answer the hon. Lady’s question and the question from my hon. Friend the Member for North Antrim (Ian Paisley) in a helpful way.

Since the Bill was published in the 2012 Queen’s Speech, we have had two and a half years of public negotiations. We had the initial debate, Second Reading and the Committee stage; it went through another place; it was implemented; and the NCA has now been in operation for one year. As was mentioned, we need to recognise that the NCA not operating in Northern Ireland is not just a matter for Northern Ireland; it is a matter for my constituents in north Wales and for constituents in Liverpool, Hertfordshire and everywhere. If there is a gap in our defences, asset recovery and coverage, it affects everybody, because criminals know they can operate from Northern Ireland with more chance of not being caught.

I am not the Minister, so it is not for me to decide, but there are serious questions about how we take forward these discussions with the Minister, the NIO and the political parties to reach a conclusion. As the Minister helpfully outlined, David Ford has, in this year of impasse, come up with proposals that could address some of the concerns of my hon. Friends and others. He said that the NCA, unlike its predecessor, did not have constabulary powers and that the authority and primacy of the PSNI needed to be maintained, so he proposed that the agreement of the Chief Constable be in place before the powers are used. In addition, he said that the director general of the NCA could be called to attend the Policing Board—more than we have with the police and crime commissioner in my patch in north Wales or elsewhere—and that there be consultation and consent for the implementation of the annual plan. He also proposed that the Police Ombudsman cover the NCA, which was welcome.

Those are all difficult areas touching on the reasons for devolving policing in the first place. Concerns about security were raised at the time and were addressed in government by me and my late good friend Paul Goggins. I hope, however, that the assurances from David Ford, which were negotiated and are now on the table, will be open to further discussion. Only last week, in a discussion with the modern slavery Minister about modern slavery issues, we heard how the NCA could not operate on issues as important as people trafficking.

I am trying to challenge the Government in a helpful and friendly way.

[Mark Durkan (Foyle) (SDLP)]

First, I hope that my right hon. Friend will confirm that in the Modern Slavery Bill Committee some of us proposed amendments to make the situation in Northern Ireland much more joined-up with laws and practices here at different levels, but that the Government resisted those amendments. Secondly, may I assure him that the proposals from David Ford arose from negotiations with my party and that we are committed to pursuing them to a successful end?

[Mr Hanson]

I am grateful for the support my hon. Friend gave the Opposition in that Committee, and yes he acted in a way that said he wanted the Bill to operate in Northern Ireland as well.

It is important to remember that my hon. Friends the Members for South Down and for Foyle, as well as absent Sinn Fein Members, have signed up to policing matters in the past. The proposals from David Ford would extend effective policing to tackling serious and organised crime. What extra steps can the Minister and the political parties take to get the NCA operating in Northern Ireland? He told us what happened in the past, but he did not set out a clear road map that will get us from David Ford’s proposals to an agreement to sign up to the NCA; to a legislative consent motion in the Northern Ireland Assembly; and to implementation of the relevant NCA provisions already on the statute book.

What steps are the NIO and the Home Office taking to discuss David Ford’s proposals further with the political parties? As mentioned, might they set a deadline? Occasionally, deadlines do work. We set one for the reintroduction of the Northern Ireland Assembly in the St Andrews agreement. We reached it at about one minute to 12, but reach it we did. I mean no disrespect to Northern Ireland Members, but deadlines sometimes focus minds. So is the Minister prepared to consider a timescale and possible future steps? When will the next set of talks take place between the NIO, the Home Office, the political parties and Assembly representatives? Is David Ford convening such a meeting? Will the NIO and Home Office be present? What is the timescale for concluding the discussions?

In Committee, the then Policing Minister, the right hon. Member for Ashford (Damian Green), said that the Government were

“carefully considering the part 1 provisions to see how they can best be modified to give the NCA some functionality in Northern Ireland but in a way that does not require a legislative consent motion. We will aim to introduce any necessary amendments to the Bill on Report.”––[Official Report, Crime and Courts Public Bill Committee, 29 January 2013; c. 174.]

That was on 29 January 2013 but we are no closer to implementing the NCA. I say to the Minister that we need a plan—it need not necessarily involve a deadline, but it could—so that we can see what Ministers and the parties are going to do to take this matter forward.

[Lady Hermon]

I am extremely grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for taking a second intervention. The right hon. Gentleman has served with distinction in Northern Ireland and he has carefully listened this afternoon to the assurances that the Policing Minister has very carefully articulated about all the additional accountability points relating to the Police Ombudsman for Northern Ireland, so what exactly does the right hon. Gentleman expect the British Government to give away to Sinn Fein in addition to all those accountability issues? Why cannot the right hon. Gentleman simply call on Sinn Fein publicly—as he did for the SDLP—to accept the role and the total competency of the National Crime Agency in Northern Ireland?

[Mr Hanson]

I thought I had been very clear that I want the National Crime Agency to operate in Northern Ireland, in Belfast and every community represented here today on the same basis as it operates in my constituency, and as soon as possible. I have argued for that. I want Sinn Fein, along with my hon. Friends, to sign up to it as quickly as possible. The assurances given by David Ford should be subject to a positive response on those issues. I say to the hon. Lady that I am not the Government. If I were the Government, what I would be doing is looking at how to convene a meeting with the relevant parties to see if there are genuine outstanding differences, to see if resolutions on those differences can be reached, to look at what we do with the David Ford proposals and, if necessary, to look at setting a deadline against which consideration of these matters would take place. That is what I want the Government to look at and respond to. The vital point is that the National Crime Agency needs to operate in Northern Ireland to protect people from crime in Northern Ireland, as it does in Wales, Scotland and England.

[Mark Durkan]

My right hon. Friend has said again that he wants the NCA to operate on the same basis in Northern Ireland as it does in his constituency. Clearly, the ongoing discussions and negotiations suggest that that is not so in terms of accountability, the level of engagement with the police or the level of its own automatic authority. Those are all significant improvements and concessions consistent with the Patten principles around policing. This is about making sure that whatever happens in any quarter of policing in Northern Ireland is consistent with those Patten principles.

[Mr Hanson]

I understand and accept that. The hon. Gentleman will know that during my two years in Northern Ireland, we had to deal with very difficult issues around the very point of trying to get policing devolved, along with a range of other measures, including the re-establishment of the Northern Ireland Assembly. I understand the sensitivities. I am simply making the point that the David Ford proposals provide the basis, I believe, for agreement on the operation of the NCA in Northern Ireland. It is incumbent on somebody—whether it be David Ford, the Northern Ireland Office, other Ministers or whatever—to try to convene a meeting to see if there are any outstanding issues and to provide some resolution as a matter of urgency.

[Mike Penning]

The shadow Minister is indicating, in good faith, that no meetings are taking place with Government Ministers and that we have not been trying to push this forward over the last few years. That is fundamentally wrong. He understands, not least because he was highly involved in the devolution settlement, that if we have devolution, politicians have to make difficult decisions for their communities. Governments can help, but it is for the devolved Assembly to get on and do this.

[Mr Hanson]

I hope the Minister does not take what I say as being hypercritical. I am trying to provide some perspective. We have had two and a half years and we have to work through this. I know how difficult it is; I have been there. I am looking for further impetus to get a resolution.

[Sammy Wilson]

I thank the shadow Minister for the way in which he has addressed the issue, especially to the SDLP. Does he agree, however, that most people will find it rather strange that the slavish adherence to the Patten principles goes beyond the protection of children from abuse—whether it be on the internet or from other predators on children—and that the SDLP counts the Patten principles as more important than the protection of children in Northern Ireland?

[Mr Hanson]

I think that the operation of the NCA is essential for dealing with child pornography, trafficking, drugs, fuel and money laundering, particularly in the Northern Ireland context where highly organised criminal gangs operate on the fringes of the republican movement and the loyalist movement. The motion under discussion says that we want to sign up to the NCA and it has my support. The Minister has my support and that of the Opposition Front-Bench team to reach such a resolution. I simply want to see additional energy—I know the Minister will provide it—to ensure that this matter is brought to a conclusion as soon as possible.

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Dawn Primarolo)]

Order. I remind those wishing to participate in the debate that we have approximately two hours left before we start the winding-up speeches. I am not going to set a time-limit at present, but I ask for contributions of 10 minutes or less—otherwise setting a time-limit will be necessary. I have also assumed, with apologies to the Front-Bench teams, that the concluding speeches need to be 10 minutes. If that is not sufficient, someone should let me know. I ask Members to take fewer than 10 minutes for their contributions, which should help to ensure that everyone is able to participate.

14:26

[Mr Andrew Robathan (South Leicestershire) (Con)]

It is customary to say at the start of a speech that it will be short and not detain the House too long. I shall try very hard to achieve that, and ask my hon. Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Damian Collins), who is on my right, to start coughing very loudly or even to kick me once or twice at the 10-minute point.

I agree with almost everything in the contribution of the right hon. Member for Delyn (Mr Hanson), given as he said in a “helpful and friendly” way. He is quite right that the Government have the responsibility to get involved, and I remind him again that his party has leverage with the SDLP. Let us all use all the leverage we have, and if we end up with Sinn Fein being totally isolated, so be it. That would be my answer.

I want to speak, I hope briefly, about one specific area—south Armagh, which I visited in the summer. I was in Dublin when a charming member of the Dail said that he had driven through Forkhill the previous week and had seen the shocking prospect of endless fuel tankers there. I said to my police officers that I wanted to go to south Armagh; I had never been there before; I had never served there. Back in the days of the troubles, south Armagh was known as bandit country. A distressing number of my friends were killed there, and I saw their names on the memorial in Crossmaglen police station and elsewhere. The Police Service of Northern Ireland looked after me very well. We went out with four vehicles scattered around—what I think we used to call “multiple patrolling”—and there was a helicopter overhead once we left Newry police station, showing the level of concern. I visited one or two IRA memorials down there. It was probably unusual, possibly unique, to see an SAS tie at an IRA memorial, and I hope it was appreciated.

The particular issues that took me down there were diesel smuggling, fuel laundering and the removal of markers from diesel. This is not a little thing done by a couple of farmers; it is serious and organised crime making thousands and thousands of pounds for crooks. Frankly, I would recommend that members of the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee to go down and see it. Driving around these little lanes in south Armagh, one keeps on bumping into huge fuel tankers. We do not get that in my constituency of South Leicestershire and I doubt whether they would get it in north Wales.

[Mr Laurence Robertson (Tewkesbury) (Con)]

My right hon. Friend may be aware that the Committee looked at the issue of smuggling and counterfeiting and produced a report on the subject. We did indeed recognise that this is a very serious problem, as he is indicating.

[Mr Robathan]

I respect my hon. Friend for that. As I was saying, it is worth going down there to see what it is like. It is extraordinary. Lots of HGVs are scattered around the place, too. I do not know what was being smuggled, but it was difficult to get down some of the lanes because of the sheer number of vehicles. People should go and see that as well.

Stolen electricity is another huge issue. I should like the Northern Ireland electricity board, or whatever it is called, to tell us how many electricity bills are paid, because it seems to me that very few people do pay. Do not ask me how they manage it, but it is something to do with magnets: they get the meters going the wrong way. This is a major issue because, if someone is not paying for the electricity that he is using, someone else will be paying for it.

Benefit fraud across the border is big business. It is not just a question of a few people stealing a few pounds. As one drives around South Armagh, one sees staggering new homes—plush new buildings—all of them built during a time of recession. Where is the money coming from? A huge number of brand-new Mercedes cars can also be seen on the roads of south Armagh. I wish I had one of those. Where is the money coming from? These are huge rackets, as the hon. Member for North Down (Lady Hermon) knows, because her constituency borders on south Armagh.

I am sorry to say that the rule of law does not apply in what used to be called bandit country. I pay tribute to the PSNI, which is under constant threat in the area, and I thank it for the work that it has done. As for the Government of the Republic of Ireland, under Enda Kenny, they are absolutely on side. They do not want to have this criminal area on their border, because there is an overspill. So we have to ask who is against allowing the NCA, which would deal with this serious and organised crime, to operate in Northern Ireland, and why.

The SDLP has been mentioned. I get on well—I hope—with its Members. I think that they are honest and decent people, and I do not want to reopen the old arguments, but I am bewildered as to why they are opposing the NCA proposals. I really think that they should examine the reasons for their opposition. I fear that we may be seeing the scourge of sectarianism yet again. I understand what Sinn Fein are up to, and I would not describe Sinn Fein as a party with which I would wish to do business. We know the background of many of its members. I will say that I think Martin McGuinness has travelled a very long way, and that he behaves almost like a statesman.

[Bob Stewart]

Oh, God!

[Mr Robathan]

I heard that from a Unionist politician in Northern Ireland.

[Bob Stewart]

You have heard it from me, too.

[Mr Robathan]

I do not think of Gerry Adams in the same way. In any event, we know the background of members of Sinn Fein, and we also know the background of many of the people who are operating in south Armagh. Everyone who ever served in the Army there—in fact, nearly everyone who ever served in the Army in any part of Northern Ireland—knew the name of “Slab” Murphy. Well, he is still there, and he is still up to his old crooked business. I think that he has been to jail in the past, but what is he doing with his money? That is the question we must ask. Well, some of it is going into new houses, some of it is going into Mercedes cars, and some of it is probably going into villas in Spain, but who is funding political organisations?

I must say to Ministers—or, rather, to the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, the hon. Member for Staffordshire Moorlands (Karen Bradley), who is the only Minister still in the Chamber—that I fear she will find that quite a lot of the money that used to go to the Provisional IRA is now going, through the back door, to Sinn Fein. I cannot see it going anywhere else, and I want the NCA, which deals with serious and organised crime, to go and examine that funding as well. If it is not able to do that, it damn well ought to be able to. Twenty years ago, these people were in organised gangs. They are still there, and the proceeds of crime still exist. Where is the money going? We need to be taking back those proceeds of crime.

[Lady Hermon]

Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

[Mr Robathan]

I am trying to stick to my 10 minutes, and the hon. Lady has already said one or two things.

South Armagh is still bandit country: there is no question about that. The rule of law does not run there. We need the NCA, backed by the PSNI and by HMRC, to get down there and find out what is happening.

[Lady Hermon]

Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

[Mr Robathan]

Oh, all right, go on.

[Lady Hermon]

I thank the right hon. Gentleman.

[Mr Robathan]

Only because I like the hon. Lady.

[Lady Hermon]

That is extremely kind and generous of the right hon. Gentleman.

The right hon. Gentleman has referred, in very general terms, to the people of south Armagh and to “bandit” territory. I represent the people of North Down, but I have had occasion to visit, privately, families in Crossmaglen and elsewhere in south Armagh. I ask him, very gently, to put it on record that the vast majority of people in south Armagh are law-abiding, decent citizens. I am only sorry that their public representative—their Member of Parliament—does not take his seat in the House and represent them.

[Mr Robathan]

The hon. Lady is quite right, and if I gave a different impression, I apologise. Of course the overwhelming majority of people want to live with the rule of law, although why they vote for Sinn Fein is beyond me. It is the same anywhere in the world. Decent people who see crooks getting away with things are as appalled as anyone else.

I do not know where we go from here, but I think that the Government have responsibilities. I think that the Opposition have responsibilities as well. I think that all parties have responsibilities. Perhaps we should consider whether devolving policing and justice was the right thing to do if the Northern Ireland Executive are not up to dealing with this matter. That is not Government policy, because I no longer speak for the Government. However, I really do think that until the NCA operates in south Armagh and in the rest of Northern Ireland, we shall have the most huge problems with serious and organised crime.

I am glad to say that my hon. Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe has not yet started coughing.

14:35

[Mr Nigel Dodds (Belfast North) (DUP)]

I am very pleased to follow the right hon. Member for South Leicestershire (Mr Robathan), and I appreciate his plain speaking on this and, indeed, other issues. I have no doubt that we shall hear more plain speaking from the Back Benches.

This is an important debate about an issue that our party raised in the Northern Ireland Assembly just a couple of weeks ago. Like our debate, it has focused on the prevalence of organised crime gangs—particularly in border areas, but throughout Northern Ireland—and has stressed the need for it to be dealt with. That need arose a long time ago. The right hon. Member for Delyn (Mr Hanson) called for the setting of a deadline. I should be interested to hear, perhaps during the Opposition wind-up, what he thinks should happen if that deadline is not met.

The right hon. Gentleman seemed to be suggesting that the Government should deal with the issue themselves, because the NCA is a national agency. He rightly pointed out that this is not just a matter for Northern Ireland, but a matter that affects constituents and citizens throughout the United Kingdom. We cannot afford a situation in which Northern Ireland is the one part of the United Kingdom that is seen as a safe haven or bolthole for criminals and their illegal criminal assets and activities. It is an outrage, in the 21st century, that that should even be considered.

Given what the Chief Constable has said, given the overwhelming weight of opinion among ordinary people on all sides of the community in Northern Ireland and in all the Northern Ireland political parties apart from Sinn Fein and the SDLP, and given the views that have been expressed in the House, it is time to act. I am all in favour of appeals to common sense and appeals for people to sit down together and go through the arguments, but that has been going on for a long time, and there comes a point at which, in the absence of agreement, action must be taken. As we have heard again today, it has been reported that the SDLP has been engaging in talks with the aim of making the NCA more accountable. I should be interested to hear what issue is still outstanding, because it seems to me that all the issues have been addressed, and more than addressed. As we have heard, the current proposals go far beyond anything else that exists in the United Kingdom.

Even if the SDLP signs up to the proposals, I understand that Sinn Fein is not engaging in the discussions. The Minister of Justice made it clear in the Assembly that it had not even responded to invitations to speak about the matter. When Sinn Fein was challenged in the Assembly a couple of weeks ago on what should be done about criminal assets—and the figures are startling: some £12 million, £13 million or £14 million of criminal assets apparently cannot be seized because the NCA is not operating in Northern Ireland—its answer was that we should set up a bespoke system to deal with them. Another of its suggestions is that, at a time when we are facing massive budgetary deficits and welfare penalties are being imposed, more money should be spent. It has not said where the money will come from. It is an impossible demand, unfunded—we have no idea where the money will come from—but rather than actually introduce the NCA, it wants the Northern Ireland Assembly to have these bespoke arrangements. In terms of making arrangements to fill the gaps if the NCA does not operate in Northern Ireland soon, Minister Ford was asked about the cost implications of doing it ourselves and he replied:

“I think the technical term is ‘quite horrific.’”

What the costs to Northern Ireland would be if we had to go down this road are unimaginable, and the Sinn Fein attitude is reckless, irresponsible, bizarre and totally obnoxious. Its attitude is, “We’re not going to do it, we’re not going to speak about it, and we just do it ourselves whatever the costs may be, and we do not know where the money is coming from.”

[Bob Stewart]

This is the National Crime Agency, and I know policing has been devolved to the Northern Ireland Assembly, but if we do not get resolution on this, which is in the interests of everyone, surely we ought to start thinking of imposing it in these circumstances, for the good of everyone in Northern Ireland and the rest of the United Kingdom?

[Mr Dodds]

The hon. Gentleman makes an important point, which I was coming on to. Whatever happens in the interminable discussions between the SDLP and the Government, I have to repeat to the SDLP the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for East Antrim (Sammy Wilson). By putting the preference, and the emphasis, on implementing Patten and all of that rather than protecting children from online abuse, the NCA, with every day that passes, is unable to bring its expertise, help and assistance to bear. The UN has already criticised Northern Ireland in that regard. We have criminal assets being smuggled and used in a terrible way, benefiting paramilitary and other gangs, and every day we have this wittering on—dancing on the head of a pin—from the SDLP about accountability issues, which have already been addressed, yet people are suffering.

Even if the SDLP overcomes its objections—whatever they may be, and it is a matter for it to explain to the people how it can justify all of this—we will still be left with the problem that without Sinn Fein’s agreement, we cannot make this work in Northern Ireland. Sinn Fein shows no signs whatsoever of being prepared to sign up—maybe for some of the reasons mentioned by some Members already about the gains it gets from some of this. Because this is a national matter that affects not just Northern Ireland but the entirety of the United Kingdom—it is about our ability to combat criminal gangsterism across the entire United Kingdom—there comes a point at which the Government at Westminster have to face up to the issue. For the sake of the children and for the sake of the citizens who are being victimised and denied the protection and defence other people throughout the United Kingdom are being given, there comes a point when we cannot simply keep appealing to the better nature—if there is one—of Sinn Fein to recognise reality, and instead we must take action.

I simply want to make that point very strongly and leave it with the Government. I look forward to hearing their response and to getting a very definite answer on that issue.

14:43

[Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Con)]

Serious and organised crime is not just a threat; it is a daily reality that can affect everyone and costs the overall economy of the United Kingdom approximately £24 billion each year. I want to focus on the serious and organised crime threats we face nationally and show just how valuable the National Crime Agency is in countering serious and organised crime. The NCA covers a wide variety of criminality, and we have already heard some aspects of that, but I want to concentrate on the issues of money laundering, drugs, organised immigration crime and human trafficking, and the criminal use of firearms.

The single cross-cutting issue that has totally changed the landscape for serious and organised crime is the growth of the internet. On the internet, there is real-time child sexual exploitation and abuse. Over the internet, firearms are obtained and cyber-techniques are enabling so-called traditional and other crime to proliferate. Using the internet, the movement and supply of drugs are managed. In addition, the internet is increasingly being used for attacks on Government services such as tax collection and for fraud. More than 80% of identity theft also involves the internet. Finally, illegal immigration and modern slavery crimes increasingly rely on the internet, of course.

The scale of the laundering of criminal proceeds, despite the UK’s leading role in developing international standards to tackle it, is definitely a strategic threat to the UK’s economy and reputation. Some of the same financial transfer systems used by serious and organised criminals in the UK are used by terrorist groups both domestically and overseas. It is also clear that the UK and its dependent territories are the destination for billions of pounds of European criminal proceeds. Many hundreds of billions of pounds of international criminal money is almost certainly laundered through UK banks, including their subsidiaries. The high transaction volume—estimated at trillions of pounds a day—and the language, developed financial services industry and political stability of the UK make our financial system particularly attractive to money laundering despite the measures to identify and stop it.

Most proceeds of UK serious and organised crime are laundered through UK banks, wire transfer companies and other regulated businesses, including money service businesses and cash-rich businesses. Thereafter a large proportion is sent abroad, where profits are often ultimately invested in real estate. Importantly, a proportion is reinvested in criminal activity in various stages. Like many of my friends the hon. Members for Northern Ireland constituencies, I know from personal experience, as does the late Minister—

[Mr Robathan]

I’m not dead yet. [Laughter.]

[Bob Stewart]

I will just reach out and check. I am so sorry; I mean my right hon. Friend the former Minister. Both of us know that cross-border crime really does support paramilitary organisations in Northern Ireland. If the NCA were used properly there, what great benefits would accrue to all the people of Northern Ireland, including those who supported Sinn Fein Members of Parliament.

On the drugs trade, the supply of heroin from Afghanistan and amphetamine processing and production in the United Kingdom are on the increase. Although most of the opiates consumed in the UK originate in Afghanistan, heroin continues to be imported from Pakistan. It also appears that Turkish-controlled trafficking is increasing. The Turkish national police report increasing seizures of heroin in Turkey; apparently they are almost back to pre-2009 figures, which correlates with a dip and then an increase in poppy production in Afghanistan. Heroin trafficked via Pakistan to the UK is most often sent directly by parcel, air courier, air passengers or maritime container, and the traffickers often have family links to Bradford, the west midlands and south Manchester.

Cocaine consumed in the UK mainly comes from Peru, Colombia and Bolivia. It is imported into the UK from the Caribbean using all forms of transport, but west African countries are also a major hub for moving cocaine to Europe. Nigerian nationals in particular have increased their involvement in the cocaine trade, to the extent that they are now on an equal footing with Latin Americans in their ability to source, finance and transport both bulk and smaller quantities of cocaine. However, the Netherlands and Belgium continue to be the primary source for amphetamine and MDMA, which is used in the UK. There are also some indications of an increase in amphetamine processing in the UK. Despite an increase in the amount of skunk cannabis being grown domestically in illegal farms, cannabis resin is still imported from Afghanistan and Morocco.

We all know that human trafficking is a significant global problem. Clearly, it is linked to modern slavery. In 2013, there was a 47% increase in reports of slavery in our country compared with 2012, and these are just the victims we know about. Slavery’s hidden nature means the actual numbers are likely to be far, far higher. Once in the UK, illegal immigrants provide a pool of people whom serious and organised criminals can exploit by selling them forged or counterfeit documents to support fraudulent applications for leave to remain in our country.

The national strategic assessment of serious and organised crime suggests that the supply of firearms to the UK marketplace is increasing. Obviously, there is also concern that weapons, whether from illegal or legitimate sources, might find their way into the hands of extremists. The latest Home Office crime figures show that firearms have reportedly been used in 11,227 recorded crimes in 2010-11 in England and Wales. Thankfully, that is on the decline: there has been a 13% decrease in the use of firearms. Most criminally used firearms are found in London, Merseyside, Manchester, the west Midlands and west Yorkshire, and the majority of shooting incidents are of course perpetrated by members of urban street gangs.

All the most serious crime threats are transnational and rely on unstable countries. This applies to trafficked people destined for modern slavery, as well as to fraud and cybercrime. Most of what I have outlined has been culled from the national strategic assessment of serious and organised crime 2014, which I read in preparation for this afternoon. It is a chilling document which I hope other Members will read in order to understand the severe challenges that our National Crime Agency faces.

14:52

[Keith Vaz (Leicester East) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Beckenham (Bob Stewart) and I congratulate him on his knowledge and breadth of experience of these issues. I was so impressed that I shall remind him that there is a vacancy on the Home Affairs Committee; I hope he will put his name forward. I also want to pay tribute to the right hon. Member for South Leicestershire (Mr Robathan), a fellow Leicestershire MP, who has announced that he is stepping down. He has been in Parliament almost as long as I have, and does not look like “the late Minister”; he is still moving about. I wish him a career outside the House that will be suitable for his skills.

Two documents produced by the Home Affairs Committee—written and oral evidence—are tagged to the motion before the House. On behalf of the Committee, I fully support every word of the motion, which was eloquently expressed by the right hon. Member for Belfast North (Mr Dodds) and his colleagues. I was going to say that this is an unusual debate for Northern Ireland politics, but I do not know because I do not attend many of them. However, it is great to see unanimity in this House—so far, anyway—on the issue of the National Crime Agency. Unfortunately, I cannot stay to the end of the debate, so I do not know what others will say, but I will of course come in for the wind-ups.

The Home Affairs Committee is clear that this is a national crime agency. We have just begun a review of the NCA’s work, one year on, and only last week we took evidence from Keith Bristow, its director general, who is responsible to the Home Secretary. Of all the changes in the landscape of policing, the long-lasting one will be the National Crime Agency. I thought I got a hint from my right hon. Friend the Member for Delyn (Mr Hanson), the shadow Home Office Minister, that the next Government—if it is his Government—will support the retention of the NCA. If so, I welcome it, because the creation by the Home Secretary of an organisation that deals with the fight against organised crime, online crime, gangs and serious and organised crime has been extremely important. Even after a year and a half, it is doing better than its predecessor organisation, the Serious Organised Crime Agency.

I am not clear whether the landscape of policing will be as uncluttered as the Home Secretary would like in the end—when the dancing stops and everyone looks at the bits before and the bits afterwards—but this organisation has certainly won support and done a very effective job since its inception. However, as we said to Mr Bristow last week, we were concerned that an organisation that has cost the UK taxpayer £500 million has so far seized assets of only £30 million. We felt that a lot more work needs to be done.

Perhaps one of the reasons is that obstacles are being put in the way of the NCA’s operation by some in Northern Ireland. I went for a brief visit to Northern Ireland at the invitation of my hon. Friend the Member for North Antrim (Ian Paisley). I visited the Gallaher factory in his constituency, which sadly will close shortly, with the loss of many jobs. I also went to the constituency of the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon), where we met a number of his local police officers. I also met Matt Baggott, to whom I want to pay tribute for his work in Northern Ireland. He was a very low-profile chief constable in Leicestershire and did not interfere to any great extent in too many things. When he got the Northern Ireland job, I said, “Well, you won’t be able to do that in Northern Ireland”, but he has proved to be a very effective Chief Constable and I wish him well.

I discussed with Matt Baggott and colleagues the effect of the difficulties being put in the NCA’s way on the work of the police in Northern Ireland. Although he was extremely charming and careful in what he said to me, I got the feeling from the discussions that this was going to be a major problem. Although arrangements have been made, I doubt whether they are sufficient.

Accountability—an issue raised by the hon. Member for East Antrim (Sammy Wilson)—is much stronger in Northern Ireland for the NCA than it is even in our Parliament. We will get to see Mr Bristow—not that he wishes, I am sure, to see the Home Affairs Committee that often—most probably once or twice a year. He is of course a civil servant and will therefore be responsible, first and foremost, to the Home Secretary. However, the arrangements put in place in Northern Ireland for scrutiny of such an organisation are better than one could ever have expected.

If we send out a strong message to those who are putting obstacles in the way of the National Crime Agency, they will understand that the fight against organised crime, which has been very well elucidated by the hon. Member for Beckenham, the Minister for Policing and the shadow Minister, can only be enhanced if the writ of the NCA is to run in Northern Ireland in the same way as it runs in Leicestershire, Northamptonshire or Avon and Somerset. That will allow the organisation, which we all support, to do its work effectively and to catch those criminals who are doing their best to undermine the values of our society. That is why I fully support this motion. It is clear in the Home Affairs Committee’s reports and in the evidence we received that the obstacles should be removed and the NCA’s writ should run in Northern Ireland in the same way it does in the rest of the United Kingdom.

14:59

[Damian Collins (Folkestone and Hythe) (Con)]

As the Member for Folkestone and Hythe, I feel as though I am the only Member outside Northern Ireland to share a land border with another member state of the European Union, given that Folkestone is the home of the channel tunnel. We have close cross-border co-operation between the security services and between the Kent police and the French police. We also have the enhanced role of the Border Force, which has been given additional resources by this Government, including the recruitment of an additional 400 people.

As a Member of Parliament for a constituency on the frontier of this country and on an international border, I would hate to see us being handicapped by not having the support of important agencies such as the National Crime Agency. I feel strongly about that in Kent, so I can understand why Members from Northern Ireland feel just as strongly on behalf of their own communities. If we need the NCA here on the mainland, we certainly need it in Northern Ireland too.

I unequivocally support the motion before us today. The issues that the NCA deals with—including smuggling, gun-running, people trafficking, child sex abuse—are among the most serious issues that we face. Many of them have a peculiar resonance for Northern Ireland as well, which is what makes the work of the NCA so important. The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland made that clear in a statement last week, when she said that

“the inability of the National Crime Agency (NCA) to operate to its full extent in Northern Ireland means there will be proceeds of crime that are not seized and criminals who are not apprehended.”—[Official Report, 14 October 2014; Vol. 586, c. 24WS.]

The situation could not be more serious than that.

In his opening address, the hon. Member for East Londonderry (Mr Campbell) referred to the Human Trafficking and Exploitation (Further Provisions and Support for Victims) Bill that was going through Stormont. I was interested to read an article in the Belfast Telegraph on that Bill, which was pertinent to this debate. It was quite critical, stating:

“While Stormont tinkers about drafting its own ineffectual legislation, the key agency charged with preventing trafficking across the UK can’t operate in Northern Ireland because of opposition by Sinn Fein and SDLP MLAs.”

That could not be clearer.

I agree with what the right hon. Member for Belfast North (Mr Dodds) said earlier. Yes, the Government are right to say that these issues are devolved, but that does not mean that we do not have a view on them. The Minister made it clear that we want the NCA to be fully operational in Northern Ireland. I agree with the right hon. Member for Belfast North that, although these matters remain devolved in terms of decision making, we should not pretend that all the parties are of the same view. It is clear that the Democratic Unionist party, the Ulster Unionist party and the Alliance party strongly support the motion. I hope, given what the hon. Member for Foyle (Mark Durkan) said earlier, that the Social Democratic and Labour party will support it as well. I was pleased to hear him say that the SDLP’s position was to continue the talks, taking the view that they would have a positive outcome. That is crucial.

These matters are so serious that we cannot allow delays to occur. We need these powers to be in place now, and we cannot allow feet to be dragged. This is far too important for the people of Northern Ireland to allow that to happen. The Minister also made it clear that we are not looking for the same implementation of the NCA in Northern Ireland as we have in the rest of the UK. The NCA will be fully accountable to the Northern Ireland Policing Board, which should provide the desired level of accountability.

Sinn Fein Members feel that there should be more scrutiny and questioning. I believe that there can be no better illustration of the poor service that they give to their constituents than the fact that they are not here in this Chamber to take part in debates of such grave significance to the people of Northern Ireland. If they were here, they could raise those points and ask those questions themselves.

Like my right hon. Friend the Member for South Leicestershire (Mr Robathan), the shadow Minister, the right hon. Member for Delyn (Mr Hanson), said nothing that anyone could reasonably disagree with. However, the impression should not be given that progress is not being made because not enough meetings are taking place or because there is not enough dialogue between this Government and the Northern Ireland Assembly. Rather, it is because one or two parties—but particularly Sinn Fein—are refusing to engage properly with the process. We should state that very clearly.

It has been said in the debate that the proceeds of criminal activities linked to gangs operating in Northern Ireland are a fundamental concern. This also has a bearing on the peace process. Whether the evidence is there or not, the suspicion will remain that the people who are making money from drug trafficking and other criminal offences are using it for other things, such as organised crime or other, more sinister, security-related purposes in Northern Ireland. Until this can be cleared up, and until the NCA is fully operational in Northern Ireland, those debates will persist, which can only be damaging to the talks that are part of the ongoing and dynamic peace process.

The fact that the NCA is not fully operational in Northern Ireland does not mean that there cannot be any co-operation in policing and security matters. The hon. Member for East Londonderry (Mr Campbell) referred to the cocaine seizure off the coast of Cork involving co-operation between the NCA and the naval service of the Republic of Ireland, but we want to see such operations taking place all around the UK. We would not want an operation off the coast of Northern Ireland to fail to take place because the NCA was unable to assume the necessary role to ensure that it succeeded.

I will not take up the House’s time for much longer, because this is principally a debate in which the Members from Northern Ireland should be given the maximum opportunity to express their views. I fully support the motion before the House. The time has come for the NCA to have the same powers in Northern Ireland as it has in the rest of the United Kingdom. That is what the people for Northern Ireland deserve, and the parties that are preventing that from happening should get behind it now.

15:06

[David Simpson (Upper Bann) (DUP)]

The Belfast Telegraph got it right when, on 14 October, it stated:

“The opposition from the SDLP and Sinn Fein to the National Crime Agency operating in Northern Ireland would be farcical if it was not so serious.”

I repeat: it would be farcical if it was not so serious. The Police Service of Northern Ireland and the relevant authorities throughout Northern Ireland are doing their best to eradicate organised crime, but it is a well-known fact that anything from 140 to 180 gangs operate across the Province and into the Republic of Ireland—by the end of this debate, there could be 200—and the crux of the matter is that the National Crime Agency currently does not have sufficient powers to tackle the problems. Those problems include drug smuggling, human trafficking, money laundering, sexual exploitation, fuel laundering and many other crimes that cross international boundaries.

We have heard today of Lord Morrow’s success with the Human Trafficking and Exploitation (Further Provisions and Support for Victims) Bill in Northern Ireland. That legislation is ahead of its time and it represents a great success for Northern Ireland. I hope that it will help a lot of the individuals who are being trafficked. Unfortunately, however, there are still many people out there who will continue to commit this heinous crime. There is a lot of money to be made from it. We have three major industries in the world today: gun-running, human trafficking and drugs.

Some time ago, I started a forum in the schools in my constituency to assist with the issues of cyber-bullying and online pornography that were affecting young people. That has been successful and all the schools have taken it on board. However, these problems can lead to greater financial difficulty for the health service. Self-harm and suicide affect young people under pressure, and the criminal rogues are making life miserable for those who are trying to get on with their everyday lives. A criminal gang in my constituency that is involved in extortion has burnt 39 vehicles in one town this year alone, and damaged homes have made families’ lives miserable, yet the police do not have the resources to take effective action. As we have heard, Drew Harris, the deputy chief constable, recently told the Policing Board that about £13 million-worth of assets accrued by criminal gang bosses, mainly loyalist paramilitaries in east Belfast, cannot be seized because the PSNI does not have that power, as it resides solely with the NCA.

We know the position of the Social Democratic and Labour party. I hope and trust that today’s debate will challenge its conscience when it comes to the protection of children, which is more important than political views. We need to protect the young people and senior folk within our society—that is important. Sinn Fein, and where the money may be going for it, has been mentioned. In my constituency, Sinn Fein councillors have recently said, “The Brits will not dictate to us what we do on this,” and so we are back to the old tribal issue of republicanism and the Brits. That is the bottom line; they will not be dictated to. Unfortunately, it is time that Sinn Fein’s supporters stood up to the facts and, in places such as west Belfast, where families are being put under pressure and young people are being used in all ways, put pressure on to say, “Enough of this. We need to get it resolved.”

[Mr Gregory Campbell]

My hon. Friend touches on the important point that in every constituency, including those represented—or not represented—by Sinn Fein MPs and Members of the Legislative Assembly, there are young people who are under threat and being actively targeted by these gangs selling drugs to them. So Sinn Fein’s community, its supporters and its voters are suffering as a result of its opposition to this move.

[David Simpson]

My hon. Friend has made the point clearly: young people are being forced into drugs, prostitution and other activities. I have again recently visited REACT, an organisation that works from bandit country right up to parts of my constituency. It has highlighted to me the number of young people coming to it who are being forced by criminal gangs not only to take the drugs, but to sell them on the streets. We also have to deal with fuel laundering, whereby tens of millions of pounds are coming out of the British Exchequer and the ordinary individual families have to pay for that.

The situation is unacceptable and it has been ongoing—someone mentioned a time scale of 18 months. It is time that decisions were made on this. If that means the Government need to take action, they need to do so. The situation cannot continue, with young lives and older lives affected. It is extortion from one end to the other, and it cannot continue and must be resolved.

15:13

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

I am pleased to be able to participate in this debate to outline, along with my hon. Friend the Member for Foyle (Mark Durkan), the SDLP position. May I say at the outset that the SDLP has consistently and persistently opposed all forms of violence, at times when it might not have been popular to do so and at times when others promoted violence? Leaving that aside, may I also say that when we signed up to the new policing measures and the PSNI in 2001, it was to those Patten principles of inclusivity and respect for political difference, and it was about accountability and oversight mechanisms? Those were clearly embedded back in 2001, when the new Policing Board, to which the police are accountable, was established.

[Naomi Long]

Earlier, the hon. Lady intervened on the hon. Member for East Londonderry (Mr Campbell), asking him to be specific about the accountability issues and what accountability mechanisms were in place. Would she like to be equally specific about where the gaps in those mechanisms are, because some of us are at a complete loss on that?

[Ms Ritchie]

I thank the hon. Lady for her intervention. If I am allowed to make a little progress, I will be able to explain those things.

Let me also say at the outset that it was due only to the SDLP’s efforts in ongoing negotiations that others are now talking about accountability and oversight; it was because of our efforts that those things are now taking place. For the avoidance of doubt, let me say that nobody should gainsay or deny that. We are concerned about the lack of proper oversight mechanisms, and we are in discussions and negotiations with the Minister of Justice. Two weeks ago, during the debate on the issue in the Northern Ireland Assembly, he freely acknowledged that and took on board our concerns. I would like to highlight those—if I am allowed—as will my hon. Friend the Member for Foyle.

The SDLP is not opposed in principle to the NCA. We are opposed to violence of any kind, and we are opposed to child abuse and the other various matters that have been raised. However, I wish to raise certain issues. We have been given indications from Opposition Members and from DUP Members that questions have been raised as to the effectiveness of the Serious Organised Crime Agency and now the NCA. Why, despite the efforts of the PSNI, SOCA and other agencies on the island of Ireland, has almost nobody ever been before a criminal court in relation to such matters? For us to support the NCA it has a responsibility to us—to everybody—to prove that it will go after those fuel launderers. We have to see the evidence that it has worked heretofore. One of my colleagues, the former Minister of Environment, pursued many of these issues to do with national crime, through the Northern Ireland Environment Agency, with a measure of success, and he probably did not receive that much help from SOCA. So those issues have to be taken on board.

[Mr Gregory Campbell]

Will the hon. Lady give way?

[Ms Ritchie]

If I am allowed to make a little progress, I might be able to help the hon. Gentleman.

Let us consider what we need in order to make progress in these negotiations to a positive outcome and to have an organisation embedded with the principles of inclusivity, respect, accountability and other such issues. The hon. Gentleman never addressed the issue of accountability that I raised in my interventions. I hope that that is not because of glibness on the DUP’s part, and I am sure they will clarify that issue. I would like the Minister in today’s debate to work with the Minister of Justice in Northern Ireland to clarify: that accountability of the NCA is to the Chief Constable and to the Policing Board; that covert operations would take place only with the agreement of the Chief Constable and subject to the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000; and that issues of national intelligence would be carried through only for England and Wales.

[Mr Gregory Campbell]

Will the hon. Lady give way?

[Ms Ritchie]

If I may continue, I would be happy to give way in a minute. I wish to address a couple of other things that we see as being missing from the current NCA. It is further proposed in the helpful paper from the Minister of Justice in Northern Ireland that the conduct of an NCA officer comes within the remit of the police ombudsman. It is not, however, stipulated that the power would be enshrined in statute, although a commitment to that effect appears to have been given to the Policing Board—clarification could be given on that—or that the standard of conduct would, as a result of statute, be that of the PSNI code of ethics. In the latter case, there may be some difficulty in circumscribing an NCA officer by way of the PSNI code of ethics as it may conflict with that officer’s own code of conduct by which he or she is bound according to their contract of employment or service. In respect of covert powers and the remit of the Policing Board, it is proposed that the PSNI be accountable to the board for giving its agreement to the NCA’s operations. However, there may be an issue over the extent to which the board can hold the Chief Constable to account—for example, for giving agreement or for all that follows from that agreement.

Clearly, we have certain issues on which we need clarification. We call on the Minister to hold immediate discussions on those issues with the Minister of Justice in Northern Ireland. We will continue with those discussions because we support the principle of the NCA, but we are awaiting clarification of the issues around accountability and the oversight mechanism to ensure that everything is perfectly in order and that there is nothing untoward in relation to that organisation.

15:20

[Naomi Long (Belfast East) (Alliance)]

I am pleased to follow the hon. Member for South Down (Ms Ritchie), but I hope to correct some of the things that she said in her speech.

Real difficulties are being faced by law enforcement agencies because of the ongoing situation with the National Crime Agency. Northern Ireland may be the locus of the problem, but the difficulties that we face affect crime right across the UK and indeed internationally. As Members have said, we are talking about transnational operations.

The history of the NCA has been well outlined today. It has been in effect from 7 October 2013, and yet some parties in Northern Ireland have yet to reach agreement on extending its powers fully with appropriate accountability mechanisms in place, and that is despite every effort being made to meet those parties’ requests. The Alliance leader, David Ford, who is the Minister of Justice in Northern Ireland, was absolutely clear with the Home Office from the outset that any operation of the NCA in Northern Ireland would have to adhere to the accountability mechanisms that fit within the justice devolution settlement. That was made crystal clear from the beginning, and was not something that was said in response to complaints from others.

The Minister of Justice has been holding talks with most of the Executive parties on a proposal paper that he has put forward. There is a significant gap in Northern Ireland's law enforcement effort, as anyone who has read a recent article by the Chief Constable in the Belfast Telegraph will have seen—many Members have quoted liberally from that article this afternoon. It is of increasing concern that we do not have access to NCA skills.

[Bob Stewart]

The hon. Lady has just said that there is no access, but I feel almost sure that when the NCA gets intelligence that affects Northern Ireland, it will not sit on it; it will pass it on to the PSNI, even though it does not have officers operating in Northern Ireland.

[Naomi Long]

The point that I am making is that we have no access to the skills, and I will go on to outline what that entails. We are talking here not about minor crime, but about serious and organised crime. Others have already mentioned the 140 to 160 organised crime groups that are active in Northern Ireland. It is estimated that there are 800 active criminals engaging in drug dealing, fuel laundering, waste dumping and the increasing problem of cybercrime.

Northern Ireland is used as a transit as well as a destination country by human traffickers. Once criminals start operating across jurisdictions and international boundaries, as many crime groups do, the PSNI needs the active support of the NCA. As the hon. Member for East Londonderry (Mr Campbell) pointed out, the Irish authorities recently benefited from that support to seize a yacht carrying a very significant amount of cocaine. It is beyond ironic that the Garda Siochana is currently willing and able to benefit from the support of a UK law enforcement body that the UK region of Northern Ireland cannot yet fully access.

The PSNI needs to be able to tap into NCA resources to undertake or assist operations. If it cannot access those resources, its officers will be taken away from other local policing work in order to replicate a model in a less effective manner than is already available elsewhere.

There are examples of where the PSNI has not been able to access resources, and I trust that they will answer the question of the hon. Member for Beckenham (Bob Stewart). The PSNI needed support from the NCA on a number of occasions, including on Operation Notarise, which was about online child abuse. It could not get the same support as British police forces. Let me be clear as to why that was. If the predicated offences are devolved in nature, it is not possible for the NCA to assist in the financial investigation, and no Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 powers can be exercised by NCA officers in respect of those crimes.

There have been a number of occasions when the PSNI has sought financial investigator assistance from the NCA in relation to money-laundering investigations, but because they were predicated on a crime of cannabis cultivation, it was unable to access the assistance because it was a devolved matter.

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

The hon. Lady is making a strong point, but, as she knows, the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee, of which she is a member, is holding an inquiry into on-the-runs. Does she feel that if the NCA had been in existence in Northern Ireland there would have been no excuse for the PSNI and the Metropolitan police not to know that the letters had been sent out, effectively allowing terrorists to go free?

[Naomi Long]

I do not think that the NCA would have had any impact there, not least because the NCA followed the locus and time of when those issues took place. However, close co-operation is important.

There have also been times when the NCA has been the correct authority to take a lead in a situation, as opposed to just providing support and skills to the PSNI. For example, there have been issues around drug distribution in Northern Ireland from supply chains across England and Europe, and the NCA has been unable to take a lead on the ground.

The hon. Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Damian Collins) talked about where the gaps in the service exist. On one occasion, the NCA had to request PSNI assistance to search the homes of Northern Ireland drug suspects who were involved in a wider crime investigation. The PSNI officers in question were diverted to another more serious task at the time, leading to a delay in those searches, which could have jeopardised the inquiry into the criminal gang. That has to be dealt with. The PSNI is already losing officers from local police work to cover work that could be passed to the NCA. As the current Budget cuts kick in, the effect of that on the ability to provide the services the public demands will become more and more evident.

Those examples show that delays occur when the NCA has to go through the PSNI because of lack of constable status, and that could compromise UK-wide and international investigations. That situation will get worse as the resources become more strained.

The NCA is also the United Kingdom's centre of expertise in many specialist areas such as cybercrime and child exploitation—areas in which we should all be aiming to ensure that the people of Northern Ireland have the best protection available. Support in the form of advice is available because the director general of the NCA is making every effort to work around the current impasse, but the PSNI does not have access to operational assistance. For example, in the absence of constabulary powers, the NCA can only provide support to the PSNI and it is restricted to assistance in relation to British or international issues. It cannot intervene on the ground.

Then there is the issue of civil recovery, to which I alluded in an earlier intervention: that is, the ability to target the assets of local criminals and disrupt their work and cash flows. That ability has been lost in respect of devolved criminality since 7 October last year. Unlike other areas, that is not being hampered or reduced: it is lost.

Those are all reasons why dealing with the National Crime Agency is urgent. The proposal paper that the Minister, my colleague David Ford, has put forward after working with the Home Office, the Northern Ireland Office, the police, the NCA and others sets out clear and extensive accountability arrangements in line with local requirements and represents a sound and final proposal to enable progress. Additional accountability arrangements proposed by the Minister of Justice include: the accountability of the NCA to the Policing Board, as the director general would have to attend meetings when requested, consult the board on his plans for Northern Ireland to secure its prior consent and take into account the Policing Board’s plans; the fact that the NCA could not exercise constabulary powers or covert investigation powers without the agreement of the Chief Constable, who is, of course, accountable to the Policing Board; and the fact that unlike for SOCA, complaints about the NCA’s functions in Northern Ireland would all be subject to investigation by the police ombudsman.

On the question of things not being placed in statute, I can confirm that it is absolutely the case that the offer to place this in statute is a real offer that will be followed through. There has been no question about that other than the one raised with no evidence to back it up in the House today. There is no question of insufficient accountability. Indeed, the accountability arguably exceeds that of the PSNI and certainly exceeds that of the NCA in any other jurisdiction of the United Kingdom.

These are matters of some great urgency. We have now waited for two years to have the support and assistance of the NCA and to play our full role as a region in protecting the citizens of this country and many other countries from the work of organised crime gangs. It is time for those who are dragging their heels to move forward, have this implemented and do the right thing by the global citizens who are affected by these crime networks.

15:30

[Dr William McCrea (South Antrim) (DUP)]

The NCA is the UK’s leading agency against organised crime, human, weapon and drug trafficking, cybercrime, and economic crime that goes across regional and international borders, but it can be tasked to investigate any crime. The NCA has a strategic role as it looks at the bigger picture across the United Kingdom, analysing how criminals operate and how they can be disrupted. To do that, it works closely with the regional organised crime units, the Serious Fraud Office and individual police forces.

In Northern Ireland, where police assessments indicate that more than 140 and perhaps even 180 organised criminal gangs are in operation—that is those that are known—the NCA is unable to operate owing to the intransigence of the nationalist parties, namely Sinn Fein and the SDLP. The need for the National Crime Agency to have full powers extended to cover Northern Ireland is recognised by many interested parties, including the agencies responsible for administering justice and the courts and those involved in policing. Of course, we in the Democratic Unionist party strongly support that extension.

As someone who represents a rural constituency in the heart of Northern Ireland, I am well aware of the impact criminal gangs have on our rural communities by creating victims of crime, and their negative impact on the rural economy. We have seen audacious attempts by many gangs to carry out all sorts of crimes, including the exploding of ATMs on the forecourts of garages, the laundering and selling of illegal fuel, the stealing to order of valuable machinery, and the worrying trend in the theft of cattle, and the illegal slaughter and sale of those animals in the Republic of Ireland and certain areas such as south Armagh. Those incidents illustrate the need to have at the PSNI’s disposal the expertise and assistance of the National Crime Agency. As we all know, criminals do not respect borders or victims in their illegal pursuits.

The work in which the NCA is involved not only relates to the crimes that I have outlined but, importantly, has a significant role in the area of internet-based crime. Members will be aware that the United Nations Committee on the Rights of the Child has expressed its strong views on the protection of children online. The UN committee is rightly concerned, as we all should be, about the lack of NCA powers in Northern Ireland, as that means that the Child Exploitation and Online Protection Centre is not fully operational in Northern Ireland. The entire House should be alarmed about that. Our children are at much greater risk owing to the fact that the NCA is not operational. I challenge the nationalist parties to explain to the public why they have adopted a negative stance on its implementation in Northern Ireland given the UN report and its ramifications.

I certainly feel that the issue is directly affecting a broad range of people, from the rural farmer who has valuable machinery stolen to order to those involved in the detection of online crime, such as the serious and sickening issue of child pornography. The National Crime Agency is a body that Northern Ireland simply cannot do without. It operates in other regions of the UK and, at a time when our policing budgets are under severe pressure, it makes complete sense to allow the PSNI to have the necessary assistance of the NCA to carry out its investigative duties. I also believe that the ability to seize assets is vital in the fight against gangsters who think that they are untouchable.

The reluctance of Sinn Fein and the SDLP to accept the necessity of allowing the NCA to operate and the PSNI to avail itself of its expertise in the fight against crime internationally puts Northern Ireland and its citizens at a severe disadvantage. The two nationalist parties continually bleat about equality, but once again those calls fall short of ensuring that our communities have the very best security and that the organisations tasked with their protection have the very best intelligence and powers at their disposal.

[Kate Hoey (Vauxhall) (Lab)]

I agree with everything the hon. Gentleman is saying. Many people will understand why Sinn Fein might not want to enter into this, because it does not actually want Northern Ireland to be successful, but what does he think is really at the bottom of the reluctance of the SDLP, which has worked very closely with all parties in trying to take Northern Ireland forward?

[Dr McCrea]

I have to say to the hon. Lady that I am still trying to work that out. I listened very carefully to the hon. Member for South Down (Ms Ritchie), but there is no genuine reason whatsoever that she can give her constituents—she certainly did not give one today—for why she and her party are standing in the way of introducing the NCA in Northern Ireland.

[Mr Dodds]

On that point, was my hon. Friend as disturbed as I was that one of the arguments that the hon. Member for South Down (Ms Ritchie) seemed to advance was that the NCA, in her view, had not performed as well as it should have and needed to step up to the plate? In fact, one of the reasons it cannot do what it wants to do is that the SDLP will not allow it to operate. It was a bizarre argument and, along with the other stuff about accountability, lays bare the total vacuity of the arguments advanced by the SDLP.

[Dr McCrea]

I agree with my right hon. Friend. In fact, it lays bare the bankruptcy of the SDLP’s argument on the matter. There certainly has to be some other reason—a hidden reason—why it is unwilling to take forward the NCA in Northern Ireland.

Northern Ireland’s Justice Minister has highlighted that the NCA’s limited powers in Northern Ireland place an extra burden on the PSNI. While the other constituent parts of the United Kingdom—England, Scotland and Wales—have the expertise of the NCA, as a result of the Belfast agreement the people of Northern Ireland are held to ransom, because concessions to nationalists meant that policing was subject to a far higher degree of community oversight and monitoring than in any other part of the United Kingdom. Therefore, in Northern Ireland we are left with a shadow form of the NCA that can carry out only its border and customs functions, but not its other crime-fighting roles.

In her sixth statement to this House on the security situation in Northern Ireland, the Secretary of State said that the terrorist threat in Northern Ireland remains severe, compared with the threat in Great Britain, which is moderate. The Northern Ireland Justice Minister has warned that the PSNI is already facing pressure with the threat from dissident republicans and loyalist street violence and therefore does not need extra burdens placed on it when there is a fully equipped national agency able to deal with those duties.

The inability of the NCA to operate to its full extent in Northern Ireland means that a back door is open to organised criminal gangs in areas of drug enforcement, human trafficking and other forms of serious criminality. However, the nationalist parties in Northern Ireland do not seem to care about the most vulnerable in our society. This House should be aware, however, of the duplicitous nature of the nationalist parties, as this week in the Northern Ireland Assembly they voted for the Human Trafficking and Exploitation (Further Provisions and Support for Victims) Bill, introduced by my party colleague Lord Morrow, which would ensure that the perpetrators of the crimes of human trafficking and slavery are caught and appropriately punished for the suffering they have inflicted, yet they carelessly oppose the NCA having the ability to administer those powers. Furthermore, the House should note that a number of years ago the nationalists approved the devolution of justice, with SOCA in place, without any caveats.

Even though there is more accountability in Northern Ireland than in any other region of the United Kingdom, it appears that the nationalist parties simply do not like the NCA, and here is the reason: it is a UK-wide agency and they are on a crusade to block anything that is British and remove it from Northern Ireland. It is high time nationalists and republicans stopped using excuses and faced up to the reality of the world we live in and the necessity of such an agency to keep the people of Northern Ireland—their constituents as well as mine—and particularly the most vulnerable, safe.

15:39

[Sammy Wilson (East Antrim) (DUP)]

I am glad that two things have emerged during this debate—first, that this is not some esoteric discussion among the parties in Northern Ireland who cannot agree on some issues and therefore dance around the various points. As members of both Front-Bench teams and other speakers have accepted, the subject has huge implications for the constituents of all Members of the House. If Northern Ireland becomes, as it is becoming, a back door for serious international crime, that impacts on the streets and the people in the rest of the United Kingdom.

The second theme that I hope has come through in this debate is that despite the enormity of the issues at stake, the objections, as described by my right hon. Friend the Member for Belfast North (Mr Dodds), are vacuous. I want to deal with some of the objections raised today by the hon. Member for South Down (Ms Ritchie) and the reasons why the SDLP has blocked the proposals.

Many people in Northern Ireland and in the House will find it rather odd that, because of the inability of the NCA to operate fully in Northern Ireland, people who abuse children are getting away with it, people who are laundering money are getting away with it, people who are smuggling drugs are getting away with it, people who are engaged in the smuggling of fuel and so on are getting away with it and building up vast empires. People who are engaged in all these activities are able to keep their ill-gotten gains because of the absence of the NCA.

What is the objection? The SDLP claims that it wants to make sure that the Patten principles are adhered to, it wants to ensure that the accountability mechanisms are all in place, and it wants clarification that there is no clash in the code of ethics. Meanwhile the criminals, who do not give a stuff about Patten principles and all the rest of it, are walking off free. That is the importance of what we are debating here today. Let us look at what is being asked for.

As has been pointed out, we want to make sure that the ineffectiveness of SOCA, which has been described, is not repeated in the National Crime Agency. Of course, there is already a mechanism for doing that. The Chairman of the Home Affairs Committee has pointed out that there is far more accountability in Northern Ireland than in the rest of the United Kingdom. If there is concern about the effectiveness of the NCA, let us remember that it must bring its plan for the year to the Policing Board; it cannot just say, “This is our plan.” The NCA can then be questioned about the implementation of the plan. Not only that, and just in case the National Crime Agency decides, “Well, Northern Ireland is only small beer and we are not too worried about it,” it is required to show how its plan marries up with the Policing Board’s plan for policing in Northern Ireland.

So if the SDLP is concerned about how to ensure that the National Crime Agency will be relevant and effective in Northern Ireland, there is the accountability mechanism. The fact that the NCA has to go along to the Policing Board, which comprises members of the SDLP, my party and all the other parties in Northern Ireland, as well as independents, means that there is every opportunity to make sure that the plan it is putting forward will be effective in Northern Ireland. The NCA will certainly not be effective if it cannot even operate in Northern Ireland. In the absence of full implementation of the Patten principles, whatever that means, that seems to be the alternative that the SDLP is suggesting,

[Dr McCrea]

Does my hon. Friend think that perhaps the SDLP has tried to tie up the NCA so much that it becomes totally ineffective, just as the hands of the security services were tied behind their backs when they were fighting the IRA?

[Sammy Wilson]

That is always the danger. The more levels of accountability are put in place, the more bodies may be restricted in their operation.

The next point made by the hon. Member for South Down was that we have never addressed the issues of accountability. Let us look at what is in place. Before the NCA operates its statutory powers in Northern Ireland, it has to get that cleared by the Chief Constable, who, in turn, is accountable to the Policing Board. If something goes wrong and there are complaints, the NCA is totally accountable to the Police Ombudsman of Northern Ireland. That is the same degree of accountability as for any other police officer. Once we examine the idea that the issue of accountability is not being addressed, it is seen to be clearly incorrect. It is nonsense. It is a case of dancing on the head of a pin while the criminals walk off with their ill-gotten gains.

The hon. Lady’s next point was about whether covert operations will be subject to the RIPA— Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000—requirements, and so on. Again, covert operations will have to be notified to the Chief Constable, who will be aware of the conditions under which those operations will be undertaken.

[Naomi Long]

More than that, the Chief Constable will be accountable for those operations in a way that would not have been the case previously; if people wish to query decisions that have been made, he can be held to account by the Policing Board.

[Sammy Wilson]

If I had got to my next sentence, that is exactly the point I was going to make. The Chief Constable goes along to the Policing Board on a monthly basis and can be questioned on all the issues that the board is concerned about and all the issues that concern him.

The last point that the hon. Member for South Down made is that all this has to be wrapped up in statute. An assurance has already been given; I have heard the Justice Minister give it. Indeed, when I was a Member of the Northern Ireland Executive, the assurance was given not only that there would be a legislative consent motion here establishing the powers of the NCA, but that any additional statutory changes that were needed in law would go through the Northern Ireland Assembly.

It is not the case that the conditions of accountability are not being met. The hon. Member for Vauxhall (Kate Hoey) asked for an explanation of what is happening. I do not want to take the worst possible explanation, but there are only two interpretations I can think of: first, that the SDLP is so scared of Sinn Fein that it will not take a courageous step on an essential element of policing; or secondly—this is even more petty and childish—that because the term “national” is in the name, the SDLP cannot accept it. We could either batter SDLP Members into submission in this debate or persuade them, but even if we did persuade them by the end of the debate, the situation would not be resolved: given the way the Northern Ireland Assembly works, Sinn Fein has a veto on any legislation because it holds a certain percentage of seats on the Executive.

I have a challenge for the Government. If, even after all the safeguards that the nationalists have said they want have been put in place, there is still a refusal, do the Government have the courage to say, “If you’re going to put the security of people in the whole of the United Kingdom in jeopardy, if you’re going to allow Northern Ireland to be used as a back door for international criminal gangs, and if Northern Ireland is to be the bank for criminal gangs, we are going to put an end to that by putting through legislation—we will take it out of your hands.” That would be a real step of courage, and that is the test.

[Mr Dodds]

My hon. Friend is making an extremely important point which follows the earlier point that, whatever the SDLP says, the critical issue is the attitude of Sinn Fein, which is not even prepared to engage on the issue. The Government here at Westminster cannot avoid this issue and, as with a number of issues in Northern Ireland, they are going to have to step up to the plate in the interests of the people of Northern Ireland on both sides.

[Sammy Wilson]

It is, of course, in the interests of not only the people of Northern Ireland, but the people of the whole of the United Kingdom. That is the challenge. If Sinn Fein are dancing on the head of a pin, the Government must stop pussy-footing around them and make a decision.

[Lady Hermon]

In fairness to our friends in the SDLP, would it not be very helpful if either the hon. Member for South Down (Ms Ritchie) or the hon. Member for Foyle (Mark Durkan) took the opportunity to intervene on the hon. Member for East Antrim (Sammy Wilson) in order to confirm that the SDLP is courageous enough to allow the full remit of the National Crime Agency to extend to Northern Ireland without Sinn Fein? Will they confirm to the House that they have that courage, which I would like to think they do?

[Sammy Wilson]

I am coming to the end of my speech, but I would certainly be happy to give way to either of those two SDLP Members if they would like to intervene. At the end of the day, the important thing is that we get the opportunity to get proper arrangements in Northern Ireland to ensure that criminality is not rewarded. We are one year on since the start of the National Crime Agency, but the only people in Northern Ireland who are celebrating are the criminals who are escaping the long arm of the law because of this impasse.

15:52

[Mark Durkan (Foyle) (SDLP)]

When the legislation to set up the National Crime Agency went through this House, I was one of the Northern Ireland MPs who actually participated in those debates. Many of the others who have spoken today came nowhere near those debates. I made it clear then that the Bill’s provisions for the NCA would cause problems for Northern Ireland because they did not take account of the Patten architecture of policing. I also made it clear that we were not raising those points in order to try to prevent the NCA or anything else from coming into being. The basis of our argument was that more needed to be done to make sure that any new addition or change to policing architecture in Northern Ireland should be entirely compatible with the Patten prospectus. That was the point we made.

The issue before the House at that time related to references to the fact that the Minister of Justice in Northern Ireland had agreed various things and that they would have to be satisfied with various things. It centred entirely on the Minister of Justice—that is where the focus was—not on the Policing Board, the Chief Constable or anything else. That is not a criticism of the Minister of Justice for Northern Ireland, because, as I said at the time, he was caught in a situation whereby Whitehall, which dealt with the issue, was able to talk to him but he was not able to talk to the Policing Board or anyone else in advance of the legislation. Therefore, the first the Policing Board knew about the legislation—indeed, the first some senior people in the PSNI knew about the legislation—was when it emerged in this place.

There is a lesson there: such sensitive issues should not be conducted in that way in future. A devolved Minister should not find himself locked in like that. Since then, the Minister has, rightly and helpfully, engaged with a number of the concerns that we and others—not just we and Sinn Fein—have.

I should also point out that when the whole idea of the NCA was brought up, the Labour party had issues with whether it would properly and adequately replace SOCA. Those are valid concerns. It is not the case that people were stepping in the way to try to stop the NCA. Moreover, Jim Gamble, who has offered distinguished service as a police officer in Northern Ireland and to the Child Exploitation and Online Protection Centre, had serious reservations and misgivings about how the NCA’s work would be carried forward overall. He is on the record as agreeing on several of the issues raised by the SDLP on questions of accountability and—

[Naomi Long]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Mark Durkan]

No, because I did not intervene on any Northern Ireland Members. I heard an awful lot about us on all sorts of questions, and I want to deal with those points and to set the issues in context.

Hon. Members have suggested that the SDLP has wilfully set out to stop the NCA and is still somehow vetoing it. We pointed out issues that needed to be addressed and could have been addressed when we considered the legislation. Many people then dismissed those issues, saying, “It’s impossible. You can’t have the National Crime Agency make anything available to the Policing Board. You can’t have it working with the Chief Constable in such a way. They can’t operate differently in Northern Ireland from how they operate anywhere else.” Lo and behold, we now have proposals for those things to happen, but those who wasted time in dismissing our concerns—saying that they could not be met, but were impossible and specious—now accuse us of having a vacuous position. The fact is that if our views had then been properly pursued and followed by others, we might not now be in the impasse that we have been in for too long.

I want to make a point about child protection. Hon. Members have referred to the recent Assembly legislation on human trafficking. When I sat on the Public Bill Committee on the Modern Slavery Bill, I was at pains to make sure that the legislation in this House was in a better state so that it was properly compatible with the Northern Ireland legislation and there were no jurisdictional or other gaps. That included ensuring that the new anti-slavery commissioner—a UK appointment; potentially a British appointment—could, under the legislation in this House, review and make recommendations on matters in devolved areas if the devolved Administrations opted any of their services into the scope of the anti-slavery commissioner’s work. It is not therefore the case that the SDLP has said that nothing at British or UK level can be applied or that we will have no part of it.

It has been suggested that the SDLP is somehow reluctant to do things on policing that Sinn Fein does not do. Let us be very clear: we committed to Patten. We went on the Policing Board, and we drove the delivery of Patten when Sinn Fein refused to do so and attacked us for our position on policing in council chambers and at every political level. We did not need Sinn Fein then. Even before that, we supported the creation of the Assets Recovery Agency, which Sinn Fein completely opposed, and we supported its work when it was attacked and demonised by Sinn Fein. When SOCA was created, we had concerns that it might not carry forward the good work being done in Northern Ireland by the Assets Recovery Agency, and some hon. Members from other parties shared those concerns. They were not opposed to the existence of SOCA; like us, they had concerns about whether the work would be properly carried forward. People can raise concerns about agencies such as the NCA without being opposed to good law enforcement.

There is no question of our needing to know where Sinn Fein is going before we take a position on the NCA or on anything else. Equally, we differed from Sinn Fein on another aspect of policing. Annex E of the St Andrew’s agreement covered the provisions that basically allowed MI5 to get around the accountability mechanisms provided in Patten. It ensured that what happened with the Mount Vernon gang report by the previous police ombudsman could not happen again, and that no question that touched on or took in aspects of national security and the performance of MI5 could be examined by the police ombudsman. We opposed annex E at the time, and we were the ones who were isolated. We therefore have no problem in differing with Sinn Fein on policing issues. We have done it regularly. We have, however, been absolutely consistent in opposing—

[Bob Stewart]

rose—

[Mark Durkan]

I will not give way, because I want to answer several questions and challenges.

My hon. Friend the Member for South Down (Ms Ritchie) mentioned issues of statute earlier. It is true that commitments have been given that certain provisions will be set in statute, but we need to see the statutory provisions. Any Member of the House would say that the commitment to put something in statute is not enough and that they want to see it. There was exactly that character of exchange recently in the Modern Slavery Public Bill Committee. The Government have committed to table amendments in new areas. We welcome that, but we will judge the amendments when we see them.

Similarly in this matter, we are not telling people, “No, do not draft any statutory provisions or show us what they might look like.” We were told that the statutory provisions will ensure that the ombudsman can look at things. We want that to be properly framed in statute, because we do not want the role that has been promised for the ombudsman to be got around by something in the style of annex E of the St Andrews agreement, which allowed the Government to get around the issue of MI5.

On the issue of MI5, I have asked questions of the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland in this House about how MI5 could conduct operations in Northern Ireland in ways that seem to abuse the role of SOCA. I have spoken to her privately, outside the Chamber, about the cases of people who have supposedly been put under pressure using SOCA powers, on the basis that, “That will go away if you turn for us, work for MI5 and join dissident organisations to be our agent.”

We do not want the NCA to be used and abused in that way under the new arrangements. We want clarity on that. That is one reason why we want to ensure that the role of the Police Ombudsman is absolutely clear. When people come to us with those sorts of problems, there must be a proper channel through which they can take their case and their evidence. And evidence they have. I gave the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland the phone numbers of those who were ringing people up and pressing them. They were stopping people in other parts of the world and taking them into custody in hotels. That is the sort of thing that is going on currently using the MI5 position and the SOCA role. We want to ensure that none of that will apply to the NCA. Those good and proper standards for our constituents are not a lot to ask.

We have engaged with the Minister of Justice in Northern Ireland. In the past, I have acknowledged that he has done good work in this area and has taken some of these issues forward. I also credited his special adviser, even though politicians are not meant to acknowledge special advisers, for his good work and engagement on these issues. We need to take this matter forward. We want there to be no hiding place in relation to any aspects of crime.

Let us be clear that it is not just people in the SDLP who have questioned whether SOCA and all the other agencies to date have been as active and assiduous in relation to whole areas of organised and commercial crime in Northern Ireland as they should have been. The NCA has powers in non-devolved areas such as customs, and there are a lot of things that it could be doing.

When the Crime and Courts Bill was going through the House and we were identifying the problems, some of us said that provision could be made for the PSNI to access and use the resources and insight of the NCA. Other people said, “No, it is only constabulary powers that will work. It cannot work in any other way.” We also made it clear at that time that we were worried that there might be discontinuity in the pursuit and recovery of assets because of the difficulties that had been created. We made it clear that we did not want to see that and that we did not share any of the objections or anxieties that appeared to be coming from Sinn Fein in relation to the pursuit and recovery of assets. It was other people who made those choices. We made it clear that we did not have any issue with that and did not want to stop it in any way. We wanted to ensure that the provisions would be proper and robust.

I refute the insinuation that the SDLP is wilfully blocking the good work that the NCA should be doing. On the Modern Slavery Public Bill Committee, I have argued for future-proofing the provisions to anticipate that the NCA will have a role. That proves that this is not a case of wilful and persistent obstinacy for the sake of it, but a matter of principle. Our principles can be put into good practice. Other people have disputed that, but they now tell us that they have the last word and documentation on how to do it. I think that that so-called last word needs a little more work, and that we will get there.

16:04

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

It is always a pleasure to speak on issues of such importance, and for the Democratic Unionist party to get the opportunity to debate an issue of such regional and national importance.

As we know, the National Crime Agency became fully operational last October, and it was set up to work alongside law enforcement organisations to tackle serious and organised crime. It boasts of a national and international reach covering areas such as sexual exploitation, drugs, human trafficking, fraud, cybercrime and organised criminal groups, to name just a few. The NCA delivers its national response through four pillars: pursue, prevent, protect and prepare. That all sounds well and good, but it cannot pursue, cannot prevent, cannot protect, and cannot prepare in Northern Ireland as it can in the rest of the United Kingdom—and as it would like to—and as my hon. Friend the Member for East Londonderry (Mr Campbell) said, the whole United Kingdom will suffer from that. The NCA sounds good, but it cannot deliver its promises or cover the areas that it claims to cover.

While I have great respect for the hon. Members for South Down (Ms Ritchie) and for Foyle (Mark Durkan), I cannot agree with what they are saying. We have great difficulty trying to understand exactly why they, as members of a nationalist party, cannot agree to support the NCA and move things forward.

On Monday the NCA claimed that the system cannot realistically prosecute all 50,000 sex offenders. That is what it stated: 50,000 sex offenders are free to act as they wish in Northern Ireland because of the intransigence of the nationalist parties. That is particularly worrying as “child sexual exploitation and abuse” is the first “crime threat” listed on the NCA’s website—my right hon. Friend the Member for Belfast North (Mr Dodds) also referred to that. Furthermore, recent years have seen a number of historical cases of child abuse come to light throughout the UK, from those involved with TV and radio, to those in responsible positions in children’s homes. That makes the latest statement from the NCA truly worrying.

Ultimately, owing to the huge scale of child sex crime in Britain, some paedophiles will escape prosecution as police target the most dangerous abusers among the 50,000 regularly viewing indecent images of youngsters. Just this week, Keith Bristow said that it was unrealistic to expect the criminal justice system to deal with every child sex offender, and that it was time to start “thinking differently” about how the police pursue less dangerous offenders. Several things sprang to mind when I read that in the news. The NCA is crucial for accountability, and we need it to be active in Northern Ireland, to make its case, and for us to have its protection as well as its experience. What does it say for our system that child sex crime in the United Kingdom is so large and widespread? We all know about the disturbing evidence across the whole of the United Kingdom and Northern Ireland that shows that it is a clear issue.

[Bob Stewart]

I took a lot of comfort from the words of the hon. Member for Foyle (Mark Durkan). To me he suggested that some things have changed and that there was a possibility that the SDLP would now consider the matter. That is the way I read the speech. Perhaps I am wrong—[Interruption.] He is nodding, and that is exactly the way I read the speech. There is a possibility that we can get agreement from the SDLP, which is fantastic.

[Jim Shannon]

It has taken SDLP Members two years to come to that position, but it is always good when they eventually arrive at it. We will wait to see what happens in the next week or two when the talks proceed. There is now even less of a deterrent for criminals when it comes to those areas not covered by the NCA in Northern Ireland.

[Ms Ritchie]

rose—

[Jim Shannon]

I am happy to give way to the hon. Lady. I think that earlier somebody said firmly, “The Member for Down South”, but she is the hon. Member for South Down.

[Ms Ritchie]

I thank my neighbour, the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon), for giving way. Does he agree that it is other people who are now coming to our position on the issue of accountability, and that it was through our intensive efforts on that issue that we have now achieved that particular position?

[Jim Shannon]

I thank the hon. Lady for her intervention, but the fact is that the parties who have spoken for this matter are the parties that are moving forward. We are very happy to drag the SDLP along screaming to the process, if that is the way it has to be, and make it feel part of it. If the hon. Member for Beckenham (Bob Stewart) feels that things have moved forward that is great news, but we have to see the evidence. Accountability is here. We do not think there is any need for delay.

[Mr Gregory Campbell]

Does my hon. Friend agree that two things remain outstanding as of today? Even if the SDLP has moved, the point is that drug dealers, illegal fuel launderers and other criminal gangs are still able to operate without the sanction that the NCA could provide. Even if the SDLP eventually agrees, Sinn Fein will not agree. We are still left with that impasse.

[Jim Shannon]

My hon. Friend clearly puts the focus on the issue at hand. Unless the SDLP signs up to the accountability process already in place it will fail to convince any of us of the fullness of its potential.

My hon. Friend the Member for East Londonderry referred to drug dealers, and there are others who are classed as extremely dangerous: those involved in protection rackets, fuel laundering and drugs, whether legal or illegal. We need the NCA in place. We need its contribution. We need its experience and ability. We want it to go after everyone who is breaking the law and we want to make available the money for that to happen.

Members have referred to the fact that the NCA is not active in Northern Ireland because of nationalist intransigence. At the same time, we have the difficulty of welfare reform which has also restricted money. It is almost a double whammy: the nationalists say we cannot have the NCA and that we do not have the money to resource the policy fully either—nationalist intransigence on both counts.

Recent times have not been great for the NCA in terms of child sex abuse. Last week, the organisation had to make a public apology after the body tasked with tackling the most dangerous paedophiles in the UK sat on information about 2,345 potential abusers which had emerged from an operation carried out by Canadian police. We need to have the resources available and we need to ensure that all internet companies, the police and the Government do everything they can to make people more accountable.

It is important for anyone who has been a victim of child abuse to speak, particularly those who were placed in homes. Reference will be made to Kincora in an Adjournment debate later today, but I want to speak briefly on the vile abuse that took place in Rubane House in my Strangford constituency. The ongoing inquiry estimates that 200 of its 1,050 former residents have made allegations of serious sexual or physical abuse. The inquiry is ongoing, but we need the input of the NCA to deal with child sexual abuse across the whole of the United Kingdom. These cases are often—I mentioned the input from the Canadian police—not just provincial or national, but international. A total of 13 Northern Ireland institutions are being investigated. More scandals will come to light. We do not want paedophiles or criminal gangs using Northern Ireland as a backdoor to the United Kingdom and the rest of the world.

A recent investigation in the UK has resulted in 660 sex offenders being arrested. It was the biggest operation for more than a decade. That is fantastic news, but we need the NCA in place to ensure that those who think that Northern Ireland is a place where they can carry out their evil activities can be caught. As some have put it, the NCA has become a victim of its own success, because it has uncovered more than the courts can deal with. We have to ensure that that is not the case and be assured that our police and courts have the relevant resources to arrest and imprison these criminals. Each of us has a responsibility to make sure that this happens, so that people face justice and are no longer on our streets or a threat to our children.

Initiating the operation of the NCA in Northern Ireland will be a giant step in making criminal gangs accountable. Accountability is already in place. There is no acceptable excuse for nationalists to say no. They cannot pay lip service to the police and the rule of law, while at the same time standing against the operation of the NCA in Northern Ireland.

16:14

[Ian Paisley (North Antrim) (DUP)]

Tomorrow, when people pick up the Belfast Telegraph and the News Letter, they will not recognise this debate. Invariably, a photograph will be published of Prime Minister’s Question Time and a packed House, and then a picture will be published of fewer than 20 Members in this debate, and people will say, “Look how uninterested the House was.” That would be a calumny, however, because this has been one of the most interesting Northern Ireland debates in recent times, and has been well attended from across the House: more than 25 Members in attendance, at most times; 16 or 17 speeches; and the same again in interventions. It has shown the wide interest among hon. Members and the drive to debate the matter properly and flush out some of the excuses we have heard regarding the NCA.

I commend my hon. Friend the Member for East Londonderry (Mr Campbell) for his presentation of the issues and for posing the important question: what good reason is there not to have the NCA operational in Northern Ireland? At the end of the debate, I think we can all truthfully say that no good reason has been presented to the House. We have heard hot air, excuses, explanations and raised voices, but no answer nailing why the NCA should not be operational in Northern Ireland. The Government need to move forward immediately, therefore, to ensure that the NCA becomes operational as quickly as possible.

The hon. Member for Foyle (Mark Durkan) mentioned annex E to the St Andrews agreement, which of course contains a reference to the operation of MI5 in Northern Ireland. The excuses presented concern accountability, but let us be clear: we are talking about the operation of a significant arm of the delivery of law and order services in Northern Ireland, and there is no accountability for MI5 because it is a national issue. I know that some camouflage has been put in the window and that from time to time the Policing Board calls in the head of MI5 and questions him, but that is an informal arrangement agreed between the head of MI5 and the board; there are no formal accountability arrangements, yet every political party in Northern Ireland plays the game because they are supposed to be committed to the rule of law.

The issue of the NCA is just as important, if not more so, when it comes to dealing with everyday organised and serious crime, yet we have seen deliberate obfuscation and attempts to prevent the delivery of this service. These excuses should be set to one side immediately. Since this debate started, there will have been people trafficking, the smuggling of illicit goods—in the last year, we have had issues with illicit food products being smuggled and presented for sale across Northern Ireland—and other criminal activity, yet no serious answer has yet been given to the question: why are we not implementing the NCA in Northern Ireland? It is wrong.

As the right hon. Member for South Leicestershire (Mr Robathan), a former Minister, made clear, certain friends of a certain organisation appear to be benefiting from the current situation. The right hon. Gentleman, a distinguished Member of the House, would probably know, because he has just left government and I am sure papers have crossed his desk showing what is happening. If so, it is the strongest reason why the Government should implement the NCA over the heads of the Assembly and say, “You’re not up to it. You’ve had two years to play around with this. We’ve given you every opportunity.”

The opportunities were given in 2012. In September 2012, the hon. Member for Foyle asked the Secretary of State if she would undertake a comparative assessment of the compatibility of the NCA with the Patten report, and the Secretary of State came back quickly and said it was compatible. She indicated that it was reflected in the Crime and Courts Bill, maintained the primacy of the Chief Constable and provided for local accountability. If the SDLP’s questions, which it was entitled to asked, have been answered, why then does it continue to object to the NCA being put in place?

[Mr Robathan]

The hon. Gentleman knows that I agree with him, but let me correct one point. I was not basing anything I said on privileged information. I want to make that correction for the House—and for the Government, in case they pursue me late at night.

[Ian Paisley]

I wish I had not given way. There was some explaining to do outside the Chamber.

I appreciate the comments made from the Labour Front Bench. The right hon. Member for Delyn (Mr Hanson) made it very clear that this issue will not threaten the peace process. No one here is going to have their bluff called on that any more. People can keep pulling that one out of the drawer and saying, “Oh, if we do not do this right, the peace process will be in crisis,” but we have got to recognise that that can no longer be used as an excuse. The objections to implementation are, as the right hon. Gentleman said, bewildering. I think that, having listened to the hon. Members for Foyle and for South Down (Ms Ritchie), Members will remain bewildered, bewitched and bedevilled that we have not yet got the answer. We wish we could have that answer. The SDLP Front-Bench spokesmen need to sign up; it has taken them more than two years to act. I hope that after today and after what some Members have taken as comforting words from the hon. Member for Foyle, we will see action as well as just words about these matters.

My right hon. Friend the Member for Belfast North (Mr Dodds), the leader of our group, made it very clear in his clarion call that it is time to act. With all the discussions we have had, it is now time to see action. We deliberately proposed this debate so that the Government Front-Bench team can give us an answer: will we now see action taken on these key issues?

I was very pleased with the comments of the Chairman of the Home Affairs Committee, who made it clear that when it comes to accountability, we have a better deal in Northern Ireland. I want to put on record the fact that I welcome the accountability that has been achieved. I sat in the Public Bill Committee, together with the right hon. Member for Delyn and others, where we argued for additional accountability and it was achieved. The trouble is that, two years later, nothing has been done as a result, despite all the assurances having been given. When we hear the Chairman of the Home Affairs Committee saying that accountability is much stronger in Northern Ireland than anywhere else in the UK and casting a jealous eye over Northern Ireland’s accountability arrangements, I think we should take that as credit for Northern Ireland and say that that sort of accountability arrangements should pertain in the rest of the United Kingdom. The arrangements for scrutinising this type of organisation are altogether better.

All of us, with the exception of two Members, indicated their support for moving forward immediately, but some of us have taken comfort from the fact that the SDLP appears to be more in tune and is now in line with history on this particular issue and not on the wrong side of history, as has often been said. Irrespective of whether we can persuade SDLP Members on these issues—the party has its own issues to address—two matters remain important.

My hon. Friends the Members for South Antrim (Dr McCrea), for East Antrim (Sammy Wilson), I think, and for Upper Bann (David Simpson) put their finger on the nub of the problem, which appears to be sectarianism—an unwillingness to get over the issue of the word “national”. It appears to be as petty as that, but I hope that is not the case, because unfortunately the people who are suffering are innocent children. At the behest of these criminals, people are having their pockets robbed daily, and our country is being held to ransom. Northern Ireland has become the soft underbelly of the criminal world, which of course causes us great concern.

Even if we address those petty concerns, the objection from Sinn Fein remains. Sinn Fein has an elected mandate; it is the second largest party in Northern Ireland; it has strength in the Northern Ireland Assembly. That being the case, the Government have a stark choice to make. Do they implement over the heads of Sinn Fein, as was asked for by the First Minister in the Select Committee, and as has been asked for again in this House by the hon. Member for Belfast East (Naomi Long) and others, or should they allow this to dribble on and on with countless crimes continuing to mount up? I hope that the Government will, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Belfast North said, act—and act now.

16:24

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Karen Bradley)]

It is a pleasure to wind up this important debate on behalf of the Government.

As we heard from my right hon. Friend the Minister for Policing, Criminal Justice and Victims, the Government are committed to ensuring that the National Crime Agency can operate fully in Northern Ireland. In my capacity as Minister for serious and organised crime, I have observed at first hand how important the NCA’s role is in disrupting organised crime groups—more than 5,000 of which are operating in the United Kingdom—and how important it is for us to ensure that the maximum skills and territorial reach are available to it, so that we can protect the citizens of the United Kingdom and disrupt these criminals.

As has been pointed out a number of times today, Northern Ireland is currently losing out because the NCA cannot operate there with full powers as it does elsewhere in the United Kingdom. It is only right for the people of Northern Ireland to be afforded the same protection in the fight against serious and organised crime. Organised crime is a threat to our national security. The NCA has national and international reach. It will always have a level of capability and specialism that cannot be achieved at force level. It can operate across jurisdictional boundaries in a way in which local law enforcement cannot. Serious and organised crime groups do not operate in isolated pockets in each region. They do not respect borders or false boundaries, as the recent Tilbury incident demonstrated. We need to be co-ordinated, because otherwise it becomes easier for serious and organised criminals to exploit the gaps and pull at the seams.

The Police Service of Northern Ireland recently estimated—these figures have already been mentioned a number of times today—that between 140 and 160 organised groups are active in Northern Ireland. That amounts to an estimated 800 active criminals. Nearly a third of those groups have been assessed as having links to international criminality, and a further third have been assessed as being linked to criminality in the UK and the Republic of Ireland. Important points have been made about the reach of those organised crime groups, and the extent to which we in the wider United Kingdom are exposed to them as a result of the NCA’s lack of capability in Northern Ireland.

Owing to its limitations, the NCA is unable to target serious and organised crime groups in Northern Ireland that are involved in activities that require policing powers to tackle. They include groups that are involved in the supply of drugs, the supply of firearms, fraud, cybercrime, human trafficking, and the sexual exploitation of children. An international approach must be taken by everyone if we are to tackle that crime. Irrespective of the debate in Northern Ireland, if the United Kingdom does not opt into the 2014 European justice and home affairs measures, there will be very serious implications for the way in which the threat in Northern Ireland is tackled. Those measures are hugely important to cross-border co-operation between the UK and Ireland on licensing and criminal justice. They include the arrest warrant, the European criminal records information system, SIS II, and other important capabilities of which we need to be part.

Our strategy approach needs to be tightly co-ordinated to counter the threat, because otherwise, as I said earlier, it will become easier for serious and organised criminals to exploit and pull at the seams. We need to ensure that there are relentless measures to disrupt serious and organised criminals, stop people getting involved, and strengthen our protection against organised crime. Leading that fight is the National Crime Agency, with its crucial national and international reach. It has already become an integral part of law enforcement in Great Britain, but, as has been said many times today, that is not the case in Northern Ireland.

[Bob Stewart]

I have to agree with my friends from Northern Ireland. After two years, I think that the national Government should take a national position with the National Crime Agency and impose it on the people of Northern Ireland, who are just as British as I am.

[Karen Bradley]

I shall deal with the point raised by my hon. and gallant Friend shortly, but let me first say that we respect the devolution settlements in the same way that we must respect devolution settlements in regard to a number of matters. That can apply to something as trivial as a planning decision made by one’s local council, which one may not agree with as the Member of Parliament, but which one must respect because it was made by the people who were given the authority and competency to make it.

[Bob Stewart]

I am sorry, but that is not the same as—

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

Order. It is up to the Minister to give way before the hon. Gentleman can come in. Let us leave it that way; we are not changing the rules today.

[Karen Bradley]

I want to be clear: I am talking about trivial examples of how we respect devolution in order to show the many ways in which devolution is respected across the United Kingdom, whether in the devolved Administrations, with the powers and competences devolved to them, or our local councils. We must all respect that, and recognise that point.

[Ian Paisley]

The Minister should be under no illusion. We have not called lightly for her to intervene. This is the only issue on which the parties have united to call for the Government to intervene. We respect the devolution settlement—we are part of it, and we helped negotiate it—but there are times when there is a logjam and the Government of our nation must act.

[Karen Bradley]

If the hon. Gentleman will forgive me, I will get on to the specific points about that. I accept the points he makes, and they have been made throughout the debate, but I will get to those specific points shortly.

The consequences of not acting are potentially devastating. This is about drugs and violence on our streets, children being abused and vulnerable people defrauded. Organised criminals make money out of other people’s misery and undermine the fabric and cohesion of our communities. That threat costs the UK more than £24 billion a year, and it is not just the financial cost—it is the emotional and physical cost, and the impact on families and communities. We should not underestimate the importance of the threat.

The hon. Member for East Londonderry (Mr Campbell) opened the debate very well and made a number of important points, some of which were followed up later. He set the scene very well and his example of drug smuggling and the co-operation required on that powerfully highlights the importance of this matter.

The shadow Minister, the right hon. Member for Delyn (Mr Hanson), and I spent many happy hours in the Modern Slavery Bill Committee recently. I am pleased to say that he, like us, is supporting the motion before us today. He wanted to know what extra steps the Government are taking, and the hon. Member for North Antrim (Ian Paisley) and others asked about that, too, including the right hon. Member for Belfast North (Mr Dodds) and my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Beckenham (Bob Stewart). The UK Government have been fully involved in the discussions, rightly led by the Northern Ireland Justice Minister David Ford, and in developing the package and supporting the discussions. The package represents a sound proposal to enable progress and it has the Government’s full support. We remain ready to support David Ford in those discussions, including by meeting the parties if they would find that helpful. I will pass back to the Justice Minister the comments that have been made about setting deadlines.

Comments were made about whether the UK Government should legislate for the NCA in the absence of agreement, and I want to be absolutely clear. As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland said recently:

“Be in no doubt, it may have ‘national’ in its name but the UK Government completely accepts the crucial importance of ensuring that NCA’s operations in Northern Ireland are fully consistent with the devolution settlement.”

We have to accept that devolution settlement. That is what this Westminster Government agreed to do when that settlement was set up by the previous Government, and we must continue to respect it in order to maintain that settlement.

[Dr McCrea]

Will the Minister give way?

[Karen Bradley]

I will not, because we do not have long and we have another debate.

[Dr McCrea]

rose—

[Karen Bradley]

No, please forgive me.

David Ford has also been clear that this cannot go on indefinitely. He said we are now at the end of the road. His proposed package is comprehensive and gives clear, transparent and significant local accountability, which we fully support, but if agreement is not reached we will have to draw a line under it for the foreseeable future and we will need to assess how that affects law enforcement here.

Policing is devolved in Northern Ireland and we respect that. We have been, and are, fully supportive of the discussions being led by the Justice Secretary to address the concerns around accountability. These discussions remain ongoing—David Ford is trying to meet Sinn Fein and Keith Bristow, the director general of the NCA, has met the parties to address their concerns and offer assurances. If agreement is not reached, we will have to accept that the NCA will not be fully operational for the foreseeable future. I therefore urge all parties—

[Mr Dodds]

Will the Minister give way?

[Karen Bradley]

No, I will not, given the time we have left.

My right hon. Friend the Member for South Leicestershire (Mr Robathan), who apologised for having to leave before the end of the debate—

[Kate Hoey]

Will the Minister give way?

[Karen Bradley]

No. I am sorry, I need to make progress. My right hon. Friend, a former Minister for Northern Ireland—there should be a collective noun for former Ministers of Northern Ireland, because we have many in the room today—explained clearly the importance of the issues in the light of his great experience. My hon. Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Damian Collins) pointed out that, in a way, he has a land border with another member state—the only such non-Northern Ireland Member in the room—and expressed clearly the need for the NCA to operate throughout the whole of the United Kingdom.

A number of Members, including the hon. Members for Upper Bann (David Simpson) and for East Antrim (Sammy Wilson), the right hon. Member for Leicester East (Keith Vaz), who chairs the Home Affairs Committee, and my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Beckenham, talked about the need for proceeds of crime measures to be extended to Northern Ireland. I very much agree with those points. Depriving organised criminals of their assets makes it harder for them to return to crime and perhaps acts for many as a bigger deterrent than jail. I refer Members to the changes we are putting through in the other place through the Serious Crime Bill, which will assist us in dealing with asset recovery. Clearly, extending those provisions to Northern Ireland would be very important in improving that recovery rate.

The hon. Member for South Down (Ms Ritchie) talked about the oversight mechanisms, and usefully clarified her party’s concerns about accountability. It is probably useful if I make some points now about the accountability proposals. There are no statutory mechanisms, about which she asked, providing for NCA accountability in Northern Ireland at the moment, but David Ford’s proposals provide that the NCA director general will attend meetings of the Policing Board on request—including urgent meetings, with reasonable notice—and this will be in statute. NCA officers will need the agreement of the Chief Constable of the Police Service of Northern Ireland to exercise policing powers in relation to an offence, and the PSNI will then produce a community impact assessment.

On covert techniques, in all cases the NCA will obtain the agreement of the PSNI prior to their use, save for where the request is related to a case of police corruption. That would be enshrined in a memorandum of understanding, made under schedule 24 to the Crime and Courts Act 2013. The human rights adviser of the Northern Ireland Policing Board will have access to the surveillance commissioner’s report on the NCA, in a non-redacted form, in connection with the NCA work associated with criminality in Northern Ireland.

[Mark Durkan]

Will the Minister give way?

[Karen Bradley]

I cannot, I am afraid; I have been given strict warnings by the Deputy Speaker. The—

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

Order. I am not being dragged into this. If the Minister wants to give way, she can. It is not for the Chair to decide, I can assure you.

[Karen Bradley]

I should have been clear: it was Madam Deputy Speaker who gave me very strict warnings.

[Dr McCrea]

On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. Is it in order for the Minister to hide behind stating that you had instructed her not to give way because she had little time, leaving us in a potentially devastating position?

[Mr Deputy Speaker]

Dr McCrea, we both know that that is not a point of order. The bottom line is that I clarified the position: it is exactly in the Minister’s hands and quite rightly; she will choose whether she wishes to give way or not. She has given way already, and it is the choice of the Minister.

[Karen Bradley]

Returning to covert techniques, NCA officers will be required by the Justice Secretary of Northern Ireland to have an appropriate level of training, including on ethical issues and human rights, through the general authorisation.

The question was asked whether the NCA’s being subject to the police ombudsman will be put on a statutory footing. Yes: an order under schedule 24 to the Crime and Courts Act can substitute the reference to SOCA in section 60ZA of the Police (Northern Ireland) Act 1998 with a reference to the NCA. That would make the NCA subject to the police ombudsman.

One final point on the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000: the National Crime Agency is bound by the RIPA codes of practice, and existing accountability mechanisms under RIPA and the Police Act 1997 would apply, including oversight by the Office of Surveillance Commissioners and the ability of the Investigatory Powers Tribunal to try to determine human rights claims about the unlawful use of covert techniques regulated by RIPA.

The threat from serious and organised crime is national and international, but its devastating impacts are felt locally. Northern Ireland is not exempt from that. The National Crime Agency is committed to assisting the Police Service of Northern Ireland in tackling serious and organised crime in Northern Ireland as far as the restrictions on its powers permit, but those powers are limited at the moment.

The Government fully support the discussions being led by the Northern Ireland Justice Minister. He has listened to people’s concerns and worked closely with the Home Secretary, with me and with the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, as well as with the National Crime Agency and the Police Service of Northern Ireland, to address them. The package of proposals that he has developed is a good one; it provides the accountability that people want. We hope that the Northern Ireland Justice Minister’s discussions will lead to agreement of all parties on the terms under which the NCA could take on its full role in Northern Ireland. This would strengthen the fight against serious and organised crime and better protect the people of Northern Ireland.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House condemns the increasing number of illegal activities being carried out by organised criminal gangs in Northern Ireland; notes police assessments that more than 140 such gangs operate in Northern Ireland; and calls for the implementation, in full, of proposals for the National Crime Agency to help deal with this problem, which is particularly prevalent in border areas.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

I now have to announce the result of the deferred Division on the motion in the name of Mr William Hague relating to the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority. The Ayes were 384 and the Noes were 18, so the Ayes have it.

[The Division list is published at the end of today’s debates.]

[Lady Hermon]

On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. There are five Sinn Fein Members of this House who do not take their seats. What constitutional authority do they have? They do not speak in this Chamber and have not spoken in this debate, yet they have an effective veto over national legislation being extended to Northern Ireland.

[Mr Deputy Speaker]

The hon. Lady raises an interesting question, but it is not a matter for the Chair.

[Dr McCrea]

On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. When I spoke to Madam Deputy Speaker earlier, she said that the first debate was to finish at 4.45, yet the Minister would not take an intervention even though she had four minutes left. I think there was a suggestion that she was hiding; she certainly was.

[Mr Deputy Speaker]

We have discussed this matter already and I have ruled on it. It is not a point of order and, in fairness, it is up to the Minister to decide what to do with the time allowed, and that was absolutely correct. We have now allowed extra time for the next debate, which is well subscribed.

Military Covenant

Wednesday 22nd October 2014 Commons Chamber

16:43

[Mr Jeffrey M. Donaldson (Lagan Valley) (DUP)]

I beg to move,

That this House notes the First Report of Session 2013-14 from the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee on the Implementation of the Armed Forces Covenant in Northern Ireland, HC 51; further acknowledges the recommendations of Lord Ashcroft in his report on The Veterans Transition Review; and calls on the Government to ensure the full implementation of the Military Covenant throughout the UK, including in Northern Ireland.

I am delighted to move the motion in the name of my right hon. and hon. Friends relating to the implementation of the armed forces covenant across the United Kingdom, including Northern Ireland. The Democratic Unionist party is proud of the contribution made by men and women from throughout the United Kingdom, including Northern Ireland, who serve in our armed forces and who have served the United Kingdom in many theatres of conflict across the globe. We will make particular reference to Northern Ireland in this debate.

Operation Banner was the longest-running military operation in the history of the British Army. In the course of that operation, a high price was paid by the members of our armed forces and we pay tribute to them today. They include 502 soldiers from the Regular Army, seven from the Territorial Army, five former regular soldiers, 196 members of the Ulster Defence Regiment—a regiment which I was proud to serve— 40 former members of that regiment, seven members of the Royal Irish Regiment, four from the Royal Air Force and two from the Royal Navy. We salute the memory of all those brave souls. Today, many people in Northern Ireland enjoy life because of the sacrifice of those who were prepared to put themselves in the front line in defending the entire community against terrorism.

[Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Con)]

To carry on the right hon. Gentleman’s point, may I say that 20% of the forces that deploy in defence of the United Kingdom come from Northern Ireland, yet it has only 3% of the population? That is a pretty good record—thank you.

[Mr Donaldson]

I very much appreciate the hon. Gentleman’s kind remarks. He served with distinction in Northern Ireland, and to this day carries the scars of his service and the memories of those who did not return home with him. He rightly says that we supply about 20% of the reserves deployed on operations, and I am delighted to see the reserves Minister, the hon. Member for Canterbury (Mr Brazier), in his place, as he is a good friend to Northern Ireland. We are very proud of the contribution those soldiers make to the armed forces of the United Kingdom.

In respect of the implementation of the armed forces covenant, it is therefore important that those who come from Northern Ireland and those who reside in Northern Ireland have the same access to the support, treatment and care they require when they retire from the armed forces as applies across the UK. A significant number of veterans live in Northern Ireland, not only the many who served during Operation Banner, but others who have served in more recent conflicts. With the draw-down from Northern Ireland and the end of Operation Banner some facilities that were available for the care and treatment of the armed forces in Northern Ireland are no longer in place, such as the Duke of Connaught unit at Musgrave Park hospital, a specialist military facility that closed after Operation Banner. That has created a greater reliance on the NHS and the facilities that can be accessed by all the public in Northern Ireland.

[Sammy Wilson (East Antrim) (DUP)]

Will my right hon. Friend outline the difficulties that ex-servicemen and women in Northern Ireland face because of the problems we have with section 75 and the inability to give priority to service personnel? Such priority can be given in other parts of the UK but cannot be given in Northern Ireland.

[Mr Donaldson]

I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention and I will deal with that issue in some detail later. It is worth noting that the armed forces covenant is designed to ensure that veterans are not disadvantaged by virtue of their service in accessing the care, treatment and support they require. There is at times a misunderstanding about what the covenant means in terms of equality legislation and so on, and we need to address that.

I have made reference to the troubles, as they are sometimes described, in Northern Ireland. A recent report by the World Health Organisation on post-traumatic stress disorder—PTSD—identified that Northern Ireland has a higher incidence per head of population of PTSD and trauma-related illnesses than any other conflict-related country in the world, including places such as Israel and Lebanon where there have been sustained conflicts for many years. The study found that almost 40% of Northern Ireland’s population had been involved in some kind of conflict-related traumatic incident. The survey estimated that violence has been a distinctive cause of mental health problems for about 18,000 people in Northern Ireland—given the population size, that is significant. Yet no specialist provision has been made to take account of the fact that because of the conflict Northern Ireland has a higher proportion of people with trauma-related mental illness than arises in other parts of the world. That is particularly the case for the ex-service community; the Police Service of Northern Ireland has a specialist facility, funded by government, that seeks to treat officers and former officers for trauma, but there is not quite the same facility for the many more who served with the armed forces.

In fairness, I must mention the Royal Irish Regiment Aftercare Service, which is a unique provision for Northern Ireland, and which the Democratic Unionist party fought very hard to achieve. When the home service battalions of the Royal Irish were being disbanded, we felt that it was important that an aftercare service was put in place to provide welfare support for those who had served constantly on the ground in Operation Banner over many years. We are talking not about soldiers who did a six-month tour of duty and then left for two or three years and came back, but men and women who were on the ground all the time and constantly on duty. Even when they were off duty, they could not relax because many lost their lives at such times. The level of stress that that must have brought on those individual soldiers and their families is enormous. There is a price for that, and we need to be cognisant of it. Therefore the armed forces covenant is important in Northern Ireland in ensuring that the level of support is consistent with the level of need.

[Lady Hermon (North Down) (Ind)]

Will the right hon. Gentleman take the opportunity to put on record his appreciation of his party colleague, the former Health Minister Edwin Poots, who did an excellent job in looking after veterans’ health despite section 75 of the Northern Ireland Act 1998? Will he make it absolutely clear that it is really the responsibility of the Ministry of Defence to fund any additional post-traumatic stress support for those who have served the country and the Queen nobly, in uniform, in Northern Ireland and elsewhere?

[Mr Donaldson]

I thank the hon. Lady for her intervention. She is personally aware through her work of the many people who require such support. She paid tribute to my friend and fellow constituency representative, the former Minister of Health, Mr Edwin Poots. I will refer later to some of the provisions that he put in place.

First, let me refer to the report of the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee, whose Chairman I am delighted to see in his place this afternoon. The Committee undertook an inquiry into the implementation of the armed forces covenant in Northern Ireland. It is worth noting that its conclusion stated:

“There are a number of cases where the Armed Forces Community in Northern Ireland does not receive the same level of benefits in relation to health, housing and education as that community in Great Britain.”

There are deficiencies that need to be addressed.

[Naomi Long (Belfast East) (Alliance)]

One other conclusion that we reached flies in the face of the point made by the hon. Member for East Antrim (Sammy Wilson) about section 75. We concluded not that the equality framework had created a barrier to the implementation of the covenant in Northern Ireland, but that the problem was the awareness of Departments, so the Equality Commission of Northern Ireland has undertaken to better inform them.

[Mr Donaldson]

I thank the hon. Lady for that intervention. As I alluded to earlier, the perception often does not match the reality. I take her point, and I come to section 75 now.

I had a number of cases of veterans who required health care support, on which I was in correspondence with the former Minister for Health, Mr Edwin Poots. He pointed out in a letter to me that there were constraints within his Department on providing adequate support for the veterans’ community, although he did establish an armed forces liaison forum, which was linked to the armed forces protocol. As the hon. Member for North Down (Lady Hermon) pointed out, some valuable work has been done by the Department of Health, under DUP ministerial control, to co-ordinate the health and social care response to the needs of service personnel and veterans in Northern Ireland.

On occasion, however, when officials are interpreting that policy and the protocol they are allowing the equality provisions to get in the way of providing the support that is required. The Equality Commission has a job to do in educating our civil service on what the armed forces covenant means as regards ensuring that veterans are not disadvantaged by virtue of their service. We are not looking for special privilege; that is the point. We want to ensure that they are not disadvantaged as there is some evidence to suggest that Departments are acting in a way that disadvantages members of the armed forces.

[Naomi Long]

Will the right hon. Gentleman also take the opportunity to acknowledge the work that my colleague Stephen Farry has been doing on access to third level education for those leaving the armed services? That is also a very important part of people being able to access the employment market after they have left the armed forces and being able to participate fully in society.

[Mr Donaldson]

I am very happy to acknowledge that work and to commend Dr Farry for the work he has been doing to ensure that those leaving the forces have access to higher level education.

Indeed, I also want to mention the Department for Social Development, which has been undertaking work to ensure that the housing needs of veterans are met. There are still problems, however. I had two soldiers in my office last Friday who are in the transition phase and have encountered real problems in being rehoused under the Northern Ireland housing selection system. More work needs to be done in this regard to ensure that soldiers leaving service are not disadvantaged by having to join a waiting list when the situation might have been different had they been living ordinarily in their community. The two soldiers have been resident in Lisburn, in Thiepval barracks in my constituency, for some time. They have been living in the city, but when they joined the housing selection list they were treated almost as if they were newcomers. We need to look at that and to bring about some clarity.

That brings me to section 75 and the point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for East Antrim (Sammy Wilson). When what was then the Northern Ireland (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill was making its way through this House, we tabled an amendment the effect of which would have been to add veterans of our armed forces to the list of categories of groups protected by section 75. That is important, because had our amendment been accepted it would have cleared up once and for all this misunderstanding about the status of veterans of the armed forces in the equality legislation. Section 75 covers everything from people of different religious belief, political opinion, racial group, age, marital status or sexual orientation, people with disability and so on. We would like the veterans of our armed forces to be specified as a distinct group under section 75 of the Northern Ireland Act 1998 so that it is absolutely clear to every Department that under that equality legislation they have an obligation—indeed, a statutory duty—to promote equality when carrying out their functions. All that means is that the armed forces and veterans are treated fairly and equally and that they are given a distinct status under the current legislation. We believe that that would bring the clarity required to the current law and end any ambiguity that there might be in the minds of civil servants. We urge the Government once again to consider this minor amendment to section 75, which does not alter in any way the statutory duty placed on Departments and authorities but ensures that veterans and the armed forces are properly treated when it comes to meeting their needs.

I mentioned the Royal Irish Regiment Aftercare Service and the continuity the service provides, and again we urge the Government to ensure that it is properly resourced in the future. The need is not diminishing. In fact, there is a lot of evidence that post-traumatic stress disorder, for example, only becomes apparent several years after a member of the armed forces has left service. To suggest that we cease the aftercare service for the former home service battalions of the Royal Irish Regiment would be a mistake. We need to continue that service to ensure that the thousands of soldiers who serve continuously in Northern Ireland on operational deployment 365 days of the year are properly looked after, not just now but in the future.

[Mr Gregory Campbell (East Londonderry) (DUP)]

Does my right hon. Friend agree that many former service personnel come to our constituency offices because of post-traumatic stress? I had one such individual come to my office two weeks ago who is still suffering 23 years after a series of events that affected him while he was not even on duty. That is one of the issues to be dealt with here.

[Mr Donaldson]

I thank my hon. Friend for making that point; he is absolutely right.

Lord Ashcroft was commissioned by the Prime Minister to undertake a review of the transition for veterans leaving the armed forces and entering the community. His report made two specific recommendations in relation to Northern Ireland. First, and significantly, he recommended amending section 75 of the Northern Ireland Act to enable service leavers and veterans to receive the recognition and provision they deserve. Again, we call Lord Ashcroft in aid of our argument that we need that legislation to be amended.

Secondly, Lord Ashcroft recommended that the Government should appoint a security-vetted armed forces champion in Northern Ireland to enable service leavers and veterans to claim entitlements without fear for their personal security. That remains an issue for many veterans, because in parts of Northern Ireland there is still a threat and they are still targeted by those elements in our society that do not support the peace process.

I hope that the Government will reflect on those recommendations. It is disappointing that the Cabinet Office response did not refer to either recommendation. I therefore call on Ministers today to reflect on the proposals to amend section 75 and to appoint an armed forces champion in Northern Ireland. Perhaps an armed forces champion could also serve on the reference committee that meets regularly to discuss implementation of the military covenant. Northern Ireland is not represented on that committee, because unfortunately there is one party at the Executive table that will not agree to the appointment of a military covenant representative.

[Mr Gareth Thomas (Harrow West) (Lab/Co-op)]

I am interested in the right hon. Gentleman’s discussion of the potential role of an armed forces champion and wonder whether I can tempt him to suggest that the champion might also look at the potential for a military credit union for servicemen and their families, both in Northern Ireland and across the rest of the United Kingdom. There has been some debate in the House on that prospect, so it would be useful to hear his view on it.

[Mr Donaldson]

We in Northern Ireland would be very keen to see such a facility made available to armed forces veterans and their families. Credit unions are very widely supported in Northern Ireland, and this would be of real benefit, so the armed forces champion might have a role in helping to take that forward.

[Lady Hermon]

I do not wish to sow a seed of dissension, but the right hon. Gentleman will understand that, from my perspective, I am a little nervous about how former members of the Royal Ulster Constabulary, and indeed the Royal Ulster Constabulary Reserve, would feel if section 75 was amended to refer only to the armed forces. I am sure that he understands where my heart lies in that matter.

[Mr Donaldson]

I understand the hon. Lady’s point entirely. I have not made specific reference to that because it is not within the scope of the debate. However, when we tabled our amendment to the Northern Ireland (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill, we sought to include another category that would have involved all the innocent victims and survivors of the conflict in Northern Ireland, which of course would have included the Royal Ulster Constabulary, the Royal Ulster Constabulary Reserve, the Police Service of Northern Ireland and so on. I emphasise the use of the word “innocent” in our definition of a victim. I of course take the hon. Lady’s point.

There are some very good facilities in Northern Ireland. I commend the excellent work of the military charities in Northern Ireland, particularly the Royal British Legion, SSAFA, Combat Stress, which has done some excellent work helping those with post-traumatic stress order, and the various regimental benevolent funds, which are often overlooked but are quietly undertaking work with former members. They do a very good job and have worked throughout the period of Operation Banner, quietly supporting the armed forces and our veterans. But we sense that there is a need for a more co-ordinated approach in the implementation of the covenant.

That is why we—I, my right hon. Friend the Member for Belfast North (Mr Dodds) and others—met the Prime Minister and sought a commitment from the Government to assist us with the establishment of a dedicated centre in Northern Ireland to meet the needs of veterans. This would bring together some of the military charities and the Veterans Agency as a kind of one-stop shop for veterans. There is support for this within the armed forces community in Northern Ireland and among the charities, and we made some progress. We are looking, for example, to Help for Heroes. The people of Northern Ireland are very generous in their support of military charities. Every year without exception Northern Ireland contributes more per capita to the poppy appeal than any other region of the UK, and one can understand why. We support generously other military charities, including Help for Heroes and we have been in discussion with it. It is willing, in principle, to support the establishment of such a veterans centre in Northern Ireland.

We ask the Government to give the proposal a fair wind, and I am happy to meet Ministers at some stage to share with them the concept behind the veterans centre and how it might help to ensure full and proper implementation of the covenant in Northern Ireland by helping to educate people about the services already available. We are talking not necessarily about additional services, but about bringing together existing services and signposting veterans towards them.

Finally, I refer to the community covenants. We do not have any in Northern Ireland at present, which I think is a major deficit. Somewhere in the system there seems to be a reluctance to see the implementation of community covenants. In my own constituency, the city of Lisburn, we have the headquarters of the Army in Northern Ireland, the headquarters of 38 Brigade, and we now have 2 Rifles garrisoned there. We would dearly love to have a community covenant that would encourage much more interaction, although some already exists. Lisburn is very welcoming of the Army. It always has been and always will be, but we believe that the community covenants would help to encourage an improved relationship between the armed forces garrisoned in Northern Ireland and local communities.

In comments to the Welsh Affairs Committee on 30 October 2012, the present Minister for the Armed Forces, the right hon. Member for Rayleigh and Wickford (Mr Francois), highlighted the particular challenge of implementing the community covenants in Northern Ireland. In his evidence to the Committee he recognised that some local authorities in Northern Ireland controlled by Sinn Fein and sometimes, unfortunately, aided by the SDLP seem reluctant to examine the potential of the community covenant. There is a sensitivity surrounding the issue, which acts as a deterrent within the system. Even councils such as Lisburn city council, which are more than willing to introduce a community covenant, keep hitting a brick wall. I have encountered this. For some time I have been encouraging the council to introduce a community covenant and the council tells me that when it tries to do so, there is a problem somewhere in the system.

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

Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman would care to come to Plymouth to see how we put together a brilliantly good community covenant. We are working incredibly hard on that. Maybe he would like to bring people with him as well.

[Mr Donaldson]

I would be delighted to visit Plymouth to see the community covenant in action. Indeed, we might even bring some of my colleagues from Lisburn to attend.

I ask Ministers, in examining this issue, to bear it in mind that there seems to a be a problem somewhere in the system, with a reluctance to have community covenants in Northern Ireland. I understand that some kind of system is currently in place with 38 Brigade in respect of community covenants. I am happy to write to Ministers on this point to seek some clarity on where we stand.

We now have 11 new councils established in Northern Ireland. They were elected this year and will take on new and extended local government powers from April next year. There is an opportunity for those councils to introduce community covenants, so let us not put any barrier in the way. If there is one, let us examine why it is there and have it removed.

[Mr Nigel Dodds (Belfast North) (DUP)]

Perhaps my right hon. Friend can assist me on the role that 38 Brigade plays in community covenant grants. I understand that there could be an alternative way of doing this. How satisfied is he that that would provide a full substitute for the way in which the system operates elsewhere, and what are the inadequacies of that approach?

[Mr Donaldson]

My right hon. Friend puts his finger on the point. Northern Ireland seems to have a slightly different system for the establishment of community covenants than that which applies in other parts of the United Kingdom, which involves a role for 38 Brigade. I have not yet been able to establish why, but there seems to be reticence somewhere in the system about introducing community covenants. Some councils are willing to do this, and we should therefore be encouraging it. I am happy to write to Ministers so that perhaps we can get to the bottom of this.

The Democratic Unionist party supports the full implementation of the armed forces covenant in Northern Ireland. Some problems still need to be ironed out. We would like section 75 of the Northern Ireland Act to be amended to ensure that there is no ambiguity about how the covenant should be implemented by Government Departments and agencies in Northern Ireland. We would like to see the continuation of the Royal Irish Regiment Aftercare Service, and the establishment of a dedicated veterans centre in Northern Ireland. Finally, we would love to see each of the new councils in Northern Ireland introduce a local community covenant to improve relations between our armed forces and the community. I believe that that is what the vast majority of people in Northern Ireland want.

17:12

[The Minister of State, Ministry of Defence (Anna Soubry)]

It really is a great pleasure to follow the right hon. Member for Lagan Valley (Mr Donaldson), and I am very grateful for his speech. It might have looked as though those of us sitting on the Front Bench were muttering away, so I hope he did not think that we were doing so in some disrespectful way; in fact, we were listening to and discussing many of the very good points that he raised. I join him, and I am sure everybody else in this place, in paying tribute to all those who have served, especially to those who have made the ultimate sacrifice, and, of course, their families.

One of the most interesting parts of the right hon. Gentleman’s speech—I confess freely that I had not thought of it in this way before—was when he talked about mental health, a subject that is dear to my heart. We are making very good progress, in all our armed forces, in how we deal with mental health. Certainly, the statistics show that we do not have a higher incidence overall of mental health problems among people who are leaving our armed services than among those in the greater population. I would like to discuss further all the matters he raised, but particularly his very good points about post-traumatic stress disorder. Many of these men saw traumatic incidents when they served, and that affected their families as well. Of course, they did not have the benefit of going back home, because that was their home. He made some very interesting and important points. As I say, I am more than happy to meet him to discuss everything that he advanced in his speech.

I welcome the support of the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee and its endorsement of the armed forces covenant and the two key principles on which it is based. The first is that the armed forces community should face no disadvantage compared with other citizens in the provision of public and commercial services. We are therefore saying not “an advantage” but “no disadvantage.” I am sure everyone present understands that, but it is important that we get that message out. The second key principle is that special consideration is appropriate in some cases, especially for those who have given most, such as the injured or the bereaved.

[Mr Laurence Robertson (Tewkesbury) (Con)]

Obviously, we carried out the report in great detail. Since then I have come across a case in my own constituency regarding a young lady whose father was based in Germany. They had a British forces post office address, but, on their return, she was unable to claim jobseeker’s allowance because she was not registered as being habitually resident here. That is a very clear example of how that family is disadvantaged. If that is incorrect I would be glad to take that back to her.

[Anna Soubry]

I would, of course, be more than happy to discuss that issue with my hon. Friend and see whether we can sort it out.

The armed forces covenant is a clear statement of how members of the armed forces community should expect to be treated, no matter where they live in the country. That reflects the moral obligation we have to all of those who have given so much for their country.

Over the past four years, the Government have delivered a comprehensive programme of activity to rebuild the covenant around the country. We have delivered improvements in health care—both at home and on operations—and in education, housing and, more broadly, the way we support all members of the armed forces community. For example, additional funding by the Government now ensures that our injured personnel have access to the latest world-leading prosthetic limbs, and that the high standard of care they receive in the armed forces continues after they leave. I am not suggesting that everything is perfect, but we have certainly made considerable progress.

[Bob Stewart]

I speak as a disabled ex-serviceman—I am 30% disabled. The Northern Ireland Affairs Committee report states:

“Priority NHS treatment—in England, Scotland and Wales there was priority NHS treatment for veterans with Service-related injuries subject to the clinical needs of others, but in Northern Ireland there was no such priority.”

I assume we are trying to get it for Northern Ireland.

[Anna Soubry]

We are. Members will have noticed that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence has come to the Chamber specifically to listen to the debate. He has reminded me—I should have known this—that he has already visited Northern Ireland. The hon. Member for North Antrim (Ian Paisley) is not in his place, but I remember him inviting me to Northern Ireland some time ago when I had a different ministerial role. I assume that that invitation still stands—his colleagues will no doubt ask him about that for me. I would be more than happy to come over—in fact, I would love to—and not only see the examples of which we have heard, but help in any way I can so that people in Northern Ireland understand what the covenant is all about.

[Mr Thomas]

After the hon. Lady has been to Northern Ireland, I wonder whether I could tempt her to go to Virginia in the United States and visit the home base of the Navy Federal credit union. It is the world’s biggest credit union and the only people who can join it are members of the US military and their families. Would that offer further motivation for the hon. Lady in her helpful conversations with civil servants at the Ministry of Defence about the possibility of a British military credit union?

[Anna Soubry]

I think that’s a bit off the motion, if I may say so, but, hey, it doesn’t matter: it’s always worth getting in a good point. I would ask the hon. Gentleman to speak to the noble Lord Kennedy, with whom I had a very good meeting recently, who will tell him that huge progress has been made on credit unions.

To return to the subject of the debate, we have ensured that war pensions and armed forces compensation payments for veterans are disregarded for the purposes of entitlement to benefits, and that the most seriously injured veterans receive a new independence payment so they are not affected by changes to the disability living allowance. Those are just some examples of the steps we have taken to support our armed forces community and ensure the Government are living up to the principles of the armed forces covenant. The 2014 armed forces covenant annual report, which will be laid before Parliament before Christmas, will provide further details on the work we have done and the progress that we have made, as well as on areas in which we need to do more.

In a devolved society, there will always be differences in service provision in different parts of the UK. Only yesterday I had the great pleasure of attending the Army Families Federation annual conference, at which several people made quite serious complaints about standards. For example, some of those from Wales complained about education and health in Wales, over which, unfortunately, I have no control whatever. We are aware that there are disparities in services, but I am afraid that that is often the consequence of devolution.

It is heartening that even with the different political and legal situation in Northern Ireland—as we have heard, such differences can make armed forces issues more challenging than elsewhere in the country—the armed forces covenant now extends to Northern Ireland almost in its entirety, notwithstanding the difficulties of councils not signing up. I must mention one of our concerns. We now know that all councils in Britain have signed up to the covenant, but the most important thing is for them to deliver on it. If I may say so, it is very easy for a council to sign up to it, put out a press release and get all the good publicity, but delivery is what is most important. We certainly take the view that there has been some good delivery in Northern Ireland.

[Stephen Lloyd (Eastbourne) (LD)]

My hon. Friend is talking about councils. With 150,000 or so veterans living in Northern Ireland, which is a considerable number given its size, does she agree that it was unhelpful that no members of the Northern Ireland Executive responded to the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee’s invitation to appear before it?

[Anna Soubry]

All I can say is that I do not see how on earth it can help if no such Ministers came along, because the more people who get themselves involved the better for everybody concerned, but that is just my view.

[Lady Hermon]

May I, as a member of the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee, correct the record? Two Ministers from the Executive came before the Committee. If my memory serves me correctly, they were the then Health Minister, Edwin Poots, and his colleague the then Social Development Minister, Nelson McCausland.

[Anna Soubry]

I am more than happy for the record to be corrected. I am delighted that they came along. I had dealings with Edwin Poots, and if I may say so, I always found him very good in his role as Health Minister in Northern Ireland.

In Northern Ireland, we are beginning to see good delivery on the covenant. That was demonstrated by the fantastic support at Newtownards, where 25,000 people attended the Northern Ireland regional Armed Forces day event, and a further 10,000 lined the parade route through the town.

Lord Ashcroft’s report has been mentioned. “The Veterans’ Transition Review” highlighted that the majority of former service personnel go on to lead very successful civilian lives, begin new careers and enjoy good health. However, it also acknowledged that the vast amount of support available to former service personnel throughout the UK can always be improved. The Government have now published our response to Lord Ashcroft’s report. As ever, I pay tribute to him for the huge amount of work he did in compiling it. It provides coherent guidance on how to improve the transition process, and it has been hugely helpful.

For those who are not familiar with the detail of the report, I confirm that 20 of Lord Ashcroft’s recommendations are already in place in full or in part, 11 are being developed and another eight are being investigated. Specifically on Northern Ireland, he recommended that armed forces champions should be appointed to allow service leavers and veterans to claim their entitlements without fearing for their personal security. I must say that we have found no evidence that previous service in the armed forces was in any way preventing our ex-service personnel from accessing the services provided by Northern Ireland Departments.

I am delighted to confirm that from April 2015, each of what I believe are called super-councils—the new local authorities—will nominate both a non-elected official and a councillor to be members of the Reserve Forces and Cadets Association for Northern Ireland. That must be an indication that progress is being made. The councillor will also act as the local veterans champion. They will manage local sensitivities, where they arise, and enable political action at the appropriate level to ensure that cases are progressed satisfactorily. That is really good progress. We want all local authorities across the United Kingdom to have a local veterans champion, so Northern Ireland is leading the way. That is another example of the covenant in action.

There are three recommendations in Lord Ashcroft’s report that we are not taking forward. One of those is Northern Ireland-focused. We simply do not agree—although we are always listening—with his view that section 75 of the Northern Ireland Act 1998 should be amended. Some hon. Members have said that, from time to time, section 75 has held back the extension of the covenant measures to Northern Ireland, but we do not think that is the case. However, as I have said, I am going to go over to Northern Ireland and speak to people.

When we last discussed these matters, we reported that some 93% of the covenant measures—this is how we judge whether the covenant is beginning to work—applied in Northern Ireland and that 7% were yet to be met. We are making progress. In June this year, when he was the Minister of State in the Northern Ireland Office, my right hon. Friend the Member for South Leicestershire (Mr Robathan) updated the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee and advised it that

“practically all of the outstanding covenant measures now apply, or will soon do so, in Northern Ireland.”

It is particularly pleasing to note that the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee has endorsed the Government’s view that there is no need for section 75 to be amended. In its report of July 2013, the Committee stated that it was

“reassured that the Northern Ireland equality framework does not create a greater barrier to implementation of the Covenant in Northern Ireland than elsewhere in the UK. It is important this is understood by those involved in the delivery of services to the Armed Forces Community.”

I have no doubt that everyone in the Chamber will share our sincere hope that those reassurances will be communicated throughout Northern Ireland. Indeed, much of this debate will be communicated throughout Northern Ireland, so that everybody understands what the covenant is all about, which is ensuring that there is no disadvantage.

Despite some concerns, the covenant is not only alive and well in Northern Ireland, but is going from strength to strength. That is testimony to the widespread commitment to the armed forces covenant across communities. Despite the difficulties of Northern Ireland’s unique history and political situation, we have seen real achievements in its progress.

In addition to the veterans champions, a bid supporting the legacy co-ordinator’s post within the UDR and Royal Irish Aftercare Service, of which we have heard much, received £50,000 from the £35 million of LIBOR funding that we have made available. That funding meant that the role was extended for two years, offering support and advice to statutory and voluntary organisations and individuals covering a range of issues. The Ministry of Defence fully recognises the medical care needs of veterans, which is why it funds measures such as the aftercare service to work alongside the NHS in delivering high-quality support and care. The aftercare service’s continuing collaboration with 38 (Irish) Brigade and the Reserve Forces and Cadets Association has led to the identification of possible research studies in Northern Ireland on future armed forces covenant activities and the needs and concerns of the veteran community.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

The Minister has mentioned the cadets. Does she recognise the immense contribution of the cadets to better community relations across Northern Ireland? In parts of the Province, the take-up for the cadets is very high among communities that in the past would have been perceived as nationalist communities.

[Anna Soubry]

I absolutely agree. The cadets bring many bonuses to individuals and, as the hon. Gentleman identifies, across the communities. I commend that marvellous organisation to anyone with a youngster. It is a win-win all round.

To make the most of our whole welfare force we have set up a veterans support forum that brings together MOD representatives, all the service charities, and veterans support organisations, to pool information and resources and ensure that those in need can be sign-posted towards the most effective help. In a way, it is quite similar to the Confederation of Service Charities—Cobseo—in Great Britain, and it is great to bring people together in that way. I am also pleased to note that discussions are ongoing with Help for Heroes, Combat Stress, and the Forces in Mind Trust, which all do a great job, about expanding that work in Northern Ireland, and all are due to be present at the next meeting of the veterans support forum.

In future, as the old Administrations draw down we should mark, with thanks, their support for the armed forces, and as the political landscape of Northern Ireland changes, we must focus on sustaining our momentum. The reforms relating to public administration in Northern Ireland will undoubtedly bring governance challenges for the newly created super-councils in April 2015, and we look forward to building and developing new relationships, and underpinning the unique set of circumstances in the region. We should not be afraid to expand on existing provisions and relationships where it is practical so to do, while also being mindful of personal and community opinions about the armed forces, which have been shaped by generations of bitter conflict. If I may say so, we should always look to the future.

We have made good progress, but it does not stop there and work is being undertaken to investigate how to embed and sustain covenant activity throughout the country, and to ensure that members of the armed forces community can access the information and support the need in their local communities.

[Robert Jenrick (Newark) (Con)]

I am incredibly proud that this Government enshrined the military covenant in law, and its effectiveness will really be in whether it is just about fine words or actions. May I draw the Minister’s attention to a case in my constituency, which I think has wider relevance? A constituent of mine, Mark Iles, feels that he has been hard done by as a veteran in his pension from the Ministry of Defence. He has written to the MOD and to Ministers steadfastly over a number of years, asking about the details of his case, and also asking about the military covenant and whether he has been fairly treated. No Minister or the MOD will be drawn on that question. How does the military covenant interact with his circumstances, and has he been fairly treated as an individual? Is it Government policy that no serviceman or veteran can ask that question?

[Anna Soubry]

Not at all, and as I always say in this place, my door is always open. I am more than happy to meet my hon. Friend and discuss that case. In my experience, my officials and I take all cases very seriously, and the attention and care that is given to cases and to letters is incredibly impressive. That is my experience, but I am happy to meet my hon. Friend and discuss the case that he has quite rightly raised.

The Government will continue to work with the service charities, and we all join in praising their great work, as well as that of local communities and industry throughout the UK. We must identify measures that will reinforce the armed forces covenant message, and develop a long-term action plan that builds on the current momentum. Most crucially, we must help society to fulfil its moral obligation to our brave servicemen and women, and their families, both now and in the future.

17:33

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

I am pleased to speak in this debate, and I welcome the motion before the House. I acknowledge the diligent work of the right hon. Member for Lagan Valley (Mr Donaldson) on defence matters, including his service on the Defence Committee, as chair of the first world war centenary committee in Northern Ireland, and as the local Member representing Thiepval barracks and the home of the 38 (Irish) Brigade. I recognise his unwavering commitment to our armed forces.

It does not seem too long ago that we last discussed this topic in the Chamber, but I appreciate the frustration that as yet no resolution has been found to the overall and full recognition and implementation of the armed forces covenant in Northern Ireland. Today more than 1,800 military personnel are stationed in Northern Ireland, along with the veterans who live there, including those at 38 (Irish) Brigade at Thiepval barracks, which is the headquarters of the Army in Northern Ireland. We owe a huge debt of gratitude to all our servicemen and servicewomen, their families and veterans who have, and continue to make, sacrifices of the highest order in defence of our freedoms and the freedoms of others around the world.

We are a couple of weeks away from our annual remembrance commemorations. The physical representation of our remembrance will soon start to appear on our lapels. I will be wearing mine following the launch of the annual Scottish poppy appeal this evening at Dover House. It is worth saying that whether people wear a poppy is entirely a matter of personal choice, but the wearing of a poppy is not a symbol of anything except remembrance. We should keep that in mind in the next few weeks.

The armed forces covenant is one of the ways we show our gratitude to our forces. It sets out the relationship between the Government, the people and the armed forces community, and the principles by which the service community should expect to be treated. It is the least the country can do to honour those who are prepared to make sacrifices every day on our behalf. I speak to many service personnel and their families, as I know does the Minister, and it is clear to me that they do not want to receive special treatment from anyone. They do not want special advantage because of their service. What they want is a level playing field, so that they do not feel they are a step behind everyone else because they may have spent the previous 10 years partially serving abroad or moving their families around from base to base. Importantly, one of the key principles of the covenant is that no member of the armed forces community should be disadvantaged as a result of their service.

I urge the Government again to get their own house in order. I say that gently, because I recognise the Government’s work on the armed forces covenant. As I understand it, there is no mechanism—I have asked this question before—in government for testing a policy against the principles of the armed forces covenant. As long as that remains the case, we will end up in the situation we had with the bedroom tax. Armed forces families were hit by the bedroom tax and it took months of our raising the matter with the Government before they finally made a statement that, from then on, service families would be exempt. The other issue that has come to light—[Interruption.] I hear the Minister saying that that is ridiculous. It is a fact. If he would like to intervene, he is very welcome to do so.

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

I am very grateful to the hon. Lady for allowing me the opportunity. I cannot think she can sustain her argument. We have a Cabinet Sub-Committee dealing with this matter at ministerial level and we have the covenant reference committee dealing with it. We are looking at it constantly, in real time, all the while. I cannot possibly see how she can say that policy ideas are not tested against their potential impact on members of the armed forces, current or past.

[Gemma Doyle]

If the Minister is telling me that there is a mechanism in place—I do not think that there is—by which policies that are developed by the Government, Ministers and officials are tested against the principles of the armed forces covenant, I would be very happy to receive the details. All the points the Minister outlined are very welcome—[Interruption.] If he stops chuntering, I will finish my point. All those things are very important in upholding the principles of the covenant, but if there had been a proper mechanism in place, we would not have had the ridiculous situation of armed forces families being hit by the bedroom tax. That is what happened, and that is why the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions eventually, after months of our asking him, had to come forward with an amended position. I therefore disagree strongly with the Minister on that.

We have also seen—I raised this with the Minister of State, Ministry of Defence, the hon. Member for Broxtowe (Anna Soubry) on Monday—the differential in the amount of money that veterans and civilians diagnosed with mesothelioma will receive. I appreciate that she said on Monday that that is now being looked at, and I hope that we can find a resolution, but if policies are tested as they are developed, we will not have to sweep up afterwards when a policy disadvantages a member of the armed forces community.

There might be times when special consideration is appropriate for those who have served their country, and it is incumbent on the UK Government and devolved Administrations to take that into account, test their policies and make special provisions where necessary or justified. I welcome the reports published by the Scottish and Welsh Governments providing details of how the covenant is being implemented in their respective nations, but it is disappointing that as yet we do not have such a report from the Northern Ireland Executive.

We do not necessarily need uniformity across the four nations in how the covenant is implemented and reported on. Indeed, one of the benefits of devolution is that we can develop local services according to the issues in each area. However, we need to know what is going on, because if the covenant is not being upheld in some way, it is a matter of concern and we should know about it so that we can look at the reasons.

I welcome the work done in Northern Ireland on the covenant and I am grateful to the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee for highlighting some of that good work. In particular, the right hon. Member for Lagan Valley (Mr Donaldson) mentioned the Royal Irish Aftercare Service. I know that the Minister has already offered to visit, but if it is welcome, I would be happy to come over and visit that service and anything else Members think would be useful. [Interruption.] We can come separately or together—whichever arrangement is best.

According to the Committee’s report, however, there remain several areas where the armed forces community in Northern Ireland does not receive the same level of benefits—I use that word in the broadest sense—in relation to health, housing and education as it does in the rest of Great Britain. I think we have heard some of those details already today.

As has also been mentioned, Northern Ireland is not a signatory to the community covenant, which is disappointing. I would be grateful to hear more from the right hon. Gentleman about why that is and how the matter could be taken forward. By comparison, 400 local authorities across the rest of the UK have signed up to that agreement.

The veterans transition review carried out by the noble Lord Ashcroft, which we have welcomed, also highlights some of the problems facing the armed forces community in Northern Ireland. It sets out how the history and political landscape have perhaps interrupted the focus on service leavers and veterans and covers the issue we have discussed of equality legislation and section 75 of the Northern Ireland Act 1998 being a potential barrier to the implementation of the principles of the armed forces covenant.

I acknowledge that those are not issues that can be easily solved, but at its heart the armed forces covenant is about people and fairness, and it is up to us and, in particular, the two Governments, to find a way through it. The Equality Commission for Northern Ireland has said that there is no conflict between section 75 and the principle of no disadvantage for armed forces personnel and families, so it is concerning to hear that some officials might be using it as an excuse not to respect fully the principles of the covenant. To be clear, section 75 should not be used as an excuse for inaction.

I would also place on the record my appreciation and support for the many service charities, including but not limited to the Royal British Legion, SSAFA and Combat Stress, working in Northern Ireland and across the rest of the United Kingdom. Without their tireless work, our armed forces community would not be as well supported as they are now. However, as always, we should not expect the voluntary sector to step in and do the work of Government. Similarly, we cannot expect local authorities to bear the full brunt of responsibility.

It is worth looking back at the armed forces covenant report from last December—I appreciate that this year’s report is due quite soon—as it contained a quote from the families federations of the three services:

“Central Government has asked local authorities to implement many aspects of the AF Covenant with little additional resources in terms of financial support, staff or guidance.”

I have raised this point previously and I reiterate it: we must ensure that we do not end up with central Government pushing extra responsibilities on to local authorities, which might not have the resources or be equipped to deliver the commitments we make here. That might result in the service community being let down. I urge the Minister to undertake and publish an audit of what local authorities are being asked to deliver for the service community and what resources are being provided to them to do that. At the moment, I remain concerned that there is a gap, as reflected in the comment I cited from the families federations.

The armed forces community has made many sacrifices in defence of our country and continues to do so. We are grateful for its professionalism and dedication. We should recognise, too, the continued support of their families and the wider armed forces community. We know that Northern Ireland has faced particular challenges in taking the covenant forward, but I hope the Northern Ireland Executive will do all they can to ensure that veterans who have settled in Northern Ireland are supported, and that families and serving personnel there are treated in line with the principles of the covenant.

I note the Northern Ireland Committee’s particular recommendations for mental health provision and the appointment of an armed forces advocate. In line with the motion before us today, I urge the Government to ensure the full implementation of the armed forces covenant throughout the United Kingdom, including in Northern Ireland.

17:47

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

May I say how apt it is to have this debate today? On Monday, with my hon. Friend the Member for Tewkesbury (Mr Robertson), I was in Northern Ireland, visiting graves with the British-Irish Parliamentary Assembly. It was an enormous privilege to be able to pay tribute not only to them, but to the graves of the Scots, the Welsh and the English who had given their lives during the first world war.

Before I go any further, I want to place my contribution in some context. I am the vice-chairman of the all-party group on the armed forces, with special responsibility for the Royal Marines and the Royal Navy, as well as vice-chairman of the all-party group on veterans. I have been involved, too, with the veterans’ court partnership run by Trevor Philpott down in Devon and with Forward Assist of which I am a patron, as encouraged by my very good friend, the hon. Member for Blaydon (Mr Anderson), who unfortunately does not sit on this side of the fence, but there we go.

I am the Member of Parliament for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport, which is the home of 3 Commando Brigade, a fine set of Royal Marines and Royal Navy personnel. Let me take this opportunity to thank my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State—who is unfortunately not in his place—for investing £2.6 billion in Devonport dockyard, which will, I hope, safeguard 4,000 jobs for the foreseeable future. It is a very different place from what it was when I was first elected—I do not pretend for a moment that I have been totally responsible for that, but I hope that I have been able to put some pressure on the coalition Government to ensure that Devonport was safeguarded much more than would otherwise have been the case. During my 10 years as the candidate for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport, I have been for ever asking questions—or, more importantly, answering them—about what would happen to Devonport in the future. I certainly think that it is much safer now than it has been for a very long time.

In the Plymouth area, the jobs of more than 25,000 people depend on the defence industry, and there are a large number of veterans. I pay tribute to Her Majesty’s School Heroes, which looks after some of the young children of servicemen and women. Those children must have had an incredibly difficult time over the past few years, seeing their parents go off and fight in Afghanistan and, of course, in earlier campaigns. It must be incredibly worrying for them when their parents are deployed abroad, and I am delighted that Plymouth has worked so hard to put that right.

Last year, we on the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee—on which I serve, and I am delighted to have my hon. Friend the Member for Tewkesbury as my Chairman—went to Washington to see for ourselves how the United States has been looking after its veterans. We had to take account of the fact that the United States unfortunately does not have the national health service that we have here, and does not necessarily have the same welfare provision. However, we learned a great deal while we were there.

I fear that Britain is set to face a tidal wave of mental health issues, and we shall have to do something about that. I pay tribute to the Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, my hon. Friend the Member for South West Wiltshire (Dr Murrison), who, as a defence Minister, did so much work in putting together “Fighting Fit”, which gave us a clear blueprint for dealing with some of those issues.

While we were in the United States, we heard from a man from Little Rock about the setting up of military courts to discipline veterans who have had problems in the justice system. That was one lesson that I learned from the visit.

[Ian Paisley (North Antrim) (DUP)]

The hon. Gentleman plays a very distinguished role on the Select Committee. Does he agree that the real difference between us and the United States was the fact that billions of dollars are available to services for veterans? By comparison, the amount that is available for the purpose in any other country, let alone the United Kingdom, pales into insignificance.

[Oliver Colvile]

I recognise that the United States is a larger country and that it has more money to spend. Nevertheless, it has been doing some very interesting things. They include dealing not only with people who were in Vietnam, but with those who have been involved in Iraq and Afghanistan. In our country, of course, there are also the members of the military who had to fight in Northern Ireland.

The rationale behind the military courts is to deal with offenders who have committed misdemeanours, before they can progress to community activity. They try to change offenders’ behaviour, and encourage members of the local community to play a part in looking after veterans. We need to get better at identifying the veterans involved. I have been working in Plymouth with a man called Ian Sheriff in connection with dementia, and I am delighted that those in the naval base have worked so hard on the Prime Minister’s “dementia challenge”. I also pay tribute to the Members with south-west constituencies who have campaigned in that regard.

We must do much more for our veterans. We should give them mobile phones, which is what happens in the United States, so that they can be rung up every six months. We also need to track them. Working on issues such as mental health is the way forward. I also support the extension of the covenant to Northern Ireland. We need to look after our veterans as well as we possibly can.

17:54

[David Simpson (Upper Bann) (DUP)]

It is good to follow the hon. Member for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport (Oliver Colvile). We serve together on the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee, and we have many good times. He has mentioned his visit to Washington; some of us did not have the privilege of going, but we hope those who did had a good time. I also pay tribute to the Minister, who gave a very good opening speech; listening to her and how she put her points forward was a breath of fresh air. I give my congratulations on the initiatives the Government are proposing and implementing.

Our current Government have a duty of care towards each and every member of Her Majesty’s armed forces across the whole of the United Kingdom. Within their remit it is vital that care and support is given to those who continue to live with the scars and pains of bygone conflicts. We in Northern Ireland are, of course, all too aware of the pains of battle and what members of the armed forces faced during the years of struggle against the republican enemy.

The military covenant is a real and genuine opportunity for the Government to show their gratitude to all who fought for the cause across the whole of Europe during wars and the conflict in Northern Ireland. Our nation has a moral obligation to support our military members, and I am proud to say that right across the United Kingdom people are continuing to fulfil that obligation.

Let me remind the House that there are, of course, five Members of Parliament who disregard this covenant and have absolutely no desire to see its full implementation in Northern Ireland, but despite their objection, Sinn Fein Members cannot build the courage to stand before us in this Chamber and explain exactly why they oppose it. Of course we know why they oppose it, but they have not got the courage to come here and tell other Members why. This attitude fails to represent the voices of constituents who support this covenant and it fails to fulfil our overall obligation to support our servicemen and women.

One key area of the covenant that I want to raise in particular, and which has already been touched on, is the important issue of transition. I have no doubt that this House recognises that the transition from service back into civilian life is a process that can often involve mental barriers for both the serviceman or woman and their families. Support for mental health care patients has been a key issue that I have sought to address in my own constituency of Upper Bann, and the number of individuals who have come into my office over the years with mental health difficulties during the transition from military service to civilian life never ceases to amaze me. I represent many people who currently serve in the armed forces or who have retired from the forces. In my constituency visits I hear some horrendous and disturbing stories of those who are struggling with mental illness.

Across Northern Ireland we are facing ever-increasing numbers of mental health cases, with our health care professionals and support organisations struggling to meet the demand. However, an even greater concern is the many patients who think they can deal with their own mental health problems and attempt to provide their own remedy of recovery. As we all know, this can often lead to very dangerous, harrowing and tragic consequences.

Many of our armed forces servicemen and women will finish their service without physical injury or any evidence of long-term damage, but in the months and years ahead the scars and realities of battle can so often return with even greater effect. If fully implemented, the covenant should provide the training, education, health care referrals and appropriate career support for all those going through this transition process. We have heard the figures—that some 94% or 95% of the covenant is being implemented—but there is a stigma for those in Northern Ireland, who are part of the United Kingdom. We heard that 20% of the Crown forces are from Northern Ireland. They have put on the uniform of the Crown forces, and some have made the supreme sacrifice, leaving behind their families. They were willing to do that, and their families are now going through a difficult time, but they are not worthy of the full implementation of the covenant.

There is a stigma there. We are part of the United Kingdom, and we know the difficulties. We know that Sinn Fein is putting obstacles in the way. There needs to be that reassurance for those who have given many years of service to Northern Ireland and to the Crown forces, many of whom have made the supreme sacrifice, and whose families are left to pick up the pieces.

I congratulate the Minister on her speech today, and we look forward to progress being made and the full implementation of the covenant in Northern Ireland.

18:01

[Dr William McCrea (South Antrim) (DUP)]

I want to begin by thanking the Secretary of State for Defence for attending the opening part of the debate; that was deeply appreciated. I am also delighted that the shadow Minister is here, and I thank the Minister of State for her speech, the manner in which she delivered it and her willingness to learn more about the workings of the military covenant in Northern Ireland. She and the shadow Minister both made a very generous offer to come to Northern Ireland and see what is happening for themselves. That is deeply appreciated and I want to put that on the record, because often, Ministers and shadow Ministers can be taken for granted. They will both be very welcome in our Northern Ireland constituencies. My right hon. Friend the Member for Lagan Valley (Mr Donaldson) has a base in his constituency, as do I, so they are very welcome to visit.

I want to pay tribute to the men and women of our regular armed forces across the United Kingdom, who daily place themselves in the line of fire, not only for this nation but for others across the world who need their protection. I also want to pay tribute to the Reserve forces and their families. As with others who put themselves on the front line, especially in Northern Ireland, many of their families are forgotten about, yet many have also made a tremendous sacrifice and paid a tremendous price for their involvement in the armed forces. In Northern Ireland we are very proud of the contribution our Reserve forces make to all elements of the armed forces in the United Kingdom. We are proud that, despite Northern Ireland’s making up approximately 3% of the UK population, we regularly provide more than 20% of the Reserve forces on operational deployment. That is a great testimony to the long and proud tradition of Northern Ireland’s servicemen and women, and the reason why we must speak up today in Parliament for those from our part of the United Kingdom whom we genuinely believe have been denied the full implementation of the armed forces covenant.

According to Lord Ashcroft’s review, there are a significant number of home service Royal Irish Regiment and Ulster Defence Regiment personnel living in Northern Ireland, and their needs are enduring. The aftercare service, which, along with the armed forces charity SSAFA, operates a number of veterans support committees, was set up to provide welfare assistance to this group. It is in the process of reorganising to accept responsibility for all veterans in Northern Ireland. That discreet charitable welfare support is essential to mitigate the difficulties associated with assessing statutory veteran-related assistance and with the much lower profile of veterans in Northern Ireland. The DUP fought hard to secure that service in the period leading up to the disbandment of the home service battalions of the Royal Irish Regiment. The work of the various armed forces charities and support organisations is to be commended. Their dedication to working with and for our servicemen and women is second to none.

I welcome the news from the Government that £50,000 of funding has been given to the Ulster Defence Regiment and Royal Irish Regiment Aftercare Service to enable it to set up a welfare support network and an advisory service for veterans and their dependants in Northern Ireland. However, further charitable support is needed, and I repeat the DUP’s call for the Government to co-operate with the military charities to establish and fund a treatment and respite centre in Northern Ireland for veterans and armed forces personnel.

There are limits to what organisations such as those can achieve without greater Government assistance. In England, Scotland and Wales, wounded, injured and sick veterans are entitled—subject to the clinical needs of others—to priority NHS treatment for conditions that can be attributed to their military service. However, that arrangement is still not being implemented in Northern Ireland because of the ongoing security threat from dissident republicans.

Lord Ashcroft’s review proposed a solution in which security-vetted armed forces champions would be appointed to work in the various agencies to assist service personnel and veterans. The Government Departments in Northern Ireland that might be able to offer support to veterans and service personnel say that they are unable to give them any form of professional treatment in line with the objectives of the military covenant because of the restrictions placed on them by legislation.

When the then Minister of State for Defence Personnel, Welfare and Veterans, the right hon. Member for Rayleigh and Wickford (Mr Francois), gave evidence to the Welsh Affairs Committee on 30 October 2012, during the Committee’s inquiry into support for armed forces veterans in Wales, he was asked whether he was aware of the different emphasis being put on different policy priorities in England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. He replied:

“We have a particular challenge in Northern Ireland because some of the Sinn Fein-run authorities have a particular view of the covenant and what it represents. So in Northern Ireland this area is particularly sensitive and difficult”.

If the Government are unwilling to fulfil their duty to implement the military covenant in Northern Ireland owing to a fear of Sinn Fein and nationalist intolerance, it is time that they publicly admitted it.

The challenge for the Government and the Northern Ireland Office is to stand up to those restrictive elements and give military veterans residing in Northern Ireland their full rights. This Government should not be frightened or bullied into backing down by Sinn Fein’s demands, which discriminate against the very servicemen and women who have protected our nation. The motion before us today is about equal citizenship, equal treatment and equal gratitude for our armed forces personnel, be they from England, Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland or the various regions of the British Commonwealth. They all deserve our support, and they should not be discriminated against just because they happen to reside in Northern Ireland.

[Mr Donaldson]

Will my hon. Friend add to that list the very brave men and women who reside in the Republic of Ireland and who serve in the armed forces of the United Kingdom?

[Dr McCrea]

I agree with my right hon. Friend; we must also be sensitive to their needs. When we ask for protection and services for those from Northern Ireland or any other region of the United Kingdom, we must not forget the many people from the Irish Republic who put their necks on the line by joining up and going to fight with Her Majesty’s forces for freedom across the world, even though it was unpopular to do so in their own neighbourhoods. The armed forces covenant sets out the relationship between the nation, the Government and the armed forces. It recognises that the whole nation has a moral obligation to members of the armed forces and their families, and it establishes how they should expect to be treated. The covenant states:

“In putting the needs of the Nation and the Army before their own, they forego some of the rights enjoyed by those outside the Armed Forces.

In return, British soldiers must always be able to expect fair treatment, to be valued and respected as individuals, and that they (and their families) will be sustained and rewarded by commensurate terms and conditions of service.”

Why should one region accept anything less than that which is enjoyed by the rest of the United Kingdom?

The Democratic Unionist party is proud to support our armed forces and will accept nothing less than full implementation of the covenant. At Westminster, at Stormont and in local government, the DUP has sought to give a voice to those who have served our country. The greatest service that can be given in terms of recognition is to remove the barriers to the implementation of the military covenant for ex-servicemen and women. Within the current legal limits, DUP Ministers have done their utmost to help ex-military personnel, and that has been acknowledged in this House today. The work that my colleague in another place, Edwin Poots, a former Minister, put in has been acknowledged, as has that of other of my colleagues. Our party has met officials from the Northern Ireland Office on numerous occasions about the issue and we will continue to seek all avenues available for supporting the armed forces. Today’s motion is part of a wider debate on defending Her Majesty’s armed services. The Government must ensure that our defence budget is protected as much as possible. The very least we should be doing is ensuring that our soldiers are fully equipped for battle, and that those who return from military service are supported and given the opportunities in life that they deserve.

I thank the hon. Member for Tewkesbury (Mr Robertson) for the update to the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee dated 16 June, which stated that 93% of the covenant measures had been extended to Northern Ireland and that further work is being done to bring Northern Ireland into line with the rest of the UK. That work must be continued, as the issue has not yet been settled once and for all. I firmly believe that Her Majesty’s Government have a duty to support the armed forces and the veterans who have served their country so well, and my party is happy to work with Ministers in pursuing that vital work. No political obstacle or political party should get in the way of full implementation of the covenant in every region of the UK, including Northern Ireland. Soldiers who reside in Northern Ireland serve the whole of the UK. The military covenant is not a devolved matter, so whether they receive their entitlements should not be a postcode lottery. There should be equal support for all military personnel, wherever they live within this United Kingdom.

I am sorry that we do not have any nationalist Members or Social Democratic and Labour party Members taking part in this debate but I remind everyone in this House that whenever our soldiers defended us on the streets of Northern Ireland—[Interruption.] I said taking part in the debate; I did not say that they were not present. Whenever our soldiers went out on to the streets of Northern Ireland to protect us in those years of trouble, they did so for everyone. Everyone was equally protected, and many of our soldiers gave their lives and sacrificed their all to ensure the safety of the ordinary, decent people of Northern Ireland, wherever they came from, in very difficult circumstances. As I said, many of them made the supreme sacrifice and paid the supreme price for their labours.

We in Northern Ireland know all too well the role our armed forces play. During Operation Banner, the longest continuous military deployment in British history, more than 1,000 British security force personnel were murdered defending our Province from terrorist attack. Tonight, in this debate on the military covenant, we honour the memory of all those who have served their country. We demand that the rights of those military veterans from Northern Ireland are upheld, as they have fought in the same conflicts, suffered the same hardships and encountered the same cost in terms of loss of colleagues, family and friends. Therefore, they are due not only the respect that this House, this Government, Northern Ireland and the people of the United Kingdom have promised, but full implementation of the armed forces covenant.

18:15

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

It is an absolute pleasure to speak in this debate. My party is pleased to have secured this debate on the military covenant because the issue resonates with a great many people across the whole of Northern Ireland. It resonates not only with those of a Unionist disposition, but with those who are perceived to be of a nationalist disposition. I fully support the motion—indeed it would be difficult not to—but it saddens me not only that it took so long for these men and women to be granted certain privileges and better treatment after returning home from duty, but that still in 2014 those servicemen and women on the British mainland are protected from being disadvantaged in certain areas of life, yet those privileges are not fully extended to servicemen and women in Northern Ireland.

May I also say what a pleasure it was to see the Secretary of State in the Chamber? We very much appreciate his presence.

[Mr Dodds]

I think it is important to put that on the record. Although this has been a short debate, it has been of high quality. The fact that the Secretary of State for Defence and his ministerial colleagues, and the shadow Secretary of State and his shadow Ministers, were here for such a lengthy period is a strong indication of how seriously these matters are taken by the House of Commons and both main parties, and that is deeply appreciated by everyone in Northern Ireland.

[Jim Shannon]

I thank my right hon. Friend for his contribution, even though he took the next couple of lines off me. None the less, we are greatly indebted to the Front Bench and shadow Front Bench teams for their contributions.

The Northern Ireland Affairs Committee made recommendations on the covenant. What bothers me deeply is, as Lord Ashcroft noted, how we can ask and expect our brave men and women to go off to wars, prepared to give the ultimate sacrifice, and not extend them any care of duty on returning home.

The inquiry that was carried out in 2012 and published in 2013 found that, owing to devolution, variations exist across the regions of the United Kingdom in how health, housing and educations services are provided. All Members have mentioned exactly what those shortcomings are. I also welcome the fact that—this was mentioned by the Minister of State—93% of the recommendations from the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee have been delivered.

[Naomi Long]

One key point that we noticed in the Select Committee investigation was that there are regional variations because of devolution, and we need to look at them separately from those that result from the implementation or otherwise of the covenant. In some cases, military personnel are better off because of the devolution settlement than is the case for people in other regions of the UK.

[Jim Shannon]

The hon. Lady has clearly outlined the issues. There are some variations, which need to be implemented in Northern Ireland.

[Oliver Colvile]

Does the hon. Gentleman think that it is incredibly important that our GPs are better trained in mental health issues, especially in garrison cities such as mine?

[Jim Shannon]

I absolutely agree with the hon. Gentleman. The fact is that every Member who has spoken has mentioned the effects of mental ill health. The magnitude of these issues is clear to us all. If we were not already aware of it, we should be now, especially those of us in this Chamber today.

There are some specific benefits for the armed forces in Great Britain that are not available in Northern Ireland, such as improved access to IVF treatment, which is available in the mainland, but not yet in Northern Ireland, although I would like to see that happen; priority in accessing NHS health care, and in this regard I acknowledge the commendable hard work and commitment of the former Health Minister, Edwin Poots, and the Minister for Social Development, Nelson McCausland; priority in accessing social housing; and certain educational entitlements. Those variations are unsurprising, but devolution differences should not mean that Northern Ireland’s servicemen and women are treated any differently from their British counterparts. Of course, Northern Ireland is different and we recognise that, as did the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee and Lord Ashcroft.

As paragraph 12 of the Committee’s inquiry into this subject stated:

“We accept that the different political and legal situation in Northern Ireland, compared to Great Britain, makes issues relating to the Armed Forces delicate and potentially contentious.”

I like to think that as the peace process has moved forward there has been greater acceptance among some of the community. If we went into west Belfast and asked some of the people there about their history, we might be surprised by those who are committed to this issue and interested. I went to an event this morning on the first world war, which was mentioned by my right hon. Friend the Member for Lagan Valley (Mr Donaldson). The 6th Connaught Rangers, Belfast’s nationalists in the great war, might have had a different political aspiration but served in the British Army.

[Dr McCrea]

Does my hon. Friend agree that when the soldiers walked the streets of Belfast they walked the streets of west Belfast as well as of east Belfast and protected the community of west Belfast the same as they did every other part of the Province?

[Jim Shannon]

I thank my hon. Friend for that point and that was exactly the case in Northern Ireland: they protected everyone, as we all know.

Of course, paragraph 12 of the inquiry mentioned that Northern Ireland was different politically and legally, making issues relating to the armed forces contentious, but it went on to say that the armed forces community in Northern Ireland should not be disadvantaged

“compared with other groups there, or when compared to that community elsewhere in the UK, beyond that variation which would be expected under normal devolution.”

Although I understand that we are delivering 93% of the Select Committee’s recommendations, my hon. Friend the Member for South Antrim (Dr McCrea) made the pertinent comment that we want to see 100% of those recommendations implemented in Northern Ireland. We have only 7% to go.

Lord Ashcroft also recently considered alternative options as part of his review of how former military personnel assimilate back into civilian life. He recommended that part of the Northern Ireland Act, which was introduced after the Good Friday agreement, should be changed at Westminster to allow the covenant to operate in Northern Ireland. A number of Members have spoken about section 75, which makes it an offence to discriminate against anyone based on factors such as religion, race, age or disability.

Ironically, the section has been used to discriminate against some former servicemen, who cannot apply for social housing when they are in the military for security reasons. A number of constituents have come to me who have had difficulties letting the housing people know all their circumstances because of their security service. They could gain some advantage from being in the services, but cannot because of the security implications. There are issues that need to be addressed when they leave the armed forces. Lord Ashcroft suggests that the section should be altered to allow ex-servicemen to receive the

“recognition and provision they deserve”.

It is not as if we are asking for mountains to be moved; we are not. Giving veterans priority access to NHS treatments if they have been injured in the line of duty seems just and fair, and it also seems just and fair that these men and women, and their families, should be given all the help possible to secure a house and a base from which to continue their life. These people were willing to lay down their lives so that we could have our today; we say that every Remembrance Sunday, and the words are pertinent to everyone who attends Remembrance Sunday services. They mean so much, and those people have done that so that we can have our todays, and continue to have them. They should not be punished or made to feel as though they have done something wrong in their duties. Quite the opposite: our communities should do everything they can to show these men and women how grateful we are, and our Executive should do all they can to ensure that veterans and their families receive the best possible care when they return home.

When Corporal Channing Day, a constituent of mine from Comber, died after being shot in Afghanistan, we asked for a meeting with the Prime Minister. It was attended by my right hon. Friends the Members for Belfast North (Mr Dodds) and for Lagan Valley, my hon. Friend the Member for South Antrim, Brenda Hale, who is a Member of the Northern Ireland Assembly, and me. We had a very good meeting with the Prime Minister. Although it was held as a result of tragedy, we initiated that day a call to ensure that all service personnel have an opportunity to participate and have the advantages that they clearly should have from the covenant.

I will summarise some of the contributions. We heard first from my right hon. Friend the Member for Lagan Valley, whose deep interest in defence matters we all acknowledge. We also recognise that he is greatly respected in this House and further afield, and not only for his knowledge of defence matters, but for his contribution in telling other parts of the world how our peace process has progressed. We cannot be the panacea that will change everything in the world—far from it—but perhaps we can offer some help, and clearly he does that.

My right hon. Friend referred to the sacrifice made by service personnel in Northern Ireland so that we can enjoy life. He referred to the almost 1,000 people who gave their lives in service between ’69 and 2002, and to those who died afterwards as a result of their service. He referred to the covenant being designed to ensure that veterans are not disadvantaged, which we all adhere to.

My right hon. Friend also referred to post-traumatic stress disorder, which became a theme in all our contributions. Northern Ireland has the highest rate of PTSD anywhere in the United Kingdom, and indeed anywhere in the world. That shows the magnitude of the issues we face in Northern Ireland. He also referred to the Royal Irish Aftercare Service, which we are all aware of—those Members who were not aware are now. It is second to none. We thank the Royal Irish for all they do.

When it comes to health and housing, a distinct group is specified under section 75 of the Northern Ireland Act. My right hon. Friend talked about the issues Lord Ashcroft referred to in his report. He recommended that the armed forces in Northern Ireland had a champion. The Minister also referred to that recommendation. The hon. Member for Harrow West (Mr Thomas) intervened a couple of times and referred to the importance of credit unions.

The hon. Member for North Down (Lady Hermon) referred to the contribution made by those who police the Province, as did my right hon. Friend the Member for Lagan Valley when he responded to that intervention. He also referred to community covenants and the need for the armed forces to be directly involved with local community groups, for example where they are garrisoned, and some Members have garrisons in their constituencies.

I was particularly impressed by the clear commitment the Minister gave—it is on the record in Hansard—on mental health issues in the armed forces and the fact that communities should be involved so that no soldiers or service personnel ever face any disadvantage. The Government are clearly committed to helping the armed forces.

The Minister referred to the 11 councils coming together to nominate one representative to go to the reserve forces association. In a past life I was a representative from Ards borough council, but not every council sends somebody. We hope that the 11 councils will send someone and that they will become, as the Minister said, a champion for veterans. If we get that, I think that we will achieve a marvellous amount of movement for the future.

We heard that 93% of the recommendations will be implemented in Northern Ireland. Again, that commitment shows the impact of what has been initiated in this House by many Members, and it indicates its acceptance across Northern Ireland. The Minister also referred to the Royal Irish Aftercare Service and the cadets, which I was pleased about, because I have a particular interest in the cadet force. We need to show what they have done across Northern Ireland in bringing communities together.

It is always a pleasure when we are all in agreement and saying the same thing, and it was good to hear the commitment from the shadow Minister about a high level of reserves in the TA. In Northern Ireland we have a higher level of service personnel per head of population than in any other part of the United Kingdom. I am not sure if that is due to our warring attitude, or what it is, but we do like to serve in the uniforms of British Army, Royal Air Force and Navy personnel. That runs deep in all our blood in Northern Ireland. She said that the armed forces want a level playing field, and that is exactly what we are trying to achieve. At its heart, the armed forces covenant is about people, and we ought to make sure that their treatment is the same in all parts of the United Kingdom.

As always, the Royal Navy rode high in the speech by the hon. Member for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport (Oliver Colvile), and we appreciate that very much. I think there must be no place in the world like Plymouth when it comes to the Royal Navy. I always listen to his speeches with some joy. He referred to the work he has done in Plymouth, and particularly to the work that is done with children. That was quite interesting. Other Members might not have mentioned it, but I am aware of the work that armed forces personnel and charities do with children across all communities, and that is good news.

[Oliver Colvile]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his generous comments. Does he think that universities also have a significant part to play? Plymouth university is developing tri-service veterans’ accommodation, and the medical school can participate in that by buddying up with some of these veterans to help them through their mental health issues or whatever they need help with.

[Jim Shannon]

The hon. Gentleman invited my right hon. Friend the Member for Lagan Valley to attend his constituency, and he is going to take advantage of that invitation, so he will no doubt come back and tell us all about what the hon. Gentleman is doing in Plymouth, and we can use that as an example in other parts of the United Kingdom.

The hon. Gentleman also mentioned mental health issues. He referred to mobile phones for veterans—something that this Government have provided and in which they been supported by the official Opposition.

I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Upper Bann (David Simpson), who began his comments by referring to the duty of care. If we wanted three words that summed up the whole debate, they are probably “duty of care”. We owe a duty of care to our service personnel—those who live with the scars and the pain of conflict. He noted that Sinn Fein is opposing the covenant, yet it does not sit on the green Benches in this House and make a contribution. He spoke of a voice for those who need their MPs to fight for them, and a voice for the families as well. He also spoke about mental health issues in recognition of those who have given so much.

As always, my hon. Friend the Member for South Antrim spoke with the passion that we all love to hear. He mentioned that the Secretary of State for Defence was here and thanked him for that. He spoke of the families of those who have made a great sacrifice, and the pride in our armed forces and the tradition of service that we have in Northern Ireland. He made some good remarks about the armed forces charities. He referred to the Royal Irish Aftercare Service and the £50,000 contribution that has been made to help it to do even more for service personnel and their families.

My hon. Friend referred to the need for a respite centre for Northern Ireland, and I give that a plug as well. I do so from a personal point of view, because I would like to see it in Strangford, but it does not matter where in Northern Ireland it goes, as long as we get it. I would be more than happy if he got it in his constituency, or my right hon. Friend the Member for Lagan Valley in his, as long as we get it; that is what we are after.

My hon. Friend said that he wants to see professional treatment for all those involved. He made a comment about equal citizenship and equal gratitude, and that is how it should be. We should have equal citizenship for everyone in the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, and equal gratitude for all those who serve in the forces. He also mentioned—sometimes this is forgotten, and I am glad it was brought up in an intervention—those from the Republic of Ireland who have served with the British forces, of whom there have been a great many.

Various charitable organisations in Northern Ireland deal specifically with the needs of veterans. For example, last year Beyond the Battlefield was set up in Newtownards to deal with the needs of veterans and their families. It aims to help those in financial, mental, physical and other difficulties. I very much support this fantastic organisation. Many of the services it offers should already be available to those military personnel, but because they have a Northern Ireland postcode they are not, despite the fact that they are UK taxpayers and have made the same sacrifices as their English, Scots and Welsh counterparts.

This is all about getting fair treatment. It is not necessarily about special treatment, but it is about fair treatment for special people—those who sustain an injury while serving. Ordinary citizens are not entitled to it. As I have said, however, veterans in Northern Ireland are currently prevented from getting fair treatment. We must ensure that we speak up for our armed forces. Our party and the Government should not be afraid to represent them and stand up for their rights.

The Minister mentioned Armed Forces day in Northern Ireland and the 10,000 people who lined the streets to cheer it on. That happened in my constituency and I look forward to inviting the Minister, the shadow Minister and, indeed, everybody else to join in next time. It is a super day that enables us to recognise the good work the armed forces do.

Every year I am privileged to hold a coffee morning for the Soldiers, Sailors, Airmen and Families Association—those of us who are of a certain vintage all know them. Last year was a fantastic success: some £4,200 was raised in Newtownards. We were privileged to have a local piper and ex-military man there. He served in the military for more than 20 years and it was all he knew. He came home and, newly married, struggled to find a job to support himself. He is an example of someone who tried hard to get a job and it is important that we as a community act on behalf of those people who have given 25 years of service. Pressure must be put on the Government to ensure that the remaining 7% of the recommendations of the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee are delivered, to ensure that we are an integral part of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.

18:37

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

It is a great pleasure to take part in this debate. May I start by congratulating the right hon. Member for Lagan Valley (Mr Donaldson) on securing it? It is particularly timely, if I may say so, just as we start to think about the season of remembrance.

I am always delighted to talk about the military covenant, because it gives me a chance to plug my book on the subject. If hon. Members would like a copy, I would be more than happy to give them one, provided that they provide me with a donation to the Royal British Legion.

As we enter the season of remembrance, our minds are firmly drawn towards the duty we owe to all of the servicemen and women who serve the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, and, in the context of this debate, of course, to those many thousands of people from Northern Ireland who serve in that capacity.

I am particularly minded that we are in the centenary year of the start of the great war. This morning a number of us attended a breakfast reception on the subject and were impressed with the wide range of projects that have been put together by people from across the UK to commemorate the momentous years between 1914 and 1918. No part of the United Kingdom contributed more fully than Northern Ireland. Of course, that tradition has continued in the 100 years since. A number of right hon. and hon. Members have referred to that, and rightly so.

It is important to hammer home one point, and that is that the military covenant establishes the concept of “no disadvantage.” We could have taken the view that we should have the so-called citizen-plus model of the military covenant—that is, the system that applies in the United States, which is often held up as an exemplar for such things. Of course, however, the whole situation in the US is different from our own. The United States, for example, does not have a national health service. It is very difficult—it is invidious—to compare one system a with another.

The model we have adopted is pretty well universal in all countries with which we can reasonably be compared. It is the European model and the one applied by most of our allies. It holds that people who serve our country in uniform will not be disadvantaged by their service. They will not be advantaged. As an ex-serviceman, I agree that servicemen and ex-servicemen do not look for anything extra—they do not expect it and, frankly, they do not want it—but they do not want to find themselves at a disadvantage.

Throughout history, servicemen and women have not always been in the position in which they find themselves today. They used to be distinctly disadvantaged by comparison with the civilian population. We have moved on, and in the 15 years since the military covenant was first written down—it has probably existed in one form or another for centuries—we have made a lot of progress in thinking about what it means. I will come on to what it means in practice with specific reference to Northern Ireland because that is important.

The hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) cited the 93% figure mentioned in the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee report. The report is now more than a year old, and we have come on some way since then, so 93% is probably a conservative figure, if I may put it that way, and we must now be pretty close to parity in practical terms. We will always have instances where we want improvement, and I am always happy to hear from people about such instances. I am sure that the Minister of State, Ministry of Defence, my hon. Friend the hon. Member for Broxtowe (Anna Soubry), is happy to hear from colleagues about instances of our falling short. We are pretty close in practice, although I understand some of the concerns expressed about the purity of the institution—the military covenant—with respect to Northern Ireland.

The aftercare service is something of a trailblazer. I referred to it in the two reports on health care in the armed forces and among veterans that I wrote for the Prime Minister. I looked at the service because it seemed to me that we could learn lessons from it to roll out more widely across the United Kingdom. It certainly is an example of best practice. The hon. Member for Belfast East (Naomi Long), who is no longer in her place, referred to it obliquely when she said that it is not simply the case that servicemen in Northern Ireland get a raw deal and that we should ensure—because 93% is not 100%—that we close the gap. Compared with servicemen and women elsewhere in the United Kingdom, the provision is sometimes superior and the package is sometimes better. We should celebrate that, at the same time as we focus, rightly, on areas where we can do rather better.

The right hon. Member for Lagan Valley rightly talked about the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee report on the covenant and quoted it in connection with the shortfall, but it is important to quote from it even-handedly. He has read the report, as I have, so he will be well aware that the conclusion in paragraph 98 states that

“taken as a whole, the Armed Forces Community in Northern Ireland is not disadvantaged.”

That is fairly straightforward and unequivocal. Given that that is “taken as a whole”, we will of course be able to find instances where the armed forces community in Northern Ireland is not doing as well as in the rest of the United Kingdom, but it gives some reassurance. The report is from last summer, and much work has since been done to close the gap, which I am very pleased to see. We should therefore take some heart from that: the glass is of course half full, as well as half empty.

There has been talk about special handling for the armed forces under section 75 of the Northern Ireland Act 1998. Some right hon. and hon. Members discussed that during the debate, but they know full well the implicit difficulties of doing so. The deal has to do with power sharing, and the section is a cornerstone of the Belfast agreement. In practical terms, I humbly suggest that if people are trying to get improvements for the service community, trying to amend that cornerstone of the Belfast agreement might be a fairly clumsy way of achieving that. We have done so by other means, as was pointed out in the report of the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee and the work that has been done subsequently.

[Mr Donaldson]

I understand the point that the Minister is making. Nevertheless, what we are proposing seeks not to diminish section 75 in any way, but to enhance it. I simply make the point—this is not, of course, on the table from this Government—that if Governments can make special provision for terrorists who are on the run, they can make special provision outside the agreement or to enhance the agreement for our armed forces.

[Dr Murrison]

The right hon. Gentleman will forgive me if I commend his rhetorical point, while stating that my concern is a practical one. I want to make things right for the men and women of our armed forces and our veterans. In defence of section 75, it ensures that there is no discrimination against members of the armed forces. I think that the Equality Commission would point that out. Having reflected on his remarks and those of his colleagues, I would much prefer to address this matter in the practical, workmanlike way that has been used for some time, which has shown a fair measure of success. However, I accept his points; they are well made and I understand precisely where he is coming from.

The right hon. Member for Lagan Valley made reference to the involvement of the Northern Ireland Executive on the covenant reference group. The offer has been made and the door is open on that. I thoroughly recommend that the Northern Ireland Executive take a full and active part in that group. It does work. As I said in my intervention on the hon. Member for West Dunbartonshire (Gemma Doyle), it is an important part of our efforts to ensure that, wherever possible, we deal with issues as they arise in a way that does not disadvantage the men and women of our armed forces. If the Northern Ireland Executive are not represented on the group, it is difficult to see how the Northern Irish perspective will be reflected at that stage in proceedings.

On the lack of community covenants, the community covenants scheme has been extremely successful, by popular consent. I think that most Members of the House agree on that. I am concerned that Northern Ireland is not sharing in that story. There are issues with accessing the grant funding associated with community covenants. I think that I understand some of the issues behind that. However, 38 Brigade has been designing a scheme through which that funding can be accessed. I look forward to the process being a little easier to use and to Northern Ireland being a full subscriber to that successful scheme, which is very much appreciated by the principal recipients.

The issue of armed forces champions was covered well by my hon. Friend the Minister of State. With the new super-councils, there is an opportunity for elected members and officials to take part through the reserve forces and cadets associations. In particular, there is an opportunity for councillors to be champions in their localities. I look forward to that being rolled out.

The hon. Member for West Dunbartonshire made a thoughtful speech on behalf of the Opposition, notwithstanding the pop at the spare room subsidy. She said, in terms, that she is not in favour of amending section 75. I suspect—I hope that I am not putting words in her mouth—that she would prefer to pursue that matter through the practical measures that I have outlined.

My hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport (Oliver Colvile) spoke very well. I know that he is particularly concerned about mental health issues. I very much appreciated his remarks, which were, as ever, well informed and authoritative. His remarks reminded me of some figures on the prevalence of post-traumatic stress disorder that were cited by the right hon. Member for Lagan Valley.

It is important to say that the vast majority of veterans are fit and well, and they leave the armed forces fit and well. We do no service to anybody if we suggest otherwise, because young men and women—and particularly their parents—who are considering whether the armed forces is a good career will be influenced by that. In truth, the vast majority of people leaving the armed forces, as we all do eventually, do so in good health mentally and physically.

Under Sir Simon Wessely, the King’s Centre for Military Health Research has produced interesting figures on the incidence of mental health problems among regulars and reservists. Those figures bear close attention and I commend them to all right hon. and hon. Members. In particular, I am interested in his longitudinal study of armed forces personnel. I do not think there will be a tidal wave of mental health problems among people who have served in the armed forces, but more people certainly appear to be coming forward. In a sense, that is to be expected, given the attention that has been paid to mental health issues in recent years, both in general and particularly in relation to service in the armed forces.

My hon. Friend the Member for Upper Bann (David Simpson) articulated his strong support for the armed forces, which we all share. He rightly spoke about transition, and commended Lord Ashcroft’s report. If there are any specific points where he thinks that veterans in Northern Ireland are being disadvantaged, I would be happy to meet him to discuss them.

My hon. Friend the Member for South Antrim (Dr McCrea) spoke about the aftercare service—an issue that a number of people have mentioned today. He spoke about equality, and for practical purposes I must say that we have erased what disadvantage we can very well. There is probably more we can do, and we must be constantly on the look-out for areas in which various parts of the United Kingdom are disadvantaged in respect of the care that we give to the men and women of our armed forces. The reality of devolution in this country—perhaps increasingly so as we go further into the process across the UK—is that services will be different depending on where people are. The military covenant will seek to erase disadvantage for having served in the armed forces, and it is right to say that that covenant is not devolved. However, the provision of services that underpin the military covenant often is devolved, and we must accept that some of that will look a little messy. It will not be perfect in all respects or homogenous across the UK, but we must strive towards that given the premise that the military covenant is there to remove disadvantage wherever we can.

We have had a good debate. It has been of high quality and I would expect nothing less given the sponsor of the debate and the Members who have contributed to it. It has been authoritative, informative and passionate, and we owe a huge amount to the men and women of our armed forces. The military covenant is a fearsome contract—indeed, it is not a contract at all, because no lawyer would ever allow someone to sign such a document. The men and women of our armed forces put themselves on the line, and the deal is that when they get into trouble the state will do what it can to make things right. That does not always happen and it is not always possible, but the state must strive to do that.

Some say that the covenant should be extended more widely, and some talk about a public sector covenant, although that rather misses the point. What the men and women of our armed forces do is, and always will be, unique. There is no other group in society—although many come close in places—that do what the members of our armed forces do, potentially exposing themselves to such risks. That is why we have a military covenant. It is something that I think the British public fully understand, and a concept that should be endorsed fully across the United Kingdom. I believe that practically we have achieved such a thing throughout the United Kingdom, and I am very proud of that.

Question put and agreed to,

Resolved,

That this House notes the First Report of Session 2013-14 from the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee on the Implementation of the Armed Forces Covenant in Northern Ireland, HC 51; further acknowledges the recommendations of Lord Ashcroft in his report on The Veterans Transition Review; and calls on the Government to ensure the full implementation of the Military Covenant throughout the UK, including in Northern Ireland.

Minor Injuries Unit at Cossham Hospital (Kingswood)

Wednesday 22nd October 2014 Commons Chamber

18:54

[Chris Skidmore (Kingswood) (Con)]

I rise to present a petition from the residents of the Kingswood constituency.

The petition states:

The Petition of residents of the Kingswood constituency,

Declares that Cossham Hospital, having previously been threatened with closure, has now received a £20 million refurbishment with a range of new healthcare facilities; further that a Minor Injuries Unit which was pledged as part of the Bristol Health Services plan has yet to be installed; further that the Member for Kingswood has already raised this matter on several occasions in the House of Commons calling for a Minor Injuries Unit to be installed and has collected a petition of over 2,500 signatures calling for the same; and further that the Petitioners support the determination of the Save Cossham Hospital Group who have campaigned for a Minor Injuries Unit.

The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Government to call upon local NHS healthcare managers to honour the pledge made to local people in Kingswood to install a Minor Injuries Unit at Cossham Hospital as soon as possible.

And your Petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray.

[P001391]

Historical Child Abuse Allegations

Wednesday 22nd October 2014 Commons Chamber

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

18:56

[Naomi Long (Belfast East) (Alliance)]

I am pleased to be able to bring the matter of Kincora, and in particular its relevance to the child sex abuse inquiry, to the House.

There have been many shocking and sordid episodes throughout the history of the troubles, but the allegation of sexual abuse and exploitation of vulnerable young people by those in positions of power, and the failure to ensure such allegations were properly investigated at the time, is surely a low point even by those standards. Whether the allegations are directed towards the state or the republican movement, it would seem that some placed the protection of their institutions and cause ahead of protecting those who were being abused. In doing so, they compounded the abuse and the hurt.

The voices that were silenced at the time are now being heard again. I believe there is a fresh opportunity to listen and to respond, and to make amends for those failures. In my own constituency, despite the 30 years since the successful prosecution of three members of staff at Kincora boys’ home for child sex abuse, the allegations persist that children were abused as part of a wider paedophile ring that was UK-wide and that the intelligence services not only knowingly allowed that abuse to continue—both to protect informers and to gather information on abusers to be used for blackmail—but ensured that the subsequent investigations would never uncover the full picture. The allegations of political cover-up have been brought to the fore again recently with the launch by the Home Office of an inquiry into institutional abuse in care homes around the UK, and specifically into allegations that figures in Westminster and Whitehall failed in their duty of care towards children, and that MI5 was also involved in cover-up—a point to which I will return later.

With Kincora, the allegations descend into murky and disturbing territory. It is not simply that paedophiles operated there or even that authorities were neglectful towards those placed in their custody, but rather it is alleged that a conscious decision was made to allow that abuse to continue for more than 10 years after it was first uncovered by the police and the Army, either to protect intelligence assets or to acquire material to be used in the blackmail of those involved.

Just yesterday, both the Home Secretary and the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland made statements on the inquiry, which is to be chaired by Fiona Woolf, announcing that Kincora would not now be included in the terms of reference despite calls from MPs, the Northern Ireland Assembly, the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission, Amnesty International and, most importantly, the victims of that abuse who have pleaded for it to be included. I first raised Kincora with the Home Secretary in July this year following the announcement of the inquiry and I have done so on a number of occasions since. I have had no formal response to any of my correspondence. Given a summer of silence, I find the timing of the announcements quite curious, but I want to proceed to outline the case for a full investigation of Kincora as I originally intended, as the point has clearly been missed by the Home Office to date. I will also return to the recent announcements in my conclusion.

What distinguishes Kincora from other cases of historic child abuse in Northern Ireland, but links it, crucially, to others such as Rotherham, are the allegations that persist that Government and their agencies, such as MI5, had full knowledge of the allegations at the time and acted to prevent appropriate investigation from taking place. There is further suspicion that MI5 and the security agencies were complicit in the abuse in order to collect information that could be used to blackmail those in positions of power.

Furthermore, it is thought that the abuse that took place in Northern Ireland did not involve victims and perpetrators only from Northern Ireland—there have been suggestions that children were moved between different locations in Northern Ireland where abuse took place. One witness has stated that he was aware of boys being brought from different children’s homes to be abused in Kincora—

19:00

Motion lapsed (Standing Order No. 9(3)).

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

[Naomi Long]

One witness has stated that he was aware of boys being brought from different children’s homes to be abused in Kincora, including from Bawnmore Road children’s home, which lies on the outskirts of south Belfast. A recent BBC “Spotlight” programme elaborated on these allegations, with a former resident of Kincora and victim of abuse stating that they also were taken to local hotels where they were offered to guests as entertainment. This illustrates the almost unfathomable depravity of what happened to boys who were entrusted to the care system and whose safety and welfare were used as leverage in manipulation and political games.

During the trial in 1980 of the three Kincora housemasters, who were subsequently jailed in 1981 on 23 counts of abusing 11 boys, the man who was widely believed to be the ringleader, and was indeed the most senior member of staff, William McGrath, who was also a member of a shadowy loyalist paramilitary group called Tara and an alleged MI5 agent, pleaded guilty to the extensive charges against him, thus negating the need for him to give evidence. This led to suspicion at the time, but evidence of a cover-up goes far beyond those circumstantial points.

Two former Army officers have spoken publicly about the links between the British security forces and the goings-on in Kincora. Brian Gemmell worked as an intelligence officer in Northern Ireland in the 1970s and has recently relinquished his anonymity in order to speak out and call for a full investigation. Gemmell has said that he first learned details of what was happening inside the home while gathering information about loyalists, and was told he was running two agents with close links to Kincora. Gemmell alleges that after presenting a report on the allegations of abuse in Kincora to a senior MI5 officer in 1975, he was ordered to stop looking into the claims.

Colin Wallace has been speaking publicly of the collusion in Kincora since the 1970s and was professionally and publicly discredited as a result. However, he has continued to press for an extensive investigative process in which security personnel can speak freely and honestly and sensitive military documents can be released. I will return to that point in a moment.

There were numerous inquiries into Kincora in the 1980s dealing with the failures of the Department of Health and its agencies in relation to preventing abuse and acting upon allegations from both children and staff. Interestingly, MI5 refused the police permission to speak to any of its officers, thus preventing effective investigations from taking place into the allegations of a cover-up. To be clear, I am not seeking an investigation into the failures of the Department; I want an investigation into the allegations of a cover-up and MI5 involvement.

Despite the rumours, allegations and previous inquiries over a 40-year period, the truth has not yet been fully explored by the inquiries and investigations. Kincora is currently one of a number of children’s homes subject to investigation by the historical institutional abuse inquiry, which is chaired by Sir Anthony Hart but which is limited in its terms of reference and statutory powers to summon witnesses. Sir Anthony recently spoke out to confirm that he did not have the power to compel MI5 and military intelligence witnesses to give evidence or Whitehall Departments to release files. He stated in his recent letter to me:

“Our powers under Section 9 of the Inquiry into Historical Institutional Abuse Act (Nl) 2013...are limited to ‘transferred matters’. In other words we have no power to compel witnesses from the Ministry of Defence or the Home Office to attend or produce documents”.

[Ian Paisley (North Antrim) (DUP)]

The hon. Lady will be aware that today Sir Anthony responded to the Secretary of State’s statement and indicated that he might now be satisfied with the extent of his powers and the finances of his inquiry. Like me, however, is she still concerned that this is a national matter that should be investigated here at Westminster?

[Naomi Long]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his helpful intervention. Regardless of the Secretary of State’s statement yesterday, Sir Anthony is still entirely reliant on the voluntary co-operation of Whitehall Departments and MI5, which is simply not good enough given their record on this matter. Even the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, in yesterday’s statement, did not promise full co-operation, but the “fullest possible co-operation”—a caveat that will chill those who recall previous doomed attempts to investigate this scandal.

A number of former military intelligence officers have recently come forward to indicate publicly that they possess information that would be of interest to an inquiry with regard to Kincora and also to indicate their willingness to give evidence, including on the alleged blocking of police and Army investigations by secret services at the time. At least one of them has indicated that he was unable to disclose some information to an earlier inquiry because it would have been deemed a breach of his obligations under the Official Secrets Act.

This specific aspect goes far beyond mere “co-operation” with the devolved inquiry; it is utterly naive to believe that former members of the security and intelligence services would volunteer to give evidence if they could face prosecution, so it is imperative that the UK Government authorise disclosure of all relevant information held in order to examine and fully address the persistent allegations surrounding Kincora. That will require a temporary and limited suspension of the Official Secrets Act.

[Mark Durkan (Foyle) (SDLP)]

Two years ago, I pointed out to the Home Secretary, as I did again last week, that it is imperative that the national inquiry panel should deal with this issue, and that it will take the Home Secretary to make it clear that the security services and all their former agents have full cover in presenting every piece of information they have.

[Naomi Long]

I totally concur. The hon. Gentleman is entirely right that the task requires not simply words of co-operation, but practical assistance and prioritisation at the UK level. I shall explain why.

The child abuse that has recently come to light in Rotherham, Rochdale and Oxford, to name but a few, is a national scandal; so, too, is Kincora. The fact that Kincora was located in Northern Ireland and that the allegations concerned a period during the troubles should not be a hindrance to the investigation of these crimes or to any subsequent cover-up by Government agencies. They are linked to Kincora by the allegation of MI5 involvement in cover-up.

Let me read a quote from an article written by Colin Wallace as recently as today. I recommend that people read his article in full. It can be found in “Spinwatch” and it is titled “Kincora—A need for transparency”. It says:

“The common denominator in both the Cyril Smith case and in the Kincora scandal is MI5. It would appear that in both England and Northern Ireland MI5 prevented the police and/or the Army from taking action against those who were systematically sexually abusing children. Surely this obvious link between MI5’s apparent role in covering up abuse in both England and Northern Ireland should be investigated by a single inquiry and not two separate inquiries. Also, any meaningful inquiry must have the power to demand the full disclosure of all relevant official documents and records and to subpoena witnesses to give evidence under oath. In the past, successive Government Ministers have promised that they would initiate thorough inquiries into Kincora, but on each occasion those inquiries were undermined by having their terms of reference watered down.”

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

I am following the hon. Lady’s very worrying speech, which she is making with great power. The problem is that the investigation panel set up under the Home Secretary does not have statutory powers of subpoena and relies on the good will of witnesses coming forward to disclose all documents. The Government have offered their full co-operation. Does she think it will still prove a problem if the UK-wide investigation includes Kincora as well and that the security services will refuse to co-operate? If so, what does she suggest the Government should do to alter the terms of the inquiry?

[Naomi Long]

I believe the investigation should have statutory powers and should be able to compel witnesses. Those who were affected by the abuse, who believe that their abuse was covered up, require something slightly more than promises of co-operation, particularly when it was the state and people in these institutions who failed them originally.

The gravity of the allegations mean that nothing less than the fullest independent investigation and disclosure of all evidence will satisfy the right to justice for victims and survivors, or be sufficient to address the most serious disrepute into which all those allegedly involved—including the state itself—have been brought by this litany of abuse.

The Home Office inquiry undoubtedly has the possibility of being a better vehicle for full exposure of the truth of what went on behind the door of an unassuming house less than a mile from my constituency office and less than a five-minute walk from my own home. Kincora does not exist in a bubble. Some of those later convicted of child sex offences in Britain, for example, also worked in the Northern Ireland care system. Although they were never convicted for offences in Northern Ireland, I have been presented with information by people who claim that they, too, were abused by those individuals. Their activities need to be scrutinised. Predators had no respect for regional borders or geography when it came to the exploitation of vulnerable young people, so why should any investigation of their activities respect those boundaries? The same applies to MI5 and its activities in protecting the powerful and covering up sordid abuse of this kind.

Yesterday the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland issued a statement in which she said:

“The protection of children is a devolved matter”.

Let me make it clear that I am not seeking an investigation of the failure of social services or other health agencies to protect the boys at Kincora. That has already been done. I am calling for a full investigation of the allegations of blackmail and cover-up of this abuse by Government agencies such as MI5. I do not believe that it is unreasonable to expect the Home Office to be able—indeed, to feel obliged—to hold such agencies to account. I therefore call on the Home Secretary and the Home Office to review yesterday’s decision, or to initiate an independent inquiry with the full statutory powers that will be required, and I call for Kincora to be included in that inquiry.

The locus should be here in Westminster. Westminster should have the power to compel the giving of evidence and the appearance of witnesses, to suspend those parts of the Official Secrets Act that currently prevent people from giving evidence, and to ensure that all who wish to give evidence can do so and that all the material that is required for this matter to be investigated properly, once and for all, is made available. That now appears to be the only way in which the victims and survivors of the Kincora scandal will get the justice they deserve. I believe that we owe it to those victims to expose any wrongdoing that took place at Kincora, in order to deliver justice to them, and also to ensure that nothing of the same kind happens again. To fail to use this opportunity to finally uncover the truth about Kincora would be an indictment of us all.

Gary Hoy is one man who was abused in Kincora, and he has taken a brave stand in waiving his anonymity and talking about the abuse that he suffered. He said today:

“I knew all along it wouldn’t go there as there have been too many high-profile people involved. We have been very badly let down. It was important for us to get justice. They don’t want to know.”

I believe that there are many Members of Parliament who do want to know. I think that it is hugely important that we do not let the victims down yet again. Let me be brutally honest: I believe that it is a case of now or never. If the Home Office has the will to uncover the truth, it has the power to do so. If it does not do so now, with Kincora on the public agenda and with cross-party support for a full and frank inquiry, I doubt that we shall ever have the opportunity to revisit this matter.

There are many unanswered questions about Kincora. Failing to address this issue as part of a national inquiry, with powers of compulsion and with the suspension of the provisions of the Official Secrets Act relating to witnesses, will simply add another question to the list, namely, “What have the Government got to hide?”

19:13

[The Minister for Crime Prevention (Norman Baker)]

I am grateful for the opportunity to respond to what has been said by my hon. Friend the Member for Belfast East (Naomi Long) about a very important and serious Northern Ireland matter. I commend her on the powerful case that she has made.

The coalition Government is totally committed to tackling child sexual abuse and its serious and often long-lasting effects. As the Home Secretary said in her statement to this House on 7 July when she announced the establishment of a panel inquiry, we will do all that we can to facilitate a full investigation of child sexual abuse and the prosecution of its perpetrators. Let me take this opportunity again to urge anyone with information about those matters to go to the police.

The independent panel inquiry into child sexual abuse will consider whether public bodies—and other, non-state, institutions—have taken seriously their duty of care to protect children from sexual abuse. In her statement to the House this week, the Home Secretary announced the final panel members. They will join Ben Emmerson QC—who will serve as counsel—and Professor Alexis Jay, whose names were announced last week. The expert panel will examine the diverse range of matters that will fall within its purview. The panel itself represents a diverse range of experience, including experience of child sexual abuse, social care, academia, law enforcement, health, media, and the voluntary sector. The panel, under the chairmanship of Fiona Woolf, will carry out a robust and thorough inquiry and will challenge individuals and institutions without fear or favour, in order to consider this important issue, to learn the relevant lessons, and to prevent it from happening again.

[Tessa Munt (Wells) (LD)]

The Minister will know of my concern about the Ministry of Defence being able to hide details and incidents relating to child sexual abuse by covering it with the system of courts martial. May I urge him to make sure the Home Office pushes very hard for the MOD not to use that process to hide things, and to make sure that any case that involves the MOD is put into the civil courts and dealt with properly?

[Norman Baker]

My hon. Friend raised that issue at Home Office questions last week and I undertook to write to her, which I will do very shortly, and my officials are in touch with MOD officials to make sure the best possible response is given to her on that matter.

The terms of reference for the Home Office inquiry—if I can call the Fiona Woolf inquiry that—have been drafted to ensure that this strong and balanced panel of independent experts can have full access to all the material it seeks, unless there is a statutory impediment to it doing so. The panel will consider matters from 1970 to the present day, although this can be extended if evidence is provided that supports this, and I believe that the Child Migrants Trust, for example, may submit evidence to that effect, including about Northern Ireland matters. It is for the panel to decide how and where to focus its efforts in order to complete its work and to make recommendations within a reasonable time scale. The terms of reference have been finalised and a copy has been placed in the House Library. The panel has committed to provide an update to Parliament before May next year.

As set out in its terms of reference, and as referred to by my hon. Friend the Member for Belfast East, the independent panel inquiry will extend to England and Wales only, and there are very good and powerful reasons for that. I know how concerned hon. Members are about the horrible offences that took place at Kincora and about the perception that justice for the victims of those terrible crimes has not been properly served. I entirely understand those concerns. I am also aware of the concern expressed in the debate in the Northern Ireland Assembly, and know that that deep concern is shared by all the people of Northern Ireland.

The coalition Government is determined that everything possible is done to uncover the truth about what happened and that appropriate action is taken. If there is any difference of view, it is only on the way in which this should be done.

[Mr Nigel Dodds (Belfast North) (DUP)]

The Minister referred to the debate in the Assembly. There was a great degree of cross-community consensus that this should be done as part of a national inquiry. Normally the Government’s response to Northern Ireland issues is, “Well, if you can get a consensus among the parties in the Assembly, we will do that.” Why is that not the response in this case?

[Norman Baker]

Let me move on with my remarks, which I hope will respond to that important question.

The issues relating to Kincora are being examined by the historical institutional abuse inquiry under Sir Anthony Hart’s chairmanship. Currently, the view of Ministers across government is that this is the most appropriate place where all allegations related to Kincora should be examined.

Because the protection of children is a devolved matter—I accept the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Belfast East that she feels certain matters have been dealt with fully—it would clearly be less appropriate for the inquiry panel chaired by Fiona Woolf to make recommendations for Northern Ireland concerning the running of the current child protection system there. Indeed, legislation was enacted in Northern Ireland specifically to enable Sir Anthony’s examination to take place.

[Mark Durkan]

The Minister said it is currently “the view of Ministers across government” and then went on to refer to things being devolved matters. I hope he is not trying to imply that Ministers in Northern Ireland are agreed that the Home Office inquiry is not the appropriate place for Kincoral because that is not what those Ministers are saying.

[Norman Baker]

I am giving the official Government response which, of course, covers all Ministers in all Departments. That is the doctrine of collective responsibility.

I understand that Sir Anthony’s inquiry intends to examine allegations made to it by ex-residents of Kincora and has already heard evidence from a number of witnesses on this matter. Sir Anthony has said that if his inquiry finds evidence that anyone other than the three men convicted was aware of, or involved in, the sexual abuse of Kincora residents then, irrespective of their prominence, it will investigate their knowledge of, and any role they may have played in, such matters. I commend his approach.

Furthermore, the Hart inquiry has wide powers of compulsion, under section 9 of the Inquiry into Historical Institutional Abuse Act (Northern Ireland) 2013, to require persons and bodies to produce evidence, although, respecting the fact that it is a body established by the devolved authorities, those powers do not extend to the UK Government, which is one of the issues my hon. Friend was concerned about in her opening remarks. It is important to put it on the record, however, that this is a statutory inquiry and can therefore compel persons to give evidence. The independent inquiry panel into child sexual abuse, established by the Home Secretary, will have no such powers of compulsion unless a decision is subsequently made to turn it into a statutory inquiry.

[Naomi Long]

I appreciate the Minister’s point about the powers of compulsion, but it is for the Home Office to set the terms of the national inquiry, so the powers of compulsion could be given and put on a statutory footing. Secondly, Sir Anthony Hart’s powers of compulsion, as stated clearly in his letter and reiterated in his comments today, only extend to those matters which are transferred, not to issues such as the security and intelligence service, the Ministry of Defence, MI5 and others.

[Norman Baker]

I fully accept that, and as I shall say later, if evidence is produced or there is a request from Fiona Woolf’s panel for this to be turned into a statutory inquiry, the Home Office will consider that at that point.

I accept that, because the Hart inquiry’s powers of compulsion do not extend to the UK Government, concern has been expressed as to whether it will be able to deal effectively with the allegations of misconduct and cover-up regarding the horrific events that occurred at Kincora. My hon. Friend referred to allegations of blackmail and cover-up. I make it perfectly plain from the Dispatch Box that I expect those matters to be dealt with by Sir Anthony Hart’s inquiry, and it would be incomplete if it did not do so. I will also encourage him to make it very clear if he feels that his efforts to uncover the truth are in any way being thwarted. Thirdly, I make it plain that there was no intention on the Government’s part to engage in any cover-up. Our only interest is to get to the truth of this matter.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

Surely the allegations of involvement by MI5 make this not a provincial Northern Ireland issue but a national one requiring a national inquiry. That is what we are saying: MI5’s alleged involvement gives this issue a national perspective, so there should be a national inquiry.

[Norman Baker]

As I have said, if Sir Anthony Hart feels he is being thwarted or he requires further information for his inquiry, he should say so, publicly, if he wishes. Similarly, if Fiona Woolf believes that her inquiry should be converted into a statutory inquiry, she can say so. We do not have a closed mind on these matters.

I would like to set out how the concern that the hon. Gentleman and my hon. Friend the Member for Belfast East referred to is being addressed. As the Northern Ireland Secretary said in her statement yesterday, all Government Departments and agencies that receive a request for information or documents from the Hart inquiry will co-operate to the utmost of their ability in determining what material that they hold might be relevant to it regarding matters for which they have responsibility, in accordance with the terms of reference of the inquiry. The Northern Ireland Office has already started this process by disclosing to the inquiry a list of files held by it which relate to the Kincora boys’ home. In parallel, the Ministry of Defence has begun work to establish whether it holds any documents that are relevant to the inquiry, and other UK Departments and agencies will do likewise.

It will be important for the Northern Ireland inquiry to determine whether either the Security Service or the MOD has documents that are relevant to it. The Northern Ireland Secretary has been clear that a detailed plan of action for achieving this is being worked on as a matter of urgency.

[Naomi Long]

I thank the Minister for giving way; he is being extremely generous. On the question of what information and papers may be held, will that also extend to looking at notices of destruction for some files for that period, to find out whether there was a pattern of destroying some of the information that is critical in this case?

[Norman Baker]

It is for Sir Anthony Hart to take forward his inquiry; it is not for me to determine exactly what he should look for. However, clearly, if he believes that there has been a pattern of destruction, that, in my view, would be relevant to the inquiry he is holding.

I hope that what I, the Northern Ireland Secretary and the Home Secretary have said will to some extent allay the concerns expressed in this debate. I am strengthened in that view by what Sir Anthony Hart himself has said on this matter. I shall quote him at some length, because his comments are relevant and it is important to put them on the record. He said:

“My HIA Inquiry panel colleagues and I welcome the written statement made by the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland to the House of Commons in which she has given assurances that all Departments of HM Government and its agencies will co-operate to the utmost of their ability with the HIA Inquiry into Kincora. We are satisfied that the assurance of full co-operation by all Government Departments and agencies, and the satisfactory resolution by HM Government of the other issues the Inquiry has raised with it, will provide our HIA Inquiry with the ability and financial resources to carry out an effective and thorough investigation into all the Kincora allegations. However, should it become apparent during our work that it is necessary to have powers under the Inquiries Act 2005 then we will ask OFMDFM (Office of the First Minister and Deputy First Minster) and HM Government to confer such powers on our Inquiry.”

So Sir Anthony Hart appears to be robust in his determination, as we are in ours, to uncover the truth of this horrible matter.

Taking all these strands together, I hope that this reassures those on both sides of the House that we have set out the best possible approach to bring justice to all the victims of these dreadful crimes. However, the coalition Government has made a commitment to monitor carefully the extent to which the inquiry is able to make progress in respect of material relevant to Kincora. We will look at the situation again if the inquiry tells us that it is unable to determine the facts. In the event that this were to occur, there remains the possibility of seeking agreement to bring the Kincora allegations within the terms of reference of the inquiry panel, along with the option of converting it into a statutory inquiry. We have not closed our minds on these matters, but we want to see how they unfold.

I repeat that we have no interest in any cover-up, and that we are interested in getting to the truth, just as the hon. Lady and her colleagues from Northern Ireland are. I again commend them for the efforts that they have made in the House today and outside it to take this important matter forward. I think I speak for all of us here today when I say that we share a passionate belief that children have a fundamental right to protection, and that, where there have been failings by institutions, we will leave no stone unturned in rooting them out.

Question put and agreed to.

19:26

House adjourned.

Deferred Divisions

Wednesday 22nd October 2014 Commons Chamber

Division 60

Ayes: 384

---

Conservative: 185
Labour: 153
Liberal Democrat: 32
Democratic Unionist Party: 8
Social Democratic & Labour Party: 2
Plaid Cymru: 2
Independent: 2
Alliance: 1

Noes: 18

---

Labour: 8
Conservative: 5
Liberal Democrat: 4
Scottish National Party: 1

Petition

Wednesday 22nd October 2014 Petitions

Wednesday 22 October 2014

Heart of England NHS Foundation Trust

Wednesday 22nd October 2014 Petitions

The Petition of Mr Shahzada Hussain,

Declares that the petitioner is a resident of Sheldon, Birmingham and an award winning Web Development Manager working for the Heart of England NHS Foundation Trust (HEFT). In 2006, Mrs Lisa Thomson, Corporate Affairs Director, appointed her stepson, Chris Thomson, to a post within the Trust and placed him in my department under my supervision. I requested his dismissal on performance grounds and this was agreed. From that point I noticed a change in my treatment within the organisation with a pattern of harassment and bullying, including having to give up my office and being made to work from home for three years

I made a formal complaint to the Chief Executive, Dr Mark Newbold and by doing so did a Protected Act. Dr Newbold is the champion of the whistle blowing policy and he has declared publicly in an interview in the Solihull Times Newspaper (21.6.13), as well as in blog posts, that he has an open door policy for staff and that notice should be taken of whistle blowers. However, his response to my complaint was to refuse to see me and he referred me to the Director of Workforce, Mrs Hazel Gunter who attempted to dissuade me from progressing this.

I was still suffering from severe stress when Mrs Thomson suspended me on the basis of informal feedback she had received from KPMG. Whilst ill, a colleague of mine, Mr Glenn Mannion, gained unlawful access to my private server, without my knowledge or consent in contravention of the Computer Misuse Act 1990 and downloaded my private data onto an NHS computer. Evidence shows that the information he obtained from my server was to be later used to support an unfounded allegation of fraud by abuse of position against me. I was desperate to prove my innocence and get back to work and hold Mrs Thomson, Mrs Emma Hale, directorate budget controller, and Mr Mannion accountable for their conduct.

I made a formal complaint to the Economic, Serious and Complex Fraud Unit of West Midlands Police, who determined that there was prima facie evidence of a crime and they issued a crime number (Crime No 20BE/196044B). However, they determined that the matter should be investigated by the Trust, with the consequence that there has been every possible attempt by my employers to cover up what I understand to have been acts of criminality committed against me. Despite returning a second time to the police, they have still taken no action whatsoever and have shown no desire to give me the opportunity of making a formal statement.

Mrs Thomson commissioned a criminal investigation by KPMG and I was interviewed under caution in the presence of my solicitor, by Mrs Karen Sharrocks, Counter Fraud Specialist. Mrs Sharrocks failed to interview key witnesses nominated by myself whom I said would be able to prove my innocence and she also did not consider personal financial data that I offered to her. KPMG concluded “on the balance of probabilities SH has abused his position and gained financially from his actions.” I was so concerned about the way this investigation was conducted, and desperate to prove my innocence that I asked for an independent investigation to be undertaken by NHS Protect. Their investigation was undertaken by a Local Counter Fraud Specialist, who conducted a very thorough and extremely professional investigation. Amongst a number of very serious criticisms that he made about the KPMG investigation, he stated “The KPMG investigation was poorly conducted and made recommendations which were not adequately supported by facts of the matter. A number of lines of enquiry were either not followed or were actively avoided. No rationale has been provided for the decisions arrived at in respect of these, however, one could speculate that the investigator’s convenience may be a driver here”. He also states “I believe the criminal investigation conducted by KPMG fell short of acceptable standards. The LCFS did not pursue all reasonable lines of enquiry.” He goes on to say “No attempt was made to verify whether or not Mr Hussain had actually profited from his activities”, and interestingly says “From evidence supplied by Mr Hussain to me it appears that he has incurred costs in excess of the amount he invoiced and was paid by the Trust.” Finally he says, “The LCFS undertook to inform NHS Protect ‘for them to consider the evidence’. This simply did not happen”. What concerns me greatly is that Karen Sharrocks actively failed to consider important evidence offered to her by me, which in turn brings into question the independence and fairness of her investigation, given that it was paid for by the Trust, and whether such investigations are wielded by employers as a weapon to prevent whistle blowers from speaking out. In September 2014 I was reimbursed just over £5,000 in expenses I had incurred as part of the provision of hosting for a number of websites for the trust that KMPG had concluded I had benefited financially from.

On my return from sick leave I lodged two grievances. For the first, the investigating officer, Mr Martin Long, failed to interview me. For the second the investigating officer, Mrs Kim Orlandini, not only turned down my complaints but she was unable at the feedback meeting to substantiate her findings with any supporting evidence. Like Mr Long, she left the Trust’s employment following her investigation. I submitted appeals to the findings of these two investigating officers within the ten day deadline stipulated in Trust policy, and some two years later the appeal hearings are still outstanding.

I was so concerned about the irregularities in procedure and how unfairly the Trust was dealing with these matters, that I had no alternative but to raise a formal whistle blowing complaint. It was at this point that I was told to direct all future correspondence to the Trust’s solicitors, Capsticks, who would now be dealing with me. Capsticks appointed a private investigator, Miss Nora Bartley to conduct a whistle blowing enquiry. Initially the Trust refused to allow my MP to attend a meeting with her and the Terms of Reference were provided to me one day before the first meeting with Miss Bartley. They had been drawn up by Capsticks, without my involvement and they did not adequately reflect my whistle blowing concerns, but rather had an unhealthy focus on a reinvestigation of my original employment grievances. I had to insist that the meeting be deferred in order that I could submit an amended Terms of Reference. I submitted an amended Terms of Reference which was initially accepted by the Trust. However, two days before the meeting was due to take place, Capsticks informed me that a number of key areas of my Terms of Reference were to be omitted from Miss Bartley’s investigation. I expressed my disquiet that the investigation would not fully encompass my entire whistle blowing concerns and that Miss Bartley was not a member of a regulatory body and, therefore, best practice could not be assured. My protestations fell on deaf ears. Miss Bartley continued with her investigation, she did not take formal evidence from me and failed to interview the important witnesses I nominated. Furthermore, she did not consider additional evidence that would have been provided by NHS Protect, which would have been crucial in determining the truth.

As is demonstrated in my case, KPMG provided the Trust with a report that was used as a means to suspend me even though the findings within that report are “not adequately supported by facts of the matter”. This report was produced by KPMG as a result of an investigation that ultimately has been determined to have fallen short of acceptable standards, yet I still remain suspended, accused of impropriety with my health, career and reputation in tatters. The Trust has been unable to tell me how much was spent on the criminal investigation conducted by KPMG and claim that they purchase an annual local counter fraud package from them. I have put in a Freedom of Information request for this information in the wider public interest.

On the recommendation of the Secretary of State for Health I have lodged a formal complaint with Monitor, who is currently investigating and is considering potential breaches of the Trust’s Provider Licence conditions.

NHS employees are being encouraged to raise concerns in the wider public interest; however as the systemic failing in the petitioners case demonstrates, it is not a safe environment in which to do so. To further compound this problem, the petitioner’s case also highlights a lack of support towards whistle blowers. There is not an organisation in the country that has the remit or authority to take ownership of a whistle blowing complaint in its entirety and investigate all intrinsically linked matters. HEFT took the decision to spend huge amounts of public money commissioning the services of Capsticks Solicitors, KPMG and Nora Bartley when the petitioner took the courage to raise his concerns. It seemed that the people he was raising concerns about were ultimately in charge of determining proceedings and commissioning supposedly independent investigations on themselves.

The Petitioner therefore requests that the House of Commons holds a parliamentary debate to discuss the validity for the creation of a national whistle blowing authority.

The Petitioner requests that the cost of the KPMG investigation conducted by Karen Sharrocks is refunded to the Trust, and that the money is used to purchase medical equipment to support the needs of his clinical colleagues.

The Petitioner also requests that the House of Commons Public Accounts Committee reviews how accountancy firms are commissioned to write reports which are thought to be independent, but in fact the conclusions are driven by the demands of the commissioning body and the ICAEW refuses to investigate; further requests that the details of how I was persecuted as a reasonable whistle blower are considered by the Health Committee with a view to changing regulations to stop this happening to other people in the future.

And the Petitioner remains, etc.—[Presented by John Hemming.][P001392]

Westminster Hall

Wednesday 22nd October 2014 Westminster Hall

Wednesday 22 October 2014

[Hywel Williams in the Chair]

Voter Registration

Wednesday 22nd October 2014 Westminster Hall

Motion made, and Question proposed, That the sitting be now adjourned.—(Mr Sam Gyimah.)

09:30

[Julie Elliott (Sunderland Central) (Lab)]

As ever, it is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Williams.

Securing a debate on voter registration is timely with the general election now in the near future. It gives us the opportunity to discuss the enormous changes in the electoral register, a process that started in England and Wales on 10 June this year and in Scotland after the referendum on 19 September. For a democracy to work well, the system needs to be as easy as possible to enable as many eligible people as possible to vote. The first step in the process is to have an accurate, up-to-date and as complete a register as possible.

[Wayne David (Caerphilly) (Lab)]

I agree with my hon. Friend absolutely about the importance of having as accurate an electoral register as possible. She began by indicating that the time scale is tight. Would it not be sensible for the Government to allow more time, so that we can be certain that we have as many people on the electoral register as is humanly possible?

[Julie Elliott]

I could not agree more with my hon. Friend. In the main debate when the measure passed through the House, I said that I agreed in principle with individual voter registration, but that it had to be implemented in a way that works. The new system, however, is simply being rushed through. My fear is that because the changes are being done at speed, and because of the lack of funding available to implement them, they will disfranchise millions of people. That does not improve our democracy at all.

The groups being disfranchised that I am most concerned about are: students and young people; people who live in the private rented sector; and adults with no dependent children who are not yet claiming pensions or not on benefits. I will start with students and young people.

My city, Sunderland, is a university city, so in term time we have an influx of many thousands of young people. They do not always live at home—historically, their parents would have put them on the register at home—they move more frequently and they have a transient lifestyle, whether because they are students away in term time and back home in holidays or simply because they are young people leaving home for the first time, living with friends. Their national insurance number is often registered to the address of their parents’ home, so if they tried to go on the electoral register where they are students the data would not match.

[Paul Blomfield (Sheffield Central) (Lab)]

Sheffield, like Sunderland, is a student city, and I represent more students than any other Member of Parliament—36,000. Will my hon. Friend join me in congratulating the university of Sheffield on its work—which we hope to roll out to Sheffield Hallam university next year—in seamlessly integrating electoral registration with student enrolment to encourage maximum registration? The Government have given some support. Will she encourage them to take up such a process much more vigorously, working with Universities UK and the National Union of Students, and to look at the opportunities beyond universities in colleges, schools and other institutions?

[Julie Elliott]

I absolutely endorse what my hon. Friend says. I have been in discussions with the university of Sunderland in recent weeks to look at that very issue and how it can maximise the number of students on the register. If the Government are prepared to get involved in such a process, that would be a help.

A final point about students and their NI number is that they might have the wrong number allocated, although they would be unaware of that. MPs do not deal with this problem every week, but it is not an uncommon situation for people to come to us because they have the wrong NI number, which they only become aware of when they try to claim a benefit.

For example, not so long ago I had a case of a young woman who had left school and become a hairdresser. She had always worked since leaving school and paid her taxes and her NI. It was only when she applied for maternity pay, when expecting her first child, that she suddenly got a letter from the Department for Work and Pensions saying that she had made no NI contributions. Clearly, that was not the case, and she could prove easily through payslips and her employee records that she had a full NI record. She was not aware of the problem, however, until she got to the point of needing to use the record.

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

My hon. Friend gives a graphic example of the issue with national insurance numbers. Is she aware that 35% of Muslim women do not have NI numbers? Where does that leave them when getting registered under the new system?

[Julie Elliott]

That is a pertinent point. The NI system is a good one in general, but it has flaws and is not perfect, and many issues arise from that. As I explained, many people will not be aware that there is a problem with their NI number until they do not data-match.

Given the housing shortage, the private rented sector has grown exponentially over the past 10 years. Even in my city, where house prices are relatively low, there is a shortage of social housing and people have difficulty getting mortgages, because of low wages, zero-hours contracts and so on. Even in Sunderland, therefore, we have a housing crisis and more people than ever, from all walks of life and all age groups, living in the private rented sector. It is a transient population, because of how our tenancies work, with short-term tenancies and people often moving home every six months, and they are difficult to reach.

The final group I want to mention are adults with no dependent children. They are not claiming benefits, their children are grown and they do not receive child benefit any more, and they are not yet at pensionable age. Often, that group of people are at a time in their life when they are downsizing and moving home. Does everyone remember to change the address in their NI records? Most people do not have that on their list of things to change. They are not doing anything wrong; they are still paying their contributions through their employer and so forth, but again their NI records are not as accurate as they should be. Again, only when those people seek a benefit from the NI system does that fact come to light. It is easily sorted out, but in the meantime they will not data-match. Furthermore, working people are busy people and they are often not at home when canvassers call, when the local authority is trying to improve their records. Again, through no fault of their own, they will be disfranchised.

Those are all genuine examples of people who do not actively want to be unable to vote, but have lifestyles that, under the new system and the speed of its introduction, make them difficult to reach. They will therefore fall off the register and be unable to vote.

I want to talk a little about my constituency. Sunderland Central falls within the electoral and local authority district of Sunderland. Our electoral services are famous. They do things well, they are efficient and quick, and they take enormous pride in what they do. It is a well resourced department, which does things well, to the extent that, historically, people from the department have gone around the world to help improve other countries’ electoral administration. That is how good they are. They have put Sunderland on the map. They are very quick at counts, to the point that at the past few general elections there has been no competition for us—nobody even tries any more. The votes for the three Sunderland MPs are counted, and the results are known, on the day that the votes have been cast, which is unique in this place. At the previous general election my seat was third to be declared in Sunderland, but my result was still in at 20 minutes to midnight, so I could relax a long time before many of my colleagues.

The electoral services staff in Sunderland have taken the changes incredibly seriously. They were part of the pilot and have been involved in working groups with the Government and the Electoral Commission to look at how to implement the system. Yet even in Sunderland there are massive problems. I want to read out a few things that the head of electoral services told me yesterday. She said:

“Following the Confirmation Live Run…Sunderland had a match rate of 84%. This was improved with Local Data Matching which brought the match up to 92%. This meant that in real terms Sunderland then delivered 15,753 Household Enquiry Forms…which were comprised of empty properties, student accommodation and non-responders to last year’s canvass. After reminders”—

that is, two things through the post—

“and a visit from personal canvassers, Sunderland has an outstanding total of 6,128 which is about 39% of the original total.”

Even after two letters and a personal call, Sunderland is still more than 6,000 people short under the new system.

[Jessica Morden (Newport East) (Lab)]

I very much agree with the points my hon. Friend is making. The Government funding for following up on non-responders and new electors is based on getting a 50% response to the first reminder and a 50% response to the second, but I believe that in some places the response to the first reminder has been as low as 10%. Does she agree that the Minister needs to put more money into the process if we are to get the response rates up?

[Julie Elliott]

I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend. More money and more time are needed to get the system right. As I said at the beginning, in principle we agree with individual voter registration, but the implementation has not been right.

[Chris Ruane]

On the dry run and the number of local government departments that then conducted their own local data-matching, there are 380 electoral registration officers in the country, but only 137 wrote to the Electoral Commission to say that they had done their dry run. My county was one—I pay tribute to our ERO, Gareth Evans, for doing so—and my hon. Friend’s county got an extra 10% registered. But two thirds could not be bothered. Was the Electoral Commission too lax in its monitoring and policing of the dry run?

[Julie Elliott]

The point is well made. Not enough information, time or thought has gone into how registration is happening. My hon. Friend’s electoral registration unit and my own are among the best in our countries, but quite frankly not all EROs are of the same standard. They vary enormously. They do not always use the same computer systems. Some are better than others, and some are better resourced than others. There is massive variation. We have one of the best electoral services departments in the country, but we are still having problems. The figures for some of the worst in the country will be dreadful.

[Nic Dakin (Scunthorpe) (Lab)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing this timely debate. Does she agree that it is also important to recognise the really hard work done by canvassers, who go out there and chase the information? I have talked to the canvassers in my constituency working on behalf of the ERO, and the reality is that they have not had proper pay increases for some time. There is even more pressure on them now. There is a real issue with capacity for that resource at this crucial time.

[Julie Elliott]

I totally agree with my hon. Friend. As I said, in Sunderland we have put a lot of effort and resources into the matter, but we are constrained by a massively reduced local authority budget. That is the backdrop to some of what is going on.

As I was saying, 92% of households matched after the live run but there may now be residents in those houses that we do not know about. They are deemed to have been matched, and have not been canvassed, so if new people have moved into the properties in addition to those who have been matched, we will not know about them. The figure is misleading.

We could have another mini-canvass in January or February. I understand that the Minister is currently considering whether to fund that. A mini-canvass is absolutely essential and should be mandatory for local authorities. As I have said, my local authority is doing everything it can to make its register as accurate and workable as possible, but so far many authorities have not done as we have. The Government need to look carefully at funding a mini-canvass and making it mandatory that electoral registration officers carry it out.

Sunderland sent out more than 13,000 invitations to register—they are for the red and amber mismatches from the confirmation live run—and have just started door-knocking for those. As yet, there has been no response for almost 11,000 of them. That is how hard to reach some people and places are.

Another issue is that the system of postal vote registration has changed; so has the information that could be used to match people and keep them on the postal vote register. In Sunderland we were part of a national pilot in 2004 of all-out postal vote elections, as a result of local authority boundary and ward changes. Since then, on average around 40% of the electorate in Sunderland has used postal votes. People like voting by post in Sunderland. It is effective and efficient, with a very high turnout. There are probably many reasons for that: although we are a university city our indigenous population is quite aged, and older people tend to like to vote by post. We also have quite inclement weather a lot of the time, so people often do not like going out to vote—the north-east coast is beautiful but it can be very cold.

[Wayne David]

I will not question for one moment the beauty of Sunderland or its weather. My point is connected to my first intervention on the speed of the introduction of the changes. One reason the Government are so keen to press ahead as quickly as humanly possible is the perception of fraud, particularly with regard to postal votes. Does my hon. Friend agree that the perception is not necessarily the reality, and we should go on the reality? The truth is that very little electoral fraud takes place.

[Julie Elliott]

I absolutely agree—that is my next point. There has been only one serious electoral fraud issue in the past 10 years or so. Electoral fraud is a serious issue. If is it happening anywhere it absolutely needs to be tackled, but it is not happening on a mass scale; in my experience it certainly is not happening with postal votes.

As I was saying, a lot of people in Sunderland vote by post. They are used to it and do it every time, so it is their normal voting pattern nowadays. According to the records in Sunderland, difficulties with matching, sign-up and other issues mean that some 1,740 people currently on the postal vote register are going to drop off it, and will not know that. It will get to the day when postal votes need to be cast and they will not have their postal vote. I am quite sure they will ring up to say that they have not received it, and will be told, “You are not on the postal vote register any more.” That simply is not good enough. Those people may not be able to get out to a polling station. If they can, they may go and vote in person on the day, but as I said a lot of them are older and are not in the best of health, so are not able to do that.

Does it really help our democracy to disfranchise people because of the situation with the postal vote register? Historically, other data that a council holds—perhaps council tax records—have been used to data-match, to make sure that people kept their postal vote. That is no longer going to be allowed to happen, and the Government need to look at that.

Will the Minister fund a mini-canvass? Will he make that decision urgently, because we are now into October? A mini-canvass needs to take place early in the new year, and I have outlined the reasons for that. Is he comfortable with the problems that are arising? Estimates are that 7.5 million people are not usually registered, and the latest estimates I have seen are that 5.5 million more will drop off the register under the new system. That means 13 million people will be disfranchised at the next general election. Is the Minister comfortable with that? What other plans does he have to put right the implementation and roll-out of the system?

09:50

[Chloe Smith (Norwich North) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to take part in the debate under your chairmanship, Mr Williams, and to be the second speaker after the hon. Member for Sunderland Central (Julie Elliott), who made an extensive speech. I would invite her to Norfolk, where the climate tends to be a little drier and, occasionally, warmer, although I cannot speak for that in a week where we have all been battered by somewhat higher winds than normal.

I congratulate the hon. Lady on calling this important debate. This is an urgent and important matter for us all, and particularly for me, because, until 1 pm today, I am the secretary of the all-party group on voter registration—we have our annual general meeting at 1 pm, and I fully hope to continue being the secretary or to become another officer of the group. At our meeting, we will also have a briefing from Cabinet Office officials on individual electoral registration. I can therefore reassure hon. Members that there is great interest in this important reform programme and that it is being properly scrutinised, not only in this room, but by the all-party group. It is, indeed, also being scrutinised by many others outside this place, and I could name, among many others, Bite the Ballot or the group I met last night, who are behind the Twitter handle “It’s A Power Thing”—I am sure that you tweet every day, Mr Williams, and that when you find examples of what politics really consists of, you, too, use the hashtag ThisIsPolitics. I am confident that every one of us in the Chamber shares with such groups a passion not only for getting young people to register to vote, but for making sure that anybody and everybody can use their rightful place in the franchise.

I am sure the Minister will explain everything he is doing to ensure the greatest possible accuracy and completeness in voter registration. He will not need me to reiterate the many arguments I have made on this issue, because I have been on record many times in this Parliament as a former Minister with responsibility for the registration programme.

I am pleased to see that we have colleagues from Northern Ireland with us, and I am sure they will be able to explain further some of the lessons that have rightly been learned from a similar roll-out there.

[Chris Ruane]

I pay tribute to the non-partisan work the hon. Lady does on the all-party group—she is an excellent politician. On the lessons from Northern Ireland, the registration rate there in 2011 was 71%, which was way down. There was then a complete canvass, with door knocking, and the rate went up to 88%. Door knocking is the single most important way to improve registration, but, in 2013, 23 authorities did not door-knock. What does the hon. Lady think of that?

[Chloe Smith]

I do not disagree with the hon. Gentleman. He and I have tussled over this many times—again, in a non-partisan way. There is no call for this to be a party political question, but there is every call for us to ensure that local authorities have the tools to do what works, and I am sure the Minister will respond fully and properly to the suggestions that the hon. Member for Sunderland Central made.

On the subject of errant local authorities, the hon. Member for Vale of Clwyd (Chris Ruane) will remember that I wrote to colleagues in this place when I was a Minister, and I have done so again during my time with the all-party group, to encourage Members to hold their local authorities to account for what they and their EROs do to properly engage with those who should be registered. Members of the House have a real chance to take a proper interest in this subject—again, in a non-partisan, non-party political way—because we have every interest in ensuring that we have an accurate and complete register and, indeed, that all the tools of the trade are being used to back up the state of our politics. It will not be a matter of debate among us that politics has a bad name and continues to be the subject of declining interest among voters. That is not acceptable to any of us, and all of us, in our different ways, take a passionate interest in the issue.

[Dr William McCrea (South Antrim) (DUP)]

I congratulate the hon. Lady on introducing this timely debate. When she talks about people who vote, she means those who are on the register, but there is a disconnect even there. After we get those people on the register, it is difficult to get them to exercise their voting rights. However, how do we get those who are totally uninterested on the register? There certainly is a problem there. In Northern Ireland, 88% of people are on the register, but there is still a long way to go to get the proper franchise.

[Chloe Smith]

The hon. Gentleman makes a sensible point, but I am certainly not going to be able to solve the problem he raises in my comments—and nor, I suspect, will the Minister be able to. In the scenario the hon. Gentleman described, there is an element of somebody not wishing to do something, and, in the final analysis, I do not think there is a way to compel somebody to do something they do not wish to do. Before we got to that point, I would put every argument to show that their place in democracy is a hard-won right and, at times, very sensitive; and I am sure the hon. Gentleman would be able to give us many more localised reasons why that is so in Northern Ireland. I would argue that, in the grand scheme of things, it is not hard to get on the electoral register in our country. We should compare that with what happens in countries around the world, where it is still hard for people in this day and age to have their democratic voice heard. The best example, which we have seen in the newspapers only in the last month, is probably Hong Kong, where people wish to play a part in democracy. We could all take a few lessons from that back to the people we represent to further the discussion of what democracy really is about.

That allows me to move to the point I wanted to make. I want to go back to principles. I disagree with the hon. Member for Sunderland Central that we are facing disfranchisement—we are not. The people we are talking about are enfranchised and legally able to vote. We are talking not about some descent into North Korean-style practices, but about the method of getting as many people as possible, in the most accurate and complete way possible, to change from one system to another. I am no fan of large bureaucratic systems, and I would—like the Minister, I am sure—place a high value on making the programme as simple and as fast as possible for the voters concerned.

I strongly agree with the hon. Lady’s point—which unfortunately she made only in passing—that the IER programme has cross-party agreement. We do not need to go back to a hyperbolic disagreement; we are looking at the best means of achieving a shared goal. It was the right thing to do in the early days of this Parliament to remove potentially wasteful and expensive duplication in the programme by bringing it forward, and I am sure the Minister will be able to give us a full update on why he continues to think that that was the right thing to do at the time.

Let me also lay out a crucial factor in the implementation programme. There is not going to be—I say it again—some forced North Korean-style loss of participation in our democracy at this crucial time, because no elector will be removed until after the general election. Again, I shall leave it to the Minister to explain fully how he envisages that working, but it is important not to blow things out of proportion. The programme has cross-party agreement and that should continue. We should all pull together to find the best ways to get the result we want.

As to the principle behind IER, it is one of the most important final pieces in the democratic journey, made over centuries, towards a right and proper adult franchise. Among those three letters the “I” has always, for me, been important; it is right and proper for individuals to be able to exercise the right to register, and that is why I believe in the programme. Neither I nor, I am sure, the hon. Member for Sunderland Central would think it acceptable for the right of a woman to register her hard-won place in democracy to be exercised by someone else in her household; so why do we seem to be quibbling over the ability of young people, renters or single adults to take care of their affairs? We need to keep in mind the basic principle that it is right for individuals to take responsibility for their own place in democracy. We have a good democracy, in which there is a place for those people, with their names on it. It is, in the end, for them to take that up, and for us to persuade them why doing so is worth their while. It takes two to tango, of course.

There are a few short months until the general election. There is much for us all to do—in this place, together and individually—to put politics across in the best light. Parliament week will shortly be upon us, so that we will collectively be able to do that little bit more. I could name many groups where people are already encouraging their peers to vote. As I have said, I am particularly interested in encouraging young people to take their place in democracy.

[Mr Gregory Campbell (East Londonderry) (DUP)]

Does the hon. Lady agree that the problem is double barrelled? It certainly is in Northern Ireland and, I am sure, in the hon. Lady’s constituency. Young people, who tend to be more mobile than older people, are less likely to register and less likely to come out and vote even when they are registered. We have a twin approach to deepening the franchise.

[Chloe Smith]

I could not agree more with the hon. Gentleman. He is right. We are all familiar with the statistics from the previous general election: turnout in the 18-to-24 age group was about 44%, while three quarters of those at the other end of the age scale turned out. That is the difference we are talking about; but we are also talking about an evolution that has happened in politics. The situation is not one in which young people will snap into the habit of voting when they get married and get a mortgage. If we wait for that, we will be waiting a long time, for some of the reasons that the hon. Member for Sunderland Central touched on when she spoke about housing.

However, this generation has changed the way it does politics, and actually does fantastic things through non-traditional political means—through informal politics and community politics. It is our job to make sure that formal politics meets them halfway. That is something that I will continue to speak on passionately in this place and act on outside it, and I will endeavour to open up this place to those people. I hope that today’s debate allows us to contribute a little to that process. We should all be in agreement about the value of the programme and the need to ensure that individuals’ rights to register and vote are upheld and encouraged. We should be talking merely about the best way to get people in our local authorities, and the citizens we represent, to the ballot box.

10:04

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

I have taken a passionate interest in individual electoral registration for the past 13 or 14 years, since my hon. Friend the Member for Dumfries and Galloway (Mr Brown) alerted me to the drop in numbers between 1997 and 2001. I pay tribute to him for switching me on to that important issue—and to my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland Central (Julie Elliott), who secured this important debate.

Democracy is an important issue today. Two key statistics are that at the last general election 11 million people did not vote, although they were on the register, and that 7.5 million people were not even on the register. That means that 18.5 million people did not participate in the democratic process. To put that in perspective, I should say that 10 million people voted Conservative and 8 million people voted Labour—more people did not get involved in the electoral process than voted for the two main political parties. Democracy today in Britain is in crisis, and the way the coalition Government have introduced IER will threaten it further.

The hon. Member for Norwich North (Chloe Smith) is right: there was cross-party support for the changes in 2009. I opposed them for nine years and then supported them when we decided, with cross-party support, to introduce them after the 2015 general election. It was crucial to do that, because it would allow us to find the missing 7.5 million people who were off the register and get them back on for the 2015 election—because we knew there would be a drop-off.

When Labour introduced IER in Northern Ireland in 2001, there was a massive drop-off—something like 30% of people on the register disappeared from it. My colleagues from Northern Ireland will say that there was a degree of fraud there, which had not been addressed, and that is right, but even in 2011 the registration rate was still 71%. We need to learn the lessons of Northern Ireland, which are that when IER is introduced, registration will immediately drop.

[Mr Nigel Dodds (Belfast North) (DUP)]

I had a meeting with the Electoral Commission a couple of weeks ago and the latest figures are now 88% for Northern Ireland. That is only after a household door-to-door canvass was done. That had been dropped in Northern Ireland. The lesson is that there is a need to get people signed up by regularly going door to door; that cannot be left to town halls or electoral officers, as happened in Northern Ireland.

[Chris Ruane]

I agree. I shall bring part of my speech forward, to address the point. In 2008 the Labour Government said that every ERO must carry out door-knocking for non-responders. In 2008 16 EROs out of 383 did not do that. They broke the law. In 2009 there were 17 such EROs and in 2008 the number was down to eight. But what happened in the year of the new Government? The number of EROs who broke the law went from eight to 55. In 2012 it was 30 and in 2013 it was 23. That includes Gwynedd in 2012 and 2013.

It is appalling that Ministers and the Electoral Commission tolerated law-breaking with respect to the most important basic building block of democracy. That has not been addressed, although the coalition proudly boasts that it will introduce the biggest changes to UK democracy since universal suffrage—and there are still 7.5 million people missing from the register.

The cross-party support for IER was shattered in 2010 when the coalition Government decided that, ahead of the economy and all the changes that they said were needed in health, education and benefits, the No. 1 issue on which they wanted to focus forensically was bringing forward the date for IER by a year. Why was that? I have asked Ministers in oral questions, in Committee and on the Floor of the House. I asked the Minister, and he did not know. I had to tell him and previous Ministers in Committee the reason, which according to a parliamentary answer was mass concern among the public about fraud in the electoral system; apparently, the time scale had to be brought forward by one year to assuage that concern.

I will give the statistics for electoral fraud, which my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland Central has already given. There has been one proven and successful case in the courts over the past 10 years. The Electoral Commission and Ministers say that there is 37% concern. One of the surveys said that there was 37% concern, but others say that there is 10% concern—so for 10% concern, and one case in 10 years, the legislation had to be brought forward by one year. The real reason is party political advantage.

The equalisation of seats, with 7.5 million people missing from the register, was supposed to deliver the next election. Bringing IER forward by one year and knocking off perhaps 18 million people was supposed to deliver every election after that. That is not quite North Korea, but it is not far away. The issue has been handled in a party political way.

I pay tribute to the Liberal Democrats because they co-operated in the House of Lords, having realised what a train crash was happening. The Government proposed making an individual’s decision to go on to the register a lifestyle choice. For 350 years, this had been a civic duty for those who qualified to be on the register and to take part in democracy, but the Government wanted to change that to a lifestyle choice—“buy it if you want to; don’t buy it if you don’t”. That is the wrong approach, and so much so that the Liberal Democrats realised what was happening. I pay tribute to Lord Rennard for alerting his party to it.

Civic society was appalled. Magistrates were appalled because people are called for jury service from the electoral register. The police were appalled because they use the electoral register to find out where people who commit crimes live. Operation Black Vote was appalled because the biggest losers out there were the black and Asian communities. Unlock Democracy, the Electoral Reform Society and Bite the Ballot were concerned about the proposal, so the Government had to back-pedal from a lifestyle choice to a civic duty.

I pay tribute to the Electoral Commission for one of the few good things it has done. It formally warned the Government that if they carried on, of the people who do not bother to vote—65% at the last election, although it has been as low as 59%—41% will not register. It is like a banana republic: 40% of people in the country are not on the register. That is what the Conservative wing of the coalition Government proposed. That is what it thought it could get away with, but it was beaten by an alliance of civic societies and some Liberal Democrats.

I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Caerphilly (Wayne David) for his work in bringing civic societies together. We had public hearings in the House of Commons when people were allowed to express their fears. We took that message to the Electoral Commission and the Government, and the Government had to listen.

[Dr McCrea]

If the Liberal Democrats are so concerned, why do I not see many of them here this morning?

[Chris Ruane]

I could not possibly comment.

I have explained the Government’s position. I now turn to the Electoral Commission’s position, and I have paid tribute to it for what it has done. In 2009, I met people from Experian, the credit reference data agency. We sat in my office in Portcullis House and I said that 3.5 million people were missing from the register. They said, “No there aren’t. The number is 6.5 million.” I immediately relayed that to the Electoral Commission, which said that that was nonsense and that it would conduct its own research. The day before that was released—I think it was released on a Friday, so it was on the Thursday—it told me that I was right and that the figure was 6.5 million, but a different 6.5 million. Perhaps it was 13 million. Who knows?

Labour does not have clean hands. Some 3.9 million people were not on the register in 2001 and that rose to 7.5 million on Labour’s watch. That was not for party political advantage because of the profile of the people missing from the register: the unemployed, those on low wages, those living on council estates, those living in houses of multiple occupation, young people and black and ethnic minority voters. It was not for party political advantage, although we should have done a better job—but party political advantage has kept those 7.5 million people off the register for the past four years. The Electoral Commission has not played its full role in getting them back on the register.

It would cost only £340,000 to do a proper survey of the missing millions, but in the past 14 years the commission has carried out only three. That is despite electoral administration legislation in 2005, 2009 and 2010. The commission has been remiss in its research. It should not be left to a Back Bencher and a credit reference agency to prompt it into doing its job.

[David Mowat (Warrington South) (Con)]

I apologise for missing the start of the hon. Gentleman’s speech. I am listening carefully to his logic and the build-up to the 7.5 million people who seem to be missing from the register. According to his own logic, that occurred under the previous Government, but the fact that we have not fixed it is apparently due to our pursuing partisan values. That logic is odd. Why did the previous Government fail so completely on that?

[Chris Ruane]

We did not do our job and I admit that. However, we had a plan from 2010 to 2015 to remedy that and to put the missing millions on the register in time for IER to be introduced in 2015. That plan was wrecked for party political advantage by the Conservative wing of the coalition Government.

The Electoral Commission has let us down in other ways. In the dry run for IER, the Department for Work and Pensions cross-referenced national databases with the electoral register. There was a match rate of about 82%, which it then sent to 383 local EROs. It asked them or said that if they wanted they could do local government data matching to get them from 82% to 92%. Of the 383, only 137 informed the Electoral Commission that it had done that. There may have been others, but they could not be bothered to tell the commission. It should have been firm and told those authorities that they had to take part in the dry run to iron out any difficulties ready for the live run. It did not do that.

The Electoral Commission’s plan for 2014 to 2019 covers what it hopes to achieve over the next five years. It recognised in 2014 that 7.5 million people were missing from the register in 2010. What is its aim for putting those people on the register over the next five years? The answer is zero. It has said that its aim for April 2011 was for the register to be 85.5% complete; for April 2019, the aim is that that completeness does not deteriorate. So 7.5 million names are missing now and there will be 7.5 million missing in 2019. That reminds me of a report once sent to my mum stating, “Christopher has set himself very low standards and failed to achieve them.” The Electoral Commission has failed. It set itself low standards and will fail to achieve them. It has been remiss.

When the Electoral Commission found out that the number of people missing from the register in 2010 was not 6 million but 7.5 million—that has flatlined; it is the same now—it welcomed that. It welcomed the fact that there had been no improvement in the registration rate. It had flatlined and had not increased, and the commission thought that was an achievement. It has set itself low standards. It is not only happy that 7.5 million people will be kept off the register for the next five years, but it has introduced restrictions on the handling of postal votes. It says that political parties cannot be trusted to go out and ask people whether they want a postal vote and to send it off when it has been filled in. It refers to electoral postal vote fraud, but there has been only one case of that in 10 years.

The Electoral Commission is not happy with just doing that. It is proposing that when people go to the polling station in 2019, they will have to show photo ID. That has been done in America, in right-wing Republican states—there is a perfect mirroring between Republican and Democrat states in America in terms of those that have and have not introduced photo ID. The independent Electoral Commission in this country is proposing that we copy those Republican states. It is an outrage. There has been one successful prosecution for electoral registration fraud in 10 years.

There are big issues out there. The prediction, as my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland Central outlined, is that there will be an additional 5.5 million people missing off the register as a result of IER. The hon. Member for Norwich North is right that they will be protected for the general election. There will be a carry-over from household registration to individual registration, and we thank the Government for that—I think they were forced into it by the Lib Dems and others—but the next big date is the freeze date for the Boundary Commission, for the next boundary review, which is December 1 2015. If there is no carry-over for those 5.5 million people and for the 7 million people already off the register, 13 million or perhaps 14 million people will drop off it before the boundary review freeze date of 1 December 2015.

[Chloe Smith]

I want to draw the hon. Gentleman back a little. He is correct about the December 2015 date, but does he think that those voters then go to a Siberia of democracy? Does he not think that they still have the right to register if they wish to?

[Chris Ruane]

Absolutely, and those black voters in the southern states of America had the right to go and register but they did not. We know that people have not registered and that more will fall off, and we know that we can take steps to encourage more to fall off or to stop people from falling off. I think the coalition Government are quite happy with the situation. I think it is deliberate, given the time scale, the bringing things forward by one year and the lifestyle choice that they considered. It all points in the same direction: that they wanted maximum political benefit from the constitutional changes that they were introducing.

I shall finish my speech as I started it. If we have 11 million people not voting and 7.5 million people—perhaps 14 million people—not on the register, we will not be serving democracy in the mother of Parliaments.

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

[Hywel Williams (in the Chair)]

Order. I remind the two remaining Back-Bench Members who wish to speak that we will start the wind-ups at 10.30 am. It would be a kindness if the time could be shared evenly. I call Jim Shannon.

10:22

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

With that in mind, Mr Williams, I shall be brief—by my calculations, we have four minutes each.

I congratulate the hon. Member for Sunderland Central (Julie Elliott) on securing the debate. I wish to speak about Northern Ireland, which hon. Members have referred to. In last May’s council elections in Northern Ireland, out of 1,243,649 eligible people, only 51.3% voted. We had an issue with spoiled ballot papers and those who were unable to vote in European elections. The figures are extremely disappointing. Much has changed, and my hon. Friend the Member for South Antrim (Dr McCrea) and my right hon. Friend the Member for Belfast North (Mr Dodds) referred to the registration in Northern Ireland of some 88%, but even with that, the electoral turnout was only 51.3% at the last election, which is of some concern.

We also have the problems in Northern Ireland of the two electoral systems, with the straight X vote and the single transferable vote. Having two elections with two different votes, sometimes on the one day, can cause confusion, and we have been trying to address that issue.

The hon. Member for Vale of Clwyd (Chris Ruane), who spoke very passionately, referred to fraud. In Northern Ireland, we have had many examples of fraud. There have been blocked-up houses in west Belfast that apparently housed 10 people—well, they must have had four legs and a tail, because otherwise there is no way in the world they would be able physically to get out and vote. Such electoral fraud took place across parts of Northern Ireland and has been addressed. When we go to vote, we have to take photo ID with us, but that is something that we just need to accept in Northern Ireland.

There is the issue of how we interact with people and encourage the voters to be more involved in what takes place, and we can look at the referendum in Scotland and what happens when an issue generates interest. It had a 75% turnout and 90% of people were registered, with some 18% voting through a postal vote. I believe that more can be done with the postal vote system. Its only disadvantage is that people do not have to produce ID to show that they are who they say are, so an element of fraud might come into it.

In her introduction, the hon. Member for Sunderland Central referred to the issue of how we engage with younger people, and that is a key issue. How do we ensure that younger people are involved? How can we encourage that involvement? In Northern Ireland, we have a system under which students in lower sixth—or year 12 as it is here on the mainland—are encouraged to have their photographs taken for electoral cards with their date of birth on, so that when they turn 18, it is all done for them. That is one approach to the problem, although of course the card can easily be lost—in someone’s pocket or purse or whatever—and with that goes people’s wish to be involved in the process. But education is an important element, and Northern Ireland does that through colleges of further education. Those are some of the good things that we would wish to see.

Finally, students who are interested may register to be involved in the party political process, and that is good. They may do their courses at school, and that is good as well, but sometimes they drop out. How do we engage those who drop out? We need to ensure that people grasp how they can change, influence and make things better, and the only way to do that is to vote in elections. Next year, it is Westminster—“elect the person you want to do what you want at Westminster.”

[Hywel Williams (in the Chair)]

I call Chris Evans.

10:26

[Chris Evans (Islwyn) (Lab/Co-op)]

Thank you for calling me, Mr Williams. I think I only have four minutes, so I will throw away the magnum opus speech that I was going to give and just make a few points that I think were covered by my hon. Friends the Members for Vale of Clwyd (Chris Ruane) and for Sunderland Central (Julie Elliott) in two outstanding, passionate speeches.

My key point is that the introduction of voter registration, as we have seen, is so important. As my hon. Friend the Member for Vale of Clwyd wrote in Progress magazine, we could return to electoral registration rates like those of Alabama in the 1950s. We saw the situation in Florida in 2000, with the famous Bush versus Gore presidential election, where there was widespread belief that people were missing out on a democratic duty.

[Chloe Smith]

On that point, I intervene extremely briefly to ask the hon. Gentleman whether he is implying that he thinks I am racist, as I think his hon. Friend, the hon. Member for Vale of Clwyd, was doing?

[Chris Evans]

No, I do not think I said that. If I implied that, I apologise. I do not think the hon. Lady is racist.

[Chris Ruane]

And neither do I.

[Chris Evans]

I do not think my hon. Friend believes that either, and if that was implied, I apologise.

Like many people in this debate, I believe that the new voter registration system is being introduced too fast. As it will be introduced just months before the general election in 2015, if it does not work, people will have no vote and therefore no voice in the election.

In July this year, the Electoral Commission found that the electoral register is only 86% complete. That equates to about 7.5 million people not being able to vote. Combine that with inaccuracies on the electoral register and one in seven voters have no voice in elections at all. What makes that worse is that 40% of those who are not registered believe that they are. I know so many people in my constituency and in other constituencies I have lived in who have turned up to vote and found that they are not on the electoral register at all, but they pay their bills and their council tax, so they cannot understand why they cannot vote. As has been said, that is a particular problem for young people who are less likely to register than older people who will see through their democratic mandate; for black and mixed-race people, who are less likely to be registered than white people; and for people who are living in the private rented sector who are less likely to be registered than home owners.

That picture shows that the groups in society who are most transient are less likely to vote, and I look forward to the Minister’s response on that point. This is an area that I believe that the Government must get right. Although we accept that individual voter registration can help to rectify the situation, the methods proposed by the Government may just make it worse. Under their plans for data-matching, the electoral roll will be matched with DWP data, and the groups who are likely to be unregistered are also the least likely to have matching information on databases. The duty now lies with the Government to work with civic groups, electoral registration officers and others to ensure that every last step is taken to maximise registration. We cannot allow whole swathes of the country to lose their voice at the next general election. This is an area that the Government must get right or risk having millions disfranchised. I look forward to hearing the Minister’s thoughts on that, and with that, Mr Williams, I conclude my remarks.

10:29

[Stephen Twigg (Liverpool, West Derby) (Lab/Co-op)]

We have had a very good debate, with excellent contributions on both sides of the Chamber. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland Central (Julie Elliott). Many of us will be jealous of how quickly the counts are undertaken in Sunderland elections. I think that for the last election in Liverpool, I got my declaration at 6 o’clock in the morning. Something can certainly be learned from a system that enables people to be in bed in the early hours of the following morning. More seriously, I pay tribute to the work that Sunderland electoral services do. As she said, that is something from which we can all learn in this country, as well as people in other parts of the world.

May I mention two other contributions before making my own speech? The hon. Member for Norwich North (Chloe Smith), the former Minister, spoke about the work of the all-party parliamentary group, and it is a very welcome innovation. It is supported by Bite the Ballot, which I will say something about later. Bite the Ballot is a fantastic, non-partisan organisation that basically exists to get more young people registered to vote. I pay tribute to it; it is playing a very important role in the changes.

I also have to mention, of course, my hon. Friend the Member for Vale of Clwyd (Chris Ruane), who has been tireless in raising these issues. He was raising them before others were even talking about them. He is tenacious in challenging Ministers, shadow Ministers and, indeed, the Electoral Commission, and all power to his elbow for the brilliant work that he has done. He expressed the concern that Opposition Members have consistently expressed about the acceleration of the introduction of individual voter registration. I support individual voter registration because it is an archaic concept for the head of a household to determine who is registered to vote. There is undoubtedly cross-party support for changing that, but we have to balance getting to what is the right system that we all support with doing that in a way that does not have the unintended consequences that hon. Members have spoken about.

As has been said, the latest estimate from the Electoral Commission is that there are now 7.5 million people who could be registered but are not. We know that that is not a cross-section of the population as a whole. There are massive disparities between different sections of society. Let us look at 2011, which was the last time we could compare census data with the electoral register. About half of 18 to 24-year-olds were not on the register, compared with just 6% of those aged over 65. If we look at private renters—my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland Central spoke about private renters from the Sunderland experience—we see that barely half of people living as private tenants were on the electoral register, compared with more than 90% of home owners. Therefore it is a very big challenge, and that was under the old system of household registration. The big concern is that the situation could get worse.

We know that the data-matching pilots have given a figure of 79% for matching. That leaves 21% needing to be found in other ways, including local data matching and data mining.

Certain groups are particularly affected. My hon. Friend the Member for Vale of Clwyd drew attention to the latest annual report from the Electoral Commission. I share his concern—which he expressed so powerfully—that it says that its target is simply to avoid any further fall in the level of registration. Surely we must have greater ambition than that. We want the 7.5 million figure to go down. The risk, as has been said, is that it will get even worse.

[Chris Ruane]

It could go up.

[Stephen Twigg]

Exactly. We want the 7.5 million figure to fall. We want the numbers of those who are not on the register to fall. We want a register that is more accurate and complete. Seven and a half million is far too many voters unregistered. We want the figure for those who are not on the register to be lower.

The hon. Member for Norwich North rightly reminded us that those who are already on the register will be carried over for 2015, but of course that does not capture people who have turned 18 since the previous register, who would be new to the register, and crucially—this is where I want to focus my remarks—it does not cover those who have moved home since the previous register. They then have the responsibility of registering under individual voter registration. In this immediate period, those are the people whom I am most concerned about.

There are three groups. One is private renters. By the nature of private renting, people are more likely to move about, and I echo the points made by my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland Central in that regard. When the Minister responds to the debate, I ask him to say something about the position of private renters. What can be done, working with local authorities and organisations that represent landlords and that represent private tenants themselves? Generation Rent is a fairly new organisation that is playing that role. What can we do to try to ensure that the numbers of private renters who are registered goes up rather than falling even further?

However, let me focus in particular on the two groups that I think are most affected in the immediate term: students and young people. There is already an enormous gap in terms of young people’s registration, as I have said, but also in the turnout of young people who are registered. There has always been that gap—it is not new—but it has widened over the last 40 years or so.

Students are a particularly important group in this regard. My hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland Central spoke about Sunderland as a university city. My hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield Central (Paul Blomfield), who is no longer in his place, spoke about the Sheffield experience. We can learn from the excellent practice that he has promoted in Sheffield and which Sheffield university has adopted. When its students register as students, they are then taken to the voter registration site of the Electoral Commission so that they remain registered to vote. I think that that is the ideal system and that all universities should adopt it, but there are worrying signs already that the levels of student registration are falling dramatically.

I spoke to a Manchester city councillor recently. She told me that the initial indications are that registration at the student halls of residence in Manchester is averaging around 10% under the new system, whereas under the old system, with block registration, it was of course 100%. In the city centre ward in Manchester at the moment, registration is down by 98%. Things can be done between now and next April to ensure that the levels are improved, but that reminds us of the scale of the challenge with regard to university students, and that is something that does apply for 2015; it does not await further changes in terms of the legislative framework. What measures will the Government take to work with universities, the National Union of Students and local authorities, so that we maximise the number of higher education students on the register at their place of study in time for the election next year?

Let me now say something about young people and, in particular, the role of schools and colleges in registering young people. I was very interested to listen to the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) talking about the experience in Northern Ireland. The model that exists in Northern Ireland—the schools initiative—is one from which we can learn a great deal.

I have done a number of visits with Bite the Ballot to sixth forms both in Scotland and in England and seen the fantastic work that it does in encouraging young people to register to vote. I think that it makes sense to have a duty on schools and colleges to work with local authorities on voter registration. I urge the Government, who I think have been resistant to that idea, to consider it as a serious option. I asked the Minister about it at Deputy Prime Minister’s questions last week and I shall do so again today. Bite the Ballot has suggested that we have an opportunity with the Wales Bill, currently going through Parliament, to make an amendment that would ensure that there was a responsibility on schools to undertake one voter registration session a year and to work with their electoral registration officer to get more young people signed up. It is a modest amendment that is before the House of Lords at the moment. It is, as I understand it, supported by all the party leaders in Wales, including the leader of the Welsh Conservatives in the Welsh Assembly. The head teachers’ trade union—the Association of School and College Leaders—is very supportive of the idea, and we support it. I urge the Government to give serious consideration to adopting it. Clearly, under the Wales Bill, it would apply only to Wales, but we would like it to be adopted in England and Scotland as well—one step at a time. We would be drawing on and learning from the positive experience of that practice in Northern Ireland.

We have concerns about the speed with which the Government are implementing individual voter registration. The principle is sound; it is the speed of implementation that concerns us. In relation to certain groups, there is real concern about a large number of people falling off the register. I ask the Minister to consider, either in his remarks today or perhaps beyond today, whether we need to amend the legislation to allow certain groups to be block registered. I am particularly concerned about two groups in that regard. One, which I have already spoken about, is university students. There is a case for saying that the legislation should be changed to allow students who live in halls of residence to be automatically registered, in view of those unique circumstances. The other group that I am concerned about is those who live in residential homes—often older people or people with learning difficulties or other disabilities—who may fall off the register. Is there a case for looking at the retention of block registration for those two groups?

The immediate priority is to address some of the points that have been raised in the debate. I support my colleagues who have spoken of the importance of the door-to-door canvass in getting the highest level of registration possible. There is a real concern that, even with some of the additional resources that I acknowledge the Government have provided for the introduction of IER, that basic building block is being eroded in many local authorities, and it must not be. If IER is not to result in the negative consequences that some of us fear, door-to-door canvassing—including, as my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland Central said in her opening speech, a mini-canvass in January and February—is essential. I look forward to the Minister’s comments on that.

I reiterate the importance of looking at the Northern Ireland experience with schools and colleges. I urge the Minister to think again about extending to England, Wales and Scotland the duty on schools and colleges that exists in Northern Ireland. Above all, in the next period, the group that is most likely to find itself not on the register at election time next year is students in higher education. That is a real risk. Will the Minister give a commitment that he will work closely with the universities, the National Union of Students and local authorities to maximise student registration?

I finish by thanking my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland Central once again for securing such an important debate. A register that is as accurate and complete as possible is a crucial building block for our democracy. I am sure that the Minister will agree that to have 7.5 million people not on the register is unacceptable. If an unintended consequence of IER is that the situation gets even worse, surely all of us, whichever side of the House we are on, should be very concerned.

10:42

[The Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office (Mr Sam Gyimah)]

I thank the shadow spokesperson for his remarks, and I thank everyone who has spoken in the debate. In particular, I congratulate the hon. Member for Sunderland Central (Julie Elliott) on securing the debate, and I thank her for her interest in the important topic of voter registration.

Individual electoral registration is one of the biggest modernisations of electoral law in this country for 100 years. As my hon. Friend the Member for Norwich North (Chloe Smith) mentioned, for the first time we are not relying on the head of a household to register everyone in that household; people can register themselves. In addition, we have online registration, so that people can register to vote in as little as three minutes. The introduction of online registration will allow the mobile populations that have been mentioned, such as students and private renters, to register from their smartphones. That is a big modernisation, which we should all recognise and celebrate.

[Julie Elliott]

Are there any statistics yet on how many people are registering online?

[Mr Gyimah]

Since the launch of IER on 10 June, the digital service has processed more than 2.5 million applications. Almost 70% of those were made online through the “Register to vote” website, which has a satisfaction rate of more than 90%.

I am conscious of the time, so I will try to address all the points that have been raised as fast as I can. A lot has been said about the transition to IER, and there has been some bombast, hyperbole and conspiracy theory. The transition was speeded out as part of the coalition Government’s programme to tackle electoral fraud and rebuild trust in our elections. The timetable is phased over two years to help to manage the risk that the transition will impact on the general election. I want to put on record that no one who registered to vote at the last canvass will lose their right to vote at the general election in 2015. It is for Parliament to decide in the summer of 2015 whether the transition will conclude in 2015 or at the end of 2016. The phase-in of the transition to IER with a carry-forward will allow those who are not individually registered by the time of the 2015 general election to vote in that election. I hope that will provide some reassurance that no one will be disfranchised, which is the word that has been used so far.

Of course, we must be mindful of the pitfalls of introducing a new method of registering to vote, and we should focus on the completeness and accuracy of the register. Much has been said about the need for the register to be complete, and the Government and I agree with everyone on the need for that, but we cannot ignore the importance of accuracy. Without an accurate register, we risk undermining the very elections on which the system is based, so we must not simply sweep away the importance of accuracy.

During the process, we have had to learn a lot of lessons from Northern Ireland, which is a point that was raised several times during the debate. We have introduced some safeguards, such as the confirmation process, the carrying forward of electors, online registration, the retention of the annual canvass and the maximisation of registration funding. So far, £4 million has been made available to help all local authorities and five national organisations to maximise the register and deal with the problems that have been identified.

[Chris Ruane]

One of the key lessons from Northern Ireland is the importance of door-to-door canvassers, especially for non-respondents. Some electoral registration officers have broken the law by not knocking on those doors for five years on the trot. What advice has the Minister got for those EROs who break the law?

[Mr Gyimah]

EROs, of course, must follow the law. I will come to the hon. Gentleman’s point during the course of my speech. The need to ensure that students, who can be quite mobile, get on the register has been mentioned several times during the debate. I assure hon. Members that through the creation by the Cabinet Office of a student forum in early 2013, the Government have been working with key partners in the higher education sector, including Universities UK, the Academic Registrars Council and the National Union of Students, to agree on practical steps that EROs and universities can take to encourage students to register. Steps that have been agreed by all representatives of the student forum include the provision of data from universities to EROs to help them to contact students individually; promoting the use of online registration, particularly during university course enrolment; and publishing guidance for ARC to help registrars to implement those steps before the start of the 2014-15 academic year.

My predecessor, my right hon. Friend the Member for Tunbridge Wells (Greg Clark), wrote to university vice-chancellors asking them to support local authorities in their efforts to maximise the number of student registrations. A lot is being done to get students on the register. We recognise the importance of data sharing in the context of students, which was mentioned during the debate. Individual electoral registration officers must make it easier for students to register. More than 410,000 applications from 16 to 24-year-olds have already been submitted via the online registration process.

[Stephen Twigg]

I welcome the work of the student forum. Can the Minister assure us that he will take a close personal interest in the matter and look at the figures as they come in? If by January or February it is clear that there has been a substantial fall in the level of registration among students, will the student forum work with him to look at what can be done via online registration to get those figures up?

[Mr Gyimah]

I assure the hon. Gentleman that not only students but all under-registered groups are a priority for the Government. We want to maximise the register so that people can exercise their right to vote.

The Electoral Commission’s research found that 90% of people feel that it would be easy to provide their national insurance number when registering to vote—that is based on real evidence—and only 1% of applicants so far have been unable to provide their national insurance number or their date of birth. In February 2014, the local authority in Sunderland received £12,627 for maximising registration. That allocation was based on under-registration, especially due to the authority having a high student population. Of course, there are people without national insurance numbers, but that is a very small cohort. In such exceptional situations, people can provide other information, such as their passport.

A lot has been made of local data matching in this debate, and in other debates on individual electoral registration. All local authorities and valuation joint boards in Great Britain took part in the confirmation dry run in 2013, which involved matching their electoral registers against Government records. We believe that EROs are best placed to understand the relevance of locally held data and are likely to improve confirmation matches. That varies between local authorities, so we believe that EROs are best placed to make that judgment.

[Chris Ruane]

I thank the Minister for giving way once again. Should the Electoral Commission have told the 383 EROs that the cross-matching of local government data was mandatory, not just a choice?

[Mr Gyimah]

As I have said, it is for EROs to judge how to go about local data matching in order to maximise the register. I have a couple of points to make about EROs, so if the hon. Gentleman will allow me, I will come to that in a second.

We have also talked a lot about people in homes who are missing from the register. Again, I assure Members that every unconfirmed elector will be written to twice, and those who do not respond will receive a doorstep visit. Eighty-seven per cent. have been confirmed and transferred to the new register automatically. Every household will also have two written reminders during the annual canvass. We are therefore undertaking a practical, step-by-step process to ensure that people get on the register.

Postal vote fraud is another issue of concern, and it is a valid concern. The Government are working to address any form of electoral fraud, and I assure Members that further measures are being taken to strengthen the integrity of the postal voting system. Measures introduced in the Electoral Administration Act 2006 provide that applicants for postal votes must submit identifying signatures and dates of birth, which are checked against corresponding records. Like the recent review by the statutorily independent Electoral Commission, we have found no reason to recommend changes to the postal voting system, which we will keep as it is.

[Chris Ruane]

The Electoral Commission is proposing changes to the postal vote system. If Conservative or Labour canvassers are out there on the knocker and a person wants a postal vote form, which we give to them and they fill in, the Electoral Commission proposes that we cannot take that form away and send it off. That is a big change, which I oppose, although I support the Electoral Commission’s proposal on handling postal votes at election time. Is the Minister correct that new proposals are not being made on postal voting?

[Mr Gyimah]

Sorry, but I am not very clear on that. Will the hon. Gentleman restate his point?

[Chris Ruane]

The Minister has just said that there are no proposed changes to postal votes, but the Electoral Commission proposes to stop members of political parties handling the registration of postal votes on the doorstep, and I do not think we should accept that proposal. The commission also proposes that political parties do not touch postal votes at election time—I can support that proposal, but I do not support the proposal on registering postal votes.

[Mr Gyimah]

The hon. Gentleman has a point. Of course, the integrity of the electoral system is important, and it is worth keeping postal vote fraud under review as we go through IER.

I know that the performance standards of EROs are a subject close to the hon. Gentleman’s heart. I am pleased that the report shows that the majority of EROs clearly met the performance standards in 2013, but the commission identified 22 EROs who failed to meet performance standards. That is obviously disappointing, even if it represents an improvement on 2012, when 30 EROs failed to meet the standards. In fact, performance has improved every year: 53 EROs were failing in 2011, 30 were failing in 2012 and now 22 are failing, which is still too many. My predecessor wrote to all EROs who failed to meet the standards, stressing that Parliament expects them to meet those obligations. The Cabinet Office provided additional funding in the current financial year for that important work. I assure the hon. Member for Vale of Clwyd (Chris Ruane) that Ministers are fully prepared to issue a formal direction to EROs, if necessary, to ensure that they comply with their statutory obligations.

[Chris Ruane]

I do not like to pull the Minister up on what he is saying, but he just said that EROs had improved every year, but they have not. It was 16 EROs who did not perform their statutory duties in 2008, 17 in 2009 and then as low as eight in 2010, but in 2011 it shot up to 55. That is not an improvement; it is getting worse. Then the figure was 30 and then it was 23, so what the Minister has just said, from the Front Bench, is factually incorrect. There has not been an improvement over the years; there has been an improvement, then a worsening and then another improvement.

[Mr Gyimah]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention; yes, there has been a recent improvement: 58 EROs were failing the standard in 2011, 30 were failing in 2012 and 22 were failing in 2013. That is an improvement, but the important point is the one I made: that Ministers are fully prepared to issue a formal direction to EROs, if necessary, to ensure that they comply with their statutory obligations. Twenty-two is an improvement, but it is still too many.

I am conscious of the time, so let me bring my comments to a close. We have a registration system that is a huge advance on the previous system. We have modernised the system and introduced online registration; it is not a retrograde step. There are 7.5 million people who we need to ensure we get on the register, but those 7.5 million people were not on the register before 2010, so I reject the allegation that somehow there is a Government conspiracy at work. As politicians, we all have an interest in ensuring that we have a thriving democracy, which is why the Government are allocating funds to ensure that we maximise the register.

The shadow Minister made the point about the Wales Bill. My concern is that we would be introducing more onerous burdens by adopting those recommendations, but we will certainly keep under review the need to ensure further canvassing and doing everything we can to ensure that the register is as complete and accurate as possible.

10:59

Sitting suspended.

Leaseholders’ Rights (Insurance)

Wednesday 22nd October 2014 Westminster Hall

09:00

[Stella Creasy (Walthamstow) (Lab/Co-op)]

I want to start by thanking the Minister for coming here at short notice. This issue might seem like a curate’s egg. I do not know whether he saw the article I wrote outlining the issues in PoliticsHome.

We might think that the right of a person to know what they are paying for is a consumer issue, or it might seem like an insurance concern about whether it is fair to make residents pay for terrorism insurance if they live in my part of town. Indeed, the matter could be seen as a constituency concern—the besmirching of Walthamstow as a site of potential terrorism—or it could be seen as a leasehold issue about how leaseholders and freeholders can resolve disputes. I know that other Members here have an interest in that issue.

I shall outline the concern and then ask the Minister questions. I hope we can make progress on the issue, because it has been a long-running vexatious issue for nearly 4,500 of my constituents in Walthamstow, some of whom are here today because they are so frustrated by it. I should declare that I am a previous leaseholder of the Freehold Managers company in question, so I have known for a long time about the nature of the leases and the exorbitant insurance that the company required of those of us who had flats with it.

The application of a terrorism insurance surcharge is a relatively new experience for people in Walthamstow. As a diligent MP, I queried it with the company. Why did it feel the need to add such a surcharge to already expensive insurance? In response, it sent me a copy of a press cutting about how one of those involved in the plane bombing threat had lived in Walthamstow at one time. I was mortified by the suggestion that that therefore required people in Walthamstow to be insured against terrorism ad infinitum, so we started to look into the situation.

I will set out the concerns. Residents are paying on average £204 for their buildings insurance. On any reputable price comparison site for Walthamstow, we could find considerably lower premiums. On top of that, we are adding in another £70 for people who live in the E17 postcode in my part of town. I also have the E10 postcode, where there are flats whose residents are being charged a mere £37. Perhaps the company feels that terrorists will be more likely to want to live and bring about destruction near Walthamstow Central station rather than in Walthamstow as a whole, but I digress. That is a 40% increase on the cost of an insurance that is already not competitive, and the leaseholders who have managed to buy their freehold tell me that their premiums are on average £120 lower.

I am sure the Minister will say it is for the leasehold valuation tribunal to resolve issues about whether charges are fair. Indeed, I am extremely conscious that the leasehold valuation tribunal has recently issued a ruling that it is right for Freehold Managers to apply terrorism charges. After all, this is not part of the original lease. There has been confusion and discussion about whether it could be argued that insuring properties against explosions included terrorism. There has been concern that what was originally intended to apply to commercial property has been applied by Freehold Managers to residential properties. I am acutely conscious that the judgment held that although it was not explicit, it was good practice to insure against any sort of damage or destruction, which could arguably include terrorism.

Having researched terrorist examples in residential areas —the 4,500 flats are in residential areas in Walthamstow—I am surprised that there is a determination that terrorism is such a threat in Walthamstow that insurance should be increased by 40%. Let us consider some attacks: the sarin gas attack in Matsumoto in Japan, the Rajneeshee bioterror attacks on salad bars in the United States and the tragic murder of Lee Rigby. We have had IRA bombings in London, and the Litvinenko incident caused several million pounds worth of damage to properties because of contamination. So there might be a case that terrorism is something that people have to consider in a residential area.

However, even if one accepts that it is fair to ask people to pay for such damage, the concern for my residents is that they are simply not able to scrutinise the policy. Freehold Managers has steadfastly refused to reveal the details. When one looks at the IRA bombing or the Litvinenko attack, one must take into account the location. Location matters in insurance, so we want to know whether Walthamstow has been assessed as a high or a low-risk residential area for terrorism and what that means for the charge. In essence, why is there a 40% increase?

[Jim Fitzpatrick (Poplar and Limehouse) (Lab)]

My hon. Friend is making a powerful case for her constituents. Is what she describes just another example of property management companies taking advantage of people who have signed into a contract?

[Stella Creasy]

I agree with my hon. Friend, whose constituency is to the south-east of mine. I am sure he knows Walthamstow and will be concerned that it is considered such a risk by Freehold Managers. We simply do not know how the company reached this figure of a 40% increase in insurance because Walthamstow might be a place of terrorism. We do not know, for example, whether a gas attack in which people needed to be decontaminated, as opposed to an explosion, would be covered by the policy. We simply have no details.

[Justin Tomlinson (North Swindon) (Con)]

The hon. Lady is making an incredibly important speech. The issue does not affect only her constituency, but constituencies throughout the country. The defence is that there is a right to manage and therefore, in theory, residents are protected and getting value for money, but because of the costs and the inability to get accurate information from decision makers, and the use of section 106 agreements as an excuse, it is almost impossible for people to exercise the right to manage. Residents are being ripped off by organisations such as Countrywide. It is not acceptable.

[Stella Creasy]

The hon. Gentleman has pre-empted my next point. In chasing the company for details for the past four years so that my residents might fairly exercise their rights at the leasehold valuation tribunal, we have been stonewalled at every opportunity and told that the information is commercially sensitive, even though the charges are not part of the original leases.

Section 106 agreements were not around when the Warner flats were built in the Victorian era, but the leasehold agreements were. The company claims that the information is commercially sensitive, and when we have gone to the insurance company, which is directly billing my constituents, it too has said that its client is the freeholder. It is a Kafkaesque nightmare for my constituents, who are trying to resolve why they are being charged an extra 40% on their insurance. They cannot go to a leasehold valuation tribunal to ask whether it is a fair charge and what assessment has been made.

I am sure my colleagues could share similar horror stories about other charges. Freehold Managers is seeking to charge residents of mine up to £10,000 to consent to a loft conversion—not to do the loft conversion, but simply to give consent. It continues to push the boundaries about what is an acceptable service charge and an acceptable fee. It is resolute in the idea that it should not share any accountability. But that is not the view of others in the insurance industry, let alone in the freehold management industry.

Although the Association of British Insurers argues for a terrorism surcharge, it also argues that leaseholders should be given clear and timely information each year about their insurance contracts and that that should take place before the contract is agreed. It says that residents should have details about what shopping around the management company has done to make sure the premium is competitive, and whether there are any significant exclusions. As I said, are we protected in Walthamstow against explosions, but not decontamination fees? The ABI says that the insurance broker should be clear about whether there are any fees involved in the process. Those are all questions that Freehold Managers has simply refused to answer, so the ability of my constituents to seek redress at a leasehold valuation tribunal is hampered as a result. Given the fees involved in going to a leasehold valuation tribunal, it is not fair to expect people to seek such redress without the information to make their case.

I have come here today as a constituency MP but with my other hat on, as a shadow Minister, I have tried to make progress on this matter in the Consumer Rights Bill, to make it clear that a consumer has the right to the details of a policy, product or service that they have directly paid for. Let me stress again: residents are getting direct bills from the insurance company on behalf of a freehold management company. Sadly, the Minister’s colleagues in the Commons rejected the proposals, arguing that it was already explicit that people should be able to access such information. The fact that there are colleagues from other parts of the country—indeed, from other parties—who are saying, “No, we’re seeing the same sorts of problems”, shows that that is simply not the case.

I have a number of questions for the Minister and I want to give him time to answer them, and to answer any questions he may have, because it must seem such a surreal situation to be faced with. First and foremost, does he think it fair that residential properties are being charged a terrorism surcharge on their insurance? If so, what assessment has he made of the likelihood of terrorist incidents across residential areas in this country? My local police or other emergency services are certainly not aware of the likelihood of such an incident.

Secondly, does the Minister think that my constituents have a right to exercise their consumer rights in this instance and know the details of the policy that they are being asked to pay for? If so, where would he see them being able to exercise those rights? Thirdly, will the Minister raise this issue with a leasehold valuation tribunal? Given the persistent failure of the freeholder I have mentioned to provide this information, which would enable my constituents to have their day at the tribunal to see whether the charge being imposed on them is fair and competitive, what action can he take to assist my constituents—and, I suspect, the thousands of other people across the country who are also dealing with recalcitrant freehold management companies?

Finally, can the Minister tell us what action the Government will take to reform leasehold law? I ask that because this issue is clearly not only about insurance charges but about these other charges, and about companies such as Freehold Managers, which see residents such as my constituents in Walthamstow as a cash point. It tries to squeeze them consistently, even threatening them with legal action when they so much as query these charges, challenging them about their right to buy the freehold and imposing excessive charges for simple things such as queries about loft conversions or indeed leasehold extensions. Surely it is time to stop the misery of what is mystery buying, as opposed to mystery selling.

11:11

[The Minister of State, Department for Communities and Local Government (Brandon Lewis)]

I congratulate the hon. Member for Walthamstow (Stella Creasy) on securing this debate. I know that this issue is one that she and others have campaigned on for some time and I also know that, as she outlined in her speech, she raised it during the debates on the Consumer Rights Bill back in March.

I will try to respond to the range of issues that the hon. Lady and my hon. Friend the Member for North Swindon (Justin Tomlinson) have raised. I will start by saying that the Government recognise the importance of the issue that the hon. Lady has raised, namely the rights of leaseholders to obtain details about the insurance policy they contribute towards by way of service charges, and indeed the rights of leaseholders to gain information about other service charges that are imposed upon them.

It is important to note that for some years now leaseholders contributing towards the costs of buildings insurance and service charges more generally have had the right to access and obtain copies of documents relating to the insurance they contribute towards, as well as those relating to other service charges. This includes a right to request in writing a copy of the insurance policy or to ask the landlord or managing agent to provide reasonable facilities to enable them to inspect the policy and other supporting documents. Also, the Competition and Markets Authority is looking at this issue at the moment. In particular, it is looking at the ability of tenants or leaseholders to be involved in the decisions that are taken in this area, and therefore at the possibility that landlords will need to test the market transparently and consult on these matters. We are waiting for a response from the CMA on that, which is due later this year.

[Stella Creasy]

One of the issues with the freehold management company that I have been discussing is that it has said it may give information to individual leaseholders but that, as the policy in this instance is a collective policy, it will not release information about it. That means that my constituents cannot assess whether or not they are being fairly charged across the piece. After all, terrorism is something that is likely to affect not just one property—if such a God-awful incident were to happen. Can the Minister therefore clarify whether the Government’s view is that companies such as this one, and insurance companies such as Zurich, should provide access to the whole detail of the policy, including the collective provision, and not just to detail about an individual property?

[Brandon Lewis]

I will have to look at this issue in more detail. However, if an individual wants to receive information about the detail of a policy and the costs attributed to them, there needs to be transparency from the company about how it apportions those costs. I would imagine that that is something the CMA will look at, but I am happy to have a look at it myself and I will come back to the hon. Lady about it.

The Government are generally aware of a number of concerns in the leaseholder sector and we welcome suggestions about how residential leaseholder protections can be improved. However, at this stage we are not persuaded of the need for wholesale reform, although that does not mean—particularly with the input later this year of the CMA itself—that we should not examine some individual issues, depending on what comes out in the CMA report.

That ability for a leaseholder is in addition to their ability to request a summary of service charges in general, which would include the costs of insurance, as the hon. Lady rightly says. Leaseholders have the right to ask to inspect invoices, receipts and any other supporting documents that relate to those costs, which comes back to the point about the overall policy position.

If a landlord, or a managing agent acting on their behalf, fails to comply with a request for information without providing reasonable justification, they are committing a summary offence that, on conviction, is subject to a fine of up to £2,500. Landlords and agents have to show the policy documents to leaseholders; not doing so, and withholding information about service charges, comes within sections 20 to 22 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985.

In addition, legislation requires that service charges, including the cost of insurance, must be reasonably incurred. As my hon. Friend the Member for North Swindon and the hon. Lady will be aware—indeed, she referred to it herself—leaseholders can apply to the property chamber of the first-tier tribunal for a determination about the reasonableness of the costs of insurance they contribute towards, as well as the reasonableness of other service charge payments. The grounds for making such a case could include, for example, that the type or level of insurance is not appropriate, in addition to the reasonableness of the premium.

Of course, it is in everybody’s interests to try and resolve concerns or disputes, either through discussion or alternative dispute resolution where possible, before resorting to the tribunal system. I am pleased to say that the situation for leaseholders has improved since the hon. Lady first raised this issue. There is now a requirement for letting and managing agents to belong to one of the three redress schemes that have been approved by the Government. That measure came into force on 1 October and it will enable leaseholders to follow up complaints. It will also be an effective way of driving up standards, while creating the lightest regulatory burden possible.

The existing protections for service charges are also supported by what are now two codes of practice that have been approved by the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, and published by the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors and the Association of Retirement Housing Managers. These codes of practice are also in the process of being reviewed, to ensure that they are sufficiently robust and reflect good practice.

Although I have highlighted the fact that a number of statutory rights are already available to leaseholders to give them access to information about payments required by the freeholder and that mechanisms are in place to ensure that charges are reasonable, we always welcome any contributions about how we can further improve the situation for leaseholders.

We are aware that concern has been raised by some leaseholders about the appropriateness of certain elements of the insurance that they pay towards through a service charge. If leaseholders believe that the cost of such insurance or the type of cover provided is unreasonable, and can otherwise resolve the matter with their landlord, then—as the hon. Lady said—they have the right to apply for determination through the property chamber of the first-tier tribunal.

As for the collective policy being released, details have to be released that relate to a tenant’s dwelling. As I said earlier, if a tenant wants to have details about a policy that affects them, that means they must have some understanding of how things are broken down from the bigger picture.

It is, of course, important that leaseholders make the best use of a wide range of existing rights. We are making efforts to raise awareness. For example, we continue to fund the Leasehold Advisory Service, which provides free initial legal advice to leaseholders and others in the residential leasehold sector, and we will certainly ensure that it is also aware of the situation.

[Stella Creasy]

I pay tribute to the work of the Warner Action Group in Walthamstow, which has been trying to bring residents together. From what the Minister has said, it appears they have a course of redress through the leasehold valuation tribunal; but as I have said, because they cannot get the information, asking them to pay potentially thousands of pounds for legal representation is a high bar to pass. The Minister mentioned a summary offence. Who would the Warner Action Group report freehold managers to for investigation of that offence if they continue to refuse to release this information?

[Brandon Lewis]

As I said, the Leasehold Advisory Service can also give that free initial legal advice, but I am very happy to come back to the hon. Lady and give her some further details about the specific issue she raises. As for the collective policy understanding, again, as there is a requirement for an individual to be able to understand what their policy charges are, they can only do that if they are part of a collective, by seeing that collective agreement. My view is that there should be a release of the details relating to the tenant’s dwelling, and if they are part of a collective, to understand that within a block, they need to understand what the block is. I would like to think we can help to facilitate that understanding for the leaseholders.

In conclusion, it is commendable that the hon. Lady has made such great efforts to raise awareness of this issue. As so often with these issues, quite a lot of the battle is about ensuring that the awareness is there: that people understand that there is a way to get redress and a way for them to take cases forward—as I say, there are statutory requirements in place. I am happy to raise those issues and take up anything further after this debate.

[Stella Creasy]

I thank the Minister for his generous response; I think that my constituents will be grateful for his help, as I am.

Can I just get him to clarify whether the Government have taken a view about whether residential properties should be insured for terrorism, and on what grounds, and whether there might be, for example, a paper on that in terms of the risk to residential property? After all, there are other residents in Walthamstow and, if Walthamstow has been designated as a place of likely terroristic opportunities, I think people would want to know. There is also the point I made about the central principle: that even if a third party has commissioned a product or service on someone’s behalf, they have the right in law to access the full information on that service or product. From what the Minister said, it is a summary offence under leasehold legislation not to provide that information. Will he clarify whether the Government believe that that is a central principle, so that they would in theory support making that explicit in the legislation? That would be a helpful guide for us on a number of issues to do with charges.

[Brandon Lewis]

I had finished, but I am happy to respond. There is a requirement for the information to be published, so if a tenant is paying a charge, whether for insurance or part of a service charge, they have the right to understand what that is made up of and, as I said, to see the documentation behind that. It does not seem to me that there should be a difference depending on where that information comes from or whether it is allocated by a third party; the landlord still has to present and publish it. That seems clear to me, but I am happy to look further at that and come back to the hon. Lady.

I do not think that I or the Government can directly comment on what is part of insurance, in the sense that it is for insurance companies, landlords and property owners to take a view on what the risk issues are for any property that they are insuring, whether in respect of flood protection, terrorism protection or any other type of risk protection. It is for them to make an assessment, take a market view and make a decision about what is right for them. That will be led by risk assessments, which will be made by underwriters and insurance companies giving advice and quotes.

[Stella Creasy]

If I can just clarify, there was a ruling on 11 June by the leasehold valuation tribunal that it was relevant—

[Hywel Williams (in the Chair)]

Order. Has the Minister concluded his remarks?

[Brandon Lewis]

I had concluded them the first time, Mr Williams.

[Stella Creasy]

Thank you, I—

[Hywel Williams (in the Chair)]

Order.

11:21

Sitting suspended.

Hong Kong

Wednesday 22nd October 2014 Westminster Hall

[Mr Mike Weir in the Chair]

14:29

[Richard Graham (Gloucester) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to hold this debate on Hong Kong under your chairmanship, Mr Weir, in the year of the 30th anniversary of that unique international treaty, the “Joint Declaration of the Government of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and the Government of the People’s Republic of China on the Question of Hong Kong with Annexes”, as well as to cover recent events. I declare an interest as chair of the all-party group on China and as a director of the Great Britain-China Centre, which is a non-departmental public body. Both of them receive sponsorship. I also refer the Chamber to the all-party group’s entry in the all-party group register.

The joint declaration was the result of hard work and creative diplomacy by some still in this Parliament, such as their lordships, Lord Howe and Lord Luce. Above all, in its encompassing philosophy of “one country, two systems”, the joint declaration was a bold political innovation by Chinese leader Deng Xiaoping. Recognising what was most special about Hong Kong in its future change of sovereignty—that its core freedoms must be preserved and that the

“socialist system and policies shall not be practised”—

Britain and China together found a formula, and later the trust, that maintained confidence within Hong Kong and by the world in Hong Kong. Thirty years on, the architects can congratulate themselves. Broadly, Hong Kong has thrived and remains special and successful. Political boldness paid off.

The freedoms that Britain and China pledged to maintain—freedom under the law, an independent judiciary, a free press, free speech and the freedom to demonstrate—are delicate, and they all contribute to the existence of a free market, capitalist economy. There is no major international financial centre in the world that does not have a free press, however inconvenient that may occasionally be to Governments and individuals. The British Government’s commitment on behalf of the people of the United Kingdom, when they signed the joint declaration and made it valid for 50 years after 1997—that is, to 2047—is vital to Hong Kong’s success. If we allow any of those freedoms to be curtailed and if we say nothing about any dilution of Hong Kong’s high degree of autonomy, whether deliberate or inadvertent, we risk colluding in Hong Kong’s gradual—not immediate —decline, helping others in Asia who would swiftly take any opportunity at Hong Kong’s expense, and we would not be fulfilling the commitments that John Major, Robin Cook and, most recently, our Prime Minister have re-emphasised in the clearest terms.

That implies strong engagement with Hong Kong and China and frequent dialogue and discussions where, as joint signatories, we can and should exchange views freely, with the shared responsibility for doing what is in all our best interests: preserving the stability and prosperity of Hong Kong.

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

I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on securing this debate. When I was a very young Member of Parliament, I was invited to go to Hong Kong under the chairmanship of Ian Mikardo, along with Jo Richardson and others, to evaluate the local response in Hong Kong to the agreement. I was very much involved in taking evidence and meeting people. We were part of ensuring that they understood the agreement, and I certainly have a real vested interest in what the hon. Gentleman is saying about guaranteeing those freedoms.

[Richard Graham]

The hon. Gentleman brings a degree of long experience on these issues to the debate today and to our Chamber in general, matching some of the experience visible in their lordships’ House when they debated recent events in Hong Kong. It is important that we understand the continuity of that commitment, which he saw for himself. I was living in Hong Kong in 1984 and in 1997, and I was present at the handover. These things are real to him and me, but for others, who are younger, it is important that that commitment is not forgotten or allowed to wither.

Let me turn to recent events, Britain and China’s reactions and the role of this Parliament in holding our Executive to account and raising questions of interest on behalf of our constituents. In the consultation in Hong Kong on the arrangements for the election of the next Chief Executive in 2017, which took place earlier this year, it was already clear that many had concerns about the detail of what the universal suffrage promised in China’s Basic Law would mean in practice. Those concerns increased sharply after the Chinese National People’s Congress standing committee announced its decisions on elections on 31 August.

It is worth noting that the British Government’s first reaction on 3 September was to welcome the Chinese commitment to universal suffrage, but also to

“recognise that the detailed terms…will disappoint those who are arguing for a more open nomination process.”

There are two relevant aspects to that. First, that was not the sort of comment that would be made if it was anticipated that 800,000 people would demonstrate and occupy the centre of the world’s third financial centre for weeks. Those who saw the dark hand of foreign forces behind the demonstrations were well wide of the mark, as the statement on 3 September demonstrates. Secondly, the reaction in Hong Kong was not anticipated here, and perhaps not in the offices of the Hong Kong Government and the Chinese Government either. The reaction caught all three by surprise.

There is a question about why that is so, but it is my belief that most of those in Hong Kong who feel most strongly about the issues around the election of the next Chief Executive represent a new generation of Hong Kongers. They were mostly born after the joint declaration. They are not, as has sometimes been claimed, ancient colonial sentimentalists or those left by dark foreign forces to create disturbance after the colonialists had gone, but a new generation with a different take on life from their predecessors. They are more sure of their Hong Kong identity, less sure of their future prospects and less trustful of Government or leaders in whose appointment they still feel they do not have enough say.

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

I congratulate my hon. Friend and neighbour on securing this debate. Would he care to consider that some of the protesters’ motivation might be that they feel left behind by the current state of economic progress in Hong Kong? They are not participating in the economic miracle that has taken place there in the past two or three decades, which is strange when the latest economic plan in China envisages taking 10 million poor people on the mainland into the work force each year to increase prosperity.

[Richard Graham]

My hon. Friend and neighbour takes a close interest in these matters, not least as chairman of the Conservative Friends of the Chinese. He makes a good point. There is a dichotomy. In simple terms, it is that while the generation of Hong Kongers immediately after the second world war were focused on rebuilding the territory and restoring their lives after a disastrous period in Hong Kong’s history and their children in the ’80s and ’90s were focused on economic progress, self-advancement and taking Hong Kong to an international stage, today’s generation perhaps feel that their prospects for mobility, owning property and enjoying a satisfaction with life comparable with their parents are less certain.

They have more questions, as I mentioned, and are perhaps more sensitive to issues that did not really exist 30 years ago, such as increasing environmental concerns and air pollution, which is a major issue throughout China, including Hong Kong, as my hon. Friend the Member for The Cotswolds (Geoffrey Clifton-Brown) knows. There is more uncertainty, but I sense a strong feeling of identity among the new generation. They are Hong Kongers and want to celebrate that by having more of a civic say in decisions made on their behalf.

[Mr Sheerman]

Before the hon. Gentleman moves on to uncertainty, those of us who care about China believe it to be a vital and energising influence in the world. Does he agree that there are serious signs of a positive change in the leadership in China, which I have certainly noticed in the delegations from mainland China who visit this country and come to Yorkshire and other places? This positive wind of change should give some reassurance to us and the inhabitants of Hong Kong.

[Richard Graham]

The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right that the winds of change have been blowing vigorously in China since the opening up under Deng Xiaoping in the late ‘70s, but they blow at uneven speeds, in different ways and in different sectors. The main wind of change was a huge desire for economic progress, which has led to a better standard of living for the hundreds of millions of people who have been lifted out of poverty. At the same time—the hon. Gentleman will have read the Foreign and Commonwealth Office’s latest human rights reports—it is not yet clear whether the new regime in China will prove so open to changes that allow for greater dialogue and debate of political questions. Significant differences of opinion on human rights also still exist. We in this country tend to see a new and young generation of mainland Chinese, often coming here to study, who are extremely able and well-educated, but the winds of change are uneven in China, which is a concern to some in Hong Kong.

Returning to this summer’s events, just before September’s developments erupted in Hong Kong, the Select Committee on Foreign Affairs decided to do a wide and all-encompassing report on Hong Kong and our commitments, which we all look forward to reading in due course. It was unfortunate that some in China chose to represent that as interference in internal affairs. The Chairman of the Foreign Affairs Committee, my right hon. Friend the Member for Croydon South (Sir Richard Ottaway), said that

“investigating the FCO’s ongoing assessment of the implementation of the…Joint Declaration…is part of our role in oversight of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, and it is an entirely legitimate interest of the Committee.”

That is absolutely right. It is an entirely legitimate interest of this Parliament that we should debate our commitment to the joint declaration to ensure that we fulfil the international treaty that we signed up to with China and that we work together for it is in all our interests to do so.

During September’s demonstrations, the Government’s position came under question and it took some six weeks before a ministerial written statement was published on 13 October, which restated much more clearly what this Parliament stands for—specifically, that the election arrangements should meet the aspirations of the people of Hong Kong, should offer a genuine choice and should form a significant step forward for democracy. We encouraged the Hong Kong Government to resume consultation with both the people of Hong Kong and the Chinese Government on plans to implement universal suffrage. That statement was welcome, but the Minister may want to say something about why it took so long for the Government to produce it. Had the events not happened largely during the recess, the Foreign Secretary should have made himself available in the House to give a verbal statement on our position and on how the situation affected our commitments under the joint declaration.

Moving on to the issues that are hotly under debate in Hong Kong, I want first to focus on stability, which is different from continuity. Any territory’s stability is much stronger when its leader has the credibility of being chosen by a large number of voters, which gives the leader the ability to exercise a real mandate and carry through what will not always be popular decisions in the difficult circumstances that spring up. Business, too, has a vital need for political stability, but that also sometimes comes, like business success, from calculated risks according to the needs of new generations and new consumers. Yesterday’s investment strategies will not always work tomorrow, and it is the same in politics.

The Chief Executive of Hong Kong says that the 2017 election will

“empower the chief executive with a mandate not enjoyed by any leader in Hong Kong’s history”,

and it will if the election is real and not predetermined to produce a particular result. The value of any election is in the number of people who decide to vote. In that election, the people of Hong Kong will demonstrate their enthusiasm both for the election and for a new leader by turning out in high numbers. To implement universal suffrage in a way that does not offer real choice to the people of Hong Kong would risk a low turnout and would be a hollow achievement that gave the future Chief Executive a fragile mandate.

What is at stake in terms of this House’s interest in the 2017 Hong Kong election is not ultimately in the precise detail of what sectors are represented in the nomination committee, how they are defined and how many members the committee has, but in the result that is offered to the people of Hong Kong at the end of the deliberations, which should give them a real choice in who becomes Hong Kong’s future leader. That is the best guarantee of stability in this territory, which Britain and China are jointly pledged to support. Real choice, with a truly independent system of law and a high degree of autonomy, is what we are committed to—under Chinese sovereignty. It is a unique and special contribution to the evolution of China under that inspired phrase of Deng Xiaoping: “one country, two systems.” It was that that both our countries signed up to, and not to swap ideas or discuss regularly what progress is being made would be a breach of both our obligations and responsibilities. Let us think boldly and outside the box, in the same way that our predecessors did in the run-up to the joint declaration of 1984.

For example, Hong Kong’s constitutional arrangements mean that the system at the moment involves a Government—in effect, a Cabinet—but without a political party in the Legislative Council to back them up and to pursue their legislative agenda. That cannot be satisfactory. Is it not time for the next newly and successfully elected Chief Executive to create a political party that offers candidates in the next Legislative Council elections, so that his or her party may aspire to a majority and legislate for what it has campaigned on? That would surely provide longer-term stability to the governance of Hong Kong and give its people a larger say in what decisions are being made and by whom on their behalf.

As for Government’s responsibilities and commitments to fulfilling their obligations, I believe it is time for them to do more to debate what is happening in Hong Kong. I ask the Minister whether it is time for an oral statement to accompany the next biannual report on Hong Kong that the Foreign Office produces, rather than simply a written statement that is filed away. Is it not time for the Foreign Office to understand better the needs of the younger generation in Hong Kong, so that, as Ambassador Liu put it, we are working together to maintain the prosperity and stability of Hong Kong through understanding the younger generation’s needs? We might well disagree on some elements of what that involves and what “prosperity” and “stability” mean, but let us be honest: neither the Hong Kong, Chinese nor British Government anticipated exactly what has happened in Hong Kong over the last few months. Therefore, we need an imaginative response that captures the aspirations of most of the territory and enables its remarkable success to continue.

There are other aspects that should be touched on. Perhaps the Minister can let us know what the situation with the BBC is. I understand that the BBC is blocked in China, but I am not yet clear whether it is blocked in Hong Kong as well. That is part of freedom of expression and freedom of the press, which are so vital to Hong Kong’s success. I would like confirmation today that whenever the BBC is blocked, we raise the issue as a matter of principle.

Will the Minister also confirm when he is next travelling to Hong Kong and whether he will have the chance to engage with different groups there in order to understand better some of the questions about Hong Kong’s future stability? Will he also confirm that he has reminded our partner in the joint declaration of our absolute right in this Parliament to hold our Government to account on their commitments under the joint declaration and to hold debates of this nature? That is part of our constitutional arrangements, and it is important that the Chinese Government understand that.

In particular, will the Minister confirm today that stability for nations is not, in our eyes, about maintaining the status quo regardless, but about reaching out for greater involvement with the people—in this case, of Hong Kong—allowing them a greater say in choosing their leaders and, above all, trusting in the people? The people of Hong Kong and we have no interest, no advantage or no conceivable selfish purpose in any form of car crash with Hong Kong’s sovereign master, China. Rather, it is in all our interests, but particularly those of Britain and China in fulfilling the joint declaration, that Hong Kong continues to thrive and prosper, in a different world from that of 1984 or even 1997.

14:49

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

Thank you, Mr Weir, for allowing me to catch your eye in this debate. I should declare an interest: I am chairman of the Conservative Friends of the Chinese and a regular visitor to Hong Kong and mainland China, and I have always taken a close interest in Chinese and Hong Kong matters.

I congratulate my good neighbour, my hon. Friend the Member for Gloucester (Richard Graham), on securing the debate. He was absolutely right in his opening remarks to say that there might have been some misunderstanding among some of the Chinese authorities and that some might think that we should not be debating the subject. Under the terms of the joint declaration, however, we should be debating it. As I will come on to say, there are huge British roots in Hong Kong and a huge love of Hong Kong in this country. We want Hong Kong to prosper. What I have to say might be controversial to a small degree, but I hope that it will be seen positively as only wishing the best for Hong Kong and its people.

The debate is important, as my hon. Friend said, largely because of how vital an asset Hong Kong is to both the United Kingdom and mainland China. The United Kingdom and Hong Kong share economic, social and historic links. Those strong links are natural considering that only 17 years ago sovereignty over all parts of Hong Kong was transferred to China as a result of the joint declaration. That joint declaration between Deng Xiaoping and Margaret Thatcher was visionary and envisaged “one country, two systems”. The statement still endures today.

Hong Kong has continued to grow as an international powerhouse with strong links not only to the UK, but around the world. It serves as China’s financial centre and as a major part of the Chinese economy. The links between the economies of Hong Kong and the UK are huge: 40% of British investment in Asia goes directly into Hong Kong, which amounted to almost £36 billion at the end of 2012, including goods and services. We export £7 billion-worth of trade to Hong Kong.

British companies are always extremely welcome in Hong Kong and it is a fantastic place to do business, thanks to a system with low levels of bureaucracy, simple taxation and contracts based on English law. About 130 British companies have regional bases in Hong Kong, and many countries around the world see it in a similar light. Indeed, Hong Kong comes second in the world’s rankings for ease of business, while the UK’s place is 10th. The success of Hong Kong must be protected from any instability that could threaten further progress.

Hong Kong has prospered while maintaining its rights and protections under the joint declaration, of which we and mainland China are joint signatories, such as the rule of law, the high level of autonomy, the free press, freedom of speech and, importantly in the current situation, the right to demonstrate. That has all been achieved under the “one country, two systems” principle, which has clearly worked well, although perhaps not as imagined at the time of the handover in 1997. We must ensure that the principle continues.

Economic success, however, has created a divide between the business elite and the ordinary people of Hong Kong. That is what the protests are all about. Student protesters feel that the business elite have too much control. The rest are not participating fully in the rise of Hong Kong’s economic prosperity.

The suggested Selection Committee to choose suitable candidates for election as Chief Executive seems to be business-dominated: pro-Beijing and not representative of poorer citizens outside the business elite. As I said in my intervention, it is surprising that the PRC does not want poorer people to participate given the latest economic plan, the figures of which are worth repeating because they are so staggering. The latest economic plan produced by the new leader, Xi Jinping, envisages that GDP in China will grow from $6,600 a head to more than $9,000 a head, across its 1.25 billion people. That would be a staggering achievement within the plan period: the country will have to achieve a growth rate of 6.7% every year of the plan. Staggeringly, as I said to my hon. Friend, China will need to bring 10 million people—poor people—into the work force each year to achieve that.

It seems odd that the Government of the PRC want more and more poor people on the mainland to participate in the economic growth there, but are not yet permitting that to happen in Hong Kong. Our Government need to consider that carefully.

Although on the face of it the protests are about the progression of electoral reform, it is evident that they go deeper: they are about the desire of people outside businesses to be considered more. For example, there are only two dairy producers and two supermarkets in Hong Kong, which means high food prices for Hong Kong residents. As we know, high food prices affect poorer people the most—young poor people in particular.

The important message of this debate is that we want to see gradual change in the situation. As I have said to the Chinese press, ultimately this is an issue for the People’s Republic of China, the Government of Hong Kong and the people of Hong Kong to resolve. Electoral reform has progressed within the framework of the Basic Law, and universal suffrage is the ultimate aim. That process has been developing since the 1997 handover. Every election since then—I must stress this point—has been more open and democratic than the previous one. The Election Committee for the Chief Executive began with 400 representatives, was expanded to 800 and now has 1,200 from 38 subsectors. We want that progress to continue.

[Richard Graham]

On that specific point, does my hon. Friend agree that we want to see things change not because we have an obsession with a particular democratic model but because a situation in which the current Chief Executive is known as 689, referring to the number of people who voted for him in the previous election, is unsatisfactory when there is a population of around 7 million? The better the arrangements and the more people who can have a say in the election, the stronger the mandate and, therefore, the greater the stability that there will be for the leadership of the territory of Hong Kong.

[Geoffrey Clifton-Brown]

My hon. Friend raised one of those issues in his speech. I agree that if the Chief Executive is elected on as open a mandate as possible, with suffrage that is as universal as possible, there will be a better perception of the process among the people of Hong Kong. I will come to what I think will happen if that does not occur. I agree that we need to move towards a situation in which the candidate elected as Chief Executive is perceived to be representative of all people and all sections in Hong Kong society, including the young and poorer people.

So far, the authorities have given little indication that they are willing to provide consensus in their current offer. The UK Government need to urge them to consider genuinely and listen to the protesters’ concerns. An open consultation is needed, as the problem will not go away. The Chinese Government must allow change and gradual reform to continue. If they do not provide for that, feelings of resentment will fester and when the issue comes up again in 2022—as it surely will—the feelings and protests could be much more serious, deep-seated and profound than they are at present. It is surely in everybody’s interests that we see gradual reform.

Electoral reform was always going to be gradual under the Basic Law. Everyone agrees that that is the best approach, including many pro-democracy supporters in Hong Kong. It is also likely to be supported by the Chinese Government, who have their own concerns given the large number of Chinese visitors to Hong Kong. Step-by-step progress would avoid instability for wider China.

However, we need reassurances from the Chinese Government about the principles in the White Paper they recently produced for Hong Kong, which included an obligation for judges to swear an oath of allegiance to the state on election; those proposals need to be examined carefully. Judicial independence was one principle enshrined in the joint agreement and is of utmost importance to Hong Kong in maintaining its current success in the world. We must be clear that nothing should prevent the continuation of that independence, particularly in any case where an individual is challenging the state’s actions in the courts. Such cases must be allowed to continue, and judges must be able to judge them impartially.

It is encouraging that we have not seen large-scale attempts by either the Chinese or Hong Kong Governments to silence the protesters, although, as my hon. Friend said, the BBC website has been blocked in mainland China. That is regrettable. As he and I have both stated, one article in the joint declaration is a commitment to a free press. It is in everybody’s interests that nothing is hushed up by either side, so that we can have a full and fair picture. In this day and age, people will find ways around the jamming of electronic media, so we should encourage full openness. I am greatly encouraged that the current Chief Executive has extended offers to talk to the protesters, although those talks need real substance and should not be merely a smokescreen.

In conclusion, I reaffirm that Hong Kong is the economic jewel in China’s crown.

[Martin Horwood (Cheltenham) (LD)]

Before my hon. Friend concludes, will he be absolutely clear that he and the Conservative Friends of the Chinese support the aspiration of the protesters that candidates for Chief Executive should not be vetted by a nominating committee that could exclude candidates it disapproves of?

[Geoffrey Clifton-Brown]

That would be the ultimate aim, but I have been quite cautious in my speech. We want gradual change. I am not sure whether we will get to the point my hon. Friend sets out in time for the elections in 2017, but I would hope that we would do so by the elections in 2022.

[Richard Graham]

My hon. Friend the Member for Cheltenham (Martin Horwood), who is also a constituency neighbour, raises an interesting question. After the earlier consultations in Hong Kong, there was a recommendation by 18 academics that the authorities should look into a method for public recommendation of candidates. I believe that nothing in that idea runs counter to what has been announced by the National People’s Congress standing committee, so it could be an opportunity for the Hong Kong Government to tackle part of that issue. Will my hon. Friend comment on that?

[Geoffrey Clifton-Brown]

My hon. Friend raises a very interesting point. I urge our Government to examine that plan and possibly hold discussions with the Chinese Government to see whether there might not be a way through on that issue, along the lines suggested by those academics.

As I said, Hong Kong is the economic jewel in China’s crown.It is surely in China’s interests to ensure that Hong Kong continues to prosper. Large business and capital are very portable in the 21st century. If financial and commercial communities conclude that the governance of Hong Kong is not going in the right direction, Hong Kong’s importance will surely diminish and competitors such as Singapore will overtake it.

It is in everybody’s interests to maintain Hong Kong as a strong financial and commercial hub. But I will say this: if the mainland Government of the PRC do not listen to the protesters’ concerns and work to bring about gradual, step-by-step change and peaceful electoral reform under the Basic Law, along with a situation in which all sections of society share in the prosperity currently enjoyed by the elites, Hong Kong will gradually diminish in importance. We need to ensure that all its millions of people share in its continuing and, I hope, increasing economic prosperity.

15:08

[Martin Horwood (Cheltenham) (LD)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Gloucester (Richard Graham), my constituency neighbour, on securing this debate and on his measured, balanced and well-informed speech. I also congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for The Cotswolds (Geoffrey Clifton-Brown)—another neighbour—on his similarly well-informed speech. I also congratulate the Minister on meeting Martin Lee and Anson Chan over the summer. It was important that a British Minister did that. The Deputy Prime Minister met them, as well, something that was appreciated and recognised.

Some of the statements Martin Lee made in The New York Times earlier this month have been pretty shocking. For instance, he wrote:

“At 76 years old, I never expected to be tear-gassed in Hong Kong, my once peaceful home. Like many of the other tens of thousands of calm and nonviolent protesters in the Hong Kong streets last Sunday, I was shocked when the pro-democracy crowd was met by throngs of police officers in full riot gear, carrying weapons and wantonly firing canisters of tear gas. After urging the crowd to remain calm under provocation, I got hit by a cloud of the burning fumes.”

When such accounts reach the world’s media, it is important that we say unambiguously that we support the peaceful process being pursued by the Hong Kong people, as well as their aspirations for freedom and democracy and, quite specifically, their right to elect a leader without a vetting process that would fundamentally undermine the democratic process.

The news today is actually more promising. As my hon. Friend the Member for Gloucester remarked, there is some suggestion that Mr Leung has started to make statements implying the possibility of negotiations and that, while the Hong Kong Government will try to save face by not unbundling the Beijing Government’s whole proposal, there may be some room for discussion about the democratic process behind the nominating committee. That is a positive first step, and we should recognise that.

However, Martin Lee was quite clear in his article in The New York Times that, if the negotiations are to succeed, we in this country and across the western world have a role to play. He said:

“In order for us”—

the Hong Kongers—

“to attain the rights that Beijing has promised, the rest of the world has to stand with Hong Kong. That includes the many multinational companies whose prosperity depends upon our free markets and open-and-honest society, but more important, it includes the world’s free democracies. Hong Kongers deserve more vigorous backing from Washington and London, which pledged to stand by us before the handover in 1997, when Beijing made the promises it is now so blatantly breaking.”

The crisis obviously has implications for Hong Kong, China and UK-China relations, but it also has implications for the international rule of law and the role of international treaties, which is what the joint declaration was—it was registered at the United Nations as such. To take a much more distressing example, the Budapest memorandum, under which Britain and the United States were joint guarantors of the independence of Ukraine, has turned out in practice to be hardly worth the paper it was written on. It is important that China treats the joint declaration much more seriously and that we reinforce respect for it as an international treaty.

[Richard Graham]

On that point, I am sure my hon. Friend, like the rest of us, is absolutely clear that there is nothing specifically in the joint declaration about the arrangements for these, or indeed any other, elections; it simply states that there shall be elections. The methodology is in the Basic Law, and it is entirely an issue for the Chinese and Hong Kong Governments. However, the Basic Law has been amended; like any law, it is not cast in stone for ever. Does my hon. Friend therefore agree that the real issue is the level of dialogue and trust between the Hong Kong Government and their people, and between the Hong Kong Government and the Chinese Government in turn, as they try to find the necessary compromises?

[Martin Horwood]

Yes, I would agree, and my hon. Friend put the point very well. However, this is also about understanding what universal suffrage really means and ensuring that the democratic process of choosing a leader for Hong Kong is free in a way that is understood by the Hong Kong people and by people in democracies around the world—and that does not include prior vetting by a one-party Government in another part of China.

We must be realistic and honest about the limits of our ability as a former colonial power—we did not actually deliver democracy when we were running Hong Kong—to influence this process. We must be persuasive, but we cannot be confrontational with the Government in Beijing. We certainly must be true to our values, but we must recognise that there are limits. We must try to persuade China that it is in its interests to have a stable and free Hong Kong; that is the basis on which Hong Kong’s prosperity has been built.

As my hon. Friend the Member for Gloucester rightly said, stability is not just about maintaining the status quo. It is in China’s interests that the process that emerges from whatever negotiations take place delivers a Chief Executive who is in tune with the Hong Kong people, not just through the formal process of democracy, but, for instance, in the sense of recognising issues of economic equality in the territory, as the hon. Member for The Cotswolds mentioned. The Chief Executive should not, for instance, make remarks such as those Mr Leung made about the Occupy Central movement when he dismissed it as being manipulated by external forces. That is dismissive of the aspirations of the community-based movement that has emerged in Hong Kong and would not be acceptable in most democratic leaders.

It is important that we try to persuade the Beijing Government not just to save face, but to move in a direction that recognises the aspirations of the Hong Kong people and to do better than we did as the colonial power—to outdo us—in its administration of Hong Kong. Hong Kong’s future stability certainly depends on that.

[Geoffrey Clifton-Brown]

It is not a question of outdoing the United Kingdom as the colonial power. The point my hon. Friend the Member for Gloucester made is important: the whole way of governing countries has changed in the period since the handover. People’s expectations are much greater than they were then, particularly where they can see that part of society has benefited from economic development. For example, house prices are horrendously high in Hong Kong. People complain about them here in London, but they are much higher there, which means it is difficult even for children of fairly wealthy parents to get on the property ladder. Young people and poorer people in Hong Kong see that they cannot aspire to such things, and that is why there needs to be change.

[Martin Horwood]

I would just say that our moral and political position in criticising Beijing would be much stronger if we had done more to deliver democracy for the people of Hong Kong over the many years we controlled the territory. However, the hon. Gentleman is right to emphasise the importance of change, and it is right to understand that that change cannot be hermetically sealed in Hong Kong. It is in the interests of China as a whole to understand how it can accommodate people’s economic and political aspirations, because, in this day and age, it is simply not possible for ideas of freedom and protest to be contained in Hong Kong—the traffic of people and electronic information is just too free.

China has seen a remarkable transformation over recent years; it has seen a flowering of not only economic development, but intellectual, artistic and academic potential. In that situation, it will at some stage have to confront its people’s aspirations for more freedoms in the political sphere as well, and it is important that it learns the lessons of Hong Kong and tries to understand how they can be accommodated.

The issue also has lessons for UK foreign policy towards China, which, I hope the Minister will not mind my saying, has been a bit unsophisticated at times in recent years. It has been so dominated by the need to trade and the desire to have a beneficial economic relationship that we have underestimated some of the multiplying concerns about the impact of China as an emerging superpower. Those obviously now include the situation in Hong Kong, but they also include the rapid militarisation—what is rather euphemistically called force projection—taking place in the South China sea, for instance.

Other concerns include the rather confrontational language being used with Vietnam and Taiwan, which is now being told to reflect again on the idea of “one country, two systems” on a rather shorter timetable than previous Chinese leaders talked about. In recent years, the dialogue with Taiwan has been more about progressive development, but the people of Taiwan could interpret China’s language now as quite negative and threatening—as Beijing setting a time limit on their separation from the mainland.

There is also the issue of China’s role on the UN Security Council and its inability to support what most of us in this Chamber would have seen as very necessary action in the middle east and elsewhere. In addition, there is China’s role in Africa and its exploitation of natural resources not only in China itself, but in Africa and other parts of the world, which raises the question of whether that is really sustainable. There is also its domestic human rights record, including the number of executions taking place in China; and the attitude to self-determination in other parts of Chinese territory, such as Tibet.

However, British policy towards China cannot just be one of complaint, and highlighting negatives. There are enormous positives to be found in what it is doing at the moment. As others have mentioned, it is an extraordinary achievement to have lifted millions of people out of poverty. There is a growing awareness of the need for that economic revolution to be sustainable—for resources to be used in a sustainable way, and renewable energy to be brought forward alongside other forms of energy generation. The very existence of the one country, two systems idea can be seen as a Chinese experiment in freedom and democracy. It is positive in that way, and perhaps could not have been imagined by earlier generations.

An intellectual, academic and artistic flowering is also going on in China, which we must see as positive, and which has the potential to benefit not only China but the whole world, given the country’s enormous intellectual and human resources. It would be wonderful to think that Hong Kong could be the shining beacon in the new Chinese revolution, and that the ideas of freedom and democracy could start to be part of a new era for China. It is important that we try to persuade the Chinese Government to see that potential, and, in doing so, stand beside the protesters in Hong Kong, and assure them absolutely of our support for their democratic aspirations.

15:21

[Mark Pawsey (Rugby) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Weir. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Gloucester (Richard Graham) on obtaining this important debate, and the effective way in which he set out the Hong Kong position today.

Unlike my hon. Friend, or my hon. Friend the Member for The Cotswolds (Geoffrey Clifton-Brown), I cannot claim a long-standing interest in Hong Kong. I have a personal interest, which arises from the fact that my daughter has been resident there since 2010. She is one of 34,000 Britons who live and work in Hong Kong. She has told us how the situation has developed in recent weeks and we have seen things through her eyes. We had a fairly lengthy conversation at the weekend about her concerns, and those of her friends—young people who include both Britons and Hong Kong residents. For my part, I recall watching the handover in July 1997. It was a spectacular event on a wet and windy evening, when the 99-year period of British control came to an end.

I tried to understand a little then about the process by which Hong Kong would be returned to China. It seemed that there was a pretty effective agreement, which offered the best of both worlds to the Chinese Government and to Hong Kong residents, with the notion of a special administrative region retaining its free market economy and other freedoms. I understood at the time that that was broadly intended to last for 50 years after the transfer. Having watched the handover I was quite keen to see what life was like in Hong Kong and that led to my first visit as a tourist in 2007, en route to a holiday in Australia. We spent three days there and saw an ordered, dynamic and exciting place—just the kind of place that would be ideal for a young person starting their career. As my hon. Friend the Member for The Cotswolds said, it was a fantastic place to do business.

With that in mind, when my daughter received the offer of a job with a role in Hong Kong, in 2010, my wife and I were enthusiastic in our guidance to her that she should take it. We based our advice on the fact that the place was secure—she would be both financially and personally secure there. The years that she has spent in Hong Kong have been very happy for her. She has had a great time and made many friends. She has learned a great deal about business and things have gone well. We have looked carefully at the news from Hong Kong and seen how protests have developed. The police we have seen on television have largely remained peaceful and we are still happy for our daughter to remain in Hong Kong, but it is a matter of concern that with substantial numbers of people protesting in a cramped and confined space the relationship between them and the authorities could deteriorate; so our advice to our daughter might change.

Of course, there are many places in the world where the response of the authorities to such protests would be less predictable, and there would be a fear of matters getting out of hand. We all want that to be prevented.

[Richard Graham]

The story that my hon. Friend is telling of his daughter working in Hong Kong, as one of almost 270,000 UK citizens there, reminds us of the enduring links between our country and that territory. Were he and his daughter surprised by the good nature, orderliness and above all peacefulness of that large demonstration a few weeks ago?

[Mark Pawsey]

I think the answer is that she was not surprised, because having spent so long there she has come to understand the nature of the Hong Kong people and authorities. She has been happy to observe, and to support—without providing physical support—the principles of those who are protesting. I understand that they are concerned largely about the erosion of what they expected in 1997, and the loss of many of the freedoms they expected. That led to the protests that began in September. My observation is that the protestors would like more democracy than the authorities are currently prepared to admit. That situation arises from the decision of the Standing Committee of the National People’s Congress on electoral reform, with respect to the election of the Chief Executive of Hong Kong, which is of course a very high-profile post.

I understand that the NPCSC will identify two to three electoral candidates before the general public will be able to vote on them. That seems to me to go against the principles set out in the 1997 agreement. In that way, candidates that Beijing might consider unsuitable would be pre-emptively screened out. That would not be considered acceptable in most democracies, and the protesters describe it as fake democracy. That has given rise to the civil disobedience protests. The protesters have the objective of ensuring the right of all to vote; but they would particularly like the resignation of the existing Chief Executive, C.Y. Leung.

[Geoffrey Clifton-Brown]

I do not know whether my hon. Friend saw the report in The Times today, suggesting that the mainland Chinese Government may make the protests illegal. Will my hon. Friend deprecate that and say that the protests should be allowed to continue, provided that they are peaceful, for as long as it takes, until both sides are satisfied that some progress has been made?

[Mark Pawsey]

We are looking at these things very much by our standards. We would certainly want to allow such peaceful protest to continue while the protesters want it to. The notion that it might become illegal would be of great concern to those currently engaged in such peaceful protest.

The Chief Executive’s term comes to an end in 2017. He is a figurehead for the authorities in Hong Kong, but in many ways he seems not to have helped matters. His political career has of course been dogged by accusations that he is unduly influenced by Beijing, and there is evidence of that: on his election the Chinese state newspaper, the People’s Daily, referred to him as “comrade”. He decided to implement some pro-China patriotic lessons in schools in Hong Kong, although that was later vetoed, but that compounded the fears of those who saw him as overly influenced by Beijing. China clearly wants to vet C.Y. Leung’s successors and he supports that, so a big issue for the protesters is that he personally is an obstacle to the pursuit of democratic rights. That is certainly the impression gained by my daughter and her friends.

C.Y. Leung has aggravated the mood of the protesters and those who seek more democracy by recent remarks reported in Tuesday’s South China Morning Post. He said that if the Government met the protesters’ demands, it would

“result in the city’s poorer people dominating elections”

and that

“if candidates were nominated by the public then the largest sector of society…would likely dominate the electoral process.”

That is what democracy is all about and such remarks shock those of us who have grown up with the sort of democratic system we enjoy in this country. C.Y. Leung’s reputation has not been helped by an article in the Sydney Morning Herald on 9 October about what is described as a secret 7 million Australian dollar payout from an Australian firm. That led to questions about the transparency of dealings by a public official.

All that has led to the protests and we are pleased that they have been peaceful on the part of protesters and authorities. The umbrella as a symbol of protest is as unthreatening as can be imagined. Many of the young people and British people who have been attracted to Hong Kong sympathise and find themselves supportive of the protesters who are seeking what westerners have always taken for granted.

There are, however, some concerns. The protests have carried on for so long that the blocking of main thoroughfares such as Admiralty, Causeway Bay and Mong Kok is starting to affect people’s daily life. Journeys that previously took 15 minutes are now taking around two hours as people transfer from road to the mass transit railway, which is usually very efficient. That has led to businesses losing trade and concern within the business sector, with some business people beginning to show their frustration with protesters. It has also led to some ordinary people giving the areas of protest a wide berth, which is having an impact on businesses in those areas.

The big question for us to consider—I look forward to the Minister’s response—is what happens next. I have spoken about the economic impact and it has been suggested that Hong Kong’s tourist industry could face its worst decline in a decade. The protests have already prompted some cancellations of hotel bookings. October and November are typically the peak season for its hotel industry as business travellers arrive for trade fairs and exhibitions and there are fears that business travellers will cut short or even cancel their trips because of safety concerns. How that might develop?

What might the Chinese authorities’ longer-term response be? They have made it clear that there will be no concessions on political reform. They are digging in their heels because the international community might see granting a concession as a sign of weakness by Beijing. Where that might go is a concern and clearly the solution should arise from politics rather than force.

Talks took place between student leaders and the Government only yesterday, but I see them in a less positive light than the hon. Member for Cheltenham (Martin Horwood). They were televised and watched live at protest sites, but the South China Morning Post reports today that nothing has changed and that the Government have simply offered to submit a report to Beijing reflecting public sentiment, and to consider setting up a platform for dialogue on constitutional development. That sounds as good a description of kicking the matter into long grass as we are ever likely to hear, and we often hear such expressions in this place.

Crucially, the Government have said that there will be no movement on the nomination of candidates and the Government’s remarks through Chief Secretary Lam—that protesters should pursue their ideals in reasonable and lawful ways—may indicate that the occupation of public highways might in time be considered unlawful.

[Martin Horwood]

I am largely in sympathy with what the hon. Gentleman is saying, but even in this place—the mother of Parliaments—we are familiar with the phenomenon of authorities not always giving the appearance of being about to make concessions before they go on to make them. China often moves even more gradually and slowly. I do not think the progress by Mr Leung goes far enough—I have said that I support the protesters’ aspirations—but at least it shows a willingness to negotiate and to make some changes to the proposed arrangements, which he should welcome.

[Mark Pawsey]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. I am seeing the events with the eyes of someone who is based in this place and does not have much knowledge of how government works in Beijing. I am taking them at face value and I am encouraged by his positive response to the report of the outcome of that meeting.

My concerns are for people who are currently living in Hong Kong, and I look forward to hearing from the Minister how our Government can influence the successful outcome of the position today.

15:35

[Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab)]

As ever, Mr Weir, it is a pleasure to see you in the Chair. I thank the hon. Member for Gloucester (Richard Graham) for securing this debate. He has a long-standing interest in this part of the world and is chair of the all-party China group. We all have an interest in our historic relationship with Hong Kong and our current financial and economic ties. I do not intend to dwell on those, given the time pressure, but I will focus on the test that one country with two systems is facing with the proposals to move towards universal suffrage, and some of the unhappiness that has been expressed on the streets of Hong Kong about whether those proposals go far enough. The issues are obviously for the Government of China and the Hong Kong special administrative region, but the Minister will agree that the UK also has a responsibility to uphold the joint declaration.

Over the past month, many thousands of Hong Kong citizens, predominantly students and those in the Occupy Central movement, have taken to the streets to protest because they feel the proposals for electing a Chief Executive by universal suffrage in 2017 do not go far enough. It was interesting that the hon. Gentleman said that many of the protesters were not even born when the joint declaration was signed. I had to do my sums, and I am that old.

The point about the change in identity of the young generation that has grown up in Hong Kong was interesting. The protesters are questioning whether what is being proposed gives Hong Kong the high degree of autonomy guaranteed by the joint declaration and the Basic Law. Article 45 of the Basic Law states:

“The Chief Executive of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region shall be selected by election or through consultations held locally and be appointed by the Central People’s Government.”

It also states that

“the ultimate aim is the selection of the Chief Executive by universal suffrage upon nomination by a broadly representative nominating committee in accordance with democratic procedures.”

That is where we are now, as was confirmed by the Standing Committee of the Chinese National People’s Congress at the end of August.

The concern that has been aired is that there will be only two or three candidates, who will each need to secure the majority approval of the nominating committee. As the hon. Member for The Cotswolds (Geoffrey Clifton-Brown) said, the size of that committee has increased substantially from 400 to 1,200 members and many people in Hong Kong feel that they are not being given a genuine choice and that the future chief executive will be too tied to Beijing.

Human Rights Watch estimates that 500,000 people have taken to the streets of Hong Kong this year, although I think the hon. Member for Gloucester said 800,000. We have heard disturbing news of clashes and injuries over the weekend. For the most part, the protests have been peaceful, for which we are thankful, but the response from the police in Hong Kong has been a more serious cause for concern. They have used tear gas and batons to control protesters, and last week we saw images of officers beating a handcuffed protesters. The police department has confirmed that it is investigating the incident, and it is important that reports of excessive use of force are independently investigated.

Amnesty International has reported that the police have failed in their duty to protect the pro-democracy protesters. They report that women and girls have been targeted and subjected to sexual assault and harassment, and witnesses have reported that the police stood by and did nothing. Those reports must be taken seriously by the Hong Kong Government and by the British Government, too.

The joint declaration states:

“Rights and freedoms, including those of the person, of speech, of the press, of assembly, of association, of travel, of movement, of correspondence, of strike, of choice of occupation, of academic research and of religious belief will be ensured by law in the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region.”

As a signatory to that binding international treaty, the UK must speak up if the agreement is not fully upheld and if people are under threat of violence or intimidation for exercising those rights and freedoms. As a further point, it is also worrying that the BBC English language website was reportedly blocked in China last week.

On the specific point of arms export licences, it is reported that the tear gas used against protesters was imported from Britain. Worryingly, the Foreign Secretary was quoted as saying that was “immaterial”, because Hong Kong could buy it from other countries if they did not buy it from the UK. I do not think that is what should pass for a responsible export licensing policy. If the test is simply whether other countries could sell them the product, too, I do not think that is where we should be, and I would be grateful if the Minister could advise us of any review of the relevant export licences.

The Minister may, I hope, have been copied into a letter that the right hon. Member for Tonbridge and Malling (Sir John Stanley), the Chair of the Committees on Arms Export Controls, has just sent to the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills. It is dated 21 October, and he is asking for a reply before the Committees next meet on 30 October. Does the Minister intend to discuss the six points that have been raised by the Chair of the Committees in that letter? Will he also advise whether the Government have discussed the authorities’ response to the protesters with their Chinese counterparts of the Hong Kong special administrative region?

In addition to the UK’s responsibilities arising from the joint declaration, we must ensure more generally that the commitment to promoting human rights and the rule of law and to supporting democracy as the best means of creating stable, accountable and transparent government is not in doubt. Although I acknowledge that the elections are a matter for the Basic Law rather than the joint declaration, it is still right for us to take an interest. The hon. Member for Rugby (Mark Pawsey) talked about concerns expressed by some that if democracy was allowed to take its course, poor people might actually get to wield a degree of influence, or in fact, the majority could decide the outcome of the election. Those comments were quite entertaining, but also made a pertinent point about some people’s definition of democracy differing from other people’s.

I am sure that the Minister will agree with me that the UK Government should not seek to interfere in China’s affairs, but we do have a role to play in safeguarding the principle of one country, two systems, which has worked so well since 1997. Building a constructive, multi-faceted relationship with China that allows our two countries to work together in pursuit of common objectives—so yes, to support our trading ties, our economic and cultural links, and to work with them particularly closely on issues such as climate change—is very important, but it is also important that we have a relationship with China that allows us to engage on areas of disagreement too, including raising human rights concerns.

The FCO’s statements have rightly emphasised how important it is that

“the people of Hong Kong have a genuine choice and a real stake in the outcome.”

The Minister’s statement last week likewise said that the transition to universal suffrage should meet

“the aspirations of the people of Hong Kong”

and offer them

“a genuine choice in the election”.

Of course, it is not up to us to decide what the aspirations of the Hong Kong people are or how they can be best fulfilled, but we do have a role to play in promoting and encouraging dialogue within Hong Kong and by endorsing the high degree of autonomy that one country, two systems is supposed to safeguard.

As we mark 30 years since the joint declaration was signed, we want to look forward to 2017—to celebrating those 20 years since Hong Kong returned to China. The introduction of universal suffrage, as set out in the Basic Law, will be a fitting tribute to all those who worked so hard to deliver and implement this historic agreement, and who have worked to ensure its success over the past two decades. We trust that the Governments of China and Hong Kong will work with the people of Hong Kong to ensure that the commitment is honoured and that we can deliver Hong Kong’s vision for democracy.

15:44

[The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr Hugo Swire)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Gloucester (Richard Graham) on securing the debate. I do not call him my hon. Friend just as a courtesy; he was my excellent Parliamentary Private Secretary in the Foreign and Commonwealth Office until recently, and I pay tribute to his valuable work, his deep personal interest and his well-informed advice to me on Hong Kong and China over the years.

My hon. Friend’s great expertise, along with the wealth of experience of my predecessors who spoke in the House of Lords debate on Hong Kong last week—and indeed, the extraordinarily good participation that we have had from colleagues across the divide this afternoon—show the depths of knowledge available to the Government on Hong Kong. Incidentally, I would not want people to think that the only interest in Hong Kong is from the people of Gloucestershire, although that is very much how it might look when people see who turned up here this afternoon.

The future of Hong Kong is of great importance to the United Kingdom as a co-signatory of the Sino-British joint declaration, and given the magnitude of our trade, investment, educational, cultural and, of course, historic links. With over 250,000 British citizens and 3 million British national overseas citizens living in the city, more than 500,000 visitors from the UK to Hong Kong last year, and over 560 British companies with offices in Hong Kong, more than 120 of them using it as a base for their Asia-Pacific regional operations, Britain’s relationship with Hong Kong is long-standing, wide-ranging and unique.

We strongly believe that it is the autonomy, rights and freedoms guaranteed by the joint declaration that underpin Hong Kong’s success. As we approach the 30th anniversary of its signature, our commitment to ensuring the faithful implementation of the joint declaration, and the protection of the rights and freedoms it guarantees, is as strong as ever. That is why we have been monitoring events closely and regularly raising Hong Kong at senior levels through official channels in Beijing, Hong Kong and London.

My hon. Friend said he thought that the Government had been a bit slow to respond to developments in Hong Kong; I take a slightly different view. I point out to him that we have been addressing this all year. In May in Beijing, I talked about constitutional reform with the director of the Hong Kong and Macau Affairs Office, Wang Guangya. Last week, I saw the Hong Kong Secretary for Justice, Rimsky Yuen, in London, along with our Secretary of State for Justice, and, as has been well publicised and said again this afternoon by the hon. Member for Cheltenham (Martin Horwood), I met Anson Chan and Martin Lee along with the Deputy Prime Minister at separate meetings back in June.

I also refer to the statements we issued. The Foreign Office issued statements on 4 September and during the parliamentary recess on 29 September and on 2 October, and, of course, I issued a written ministerial statement on 13 October. Last week, the Foreign Office submitted its written evidence to the Foreign Affairs Committee inquiry on Hong Kong. I should also point out to my hon. Friend the Member for Gloucester, who I know is a modern man, that I also tweeted, as I am sure he would have seen during that period.

Hong Kong has also been discussed by my right hon. Friends the Prime Minister and Foreign Secretary in a number of meetings, including with Premier Li at the summit in London in June and Vice Premier Ma Kai at the economic and financial dialogue in London in September. My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary and I also discussed Hong Kong with the Chinese ambassador earlier this month. As I am sure my hon. Friend will also readily concede, sometimes megaphone diplomacy is not the best way of proceeding.

I believe that the six-monthly reports that we continue to submit to Parliament on developments in Hong Kong are taken seriously and are widely read by academics, non-governmental organisations and other diplomatic missions in Hong Kong—and, indeed, further afield. I understand that those reports are also widely read by officials and key decision makers in Hong Kong and Beijing.

In the last six-monthly report, the former Foreign Secretary, now my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House, noted that “one country, two systems” continued to work well. Specific evidence for its success includes an independent judiciary and the rule of law. I readily agree with my hon. Friend the Member for The Cotswolds (Geoffrey Clifton-Brown) about the importance of that. He asked about judicial independence with regard to the White Paper. I can do no better than quote the noble Lord Neuberger, one of the judges who regularly goes to Hong Kong, who said to Reuters in August 2014 that

“at the moment I detect no undermining of judicial independence”.

He also said:

“If I felt that the independence of the judiciary in Hong Kong was being undermined then I would either have to speak out or I would have to resign as a judge”.

The evidence also includes direct and active participation in political decision making by a number of different political parties; the freedom of Hong Kong people to participate in regular peaceful protests; and the activity of a vibrant and engaged civil society. Indeed, the protests on the streets of Hong Kong in recent weeks have shown that the rights and freedoms of the people of Hong Kong, including the right to demonstrate, continue to be respected. It is important for Hong Kong to preserve those rights and for Hong Kong’s people to exercise them within the law.

The hon. Member for Bristol East (Kerry McCarthy), who speaks for the Opposition and is looking rather lonely on her side of the divide, asked particularly about allegations of how the police have behaved. We have been watching the reports and following the allegations that the police have used disproportionate force. I very much welcome the investigation that the Hong Kong police have launched into those. I am pleased that the protests have largely been peaceful to date. That is in itself quite an achievement, given the huge numbers of people who have been on the streets, and sometimes in very confined spaces.

The hon. Lady also asked about the use of CS gas and whether the United Kingdom had sold gas to the Hong Kong police. The answer is, yes, we have previously licensed exports of tear gas to Hong Kong, but we will certainly take the recent disturbances in Hong Kong into account when these matters are discussed, as they most properly will be by the Foreign Secretary, who would discuss them with the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills. It is worth pointing out that tear gas was used once, at the start of the protests, but not since.

[Kerry McCarthy]

Could I press the Minister on that point? Will the Foreign Secretary or he be speaking to the Business Secretary before he replies to the letter from the Chair of the Committees on Arms Export Controls?

[Mr Swire]

I shall have to get back to the hon. Lady on that, because I genuinely have not seen the letter and was not aware of it until she raised it a few moments ago. I will ensure that we get back to her.

My hon. Friend the Member for Rugby (Mark Pawsey) talked about his daughter, who works in Hong Kong, and rightly pointed out the disruption caused to many businesses and the huge inconvenience. I am concerned to hear what he says about the possible negative effect on tourism in Hong Kong. We will continue to follow developments on the ground with keen interest and to remain in regular contact with our consul general in Hong Kong, whom I met in London last week.

The issue at the centre of the protests is, of course, Hong Kong’s democracy and specifically the arrangements for the election of the Chief Executive in 2017. It is perhaps worth underlining some important points. Unlike with Hong Kong’s rights and freedoms, the joint declaration does not deal in the detail of Hong Kong’s democratic arrangements. It provides the essential foundation, including that the legislature be constituted by elections and that the Chief Executive be selected or elected locally. However, the detail of that is set out in the Basic Law, Hong Kong’s mini-constitution that came into force at the time of handover in 1997, and in associated decisions of China’s Parliament, the National People’s Congress.

Her Majesty’s Government have consistently set out our view that Hong Kong’s future is best served by a transition to universal suffrage, in line with the Basic Law and the aspirations of the people of Hong Kong. We firmly believe that greater democracy will help to reinforce Hong Kong’s open society, the rule of law and its capitalist system, which are vital for Hong Kong’s stability and prosperity in the long term. But let me make it crystal clear that the detailed arrangements for implementing that are for the people of Hong Kong and the Governments of Hong Kong and the People’s Republic of China to determine.

When the National People’s Congress issued its decision in August, we responded by welcoming its reconfirmation that the Chief Executive could be elected by universal suffrage in 2017, but we also acknowledged at the time the disappointment of those in Hong Kong who were hoping for a more open nomination process. However, it is important to recognise that the NPC decision does not represent the last step in this process. It sets the parameters for electoral arrangements for the Chief Executive in 2017, but there is still important detail to be decided before a final package can be presented to Hong Kong’s Legislative Council for debate next year, and of course those arrangements need to be approved by two thirds of the Legislative Council.

The details that still need to be defined include how the nominating committee operates to ensure maximum competition between candidates; transparency; and accountability to the broader public. The Government have made clear our hope that the different sections of Hong Kong society will come together to agree detailed arrangements on these issues that command the broad support of the community as a whole, that are consistent with the Basic Law and that represent a significant step forward on Hong Kong’s democratic journey. That journey then, of course, continues with the elections for the Legislative Council in 2020.

During my visit to Hong Kong last year, I had the opportunity to engage with a wide range of people with divergent views on how to implement a system for universal suffrage. The strength of feeling among Hong Kong people on this issue and their desire to stand up for what they believe in is clear. It is now essential that all sides engage in constructive dialogue, to broker consensus and allow meaningful progress.

I am pleased to see that Carrie Lam, the Chief Secretary of the Hong Kong special administrative region Government, held talks with the Hong Kong Federation of Students yesterday in which she made a commitment to gauge and reflect people’s views. The Hong Kong Government’s suggestion that there is still ample room under the 31 August decision to work out a nomination procedure and election method for 2017 reiterates the importance of the next round of consultations.

I emphasised to the Hong Kong Justice Secretary last week the importance of relaunching dialogue with a wide range of people in Hong Kong on these issues. I hope that the second phase of consultation, which is the right method to engage all the citizens of Hong Kong, will begin soon. As the former Foreign Secretary said in his foreword to the last sixth-monthly report to Parliament, published in July, there is no perfect model. What matters is that the people of Hong Kong have a genuine choice and a real stake in the outcome.

My hon. Friend the Member for Gloucester asked whether the Foreign Office would give an oral statement at the time of the next six-monthly report. That will be in January. I am appearing in front of the Foreign Affairs Committee myself in January, which will provide an ample opportunity to debate these issues. We will consider having a statement at the time, depending on the circumstances. I will say to my hon. Friend that we are having a debate now and he also has the ability to use the Backbench Business Committee if he wishes to have another debate himself.

My hon. Friend asked about the BBC. We have made representations, with our embassy in Beijing, to the Chinese Minister of Foreign Affairs on that subject. My hon. Friend asked whether we had made representations about Parliament’s right to hold inquiries and debates. We have reminded the Chinese Government, in London and Beijing, that the UK Parliament is independent of Government and very well entitled to debate and look into any aspect of Government policy. He asked when I would be going next to Hong Kong. Depending on the Whips, I shall be going there in January.

Given the UK’s strong commercial and trade relationship, shared history and unique commitments to Hong Kong, we care deeply about its future and that of its people. We have a moral obligation and a legitimate interest in the preservation of the rights and freedoms of the people of Hong Kong. We believe that a transition to universal suffrage will safeguard Hong Kong’s future prosperity and stability. That is why we continue to encourage the Governments of Hong Kong and China to find options that offer a genuine choice to the people of Hong Kong in the 2017 election.

I am grateful to hon. Friends and to the shadow Minister for this opportunity to restate clearly the Government’s position on this incredibly important issue and to all those people who follow these matters and contribute to the debate that we need to have in this place.

Environmental Challenges (Somerset)

Wednesday 22nd October 2014 Westminster Hall

15:59

[Mr Ian Liddell-Grainger (Bridgwater and West Somerset) (Con)]

I am delighted to be able to take part in this debate and to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Weir. I am grateful to have another chance to debate the situation in Somerset and some of the environmental challenges we face. Given the catch-all title of this debate, several Departments may be interested in what I have to say.

My county, and my constituency in particular, have faced extraordinary environmental challenges during the past year. If there was an award for facing down environmental challenges, the Somerset levels would win hands down. This time last year, no public body in Britain was prepared to take the idea of severe flooding seriously. We were told that it could not possibly happen, and anyone who said otherwise was branded a doom-monger.

However, local people and farmers who had looked after the land for generations voiced concern about how little had been done in recent years to dredge the rivers and prevent them from silting up. Those people knew what could happen if it rained too hard and too long. They had witnessed the decline of regular maintenance of the pumps and pumping stations, and they had watched the withdrawal of equipment. For anyone who lives at or near sea level, such observations are second nature. Farmers on the Somerset levels well understand the delicate balance of nature. Unfortunately, severe rain and unprecedented flooding were required for the world to wake up to what had not been done—to the clogged up river beds that could not take the flow, the inadequate pumps that could not move the water and the penny-pinching, ostrich-like mentality of the Environment Agency.

I am not here to seek recrimination. I have come to know and admire many of the Environment Agency’s people on the ground, who have done wonders since the crisis began. I also believe that there is a new attitude at the top, led by the Prime Minister, since the appointment of a new and completely non-political chairman. So much has happened since the waters began to rise, and so many lives have been affected. There are so many tales of courage and fortitude, and so many millions of pounds have been spent on putting the mess right. As my hon. Friend the Member for Taunton Deane (Mr Browne) knows, we have all grown a little bit wiser because of these events. What a terrible shame that wisdom arrived after the event. I believe that the biggest environmental challenge is to ensure that such disasters do not happen again.

I intend to concentrate my remarks on those essentials. One of the most positive lessons from the whole experience has been the way in which local authorities have worked rapidly and in co-operation with the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs and the Environment Agency to produce a 20-year flood plan. I can assure hon. Members that obtaining that agreement was no picnic, but the urgency and importance of the task concentrated everybody’s minds. The plan forms the basis for what is now being done and what remains to be done to safeguard the whole area for the future.

The Prime Minister donned his wellies and came with me across the levels on three occasions, not only to show solidarity but to make a promise. He said that whatever it cost, we had to fix the problem. We all knew that it would not be cheap, and with hindsight we realise that there is no such thing as a blank cheque; we live in the real world. The Prime Minister’s intervention set the wheels turning an awful lot faster, however. Slowly but surely, the dredging programme has been agreed on as part of the 20-year flood plan, and it is being implemented. Somerset is getting there at last.

Not everything has been plain sailing. Six months after the launch of a £10 million compensation scheme for farmers, only £4 million of payments have been approved and less than £1 million has been paid out. That may be partly because some of the farmers have been far too busy looking after their animals and land to do all the paperwork, but the process of making applications is riddled with red tape.

For example, my constituent Mr James Winslade, a farmer whose cows famously had to be rescued from the floodwater, should finally receive a cheque this week for £5,000. That is part of a payment for grass seed to replant his fields at Moorland, which is right in the heart of the flood zone. The vast majority of Mr Winslade’s farm—810 acres of land—was completely waterlogged for weeks. Like other applicants, he had to send DEFRA detailed maps showing the precise fields involved, which he did, but DEFRA wanted more imagery, in the form of aerial photographs, to prove that his fields were actually flooded.

I invite the Under-Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change, my hon. Friend the Member for Hastings and Rye (Amber Rudd)—I am delighted to see her in her place—to do some research, because she will find that there are hundreds of aerial photographs of the exact area taken throughout the time of the flooding. The area resembles a huge lake that stretches for miles. The only safe way to travel was by boat—I have actually paddled across parts of Moorland in a canoe. When DEFRA officials were finally satisfied with the pictures, they demanded additional proof that my constituent had planted the grass seed. Is it any wonder that many farmers are still waiting and are extremely peeved about that penny-pinching process?

During a recent visit to the area, the new Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, my right hon. Friend the Member for South West Norfolk (Elizabeth Truss), made it abundantly clear that much of that frustration was caused by bureaucracy imposed by EU rules—no surprise there. It is high time that we extended our list of things to renegotiate with Brussels to include loony farming regulations. I pay tribute to the new Secretary of State, who came into her post at a difficult time. She has been to Somerset twice since her appointment, and she has quickly grasped the problems and challenges that we face. She knows full well that there are concerns about the speed of the Whitehall decision process.

The Secretary of State also knows that an essential part of the flood action plan is the creation of a viable Somerset rivers board, which should involve all the local councils in affected areas. The new body would call the shots when it comes to dredging and maintenance. It would be funded partly by the Environment Agency, from which it will take a lead on what it should do. That could be slightly awkward, but I believe that any such difficulties can be overcome.

I warned at the outset that my remarks might involve several different Departments, and now it is the turn of the Department for Communities and Local Government to prick up its ears. That branch of Whitehall seems to be saying that a rivers board for Somerset, run by councils, is a good idea provided councils pay for it. That was not what the Prime Minister had in mind when he offered to pay whatever it cost to fix things. The Department’s attitude has an element of logic, because if Somerset were to get preferential treatment from Whitehall, every other local authority that ever had a flood would want exactly the same. That is understandable; it is human nature.

It is, however, unrealistic to believe that Somerset councils can afford to do everything that they need to do from the word go. The obvious way to pay for everything would be to raise council tax. According to some estimates, council tax could go up 20%, which would be the kiss of death. We simply could not get that through anywhere in the country.

There is, however, a sensible solution. If the councils were given a few years’ breathing space to allow them to save money for the rivers board, and if the law was tweaked to permit them to levy a special tax to pay for future flood prevention, the only thing missing would be a grant to tide them over during the transition. That is more or less the argument being made by most of the councils involved. We are, as anyone would expect, anxiously awaiting some signal to indicate what is in Whitehall’s mind. The answer may involve intervention from the Treasury, which is yet another Department that I should have put on standby for this little debate. Any indication that the Minister can give will be helpful, given the complexity of the situation.

I do not want the valuable work on the formation of a Somerset rivers board to go to waste for a lack of answers, and I am worried that we may struggle to keep all the councils on board unless we get a clear sense of direction soon. In my view, it would be extremely short-sighted of, say, Taunton Deane borough council to consider opting out of membership of the new rivers board simply because it cannot yet see a viable plan to pay for it. As my hon. Friend the Member for Taunton Deane knows, Taunton was flooded badly in November 2012. I do not see how, in the name of common sense, the council can contemplate quitting the rivers board now. If the River Tone overflows again, local people will never forgive the council. I hope that councils will stick together, but there is a growing sense of urgency about the matter.

It is also critical to get a clear thumbs-up from the Government about the most important element of the flood plan, which is the construction of a barrage at Bridgwater to stop silt being washed back inland by the tides. The need for the barrage has been accepted, but it involves a lot of money. Here we are, fast approaching what promises to be yet hard winter, without the answers in place.

Like it or not, we are all subject to the ravages of the weather, but are we the hapless victims of climate change, and is the Climate Change Act 2008 the right way to deal with it? Those questions have been topically highlighted recently by my right hon. Friend the Member for North Shropshire (Mr Paterson), who wants the 2008 Act to be scrapped. His recent experience as the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs during the flood crisis makes that all the more relevant, as he came down many times to visit and help us.

My constituency already has far too many applications for ugly, useless and oversized wind turbines, and Somerset is in danger of being overrun by, dare I say it, solar panel farms. Their collective contribution to reducing carbon emissions is, I am afraid, small, and their collective cost, in terms of subsidies and European grants, is large. Their ability to keep the lights on, depending on the sun or the wind, is probably a no-no in the long term.

I am delighted to learn that the new Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs intends to scrap EU payments to landowners who use solar panels on productive areas of land. Let us grow food and stop paying for panels. I am delighted that the tide is beginning to turn against such stupidities in many areas of our political lives. If we spent less time slavishly following the flawed edicts of Brussels, we would have ample funds to finance the common-sense solutions that we all know we need in order to fix our flooding problems. We still have environmental challenges in Somerset, and the solution has to be found now; it does not need to be so elusive. I would welcome the Minister’s views on that.

[Mr Jeremy Browne (Taunton Deane) (LD)]

I am extremely grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way and I congratulate him on securing this important debate. I sense that he is drawing to the end of his remarks, so I invite him to develop the theme of the barrage. The Chancellor will soon be making his autumn statement—autumn gets later and later, but it still happens before Christmas, so the autumn statement is imminent, happening just over a month from now. Would it not be ideal if he were in a position to announce the Government’s intention to go ahead with the building of the barrage?

[Mr Liddell-Grainger]

I gratefully thank my hon. Friend, who has helped immeasurably, because the barrage is in fact in Bridgwater, not Taunton Deane. His point is exactly right. Both the former Secretary of State, my right hon. Friend the Member for North Shropshire, and the present Secretary of State have made it clear to the Environment Agency that plans for the funding need to be in place to make absolutely sure that they go into the autumn statement—which I believe will be on 3 December 2014—so that we can get the money to get this done.

My hon. Friend the Member for Taunton Deane knows this far too well—a lot of his constituency was also flooded—but if we did not build the barrage, we would never be forgiven for creating the problems and the mess again. The barrage will be a surge barrier that stops 60% of the mud that comes all the way up the river to Taunton Deane, which is a distance in the region of 10 miles. The barrage would therefore reduce the silting and the need to dredge, which means that we could continue pumping. We were not able to pump in his constituency or in most of the levels because our water levels were too high. The barrage would give us an opportunity not only to combat climate change, which the Minister will tell us about in a minute, but to address the practicalities of everyone’s daily lives. I look forward to hearing her remarks.

16:13

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change (Amber Rudd)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Bridgwater and West Somerset (Mr Liddell-Grainger) on securing this debate on the environmental challenges in Somerset, and I thank him for his speech. Having a home or business flooded is a devastating experience, and I know everyone here extends their sympathy to all those who have been affected.

As has been pointed out, this topic involves a number of Departments, particularly the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs but also the Department for Communities and Local Government and the Treasury. As this is the week for the Department of Energy and Climate Change to reply to Westminster Hall debates, I am responding for the Government. I reassure my hon. Friend that I have consulted colleagues in other Departments in preparing this reply.

I pay tribute to all those in the Environment Agency, local authorities and emergency services, in Somerset and elsewhere, who work tirelessly during flood events. The response to last winter’s floods was tremendous. In response to that exceptional weather, DEFRA made an extra £270 million available to repair, restore and maintain the most critical flood defences. Repairs at many sites started as soon as the weather conditions allowed and continued throughout the summer. The Environment Agency is on track to complete permanent repairs to 96% of its critical defences by the end of October. Recovery from last winter’s flooding continues and is going well. The Government have committed more than £565 million in flood recovery support funding. DEFRA has managed to secure a £2.3 billion capital settlement to improve flood management infrastructure over six years from April 2015. That investment will reduce the risk of flooding to a further 300,000 households, on top of the 165,000 protected during the current spending period.

At the end of January, the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs asked local leaders to produce a long-term action plan for the sustainable future of the Somerset levels and moors. Following intensive work by Somerset local authorities, local farming and business representatives and NGOs supported by central Government and agencies, and of course by their MP, the plan was published on 6 March. The plan is wide-ranging, covering specific flood risk management projects, farming and land management interventions, transport infrastructure, planning and community resilience issues.

The Government have committed just over £20 million specifically for Somerset, which includes £10 million from DEFRA for dredging 8 km of the Rivers Parrett and Tone and other flood management work. The Department for Transport has provided £10 million to support the action plan, and DCLG has provided £500,000 to Somerset under the severe weather recovery scheme. I can report that progress against actions in the plan is good. The 8 km dredging of the rivers is due to be completed by the end of October.

One of the key actions in the Somerset action plan is the formation of a Somerset rivers board to take more responsibility for water management on the levels. Local leaders in Somerset are agreeing the board’s responsibilities and functions. DEFRA Ministers are working closely with local partners to ensure that Somerset is better protected in future. Local leaders will need to find a sustainable, long-term funding mechanism for an effective local organisation that has the support of local residents. As my hon. Friend has said, Somerset is not the only place where people wish to raise additional funding for flood risk management, and we are continuing to explore options for local fundraising.

My hon. Friend mentioned the farming recovery fund, which was made available to help farm businesses to restore flooded agricultural land and bring it back into production as quickly as possible. We made £10 million available to help farmers get their land back into production after the flooding. Under EU rules, as he understands, payments from the rural development programme budget must be paid to farmers once the work has been carried out and all necessary evidence submitted. All claims submitted by Mr Winslade have now been paid—we have looked into that. We will assess any new claims as they come in.

I am grateful to my hon. Friends the Members for Bridgwater and West Somerset and for Taunton Deane (Mr Browne) for raising the matter of the Bridgwater barrier. I am delighted that Somerset partners will be making use of some of the money that they are receiving through the local growth fund to develop and appraise options for the barrier.

Severe storms and flooding have always affected the UK and will continue to do so, even without climate change. However, we know that human-caused climate change is influencing both the likelihood and severity of such extreme events. The complicated nature of the UK’s weather makes it difficult to say definitively that human influences caused single weather events such as last winter’s storm. However, it is possible to make scientific statements about how human influence on the climate may have changed the odds of an event happening. For example, a recent study of the floods experienced by the UK in autumn 2000 found that they were made about twice as likely due to the influence of greenhouse gas emissions.

On a global scale, the fifth assessment report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change found that extreme rainfall events across the world are becoming heavier and that, without action to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, the trend will very likely continue. Undoubtedly, the damaging weather that we experienced last winter is consistent with a warming world.

The events of last winter highlight this country’s vulnerability to extreme weather and the need for us to take action to limit climate change and the impact it will have. Internationally, we are pushing for an ambitious global deal in Paris in 2015, whereas action at home is driven by the Climate Change Act 2008. The Government remain committed to the Act and meeting the targets it contains. The Act was the first of its kind and demonstrates UK leadership—almost 500 climate laws have now been passed in 66 of the countries with the largest emissions across the world. Businesses and investors welcome the certainty provided by the long-term target and the five-year budgets.

Setting carbon budgets as part of the Act has driven action that saves people money and makes people warmer. Our achievements in reducing emissions also demonstrate that the Climate Change Act is working. The Act has helped to drive the UK to reduce emissions by almost a quarter since 1990.

Reducing greenhouse gas emissions is one part of how the UK is responding to climate change; the other is building resilience to climate change and associated severe weather events such as flooding, heat waves and drought. This helps to safeguard growth and minimise the damage and disruption to economic activity from such impacts. The earlier we plan for adaptation, the less it will cost, and we will be better equipped to cope with potential changes.

Under the Climate Change Act, the Government published the first climate change risk assessment in January 2012, which identified the key risks—and opportunities—to the UK. This informed the first national adaptation programme report, published by DEFRA in July last year, which sets out a wide range of actions for government, businesses, councils, civil society and communities to address the most pressing climate risks we face as a country. Both the CCRA and NAP are reviewed every five years as required by the Climate Change Act.

At the end of last year, DEFRA also invited more than 100 organisations from key sectors to provide voluntary reports to Government on how they plan to build their own resilience to the impacts of climate change and associated severe weather events. Most have agreed to do this, which will add significantly to our understanding of how resilient we are as a society. The next major milestones will be publication of the second climate change risk assessment early in 2017, for which the process is under way, and the second national adaptation programme that will follow on from that.

Despite the exceptional weather conditions experienced last winter, the impacts were significantly less than in previous similar events. Our existing flood defences protected around 1.4 million properties and more than 2,500 square kilometres of farmland from flooding. This reinforces the importance of continuing our investment in flood defence schemes and forecasting capability. We will never be able to stop flooding entirely, but we have acted on the lessons learned from last winter.

In the UK, climate change is a serious risk. We are vulnerable to extreme weather, including severe winters, heat waves, storms, gales and flooding from rivers and the sea.

[Mr Browne]

I am grateful to the Minister for giving way. I want briefly to raise two points. First, it is in the nature of parliamentary debate that the Minister is always criticised by MPs who want to make points on behalf of their constituents. By way of contrast, let me thank the Government for the speedy work that has been done on dredging. A lot of people in the Somerset levels despaired of ever seeing any dredging. They may want more and they may want it done differently, but I was in Burrowbridge, which was at the centre of the flooding area, last week, and a significant amount of dredging has been done. It is fair to put on the record that a lot of people in the levels are grateful to have seen such commitment from the Government following visits by the Prime Minister and others earlier this year.

Secondly, on a related point, when we talk about resilience to climate change and flooding, I hope the Government will not lose sight of mundane matters. Resilience does not have to be about big projects and flood barriers. It is also, for example, about ensuring that when new housing is built, it does not have an effect on flood areas.

[Mr Mike Weir (in the Chair)]

I remind the hon. Gentleman that interventions should be brief.

[Amber Rudd]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for that intervention and for his kind words of support for the action that the Government were able to take after assiduous lobbying—of course, by local MPs as well. I take his point entirely about the need for local action on the ground to reduce the effects of climate change, and the need to work generally with the local community to ensure that they appreciate the need for action and the urgency.

If I may, I will take the opportunity to refer to the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Bridgwater and West Somerset in his speech earlier about solar, which is a great success and is appreciated by many residents. We now have more than 500,000 houses with their own solar panels on them. It is a marvellous way of people taking the initiative and delivering themselves warmer homes for less, and at the same time making their own contribution to reducing climate change.

Climate change is a serious risk in the UK. We are vulnerable to all sorts of changes in the weather that affect our economy, our livelihoods and our health. That is why the UK is leading from the front on action against climate change. We are investing in low carbon and energy efficiency technologies, with an increased focus on home-grown renewables, to reduce our reliance on foreign imports and create a sustainable supply of affordable energy for consumers and businesses alike, always with the intent of improving the lives of our constituents throughout the country and ensuring we are more resilient to changes in the climate.

16:24

Sitting suspended.

Development Projects (Afghanistan)

Wednesday 22nd October 2014 Westminster Hall

16:25

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

Mr Weir, I am grateful to have this opportunity to raise some issues about the role of the Department for International Development with respect to development projects in Afghanistan. If you will allow me, I would like to begin by making some general observations about how DFID conducts its business.

About 9% of DFID’s 2011-12 budget, some £360 million, was given directly to the private sector. Of the 117 major DFID contracts and procurement agreements—worth nearly £750 million between them—published on the Government’s own portal since January 2011, only nine applied to non-UK firms. The reality of aid under the present Administration is that it is an economic development project largely designed, organised and delivered by the private sector. Nearly £500 million spent by DFID in 2011 went to private consultants. Aid has become a lucrative business for consultants, several of whom take home six or seven-figure salaries.

It is worth remembering that in 2001 the UK Government promised to untie aid and that one of the first commitments of the present Government when it came into office was to reaffirm that decision. The coalition pledged that

“We will keep aid untied from commercial interests, and will maintain DfID as an independent department focused on poverty reduction.”

However, the reality today is that large parts of UK aid are being channelled through big multilateral organisations and British commercial firms. The European Network on Debt and Development—Eurodad, as I believe it is called—has noted that developing countries are often little match for firms from big donor countries. In the UK, KPMG—one of DFID’s top contractors—has an entire department dedicated to working with development groups.

With this approach, the UK Government seem to have adopted the model of the US, which unashamedly ties aid to local business opportunities. It is a model that has acquired a rather sullied reputation in the US, as a result of the activities of Halliburton or the behaviour of International Relief and Development, the contractor company.

Interestingly enough, the US has recognised the potential conflicts of interests with contractors and consultants who play multiple roles, the blurring of the lines between profit and non-profit groups and the risk of using contractors who are not subject to proper oversight and discipline. The US acknowledges that there is a stench of corruption in some of its aid channels. However, at the very time when the US is reviewing its approach and has given a commitment to spend at least 30% of its aid money through Government and organisations in developing countries, the UK seems to be heading in the opposite direction.

DFID has set up a unit to focus on private sector development and claims that it will

“help private enterprise work its miracles as the engine of development”.

However, this approach has been criticised by the Independent Commission for Aid Impact, which questions how it can be adopted fairly and effectively. The ICAI argues that staff need clear guidance and a framework within which to

“develop a coherent portfolio of projects that, taken together, effectively support economic growth and poverty reduction”.

The ICAI made those comments as part of its investigations into DFID projects in Bangladesh, Ethiopia and Tanzania, but I believe that I can demonstrate that its concerns about projects in Afghanistan are not very different. The ICAI has argued that the current aid model encourages contractors to focus on short-term targets and quick wins, rather than on helping countries to embark effectively on economic growth and poverty reduction. In effect, it is a “get rich quick” approach for some, but according to the ICAI some of DFID’s private sector projects end up having a negative impact on the very people and places that they are supposed to help.

In the financial year 2011-12, DFID awarded 135 contracts worth a total of £489 million. Five individual contractors secured 50% of that funding. Of course, the model being used permits many contractors to have multiple contracts, and so we see organisations such as Adam Smith International with 28 live contracts, Mott MacDonald with 27 and Coffey International with 20.

When I debated the question of the Bost airfield and agri-park in Afghanistan—a debate in Westminster Hall, as it happens—on 18 March, I asked a number of questions about the contractual arrangements surrounding the Bost development proposals. In her reply to that debate, the Minister—the Under-Secretary of State for International Development, the right hon. Member for Hornsey and Wood Green (Lynne Featherstone)—did not mention the memorandum of understanding that had been signed in mid-February 2011, but I am sure that she must have been familiar with the terms of that agreement and how it limited the capacity of either party to pull out of the project unless it faced a major collapse.

I have looked again at what we know about the Bost project, and I want to press the Minister who is here today to tell me, if he can, what went so drastically wrong in the 22 months from February 2011, when the agreement on the project was signed, and December 2012, when the Secretary of State for International Development says she terminated the project after a visit to Afghanistan. I hope he has some idea of the specific events that led to the termination of the agreement and that he can say a little more today about what led to it. What factors spiralled out of control and forced the Secretary of State to close down the project?

As the Minister will know, the ICAI report on Afghanistan refers to the work on the business park—the Bost agri-park—as being 90% complete, which makes the decision to pull the plug on the project all the more confusing. And what of the Islamic loan product? What has happened to that? Is that more DFID money being written off, or can he give me an update on that project? What has happened to the flexible fund? I understand that it has been transferred, so can he update me on where it has been transferred to? What was the basis of these decisions? Is there any reason why, after two years and with the Department about to embark on a new phase of work in Afghanistan, he is unwilling to clear up some of the questions about what has gone before?

As the Minister will know, the Afghanistan Investment Support Agency, or AISA, issued a statement on its website, in which it said:

“On 9th January 2013, DFID without any rational reason informed AISA that they have decided to stop funding for the development of the first phase of the BABP.”

That is, the Bost agri-business park. The statement continued:

“DFID’s unprofessional team involved in BABP project and their lack of understanding and expertise about its own project arrangements has been surprising”.

That sounds as if our Afghan partners thought that DFID had not behaved very well over this matter.

The Secretary of State has told me repeatedly that she made the decision to end the Bost project after visiting Afghanistan in December 2012, because of a failure of our partners to complete the work and the fact that the project could no longer be considered value for money. However, the outgoing deputy head of mission, Mr Fergus Cochrane-Dyet for the Helmand provincial reconstruction team, wrote to the provincial governor on 8 January 2012, 11 months before the Secretary of State decided to terminate the project, and said:

“We could not obtain the necessary assurances on environmental and land related issues required by the UK to complete responsible construction within a reasonable timeframe. We will stop our involvement in the Park now because the cost to complete the Park exceeds the economic benefits we estimate will follow.”

I want to know, as straightforwardly as possible, whether Mr Cochrane-Dyet is blessed with second sight. Is that how he was able to anticipate the Secretary of State’s decision? Alternatively, does he just not know when he entered and left Afghanistan? Is it just a mistake? It would also be useful to know who the key figure was at the centre of this agreement and the memorandum of understanding.

I understand that the programme director was a Mr Dominic d’Angelo, but the agreement was actually signed by an “acting head”, a Mr Andrew Kidd. There may, of course, be a perfectly simple explanation, but I am curious to know whether Mr d’Angelo’s role as an employee of the consultancy firm Upper Quartile could have had anything to do with it.

The Secretary of State answered my parliamentary question on 11 June 2014, telling me that her Department paid only three consultancy firms directly for work relating to the Bost airfield and agri-park development, none of which were Upper Quartile. However, Upper Quartile’s website mentions its work relating to the Helmand growth fund on behalf of the UK Government and spells out that it has done work in relation to the Bost project:

“the company’s experienced team is reviewing the investment potential—both domestic and international—in the Bost Airfield and Agriculture Park.”

Of course, like many other firms, Upper Quartile is not the beneficiary of just one DFID contract, but several. Again, in June 2013, Upper Quartile was tasked by DFID with providing advisory support to a Minister with a high degree of visibility in the Afghan Government. I know about this because I read it in a news release written by one Dominic d’Angelo, in his capacity as an adviser to Upper Quartile.

Upper Quartile seems to be a very important contractor for DFID. Mr d’Angelo went to Kabul in 2009 as a DFID employee then went on to serve as a ministerial adviser to Ministry of Rural Rehabilitation and Development, and then as a senior adviser to Minister Amin Arsala. But in 2011 he was still working for DFID as the man in charge of DFID’s Afghanistan growth and livelihoods team, responsible for at least £150 million of taxpayers’ money. At least two other prominent Upper Quartile employees who appear on its website also seem to have been DFID employees.

The Minister will know that I have tried to indulge my curiosity on these matters by submitting some freedom of information requests. On 16 January, I asked whether I might have a copy of the appraisal report produced by Upper Quartile consultants on the Bost agri-park. The Department replied that the report was being withheld under regulation 12(4), as the material is still in the course of completion and contains unfinished documents. The project was closed down by the Secretary of State in December 2012. Is the Minister saying that the report is still material in the course of completion and an unfinished document?

In September 2013, I submitted an FOI request and asked whether I could see a report in relation to a contract won by the Mott MacDonald consultancy firm, which covers an impact assessment and extensive planning regarding the Bost airfield and agricultural business park programme. I was told that the request was being refused under regulations 12(3) and 13(2), as the Department believed that letting me have this report would involve releasing details that would breach the legitimate expectation of an individual’s right to protection of personal information. Naturally, I am not clear what personal information was involved. I was asking to see a report on planning and an impact assessment. The request was also refused on the grounds that it was unfinished material. Will the Minister confirm today that he still regards it as unfinished material? When might it become finished material?

I am aware of at least three consultant reports on the Bost airfield and agri-park project, two of which the Department has refused to let me see and a third, by Coffey International consultancy group in July 2010, which says:

“Bost park represents a high risk investment that has a high risk of financial failure.”

Naturally, I can only speculate about what the other two appraisals say and how so much of our money continued to be committed to this project.

DFID’s own website, “Development Tracker”, says that only £2.7 million of taxpayers’ money was spent on the airfield and business park, yet a Minister—a different Minister, I should say—told me in response to a question in October 2013 that a total of £8.42 million was spent on the airfield and business park programme. How do we account for the additional £5.7 million? Will he tell me exactly what the £2.7 million was spent on and what the remaining £5.7 million was spent on? How much of it went on consultancy fees and which companies and/or individuals were the beneficiaries?

I understand that Mott MacDonald, as well as producing a Bost consultancy report, was contracted to develop the engineering design for the park and training for the Helmand-based businesses, and that it in turn subcontracted part of this work to Monic & Monic Consulting, to provide capacity-building training for local businesses. It is alleged that Monic & Monic then charged local businesses for writing a business plan: the allegation is that it was paid twice. Is the Minister familiar with this accusation and has it been investigated? Will he say today that he will investigate it? Can he say categorically that these allegations play no part in the Department’s decision to give so little information about these companies, their contracts and the termination plan?

The Independent Commission for Aid Impact’s report of March 2014 was less than flattering about DFID’s efforts in Afghanistan. It cites

“examples that include weak component design and assessment for the Bost Agri-Business Park, the Flexible Fund, the hybrid Sharia-compliant loan product and the biomass project, all of which were ultimately cancelled or transferred to other programmes.”

It accuses DFID of indulging in over-ambitious and complex programme design and of a lack of consultation with intended beneficiaries. Indeed, the report points out that the more ambitious and multifaceted the projects, the less successful they were, and that even where projects are deemed as successful, it is not clear how long the positive impacts will be sustained.

The review covers the effectiveness of DFID’s bilateral growth and livelihood projects, which account for approximately 30% of DFlD’s annual aid budget in Afghanistan.

The ICAI report makes some key recommendations and I should be interested to hear the Minister’s view of them. It says that DFID needs to review formally current and future projects and focus its portfolio more firmly on reducing poverty, using evidence-based interventions. Does he intend to take that advice? It says that DFID should ensure that the intended beneficiaries are, as far as is practicable, directly consulted when new projects are being designed. How will he respond to that challenge? Can he confirm today that it is still the Department’s intention to proceed with a major project on tackling violence against women and girls in Afghanistan? Can he say more about how that project is proceeding and what companies and/or organisations are involved? Who has been consulted to date?

ICAI also says that DFID should enhance its approach and commitment to independent monitoring to assess current and future project performance, and to allow proper assessment of the impact of the programmes. How does the Minister intend to address that?

There is an unpleasant smell about some of DFID’s dealings in Afghanistan; the same names and companies appear too often. The British public puts a high value on aid to developing countries, but they expect that money to be invested in health and education programmes, and in investment that helps local people to improve their own economy and living standards. It should not be a get-rich-quick scheme for a privileged few. We need more transparency and more evidence of value for money for the British taxpayer.

16:49

[The Minister of State, Department for International Development (Mr Desmond Swayne)]

I last visited Afghanistan in 1976, when it was a very different place. I had the pleasure, and indeed the liberty, to hire a horse and ride round the lakes of Band-e Amir and to visit the standing Buddhas at Bamiyan, since destroyed by the Taliban, all entirely on my own and entirely safely. Of course, things have changed dramatically since those days. The British taxpayer has shed treasure and British soldiers, sailors and airmen have given their lives and shed much blood in attempting to return Afghanistan to some form of stability. Perhaps those days will come again.

Afghanistan is one of the poorest countries in the world and, after 30 years of warfare, we have the extraordinary situation where the average lifespan is only 49 years. One third of the population lives on less than 70p a day. Barely one in three is literate and able to read and write, and one child in 10 dies before their fifth birthday. It is unlikely that, or rather, it is certain that Afghanistan will not meet any of the millennium development goals before 2020. That is why we believe it is right that we should have a lasting commitment as a partner to Afghanistan for the long term. Our aim is to deliver 71,000 jobs for people in Afghanistan and to provide primary education for 5.4 million people, with 40% of the places for girls. We want to assist, and we provide important technical assistance on the public finances and to address corruption, strengthen basic services and fundamentally improve the lives of women, as well as providing resilience for the country in the face of natural disasters, given that it is situated in earthquake zones and subject to those dangers.

The focus of much of our development has been on the rural economy and providing for the distribution of goods and access to markets. Since 2002, we have been the largest donor to the World Bank’s Afghanistan reconstruction trust fund. I should point out to the hon. Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Steve McCabe) that about half our aid to Afghanistan is channelled through the World Bank to provide basic services to people. The achievements of the Afghanistan reconstruction trust fund include the delivery of some 9,321 miles of road, benefiting some 6 million people.

We also support the infrastructure trust fund, which provides finance for power. As a result—this is among the other achievements of that fund—some 30% of households are now on the electricity grid. We also contribute to the comprehensive agriculture and rural development facility, which tackles obstacles to rural development, increasing productivity, encouraging value-added production and improving rural incomes. It has delivered some 6,663 jobs, of which 1,977 have been for women. It has increased incomes by some £2 million, delivered 800 small farms and 250 greenhouses, and provided for canals and reservoirs. The next phase of the project begins this year, with an even more ambitious target of 13,000 jobs and an increment to incomes of some £88 million.

We are presented with an enormous opportunity by the political developments in Afghanistan with the new Ghani regime, and we will be hosting a conference in London in December to catalyse on that. The conference was originally conceived as a technical catch-up on the conference that took place in Tokyo to try to keep Afghanistan up to the mark in delivering its side of the development bargain, by reducing corruption and living up to our expectations on probity. The situation has fundamentally changed with the Ghani regime and his welcome appointment of his main presidential rival as Chief Executive Officer, or, to all extents and purposes, as Prime Minister—although the Afghanistan constitution does not have a role of Prime Minister, that is the nearest comparison by which to paraphrase that role. He has put his rival in that role and announced by presidential decree a reopening of the investigation into the plundering of the Kabul Bank in 2012.

[Steve McCabe]

The Minister is making a fascinating, upbeat speech, but we are a bit like ships passing in the night. Given that it does not sound as though he will be able to address the points I have raised, I ask him to look at what I said and give me a thorough written response.

[Mr Swayne]

If the hon. Gentleman will allow me, I will come to his points, but the title of the debate entitles me to put on record the policy of the Department and the achievements we have made and seek to make. With respect to the opportunity that is now opening up, it is time to re-engage with Afghanistan in the London conference in December, which will provide an opportunity for the new Afghan regime to lay its cards on the table and show its commitment to reform. The conference will provide us with the opportunity to restate our long-term commitment to Afghanistan, notwithstanding our withdrawal from the combat role.

The hon. Gentleman has raised the issue of the Bost development before. On account of that and the 40 parliamentary questions that he has tabled on the matter, I took some trouble before this debate to look into what he clearly sees as a conspiracy of silence to conceal information from him. Given the number of questions and the new information he has presented today, he is right: I will not be able to address them all in this debate, although I will attempt to address as many as I can.

My immediate reaction on having read his earlier Westminster Hall debate was to think, “Is there a conspiracy?” As a fellow Member of the House—and one who served under his chairmanship in that famous private Bill Committee—I say to the hon. Gentleman that while it may smell rotten to him, I am of the belief that there is nothing rotten here. However, given what he has said today, I will of course go away and look at it again. I make a genuine offer to him. I know how frustrating it must be to try to elicit information through parliamentary questions, only to get a glacial increase or increment or a step back with each one, but I am more than happy to pursue this matter through correspondence. I will be as open as I can.

I am glad that the hon. Gentleman has made good use of the Department’s website. We believe in transparency and making things public, with respect to freedom of information requests. Will the report ever be finished? I am afraid the answer is: “No, it won’t.” As I understand it, the reason the report he referred to has not been released is because it was a draft report.

[Steve McCabe]

Reports.

[Mr Swayne]

They were draft reports. DFID had no intention of proceeding with the scope covered in those reports. We were for carrying forward a much smaller project. The hon. Gentleman also asked about the memorandum of understanding. My understanding is that—

17:00

Sitting adjourned without Question put (Standing Order No. 10(13)).

Written Statements

Wednesday 22nd October 2014 Written Statements

Wednesday 22 October 2014

Protection of Charities Bill (Draft)

Wednesday 22nd October 2014 Written Statements

[The Minister for Civil Society (Mr Rob Wilson)]

I wish to inform the House of the publication in draft of the Protection of Charities Bill, for pre-legislative scrutiny.

Charities are at the heart of our civil society, performing many vital functions for the benefit of others, often the most needy or vulnerable. The proposed changes in the draft Protection of Charities Bill will support the overwhelming majority of charities and the hundreds of thousands of people who volunteer as charity trustees, by protecting public trust and confidence in charities and their effective regulation by the Charity Commission. While the vast majority of charities are doing vital and often inspirational work, there is a very small minority who seek to abuse charity. It is important that the regulator has the right tools to ensure effective regulation.

The draft Bill contains provisions that would extend the powers of the Charity Commission to effectively regulate the charity sector. It follows a public consultation on a range of measures, proposed by the Charity Commission itself, the majority of which have been taken forward in the draft Bill. Consultation feedback has helped refine the proposals and a summary of consultation feedback has been published alongside the draft Bill.

We are publishing the Bill for pre-legislative scrutiny in order to ensure that Parliament can review the scope and extent of the Charity Commission’s regulatory powers before we seek to legislate. The Government look forward to the conclusions and recommendations arising from pre-legislative scrutiny.

Gifting of Equipment (Afghanistan)

Wednesday 22nd October 2014 Written Statements

[The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr Philip Hammond)]

The Foreign and Commonwealth Office has today laid a departmental minute proposing a gift to the Government of Afghanistan.

The UK is committed to developing counter-terrorism capability in Afghanistan in furtherance of the Government’s counter-terrorism (CT) objectives under CONTEST. As part of this approach, the UK assists key partner nations to develop effective and sustainable counter-terrorism capabilities which operate in line with agreed international human rights standards. By helping countries to undertake CT activities locally, it targets the problem at source and reduces the risk of a terrorist attack against that nation or another.

Afghanistan remains a top priority for the Government. Post 2014 it will remain one of the poorest and most insecure countries in the world. We remain concerned that terrorist groups based in the federally administered tribal areas (FATA) are re-establishing a presence in Afghanistan, and that the threat to the UK mainland will not decrease in the short term.

We have been running three projects which aim to develop the capability of operational units within the Afghan national security forces (ANSF) to tackle the Afghan insurgency by conducting human rights compliant CT operations. As part of these projects the MOD procured equipment over a number of years from 2009 to use with Afghan units. The equipment is currently in Afghanistan.

The proposal is for the MOD to gift the equipment to the Afghan National Directorate of Security (NDS) and Ministry of Interior (MOI) to allow these units to continue to reduce the terrorist threat once international security assistance forces withdraw from Afghanistan at the end of 2014. The package of gifting and training will provide the ANSF with a valuable and sustainable capability to deal with the threat.

The original total cost was approximately £6 million, and an approximate estimate of the current value is £0.4 million.

The proposed gift has been assessed and approved against the consolidated EU and national arms export licensing criteria. The projects, including information on the equipment to be procured, were approved by the cross-HMG programme boards, which confirmed that they fit with the Government’s strategic and delivery objectives. MOD officials also assessed the projects in 2013 for human rights risks using the overseas security and justice assistance guidelines.

The Treasury has approved the proposal in principle. If, during the period of 14 parliamentary sitting days beginning on the date on which the minute was laid, a Member signifies an objection by giving notice of a parliamentary question or of a motion in relation to the minute, or by otherwise raising the matter in the House, final approval of the gift will be withheld pending an examination of the objection.

Explanatory Notes for Bills and Acts: Pilot Scheme

Wednesday 22nd October 2014 Written Statements

[The First Secretary of State and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr William Hague)]

The Armed Forces (Service Complaints and Financial Assistance) Bill [Lords] has been passed by the House of Lords and was introduced in this House yesterday. The accompanying explanatory notes to this Bill pilot a new format which is easier to navigate and works better with online content. The notes now include:

A table of contents

A grid showing the application of each part of the Bill to each part of the United Kingdom

A shoulder note to the explanation of each clause and schedule showing the application of the provision to each part of the United Kingdom

An explanation of both the policy and legal backgrounds, along with a summary of the existing law

An explanation of the financial implications of the Bill and of the need for a money resolution

Links to relevant policy documents

An explanation of how the measures in the Bill will be commenced

The new format follows on from a review of explanatory notes which was conducted by the Cabinet Office and the Office of the Parliamentary Counsel as part of the Good Law project. In support of this work officials met with a variety of stakeholders and conducted an online survey which obtained views from within and beyond Parliament. The results of this survey have been placed in the Library of the House.

A full evaluation of this pilot will be conducted following its completion and any feedback on the new format should be delivered to my office or to [e-mail].

Grand Committee

Wednesday 22nd October 2014 Grand Committee

Wednesday, 22 October 2014.

Consumer Rights Bill

Wednesday 22nd October 2014 Grand Committee

Committee (4th Day)

15:40

[The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness McIntosh of Hudnall) (Lab)]

Good afternoon, my Lords. I remind the Committee that, in the event of a Division or Divisions in the Chamber, the Committee will adjourn for 10 minutes from the sound of the Division Bell.

Clause 48: Contracts covered by this Chapter

Amendment 45

Moved by

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe]

45: Clause 48, page 30, line 8, leave out “contract for which there is no consideration” and insert “gratuitous contract”

Amendment 45 agreed.

Amendment 46

Moved by

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe]

46: Clause 48, page 30, line 14, at end insert—
“(5A) The power in subsection (5) includes power to provide that a provision of this Chapter does not apply in relation to a service of a description specified in the order in the circumstances so specified.”

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Business, Innovation and Skills (Baroness Neville-Rolfe)]

My Lords, this amendment clarifies that, when the power in subsection (5) of Clause 48 is used, the statutory instrument made under it can provide that an exclusion only applies to a service in the circumstances specified in the order. The amendment therefore enables a more precise or limited exercise of the power where this would be more appropriate. I beg to move.

[Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for introducing the amendment. Perhaps I could just take a brief moment to wish my noble friend Lady King a happy birthday today—it is always very nice to spend it in this way.

Our only query, picking up on the Minister’s use of the word “clarifies”, is whether the amendment clarifies the existing law or whether it extends it to enable the Government to cherry-pick, if you like, the provisions in this Bill so that they would not affect a particular service. As the Minister will understand, the Legal Services Consumer Panel and the Financial Services Consumer Panel are slightly worried that the power provides the possibility to carve out some legal services from being covered by the Bill, especially as—although I am sure that it was unrelated to this—the Minister’s helpful explanatory letter cited the equivalent power to exclude arbitrators from the scope of legal services legislation. Given that worry by consumer representatives about whether this might be aimed at particular consumer areas, if it is possible for the Minister to expand on what sort of circumstances she has in mind that this power might be needed for, that might allay people’s concerns.

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe]

My Lords, perhaps I can explain the general intention and then see whether we can clarify the point that has been raised about legal services. Our intention is that this power will not be used regularly. It is designed to accommodate certain services where it would not be appropriate to apply all or some of the provisions of Chapter 4. While the power is designed to be rarely used, we want it to be able to be used when it is needed. We are therefore proposing this amendment. The amendment clarifies that the statutory instrument can provide that an exclusion only applies to a service in the circumstances specified in the order. It therefore enables a more precise or limited exercise of the power where this would be more appropriate.

We plan to consider each case on its merits and the decision will be on a case-by-case basis. For example, we would want to consider the costs and benefits to both businesses and consumers. Let me reassure you also that any use of the power would be subject to parliamentary scrutiny, as an order made under it will be subject to the affirmative resolution procedure. Because this is an enabling power, it is difficult for me to comment on specific areas, but our broad intentions are as I have outlined.

[Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town]

My Lords, I think that probably goes even further, if I have understood the Minister correctly, as it makes more specific what might be excluded. My guess would be that this would be reassuring to the groups that have contacted me and, in that case, we will be happy to support the amendment.

Amendment 46 agreed.

Clause 48, as amended, agreed.

Clause 49: Service to be performed with reasonable care and skill

Amendment 46A

Moved by

[Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town]

46A: Clause 49, page 30, line 23, at end insert—
“( ) In assessing whether the service has been performed with reasonable care and skill, any claim made by the trader as to the outcome the service will achieve must be taken into consideration.”

[Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town]

My Lords, I rise to move Amendment 48A.

[The Deputy Chairman of Committees]

Let me just clarify that the noble Baroness is moving Amendment 46A. She said “Amendment 48A”.

[Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town]

I was just checking that the Chair is awake. I rise to move Amendment 46A in my name and that of my noble friend, Lord Stevenson. We have given him the day off today, so I fear that you are going to hear rather a lot of my voice.

Amendment 46A is, of course, of central importance to users of services, as it would ensure that they have access to the remedies laid out in the Bill, should a service fail to deliver on the promised or anticipated outcome. The amendment would bring the regime for services into line with that for goods and digital content. That is important for the clarity of the Bill, but it would also ensure that the Bill lives up to what customers expect, which is that a service should do what it is supposed to do, rather than being measured simply on whether the service provider used “reasonable care and skill”.

The amendment would also do what the BIS Select Committee in another place recommended, which is that the Bill should apply an outcomes-based standard to how we measure services. Thus, whether a service has been satisfactorily delivered should be measured against what it was meant to do, not the attributes of the provider.

We might note that the Solicitors Regulation Authority has moved to outcomes-based regulation. It places the emphasis not simply on compliance with rules, but on achieving the required outcome for clients. Many of the excuses given for the Bill not adopting this outcomes-based standard have cited lawyers, but they are the very people who have accepted that standard. Given that we have these very welcome statutory remedies in the Bill for substandard services, we fear that they will not properly protect consumers if they only test whether the trader exercised reasonable care and skill, with no consideration of the outcome.

Let us take the example of a householder getting their windows cleaned. Were the windows cleaned properly? No, but the company said it used reasonable care and skill, so the customer may have no remedy for the late arrival of the window-cleaner, one window overlooked or a few smears left on the door. They would have no chance of a price reduction, or even a rewash, as the firm used skilled window-cleaners who said that they took reasonable care.

With many services, particularly those provided by the professions, it would be difficult, if not impossible, for a client to prove that the service had not been performed with reasonable care and skill, even when it is very obvious that the result is unsatisfactory. Furthermore, I understand that there is no general definition of “reasonable care and skill”, so we will have to await case law in due course to set out what will be taken into consideration when judging whether a service has met the required standard. It will be hard for the consumer to know, therefore, whether they have the right to a remedy if they are not satisfied with a job. By contrast, a professional trader or service provider is far more likely to know, and therefore be able to advise in advance, what outcome can be anticipated. It is, after all, the outcome that matters to the customer.

The organisation Which? told us that the majority of complaints it sees are about services, particularly about broadband, mobile phones and energy. Its research showed that consumers do not feel well protected when they are buying services and they are not confident that they will be treated fairly. Indeed, one-third of the consumers who failed to complain even when unsatisfied did not bother to do so because they simply did not believe that anything would be done. They have no knowledge of how a satisfactory service is to be measured at the moment, nor would they under the Bill.

Amendment 46A would also address the problem that, without it, the Bill sets two different standards for goods and services—that goods must be “of satisfactory quality” whereas services need be delivered only with “reasonable care and skill”. Perhaps we can revert to a discussion that we had earlier in Committee of the sort of transactions in which both those elements are involved. For example, our kitchen is purchased as a good, but its installation is a service. Surely, it would be to the advantage of both the consumer and the trader if the definition of what is satisfactory was the same for both. Also earlier in Committee we discussed botched plumbing and the problems of divvying up the elements of the contract. That would be made even worse if different standards applied to the different parts of the final service. So, just as we may not know whether the flooding of the kitchen has been caused by a faulty sink or by poor installation, it will be even harder if the test on the reasonable outcome, if there was a leak, is different for the two elements of goods and service.

In another place, the Government claimed that Clause 50 requires traders to comply with any information that they have given before the contract started and that, therefore, the concept of outcome is embedded in the legislation. However, that contract may well not specify outcomes in the terms of, “Well, we’ll install a bath and taps such that water flows into the bath rather than down the side of the bath and on to the floor”. No consumer is going to check whether the pre-work contract specifies such expectations, which they rather take for granted. They may read very carefully, for example, whether the old bath is to be taken away, but they will hardly check that the plumbing and the electrics will work and that the place will be left clean and tidy afterwards. Yet these are reasonable expectations to have of a service.

Amendment 46A places the consumer’s experience of the service—that is, its outcome—as a part of the definition of satisfaction rather than its simply being a matter of the provider’s claim to have used skill and care. I beg to move.

[Baroness Drake (Lab)]

My Lords, I support Amendment 46A, which covers a matter that I raised in Second Reading. The Government’s reasoning in strengthening consumer law through this Bill is that empowered consumers will make markets work more effectively and drive economic growth. However, I fear that the failure in this Bill to align the statutory rights of the consumer as between the sale of goods and the sale of services will weaken the protection of the consumer and result in less efficient markets in the provision of services.

As we know, goods supplied must be “of satisfactory quality” whereas services have to meet only a requirement of being provided with “reasonable care and skill”. In effect, the standard for services is based on fault rather than on satisfactory quality, as my noble friend Lady Hayter said, which is an outcome measure. It may prove more difficult for consumers to prove that a service has not been provided with reasonable care and skill because the focus is on the way in which the service was carried out rather than the quality of the end product. So there will still be many circumstances in which the consumer has not received what they paid for but will not be entitled to a remedy because the trader has exercised “reasonable care and skill”, because that measure focuses on compliance rather than on outcomes. That is a two-tiered standard of approach to consumer protection, and this amendment goes some way towards trying to address that problem.

In certain sectors and markets, the asymmetry of knowledge and understanding between trader and consumer is extensive—we know that. It should be remembered that the scale number of complaints come from consumers in sectors such as energy, broadband, mobile phones and—a sector close to my heart—financial services. Furthermore, the challenge of inertia and consumer behavioural bias, with which we are all familiar, can be used quite systematically by some service providers to deliver a poorer service or sustain profitable inefficiencies. That strengthens the need for consumer protection. However, I feel that in this Bill there is a lost opportunity by constraining to “reasonable care and skill” the statutory standard in respect of the provision of services.

16:00

In financial services, evidence frequently demonstrates that, while the provision of services may comply with the regulatory requirements, the products supplied often fall short of delivering a desirable quality for the consumer. It is a persistent problem in that sector. A reliance wholly on “reasonable care and skill” will not address the mis-selling or the poor product design problems that have persisted in the financial sector. It is not the absence of care and skill that causes these problems; something else goes wrong—something such as conflict of interest, complexity or lack of transparency, any one of which leads to consumer detriment. Because the onus is not on the service provider to deliver a satisfactory outcome, there is protective clothing for the provider in merely adhering to the regulatory rules.

I quote John Kay in his review. He criticised FCA rules as falling,

“materially below the standards necessary to establish the trust”, and “confidence”.

That was a review commissioned by the Government. He may have been looking at a particular part of the financial sector, but there was a sort of generic message in that observation that that kind of approach to rules compliance without a focus on the outcome is not going to deliver effectively for the consumer.

The Government argue that an outcomes-based quality standard for services exposes the trader to too much risk but that can be qualified by reference to the “reasonable expectations” of the consumer. Whether something is of satisfactory quality is an objective test based on what was agreed, the price paid and what a reasonable person would expect in the circumstances. Such a test would—and, indeed, it should—be in large part reflective of best practice. It should not be considered a burden to business to deliver to a satisfactory quality; otherwise, the danger is that the Government are in effect arguing that, for business to operate, it is necessary to build inefficiencies into the service market.

I was reading up on some of the Which? briefings in preparation for today. People, employing common sense, often know best. The Which? research showed that consumers do not generally feel well protected when they purchase services. The research identified that 31% of consumers who failed to complain when they were unsatisfied with a service did so because they did not believe that anything would be done. Amendment 46A starts to address the weaknesses of having this two-tier approach to statutory standards for goods and services.

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe]

My Lords, this is the first time that I have taken to the Floor during discussions on the services chapter of the Bill. Before I respond to the points and examples that the noble Baronesses, Lady Hayter and Lady Drake, have made, I shall set the scene just a little.

Services are a vital part of our economy, and we all use many services ourselves as consumers. This chapter therefore clarifies and enhances consumer rights and remedies when contracting with traders for the provision of services. In particular, for the first time, we are setting out in statute what remedies consumers are entitled to request if traders breach their statutory rights. To respond to the noble Baroness, Lady Drake, this is an important change as it will give traders and consumers more confidence and certainty when contracting with each other. These provisions are a necessary and important addition to the consumer law framework; I do not think that we disagree on that.

Which? has told us that,

“consumers have long been under-protected by the consumer protection rules applicable to service contracts”.

Indeed, I am glad to mention Which? as I remember talking to people there, about 15 years ago, on the need to shift the focus of their work to services as much as goods because of the change in what was of concern to consumers. Of course, it is now very well informed and helpful on services.

I look forward to debating the whole chapter with your Lordships, as there are a number of amendments, but perhaps I may turn to Amendment 46A. I agree with your Lordships that, where a consumer purchases a service because the trader says that it will have a certain outcome, it is disappointing and frustrating for the consumer if that does not materialise. I believe that we have addressed this issue to an appropriate extent in the Bill. Where a trader makes a claim about a service and the consumer decides to purchase that service based on that claim, Clause 50—which we will come to—gives that consumer a right that the service must comply with that claim. That could include information about the outcome of the service, if the consumer took it into account when deciding to buy that service. If the service does not comply with the information, the consumer has statutory remedies available.

Given this protection, we do not consider it appropriate or necessary to alter the standard of performing a service with “reasonable care and skill” under Clause 49. The noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, was concerned that we needed to wait for case law on this standard, but I reassure her that the test of reasonable care and skill is already well established in law. By referring to reasonable care and skill, the text has flexibility to apply to the range of services which it covers. The level of care and skill required in a given case will depend on the circumstances. This is important. In many cases, a service will not be performed with reasonable care and skill if it does not fit with information that the trader has given about the outcome.

Consider, for example, a painter who claims to be able to steam-proof your bathroom walls and whom you engage, as you want to maintain your bathroom decor. If the bathroom is not steam-proof at the end, the painter may have failed to exercise reasonable care and skill in selecting appropriate materials and applying them. But, as was seen in the other place, not every claim about an outcome will be relevant to the care and skill that it is reasonable for a trader to exercise. For example, a personal training service might claim to help you run a marathon in eight weeks’ time, but whether that is successful will depend on your will-power and efforts, as well as on the service itself. Nor will every claim about an outcome be taken into account by a consumer.

The noble Baronesses, Lady Hayter and Lady Drake, asked why our treatment of services was not the same as that for goods. As part of the consultations that we did, the Government asked for comments on additional proposals to move the services regime closer to the regime for goods, through introducing an outcomes-based satisfactory quality standard for certain services to property. Comments received on this issue revealed a wide range of views and brought out the complexities of making such a change. We have since sought further evidence on what the impact of such a change would be. Our analysis of what evidence we could find is that there appears to be no high, unambiguous net benefit for consumers, while there would be obvious costs for businesses.

The noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, was also concerned that a consumer could have difficulty in challenging a skilled trader—for example, a window-cleaner. The standard in the Bill is that the trader should use “reasonable care and skill” in carrying out the work. If windows are cleaned but the trader leaves some mess or misses a window then, although skilled, that trader may not have used reasonable care.

The noble Baroness, Lady Drake, spoke about financial services and cited the distinguished economist John Kay. However, we have a great deal of other protections in financial regulations. Having studied this carefully, I believe that financial matters are, on the whole, best dealt with in financial regulations. With your Lordships’ permission, we will be debating the issue on later amendments.

I hope that I have reassured your Lordships that Clause 50 means that claims by the trader about the service, which can include the outcome, have to be complied with if the trader took them into account. I therefore ask that the amendment be withdrawn.

[Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town]

My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness. She said that today was her first time speaking on this matter, so perhaps I may report that, in an earlier meeting, an extremely senior lawyer asked me whether lawyers are going to be classed as traders, because that is what they are called in the Bill. He was very surprised when I said that, yes, I think that they probably will be in this regard. Perhaps the Minister could clarify whether that is the case.

I thank my noble friend Lady Drake, who, as usual, makes the case much better than I could. It is in the financial sector where issues such as conflict of interest or lack of transparency, which would not be covered by skill and care, could affect the outcome that would not be included in any measure under the Bill. I am disappointed that the Minister reiterated what her colleague said in the other place: that Clause 50 provides that “any information given” would cover this. As I suggested, we are talking about other assumptions that may not have been written into the contract. The issue of whether the windows are clean is, it seems to me, an important measure.

We did not ask to move to a completely outcomes-based measure, but we asked simply that it should be taken into account in how we measure skill and care. We feel strongly about this, and it is one issue to be brought back, but for the moment I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 46A withdrawn.

Amendment 46B

Moved by

[Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town]

46B: Clause 49, page 30, line 23, at end insert—
“( ) In every contract to supply a service, traders who are ring-fenced bodies providing financial services as defined under section 142A of the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 (ring-fenced body) shall be subject to—
(a) a fiduciary duty towards its consumers in the operation of core services to provide these with reasonable care and skill as well as in the management of any individual contract to provide services; and(b) a duty of care towards consumers across the financial services sector.”

[Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town]

My Lords, in moving the amendment in the names of my noble friend Lord Stevenson and myself—I do not think that I have to declare this as an interest, as it was rather a long time ago—I should say that I cannot help but bring to this debate my experience on the Financial Services Consumer Panel, where I am afraid we witnessed countless examples of financial providers acting completely without the fiduciary duty towards their customers, despite what the law said at the time. What subsequently became evident during the crash—which, I remind the Government, was not caused by the Labour Government and was not started in the United Kingdom, but was caused by the banks—was that they had also failed to exercise any duty of care towards consumers across the sector that the industry was supposed to serve.

I shall cite only a couple of examples; my noble friend Lady Drake may have others to offer. The ones that I was involved with at the time were interest-only mortgages, self-cert mortgages, high loan-to-value mortgages and high loan-to-income mortgages. I am not talking here of the mass mis-selling of PPI or endowment mortgages; this was about selling products to people without putting their interests first—indeed, probably in the full knowledge that, should circumstances change, those people would have no way of repaying their loans. More than that, as the number of those reckless loans added up to a torrent, once unleashed, that hurt not just the individual borrower but a far wider group of consumers whose house prices fell and future loans dried up or repayment terms became unsustainable.

16:15

Amendment 46B would ensure that financial services have a duty of care to their consumers collectively, as well as on a one-to-one basis for their clients. I know that the law has said that that duty of care across the financial services exists, but the Government have resisted writing it down in legislation and have relied only on case law. That duty of care would help prevent the financial services risking future crises through greed because it would extend the Bill’s duty of acting with “reasonable care and skill”—using the Government’s wording—to the financial industry. The first part of the amendment would establish a fiduciary duty that would demand a higher standard of care for direct consumers, and the second part would extend that general duty to all consumers across the sector.

In the Commons, the Government claimed that banks are already subject to duties to their consumers and that they are also subject to fiduciary duties and regulatory obligations. However, that is clearly not known to the industry, and it is certainly not experienced by consumers who are still liable to unethical sales practices. We saw in the interest rate swaps for small businesses, more recently than the crash, that these things continue to happen.

The Committee will know that confidence in this sector remains dangerously low. It seems, therefore, that we have to do something to try to give back confidence to consumers that this sector really will act in their interests. This Bill gives us the opportunity to do that. It will improve standards in financial services and have those rights set out in what, after all, will be called the Consumer Rights Act, which is where consumers can look to find out what they might expect from a provider. I beg to move.

[The Earl of Lytton (CB)]

My Lords, I had not intended to intervene and before doing so I ought to explain that, as a latecomer to the issues in this Bill, I have various interests to declare, not least in this instance that I am a chartered surveyor and, by dint of my professional activities, a registered valuer.

I pick up the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, in connection with negative equity, for example, and I think of the circumstances that arose when the wheels, if I can term it thus, came off the banking situation and mortgage lending in 2008. That resulted in the mortgage lenders—I will not say to a man, but certainly in large numbers—pointing the finger at valuer members of my profession. I should make it clear that the mortgage lenders select whom they will have on their panel of valuers, they set out the form in which the report is to be made, they determine the fee and the timescale over which the report will be produced and, in the past, they have not been averse to leaning on members of my profession if they think that not enough money is being lent or the volume is not enough, because they are looking retrospectively at what are provable data from concluded evidence in the market.

It is my experience that mortgage lenders and banks generally are very adroit at passing the buck back to members of my profession. I do not set out to defend property valuers from whatever mistakes they might make. However, I counsel caution because there are some very big players who are very in tune with passing back to some other sector what would otherwise be their duty of care to the consumer. I will be developing aspects of this when we get to my amendments.

I wonder how one can ring-fence out the question of what we might call the contractor or the service provider and their subcontractor arrangements in those circumstances. I do not have a solution to this issue. Professional bodies, such as the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors, are there for the purposes of providing education, continuing professional development and ensuring the ethical conduct of their members. The RICS is not a consumer protection organisation as such, nor does it have the ability to scrutinise and quality control the hundreds of thousands of different reports and valuations that are being produced by its members. This is a matter of concern because of the net result that occurs.

The Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors introduced a valuer registration scheme—and I am a registered valuer—in response to the very large number of claims that have been made against valuer members of the RICS following 2008. Quite a number of people who were previously in that field have left it. As a result, the cost of getting regulated purpose valuations has fallen to fewer people and costs have gone up. That has reduced competition and increased costs. I am not sure that that is in anybody’s long-term interest—certainly not if, as we now perceive, the market might be subject to a revitalisation. We need this volume: we need those willing persons to come forward and do this valuation work.

So I counsel caution. As I said before, I do not have a solution, but I hope that perhaps the Minister will be able to throw some light on that.

[Baroness Drake]

My Lords, I support Amendment 46B. I have spoken frequently on the issue of fiduciary duty and the strengthening of the duty of care in the financial services sector, and I suspect there are some other pieces of legislation and changes taking place where I may deliver the same emotive plea. I feel that Governments—I stress “Governments”—consistently fail to address the systemic challenge that exists in the financial services market.

I was looking up some old debates, reminding myself how I can iterate at great length about my concerns on standards of duty in the financial services sector. I turned to the speech that the noble Lord, Lord Turner, made when we debated the Pensions Bill that came through the House earlier this year. At that time he had just ceased to be chair of the FSA. I knew from the past that he had had reasonably strong views about the efficiencies or inefficiencies of the financial market. When I reread it yesterday, I remembered the power of his remarks when he referred to,

“the fundamental inefficiency of the market … It is a system absolutely shot through with market failure where the process of trying to provide in a competitive fashion simply does not work well”.—[Official Report, 15/1/14; col. GC160.]

That is why the argument for strengthening the duty of care and fiduciary duty in the financial services sector is so compelling. There have been so many recent reports on different sections of the financial services sector which have identified parts of the market that could not be expected to self-remedy and there is an urgent need to strengthen the position of the consumer and to intrude.

I welcome the strengthenings in the Bill, but there is still an avoidance of strengthening the duty, particularly in the financial services sector, towards the consumer. Parts of the sector are characterised by systemic conflicts of interest. We have complexities that are debated endlessly in both Houses. We have asymmetry of knowledge and understanding and inertia and behavioural bias in the customer. Those all combine to build inefficiencies in the financial services market that are profitable to the provider but detrimental to the consumer. Regulatory reliance on compliance with rules, rather than placing responsibility on the financial service provider to act in the consumer’s interests, consistently fails to deliver not only for the consumer but for the economy as a whole. The financial sector is such a large part of that economy. If that sector has market inefficiencies, that is a pretty large chunk of the economy as a whole.

I frequently say to myself, “How many reports on failure in the financial services market do the Government have to receive before they do not just write another set of rules?” They have a game changer in terms of the rules of the game. How many considered views, such as those from the Kay review or the Law Commission, do they need before the Government accept that a strengthened duty of care is needed in this sector? My noble friend Lady Hayter said, shortly before we came into the Moses Room, “I hope you have lots of examples, Jeannie”. I thought, “If I go down that road, I could entertain the Committee for about four hours”.

Let me headline some of them. There are excessive foreign exchange charges when investing in assets overseas. There are heavy exit charges from financial contracts, which will be a big issue given the new freedom for pensions when people trot along to say, “Can I have my cash please?”, and get slapped down. The Government have identified that as a problem, but it is still there. There are hidden investment charges. Not all investment products are pensions; plenty are not and they will not all be covered by the new quality standards in the pensions Bill. A lot of transfers will take place; transfer charges are unlikely to be covered by the pensions Bill, but we know that that is one of the high-charging areas. Everyone knows that income drawdown charges are high. I have no idea how the Government are going to control income drawdown products to make them fair to the consumer in the new freedom regime. There is the mis-selling of PPI, harsh mortgage contracts and the miserable, mean activity of interest swap arrangements sold to small businesses to protect them against interest rate rises, when those policies became so burdensome that it threatened their survival. The list is endless.

I thought that I would illustrate the point with a pensions example, which is a personal one. My daughter is a lawyer, so you would expect her to be reasonably cerebrally functioning—if I can be generous to the profession. She changed her job from one employer to another. She had a DC pot and I suggested that she should get organised to transfer her DC pot from her previous to her new employer. Her way of dealing with that was to put all the paperwork on my desk and say, “You sort it out, Mum, and I’ll sign”. As all mothers do, I sat down with the paperwork. The pension scheme she was leaving was provided by a leading, reputable financial company, as was the one she was going to. Both were blue-chip companies. I read all the paperwork of the one she was leaving and of the one she was going to. Not a single piece of paper set out the charges for any part of the investment, any part of the administration or any part of the transfer charges. Tucked away was an invite to apply at a certain point if you wanted the detail of those charges. That was just one example where the market is just not working.

I do not suppose that in the Committee today I have the slightest chance of persuading the Government that they at some point need to change the rules of the game to place a greater duty of care on the financial services sector, but otherwise we will go on receiving endless reports of market failures and inefficiencies. We have a big juggernaut coming down the line with pension freedoms. When people take their cash, they will not necessarily be trotting off to the regulated products covered by the FCA; they will also be operating in the unregulated part of the market. I put the case again that there is really a need to strengthen the duty of care in the sector so that the consumer can truly be protected.

16:30

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe]

My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, for her knowledge and for her experience of the Financial Services Consumer Panel, albeit that that was from some time ago. Since then, of course, many, many changes have been made to the financial regulatory regimes following the financial crisis, which occurred after many years of the Labour Government.

Having said that, I appreciate the concerns that lie behind the amendment. I think we are all agreed that consumers—and, for that matter, society as a whole—need a better deal from our banks. The question is how we achieve that, and I can see why some would think that this amendment would help. However, the Government do not consider that it would make a real difference for consumers or add very much to what the Government are already doing. I shall explain why and begin with what this Government have done to strengthen bank regulation and the protection of customers.

First, we replaced the flawed system of financial regulation. The Financial Services Act 2012 put in place two new, properly focused financial regulators: the Prudential Regulation Authority, which is a subsidiary of the Bank of England, and the Financial Conduct Authority. These reforms mean that the PRA can concentrate on ensuring that our banks are prudently and competently managed, reducing the risk of serious financial failure. That may not seem to be of immediate relevance to consumers; none the less, it goes right to the heart of part of this amendment. The PRA seeks to ensure that banks are properly managed and soundly run, so the PRA also contributes to ensuring that the bank’s core services—taking deposits, withdrawing money, making payments or providing overdrafts—to consumers are provided with “reasonable care and skill”. In a sense, therefore, the work of the PRA and its detailed rules already cover the same ground as the amendment.

Of course, this Government are bringing in ring-fencing to ensure that core banking services—in particular, the taking of deposits from individuals and small businesses—are undertaken in a separate legal entity, insulated from wholesale and investment banking activities. This will support continuity of provision of vital services and help to make UK banks sufficiently resilient to withstand excessive financial shocks—surely a vital part of caring for the consumers of core banking services. Therefore, it is not clear to me what imposing the duty of “reasonable care and skill” would add to requiring banks to comply with the ring-fencing and the many other regulatory requirements.

I turn to the FCA and the protection of consumers more directly. The Government’s reforms mean that the FCA can concentrate on ensuring that all financial services businesses conduct themselves properly in their dealings both with ordinary retail customers and in wholesale financial markets. This wide remit is shaped by the FCA’s statutory objectives and delivered through the FCA’s rules. These rules include the 11 FCA principles for businesses. These are high-level requirements which already cover the ground set out in the amendment.

If I may, I shall take the time to run through four of the principles. Principle 2 is:

“A firm must conduct its business with due skill, care and diligence”.

Principle 6 states:

“A firm must pay due regard to the interests of its customers and treat them fairly”.

Principle 8 is:

“A firm must manage conflicts of interest fairly, both between itself and its customers and between a customer and another client”.

I know that the noble Baronesses, Lady Drake and Lady Hayter, rightly feel particularly strongly about this conflict of interest issue. Principle 9 states:

“A firm must take reasonable care to ensure the suitability of its advice and discretionary decisions for any customer who is entitled to rely upon its judgment”.

As many noble Lords will know, there are a very large number of detailed rules to which banks and other financial services firms are subject, each one of which is, in one way or another, an articulation of a duty of care to consumers or to society as a whole. It seems to me that there is a real question about what the amendment would add to these existing duties.

However, I will comment on the amendment in detail. Its first limb seeks to impose a fiduciary duty to provide core services with reasonable care and skill. The term “fiduciary duty” typically describes the kind that a fiduciary owes to a beneficiary, such as a duty of confidentiality, a duty to avoid conflicts of interest and a duty not to profit from his or her position. These are the duties that a director owes to a company, an agent owes to a principal or a trustee owes to a beneficiary. There will be cases in financial services where such a duty will be appropriate and, in those cases, it—or similar duties—tends already to be imposed either as a matter of general law, as obligations under the Financial Services and Markets Act, FiSMA, or in the FCA or PRA rules.

Such a duty would not necessarily be appropriate for the provision of core services, which are subject to a contract between the bank and the customer. Of course, regulatory rules made under FiSMA are there to ensure the fair treatment of customers and the proper conduct of business more generally. I am also not sure whether a duty to perform services with care and skill could be described as a fiduciary duty, but it would already be part of the contractual obligations and will be reflected, where appropriate, in the obligations imposed under FiSMA or in the regulators’ rules. The Government consider, therefore, that in view of the extensive sector-specific legislation in this area and the general position under contract law, imposing the fiduciary duty suggested in the amendment would not give the consumer any additional remedies.

Turning to the wider duty of care proposed in the amendment’s second limb, I suggest that it is far from clear what this could add to the existing obligations or regulatory requirements to which the ring-fenced body is now subject. There are, for example, obligations under FiSMA and the regulators’ rules, some of which are obligations to the bank’s own customers. For example, principle 6 of the FCA’s principles for businesses states:

“A firm must pay due regard to the interests of its customers and treat them fairly”.

Other obligations are in effect obligations to consumers of financial services more generally or to society as a whole. For example, principle 2 of the principles for businesses states:

“A firm must conduct its business with due skill, care and diligence”.

The noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, suggested that the Government were relying on case law to ensure a duty of care. That is not the case. Key obligations are in explicit law: that is, the FCA rules to which I have referred, such as the principles for businesses.

I am grateful to the noble Earl, Lord Lytton, for his early intervention and look forward to discussing his amendment. He asked about banks passing the duty of care back to surveyors. Banks and other financial services firms are subject to rules made by the FCA, as I have emphasised at great length. They cannot avoid those requirements by saying, “It’s the surveyor’s fault”, but surveyors may of course owe appropriate duties to their customers as well.

Perhaps I could mention redress. Regulatory rules give effect in a precise, meaningful way to the duties that banks and other financial services firms owe to their customers and to society as a whole. However, that leaves the question of redress. Surely, it might be argued, the amendment would help consumers to get redress in appropriate cases, either by taking action in the courts or by making use of the Financial Ombudsman Service. I am afraid that that does not seem to be the case. As we have seen, the duties proposed in the amendment would overlap with existing duties under the principles for businesses and cannot be as detailed as the regulators’ other rules, which can be used to bring a complaint to the bank or to the ombudsman. In any case, we have existing machinery to deliver redress for consumers. For example, in 2013-14 the Financial Ombudsman Service resolved more than 500,000 complaints in total, resulting in compensation for consumers in 58% of cases. If there are problems of financial regulation, the financial regulatory framework is a much better place to resolve these problems.

I should perhaps add, in view of what the noble Baronesses, Lady Drake and Lady Hayter, have said about people knowing their rights, that the opportunity will be taken to improve communication when the Bill takes effect. The FCA will be preparing guidance for traders on its site and Citizens Advice will host information for consumers. I noted the point raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Drake, about information on pension transfer. Her daughter is very fortunate to have such a well informed parent to assist her—

[Baroness Drake]

I tell her that frequently.

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe]

However, if I may, I shall think about that one, as it probably goes a little bit beyond today’s discussion.

In conclusion, the Government firmly believe that it is better to impose specific, focused requirements on banks and other financial services firms through the regulatory system. Customers and regulators can more effectively hold the bank to account when they do not comply. I hope, therefore, that the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, will agree to withdraw this amendment.

[Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for that. I hope that it convinced her; I fear that it did not convince me. It is some time since I was on the Financial Services Consumer Panel, but I am still in close touch with the panel and I will be quoting it later on its disappointment with the Bill.

However, I want to take a moment to talk about the really interesting question that the noble Earl, Lord Lytton, raised. It was interesting in itself but so was the contrast with the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors, which is a chartered institute and has a code of conduct or ethics—I cannot now remember what it is called—which does include putting the customer first. In a sense, that is all we are trying to do for the financial industry, which could learn a thing or two from the surveyors.

I thank my noble friend Lady Drake for her intervention, particularly the examples she gave. She usefully reiterated the reason why consumers in this industry need particular help: the complexities and the asymmetries of knowledge on these long-term products. She also warned that if we do not introduce somewhere in law that you must put your client’s interest first—and I do not think that something that is in an FCA rule is actually law, but I could be wrong about that—then we will carry on with a compliance, keeping-to-the-rules regime, which is of help to no one and continues to produce poor outcomes. As my noble friend warned us, there may be more to come, with pension unlocking.

The most important thing I have to say to the Minister is that treating customers fairly, which was in FiSMA and is now in the Act that my noble friend Lady Drake and I cut our teeth on in the House four years ago, is not the same as putting customers first. That is the extra push that we want. Although the Minister mentioned the duty of care on business in general, businesses have duties to shareholders and everyone else, which is why the client often comes a bit far down the pecking order.

If the Minister is right that no additional remedies would come from our amendment, then I see no harm in including it. She has not said what harm this would do. However, I fear that on this, just as the Government voted against a code of conduct for the financial industry when we were doing that Bill, they are again going to turn their back on consumers in this vital area.

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe]

Before the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, sits down, perhaps I could clarify her point about FCA rules not being law. Our advice is that they are law, and that is why the principles say, “A firm must”.

16:45

[Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town]

That is interesting, and I will try to find out how many court cases have been taken as a result. However, for the moment I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 46B withdrawn.

Clause 49 agreed.

Clause 50: Information about the trader or service to be binding

Amendment 47

Moved by

[The Earl of Lytton]

47: Clause 50, page 30, line 30, after “is” insert “reasonably”

[The Earl of Lytton]

My Lords, I shall speak also to Amendments 48 and 49, which are in the same group. I wish to address the issues of consumers and contractors or providers with specific reference to the area I know best, which is property services. I am a provider of such services; I am a small business. Not only do I provide services myself but I also provide a certain amount of service in trying to sort out the wreckage of consumers’ arrangements with others, because I deal with a certain amount of dispute-related cases.

I know what it is like to be misled as a consumer. I also know what it is like to be taken advantage of as a provider. I had that very much in mind, echoing the point that the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, made a short while ago about professional standards. I am old-fashioned. I was brought up to understand that the hallmark of a professional meant that one put the interests of one’s client before one’s own interest. That did not necessarily equate with putting what the client thought their interests were before all else; that is, of course, a different metric. Consumers come in all shapes and sizes, as I know from a long time in the property business. They can be old and cunning, or young, wealthy and spoiled, or just greedy and opportunistic, as well as entirely honourable and decent. Over 90% of consumers are wholly honest in their approach—as are, I am certain, over 90% of service providers. In my view, there is more honest misunderstanding than deliberate malpractice, but I acknowledge that there are some that are consistent cheats—even some very large suppliers. I am not going to name any that I have come across.

We need not to lose sight of the objective of facilitating honest trade and reducing bureaucracy, but we need to be careful about assuming a level of competence among consumers that is often lacking in practice. The principle of protecting the weaker party by legal means does not equate with protecting the consumer at all costs, regardless of circumstances. Some consumers are not only clueless but unaware of their own ignorance in insisting that certain things be done in certain ways—or, to put it more crudely, insisting on a particular price above all costs. Ultimately, it is not for Parliament to protect people, whether consumers or providers, from their own incompetence or stupidity. I will get on to that when I get to the detail of my amendments, with a suggestion as to how it might be addressed.

We must not give rights without insisting on parallel duties, because we all have duties as providers and as consumers. One of the most frequently forgotten about is disclosing material facts relating to the transaction that is in contemplation. The Minister referred to the painter of the bathroom. I would like to refer to the failure of the consumer to maintain a functioning extractor fan. I frequently have to visit modern buildings with high levels of insulation due to problems with condensation, which is mostly to do with the lifestyle of the occupant as opposed to the inherent nature of the building. I say that with some knowledge of members of my own family failing to understand that principle. The Minister will then understand where I am coming from. There are some quite serious issues here that have real-world effects: mouldy clothes, bad living conditions or whatever it may be.

My amendments came to me originally from the Construction Industry Council. I have a professional involvement with that body but I am not a member of it. I want to address the issues in Amendments 47 and 48 because the principle behind them is that not all consumers act fairly towards traders. Some consumers are not rational and can be vindictive. They can believe that they must be right beyond peradventure, regardless of the facts of the case. The council pointed out the case of Walter Lilly & Co Ltd v Mackay from 2012, which was heard in the Technology and Construction Court.

There is a language issue, which the Minister touched on earlier, as I understood her, that consumers may well not understand the jargon or technicality of what is being said by a supplier or some specialist. We all have jargon but one thing that is often misunderstood is the effect of health and safety in carrying out contracts of works. It can escalate costs because of the need, for instance, for scaffolding to replace a gutter or something of that sort. Consumers do not necessarily understand that, so when there is a provision for plant and machinery at cost, they do not necessarily twig that some significant items may be involved.

It seems from the terms of the Bill that the consumer appears to be able to rely on his own fairly subjective memory of what was said, regardless of whether it is near or far from the truth. I worry about that. When one thinks of the studies on the accuracy of witness recall of the facts in the wider judicial system, one can see that there is a real problem. That is not limited to consumers; it may be an affliction of the small business as provider of the service. The CIC pointed out to me that the remedies introduced in the Housing Grants, Construction and Regeneration Act—rights to receive payment and bring disputes to adjudication—are not available to traders if dealing with a residential occupier. Maybe we ought to look at that.

I would hate these things to end up in the courts because I am a believer that there is only one profession that gets rich by that process and that it leads to a lasting impoverishment of others. Most particularly at risk is the hapless consumer himself. He sees no other way and is encouraged or goaded to go to court. It would be my objective to keep people out of the courts if at all possible.

The logical consequence of not having the words that I suggested incorporated into the Bill will be reams and reams of terms and conditions of engagement which, in all probability, whether they are written in large or small print, nobody will read. We will be back where we were before without an adequate remedy other than pursuing these things very expensively. That is why I wish, by Amendments 47 and 48, to insert the test of “reasonably”. The courts have some experience of unpicking the term “reasonable”. I am against their having to determine such matters at all because very often it is not cost-effective to deal with them in that way.

Amendment 49 is slightly different. The Bill refers to the representations, if I can loosely term them as such, made at the same time. A contractor goes along to pitch for a job with a consumer. He makes various representations, or is deemed to do so, but it may in a sense be a discussion around the issue, trying to refine what the consumer wants and what services will be provided. The contractor goes away and sets it down in writing. It would appear that subsequently setting something down in writing that is different from what was said on site at the first meeting would not exonerate the contractor from having to abide by what he had first said. So I am afraid that we get back to the unedifying spectacle of, “He said this”, “No he didn’t”, which a court is unable to unpick in practice.

The CIC’s briefing note to me referred to an example in which a builder or engineer recommends a particular type of foundation based on the information that he had at the time. It is then found, when they get on site, that some different situation applies; perhaps the ground conditions are not as the initial geotechnical investigation identified. After all, we are in many cases talking about a process, not a bolt of lightning that hits in a moment of time and fixes everything. This is an ongoing transactional process, particularly in the building world. The CIC—and I agree with it—feels that it would be unreasonable for a customer to be able to hold a contractor to the original statement if the contractor set out to clarify that within a short period thereafter. That is why I seek to insert the words,

“or as soon as possible thereafter”.

That is the logic behind it.

I said that I would touch on where I might depart from the CIC’s script, perhaps as a sort of final postscript. The noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, may also see some merit in this. Ultimately, I have suggested a sticking plaster here, but what is really required is a reliable, timely, locally based, informed, mandatory, affordable and authoritative adjudication system of some sort. If you have that in place, you remove most of the chancers from the equation and get back to some form of even-handed thing that does not grow over months and years like little Johnny’s porridge in the mouth, resulting in a complete system failure, whereby access to some sort of resolution is denied for so long that, even if you did get something in your favour, it would be functionally worthless.

We have a model—and I claim some credit for having brought such a thing in—although it would not be perfectly applied pari passu to this particular instance. In 1996, your Lordships passed the Party Wall etc. Act and I had the privilege of taking it through all its stages in this House. In passing, I pay tribute to Sir Sydney Chapman, who took it through all its stages in the other place. He has just died, and I express my appreciation in his memory, and to his family, for the work that was done. I believe that that model could be made better use of so that there was no risk of huge fees being run up, and that sort of thing. We need to get away from having to deal with these things through the courts. If we are not going to have an ombudsman, there needs to be something else in place to deal with it—and there are ways of dealing with it.

Having explained at length, first, where I am coming from, secondly, the meaning of the specifics of the amendments and, thirdly, a suggestion of how things might be dealt with in future, I beg to move.

17:00

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe]

My Lords, first, I thank the noble Earl for his thoughtful and very clear contribution to the debate. I share his sympathy for the untimely death of Sir Sydney Chapman. I also agree that the vast majority of consumers and service providers are honest but, regrettably, there are some on both sides who would not meet that description.

Perhaps I may look at the three amendments by taking a step back. Clause 50 is the result of careful consideration, as I said. We have thought and listened hard, consulting on it and publishing it in the draft Bill. We have sought to achieve the delicate balance between giving consumers the right to have what they pay for and not overburdening traders. To do that, we have given consumers a clear statutory right: the right that information that they are given and which they take into account is complied with.

Crucially, there are three safeguards for traders. It may help if I set them out. First, this right does not cover every bit of information given to a consumer by a trader. It is limited to information that the consumer took into account when making a purchase or making a decision about it—for example, if a consumer contracted for a service specifically because the trader said it would be done in a certain way. Secondly, it would be for the consumer to prove that they took the information into account if seeking to enforce this right against the trader. Thirdly, we are allowing traders to qualify information given. The trader can qualify information as long as, where they do so after the occasion when it was first given, the consumer is happy with the new information. For example, if a salesperson gives information over the phone in good faith but later, as more details of the consumer’s circumstances emerge, they need to change it, then they can do so as long as the consumer agrees.

We think that those safeguards are enough to address concerns that noble Lords have mentioned. For example, we have heard concerns that sales advisers will have to speak strictly to a script. That will not be the case, because of the safeguards that I have just outlined. We are not restricting the trader’s ability to discuss options with the consumer or making them stick to jargon, in the words of the noble Earl. We are saying that when a trader gives information which the consumer may take into account in deciding whether to make a purchase or make a decision about it, the trader needs to comply with that information.

On spurious claims, we do not think that there is an assumption that consumers remember information. I know from my experience that you cannot assume that consumers remember information; one sometimes forgets things. That is not what the clause states. Clause 50 provides that where a trader has given information that the consumer has relied on, the trader must comply with that information. The consumer will need to prove that the information was given and that they relied on it. Those safeguards—that the burden of proof is on the consumer and that the consumer must have relied on the information—in my view protect traders from unreasonable claims. Unfortunately, some consumers will, as the noble Earl said, act unreasonably. They are not the vast majority. Most consumers of services simply want the service to be provided to the required standard, with access to redress if things go wrong. That is what this chapter provides.

Turning to Amendments 47 and 48, the safeguards that I have explained achieve a balance between traders and consumers. Adding a reasonableness test to the clause would, in our view, cause confusion and uncertainty. There are some places in legislation where reasonableness is an appropriate test. However, I fear that it would add complexity here, which would not benefit consumers or traders. When we consulted in 2012, the vast majority of respondents thought that the existing law on services was too complex.

That brings me to Amendment 49. As I explained a moment ago, we are allowing traders to make changes to information given. While subsection 2(a) allows the trader to qualify information on the occasion when he gives it, subsection 2(b) allows the trader to make changes at a later date if the consumer agrees to those changes. That achieves clarity for both parties, so we think it is an appropriate balance.

The noble Earl, Lord Lytton, also mentioned adjudication. We have already talked a lot about alternative dispute resolution in the debates on the Bill. ADR will be available in all sectors covered by the EU directive from next year. While I sympathise with much of what my noble friend has said, given the safeguards I have outlined, I ask that the amendment be withdrawn.

[The Earl of Lytton]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for that explanation. I will go away and think about it. The words about what the consumer takes into account when making a decision are pivotal. I would simply leave a question in the air: objectively, how would anyone know, other than the consumer himself? How would one test that? This is not the time to pursue this, even if we were not in Grand Committee. I will ponder what the Minister said and I may return to this at a later stage. I may well write to her with some more focused issues between now and the next stage, although I cannot guarantee that, for all sorts of reasons. That said, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 47 withdrawn.

Amendment 48 not moved.

[The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Gibson of Market Rasen) (Lab)]

Amendment 48A will be moved by the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter of Kentish Town.

Amendment 48A

Moved by

[Baroness King of Bow]

48A: Clause 50, page 30, line 33, at end insert—
“( ) Prior to the provision of the service or agreeing the contract, whichever happens first, the trader will explicitly provide the consumer with relevant details of their statutory rights under sections 51, 52, 55 and 56 of this Act.”

[Baroness King of Bow (Lab)]

I am very happy to be mistaken for my noble friend, not least because she has about 15 years more experience than me on this subject—well, maybe four. I beg to move Amendment 48A in the name of my noble friends Lady Hayter and Lord Stevenson. This group of amendments seeks to improve consumers’ awareness of their rights under the law. Amendment 48A relates to consumer rights regarding services. It stipulates that these rights should be made clear at the point of sale. Amendment 50E requires the trader to ensure that the consumer is aware of their rights when they initiate a complaints procedure. Amendment 51, in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Oppenheim-Barnes, requires the suppliers of goods and services to tell consumers what their rights are in plain English. That is something we support.

Martin Lewis, from moneysavingexpert.com—I am sure you are all familiar with that organisation, as it is the UK’s biggest money and consumer website—spoke to the Public Bill Committee in the Commons and singled out what was, in his view, the one aim for the Bill above all others. He said:

“The most important thing I would like to say to you is that you need … to give people something very simple, which you could teach children in schools … that says, ‘These are your rights when dealing with a company.’ At the moment I am not quite sure you are there. You are nearer, but I am not quite sure you are there”.—[Official Report, Commons, Consumer Rights Bill Committee, 11/2/14; col. 56.]

These amendments would help to deliver the “most important thing” that Mr Lewis talked about. His warning was stark: if we do not make things simple and clear, we effectively disempower consumers and undermine their rights. He essentially said that we can give people all the rights in the world but if they are not empowered to use them, because the process is too complicated or the language too complex, then in practice we are not really giving them any rights at all. Naturally, putting things in plain English is an important prerequisite for this. That is what Amendment 51 would require, which is why we give it our support.

Amendments 48A and 50E are about letting people know what their rights are to start with. Amendment 48A relates to services. As we heard earlier from my noble friend Lady Drake, people have different rights when it comes to services. They are often far more hazy and confused about those rights than they are about their rights relating to goods. I wonder why the Government feel unable to strengthen the legislation in the way that these amendments suggest, which would sharpen the information given to consumers at the point of sale. Amendment 50E would ensure that consumers also have consistent information at the point of complaint and that their statutory rights were explained and articulated, instead of being a never-explained mantra that every consumer hears and virtually no consumer understands—except perhaps for those dealing with this Bill.

In summary, the amendments would help the Bill to fulfil its objective of giving consumers clear rights in regard to services—rights that were simple to understand and in plain English, and given at the point of sale and at the point of complaint.

[Baroness Jolly (LD)]

My Lords, as was said when we discussed point-of-sale information for goods last Monday, the Government believe that it is really important that consumers should feel confident about exercising their statutory rights and that businesses should know and fulfil their statutory responsibilities. That is why, a year ago, we set up an implementation group for the Bill. This is helping us to decide how to increase consumer and business knowledge about consumer rights. The group has consumer, business and enforcer representatives working with us on a co-ordinated approach to content, channels and timing of guidance, advice and publicity for the Bill.

As part of their work, members of the implementation group have been developing a high-level summary of consumers’ rights when they buy goods, services and digital content. The summary will also signpost consumers to the Citizens Advice helpline and website—both sources of more detailed guidance on specific issues. We are in the process of testing this model with businesses and on consumers. The response from business has been positive, provided that use of the wording is on a voluntary basis.

Turning to Amendments 48A, 50E and 51, for the reasons explained when we discussed Amendments 9, 13 and 25 last week, we do not believe that requiring this information to be given to all consumers before they purchase or receive any goods or services, or after they purchase services, would achieve the best outcome for them or for businesses. First, we do not think there is any evidence to support the argument that the point of sale is the best place to inform consumers of their rights or that it is an important part of the purchasing decision. Consumers are more likely to focus on their rights when they need to enforce them. Secondly, it is difficult to see that consumers would see the benefit of being reminded that services must be delivered with reasonable care and skill whenever they visited the hairdressers or the carwash. Are we really suggesting that a local window-cleaner should provide his customers with a written notice setting out their relevant statutory rights? That seems pretty burdensome for both the trader and the consumer.

17:15

Thirdly, the requirement to provide information both pre-contractually and post-contractually in written form seems really burdensome for small traders. Fourthly, some service sectors have specific regulatory requirements on consumer compensation. In these cases, it could be confusing to consumers if traders had to set out the general consumer law protections alongside the specific consumer rights required under sectoral regulation.

For these reasons, we do not think that it is right to require every business to provide information on consumer rights for goods and services. Our approach, which is supported by Which?, is to make available a trusted high-level summary that traders can adapt to their business needs. We have produced different forms of wording, depending on whether the purchase is made in a shop or online. The shop version makes it clear that consumers do not have a statutory right to change their mind, which is a common misconception. Businesses will be able to use the wording in full or incorporate only the elements relevant to their business. It will also help avoid shop floor staff causing unnecessary disputes by making mistakes and giving inaccurate information. For all those reasons, we expect businesses to see this as a really helpful tool to comply with the new legislation. The business groups have told us that they will promote the model wording to their members, as will the consumer groups.

We believe that this flexible approach will be far more effective—and far less burdensome—than the mandatory approach proposed by these amendments. I note that the noble Baroness, Lady Oppenheim-Barnes, is not here to speak to her Amendment 51, but I ask the noble Baroness, Lady King, to withdraw her amendment.

[Baroness King of Bow]

I thank the Minister for her reply. The whole purpose of our amendment is to ensure that customers feel confident about exercising their statutory rights, which is what the noble Baroness was saying. I am not clear that in the terms of the amendment, as drafted, the information has to be given in writing. Given that, I admit to being slightly perplexed why the Minister feels it would be so onerous or burdensome. She talked about the flexible approach that she seeks to employ. Our concern is that “flexible” can mean not providing consumers with information about their statutory rights. We do not think that the right way forward is not to give consumers these rights upfront, at the point of sale. In line with tradition at this stage, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 48A withdrawn.

Amendment 48B

Moved by

[Baroness King of Bow]

48B: Clause 50, page 30, line 33, at end insert—
“(1A) The trader is required to provide full details of the total cost of the service prior to sale including any additional service fees or charges that could be incurred by the buyer in purchasing the service.
(1B) The information set out in subsection (1A) should be portrayed prior to sale and the explicit consent to purchase the service at this price sought prior to sale.”

[Baroness King of Bow]

My Lords, Amendment 48B would ensure that full costs are provided to consumers before the sale takes place, and that these include any non-negotiable charges and fees. Amendment 50G, which is also in this group, would stop traders charging people to complain by removing charges for helplines and complaint facilities.

The issue is a real scourge for all consumers, and it has probably happened to all of us here. We see adverts offering cheap broadband deals, or we try to book cinema tickets or decide to go to a concert. We look at the headline figure, which lures us in, and decide that it is a sum that we are willing to pay. On that basis, we spend our time—it is important to remember that time is money—going through the process of purchase. As we all know, this is increasingly done online.

I had something of a new experience the other day—I never usually buy Christmas presents earlier than Christmas Eve—when I received an e-mail from a trader advertising a concert that I knew my mother would just love. It was for Paul Simon. Do we not all love Paul Simon? Would everyone in this Room not want to go and listen to Paul Simon? I thought, “My goodness, it is only September, but I might be lured into buying my mum her Christmas present”. The headline figures advertised for the seats I wanted were between £60 and £100. I ummed and aahed, because that is a lot of money, but as my noble friend says, my mum is a nice lady. I had a L'Oréal moment—“Because she’s worth it”—and, obviously, I had to get her two tickets. She lives in France, so I had to check easyJet flight availability, and I spent ages on price comparison websites to check whether there were cheaper tickets available, then I went back to the original website to see what the tickets would be, what the visibility was and so on.

Finally, after about an hour I decided that, yes, it is really expensive, but it is a once-in-a-lifetime chance for my mum and I will also have got her Christmas present sorted out in September, which would also be a once-in-a-lifetime experience for me. I pressed the purchase button and was utterly gobsmacked when the price that popped up for these two tickets was £60 greater than the price quoted all the way through. I was enraged; I realised I had been conned. I had expected what we all expect—maybe a £1.50 booking charge, but £60 is just ridiculous. I realised that all the price comparison checking I had done over the previous hour was meaningless because this website gave you the full price, the real price, only when the sale was being transacted—in other words, once you are entering credit card details. I am terribly ashamed to say that I bought the tickets, though it was clearly a complete con.

The point is that this amendment, and this group, is about giving consumers transparent data so that they can make an informed choice. It is about ensuring that traders give the total cost of a service, including all the non-negotiable charges and fees that they add on at the end. If this does not happen, it is simply not cricket—it is not fair. The same goes for Amendment 50G, which seems like a basic point of fairness. Consumers should not be charged exorbitant helpline fees or forced to pay for costly 0800 numbers and others, just so that they can complain. It seems like common sense and basic fairness to make these changes. I beg to move.

[The Earl of Lytton]

My Lords, I have considerable sympathy with the amendment, but I am not sure that I would advocate it in this form. I am very familiar with the cost of something being “from £X” and you find you have to order three dozen of whatever it is in order to get the £X. That has always been a bone of contention for me. Where I depart from the noble Baroness is when it comes to an area of my own expertise, which I shall use as an example.

In party-wall cases, where people want to undertake certain work to their building, they have to serve a notice on the adjoining owner, and if the adjoining owner does not agree, then the parties have to appoint surveyors to deal with the matter for them. That takes the two neighbours out of the frame, which is part of how the thing is designed to work. The person proposing the work is obliged under the legislation to meet the reasonable costs of the adjoining owner, which may include their professional fees. When a surveyor is faced with this situation, as I frequently am, it may be a building owner but it is normally an adjoining owner who rings up and says, “I have been served with a notice by our neighbour and I think I need a surveyor”. Assuming that it is a case which needs a surveyor and that they are not best advised to agree to the thing and let their neighbour get on with it, there is then the question of how to structure the fee that is dealt with.

There is a European directive on the provision of services. I forget its precise name, but I am sure that the Minister will know about it—I will find out if necessary and write to her. One of the things in it refers to the cost of the service provided or the manner of calculating it shall be set out—I do not know whether I am quoting that verbatim but it is something along those lines—along with all the other things, including the identity of the trader, the time taken to deliver the service and that sort of thing. The difficulty is that, until one gets on site, one does not necessarily know what one is faced with. You may take on a job and then find that the person promoting the work has a fly-by-night builder but has no engineer on site, yet they are doing things involving some quite serious construction that affects, for instance, party walls or adjacent excavation in an urban environment. You may conclude that they are not doing it safely. They may also have as their surveyor someone who is not that experienced and does not know what is supposed to be done. Then you end up having to hold the hand of the other person’s surveyor.

All this can run up costs which one did not anticipate at first, so providing full details of the total cost of the service in that instance would be nigh-on impossible. However, providing the mechanism for calculating it is perfectly reasonable. It so happens that, under party-wall legislation, the building owner carrying out the works is obliged to refund only the reasonable costs of the adjoining owner. There is that fall-back and it is obviously up to the surveyor to justify the reasonableness of whatever it may be—the hourly charge, the amount of travel, the frequency of visits and everything else. However, the total costs in such circumstances would be extremely difficult to pin down.

That might also happen in any other construction-related job where there are a number of variables and where, typically, you will have provisional sums in a building contract to cover certain things. Those might be based on a prime cost or just a spot figure, but they are subject to a demonstration of the amount of man-hours and materials that have gone into the job at the end of the day. Sometimes I get called in, as do colleagues, to try to deal with situations where the amount claimed is unreasonable because a contractor has an add-only calculator or the consumer is on a fixed budget and cannot agree to anything that exceeds it, and so on.

The idea is to get to having provisions that deal with the real world of things. I know that the noble Baroness, Lady King, has rightly pointed to a situation where you buy a product, such as the tickets to the theatre or whatever it is. Inevitably, services do not necessarily quite fall into that category. Yes, you can get a fixed price for doing your bathroom floor—I am sorry to go on about bathrooms but your Lordships get the drift—but other things are not capable of being drilled down to that degree of finesse. I would advise a bit of caution and flexibility in the overall approach.

[Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts (Con)]

My Lords, I have some sympathy with the noble Baroness. Who wants to upset their mother? My mother-in-law is 95 tomorrow; I am taking her to see “War Horse” and I have paid the surplus on the tickets, so I understand the point. I am particularly interested in Amendment 50G because you might be left on these phones for a long time while trying to enforce your rights. That is an interesting matter for the Minister. There may be existing legislation to deal with that issue but it is worth following through.

I am much more concerned about Amendment 48B, the lead amendment, because its wording seems to run exceptionally widely. Thinking about how this might work, to take another example, you may buy a service as part of a package of services and not wish to buy all that package at once. An alarm for your house might be a plain alarm but you might have sensors or lights outside. You might or might not have it connected to a central station. It might be wireless or with a cable. You buy the basic system and later decide to upgrade it. You have the same service, but I am not clear what the requirement would be for a supplier of such equipment to fulfil any additional services fees or charges that could be incurred by the buyer. The buyer could incur quite a lot of charges if they chose to make changes along the way. Would they then be able to use this measure as a basis for defaulting on or changing the contract?

I found the wording potentially rather alarmingly wide. What the Government have in Clause 50(1) as it stands deals with the issues which I think are in the back of the noble Baroness’s mind. Proposed new subsection (1B) in Amendment 48B contains the word “portrayed”. If the information is to be portrayed for an internet purchase, which is the example that the noble Baroness gave, that is going to be quite difficult.

Although I have sympathy with Amendment 50G, I think that Amendment 48B is probably redundant, and the Minister may well say that Amendment 50G is covered by another piece of legislation.

17:31

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe]

My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady King of Bow, and the noble Earl, Lord Lytton. I appreciate the fact that he intervened with such practical comments, with more stories about bathrooms and a plea for caution and flexibility. My noble friend Lord Hodgson also warned us that some of the wording in the amendment may be a bit too wide—a sentiment with which I concur.

First, I turn to Amendment 48B. We discussed this issue in some detail when we talked about Amendment 8 relating to goods, and I apologise if I repeat the points made then. However, I welcome this opportunity to reassure the Committee in relation to services contracts and to respond to the points made by the noble Earl.

Under the Consumer Contracts (Information, Cancellation and Additional Charges) Regulations 2013, traders are required to make the consumer fully aware of the total costs of a service. For the noble Earl’s information, they implement the consumer rights directive, which I think is the title that he was seeking when he raised this point. These regulations came into force quite recently—on 13 June 2014—and they require traders to give, or make available to, the consumer information about costs before the consumer enters into a contract. In addition, the information must be clear and comprehensible. I therefore believe that these regulations already cover a large part of the amendment. Traders are required to provide information, and they are required to make that available to the consumer before the contract is agreed—that is, prior to the sale.

The noble Earl was also concerned that prices can be unclear—for example, if they are expressed as “from £2” rather than being £2. He suggested that some flexibility was needed in services. I am pleased to reassure him that the regulations I have referred to—this good directive from the EU—have taken us a step forward. If the total price for the service cannot reasonably be calculated in advance, the trader must notify the consumer of the manner in which the price will be calculated.

The amendment also talks about the consumer giving “explicit consent to purchase” at the price given. The Bill deals with consumer contracts but it does not set out the form that a contract should take. Contracts can be implicit or explicit. In many cases, a consumer will give their express consent, such as in signing a contract for a contactor to paint their living room—on this occasion it is a living room, not a bathroom. However, in other cases the contract is implied. For example, a consumer walks into a hairdresser—somewhere I go a lot, obviously—asks the price and, on hearing it, sits down in the hairdresser’s chair.

It is not our intention in the Bill to define how a contract should be made. I can, however, reassure noble Lords that the 2013 regulations require the consumer’s express consent for any changes. For example, if the price for painting the living room were to change, the consumer would need to give their express consent.

I can also reassure noble Lords that the 2013 regulations protect consumers from hidden charges. Under those regulations, the consumer must give their active or express consent for any optional additional payments. For example, pre-ticked boxes for payments which the consumer must untick are no longer permitted for services within scope of those regulations. I think that that helps to deal with the concert example—and we probably have cross-party agreement on Paul Simon and his beautiful music. I also take the opportunity to point out the excellent work that Which? has done to improve transparency of ticket prices. I hope that the noble Baroness’s future experiences will be a bit better.

In discussing Amendment 50G, I will, with apologies, refer again to the famous Consumer Contracts (Information, Cancellation and Additional Charges) Regulations 2013—that is too long a title. But I have some good news. For services within scope, these regulations prohibit the trader from requiring the consumer to pay above the basic rate when consumers contact them by telephone about a problem with a services contract. This requirement represents an important and significant move towards fair treatment of consumers who want to contact a trader. It was agreed by all member states at EU level as a fair right for consumers, while not placing excessive burdens on business. In the same way that a consumer may need to pay the travel fare or parking to visit a shop to sort out a problem, it seems reasonable to expect that they may have to pay the basic phone rate to contact the trader. What the trader should not do is to derive benefit, or use numbers which actively dissuade contact.

Amendment 50G would give rise to unintended consequences. To require that businesses who offer a phone number must offer a freephone number might result in traders withdrawing telephone-based customer support to the detriment of consumers. Many people would rather speak to someone than, for example, have to use an online chat room or e-mail their complaint. But I can reassure the Committee that, even though not all services are within scope of the consumer contracts regulations, the sector regulators have taken action. For example, current Financial Conduct Authority rules require every authorised firm to have a free channel for making a complaint. While some firms provide a freephone number, this channel could also be by post or online. Early this year, the Financial Conduct Authority issued a consultation paper proposing that charges for consumer help, and complaint, lines were capped at the cost of a basic rate call.

I hope that these developments will help to reassure the Committee, and I therefore ask the noble Baroness to withdraw her amendment.

[Baroness King of Bow]

My Lords, it has been an interesting discussion that has taken in some clear old favourites, with bathrooms and even party walls mentioned by the noble Earl, Lord Lytton. The problem is that, without the safeguards proposed in these amendments, to the average consumer—and I include myself well and truly in that description—goods and services are not as described. Consumers will not have transparency and will not be able to make an informed choice. In many cases, we are talking about products with a finite cost. I absolutely recognise that services are different from goods; in fact, that was the point that I made in my previous intervention.

I thought that the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson, made some good points about alarm systems as well as the wording of the amendment, and I hear the concerns about the wording being too wide. However, it seems strange to me that the non-negotiable fees that are added to ticket prices are not actually the price for the service; they are another element being added. I recognise that the wording may be a problem, but then let us change the wording. That is something that the excellent Bill team would have no problem doing. Without something to address the gaps, I feel that the Bill is inadequate at present. I would at the very least hope that the Bill would stop the additional non-negotiable fees and charges.

The noble Baroness drew our attention to the 2013 legislation about additional payments and charges, which she believes already covers a large part of the concern addressed by Amendment 48B. Although I welcome the legislation, my problem is that in this case, something is clearly not working. The same goes for Amendment 50G. Of course I agree with the Minister that it is reasonable for people to pay a basic rate, and we would not want to have those unintended consequences, but if that is already covered by legislation, why is it not working in practice? Why, when I booked those tickets in the past few weeks, was I charged £60 on top of the price as advertised and why can we not do something more concrete to crack down on what is a scamming exercise? All right, I suppose that legally it is not a scam, but it absolutely feels like it. Given that the opportunities of a Consumer Rights Bill are few and far between, it would be wonderful if the Minister and her team could review how we can ensure that the practical effect is that consumers do not continue to be ripped off.

However, of course, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 48B withdrawn.

Amendment 48C

Moved by

[Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town]

48C: Clause 50, page 30, line 37, after “trader” insert “with equal prominence and”

[Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town]

The amendment stands in my name and that of my noble friend Lord Stevenson of Balmacara. It seeks to ensure that any binding qualifications to contracts are given equal prominence with other promises made before they become binding on the person signing up. In effect, it is an amendment about small print, about charges that people may incur but which traders may not specify prominently as being part of the cost. In one sense, it is the future-proofing of the issues which my noble friend Lady King just raised, because we are mostly talking about future charges rather than those paid on a one-off fee. Because of those future charges, we want total charges to be displayed prominently prior to the purchase, so that people know exactly what they are paying for and do not later have any nasty surprises.

The amendment states that charges should be given equal prominence. People need to know what they may find hitting them in a year’s time, on the annual renewal. Sometimes, so much information is given to the consumer that it may be there in theory but it is hidden in plain sight. In other words, it may well say that there is a renewal price, but it is in with three or four other paragraphs—but it is binding on the consumer. They need to be given prominence, up with the actual price, rather than hidden in plain sight. That is an issue about which the Financial Services Consumer Panel and others are concerned—that a substantially increased fee that the consumer could not have predicted is suddenly applied at a later date. This is very much in the area of financially complicated services. There may be things which are very obvious to the provider, but may not seem obvious or relevant at the time of the purchase. There may be the possibility of having to pay for change of address: you would not think when you are signing up to something that that meant anything—you had not meant to move house at that point, or you did not think it would apply to you, but you could suddenly be hit by an additional charge later.

17:45

Without our amendments, some of these add-ons could be counted as part of the advertised price. The problem then is that they cannot later be considered and judged for fairness, because they are seen as the price and therefore excluded from that. Indeed, the chair of the Financial Services Consumer Panel has suggested that, unless there is clarity on what terms and prices are acceptably prominent at the point of purchase, parts of the Bill,

“will be rendered obsolete if firms can simply make all of the main subject matter of their contracts prominent and transparent”,

without these future prices being given that extra fillip.

In the Commons, the Minister said, and we endorse what she said:

“Clearly, hidden charges that people do not know about or that are suddenly included in a contract at a later date could not be considered to have been prominent at the beginning. … If they are not transparent or prominent, they are not protected or exempt from being assessed for fairness. If an organisation hides price terms in the small print or they are not clear to consumers, those price terms would not be considered prominent and so would be assessable for fairness”.—[Official Report, Commons, Consumer Rights Bill Committee, 6/3/14; col. 495.]

We welcome that statement by the Minister in the other place, but we want the Bill to remind providers of it and we want to emphasise to them their responsibility to get this right at the start. We do not want the consumer to have to challenge it later and have it assessed as to whether it is fair. We want providers to state future prices or fees upfront, so they are known before the customer signs up. We want to outlaw bad practice, not simply provide a way of making it good after the event. Let us try to get rid of it altogether. I beg to move.

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe]

My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for her comments. We have heard a lot today about the importance of making information clear for consumers. I was glad that she felt comforted by the comment on objectives that the Minister—I imagine that it was Jenny Willott MP—was able to make in another place when the Bill was debated. There is already legislation in force that protects consumers from being misled. I have mentioned in our discussion of earlier clauses the Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008 and the recent amendment to these from October this year which allows consumers a private right to redress for misleading actions.

Other rules, in the 2013 consumer contracts regulations, which I have also mentioned, introduced by this Government, mean that traders must give consumers certain key information before they enter a contract and that it must be given in a clear and comprehensible manner. I emphasise the word “comprehensible”.

The noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, rightly expressed concern about problems with small print. We are committed to protecting consumers from finding surprises in a contract’s small print. Part 2 of the Bill goes into that in some detail and we will hopefully reach that next week.

The Government are keen to help consumers to know what they are buying and get what they pay for. However, I have some concerns about the amendment. Clause 50 already gives consumers a right that traders comply with information given which the consumer takes into account. It allows the trader to qualify information but on the same occasion as the original information is given. The consumer must expressly agree to any later changes that the trader proposes. I think we are getting used to this process.

My concern with the amendment relates to certainty and practicalities. How can a trader ensure that he gives two pieces of information with equal prominence? Many contracts are agreed orally. In such cases, the trader cannot be sure that he has given two pieces of information with equal prominence, since he cannot say two things at the same time. Of course, there may be more than two pieces of information which are relevant, thereby exacerbating the problem. How would a consumer know whether the trader’s explanation during a conversation about a service had been sufficiently prominent to qualify a general point?

To give another example, let us consider a painter whom you have asked to paint your famous bathroom. Before he has measured all of the walls, he tells you that it will cost £100 to paint the room. He then measures and analyses the walls, confirms that the price will be £110 and writes that price down for you on a piece of paper. Do the parties need to consider which is more prominent—the written note or the initial oral comment—or are they equally prominent? I do not know which would be more prominent, and I do not think that most traders or consumers would know. I do not see that this extra test particularly helps the consumer.

I fully agree with the principle that consumers should be given key information in a clear and transparent manner. We have a suite of legislation in place and will have more when this Bill is enacted. Clause 50 provides appropriate protection by requiring a qualification to be given on the same occasion as the information it would qualify. I believe that that is sufficient, given the risks of causing uncertainty by going further.

I should perhaps add that Part 2 of the Bill implements Law Commission recommendations to protect consumers from surprises in the small print. Price terms must be prominent to avoid assessment in court for fairness, and that is new in this Bill.

In these circumstances, I ask the noble Baroness to withdraw the amendment.

[Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town]

I thank the Minister for that. If she were worried only about the application of the amendment to information given orally, then of course we could just put “where written, they should have equal prominence”. That could be a solution if that were the only issue that the Government had with this. The “hidden in plain sight” issue is quite important. Sometimes these things are known to the trader but are carefully put where they are not as obvious to the purchaser.

We will look at the wording and will think about whether, when something is known to the trader, we can find a form of words to ensure that it is all put in writing. However, for the moment, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 48C withdrawn.

Amendment 49 not moved.

Amendment 49A

Moved by

[Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town]

49A: Clause 50, page 31, line 7, at end insert—
“( ) Where the trader seeks to change any of the information set out in subsection (3) after a contract has been entered into by a consumer, the trader must—
(a) ensure that if the consumer does not wish to agree to the changes sought, the consumer is able to terminate the contract without incurring financial detriment; or(b) offer the consumer an alternative contract with a comparable financial outcome for the consumer of the existing contract.”

[Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town]

My Lords, Amendment 49A is about mid-term changes to a contract. Therefore, this is not about things that were known at the beginning; it concerns the situation where a contract changes.

The intention behind the amendment is to deal with the situation where it is no good telling someone to shop around and find an alternative contract when some part of the original agreement, such as the interest rate, changes and either that person would incur a large financial penalty for doing so—the equivalent of an exit fee—or at that moment there are no other financial products around equivalent to the original one. There may be no such alternatives—perhaps because there is a mortgage famine, although there was not when the mortgage was taken out. The person’s employment status may have changed and therefore they cannot negotiate the same deal. They may have a few more children and so their outgoings are higher and, again, they cannot negotiate the same mortgage as they had to begin with. Alternatively, they could simply have retired and therefore find it very hard to negotiate a new mortgage. Also, annuity rates change a lot because circumstances may have changed.

Amendment 49A would not make the original terms of the deal necessarily unfair. It is not saying that it cannot be possible to change a contract, but it would seek to put the consumer back in the position where they would have been had the contract as made with and understood by the consumer been honoured. The amendment does not cover interest rate increases where those were part of the deal; it is where a provider seeks to change a part of the contract and where that leaves the client worse off because they cannot exit without a penalty. There is a contrast with the example of our house, which we keep going back to; if a cleaner says that they can no longer clean the house at the agreed price, you end the contract and find another cleaning firm. You can go elsewhere to get your house tidy, but that is not the case for financial products, where the exit fees, or changes in annuity rates, can mean a real loss from having to withdraw from the contract or where there is no other product available at that time, perhaps because of something in the market or one’s own circumstances.

Mortgage prisoners are the best example of the detriment that we seek to avoid. I am sure that everyone in the Committee will recall the Bank of Ireland example in March 2013, when the bank invoked a small part in its contract, citing exceptional circumstances, putting up the interest rates of more than 10,000 customers who had tracker mortgages that were supposedly going to be linked to the Bank of England base rate. That had gone up by 0.5% but the Bank of Ireland’s tracker rate went up by 4.49%. The issue is that consumers were essentially locked in to those payments at the time, because there were no competitive rates around where they could have taken their mortgage.

Amendment 49A is to ensure that, when the terms vary from those that have been mutually agreed, and when the consumer cannot leave the contract without a penalty, they must be protected by the provider. It is obviously vital for home buyers, whom we know that the Government are rightly keen to tempt back into the market at the moment, but it is also important for confidence in the financial industry, which, as I said, has some way to go before it reacquires our affection. I beg to move.

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe]

My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for her comments. Clause 50(4) protects a consumer from detrimental changes to their contract. The noble Baroness talked about midterm changes—a phrase that I rather liked; it is rather American in flavour. When I was a director of a building company, we used to call them variations. The subsection makes it clear that, when key information about the trader or service is amended, the consumer must agree to that change for the change to be effective. That already provides a significant level of consumer protection. The noble Baroness posited what happens if the consumer does not agree to a change proposed by a trader. The answer in part lies in subsection (4). If the consumer does not agree to a change to the information set out in subsection (3), the original agreement stands. The trader must uphold its side of the bargain without the change. For example, if the trader increases the price but the consumer does not agree, the trader must charge the consumer the original, lower, price and bear the costs of doing so. The law on unfair contract terms also protects consumers from changes made to a contract after it has been agreed. There is already existing protection, and we are strengthening that in this Bill. I look forward to discussing the issue next week because there are a number of relevant amendments.

18:00

Perhaps I could summarise the position to help the discussion today. The protection is via the grey list—the indicative list of terms that may be unfair in Schedule 2. This list includes contract terms which allow the trader unilaterally to alter the characteristics of goods, services or digital content without a valid reason. Therefore, if a trader has built into their contract a clause which allows them to make changes to the contract without a valid reason, the consumer or a regulator can challenge that term in court. If the court finds the term unfair, it is not binding on the consumer. For financial services contracts, such terms which allow price increases can be challenged for fairness unless the trader informs the consumer of the change at the earliest opportunity, when the consumer is free to exit the contract.

Those elements of unfair terms law protect consumers in the way that the amendment is intended to do. Notably, if a trader seeks unilaterally to make a change to a financial services contract, they must allow the consumer to terminate the contract without financial penalty. If they do not, the consumer can challenge the term in court for fairness. That threat of challenge is a significant incentive for firms not to use terms which allow unilateral changes to a contract. Given that existing protection, we are not convinced that further changes are needed.

The first half of the amendment would give consumers who were not happy to accept a change to their contract the right to terminate free of charge. We do not believe that that is necessary. As I explained a moment ago, for financial services contracts, that is already the case for price. For other contracts, traders voluntarily already do this in many cases. If a trader asks to make a change, it will be because they cannot complete the work without that change. For example, it may not be commercially viable for them. If the consumer does not accept the change it is in the trader’s interests to agree to terminate the contract. It would make no commercial sense for him to refuse a request to do so. We would not want to force traders always to offer termination where they have to make a change. That risks traders not offering certain services or not entering into complex contracts for risk of early termination. For example, a builder may not take on a complex and uncertain project if they have to take on the risk of offering to terminate the contract each time they make a change.

I always think of the restoration of my house, which needed quite a lot of work. We discovered as we went through the contract that the internal walls all had to be taken out because the structure of the house was far from what one would want in which to house one’s family. It is entirely fair that one would then negotiate a different arrangement in terms of what one had to pay. It is not in consumers’ interests that such complex services are withdrawn from the market.

The second half of the amendment would require traders to source an alternative contract for a consumer who does not want to accept a change. We do not think that that is practical for a trader. A trader would generally not know without significant costs whether a consumer would be disadvantaged by moving to one of their competitors. They would need commercially sensitive information from their competitors to analyse this or predict how the market will evolve in the future, as well as personal data about each potential consumer. Much of that information is, quite rightly, not readily available to the trader. Importantly, this change would impact negatively on the consumer because, ultimately, this could reduce one of the key benefits of competition: good deals for consumers. I strongly believe that. With this change, traders would be less inclined to offer good deals because it would mean they would be prevented from being able to change the terms in the future, even if they needed to for valid reasons and the consumer was given the option of exiting the deal. Consumers may then get fewer special offers or good deals as a result.

As well as the protections I have set out, we all know that we have a stronger and more robust financial regulator than ever before. The independent FCA is responsible for the conduct and regulation of residential mortgage lending and sets the rules that mortgage lenders are required to meet to ensure that customers are treated fairly. As Martin Wheatley explained in his letter to Parliament at the time, the FCA now enforces a rule that communications must be clear, fair and not misleading. It is also now more likely to intervene earlier to address the root cause of problems for consumers.

I apologise for giving that fuller explanation but the point about how mortgages are dealt with is quite interesting. For those many reasons, we do not accept the need for this amendment and I ask the noble Baroness, if she is willing, to withdraw it.

[Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town]

I thank the Minister for her explanation. We are not really talking about buildings and builders. That is easy; you can go somewhere else. However, I do not think that she answered the question about mortgage prisoners. We are talking about people who cannot exit because they still have to have a mortgage and cannot get one somewhere else, as there are none available at the time. I think we remember that period when mortgages were virtually unavailable.

Can the Minister write to me to set out how, given all she said about how it should not happen like this, it was possible for the Bank of Ireland to change the rate when people could not exit because they could not go somewhere else? If everything which she said is in place should have protected consumers, why on earth did it not at the time? This has all happened since we have had the safeguards that she set out, so I am slightly at a loss about how we ended up with people in that situation. It was there in the contract but although it said “under exceptional circumstances”, it could be for any other reason. It could be anything: perhaps they might decide that they want to pay high bonuses to their owners. The problem is among those who cannot walk out from that contract. If there is nothing available at the time, because of either the market or their own situation, why did the protections which the Minister says are there not cover the Bank of Ireland? Perhaps she could look at that and write to us, because there is clearly a problem which does not seem to be satisfied by the existing law. That is why we would like some change.

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe]

On the Bank of Ireland matter, that is an issue for the FCA and it is not really for me to comment in detail. I have seen Martin Wheatley’s letter of May 2013 to the chair of the Treasury Committee, in which he stated that the FCA,

“did not identify concerns with the relevant terms which led us to believe that they might be unfair”.

However, it is a perfectly reasonable request that I should write to the noble Baroness and set it out in a little more detail, or arrange for the FCA to write to her.

[Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town]

That would be helpful. Clearly, what that letter said was, “Shucks, it wasn’t unfair—pay up”. That was not quite the answer I was hoping that the Minister would give us. However, it is the one we have been given at the moment and I look forward to seeing that detail. It seems that there is clearly some detriment which we need to look at but, for the moment, I beg leave to withdraw this amendment.

Amendment 49A withdrawn.

Clause 50 agreed.

Clause 51: Reasonable price to be paid for a service

[The Deputy Chairman of Committees]

I call Amendment 49B, in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter of Kentish Town.

Amendment 49B

Moved by

[Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town]

49B: Clause 51, page 31, line 13, leave out from “price” to end of line 14 and insert “for all elements of the service supplied and the consumer faces ongoing costs or charges for an element of the service.”

[Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town]

Before the Deputy Chairman arrived, I warned the Committee that it was going to hear an awful lot of my voice today. I have apologised to the rest but maybe I could extend that apology.

Amendment 49B, which is also in the name of my noble friend Lord Stevenson, would ensure that consumers pay only,

“a reasonable price for the service, and no more”,

where the contract does not expressly fix a price,

“for all elements of the service”,

and where consumers subsequently find themselves facing “ongoing costs and charges”. The original clause covers situations such as those where you engage a plumber at short notice, without agreeing a price. It is intended to stop him charging £10,000, or whatever, for a 10-minute job. Our amendment would broaden the idea of a reasonable price to include later prices, when you are already tied into the contract.

I am not going to go to see Paul Simon—I forget what else is happening—but my noble friend Lord Stevenson, who is not in his place, has just flown by Ryanair, which gives me the example I want to give. Ryanair charges customers £20 for each boarding pass printed at the airport. However, if a particular customer, who will be nameless, buys a ticket—often several tickets—he believes that he has accounted for everything. He has paid for the extra luggage and for rapid boarding—I do not know what else one can pay for—then he goes off to have his holiday. He arrives at his holiday accommodation and discovers that there is no access to a printer in the hotel, so he cannot print the return boarding pass to be able to come back home. We think that the boarding card is an intrinsic part of the service and the contract—you cannot get on the flight without one—yet Ryanair exploits the position. Customers must have it and are charged what we would say is an unreasonable fee: it is about £20, so £100 for a family of five. I do not know how many children my noble friend, who went through this, has. He may have many children: it may have been £1,000. However, this is a cost that would not have been anticipated for 30 seconds’ work and a few pieces of paper. It is part of the contract, yet suddenly one has to pay it.

A longer-term issue is where consumers buy financial products and do not have clarity on what they are being charged for the longer-term administration. Sometimes their pension or annuity provider is eating up most of their savings. It is essential that the consumer should know about future costs and be able to decide whether it is a fair price. They need to know what they are paying for, not so much for Ryanair, but especially for services where customers will be for a very long time.

If I read it correctly, the Minister in the Commons agreed with this basic point, but felt that it would be covered by the Consumer Contract Regulations. However, as we have recently heard, they do not seem to have done the job. They make it clear that traders must disclose all costs, which the Government seem to think means unavoidable future costs that the trader could reasonably foresee before the consumer enters the contract. However, as one of the aims of the Bill is to provide consumers and traders with greater clarity on their rights and obligations—preferably all in one place—I urge the Minister to take the opportunity to make those rights clearer by accepting this very small amendment. I beg to move.

[Baroness Drake]

My Lords, I support Amendment 49B. Information and transparency, although not sufficient, are essential ingredients for empowering consumers. Providing good-quality, transparent and clear information to consumers enables them to make good choices and therefore make markets more efficient. This is particularly so, as my noble friend Lady Hayter has pointed out, with services contracts that do not expressly fix a price, where there are many elements to the service provided and where the contract is ongoing over an extended period with ongoing charges being incurred.

The consumer needs the necessary information to enable them to assess whether they are being charged a fair or reasonable price for a particular service, particularly given the issue of ongoing fees and charges. We all know that consumers can suffer from information overload and behavioural bias. Differences of knowledge and understanding between the consumer and trader can be commonplace. This gives rise to particular though not exclusive requirements—that clear information should be provided for all elements of the service contract and over time for ongoing costs and charges and that the prices for all those elements must be reasonable. This amendment would lock in all elements of the service provided into the reasonable price requirement.

18:15

Examples of the problem that this amendment seeks to address can be found regularly in financial service products. The FCA and its predecessor have built a mountain of compliance requirements but we still have a stubborn persistency of problems in this market. FCA rules and compliance requirements have not prevented financial service providers from failing to deliver the price and charges standards across all elements of the contract over time that would be considered reasonable, and certainly not in the area of pensions and investment products. Although the debate on the Pensions Bill that is coming will address quality standards and charge capping in certain areas, it will not cover all retirement income products or retail investment products, which are very vulnerable to the cumulative effects of charges over an extended period. Consumers need to know what they are paying for, especially for a service that is due to serve them for a substantial or significant amount of time into the future, and that those prices will remain reasonable over that period.

The amendment addresses all elements of the service supplied and the ongoing costs or charges for an element of the service. This is a very big consumer protection issue, certainly in financial services. Given the Government’s new freedoms on choice in the access to pension arrangements, which will apply from April 2015, the risk of consumer detriment in the marketplace could become even greater if protection of consumers in terms of reasonable prices for charges when service contracts run over an extended period is particularly important. In view of those changes that are coming, the need for a statutory provision, which sets a reasonable price requirement on all elements of the service contract and all ongoing charges or costs, is exactly what the Government should provide for in this Bill.

The benefits of this amendment are not restricted to financial services. Other types of ongoing service contracts would also be addressed, such as service contracts that cover the provision of voice, data and media services, which is an area for scale numbers of complaints, would also benefit from this amendment. Are all elements of such a service provided by these sectors over the life of a contract set at a reasonable price? Is the plethora of charges made clear, and is each of them reasonable? There are many examples of consumers entering into contracts for a service in the belief that they are paying a particular price only to be stung at the end of or during the contract term because of what they did not see or understand, or because not all elements of that contract were price or committed to be priced in reasonable terms.

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe]

My Lords, I am afraid that you have also heard a lot of my voice. I was hoping for some Divisions to give us a rest. Perhaps the Committee would allow me first to discuss Clause 51 in general and then talk about the amendment. The right in this clause is a backstop for consumers and traders. It is an important provision but, in many cases, will not be engaged. This is because, in most cases, a contract will set out the price for the service. In many cases, the trader will do this out of good will or best practice. However, there is also a legal requirement for many traders to give this information.

For contracts covered by our old friend the Consumer Contracts (Information, Cancellation and Additional Charges) Regulations 2013, traders must provide information about the price before the consumer is bound by the contract. If the price cannot be calculated in advance then, where the regulations apply, the trader has to provide information on how the price is to be calculated. The information requirements under these regulations may also cover delivery charges and other costs, and traders are prevented from charging any costs additional to the payment for the trader’s main obligation unless the consumer expressly agrees to that additional payment.

For services outside the scope of the regulations, other regimes apply—for example, the comprehensive system of regulation overseen by the FCA. There is a very clear principle there that all communications must be “fair, clear and not misleading”. The noble Baroness, Lady Drake, raised the question of longer-run, ongoing fees and charges. Certainly I have found that with my ISAs, which I have now had to stop, the providers have got much better in recent years at saying what the charges and costs are. Maybe that is the effect of some of these regulations.

There will also be a very small number of other cases—where the service is outside the scope of these regulations and they are not covered by other requirements—where the trader does not provide information about the price. Clause 51 protects consumers and traders in that small number of cases, in that the consumer will have to pay the trader,

“a reasonable price … and no more”.

This clause is about protecting those consumers.

Amendment 49B was debated at great length in the other place. The point was made that the information listed in this amendment is needed for the consumer to assess what is a reasonable price. I agree with that. The consumer should have this information, and possibly more, to assess what they are buying. However, this clause is a backstop for the very few cases where the price or the method of calculating it has not been agreed in advance.

The noble Baronesses, Lady Hayter and Lady Drake, talked about extra costs being added after the event. I have a graphic vision of the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, landing safely, I hope, after his Ryanair flight. I would just add to the debate that the Advertising Standards Authority takes action on misleading prices. Firms must advertise the full price, including compulsory costs. There may be a case to be made here, although the business model of some airlines is to have low core prices, from which we benefit, and then to charge add-ons, which the very organised can avoid. However, the consumer must have agreed to the additional payment before entering into the contract. If not, the regulations are clear that the consumer does not have to pay. If the consumer does pay, the money may be reimbursed.

To conclude, our view is that there is already legislation in place to ensure that consumers have clear and accurate price information and that Clause 51 does what we are seeking to achieve. In the light of those explanations, I ask the noble Baroness to withdraw the amendment.

[Baroness Crawley (Lab)]

To go back to the Minister’s point about the fairness and the reasonableness that have to be met, given my noble friend’s example of our noble friend and his famous holiday, would it be fair on him as a consumer to have to prioritise the availability of a printer when he looks to having a holiday? Surely the priorities will be pleasure, climate and the type of hotel or holiday accommodation, and not necessarily there being a printer so that he can print out his boarding pass. That is not fair on him as a consumer.

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe]

I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Crawley, for her intervention and for bringing the whole issue to life to an even greater extent. While I am waiting for a bit of advice, I would say that there are different business models. I used to go abroad on business and I got quite frustrated when I could not print out my boarding pass. Some airlines allow you just to show the boarding pass on your phone or your iPad. That has obviously been a great step forward.

On fairness, airlines are a competitive industry. If consumers do not like the deal that the airlines are giving then, to some extent, we vote with our feet. I have explained the frustration that I have had and how I dealt with it. It is not obvious to me how you could resolve this under the general heading of fairness. There are advantages and disadvantages to the way that services are supplied, and this is perhaps something for us to contemplate.

[Lord Harris of Haringey (Lab)]

My Lords, I hesitate to intervene. This may be the first time that I have intervened on the Bill, for a variety of reasons. I should declare my interest as chair of the National Trading Standards Board. I am now confused. I thought that I understood what this debate was about, but the Minister has raised the interesting topic of how people can understand what they are entering into. She has talked of the fact that different companies have different business models. That is all very well and good, but it is surely incumbent on them to ensure that those business models are transparent to people who might enter into a contract with them.

As we seem to be hung up about airlines and booking airline tickets, there is a particular issue about price comparison sites. That applies not just to airlines but to other services. The price comparison site will try to identify the headline figure for the cost of a particular service. That is where suppliers who operate a business model which adds in a series of extra charges further down the line can score. People say, “I will go for the cheapest”—the one which seems to be the cheapest—and then discover that they are being hit for all sorts of extra charges. I would be grateful if the Minister could tell us how she feels that the Bill addresses that problem.

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe]

I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Harris, for his intervention. It is great to have the trading standards voice joining in our debate, because we have referred to that several times already in Committee. I reiterate my point that the consumer must have agreed to the additional payment before entering into a contract. If the contract is not clear that the consumer has to pay but he or she pays, they can seek reimbursement. That is a basic principle. Of course, the law has been much strengthened by the contract regulations that we have been discussing. They require certain information for transparency, and making online sales requires information about extra costs to be given in advance. Obviously, I cannot comment on particular circumstances, but one would have to ask how the situation on boarding passes is described in the terms and conditions of that airline.

[Lord Harris of Haringey]

My Lords, my question was: how do the Government anticipate that the regulations that they are introducing, whether amended or not, will deal with the issues about price comparison sites and the headline price? It was because these are hidden costs, which are not automatically picked up.

18:30

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe]

I had not appreciated that the noble Lord wanted to talk in particular about price comparison sites. That is something I would like to discuss with him in a bit more detail. I will write to him and to other noble Lords.

[Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town]

I think these are hidden in plain sight. It probably did say, “If you go on holiday and you don’t print it then you are going to be hit by it”. Our disappointment is that the Minister is saying, “Don’t worry, the regulations are already there”. The evidence—from buying tickets, looking on price comparison websites, printing off boarding passes, or, even now, buying annuities, pensions and all that—is that the regulations are not working. This is the opportunity to strengthen them. I hope that the Government are not going to continue to tell us not to worry and that the regulations and law are already there when this is clearly failing to solve the problem.

The ASA is not mandatory. It is not a government agency or a legal enforcer. It is a voluntary organisation funded by advertisers, if I remember correctly, so it relies on the industry. I am pretty certain, because I take a lot of complaints to the ASA—I have a wonderful new one that I am giving it this week—that one does not get any redress, which is a great disincentive for people to complain to it. Although it either fines or tells people off for breaching its rules, consumers do not get any redress.

The Committee will be clear from our different responses, whether from the perspective of the National Trading Standards Board or from the financial sector—I thank my noble friends Lady Drake, Lord Harris of Haringey and Lady Crawley for their interventions—that we are uneasy that consumers are unable to be sufficiently protected by the regulations, which the Government assure us are there. The Minister said that this was comprehensively overseen by the FCA, but people are still having problems. There is quite a difference between us being told that it is quite adequate and our evidence.

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe]

One area that my noble friend Lady Jolly touched on today, and which we have discussed before, is the implementation of this new and important Bill and its parallel provisions. Clearly we can debate further and clarify whether we have exactly the right provisions; that is entirely appropriate for this House to do. However, her point is also about how we implement and enforce some of the good regulations that have come in during the past couple of years—some of them EU-based—and the new provisions that we are creating in this process.

[Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town]

That is helpful. I know that one of the Ministers said that the implementation group would look at the regulations as well as the Bill. I welcome that, but perhaps she should also talk to the FCA to see whether it could be part of that. I thank the Minister, and for the moment I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 49B withdrawn.

Amendment 50

Moved by

[Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts]

50: Clause 51, page 31, line 19, at end insert--—
“( ) A supplier must provide on request a written statement of account free of charge no more frequently than once per quarter.”

[Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts]

My Lords, Amendment 50 is a very broad, sweeping but probing amendment. It is designed to tease out the Government’s thinking on the position of those consumers who are increasingly being pressured to give up paper bills in favour of a paperless, usually direct debit system of charging. That is one of the two issues most frequently raised regarding consumer protection. Simply put, some people want to be told in advance what the cost of the service is to them. They want to be able to pay in the way that is most convenient to them, including by cheque, and they do not wish to be charged extra for using any aspect of that facility that they do not see as an optional extra.

To give a practical example, I have a bill from BT, which is headed, “How we worked out your bill”. After explaining that there is a charge of £48 for the service, it also explains that you get your phone line at a special rate. It gives a refund of £2 a month, which it says is shown on the bill—it is not shown, but never mind about that. Eventually it comes down to a £56 charge, and it then says “a payment processing fee”. That is the fee charged by BTPS, whoever it may be, for processing your payment. If you are in any doubt as to where you are being steered, on the right-hand side of the bill, in small type, it states, “To avoid future payment processing fees you can set up a direct debit at www.bt.com or call 0800 443311”. That fee is now £6 of £56, which must be doing quite a lot of good for BT’s profit margin.

It goes much wider than just individuals. In my work in the charity sector, one of the most common means—

18:36

Sitting suspended for a Division in the House.

18:45

[Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts]

My Lords, before getting back to the issue of paper bills, I hope that I will not be out of order in congratulating the noble Baroness who is taking the Chair of our Committee for the first time this afternoon. I did not want to risk it until I checked with her in the Division Lobby.

I was explaining the importance of people being able to get a paper record of what they are being asked to pay, and not being charged extra for that or for how they make a payment. I pointed out that in the case I had in my hand, BT was charging £6 for postage and payment and indicating strongly that, of course, there was an easy way to avoid that by paying by direct debit. I am not clear how the £6 is arrived at, or why it should not ask for £10, £20 or £30. I am not clear who will protect me when it does that but we can tease that out during the debate. Perhaps one of the regulators would step in, and if so, I should be interested to hear how. That is my first point. The cost of having a paper bill delivered can be 10% of the amount charged, as in this case.

The practical example that I was about to give when the Division Bell went was about charities. Charities use a very simple procedural device to minimise fraud, which is to have two signatories on a cheque. It is very easy for smaller charities. It is pretty effective and costs nothing but, of course, it does not, and cannot work on the direct debit system. Indeed, when the Government, or the industry, decided not to proceed with the phasing out of cheques for two or three years, that was one of those issues that we raised strongly to ensure that the position of these smaller groups was protected.

In passing, the other great complaint that I cannot see how to tackle is the fact that people are infuriated by their inability to talk to a real, live person, and have to go through a veritable steeplechase of Qs and As, and buttons to be pressed. People can lose the will to live. I mention that only because we are discussing the Consumer Rights Bill. Clearly, the easiest way to deprive consumers of their rights is to establish a CRM system that discourages people from complaining except in the most extreme cases. I know that people say the market will work to sort this out, but I have not seen much evidence of that yet.

Returning to Amendment 50, it was previously grouped with Amendment 53 in the name of my noble friend Lady Oppenheim-Barnes, which is a much better-focused amendment than mine. She has used a scalpel where I have used a butcher’s cleaver. I look forward to hearing her comments on that amendment when we get to it at the next sitting of the Committee. I say that her amendment is superior to mine. It is in all but one sense: it is focused on utilities and does not mention banks. One of the most frequently required paper statements is that for a bank account. You often need one from a bank account because of money laundering and other purposes, and banks are beginning to charge for this. In particular, online banks are trying to find ways of charging for it. I hope that when my noble friend has a chance to read the record of these proceedings, before we meet again, she will think how she might wrap up the banks into her otherwise exceptionally well drafted amendment—

18:50

Sitting suspended for a Division in the House.

19:00

[Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts]

Amendment 53, which we shall discuss at the next meeting of the Committee, is a much better focused amendment and I look forward to hearing the Minister’s reply to it. I hope that my noble friend can see a way to include the banks in it as well as the utilities, but for tonight, with this amendment and, I imagine, the amendment that the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, is going to speak to—an amendment to this amendment—we at least have the chance to have a preliminary canter over the ground and see how the Government’s thinking is developing in what is a very important area and a very significant concern for a large number of our citizens, particularly those of the greyer variation. I beg to move.

Amendment 50ZA (to Amendment 50)

Moved by

[Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town]

50ZA: Clause 51, line 3, leave out “no more frequently than” and insert “at least”

[Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town]

I have never heard the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson, describe himself as a butcher before, but he talked about coming in with a cleaver. I thank him for tabling Amendment 50 and for the way he moved it. I was delighted to give it my complete support. My amendment is simply to ensure that what he has asked for is available at least once a quarter, as there will be many instances where, particularly with phone bills—I cannot remember who I phoned last week, never mind three months ago—it would be very difficult to divvy up a bill like that if it was only once a quarter.

As the noble Lord said, this is a forerunner, in a way, of the debate on Monday on Amendment 53. He spoke about the banks. If we include regulated industries, of course, that might well cover banks. In a way, they are almost like a utility at the moment, so I am sure that a form of words will develop. The principle, as he said, is clear: it is bad enough paying a bill, but to be charged to get your bill is adding insult to injury. For me, the principle is clear that the sending of an invoice and, indeed, the paying of that invoice, is part and parcel of the contract, not something completely separate for which we should be charged.

We know that consumers are pretty insulted when a provider tries to decide for them how they will receive a bill. Eight out of 10 adults do not like it when companies take away their right to choose how they receive communication and four out of 10 worry that they might miss a payment if they do not get a paper statement and that their financial records would be incomplete without paper statements. Like all of us, the public do not understand why they should have to pay a fee for a bill, rather than it being included in the basic cost of a service.

Some people are particularly affected by this. Rather like those people who do not have a computer when they go on holiday, as we spoke about on the last amendment, some people do not have a computer at home. Such people, and there are a lot of them, cannot print off something to keep for their records, even if they can see it on their iPad. Another affected group is people who share accommodation and therefore share bills. They still like a bill that they can look at and maybe take a copy of, so they can know how to split it. There are also people whose carers or families help them in the payment of bills. Again, a paper bill that you can discuss is important for that, and for knowing who is dealing with which one. Those who are struggling to make ends meet very often have to juggle which bill they are going to pay next in order to avoid being cut off, or something like that. It is much easier, for many of us, to do that with a piece of paper.

Bills also fulfil other purposes. If you want to get a parking permit in London you have to have a utility bill in your own name and to your own address. That is difficult enough for those of us who have more than one name. If you cannot even get a paper copy, it makes it very difficult. There are other purposes for which you have to show a bill addressed to your home, including, I think, opening a bank account.

The other group of people for whom I think that it is particularly important to have a paper bill are probably the Members of your Lordships’ House. Having declared my interest as someone who still does my paperwork and my payment of bills in that way, I move my amendment and give my wholehearted support to the main amendment.

[Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville (LD)]

My Lords, I support Amendment 50. I have an elderly father who is 91 and who has recently been extremely ill. While looking through his paperwork, I found a number of bills that needed paying. We discussed this and I said, “Why don’t you set up a direct debit?”. He definitely did not want to do that. He felt that he would lose control of what was going on in his life and his finances. He liked the security of filling out a cheque and sending it in the post, with a copy of the bill or the counterfoil on the bottom of it. He felt that that was the way that he could make sure that his money stretched, that he had money at the end of the month and was able to pay all his bills. He is not a man who did not want to enter the technological age. He bought a computer—much to my utter amazement—because Lidl had them on special offer. He loves Lidl. He joined a course to teach him how to use to the computer, and my husband and son went over to help him to set the computer up and get to grips with it. However, he did not use it often enough to be able to use the skills that he had been taught in his computer classes, so he was never going to be able to pay all his bills from the internet. My father is not on his own. Lots of people want the security of a paper bill and of being able to pay by cheque or a direct debit—because my father has direct debits for some things, such as council tax. They want that security, and I think that they ought to be able to have that.

[Lord Harris of Haringey]

My Lords, Members of the Committee have highlighted a number of categories of people for whom this is a necessity. We should also be clear why it remains a necessity for virtually every citizen. That is a consequence of the approach of both the current Government and their predecessor in not enabling the citizens of this country to have a readily available means of identity proof and assurance. Had proposals gone forward on identity cards, it would no longer be necessary to prove your identity by turning up with a paper copy of a utility bill, which is one of the two elements that you nearly always have to have to demonstrate and prove who you are. I think that the failure of successive Governments to provide a proper system of identity assurance is lamentable, but that is for a separate debate.

We are left in a position where most citizens need to be able to produce a hard copy of a paper bill for a utility or similar service; otherwise, they cannot prove their identity to their banks, to apply for certain documents and for all sorts of other purposes. Under those circumstances, the Government need to look favourably on this group of amendments.

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe]

My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Hodgson for his amendment and for bringing up an issue that matters for the grey haired and the vulnerable. It is a very House of Lords issue, I have to say, so we must try to get to the right conclusion for the population at large.

For some, there is something comforting and reassuring about holding a bill or a statement. As others have hinted, it can engender a feeling of greater control over your finances. Equally, not everyone can manage with quarterly bills, which are mentioned in my noble friend’s amendment. We must not forget those who need to budget carefully when considering these issues—those who struggle to make ends meet.

There are a couple of elements in the amendment, as well as others for the debate that we will probably have on Monday on a similar issue: first, whether there should be a requirement for quarterly bills and, secondly, whether the customer should be able to choose the way in which they receive bills and statements. I turn to the frequency of bills first. It is common in most service supply contracts to receive a minimum of four quarterly statements of account, which reflects the historical habit of four quarterly payments. Other arrangements have grown up more suited for the circumstances of today—a mortgage customer may need only an annual statement, while for current accounts or credit cards a monthly statement would, in my view, be essential. For these, the benefits of moving to a system of quarterly statements upon request are not immediately obvious and could have the unintended consequence of increasing costs or restricting flexibility in the frequency of information.

The appropriate arrangements are set out at the time of the original contract, and I agree that these details should be clear and transparent at the time of purchase or engagement so that the customer knows how his or her bills and statements are to be provided. This is what the current law requires. So what is the case for change? The amendment requires that, notwithstanding the original terms of the contract, a customer can request at least four statements a year in written form, at any time of their choice, which could introduce a randomness into the billing process that would add to the administrative costs and could have undesirable side effects. That is probably not my noble friend’s intention.

Paper bills have never been free. Historically, there was just one way to pay and the fee for processing them was always included, obscured in the administrative costs of the utility and the charge spread across the customer base. However, of late, charges have been more transparent—partly due to advances in consumer law—and have been linked to specific costs and customer categories. Now cheaper to administer payment methods are available and utilities are seeking to incentivise their use by separating out costs and allocating them accordingly. The uncertainty that this amendment would introduce would be of disadvantage to online customers, for whom statements are readily available and can be printed if necessary. Many hard-pressed households welcome the opportunity to save money that paperless bills offer. Paying monthly by direct debit can also enable people to budget more effectively, rather than being faced with quarterly or lump sum bills. For them, the proposed statutory requirement set out in these amendments adds little but extra costs.

I agree, looking at the bill format, that the choice to have paper bills should be generally available, but when we consider the utility providers we can see that the choice is widely available. It is true that not all tariffs offer this option, but customers can and do choose to receive paper bills from their suppliers. So what is the objection? The issue lies with differential pricing, to which my noble friend Lord Hodgson referred—and on this I am afraid I must disagree. It is reasonable for a supplier to take the cost of processing bills into consideration when setting the price of its tariffs. Such decisions go to the heart of running a business and encouraging efficiency in the economy. It is undoubtedly more expensive for a business to print out and post bills to its customers than it is to deliver them electronically online.

It is not for the Government to dictate that certain costs cannot be accounted for and that the consequent burden instead should be placed on all the customers. It is surely reasonable for a business to incentivise its customers to use the cheaper processing mechanism by sharing the savings with customers. This amendment would outlaw that and almost certainly drive up the charges to online customers and perhaps to customers more widely. What does that do to our efforts to encourage more people online within the economy?

The noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, rightly mentioned how useful paper bills were as proof of identity. But, of course, that is not a primary function of utility bills. Other more reliable forms of identity are available to many people, such as passports and driving licences. Going forward, the Government Digital Service is leading work on the development of the ID assurance programme, which will enable people to prove their identity and access government services in a digital world. Bills can always be printed out from an account if they are needed. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Harris, for his comments on ID cards but that may be a debate for another day.

19:15

[Lord Harris of Haringey]

It is not entirely a debate for another day. I understand the arguments but the Minister is saying that to drive down costs is an unnecessary burden on the businesses concerned. If the requirement is for citizens to be able to prove who they are—and in most instances that is the case—they need as a second form of back-up a utility bill that gives their address. That is a problem that needs to be met. Are the Government arguing that that is not a fair cost on either the utilities, the companies concerned, or on the generality of consumers? As the Government are requiring that information and have created a situation in which we all need to prove our identity, the logic of the Minister’s argument is that the Government ought to be paying the utilities to provide us all with paper bills.

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe]

I note what the noble Lord said. That is fair but difficult logic. His points are well made. Perhaps we can come back to that question on another occasion, but I did emphasise that work is in hand on the ID assurance programme, which is very important if we are going to have a digital economy. We say that we are leading in Europe, so we should be doing this sort of thing as well.

What is being done to help people and businesses go online? A lot of work is going on across the public, private and voluntary sectors to help people and organisations get online, but digital exclusion is a huge issue. The digital inclusion strategy was published alongside the digital inclusion charter in April. It sets out 10 actions that government and partners from the public, private and voluntary sectors will take to reduce digital exclusion. There is quite a lot of good practice for the vulnerable and disabled that we may end up discussing in a little more detail.

Before I conclude, I return to the first point made by my noble friend Lord Hodgson concerning his experience of getting copies of BT bills. That is an experience I entirely empathise with, having had exactly the same issue when trying to prepare my expenses in the old days. The only thought I can add is that, like all sector regulators, Ofcom requires any charges to be cost-reflective. If a customer feels that a charge is excessive—I am not sure whether that was what my noble friend was saying—they can complain to Ofcom. Ofcom does listen to complaints. I believe it receives an average of only five complaints a month about paper bills, so not a huge amount of writing to Ofcom seems to be going on. That is obviously another avenue of public debate.

19:19

Sitting suspended for a Division in the House.

19:26

[Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts]

I am pleased, surprised and grateful to the Minister for telling me that I do get information about the costs of different billing in advance. I am sure that I do and that it is somewhere in the fine print, but it has not always struck me. I am also grateful for the reassurance that Ofcom will keep an eye on additional charges being made, which is the important thing. I suspect that only four people write because only four people know that Ofcom has a particular interest in this part of the Bill. Never mind—it is a step in the right direction. I am grateful to the Minister for all the information and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 50ZA (to Amendment 50) withdrawn.

Amendment 50 withdrawn.

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe]

My Lords, this may be a convenient moment for the Committee to adjourn.

Committee adjourned at 7.27 pm.

House of Lords

Wednesday 22nd October 2014 Lords Chamber

Wednesday, 22 October 2014.

15:00

Prayers—read by the Lord Bishop of Coventry.

Introduction: Lord Fox

Wednesday 22nd October 2014 Lords Chamber

15:08

Christopher Francis Fox, Esquire, having been created Baron Fox, of Leominster in the County of Herefordshire, was introduced and took the oath, supported by Lord McNally and Baroness Northover, and signed an undertaking to abide by the Code of Conduct.

Qatar: Football World Cup

Wednesday 22nd October 2014 Lords Chamber

Question

15:14

Asked by

[Lord Monks]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the treatment of workers in Qatar during the construction of World Cup 2022 venues.

[The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Baroness Anelay of St Johns) (Con)]

My Lords, we welcome the serious steps taken by the Qatari authorities towards improving regulations governing the treatment of migrant workers. We continue to encourage the Government of Qatar to set out a clear timescale for implementing these reforms, and we stand ready to support these efforts where we can.

[Lord Monks (Lab)]

I thank the Minister for that reply. However, given that the death rate on Qatari World Cup sites is running at 40 a month—contrast that with no fatalities on the Olympic sites in the UK —and given, too, that the promised end to the medieval kafala bonded labour scheme has been further postponed, is it not time for the Government to step up their efforts to stop those sites being more killing fields than playing fields, and prepare to call on FIFA to show a red card to Qatar and move the World Cup to somewhere that deserves it?

[Baroness Anelay of St Johns]

My Lords, there were several important questions within that. To summarise, there is certainly going to be an end to the kafala system: the Government there have made it clear that they will make the changes to remove the bonded system and move towards a more appropriate one, where we would expect the health and safety of the workers to be more properly respected. As for the position of FIFA, and whether the World Cup should be moved, that is a matter for the sporting authority itself. Clearly, our view is that every major sporting authority should be responsible and transparent in its dealings.

[Lord Hylton (CB)]

My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Monks, is quite right to raise this issue well in advance. Is the Minister aware that this system of tied labour prevails throughout the Gulf states, and that it entails heavy payments for visas and work permits, often for very poor people, who end up pretty well tied to one employer? If that employer goes bust, they have very little redress. Will the Government take the same approach throughout the whole of the Gulf?

[Baroness Anelay of St Johns]

My Lords, we discuss these matters with Governments around the Gulf; we have certainly done so recently both in Saudi Arabia and in the UAE. I note that in Saudi Arabia there has been a move towards maintaining more accurate labour records, and we hope that recent legal reforms should then improve the most basic rights of migrant employees.

[Lord Holmes of Richmond (Con)]

My Lords, when we were planning the London Olympic and Paralympic Games, it was not just about a sensational summer of sport in 2012: we had safety hard-wired into everything we did. Can the Minister assure the House that the FCO and UKTI are doing everything to enable the great British companies that worked on our Games to get involved, to win contracts and to help Qatar 2022, and every international sporting event, to be safe, secure and successful?

[Baroness Anelay of St Johns]

My Lords, we do, and it is right that we do. Staff in the British embassy in Qatar meet Qatar 2022 officials on a regular basis. As part of the discussions, they highlight British-owned companies’ expertise in staging global sports events. Indeed, the embassy has engaged with the supreme committee for delivery and legacy on many events, such as Soccerex 2014 and the global sports mission in February 2014, both in Qatar and in the UK, to showcase British expertise. We look forward, I hope, to British companies winning substantial contracts. Let us wait and see.

[Lord Bach (Lab)]

My Lords, the United Nations International Labour Organization is the body that perhaps could best help construction workers in Qatar. Why have the Government cut all UK support for the ILO? Was that not a very serious mistake? What are their plans to restore that funding?

[Baroness Anelay of St Johns]

My Lords, we support the work of the United Nations and all its supporting bodies through our payments to the United Nations. The noble Lord will know that we carry a very heavy burden and we bear it lightly, although of course we want to see that the money is used well. We use our expertise throughout our embassies to ensure that we negotiate with, support and encourage Governments to ensure that labour reforms are effective. In Qatar they have already shown their willingness to take forward those labour reforms.

[Lord Addington (LD)]

My Lords, does my noble friend not agree that it might be a good idea if the British Government made sure that all British bodies responsible for planning and helping at any future international sporting events ensured that a commitment up front to very good health and safety practices was an important part of that support, and that we would vote against any future bid where that was not the case?

[Baroness Anelay of St Johns]

My Lords, my noble friend makes a very good point. Indeed, the United Kingdom is one of 46 countries that adhere to the OECD guidelines for multinational enterprises. The guidelines provide detailed voluntary standards for responsible behaviour among companies bidding in such contracts, including standards relating to promoting development and encouraging suppliers and other business partners to act responsibly. That is the right way forward.

Scotland: Devolution Commission

Wednesday 22nd October 2014 Lords Chamber

Question

15:20

Asked by

[Lord Foulkes of Cumnock]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what progress has been made by the devolution commission, chaired by Lord Smith of Kelvin; and when they expect it to report.

[The Advocate-General for Scotland (Lord Wallace of Tankerness) (LD)]

My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Smith of Kelvin, has already done his work and is today chairing the commission’s first plenary session. All of Scotland’s five main parties are taking part in this process. There is a clear timetable for the work and an opportunity for people across Scotland to participate. The Smith commission will produce a heads of agreement report by 30 November this year.

[Lord Foulkes of Cumnock (Lab)]

My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for his Answer. However, does he agree with me that the Smith commission should not operate on the basis of party horse trading but on principles, particularly the principle that each power devolved should be appropriate to be exercised at that level, and that Holyrood should be given tax-raising powers sufficient to enable it to raise enough money to cover the expenditure for which it is responsible?

[Lord Wallace of Tankerness]

My Lords, I agree with the noble Lord that this should not be a question of horse trading. Ahead of today’s meeting the noble Lord, Lord Smith, indicated that he believed that there would be a will among the parties to reach agreement. I do not think that it would be appropriate for the Government to dictate to the Smith commission what the principles should be, although I do think that the noble Lord makes an important point about principles. The one important, fundamental principle is that all five parties should work to strengthen the Scottish Parliament within the United Kingdom. On 18 September, the people of Scotland voted for Scotland to remain part of the United Kingdom, and that is a principle we cannot lose sight of.

[Lord Palmer (CB)]

My Lords, given that there is a rumour going around that Scottish MPs in the other place will not be able to vote on only English matters, might those of us in this House who live north of the border be affected by the same rule?

[Lord Wallace of Tankerness]

My Lords, as we heard the Reading Clerk read out a moment ago, and have heard numerous times, we are Peers of the United Kingdom. That puts us in a slightly different position from those who are elected to represent specifically Scottish constituencies.

[Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)]

My Lords, it is, indeed, a historic day when all five major parties in Scotland meet round the table to discuss the way forward for Scotland. This will require those parties that have published proposals not only to form an agreement on the basis of principles but to compromise and, indeed, for some—not exclusively the Labour Party—to go beyond the proposals that they have already published. If that is the case, which we all hope that it will be, will the Government commit to promote actively the result of this to make sure that all families and voters in Scotland are aware of these home rule proposals for the long term? Will the Government also commit to meeting their deadline for bringing forward draft clauses to bring forward the conclusions of the Smith commission for legislation?

[Lord Wallace of Tankerness]

My Lords, on my noble friend’s latter point, the Government have indicated that they will bring forward draft clauses and, indeed, will do so by Burns Night, 25 January 2015. My noble friend makes an important point about the importance of ensuring that people in Scotland know what these proposals will be. We have sometimes undersold the very significant additional powers that have been made available to the Scottish Parliament under the Scotland Act 2012.

[Lord Wigley (PC)]

My Lords, does the noble and learned Lord accept the words of the Prime Minister at Question Time today when he confirmed that full fiscal autonomy and full control of Scottish taxes were within the options of the Smith commission? If that is so, how can it be achieved within a unitary state, and does it not beg the question that, inevitably, we must move towards a federal or quasi-federal structure?

[Lord Wallace of Tankerness]

The noble Lord knows what my party’s position on federalism has been for the last 100 years-plus. However, the important thing is that the noble Lord, Lord Smith of Kelvin, and his commission are allowed to get on with their work on the basis of the submissions made to them and do not feel in any way that they are being hidebound by the views of either the Scottish Government or the United Kingdom Government.

[Lord McConnell of Glenscorrodale (Lab)]

My Lords, one of the more unfortunate developments in Scotland over the last two years has been the headlong rush to discuss more powers for the Scottish Parliament before discussing what to do with the additional powers in the 2012 Act. But given that situation, it is now vital that we have a sustainable settlement for the longer term. That will need all five parties to move from their current positions and the new commission to agree on the basis of principle. Have the Government set as an objective for the commission a sustainable, long-term settlement for tax powers in Scotland that will then allow the parties to get on and talk about what to do with the powers rather than about how many powers they have?

[Lord Wallace of Tankerness]

I thoroughly agree with the noble Lord with regard to the importance of the use of the powers. I like to think that the Administration of which he and I were part made very good use of our powers. That is important. It is also important that that is sustainable in the longer term to ensure not only that Scotland’s place within the United Kingdom is maintained but that it will be a balanced settlement, which we are ultimately striving for, that is fair to people in England, Wales and Northern Ireland.

[Lord Trimble (Con)]

My Lords, how within the commission will there be a provision to enable the British national interest to be reflected?

[Lord Wallace of Tankerness]

My Lords, as I indicated to the noble Lord, Lord McConnell, any agreement must be sustainable for the longer term and fair to other parts of the United Kingdom. I do not want to be tempted down the road of second-guessing the Smith commission but I have made it very clear that the one principle that cannot be challenged is that the people of Scotland voted to remain part of the United Kingdom. That principle must be upheld in any proposals that the commission comes forward with.

[Lord McAvoy (Lab)]

My Lords, as the Minister said, we should not second-guess the Smith commission. The details will come. However, does he agree that all parties must enter the process in good faith and want a conclusion to the process that respects the result of the referendum, which was decisive, and is in the best interest of the people of Scotland?

[Lord Wallace of Tankerness]

My Lords, obviously everyone wants the outcome to be consistent with the referendum outcome and in the interests of the people of Scotland. The noble Lord, Lord Smith, has already met the individual parties and said that he believes there is a will among them to reach agreement. I hope so and that it will be done in good faith.

[Lord Grocott (Lab)]

Was the Minister actually saying, in answer to an earlier question, that while it would be fine to create two categories of MP by withdrawing voting rights on certain matters from MPs from Scotland, there would be no question whatever of having two categories of Peer—a matter in which he would have a direct interest? That sounds to me suspiciously like wanting to have your cake and eat it. Surely, the only way that one can sustain a position of equality across the United Kingdom is to say no to any suggestion that there should be two categories of voting rights, either for MPs in the House of Commons or Peers here. Starting to have two categories of Member would be to take a very dangerous route towards the break-up of the United Kingdom.

[Lord Wallace of Tankerness]

My Lords, I think I was answering very directly the question asked by the noble Lord, Lord Palmer. I made the self-evident point that there was a difference between people elected to represent a territorial part of the country and Peers of the United Kingdom. However, the so-called West Lothian question is a live issue that has been around for far longer than even Mr Tam Dalyell. A number of proposals have been put forward, including comprehensive proposals from the McKay commission. I know that my right honourable friend Kenneth Clarke chaired a commission for the Conservative Party, and my right honourable friend David Laws has put forward ideas on behalf of my own party. It is important that these issues are addressed. The Prime Minister set up a committee under the chairmanship of William Hague to look at this issue, among other things, and I very much hope that it can proceed on a cross-party basis, if possible.

[Lord Cormack (Con)]

My Lords, is it not important that Mr Hague’s committee does not come to premature conclusions? What the noble Lord, Lord Grocott, said about categories of Members of Parliament and of this House is exactly right. What is at risk is the future unity of the United Kingdom, and any short-cut solution on the basis of the glib “English votes for English laws” will not necessarily safeguard the long-term interests of this country.

[Lord Wallace of Tankerness]

My Lords, I think that I am on safe ground in otherwise difficult territory in saying that the one thing that everyone is united upon is the importance of the United Kingdom. Proposals on any part of constitutional reform must be looked at on the basis of whether they will sustain the United Kingdom. There would be no point, having gone through the trauma of a referendum and having established Scotland’s place and integrity within the United Kingdom, going about constitutional proposals that start unpicking the ties that bind us.

NHS: Health and Social Care Act 2012 Reforms

Wednesday 22nd October 2014 Lords Chamber

Question

15:29

Asked by

[Lord Brooke of Alverthorpe]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what is their assessment of the impact on National Health Service funds of the reforms introduced under the Health and Social Care Act 2012.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health (Earl Howe) (Con)]

My Lords, this Government have taken tough decisions to increase the NHS budget by £12.7 billion between 2010-11 and 2014-15. During this period, the Government’s NHS reforms will enable total administration costs to reduce by one-third in real terms, to release funding to NHS front-line services. Already, savings arising from the reforms released £1.5 billion last year and £1 billion in 2012-13 to front-line services.

[Lord Brooke of Alverthorpe (Lab)]

My Lords, did the Minister read, as I did, the headline “NHS reforms our worst mistake, Tories admit” in the Times last week? This was part of a devastating series of articles analysing what had happened to the 2012 reforms, along with the costs which had accrued or the savings which had failed to be achieved but could have been if the Government had not been diverted by the reforms. Who will be held responsible for this devastating and monumental failure in policy? It has been very costly to the country, especially at a time of austerity.

[Earl Howe]

First, let me make it clear that the Government have no regrets whatever about the NHS reforms. These reforms enabled massive savings to be made, all of which have been ploughed into the front line. Without investment in the cost of the reforms—which I concede were considerable—we would not have been able to realise these savings, nor would the NHS have been able to plough those savings back into the front line. This has enabled us to employ more than 7,700 extra doctors, and the NHS is now performing more than 850,000 more operations every year. That is the benefit of the reforms.

[Lord Patel of Bradford (Lab)]

My Lords, if there is so much investment being put into the NHS, as the Minister said, why are mental health services being cut across the country and especially in the north of England? In my own city of Bradford, our mental health care service has been cut by 23%. How do we expect mental health care to have parity of esteem when it is experiencing these kinds of cuts?

[Earl Howe]

The noble Lord raises a very important issue, which results from the fact that commissioning decisions are taken not by the Government but by clinical commissioners across the service. We are very concerned by the reports of lower resources being channelled into mental health services. A lot of work is going on, in my department and in NHS England, to make sure that those services—and, crucially, the outcomes from those services—are maintained.

[Baroness Masham of Ilton (CB)]

My Lords, how much was paid out in redundancy to health service staff who lost their jobs and were then taken on again? Is the Minister aware that emergency medicine and accident and emergency departments are really overstretched?

[Earl Howe]

The noble Baroness asks two questions. We had to abide by the terms of the contracts of employment which were put in place by the previous Administration. In some cases, people were made redundant and were then re-employed by the health service at a later date. No one can take satisfaction from that, which is why we are completely revisiting the terms of those contracts. As regards accident and emergency departments, we know that the NHS is under pressure, but there are now more accident and emergency doctors than there were in 2010. The work being done by Sir Bruce Keogh to look at the system across the piece will, we trust, address a number of the pressures that the NHS is now experiencing.

[Baroness Barker (LD)]

The Minister will know that health commentators usually assess the annual increase in health spending at 4%. In view of that, does he agree that the sustainability of the NHS rests largely on its integration with social care? Does the Minister also agree that this issue should be addressed in the forthcoming Autumn Statement?

[Earl Howe]

I agree with my noble friend that the integration of health and social care services has a major part to play in making the system more efficient across the piece and more effective for the patient. That is why we are introducing the better care fund, which, at a local level, will channel at least £3.8 billion into pooled budgets to deliver that integration.

[Lord Harris of Haringey (Lab)]

My Lords, if the system is quite as wonderful as the noble Earl suggests, will he explain why so many people are waiting so much longer in accident and emergency departments and why so many young doctors completing their GP training decide to leave the country and practise overseas rather than participate in the grotesque mess that this Government have produced?

[Earl Howe]

I take issue with the phrase “grotesque mess”. If the noble Lord cares to look at the figures, he will see that waiting times are low and stable, MRSA and C. diff infections are at record lows, mixed-sex wards are down by 98% and the number of people waiting a long time for treatment is massively reduced. Yes, we know that many A&E departments are under pressure but many are coping. The work that we are doing, including channelling more money into the system for this winter, should, we hope, relieve the worst of the problems.

[Lord Patel (CB)]

Now that general practitioners will have incentives to diagnose dementia, will it lead to a better and more accurate diagnosis? Will it increase the number of people diagnosed with dementia or will it increase the number of people falsely diagnosed with dementia? Let us remember that there is no cure or treatment for any of them.

[Earl Howe]

My Lords, the noble Lord, in his ingenious way, is deviating slightly from the Question on the Order Paper which refers to the costs of the reforms. We are in dialogue with the medical profession to ensure that none of those perverse consequences happens.

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)]

My Lords, let us come back to the Question, which is about funding. If the picture was so rosy, why is it that a record number of NHS trusts and NHS foundation trusts are in deficit? If the picture was so rosy, what does the Minister have to say about the report a couple of weeks ago by the Nuffield Trust? It states:

“Prompt access to services has declined … In mental health services, demand”,

is,

“outstripping capacity for urgent care and for younger people. The wellbeing of frontline staff in both health and social care is”,

deteriorating. When he says that the Government are not ashamed of what they did, who is he speaking for? Is he really speaking for the Prime Minister and the leadership of his party?

[Earl Howe]

I am indeed and the NHS is under pressure for the reason that the noble Lord has just quoted—demand has risen dramatically. However, productivity has also risen dramatically, which it failed to do under the previous Administration.

Ebola

Wednesday 22nd October 2014 Lords Chamber

Question

15:38

Asked by

[Lord Alton of Liverpool]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what is their assessment of the international response to Ebola.

[Baroness Northover (LD)]

My Lords, the UK has been at the forefront of responding to the Ebola outbreak. We are leading the international response in Sierra Leone with more than £125 million in assistance committed already. We are urging our international partners to scale up their support for the worst-affected nations and to contribute to the UN trust fund.

[Lord Alton of Liverpool (CB)]

My Lords, in the light of disclosure that the Swedish furniture manufacturer, IKEA, has provided more funds than Spain, Luxembourg and Norway combined in responding to the Ebola crisis, will the Minister tell us what response the Prime Minister has had from the letter that he sent to 27 European leaders last week asking them to increase their contribution to match that of the generous response of the United Kingdom? Will the Government raise with the international community the possibility of providing hospital ships to relieve the acute shortage of beds in west Africa? Will the brave British personnel risking their lives routinely every day be flown home for treatment should they be unfortunate enough to contract the virus?

[Baroness Northover]

The Government are extremely active at the moment in seeking assistance internationally. The European Council is coming up and the Prime Minister will attend. He has sought €1 billion from European countries. All embassies across Europe are very active in seeking funds for this extremely important and pressing crisis. The key thing about hospital ships is to make sure that there is capacity in Sierra Leone rather than seeing capacity as being offshore. In terms of being flown home, as my noble friend Lord Howe said the other day, sometimes it is not in the best interests of a patient to be flown home. The important thing is to make sure that if we have medical staff working there they are supported there if that is judged to be clinically the most effective way to look after them.

[Lord Chidgey (LD)]

My Lords, living and working in the remote forest regions along the border of Sierra Leone, Liberia and Guinea is difficult enough in itself—without electricity, without any form of healthcare and without clean water. Adding the problems of trying to deal with Ebola creates a really difficult situation for these people. As a lead aid nation, has the United Kingdom ensured that it is securing support from local workers from all the distinct linguistic groups, reaching into the remotest communities in these areas? How is the United Kingdom responding to the efforts and offers of President John Dramani Mahama to make Ghana the regional base in west Africa in the international campaign to defeat Ebola?

[Baroness Northover]

The UK is supporting the training of many local workers. That is key, not only in Sierra Leone but in the other countries. UNMEER, which is the United Nations organisation set up to co-ordinate efforts across all the countries, including ones which are not affected at the moment, will have to be extremely vigilant. It is acutely aware of the need to make sure that health workers are in place in those countries.

[Lord Soley (Lab)]

My Lords, has the Minister seen the report of the House of Lords Select Committee on Intergovernmental Organisations in 2008 and the Government’s response in Command Paper 7475 dealing with infectious diseases and the threat to the world? Two of its recommendations dealt with the inability of the WHO to have the proper structure necessary—mainly because of some of the supporting countries—and with the all important issue of developing health services within those countries. If she has not seen that report and the Command Paper issued by the Government, will she look at it because many of its recommendations are still relevant and not all of them have been carried out?

[Baroness Northover]

There was indeed a report and it had very sensible recommendations. When we finally get past this crisis, which I hope will be relatively soon—but who knows?—it is extremely likely that many lessons will be learnt as to how the international community and nations play their part in dealing with crises like this. We have many lessons to learn.

[Lord Walton of Detchant (CB)]

My Lords, is the Minister aware of any research on the availability of serum derived from blood samples from individuals who have survived the Ebola infection and could such serum be used to confer temporary passive immunity on healthcare workers who have been accidentally exposed to the virus?

[Baroness Northover]

The noble Lord is probably aware that William Pooley, who suffered Ebola and who was treated successfully, has contributed to the treatment of other patients. This is being studied along with pushing forward on vaccine research. There will be a meeting tomorrow of the WHO about that vaccine research. My right honourable friend Oliver Letwin and the Chief Medical Officer will be there.

[Viscount Ridley (Con)]

My Lords, will the Minister ensure that the Government look into the question of why the WHO took eight months to wake up to this epidemic, during which time there appear to have been reassuring noises coming out of local WHO chapters about how this was not a huge problem? Will the Government ensure that serious lessons are learnt about this?

[Baroness Northover]

I am sure that there are serious lessons to be learnt. We are fortunate to have international organisations but we need to make sure that we strengthen and improve them in the future.

[Baroness Kinnock of Holyhead (Lab)]

My Lords, can the Minister give us some information about the thousands of children who have been orphaned by Ebola in the affected countries? Families and friends are now too frightened to take them in when they are in such need. Are those children being properly identified and what is being done to give them care, counselling and support in the misery that they are now suffering?

[Baroness Northover]

We are acutely aware of that, as is the international community. The noble Baroness will know that UNICEF and Save the Children are also flagging up this enormously challenging situation.

Foreign National Offenders

Wednesday 22nd October 2014 Lords Chamber

Statement

15:45

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Home Office (Lord Bates) (Con)]

My Lords, with the leave of the House, I shall now repeat in the form of a Statement the Answer given earlier today by my right honourable friend the Home Secretary to an Urgent Question on foreign national offenders. The Statement is as follows:

“I am grateful to the National Audit Office for its report on managing and removing foreign national offenders. As the report makes clear, this is a problem which has beset successive Governments. Let me begin by being clear that foreign nationals who abuse our hospitality by committing crime in this country should be in no doubt of our determination to remove them from it. We removed more than 5,000 foreign criminals from the UK last year and we have removed 22,000 since 2010. I also want to make it plain that, as in so many other areas, it falls to this Government to tackle the problems of the past. Quite simply, the Home Office did not prioritise the removal of foreign national offenders before 2005.

It will take time to fix the problems we inherited. Chief among them, as the NAO report makes clear, are the legal barriers we face. The countless appeals and re-appeals which have been lodged by criminals attempting to cheat the system cost us all money and are an affront to British justice. That is why we passed the Immigration Act to clamp down on such abuse. New powers from that Act came into force this week to cut the number of grounds on which criminals can appeal their deportation from 17 to four and to end the appeals conveyor belt in the courts. From this week, criminals can no longer appeal against a decision that their deportation is conducive to the public good.

These reforms build on other measures we introduced in the summer which are already speeding up the deportation process. In July, we introduced new powers to stop criminals using family life arguments to delay their deportation. We have also changed the law so that, where there is no risk of serious irreversible harm, foreign criminals will be deported first and have their appeal heard later. For those that do have an appeal right, they will be able to appeal only once. These new powers are radically reforming the deportation process by rebalancing human rights law in favour of the British public rather than the criminal.

We are also pursuing joint working between the police and Immigration Enforcement. Operation Nexus has helped us remove more than 2,500 foreign nationals during its first two years, including 150 dangerous immigration offenders considered by the police to represent a particularly serious threat. Alongside tougher crime-fighting measures, improved protection at the border and greater collaboration between the police and immigration enforcement officers, the Immigration Act is helping us to deliver an immigration system that is fair to the people of this country and legitimate immigrants and tough on those who flout the rules. The Home Office will look at the NAO’s recommendations carefully and work with the other agencies involved to ensure that we continue to build on that system”.

15:47

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for repeating the Answer. The principle of deporting foreign criminals is one on which we all agree, but the Government need to take responsibility for the mistakes and failures of the system happening now. When the PM said that deporting foreign criminals was a major priority he did not add, “But only in five years’ time after new legislation”. Today we are deporting fewer foreign criminals than in 2010—and more criminals are absconding and the Government have no idea where they are.

The National Audit Office has identified that a third of the failures are due to basic bureaucratic mistakes in the Home Office. In 38% of cases, the forms were not even filled in correctly, and in a number of cases no one bothered to book the flights home. It is clear that we need less rhetoric, greater competence and better management. Given the necessity of European and international co-operation to deal with this problem, what impact does the Minister consider that the Government’s obsession with opting out of EU criminal justice measures has had on tackling it?

15:48

[Lord Bates]

I accept the view of the noble Baroness that the Opposition share our desire to see progress in this area, and the systems have to be robust to deliver that. It was clear that the UK Border Agency, which was introduced by the previous Government, was not delivering the effectiveness we wanted, and that is the reason we now have an Immigration Enforcement command with search teams that go out looking for people who abscond. It is also why the Human Rights Act, which forms the basis of many of the appeals and re-appeals, has been built upon by the Immigration Act. It now narrows down the number of routes for appeal from 17 to four. Of course, these measures have all taken time to come into effect, but as the NAO reports in its opening summary, over the past two years—since these measures have come in—the number of deportations is once again increasing, so they are beginning to have an effect. That is not to suggest any complacency whatever. We need to make sure that we continue to build on the measures so as to keep the British public safe.

15:49

[Lord Paddick (LD)]

My Lords, the Liberal Democrats want a fair immigration policy; clearly, we believe that foreign criminals who should be deported should not remain in this country. Will the Minister say how many of these dangerous foreign criminals are at large as a result of multiple appeals against deportation, and how many are at large due to Home Office incompetence?

[Lord Bates]

My Lords, my noble friend, of course, has great expertise in this area and will know that the basis on which we collect data is not quite as finely siloed as that. We recognise that there is a major problem here: it is a cause for public concern and it needs to be addressed. The measures that we are putting forward—to reduce and replace the appeal/re-appeal conveyor belt, by which many of these prisoners are attempting to work the system; and to ensure that we have better information at the point of entry into this country by signing up to the Schengen information system and the European Criminal Records Information System—are the approach that we should emphasise.

[Lord Ramsbotham (CB)]

My Lords, in 1999, as Chief Inspector of Prisons, I recommended that anyone who was ordered deportation as part of a sentence should have that deportation processed while they were in prison, starting on the day that they arrived there, so that on the day that they finished their sentence they went straight to the air field and out. That is what is practised in other places such as the UAE, as I saw. If they can do it, why can we not? When are we going to start acting properly? Furthermore, there is also a practice of sending people who are sentenced to deportation to immigration detention centres at the end of their sentence. That is precisely where they should not be, because they infect the people in the immigration centre with the wrong ideas, having been in prison.

[Lord Bates]

The noble Lord puts his finger on a very pertinent point. One of the problems is that, through the immigration appeals process, hearing a case in the immigration tribunals can actually be longer than the sentence. Therefore, the prisoners can sometimes be released; they are released on bail in certain circumstances. We have to be very careful of that. One of the provisions in the new Immigration Act is the ability to be able to say, “The appeal process does not take place in the UK. It should actually take place in the country from which they came”. That is a positive step forward, along the lines that he suggested.

[Lord Dholakia (LD)]

My Lords, we have bilateral arrangements with a number of countries about prison transfers. Is it not possible to look again at these arrangements to make sure that foreign nationals serve their sentences in the country of their origin, thus relieving pressure on resources and staffing in the United Kingdom?

[Lord Bates]

My Lords, my noble friend makes an important point. We are now taking part in the European prisoner transfer agreement; it relies on the country being willing to take the offender back into the prison system. There is another element to consider, in relation to non-EU countries: we need to make sure that the prisoner will actually serve in that country the sentence handed down to them and that they will not be allowed out early, as has happened in some countries when prisoners have been returned.

[Lord Richard (Lab)]

Will the Minister help me on one point? Could he emphasise a little more clearly than he has done that it is firmly the policy of the Government to re-enter—that they now wish to go back into—the 44 matters that they opted out of from the 144 on the original list for opting out? Things like the Schengen information exchange and the European arrest warrant are fundamental to the operation of any sensible system as far as deporting foreign criminals is concerned.

[Lord Bates]

I hear that. The Government will make their announcements in due course. Of course, just because we are not part of the Schengen agreement in terms of the movement of people does not mean that we cannot share information. That will be helpful not only to this country but to the countries in the Schengen area.

[Lord Harris of Haringey (Lab)]

My Lords, my noble friend Lady Smith told us that on occasion people have not been deported because the airline tickets have not been booked. Will the Minister tell us how many cases of that have taken place, and whose responsibility should it be to book those tickets?

[Lord Bates]

I think that the figure was taken from a couple of case studies mentioned in the NAO report; they are not actually grouped. But we absolutely recognise that there needs to be better co-ordination across government and that is why we now have a cross-government team that comes under the National Security Council taking this issue seriously, taking it forward and introducing the measures that we have put forward.

[Lord Martin of Springburn (CB)]

My Lords, when I served as a Member of Parliament, I had a large proportion of asylum seekers in my constituency of Glasgow Springburn. What would happen was that the asylum seeker would say, “I seek asylum” and therefore they were looked at. Can I get the assurance that when asylum seekers are seeking asylum, they are checked to see whether they have been serious offenders in their previous country?

[Lord Bates]

That is certainly the intention and the process. If I may, to make absolutely sure that I have given the noble Lord the accurate information, I will check on that and write to him. But that is certainly the case and nothing we are putting forward at present will mean that the genuine asylum seeker who is at risk of serious and irreversible harm will be deported while their case is being heard.

[Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton (Lab)]

My Lords, if the Minister is unable to answer the question posed by my noble friend, will he please write and put a copy in the Library? We need to know accurately how many people were involved.

[Lord Bates]

We will certainly make investigations into that and get the information required, and do as the noble Baroness suggests.

[Baroness Smith of Basildon]

My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister, who has been very helpful in his answers. But the point that I made in my original question, and was made by the noble Lord, Lord Richard, was about the Schengen information system that the Minister himself referred to as being important and the fact that the Government have not signed up to that; we have been having a debate about opt-in, opt-out again. I repeat the question: does the Minister consider that the Government’s obsession with opting out of EU criminal justice measures has had an impact on tackling this problem, particularly in relation to the Schengen information system that he referred to?

[Lord Bates]

I do not accept that that is the case. We are already, and have been for some time, part of the European criminal information system, which carries a lot of information; in fact, the UK is one of the heaviest users of that system. We now want to strengthen it further and it seems a very sensible step to be part of the Schengen information system as well.

Hereditary Peers By-Election

Wednesday 22nd October 2014 Lords Chamber

Announcement

15:58

The Clerk of the Parliaments announced the result of the by-election to elect a hereditary Peer in the place of Lord Methuen in accordance with Standing Order 10.

Two hundred and eighty-three Lords completed valid ballot papers. A paper setting out the complete results is available in the Printed Paper Office and the Library. That paper gives the number of votes cast for each candidate. The successful candidate was the Earl of Oxford and Asquith.

Criminal Justice and Courts Bill

Wednesday 22nd October 2014 Lords Chamber

Report (2nd Day)

15:58

Clause 32: Secure colleges and other places for detention of young offenders etc

Amendment 107

Moved by

[Lord Beecham]

107: Clause 32, page 30, line 42, at end insert—
“(d) secure children’s homes.”

[Lord Beecham (Lab)]

My Lords, this amendment is an appetiser for the main course that awaits us in the form of secure colleges, about which we will hear a good deal.

Secure children’s homes care for some of the most damaged children, necessitating intensive and, it has to be said, expensive care. The numbers have been reduced in recent years. There are now 138 places in secure children’s homes. In Committee, I suggested adding them to the facilities that might be provided by the Secretary of State alongside existing young offender institutions and secure training colleges and the secure colleges that the Bill seeks to establish.

In his reply, the Minister explained the failure to include secure children’s homes, on the list, on the basis that local authorities had the power to provide such homes, and the Secretary of State does not and never has had that power. He went on to say that it is for local authorities to provide sufficient places as are required in secure children’s homes, and we think it right that they retain responsibility for this.

However, the amendment does not require the Secretary of State to provide secure children’s homes; it gives him the power to do so. In any event, it is surely desirable that such provision is seen as part of a range of different facilities. Given the pressure on local authority budgets and the concerns that secure colleges, if they are to be included under this legislation, might reduce the demand for such places, it is surely reasonable for the Secretary of State to have some involvement—potential, if not immediately actual—with this part of what should be seen as essentially one service aimed at providing for these children of varying degrees of vulnerability and difficulty, albeit in different ways.

I hope the noble Lord will acknowledge that this is meant to be a constructive amendment, which does not impose a duty but opens up the possibility of having a whole-system approach to this group of young people. I beg to move.

[The Minister of State, Ministry of Justice (Lord Faulks) (Con)]

My Lords, this has been a short debate about the place of secure children’s homes in the youth custodial estate. As the noble Lord, Lord Beecham, said, it is something of an appetiser for what I know is to come during the course of this afternoon and evening.

I recognise on behalf of the Government that much good work is done in secure children’s homes, and that they often accommodate some of the most vulnerable young people in custody. The Government are clear that we will continue to provide separate specialist accommodation for those who need it. We have also made clear that, while we believe the secure college model could cater for the majority of young people in custody—that is, a secure college rather than a secure children’s home—it will not be suitable for 10 and 11 year-olds or for some young people with the most acute needs or vulnerability.

This year, we have demonstrated our commitment by continuing to provide places in secure children’s homes by entering new contracts with nine homes to provide 138 places. I know that many noble Lords will have observed the decline in the number of places in secure children’s homes that the Government contract, but that, as was acknowledged on Monday in your Lordships’ House, reflects a substantial and welcome reduction in the number of young people in custody overall in recent years.

The current arrangement is that the Secretary of State may provide places in young offender institutions and secure training centres; the Bill seeks to give him the power also to provide secure colleges. In addition, he has the ability to enter into contracts for the provision of youth detention accommodation in secure children’s homes. Amendment 107 would change this by giving the Secretary of State the power to provide secure children’s homes directly. The power to provide these homes rests with local authorities, not the Secretary of State, and we think it right that this should remain the position. Secure children’s homes are created by different legislation with the purpose of ensuring that there is provision for children whose welfare needs are so acute that a court decides they must be accommodated securely. Meeting the needs of this particular group of children is the important distinction between secure children’s homes and other forms of custodial provision.

The Secretary of State has a duty to ensure that there are sufficient places in youth detention accommodation for young people remanded in or sentenced to custody, and in discharging this duty he continues to contract places in secure children’s homes for those young people who require them. We think that that is the right arrangement, rather than the Secretary of State providing secure children’s homes, which are intended to serve a greater purpose than simply accommodating convicted or remanded young people.

I recognise the concern about the future of secure children’s homes and we will no doubt come back to that when we consider the substantial group of amendments that follows this debate. The Government are clear that there continues to be a place for them in the youth custodial estate, but we consider that the position is adequately catered for by the current arrangements. Therefore, I hope that the noble Lord will be prepared to withdraw his amendment.

[Lord Beecham]

My Lords, as I hinted when moving the amendment, I shall not divide the House on this issue. However, the Minister overlooks a key element in the case that I put, which is that local authority budgets are extremely hard pressed and it will be increasingly difficult for them to sustain the level of investment needed in this provision. Having said that, I shall not press the amendment, but I invite the Government, or perhaps the Minister, to talk to the Department for Education and the Department for Communities and Local Government about the financial implications of continuing provision in, I think, only nine local authority areas now, for which funding is under great pressure. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 107 withdrawn.

Amendment 108

Moved by

[Lord Ramsbotham]

108: Clause 32, page 31, line 2, at end insert—
“( ) No secure college may be established until comprehensive rules on the operation of secure colleges, including the use of force and the treatment of young persons with mental or physical health needs, have been made under section 52(2ZA).”

[Lord Ramsbotham (CB)]

My Lords, I shall speak also to Amendments 111 and 121.

Last Thursday, the noble Baroness, Lady Tyler, initiated a debate to take note of Her Majesty’s Government’s social justice strategy in which I quoted the words of the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, Iain Duncan Smith, who, in launching the strategy in 2012, said that social policy could not be conducted in discrete parts, with different parts of government working on discrete issues in isolation. A strategy had to have a fundamental vision and driving ethos, without which it would be narrow, reactive and unworkable. As a result, a Cabinet committee has apparently been set up to ensure that all government departments drive forward the aims of the strategy. I say “apparently”, because I can find no evidence that it has passed judgment on the proposal in respect of a secure college that is the subject of my amendments.

Mr Duncan Smith listed five principles of the strategy: a focus on prevention and early intervention; concentration on recovery and independence, not maintenance; promoting work as the most effective route out of poverty; most effective solutions being designed and delivered at local level; and intervention providing a fair deal for the taxpayer. He also listed a number of key indicators of success or failure, of which number 3 is a reduction in the number of young offenders who go on to reoffend.

On 11 March this year, I tabled a sunrise amendment similar to Amendment 108, asking that implementation of the Secretary of State for Justice’s proposals for probation reform, which appeared to be being rushed through before they had been properly thought through, be conditional on the proposals being laid before and approved by both Houses of Parliament. The Minister, as befitting an advocate of his distinction, bravely defended the Government’s position, convincing the House that contract management of transparent reforms, which were not being rushed, was secure. As the Minister knows, all is not currently well with the now delayed reforms for a variety of reasons, many of which were raised in this House and of which I could list a number but do not have time to do so.

Yet again, Parliament is being asked by the Secretary of State for Justice to rubber-stamp a rushed and un-thought-through discrete proposal whose intent I and many others support but whose details remain shrouded in mystery. This time, he also appears to be in defiance of the Government’s social justice strategy. I hope that he noted the almost total opposition to his proposal by anyone who has any knowledge of the practicalities of dealing with young offenders and how they respond to youth custody, expressed in a letter to the Daily Telegraph signed by 29 such people last Monday. I understand that some of them were summoned to a meeting with Ministers last night, it being made abundantly clear to the five who were able to attend that the Government were not prepared to give one inch to their concerns.

On the one hand, we have a Secretary of State with no experience of the management of young offenders claiming that he can improve the dreadful track record of the current system, on which I reported adversely many times as Chief Inspector of Prisons, by providing young offenders with better opportunities, particularly in education, at less cost because of the economies of scale on a large site which is a young offender institution by another name. On the other hand, we have experienced experts saying that his proposals are bad for children, bad for justice, and bad for the taxpayer. Both cannot be right.

Noble Lords will no doubt remember that in “Henry IV, Part Two”, as Henry IV lies dying with the crown beside him on his pillow, Henry IV takes and tries it on in an adjoining room, being berated by his father with the words:

“Thy wish was father, Harry, to the thought”.

In this case, I feel that “wing and prayer” is more appropriate than “thought”, because, far from having a coherent and costed plan, which bidders are expected to deliver for a stated and realistic fee, the Secretary of State is hoping that inexperienced providers will come up with cost-saving innovations that experienced ones, both private and public, have tried and failed to find over many years. The winning bid, in a large institution, rejected as impractical by the rest of the world, will then be adopted as secure college policy. No business would dare to operate like that, or it would very soon be out of business.

We have already had deep discussion of this in Committee, which I do not intend to repeat. However, I shall repeat, and ask the House to reflect on, some statements that have been made by the Minister and others since then. There is an added urgency to my Amendments 111 and 118, which seek that further development of the secure college proposal should be put on hold until the draft of the secure college rules instrument have been laid before and approved by both Houses of Parliament. Only last Thursday, the Secretary of State, in launching a consultation on the rules for his pet secure college project, which closes on 27 November, announced that he intended the Bill to receive Royal Assent before the end of the year, two months before the Government are required by statute to publish the consultation response. In other words, he appears hell-bent on bulldozing through proposals, which will be binding on successive Governments for the next 10 years, without parliamentary approval and before the election. What is extraordinary is that, with presumed assent only a few weeks away, he says in the consultation document that no decisions have yet been made about who will be accommodated in the secure college.

For heaven’s sake, how can you possibly make or cost any realistic plans, if you do not know for whom you are making them? This smacks to me of contempt of Parliament, which will, quite rightly, be held to blame by the public, if something that it has approved fails to provide, or proves to cost more than forecast, which this proposal undoubtedly will. Bearing in mind that it will be held to blame, Parliament has not only a right but a duty on its own behalf and that of the taxpayer to ask the Secretary of State for proof of how he can deliver or justify the following claims and statements, before vast sums of money are committed, over 10 years, against all the evidence and advice that has been given to him. He has said that secure colleges are,

“a new form of youth detention accommodation with innovative education provision at its core which will equip young offenders with the skills, qualifications and self-discipline they need to turn away from crime”.

How do you do self-discipline? It has also been stated that,

“secure colleges must deliver a full and quality curriculum that motivates and challenges all young people”.—[Official Report, 21/7/14; col. 1034.]

There is no argument at all with the intent but there is a question mark over the practicality. It has been stated:

“The Government’s vision is that young people will receive a full day of education and training, rehabilitative intervention and enrichment activity, with sufficient flexibility to respond to the individual needs of young people”,

and that,

“secure colleges … will foster a culture of educational development and provide enhanced rehabilitation services while also achieving savings”.—[Official Report, 23/7/14; col. 1187.]

You do not deliver all those activities without people, and people cost money. Another statement claims:

“It is the Government’s view that setting out information about individual training courses and the standard to be reached in respect of such courses in secondary legislation is not appropriate.”—[Official Report, 21/7/14; col. 1036.]

Why on earth not?

“We are confident that the operating cost of the pathfinder will be lower than £100,000 per year, but the exact cost will be determined by competition”.

Surely the exact cost is determined by the provision and what you want.

“We believe that it is right to focus on the educational outcomes that the establishment achieves rather than the staff it employs”.

I have to say that I found that last statement really awful.

16:15

At the other end of the educational ability spectrum, is there any indication that at last the Ministry of Justice will accept the offer of masterclasses for the few very bright inmates, provided by Tomorrow’s Achievers, about which there has been a deafening silence since they were first offered in 1999?

Regarding the use of restraint, I note that the comprehensive list of conditions listed by the noble Lord, Lord Marks, in Amendment 120A, specifically, and thankfully, excludes any mention of “good order and discipline”, which anyway is banned by the ruling of the Supreme Court. My Amendment 121 is in accord with the recommendation of the Joint Committee on Human Rights, which I recommend as being both simple and clear.

I know that the Secretary of State does not put the interests of staff as high on his list as educational outcomes, but I could not disagree with him more. As countless governors and staff of YOIs and other places of detention know only too well, their selection, training and support is the most crucial factor in any establishment. What is interesting to me is that all the most successful establishments, such as those run by Diagrama in Spain, which I described in Committee, and Orchard Lodge, the secure children’s home containing children with severe mental problems that when run by Southwark Council presented limited use of seclusion by staff whose average length of service was 11 years, staff must know, and be trained and regularly assessed in, any skills that they are allowed to use.

When I met the Minister for Prisons recently, I reminded him that the special hospitals and others, including the police, had rejected Prison Service restraint training because its techniques were not suitable for either patients or children. I hope that the National Health Service will be consulted over this and staff left in no doubt as to what is appropriate and when, as soldiers were in Northern Ireland with the yellow card for opening fire.

I could go on and on but I will not. I am asking the House whether it is satisfied that the persuasive generalisations offered by the Government are backed up by sufficient evidence to allow it to agree that the Secretary of State for Justice may proceed with his expensive, uncosted and unproven assertions, and that he can revolutionise one part of the youth justice system—namely, the custody of 320 of the most damaged, vulnerable and challenging young offenders—at less cost than that for which they are now confined, in defiance of all the known facts about dealing with and caring for these young people. Or does the House think, like me, that this proposal should not necessarily be cancelled but should be parked so that it can be examined in the context of improving the whole youth justice system against all other necessary improvements, including the question of diversion, work in the community and the all-important transferring back into the community? The Secretary of State appears to be unwilling to commission the research that would, for example, give him a set of criteria against which he could judge individual bids to deliver a special contract, but I thought that parliamentary scrutiny was what parliamentary democracy was all about. In that spirit, and in appealing to all the parents, grandparents, uncles and aunts on the political Benches, I beg to move.

[Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames (LD)]

My Lords, my Amendments 120A and 120B in this group both concern the use of force in secure colleges. Amendment 120B would delete paragraph 10 of Schedule 6 which provides—I say iniquitously—that:

“If authorised to do so by secure college rules, a secure college custody officer may use reasonable force … in carrying out functions”,

which include ensuring good order and discipline on the part of young offenders in custody and attending to their well-being. Amendment 120A would introduce restrictions on the use of force which accord with good practice, with the civilised treatment of young persons in custody and with the European Convention on Human Rights. Furthermore, my amendment accords very closely with the principles set out in the Government’s consultation paper published last week on the proposed secure college rules.

The authorisation of the use of force for the purpose of ensuring good order and discipline—said in the consultation paper to be clarified or modified by the proposed secure college rules—has been the subject of a judgment against the Government in the Court of Appeal in the case of C v Secretary of State for Justice 2008 concerning secure training centres. The clear view of the Joint Committee on Human Rights in relation to the Bill is that provisions authorising the use of force for the purpose of ensuring good order and discipline should be deleted. Those words can go without affecting the implementation of proposals for the sensible and modified use of force, suggested in the consultation paper. What is proposed is not a clarification but a departure—and if it is a departure, good order and discipline should disappear from the legislation altogether.

It is not right for the Government to say that merely because the use of force is authorised by the statute, as circumscribed by the rules, it would be appropriate for the legislation to authorise force for the purpose of enforcing good order and discipline. I believe that the correct conditions for the use of force should be plain in the Bill. There is no reason for not limiting the authorisation in the Bill to accord with what is appropriate. There should be no chance of any misunderstanding or misconception of what is and is not authorised and no internal inconsistency, apparent or real, between the primary and secondary legislation. The Joint Committee on Human Rights considered the Government’s case that there was a distinction to be drawn between the requirements for the Bill and those for the rules—and it rejected it.

On a practical note, as the noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham, pointed out, the Government’s consultation paper on the secure college rules has only just been released. The Government’s response to the consultation cannot possibly come before Royal Assent for the Bill. That means that unless the Bill is clear about the restrictions that should be imposed on the use of force, the secondary legislation may not properly reflect the will of Parliament, even allowing for the affirmative resolution procedure being applicable to the rules—if it is.

My amendment would make the position clear. The first three purposes for the use of force are uncontroversial. They are to prevent injury to the young person concerned, to prevent injury to others and to prevent serious damage to property. The limitations on the use of force, as contained in the second to fifth conditions of my amendment, are also uncontroversial and in accordance with best practice. They are that force must be used as a last resort only, that the force authorised must be the minimum necessary to achieve its purpose, that it must be applied for the minimum duration necessary to achieve that purpose and that the techniques used should be in accordance with an approved system of restraint. Furthermore, it is important that all those authorised to use force should be properly trained in its application and in techniques of minimum restraint.

However, since Committee, and in the light of the publication of the consultation paper, I have been convinced by the two so-called “scenarios” set out in the consultation paper that there may be a need for force to be authorised also to maintain a safe and stable environment, subject to extra conditions. The first of the two scenarios is where an abusive young person in a secure college disrupts a visiting session for all those in the visiting room, including other detainees, their visitors and families, and simply will not move. The second is where an aggressive young person needs to be moved to protect another young person who is threatened by him, where that other young person is at unusual risk from that aggression. In both these cases I can see that some force may be required to move a detained young person. However, such force as may used in those circumstances—that is, to promote a secure and safe environment—should be limited to circumstances in which a young person poses a risk to the present safety or welfare of another person and should never involve pain-inducing techniques.

These restrictions represent the Government’s view, clearly expressed without reservation in the consultation paper. I simply cannot see why they should not be expressed in the primary legislation, particularly when the secondary legislation will come so late in the day.

The issue of the use of force in secure colleges is serious. We should not forget that in April 2004 at Rainsbrook secure training centre, 15 year-old Gareth Myatt was asphyxiated while being restrained in an approved hold; nor that in August 2004, 14 year-old Adam Rickwood committed suicide at Hassockfield secure training centre after being subject to the so-called “nose distraction technique”. Accordingly, I ask the Government to reconsider their position, to limit the use of force in the Bill in accordance with the principles set out in their consultation paper, and to accept either my amendments or those of the noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham.

[Baroness Finlay of Llandaff (CB)]

My Lords, I have added my name to three amendments in this group, and will focus particularly on some of the health aspects. The question of how these colleges will be run becomes critical.

In his response to the previous amendment, the Minister said that there would be assessment of those with acute needs and vulnerabilities. I suggest that the health needs are far greater than has previously been estimated. I declare an interest as president of the BMA. Our report Young Lives Behind Bars is due to be published on 4 November. I have had extensive discussions with my successor, Al Aynsley-Green, who was previously the Children’s Commissioner and who looked at length into the management of offending children. He was particularly struck by the smaller units in Spain, and was clearly persuaded that moving children away from their original area of domicile, to which they would eventually return, was potentially quite harmful because of the disruption to the support for their health and well-being.

Children in the offending group generally have a much higher incidence of serious problems. About 12% are known to have been bereaved of a parent or sibling; that is far higher than the incidence among children in the general population. About 60% have significant speech, language and learning difficulties, 20% to 30% are learning disabled and up to 50% have learning difficulties. Put simply, about one in four has an IQ estimated to be below 70 and over a third have a diagnosed mental health disorder. Over a quarter view drugs and alcohol as “essential” to their well-being.

When the House of Commons Justice Committee examined reports on acquired brain injury, which affects around 10% of the general population, it found that it typically affects between 50% and 80% of the offender population. A relatively small 2012 study, covering 179 male offenders, found that 60% reported some form of brain injury and 40% reported a loss of consciousness, which indicates probably quite severe brain injury.

16:30

Can the Minister tell us where is the evidence showing the effectiveness of a short education programme that takes young people with severe trauma, brain injury, learning difficulties and so on away from their own environment? Where is the evidence showing the benefit of moving them away from the area that they have come from and to which they will return, rather than investing in the type of accommodation that has already been found to have improved outcomes for some of these young offenders, where they are in much smaller groupings with very personalised detention, and with a view to trying to reintegrate them into a society which has failed them many times before they started offending?

[Lord Carlile of Berriew (LD)]

My Lords, perhaps I may start with a moment of generosity to my much admired noble friend the Minister. He has addressed the concerns which noble Lords expressed in the past by tabling Amendment 122, which provides for a statutory instrument, subject to the affirmative procedure, to be laid and passed before the rules could be brought into effect. I am sure that we are all grateful for that. However, there are problems with that proposal.

The first problem is that even the affirmative procedure gives limited opportunities to those parliamentarians—and there are many in your Lordships’ House with great relevant experience—who would wish to amend what is contained in the rules, because of course even affirmative resolution procedure instruments are not amendable. It therefore makes the affirmative resolution process a blunt instrument in dealing with these important issues.

I am very concerned about the timetable which has been placed upon us. There is a consultation—to which the noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham, in his eloquent moving of his amendments, referred—which is to end near the end of November, and the Government’s response will follow two months thereafter. That is way outside the timetable placed on us for this Bill, including today’s debates. It is illogical and quite unnecessary to press a timetable that attempts to force us to reach important decisions today when those decisions might be informed by the consultation and the Government’s response to it. It is not unknown—indeed, it is common in your Lordships’ House—for the consultation process on any important issue to lead to amendment of the primary draft legislation placed before your Lordships. I respectfully entreat my noble friend to look at the consultation as a genuine process, not merely as a symbolic process to confirm what the Government would wish to have decided here today.

It is absolutely essential for us to see at least the shape and flavour of the rules that the Government wish to introduce. On restraint, the consultation document which was published only a few days ago contains one “indicative rule”, as it is described—a sort of suggestion of what might be a relevant rule. That is not a sufficient basis for the provision that we are debating now. Many well informed NGOs—and I declare the interest of having been at one time president of the Howard League, which is one of them—have, with other organisations, declared real misgivings, not so much about what is provided but about what they do not know is being provided. Therefore, in my view, this is all very premature.

We heard earlier from my noble friend Lord Marks the names of Gareth Myatt and Adam Rickwood. Just before I became president of the Howard League I was asked by that organisation to produce a report on the use of restraint on children in custody. That arose following the death of Gareth Myatt. Organisations such as the Howard League, and people who have been fairly intimately involved, do not let a day go by, when we think about these issues, without reflecting on that death. It seems to me that to proceed in this unnecessarily hasty way on a matter of such importance, without reflecting on the rules provided and whether they take into account the events that led to the death of Gareth Myatt, is not the right thing for your Lordships to do.

[The Earl of Listowel (CB)]

My Lords, I support the amendments tabled by my noble friend Lord Ramsbotham about delaying proceedings on this matter to give us more time to consider the detail before anything is put in place. I wish, as always, that I could support the Government because of their tremendous achievement, which must be repeated again and again, in taking 2,000 children out of custody in the past four or five years. Because of their humane achievement in bringing the number down from the all-time high of 3,000 children in custody—a number that was deplored by Members on all sides of your Lordships’ House—to, potentially, only 1,000 by this Christmas, I wish in my heart to support the Government as far as possible. I would also like to support them because the idea of basing an approach on education is, of course, immensely appealing.

There are, however, in these provisions shortcomings that have already been described. My concern is particularly about the risks that young people may experience in such a setting. On a recent visit to a young offender institution—I shall try not to repeat what I said in Committee, but I will repeat this point—I was given the example of 15 young people attacking two. When I first visited a YOI 15 years ago, there might have been three or four people attacking one or two, but with the gang culture now, it is normal—and a great source of worry and consideration to the governor and the prison officers—to have members of different gangs in prison, and to have to think about how to stop large numbers of boys beating up small numbers of boys. That is one aspect of risk.

Because the Government have been so successful in reducing the number of juveniles in the secure estate, we now have only the most troubled and challenging young people there. That may help to explain why it is difficult to reduce the reoffending rate further. It also means that those people are putting each other at greater risk than was the case in the past. Moreover, I learnt in an early experience of speaking to a prison officer that, contrary to expectation, people tend to be more challenging the younger they are, rather than it being the older ones who are most challenging. The older ones seem to have developed some sense of what one does and what one does not do, but the young ones just do not have that sense, so they can be very difficult to manage.

May I take your Lordships back to 1998, and the setting up of the first secure training centre at Medway? Some of your Lordships may remember Lord Williams of Mostyn coming to this House shamefacedly following the riot there, when in the space of just two hours eight or nine 12 to 14 year-olds caused hundreds of thousands of pounds-worth of damage and injured three of the staff. I think—perhaps the noble Lord will correct me if I am wrong—that the main issue was that the quality of staff was not appropriate to the needs of those young people. It had not been thought through beforehand what kind of staffing was necessary to meet their needs. So my noble friend Lord Ramsbotham has a very good point: we as parliamentarians should think extremely carefully about these vulnerable young people, who can be so damaged.

I am reminded of another example which, again, occurred under a previous Administration—namely, the setting up of Yarl’s Wood immigration removal centre. It was established as a secure centre for children and their parents on the plan of a prison; indeed, it was identical to a prison. One could go into the reception area of Yarl’s Wood immigration removal centre and have very much the same experience as going into a prison. A mother with an eight year-old child would have to walk through a barred gate. One has to ask oneself what the child thought of the experience of walking into a prison through a barred gate. Who gave any thought to what it would be like for children to be placed in that setting, run by a prison governor, if I remember correctly, and manned by prison officers? This caused outrage for 10 years.

The former Children’s Commissioner, Professor Aynsley-Green, repeatedly produced reports on this setting and very gradually the environment was ameliorated considerably over time. But how much better it would have been if consideration had been given well beforehand to what the needs of children and families kept in a secure setting would be—infants, eight year-olds, 16 year-olds with their mothers—and whether a prison would be suitable accommodation for them. This issue needs to be given the closest attention and most careful thought because we are talking about some of the most vulnerable young people in our society.

In conclusion, the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, talked about the health and mental health needs of these young people. Many of them will have experienced the care system. In many cases, before they went into the care system, they experienced repeated trauma throughout their lives, had dysfunctional families and were betrayed by the people they most trusted. There was no help available from within their families and they were very damaged by the time they entered care. In those circumstances it is vital that the proposed setting has a very good team of mental health professionals to support young people and the staff who work with such vulnerable young people. I share others’ misgivings. I wish that I could be more generous towards the Government because I applaud them for what they have achieved elsewhere for these young people. I hope that the House will support my noble friend’s amendment to give us more thinking space.

[Lord Deben (Con)]

My Lords, in my maiden speech I said that one of the things I wanted to concentrate on in this House was social justice. We are talking about what for me is one of the very central issues of social justice—that is, how you deal with those who are most troublesome to society. You can measure a society by how it deals with those who cause it most difficulty.

As a Member of Parliament, I found the visits to the young offender institution in my former constituency among the most troubling that I ever made because you met young men who had never had a chance of any kind whatever in their lives and you recognised that they could so easily have been your own sons. You also recognised how privileged your own children were, not in terms of money or any of the things which are foolishly trotted out by egalitarians, but just by the fact that they were loved.

That leads me to be very worried about any measures which are hurriedly introduced because I think this is a very difficult issue. It is very hard to get these things right. I come back to personal experience. If you bring up children in a loving and secure environment, it is still very hard to get these things right. It is very hard indeed and we all get it wrong. So often we say to ourselves, if we are honest, “If only I’d spent a bit more time thinking about that and taken a bit more advice about it, I might not have made such a blooming mess of it”.

16:44

That is in the context of a continuing relationship in a loving background. We are not dealing with that but with something much more difficult, simply because none of the things that you normally rely on is there. That is why this House has an important role to play, which is to say to the Government, “Look, you’ve done remarkably well”. That is one of the reasons why I am proud to support them—because they have done remarkably well. They have also shown themselves to care about this section of the population whereas previous Governments of all persuasions have not shown much indication that they were very interested.

The Government have also stood out against the more raucous elements of the press, which of course find it easy to attack this particularly deprived and vulnerable section of the population because we are talking about people who have done dreadful things. Let us not kid ourselves; we are not talking about people who have been somehow misused by the justice system but about people who, for reasons that we can find upsetting, have done inexcusable things. This is a huge problem for a Government, and this Government have behaved enormously well.

I therefore want to say a simple thing to my noble friend. He has heard speeches from people who are not among the flag-waving antagonists he sometimes faces but from those who genuinely want him and the Government to get this right. The feeling is seemingly universal that we would like him to give time to get this right and enable this House to do its proper job. We would do that job better if we had all the knowledge and experience from the consultation that is about to take place. This might therefore be an opportunity for him to say, “Perhaps I can go away, think about this again and find it possible to give this matter time”, which is, after all, available. I do not quite understand why anyone does not want to give it. I hope that the Minister will take away the genuine feeling of this House, which will help him do something very important.

[The Lord Bishop of Rochester]

My Lords, I hope that I am not a flag-waving antagonist but I support the pleas made by the last few noble Lords who have spoken, asking for some thoughtfulness, reflection and time to be taken over this. I am grateful for the consultation about the rules but we need time to take that consultation seriously and reflect upon it.

We have heard, not least from the noble Earl, about the profile of the likely pupils in the establishment that we are talking about. It is admirable that we want to put education first and foremost in establishing the shape of this provision. However, we know it is vital that this particular group of potential pupils has the best possible educational experience provided for them because they have lacked so much in their pasts. Noble Lords will have different views as to the model for the best possible educational experience. For some, it might be an establishment on the banks of the Thames near Windsor; for others, it may be some other kind of establishment. But whatever it is, there is a sense in which we as parliamentarians are cast in this matter in the role of prospective parents, for it is in our name that the young people who are to be the residents or inhabitants of this institution are going to find their way there. Like good parents, we will want to view the prospectus. I remember the year I spent some time ago trailing around secondary schools in Birmingham seeking the right one for my daughter, and poring for many hours over the prospectuses of various places.

The prospectus may tell us some things about the physical environment—we have seen some plans and intentions and there have been some discussions about that—but of much more importance is what will happen each day and what the experience will be. Of course, in this instance that will be for 24 hours each day and for 365 or 366 days in the year. What will be the precise detail of the educational provision? How many staff will there be? What will be the skillset of the staff, and the mix of those skills? As has been referred to, what will be the discipline policy within this institution? What games will be played, and what other extracurricular activities will there be? As parents, one might also be concerned about issues such as the quality of the food which will be provided, and suchlike.

Of course, the prospectus brings us into the realm not only of the rules which we are now discussing but also of the terms of the contract. As good parents, it is wise of us to want to see as much detail as possible in this instance before we sign up to send our children to this particular place of education. I join other noble Lords who have made a plea that we might take things gently, and that even at this stage we might be allowed to see as much detail as possible, both of the rules and of the potential contract which is the subject of another amendment, before final decisions are made. We may then be able to exercise our quasi-parental responsibilities in this matter with confidence and assurance.

[Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton (Lab)]

My Lords, 20 years ago last week I made my maiden speech in a debate on the care and protection of people in custody. This was in the context of my work at the time, which involved visiting police cells as a member of the police authority. Following that, I spoke in a debate initiated by Lord Longford. It took place late at night and there were few in the Chamber; at the time I was a coward about speaking in front of a full House. Lord Longford asked me whether there was anything else to do with the penal system which I would like to debate. I have great respect for much of what was done by Lord Longford. However, when I said that I wanted to talk about protecting people who were in custody, particularly young people, from emotional, physical or sexual abuse, he said, “We do not debate the problems in American prisons in this Chamber.” I could have agreed with Lord Longford on many things, but not on that.

My experience as a councillor, and as a visitor to schools and to units with young people, taught me that protecting people who are in custody, particularly the young, is an incredibly difficult task. We have heard that many have suffered violence, abuse and sexual or psychological abuse, and those of us who work with these young people know that on many occasions their behaviour plays that out.

I plead with the Minister to take this provision back. Having been in his position, I know that there can be difficulties if members of the Government in the other place are not here and are not listening to us. There is a message that could go back. The Government could come forward with their own proposals rather than risk defeat here. That would have the good will of the House and of the organisations which have written in. Most of all, it would allow those of us who are concerned about it to be as sure as we possibly can be that the quality, experience, framework and situation of the young people in this circumstance will be as advantageous as possible.

[Baroness Howarth of Breckland (CB)]

My Lords, I had not intended to speak in this debate, which is unusual bearing in mind the subject matter. I am on my feet for two reasons. I have sat in at consultations and I do not think that we will get a change from the Government: the Minister has already had it made it clear to him that this is the way in which the Government wish to move forward. I am on my feet because, despite the difficulties that I recognise he has, I should like him to do all in his power to take the messages back to the Government on behalf of the young people who will face this regime.

I understand the good intentions of the Ministers who have visited some pretty appalling institutions. We have heard from others about the kind of regimes where young people are incarcerated. That does not make this right. We could do even better with £89 million, particularly for this group of children. I find it difficult to disagree with the right reverend Prelate, for whom I have a particular affection. As I have said in many speeches, education cannot always be the centre of a unit for young people who are so highly disturbed. Those working in the field have made it absolutely clear in all that they have said that it would take those six months to settle someone with serious mental health difficulties who has never known consistent care, probably has a brain injury that has not been diagnosed and probably has a series of physical illnesses that will have to be addressed.

I do not doubt for a moment that we need to change the regime and that it is possible to do it. I simply do not think that the answer to the problem is a huge building of 300-plus children. At the moment it will include girls and young children but I deeply hope that when we get to that debate we can at least make some movement on that. The Minister will have access to all the research and advice about small units near facilities where parents, however difficult, can visit. I am not naive. I have run places like this in my time and I have been a director of social services. I have seen these young people and worked with their families. These young people make improvement if they are not anxious about what is going on at home. However much bravado difficult young men show, they are usually very anxious about what is happening at home and in their local community.

Therefore, I ask the Minister to think about giving time. Some of us are not totally against an alternative that might have a number of high-quality facilities in one place in which some of these youngsters might respond. It is simply that this is too fast, as many noble Lords have said. We need much more thought. People have visited really poor, barred institutions; the noble Earl, Lord Listowel, talked about going through bars. In the consultation, the Minister said that he wanted a centre to be light and airy, and a good place to be, with play facilities and health facilities. We all would applaud that. But this would be too big and the culture would be difficult. If the Government have not thought through the staffing and the leadership, the proposal is doomed to failure before it starts. This Government have talked time and again about leadership, about skills and about good, thought-through approaches. We have to have and understand those before this can go through.

I am disappointed that there are so few noble Lords present. I do not doubt that, if there is a vote with a Whip, the amendment will be lost. It would be a travesty for children and young people were that to be so. All we need is time to get this right for the future. We will repent at leisure if we act in haste on this.

17:00

[Baroness Linklater of Butterstone (LD)]

My Lords, this amendment contains two aspects which cause concern. One is the use of force—a matter of grave concern when dealing with young offenders—and the other is secure colleges, a new idea from the Government that fills us with despair and gloom.

This is one of the most sensitive and difficult areas of all offender management. The secure college rules sanction the use of “reasonable force” in three circumstances, and proposes a fourth. These are: to prevent injury to the young person or others; to prevent escape from custody; to prevent damage to property; and, lastly and worryingly, to maintain good order and discipline—otherwise known as GOAD.

Noble Lords have listed their own versions of such circumstances, including the last resort of,

“maintaining a safe and stable environment”.—[Official Report, 21/07/14; col.1046]

A comprehensive list was given by my noble friend Lord Marks, with such conditions as minimum force, minimum duration, minimum necessary and no techniques involving pain. All are agreed that force must not be used as a punishment, although it will most likely feel and seem a punishment to any young person who has the misfortune to experience it. It is highly undesirable and unjustifiable in almost every imaginable case that young people should experience this.

The acid test of really good management of young people who are characterised as being among the most damaged, the most difficult and often the most disturbed in their age group is that situations should not be allowed to reach such a point where force becomes an issue at all. Adolescent units in psychiatric hospitals present parallel situations, just as they often do in secure prisons, and control depends on very skilled management by well trained professionals. I have seen such examples in both situations—in prisons and in hospitals—where professionals do not need to have recourse to restraint because violent situations are anticipated and pre-empted. Once the possibility of force is accepted, it will be used.

The GOAD sanction seems the most concerning, partly because of the type of language used, including what is described as MMPR—managing and minimising physical restraint according to approved restraint techniques. GOAD—good order and discipline—is much broader, open to subjective interpretation and likely to be most widely used for that very reason. It is extremely worrying.

We do know that the JCHR recommended that only the first three circumstances of the college rules should apply, and that good order and discipline should not be included. It said categorically that secure children’s homes do not use force to maintain a safe and secure environment, and they have the same clientele. However, the MoJ has announced that it intends to allow the use of “reasonable force” to,

“maintain good order and discipline”—

which begs the question, of course, of what is “reasonable” where a young person is perceived to be posing a risk to,

“maintaining a safe and stable environment”.

The criteria are going to be so important.

Also, the MoJ does not consider it “necessary or appropriate” to set out in the Bill the circumstances in which custody officers are authorised to use force in secure colleges, and states categorically that,

“the Bill is clear ... a custody officer must be permitted by the rules to use force”.

This must be clarified further if the Government are to have some idea of the sort of regime they are sanctioning and for there to be confidence and trust in how these difficult and vulnerable children are being managed.

The JCHR’s most recent report on the Bill concluded that:

“We are concerned by the vagueness of the Government’s references to ‘maintaining a stable environment’ and protecting the ‘welfare’ of the child and others as permissible justifications for the use of force. The law is clear that the use of force on children … can never be justified for the purposes of good order and discipline”.

So there is a clear and currently unresolved difference of view, with each side apparently absolutely clear on the rightness of its position. However, what is clear is that the children and young people being dealt with here are recognised as being particularly troubled and vulnerable. If force is used on them, it confirms to them that violence is acceptable because that is what is being used by the authorities. Different standards and criteria are being used when it is deemed fit. I sincerely hope that such double standards will be rejected out of hand by the Government.

[Lord Beecham]

My Lords, the Government’s plans for the largest children’s prison in Europe are,

“bad for children, bad for justice and bad for the taxpayer”.

Those are not my words but, as the noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham, pointed out, those of 29 signatories to a letter in the Daily Telegraph, which of course is affectionately known as the house journal of the Conservative Party. One would therefore expect the Government to pay particular attention to views expressed in it and by it. The signatories include the chief executives of leading children’s charities, the president of the Royal College of Psychiatrists and the chair of the Association of Youth Offending Team Managers, among other experts in the field. Today, the Daily Telegraph contains an article by Mary Riddell supporting the position of those who wrote that letter.

No one would argue with the intention to improve the education and thereby the life chances of young offenders, but the Government’s proposals for a secure college housing one-third of young offenders in custody bear all the hallmarks of yet another rush to misjudgment. With a site in Leicestershire planned for a young offender institution going begging, the Lord Chancellor’s latest notion was to engage a building firm to design a college housing boys and girls aged 12 to 17 and then to start a tendering process which would lead to potential operators effectively writing their own job description, with precious little information as to costs or the precise way in which the institution would be managed. As we have heard, last week the Government published their consultation on the rules that will govern the establishment, containing such revolutionary and transformative suggestions that inmates should be entitled to at least one hot shower a day. But, as the noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham, has pointed out, the consultation will be concluded after the legislation is enacted, so Parliament will have no opportunity to consider the outcome or the Government’s response. That is a clear case of premature legislation for which no medical treatment can be prescribed.

Amendment 108 is designed to ensure proper scrutiny of this critically important part of the process. The amendment refers to the,

“mental or physical health needs”,

of young persons in secure colleges. As we have been informed by the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, a report by the BMA on the detention of children is due to be published after the Bill has left this House. Given the seriousness of the issue, the novelty and controversial nature of the plans and the lack of detail as to how the college will operate in practice in terms of who will operate it and at what cost, why are the Government in such an unseemly hurry?

There are, as we have heard, serious problems about the proposals. Among the most worrying, is the notion of housing all 44 girls now in custody in England in one place, necessarily, potentially far from their homes, something which will also be true of many male inmates, and also remote from the local authority services with which they should be in contact. There will be no overnight residential visitor accommodation on the site.

The prospect of having 12 to 15 year-old boys in the same institution as 15 to 17 year-olds is also a matter of grave concern, even though they will apparently be housed in separate units on the site. The former vice-chairman of the Youth Justice Board expressed his misgivings about security with a high concentration of the latter age group. Today, the Chief Inspector of Prisons is reported as expressing concerns about a more concentrated mix of vulnerable, challenging and sometimes very violent boys, in the light of the fact that the number of children going into care is decreasing. It is becoming a more concentrated and a more problematic group. The older boys will potentially be in the same institution as these younger children.

Amendments 109 in my name and 117A in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Marks, in the next group, seek to deal with this matter. In Committee, the Minister indicated that no final decision had been taken on these sensitive issues, but, of course, that simply underlines the undesirability of giving the Secretary of State carte blanche to determine them without parliamentary scrutiny. It is also entirely unclear how the educational component, which is the ostensible justification for the scheme, will work, given that the population will be constantly changing. In Committee, the Minister said that,

“a sufficient bank of time in a secure college would be intended, with an individually tailored plan”.—[Official Report, 21/7/14; col. 1035.]

He failed to reply to my questions as to what sort of time we were talking about and who determined what sort of time would be ultimately allocated.

We are a country that criminalises children at a much younger age than most. We appear reluctant to inquire into, let alone learn from, the experience of other countries such as Finland, Spain—where, as the noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham, pointed out, Diagrama runs the best children’s custody centres in Europe—or even the US, where the Missouri model, with facilities containing no more than 50 beds, is becoming widely adopted. Has the Government even examined these or other models? Yet here the Minister described the measure in the Bill as providing a,

“framework for the creation of secure colleges so that the Government can trial a new approach to youth custody”.—[Official Report, 23/7/14; col. 1185.]

If they have not examined other people’s trials, then the notion of a trial here is somewhat limited. In any event, it is an odd sort of trial that encompasses a third of the total potential number of relevant young offenders and one that perhaps threatens the viability of existing facilities, including secure children’s homes, run, as we heard earlier, by local authorities.

The proposals contained in the Bill have attracted very little support. They embody the Government’s usual attachment to outsourcing. They are being pushed through with scant regard to the proper processes of parliamentary scrutiny. I entirely echo the words of the noble Lord, Lord Deben, in strongly suggesting that the Government would be wise to extend the period and allow such scrutiny to take place.

Amendment 111 would require secure college rules to be approved, should the plans go ahead. Amendment 111A in my name would ensure that no second college could be provided without a proper assessment of the first, should that go ahead. I urge the House to support these amendments in order to ensure that proper consideration is given to these and other issues before launching what is, at present, an ill-defined and untested project. In addition, Amendments 120A, 120B, 121 and 122 deal with the use of force. The Joint Committee on Human Rights has expressed its views forcefully, as have a wide range of organisations. The amendment in my name and in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham, embodies the committee’s formulation.

In Committee, I pointed out that Schedule 5 to the Bill contains a wide power under paragraph 10 for a custody officer to use “reasonable force” not only to,

“ensure good order and discipline”,

but to prevent escape and,

“to prevent, or detect and report on, the commission or attempted commission … of other unlawful acts”—

unspecified—and,

“to attend to their well-being”,

under paragraphs 8(c), 8(a), 8(b) and 8(d) respectively. In addition, paragraph 9 extends the possible application of force to the searching of detainees and anyone who is in the college or seeking entry. Those are very far-reaching powers, on which the Minister did not specifically comment. They will be entrusted to people whose training, qualifications and supervision we know nothing about.

The position is utterly reprehensible and I hope that, having listened to Members on all sides of your Lordships’ House, the Government will take time to think again. I repeat: we are all entirely with the Government on wishing to make the best provision in educational and other terms for these damaged youngsters, but we are heading down a road with no clear indication of the destination or, indeed, how we will reach it. The Government should take the time, look at other people’s experience, engage with those most involved with the service and with these young people, and come back with some revised proposals.

17:15

[Lord Faulks]

My Lords, I am grateful to all noble Lords who have contributed to the debate on these amendments and to all those in the Chamber and beyond who have engaged with and helped to shape our proposals for secure colleges. It has been said during the debate that our proposals are rushed and ill thought out, and that there has been a failure to engage.

We have made considerable efforts to engage with a wide range of stakeholders and experts right the way through, from the gestation of this idea to bringing legislation before Parliament and developing plans for a pathfinder secure college. In our Transforming Youth Custody consultation, published in February 2013, the Government engaged with a wide range of organisations in the education, custody and voluntary sectors. Uniquely, we asked them to submit outline proposals for how a secure college might tackle the problems of poor education and reoffending outcomes. What I think there is complete agreement on in your Lordships’ House is that there is far too high an instance of reoffending by young offenders and that education is insufficiently catered for within the secure youth estate.

Those responses directly informed the Government’s response to the consultation, published in January this year. After the Bill was introduced in this House, I hosted an open event in July to outline our proposals, to share our latest plans for the design of the pathfinder secure college—the clue is in the name: pathfinder—and to listen to the views of those with interests and expertise in this area. Peers were assisted by iPads that gave a design and indication of the precise configuration of the secure college and how the various parts would work together. It proved a fruitful exercise, I believe, and the discussion that day with Peers led to substantial changes to our design for the pathfinder secure college.

Following that meeting, we secured additional land for the site, increasing its size by two acres and extending the range of sporting facilities and outdoor space. We also reconfigured the layout of the site to ensure that groups of the more vulnerable young offenders, whom we had already planned to accommodate separately, could access education and health facilities via a different route from older children at the site and would have separate sporting facilities. I was pleased to share those revised plans at yet another open meeting with Peers last week.

Noble Lords will also be aware that, following my commitment in Committee, last week the Government published a public consultation on our plans for secure college rules. It is a substantial document with a considerable amount of detail. I hope that those noble Lords who have felt it appropriate to comment on the inadequacy of the consultation will at least take the trouble to read carefully this consultation and realise the amount of detail that has been provided in order to come to the right final conclusion as to the rules.

The secure college rules set out the proposed policies which will inform those rules, and in respect of the use of force—clearly a matter of considerable importance to the House—set out draft indicative rules to facilitate greater scrutiny of our proposals. Noble Lords will also be aware that the Government have brought forward an amendment to make rules authorising the use of force subject to the affirmative, rather than the negative, procedure.

Throughout the process, Ministers have written to and met with a wide range of stakeholders to keep them apprised of our plans. Only yesterday the Prisons Minister, Andrew Selous, met a range of children’s charities and groups with an interest in youth justice. We also have been working closely with NHS England, the Department for Education and experts in education and custodial provision to test our designs for the secure college pathfinder. Our revised plans are now publicly available and are being scrutinised by Blaby District Council as part of the planning application for the pathfinder.

I hope, therefore, that noble Lords will recognise that considerable efforts have been gone into and opportunities provided for the views of others to inform our thinking. I have to say I was very disappointed to hear the noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham, whom the House of course greatly respects on this area, suggest in Committee that, notwithstanding our engagement, it was,

“both unreasonable and irresponsible of the Government to expect Parliament to rubber-stamp it until it knows more”.—[Official Report, 23/7/14; col. 1173]

The Ministry of Justice and my officials have worked extremely hard to provide information about secure colleges. There were also lengthy debates in the House of Commons. I hope noble Lords have had a chance to see them. I have read all of them. A great deal of detail was provided at that stage and then in your Lordships’ House in the lengthy Committee stage. The Government have attempted to give answers to all the various points that have been given to them. It is, therefore, with great disappointment, that we are accused of being in contempt of Parliament.

I will now turn to the amendments. They cover the use of force, secure college rules and the powers of the Secretary of State to contract out the running of secure colleges. I will start by addressing the amendment on the use of force, as this is relevant to the government amendment in respect of the secure college rules. Amendment 121 seeks to restrict the circumstances in which a custody officer may be authorised to use force in a secure college. I am aware that a similar amendment was recommended in the recent report on the Bill by the Joint Committee on Human Rights. While the Government share the view that force must only ever be used as a last resort, and that only the minimum force required should be used, we believe it is right that force be available in a wider range of circumstances than the amendment permits.

In addition to preventing harm, we believe that force must also be available to prevent escape, to prevent damage to property and for the purpose of maintaining good order and discipline. I recognise that it is the final category which has attracted most debate. During a constructive debate in Committee, I set out the Government’s view that custody officers in secure colleges should be able to use force for the purpose of maintaining good order and discipline, but that this use would be subject to stringent controls.

In our consultation document on our plans for secure college rules, we have gone into a great deal of detail about our approach to the use of force. I am glad that my noble friend Lord Marks made reference to the instances given on page 23 of that document of particular examples which he, I think, accepted were instances where there would, in exceptional circumstances, have to be force used in circumstances where one would not normally want it to be used.

We have clarified that force, in these circumstances, may be used only where a young person poses a risk to maintaining a safe and stable environment and where there is also a risk to the safety or welfare of the young person against whom the restraint is used or that of another young person. We have set out examples in the document of the types of circumstances in which we believe the use of force for these purposes would be justified. We are clear that force can never be used as a punishment.

The consultation document makes clear our position that the use of force for good order and discipline would be authorised only to the extent that it was strictly necessary and proportionate; that only authorised restraint techniques could be applied; that the use of pain-inducing techniques for reasons of maintaining good order and discipline will be prohibited; that only the minimum restraint necessary for the shortest possible time must be used; that the young person’s dignity and physical integrity must be respected at all times; and that the best interests of the young person against whom the force is used must be a primary consideration. We have also set out safeguards and procedures to be followed before, during and after any use of restraint for maintaining a safe and stable environment.

The Government recognise the sensitivity and importance of provisions relating to the use of force with young people. That is why we are consulting publicly and in great detail, and we will consider the responses that we receive. However, for the reasons that I have set out, we do not agree with the restrictions that the amendment would place on the circumstances in which force could be used in secure colleges.

As a further commitment to ensuring scrutiny of our proposals on the use of force, we are bringing forward an amendment to the process for approving secure college rules. In its third report of the Session, the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee recommended that if the Bill is to enable secure college rules to authorise the use of force for the purpose of ensuring good order and discipline, then such rules should, to the extent that they authorise, be subject to the affirmative procedure. We have accepted that recommendation and brought forward Amendment 122.

This amendment will make the entire first set of secure college rules subject to the affirmative procedure, as they will contain provisions authorising the use of force. This will give Parliament additional oversight of the secure college rules, although I cannot agree to Amendment 111, which would require the rules always to be subject to the affirmative procedure—a requirement which does not apply to prison or young offender institution rules, for example.

[Lord Beecham]

I am grateful to the Minister for giving way. I ascribed the wrong number to the schedule to which I referred earlier. It is Schedule 6 which is about the use of force. The Minister has referred to a number of instances which are certainly in that schedule, but he did not refer to paragraph 8(b), which talks about the use of force being permissible,

“to prevent, or detect and report on, the commission or attempted commission by them”—

that is, prisoners—

“of other unlawful acts”.

That seems an extremely wide definition. Nor did the Minister refer to paragraph 9, which relates to use of force in connection with searches.

[Lord Faulks]

I could go through the entire section, which is very lengthy, and deal with all the various aspects seriatim, but I am not sure that that would be a particularly useful process at Report stage, given that I am sure that all those who have been listening to this debate will have had the chance to see the entire detail of the relevant section of the secure college rules. I think that I have summarised fairly the Government’s approach in the rules. I also referred to those two specific examples to which reference was made by the noble Lord, Lord Marks. There have been discussions at the various meetings that we have had. So I would rather not be tied down to specific examples of when force should be used. We believe that the structure is there. We are of course listening to the consultation carefully and we encourage all those who are concerned, of whom there are many in your Lordships’ House, to take part in that consultation to assist us further in arriving at a satisfactory position, which I am sure we will be able to do.

The publication of the Government’s consultation will also reassure the noble Lords and noble Baroness who tabled Amendment 108 that we will certainly make secure college rules before such an institution opens. These rules will be essential to ensuring that young people are detained safely and securely in these colleges, and that they are educated and rehabilitated effectively. However, I strongly believe that this does not need to be placed in the Bill.

It is in the context of creating secure college rules that I turn to Amendments 120A and 120B, which would set out in primary legislation the conditions governing the authorisation of the use of force. I welcome the noble Lord’s amendment, which adopts much of the approach taken in the consultation document. However, I believe that this is a case for the rules rather than for primary legislation. I have provided assurances on how they will come into effect.

17:30

I am grateful for the amendment tabled by the noble Lord, which relates to the evaluation of the secure college pathfinder. The amendment seeks to ensure that before a second secure college is established, an evaluation is first conducted and a report laid before each House. This is, in a sense, what lies at the heart of this debate: many noble Lords have said, “This is all being rushed, you should wait and ask the Government to go away and think again”.

At present we are committing only to establish one secure college in Leicestershire. This facility will be a pathfinder intended to demonstrate the success of this new approach to educating and rehabilitating young offenders. I entirely agree that the first secure college must be rigorously evaluated. I assure noble Lords that that is exactly what the Government intend. It is important to emphasise that the secure college pathfinder that will open in 2017 will be subject to a thorough evaluation to assess implementation, operation and delivery against key aims and objectives, including the educational attainment and reoffending outcomes of young people detained there. The findings of this evaluation will directly inform decisions about the future of secure colleges and the youth custodial estate more generally.

The noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, addressed the House about concerns in relation to the mental health in particular of the proposed population of secure colleges. Of course, this will be a matter for NHS England, as I am sure she is aware, which has obligations to those in a secure college, in the same way that it has obligations to all members of the population. There is, as she may have seen in the design of the pathfinder college, a particular health unit placed strategically in the middle of the design. This will be the best way of delivering healthcare, uniquely tailored to those individuals.

I do not for a moment underestimate the challenges that these young people can present, and there may need to be a considerable amount of input in terms of medical help, advice and treatment. Although it is described as a very large establishment, a maximum of 320 is not large when compared with secondary schools, for example. There are some advantages in providing a larger number: there can be a better quality, and perhaps continuity, of medical attention. Of course, all this will be subject, as with the education provision, to inspections—inspections by Ofsted and Her Majesty’s Inspectorate of Prisons, supporting the Care Quality Commission reports, which will all be published. The expert oversight will provide an additional view of the performance of this new establishment. So while I entirely agree that it must be properly evaluated to gauge its success, I do not consider that writing such a requirement is appropriate. I will therefore in due course ask the noble Lord not to press his amendment.

Finally, and less contentiously I apprehend, the Government are bringing forward minor amendments consequential to our earlier amendments to extend the secure college provisions to Wales. The purpose of Amendments 114 to 117 is to ensure that the text of the Welsh language version of the Social Services and Well-being (Wales) Act 2014 is consistent with the English language version as amended by Schedule 5. This is necessary because the two instruments are legally separate. I can assure the House that the effect of the amendments is unchanged.

I conclude by saying that the current system of looking after young people in custody is not satisfactory. Noble Lords have been generous enough to acknowledge that this coalition Government have achieved much by reducing the number of those who are in the secure youth estate. Those who remain clearly present challenges. Often they have not had any significant education in the past. They will have—I hope that the focus of the college will indicate this—a real opportunity for education in a significant block. They may not be there for a very long period, and it is important that the education provider—this is something that we are entirely focused upon—is sufficiently agile to give them sufficient benefit by way of education, in terms of often quite basic education provision, so that they can reap a long-term benefit. Noble Lords will be well aware that this particular cohort often has had very little continuity in its education in the past.

All this will be provided in a bright, barless environment. There will be at least one visit a week. As the secure college rules show, we are endeavouring to use increased technology to enable communication with families while the young people are at the secure college. They will have enough space to be moved around effectively but nevertheless have some independence.

This is a really good idea. Let us not be fearful of innovation. This provides an opportunity. Caution is understandable, but seeking to delay what may be to the real advantage of young people would be making a mistake.

[Lord Ramsbotham]

My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for his careful, thoughtful and wide-ranging response. I know that I speak for everyone in the House in saying that we agree with him both that we need to reduce the dreadful record of reoffending in our young offender establishments and that what is presently provided is not satisfactory and has not been for a long time.

I am very glad that the noble Lord, Lord McNally, is in his place; I would have expected the Minister to have paid tribute to the Youth Justice Board, which has been principally responsible for the reduction of the numbers, and in fact has been a remarkable example of good leadership and carefully researched innovation ever since it was formed.

[Lord Faulks]

I am very grateful to the noble Lord; he is quite right to reproach me for not giving credit to my noble friend Lord McNally, and I am very happy to do so.

[Lord Ramsbotham]

Having said that and witnessed the Minister’s customary graciousness, I agree with him that there has been an enormous amount of engagement and effort by officials and others to engage with people, but that engagement has been not about if the secure college will be established but when. We therefore still know nothing about what is to be done, who is to do it and how much it is to cost. I have quoted a number of times in this House the two definitions of the word “affordability”: first, can you afford it, and, secondly, can you afford to give up what you have to give up in order to afford it? Bearing in mind the current situation, financial and otherwise, I wonder whether it is worth spending the amount of money on this unproven and uncosted pilot when it could be diverted now to doing better by all the young people about whom we have been talking.

I accept that we are talking about a pathfinder and that the affirmative procedure for the rules is being proposed. However, the affirmative procedure will come only after the Bill has become law. Everyone knows that an affirmative procedure that comes after that has no clout anywhere—and certainly not with this.

I thank all noble Lords who have contributed to this debate for the wide and thoughtful contributions that they made. The one that perhaps struck me most was from the noble Lord, Lord Deben, who reflected on the fact that we all know and love people of the same age group as those whom we are talking about, whose interests are currently not well served by the country. Therefore, the country must have a very clear say in what happens to them.

I understand that the secure college pilot is to be rigorously evaluated and will open in 2017. I will return to NHS England and healthcare provision in the next group because I do not think we have had full coverage of it. My feeling is that the Government appear hell-bent on pushing this through, but I do not think that it is the right approach. I am not proposing to divide the House on this amendment, but I give notice that I will do so on Amendment 111, which specifically mentions the approval by Parliament of the rules before they are adopted. I beg leave to withdraw this amendment.

Amendment 108 withdrawn.

Amendment 109

Moved by

[Lord Beecham]

109: Clause 32, page 31, line 2, at end insert—
“( ) No female, nor any male under the age of fifteen, may be placed in a secure college.”

[Lord Beecham]

My Lords, I have effectively spoken to this amendment in dealing with the issue of girls and boys being housed together. I will not therefore take the time of the House for very long but will just report that today the Women’s Resource Centre and Women’s Breakout have issued a statement concerning this matter. It says:

“Government plans to allay the … safeguarding concerns … by fencing-off girls and vulnerable children are inadequate. Girls will still be held alongside boys in the separated area, so safeguarding risks remain. The proposed fenced-off area will be a ‘prison within a prison’, likely to be reminiscent of the claustrophobic … units in Young Offenders Institutions, which have … been closed down … Girls in custody are an immensely vulnerable group. A Prison Inspectorate survey found that 61% of girls in young offender institutions had been in local authority care, compared to 33% of boys. A Youth Justice Board report found that one in three girls had experience of sexual abuse, and one in five had experienced violence in the home. There are so few girls in custody that they can easily be accommodated in the smaller, and far more appropriate, Secure Children’s Homes. There is no need to hold them in a secure college”.

I adopt that view and invite the House to do so. I beg to move.

[Lord Ramsbotham]

My Lords, I will speak both to this amendment and Amendment 110. I know that I am up against a very strong three-line government Whip and, unlike the Minister, I am not a skilled advocate nor have I anything to do with party politics. If I were to be granted one wish before our deliberations, it would be that Part 2 should be removed completely from the party-political arena because it is not a matter of left or right politics—it concerns the future of some of the most damaged and vulnerable children in our society, which is a matter of national not electoral importance. Imitation being the sincerest form of flattery I can do no better in relation to this group of amendments and the next than to slightly adapt the words of the noble Lord, Lord Carlile of Berriew—of whose seminal review on the use of restraint and seclusion on detained children I was privileged to be a member—about an earlier amendment: that this is an issue on which all parents and grandparents, uncles and aunts, sitting on the political Benches should be entitled to and should exercise their consciences, reflecting that they are deciding on the treatment of children of the same age as those that they know and love; that is a very important responsibility.

I make no apology for quoting, yet again, the words of the then 36 year-old Home Secretary Winston Churchill, and ask the House whether it could imagine him making the proposal that is now before us. He said:

“We must not forget that when every material improvement has been effected in prisons, when the temperature has been rightly adjusted, when the proper food to maintain health and strength has been given, when the doctors, chaplains, and prison visitors have come and gone, the convict stands deprived of everything that a free man calls life. We must not forget that all these improvements, which are sometimes salves to our consciences, do not change that position. The mood and temper of the public in regard to the treatment of crime and criminals is one of the most unfailing tests of the civilisation of any country … and proof of the living virtue in it”.—[Official Report, Commons, 20/7/1910; col. 1354].

In this case, for “convict” and “man”, read “child”. Stripped to its basics, the proposed secure college at Glen Parva is a cost-saving exercise based on presumed economies of scale on a site which had previous planning permission for a young offender institution. All the other assertions, beginning with education, healthcare and safety being at the heart of the design, are what Winston Churchill recognised as “salves to our consciences” dressed up as generalisations with which no one could possibly disagree. Of course no one could disagree with any intention to improve education, healthcare and safety from what I used all too often to find as Chief Inspector of Prisons, and which persists today largely because no one has been made responsible and accountable for making improvements.

17:45

However, when you look below these generalisations you find nothing of substance—no evidence of the hard thinking-through of the details of what such children need, or of whether it is possible that inexperienced private contractors can do more with less than that which experienced people from both public and private sectors have been trying desperately to do over the years, or of conformity on the very cramped site with the square metre standards laid down by the Education Funding Agency. The despair of good people trying to do more with inadequate resources was evident in a long article about suicide in the Guardian on Saturday, quoting the governor of Glen Parva, bursting into tears when apologising to the mother of a seriously mentally ill young offender who had taken his own life, with the words:

“I’m trying, I’m really trying”.

Then there are the words of the governor at the children’s YOI at Werrington when I and my inspectors arrived for an unannounced inspection: “Thank God you’ve come”.

That says to me that it is not one part of the youth justice system that is in urgent need of reform. It is the whole system, as I have said before, beginning with diversion to ensure that those with mental health problems do not end up in custody, then improving community alternatives, then custody, and then transition from custody back into the community—ensuring that all parts are able to work together and are not prevented from doing so.

I am particularly grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, for mentioning healthcare. I am grateful, too, that the British Medical Association has allowed the comprehensive report Young Lives Behind Bars to be used in this debate. Quite rightly, the BMA is very concerned indeed about the well of psychiatric morbidity that these children present, and absolutely right to insist that what is done is appropriate for their needs. It is not appropriate merely to pass the buck to NHS England. I am quite certain that the adolescent mental health authorities in Leicestershire will not thank the Government for parking 320 seriously disturbed young children on their site, in addition to all the other things that they have to do, particularly with Glen Parva YOI next door.

I simply do not understand the argument about why children need to go there. I salute the noble Lord, Lord Marks, for his comprehensive Amendment 117B, not least because it highlights so many aspects of good and proven practice and expert advice, not to say common sense, with which the secure college seems to be in wilful defiance. There are currently only 48 children under 15 in custody, and not many of those are from the proposed catchment area for the secure college. There are only 45 girls in custody, of whom only four live in the catchment area. Bearing in mind that the Government have said that they will not dispense with all the secure children’s homes, which being smaller are much more suitable for children under 15, why do any children need to go to the secure college anyway? Their presence will make life more complicated for both education and custody providers, and there are enough places for them in the secure system anyway. When I saw in the recently issued consultation document Plans for Secure College Rules that no decisions had yet been taken about who would be accommodated in the secure college pathfinder at Glen Parva, I hoped that I might be pushing at a door that had not yet been finally closed. I hope that the Minister will be able to reassure both this House and those who are bidding for the contract that this unnecessary complication will be removed.

I will conclude with a statement that I received from the head teacher of the Ian Mikardo High School, which received enormous praise both in the press and from Ofsted and which has received three outstanding reports. The fascinating thing about that school is that it has to deal with children 100% of whom have special educational and other needs. I contrast the record of the young offender institutions not just with the Ian Mikardo High School but with the Clayfields secure children’s home, which has a reconviction rate of 18% and a remarkable record of successful education and training.

The head teacher of the Ian Mikardo High School, Claire Lillis, who was formerly head of education and deputy governor at the Medway Secure Training Centre, wrote to me to express her extreme concern at the Justice Secretary’s plans to enable staff to forcibly restrain teenagers at the proposed children’s prison. However, she added that she was,

“equally appalled that the Department of Justice should regard locking up 320 vulnerable young people in a ‘secure college’ as a route to them having a positive and fulfilling future”.

All her 40 pupils, as I said, have statements of special educational need for social, emotional and behavioural difficulties, and she says that they,

“would be heading for prison at a young age were it not for this provision”.

In addition to their special educational and further complex needs, 97% were school non-attenders, 94% are known to child and adolescent mental health services, 12% are on the child protection register, and 31% are children in need. That is a worse record than is forecast for the secure college.

I will read three more quotes from her letter; first:

“Thanks to dealing with conflict through talking, developing healthy relationships and ensuring that staff do not use restraint, attendance of students, initially surprised by this approach, but now feeling safe and secure, is 90% plus, 96% going on to college, training or paid work”;

secondly:

“There is something inherently wrong about using force for compliance. The Ministry of Justice is only reinforcing young people’s view that the world is a dangerous and scary place, in which they are regarded as unworthy and untrustworthy”;

and finally:

“In my experience children who are regarded as hardened criminals are invariably fragile and frightened, and I question whether it is appropriate to use adult prison companies for this highly specialised work. If children are so at risk that they need to be in a secure environment, then we need to support them using specialist staff working in a therapeutic, caring, nurturing way. Otherwise we will turn out children who have lost their dignity and their identity and who are more angry, more detached and more criminally intent”.

I think noble Lords might like to reflect on those words and some of the key facts about the Ian Mikardo High School. There are 10 teachers and 12 teaching assistants for the 40 boys, plus a parent engagement officer and two psychotherapists, one for the boys and one for the staff. Has the Secretary of State considered the strain on staff who would have to look after 320 difficult, challenged and vulnerable children in one confined space? Each place at the Ian Mikardo school costs about £38,000 a year; that is, of course, minus custody costs. I believe that the principal reason for its success is that the head teacher, armed with her experience of looking after similar children in the criminal justice system, planned, staffed and costed her reforms in great detail—including the banning of restraint, which she has pursued consistently—with the help of carefully selected and properly supported staff. I regret that I see no evidence that anything like that—which I think is absolutely essential—applies to the plans for the proposed secure college.

[Lord Carlile of Berriew]

Last Thursday, my noble friend Lord Faulks and his ministerial colleague from another place, Mr Selous, gave noble Lords the opportunity to hear from both Ministers and to look, not for the first time, at the physical plans for the secure college. Some changes had been made to the plans since the last time we had seen them. Those included carefully separated provision for girls and vulnerable boys in the younger age group.

When the plans were presented it became clear that what was being provided was the best one could manage on that site, in the view of the Government. What they have provided, in the plans that we saw depicted, is a way of transferring the girls and vulnerable young boys from their accommodation to health and education provision whereby part of the site is locked down from other students while the youngsters and the girls are being moved around. This is not a way in which any sane person or organisation would design a school or college. One only has to ask any teacher who has ever had to deal with the separation of boys and girls of the age that we are talking about—even, for example, when moving them to and from sports facilities—to know the kind of potential trouble that exists even in the best ordered institution. And we are not talking about an institution in which the students will in all cases be volunteering their co-operation for good order.

When we examine the situation further, we find the following. Unless my noble friend can point to something that we have not yet seen, no independent organisation assessing the merits of education provision has reported that this is a good design for such a college. Nobody has reported independently or empirically that this is a good way of dealing with girls and young vulnerable boys in such an institution. I repeat, as I did at the meeting, that I am grateful to the Government for finding another 2.5 acres on the site for some additional—though, I apprehend, still inadequate—sports provision. But the truth is that the Government are going to spend £80 million on this site for one reason alone—the fact that they already own it.

I wonder whether the local planning authority, which I believe is Blaby Council, will be as calm as the Government about the quality of the provision, its security and how satisfactory it is for this very young age group and for girls. I very much hope that it will not. It would not surprise me if the local planning authority raised some difficulties. As I said, the college is there simply because the Government own the site, and in order to fill that site they wish to shoehorn in girls and young vulnerable males as well. Those people should not be there at all, as the noble Lords, Lord Ramsbotham and Lord Beecham, and others have made absolutely clear.

17:59

I want to say something about Amendment 110, and particularly health needs. Your Lordships do not need my next remark to be repeated, although I will repeat it merely for the record—namely, that almost all the children in an institution like this will have at least one identifiable mental health condition and many of them will have multiple mental health conditions. Those mental health conditions will have been exacerbated by poor parental care, possible sexual abuse and violence at home. I regret that I have observed that the first time many young people have somewhere comfortable and secure to sit down is when they are in custody—in other words, they have multiple serious needs, many of which have to be met through child and adolescent mental health services. There will be self-harmers among them, particularly, I fear, among the girls. This is well documented in relation to teenage girls. Self-harm is extremely difficult to manage. Taking a girl through a secure tunnel or walkway to spend a little time in a health centre, however good it may be, and then walking her back under the same conditions to her accommodation just will not do. It is not the way in which child and adolescent mental health services work.

The Bethlem Hospital has provision for teenage mentally ill people. By the way, it has a school so it is interesting as a comparison. If my noble friend were to visit that hospital, he would find that the children in question are moved into a single room in which they are watched constantly. When they start to self-harm a little less, they are watched every five minutes and so on. It is a very complex process. I have heard no assurance that there is provision for girls, or any other children in this institution, to be managed under the medical model followed in the best child and adolescent mental health services. I repeat that this just will not do. It is inadequate in the absence of evidence of nearby residential mental health facilities with education provision to which these young people with these awful conditions can be moved. They are not lost causes. I can tell my noble friend that young people do recover from self-harming. I have seen plenty of examples of that, including one closely connected to myself. They recover from these conditions—they may recover permanently—and may lead completely useful, normal and, indeed, very profitable lives. However, they must be provided with the facilities to enable them to do so.

Frankly, those who have looked at the plans of the proposed site, with its shoehorning of people on to a property owned by the Government, as I mentioned, despair that any real thought has been given to the merits of these cases. Despite the effort that has been made—I am truly grateful to my noble friend and other Ministers for keeping us well informed—I cannot support a provision like this, which I confidently predict will be visited in an official capacity in a few years’ time by the noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham, or somebody with his knowledge and experience, who will condemn this college as failing the most vulnerable in the age group concerned.

[Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames]

My Lords, I have two amendments in this group—Amendments 117A and 117B. I should have said at the outset today that the amendments in my name are all supported by my noble friends Lady Linklater, Lady Harris and Lord Carlile, who has just spoken. My noble friends would have added their names to the amendments had Monday not been such a busy day.

My first amendment is to the same effect as Amendment 109 in the names of the noble Lords, Lord Ramsbotham and Lord Beecham, and would prevent girls and younger boys—that is, those under 15—being held in secure colleges. The proposal for the first secure college at Glen Parva, just east of Leicester, is, as my noble friend made clear, a pathfinder proposal. It is intended to be experimental. I suggest that it cannot be right to experiment in this way with the lives of girls and young boys in custody. Widespread and deeply felt concerns are unanimously expressed in the many specialist briefings we have received, notably from the Standing Committee for Youth Justice, the Howard League for Penal Reform, the Children’s Rights Alliance for England and the British Medical Association, to whose impending report the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, referred earlier. All oppose holding girls and younger boys in the same institutions as older boys.

The numbers alone are extremely telling. As we all are now aware, there are only 1,100 offenders in custody in the secure estate. We have made it clear many times how far we regard this as a great achievement of this Government in the field of youth justice—a point which the noble Earl, Lord Listowel, made earlier today. However, only about 45 of those young offenders are girls and, although the relevant numbers may vary, I think that fewer than 40 are under 15.

In the consultation paper on the proposed secure college rules, the Government have made it clear that they propose that there should be a rule to ensure separate accommodation for girls and boys. As my noble friend Lord Carlile just mentioned, the Government have also made it clear that the plans for Glen Parva disclose an intention that girls and younger boys should be housed in separate blocks, segregated from the main body of the secure college by a fence. However, they will share with the older boys the main education and health block at the site.

At the meeting the other day which my noble friend the Minister helpfully held with Peers to discuss secure colleges, a point was made that officials had seen co-education working well within the secure estate—boys and girls working together on, I think, decoration. That may be. However, the risks posed of occasional but very serious incidents occurring in such circumstances are severe. Furthermore, I do not believe that the Government have taken fully into account the inevitable feelings of intimidation and isolation likely to be felt by a small number of girls in an institution containing a large number of older boys. They will be a tiny minority at best, and the same goes for vulnerable younger boys. Nor should one forget that a large proportion of the girls have been victims of sexual abuse by older men. It is entirely wrong, I suggest, to force through this mixed education experiment. I believe that the experiment itself is unacceptable in this regard.

Places are available in secure children’s homes for this very small group of children. My noble friend and the noble Lord, Lord Beecham, speaking for the Opposition, were in rare accord in that both spoke well of secure children’s homes and of their future. The Government assure us that they intend to keep open secure children’s homes. They are small and provide a nurturing environment. Many provide a highly successful educational content. During the Recess I visited Clayfields House, a secure children’s home in Nottinghamshire. That home has secured a remarkable success with children in avoiding reconviction upon release. At Clayfields they provide not only education, achieving truly remarkable exam results in very short periods of time, but also effective vocational training, arranged by a local private sector employer, in motor mechanics and construction trades. It is a facility shared by the secure children’s home with local schools and others.

I fully appreciate that secure children’s homes are expensive, but we are talking here about housing a very small number of children in an appropriate environment. We are talking about turning around the lives of a group of extremely damaged children. If we do not spend now the resources necessary to ensure that they are held in suitable surroundings and given the opportunities afforded by a period of personal attention and tightly focused education, helping them towards gaining employment later, then we face the far greater financial burden of considerable extra expenditure in the future as they spend their lives in and out of the criminal justice system and dependent on the public purse for social services and welfare benefits.

My second amendment in this group is similar in terms to one that I tabled in Committee, which was kindly mentioned with approval by the noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham. This amendment sets out the principles that should underlie the foundation of any secure educational establishment. I say again that we are completely in support of the Government’s intention to introduce more and better education for young offenders in custody. The present educational services in Feltham and other young offender institutions are inadequate and ineffective. The lack of education and training for the world of work is one reason for the appallingly high reoffending rates for young people. However, we should not lose sight of the fact that young offenders who are in custody are, for the most part, deeply troubled young people. Very often, their contact with the education system prior to their being sentenced has been limited at best.

The evidence convinces me that the best way in which to provide education for young offenders and improve their chances of rehabilitation is to provide establishments that are small enough to guarantee individual attention from staff; are easy to visit for their families; are designed to assist rather than impede continuity of supervision following release; and offer education and other facilities that are sufficiently focused and supportive to ensure that the different needs of individual offenders with different problems, and who are sentenced and due to be released at different times, can be suitably met.

In this regard, I have added to my Committee stage amendment the need to ensure adequate mental and physical healthcare facilities for young offenders. The need for such extra attention to these issues has been highlighted by the BMA briefing on its impending report on these issues, and my noble friend Lord Carlile has spoken about that. The BMA points out, tellingly, that the state takes over responsibility for these offenders precisely at the point when their needs are most acute. The BMA’s support for the principles of these amendments is only one area of support among many. I again ask the Government to reconsider their proposals, to look at the principles advocated by all those who have done years of research upon this subject, to think again about the Glen Parva proposal and to reject the idea that girls and younger males under 15 should be held in detention in that institution.

[The Earl of Listowel]

My Lords, it seems wiser not to keep girls in this proposed new pathfinder institution, in part because, as I said in Committee, some of them will be pregnant, giving birth or just have given birth. If they are to be housed there in those conditions, the utmost consideration needs to be given to their needs because, as a society, we are becoming increasingly aware that the attachment that a mother makes to an infant is vital to that child’s later life. Indeed, I am sure that it is often because their mothers were in poverty, alcoholic and unable to form a bond with their child that these young women have followed this course in life. Whatever health provision is offered at the institution to these girls—these mothers—their perinatal needs should be considered.

My noble friend makes an extremely important point about access to psychotherapy for staff members. So often that can be seen as a luxury but, given the relationships that members of staff make with these troubled children, such access is the absolute key in getting the best behaviour from them and avoiding the use of force. If staff can build a good relationship with these troubled young people, force will not be necessary and can be avoided. Staff need expert support in thinking about these children and the relationships they form with them. I therefore thoroughly endorse my noble friend’s point.

Finally, the Children’s Commissioner has produced important reports about the sexual exploitation of girls by gangs. Thought needs to be given to the implication for girls who are placed in establishments where large numbers of gang members may be around. I am thinking of the case of a 14 year-old girl who was raped by a gang member, became pregnant and was very concerned to keep her anonymity. It should be possible to keep girls’ anonymity so that a gang member cannot pass information back to another gang member and say, “The girl you knew is now pregnant”, and so on. That can be a difficult scenario.

18:15

[Baroness Finlay of Llandaff]

My Lords, the hour is getting late and I am aware that we are hoping to divide the House on another amendment. I have spoken about the antecedents and health problems related to some of these young people’s behaviour. However, I remind the House that there are big differences between the girls and boys. More than half the girls have witnessed domestic violence, compared to about a quarter of the boys; 35% of the girls have substance-abusing mothers, compared to about 9% of the boys; and 18% of the girls have substance-abusing fathers, compared to 5% of the boys. When you take the very small number of girls who are extremely disturbed into an environment and confine them near a large number of boys who are also very disturbed, it is almost like putting them in a pressure cooker. I hope that the importance of not having a minority of girls on this site has been taken on board by the Government.

I cannot stress enough the importance of having high-quality clinical staff available, too. This is not just about staffing the posts but having very highly trained people who want to live in that area, be there with a sufficient support infrastructure and have ongoing training and education—as well as succession planning so that one is not left with low staffing levels that could create a crisis.

[Baroness Howarth of Breckland]

My Lords, most of the arguments about girls on this site have been clearly made, so I want to make a quite different point rather than repeat the ones that have been made.

I have looked carefully at both sets of plans for this site. Were one not to accommodate girls and young boys at the far end of the site, the flexibility one would have—maybe for the pathfinder to succeed—would be far greater than one would have with the complication, described by my colleagues throughout this debate, of confining girls who will be claustrophobic, adding to their difficulties. The young boys will simply learn from being on that site all the bravado that comes with it. If one wanted this proposal to succeed at all, one could instead have more space and better capacity provision. The Minister knows I am not in favour of this proposal but I know that it is the wish of those who have visited some of the other establishments to do something better. As I said, one could do even better by using that part of the site to make sure that the pathfinder succeeds.

[Lord Faulks]

My Lords, I am grateful to all noble Lords who have contributed to the debate on these amendments, which are important, although they focus on two narrow but, I understand, critical aspects of these proposed secure colleges.

Dealing first with girls and those aged under 15, Amendments 109 and 117A seek to exclude girls and under-15s from secure colleges, or to prevent girls being accommodated on the same site as boys. I entirely recognise that there is understandable caution about the risks involved in allowing girls and under-15s to be placed in a new type of secure establishment, where the majority of young people will be boys between the ages of 15 and 17. I also recognise the importance of secure colleges being able to address the particular educational, health and emotional needs of these undoubtedly very vulnerable young people.

Let me assure noble Lords that we have gone to considerable lengths in our designs for the secure college to ensure that the younger and more vulnerable groups could be accommodated in separate small units. As my noble friend Lord Carlile told the House, following a meeting in July we made changes to the plans to enlarge the site by two acres, and to ensure that the younger and more vulnerable people have their own sports and recreational facilities. This is not merely tunnels—as he describes it—but separate facilities and separate access routes to the main education and healthcare building. In this way, it will be possible to deliver a distinct regime that caters to these more vulnerable boys and girls. In our consultation on our plans, we have also proposed a rule requiring girls to be accommodated separately from boys. I referred to that consultation earlier this afternoon.

However, I should make clear to the House that no final decisions have been taken on who will be accommodated in the secure college pathfinder. This will be determined in light of the analysis of the make-up of the youth custodial population ahead of the pathfinder opening in 2017. I also gave a commitment in Committee that girls and under-15s will not be placed in the pathfinder from its opening, and that any decision to introduce them would be carefully phased. While I entirely recognise the concerns that lie behind these amendments, I believe that the risks can be sensitively and safely managed. This already happens in secure training centres and secure children’s homes, where boys and girls of different ages are accommodated on the same site.

There have been references to the numbers in the youth custodial estate. I can assist the House by saying that at the moment there are 16 girls in secure children’s homes, and 20 girls in secure training centres. That is a total of 36. There are 25 under-15s in secure children’s homes, and 13 in secure training centres, giving a total of 38. In one of the secure children’s homes there are 24 boys and one girl, so we are not talking about a large number.

We are anxious not to preclude, as a matter of strict law, the possibility of admitting to the secure college girls or those aged under 15. However, the House will know that the Youth Justice Board takes the decisions on where young people who are sentenced or remanded into custody are to be placed. These decisions are taken by specially trained staff and informed by detailed advice from the youth offending teams who have been working with the young people. The Youth Justice Board’s placement decisions are based on the individual needs of a young person. They take into account the whole range of factors that you would expect, such as age, gender, vulnerability, location, offence and any previous history. There is a very nuanced assessment before children are even considered appropriate for the secure college. However, the amendment would absolutely prevent it.

[Lord Carlile of Berriew]

I am grateful to my noble friend for giving way. I accept everything he has said about it not being for the Government to determine who goes to which institution. However, surely he can tell us whether he expects or anticipates any girls being sent to this institution.

[Lord Faulks]

As I said a little earlier, we do not expect this to happen, certainly in the short term. However, we do not want to write into the legislation that it should never happen. This is because, as noble Lords will appreciate, not all 14-year old boys are the same, physically, mentally or in their needs. This is also so with girls. I do not anticipate that this is likely to happen in the short term, but this amendment would completely prevent it happening. Yet there are instances of girls and boys actually deriving benefit from each other’s company.

[Lord Carlile of Berriew]

I apologise for intervening once more. I promise not to do so again, at least in this speech. Does this mean that, although my noble friend is not able to anticipate whether any girls will be placed in this pathfinder college, nevertheless the Government have decided to build a building to accommodate girls, which may lie empty for the next 25 years?

[Lord Faulks]

No, the answer is that by their secure college the Government are trying to provide a college which is sufficiently flexible to allow them to cope with whatever the demands are. Of course, it is impossible to predict precisely the age or the gender of those who will find themselves sent to a secure college, or to whatever the appropriate custodial institution may be. The answer is to set up a college which has the provision for a separate accommodation if that is appropriate.

It appears that we are somewhat damned if we do and damned if we do not. We were criticised for not having a separate accommodation for girls and young men, and we are now being criticised for having it and not using it. I hope that there will be some acknowledgment that we have made considerable efforts to try to find an appropriate way of housing them, should it be appropriate for them to be sent there.

Amendment 110 seeks to place a duty on the Secretary of State to make arrangements for adequate specialist provision to meet health and well-being needs in a secure college, and to make sufficient places available in a secure children’s home. Amendment 117B would impose a number of welfare requirements on secure colleges. These amendments go to the heart of which matters should be for primary legislation, which should be in secondary legislation and which are to be delivered through contractual arrangements. Some of the requirements in Amendment 117B relate to areas of fundamental importance—such as safeguarding, education, health and well-being, staff training and visits—and as such are matters that, rightly, we will address in the secure college rules.

Similarly, Amendment 110 would require the Secretary of State to make arrangements to ensure that secure colleges have adequate specialist provision in place to address young people’s health and well-being, and to ensure that sufficient places are available in a secure children’s home. The responsibility for commissioning health and well-being services, including specialist provision, for young people in a secure college will rest with NHS England. As noble Lords will be aware, this is in line with the arrangements currently in place for the existing secure estate.

Similarly, it is local authorities, not the Secretary of State, which are responsible for providing sufficient places in secure children’s homes. The Youth Justice Board recently agreed contracts with nine secure children’s homes. As I have previously indicated, we remain committed to ensuring that specialist separate accommodation will be available for the youngest and most vulnerable offenders. NHS England will assess the healthcare needs of all those detained in secure colleges, and commission services appropriate to meet their assessed needs. In doing so, NHS England applies the intercollegiate healthcare standards for children and young people in secure settings which were developed by the royal medical colleges at the invitation of the Youth Justice Board.

As we indicated in the recently published consultation on our plans for the rules, the role secure colleges play in healthcare is to provide the right environment where healthcare professionals can carry out their responsibilities for the care and well-being of young people. We therefore propose that the rules should include a requirement to ensure that a young person has safe and timely access to health services in a secure college. I hope that that goes some way towards reassuring the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, who is understandably concerned about the quite complex care needs that these young people will have.

As I said in answer to an earlier debate, the design of the healthcare facilities has been developed in collaboration with NHS England, which was consulted at that stage. Indeed, it was NHS England which advised us to amend our plans in order to bring the healthcare provision within the main educational block. NHS England assisted in the consultation and the way that the college is to be configured. Not only will this reduce the disruption to education when young people need to attend health appointments, but it will also help to normalise access to healthcare for a group of young people who, as I am sure that the noble Baroness and others will be aware, have not always had regular contact with a GP or with the specialist services they require. In some senses, it is hoped that they will be better off here than they might be in the community in terms of access to healthcare.

18:29

In our consultation we have proposed rules on the assessment and safeguarding of young people; on a minimum of 30 hours of educational activities for all young people each week; on access to healthcare services commissioned by NHS England; on staff training that is approved by the Secretary of State; and on an entitlement for all young people to receive at least one visit a week. It is worth noting that the Youth Justice Board operates an assisted visits scheme providing financial support to the families and carers of young people in custody. We have proposed a rule setting out the purpose and ethos of secure colleges. We stress that the welfare and safeguarding of young people are vital considerations, which is why we proposed that the requirements and protections I have outlined will be set out in secondary legislation.

Other considerations raised by Amendment 117B will be for contracts to address. We are clear, for example, that the education provision in secure colleges must respond to the regular departure and arrival of young people who may be on remand or serving short sentences. Therefore, roll-on roll-off courses designed quickly to develop skills and raise attainment, as are delivered in the current estate, must be available. However, while the average length of stay in youth custody may be only 85 days, this figure is skewed by the remand population. In fact, around 50% of the population in custody at any time will be serving sentences of at least six months in custody, which is the equivalent of two school terms and therefore provides a real opportunity to make a significant impact on a young person’s life.

I cannot agree to the requirement in Amendment 117B relating to the size of secure colleges. I have heard the arguments that smaller establishments are better environments for young people, and they have been rehearsed today. But there remains no evidence demonstrating that such places achieve better reoffending outcomes or that they present better value for money. While I know that much excellent work is done in secure children’s homes—I repeat what I said earlier in that regard—it is still sadly the case that 72% of young people detained in these establishments reoffend within a year and cost more than £210,000 a place each year. I should perhaps remind the party opposite that placing all young people in such accommodation would cost around an additional £100 million.

[Lord Ramsbotham]

Will the noble Lord exclude Clayfields from that, where the reconviction rate is 18% and costs are £185,000 a year?

[Lord Faulks]

I am perfectly happy to accept the costs from the noble Lord. As regards the offending rate, one needs to look over a long period. He tells me those rates but I have not had a chance to see those specific rates or for how long a period. However, I am sure that there are variations within the secure college estate. It would cost around £100 million each year to do what seems to be suggested, which is not a viable solution. It is, as we know, easy to forget the deficit, but this Government do not do so.

Although the secure college pathfinder will have a capacity of 320, the site is composed of seven distinct accommodation buildings, with some broken down into smaller living units. Young people can be accommodated in distinct groups, a sense of community can be fostered in each, and the younger and more vulnerable groups can be kept separately if that is considered appropriate. Our plans demonstrate that big does not mean imposing and impersonal. The size will enable a breadth of services and opportunities to be offered.

It is a consequence of the welcome and significant reduction in the number of young people in custody that there are fewer custodial establishments and that some young people inevitably will be detained further from home. This is not a new problem and, for the reasons I have outlined, a network of small, local facilities is not, sadly, a viable alternative. However, distance from home remains one of the factors taken into account by the Youth Justice Board when placing young people in custody. I am sure that that will be very much a factor. Furthermore, there will be visits as well as technology.

I recognise what lies behind these amendments. I acknowledge the very real concern of noble Lords about young people, whether they are under-15s, girls or more widely, but we genuinely believe that we have sufficient flexibility in the system. We do not think that these requirements should find themselves into law. I ask the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment.

[Lord Beecham]

My Lords, I shall be brief. If the proposal goes ahead, which it might, we will end up with two groups of about 40 young people, boys and girls, from all over the country, in one central location and in an establishment where the vast majority of young offenders, as we have heard from the chief inspector, will be extremely vulnerable and very difficult. The whole atmosphere of the place cannot be compartmentalised in the way in which the noble Lord describes. It is not a satisfactory outcome and I wish to test the opinion of the House.

18:35

Division 1

Ayes: 186

---

Labour: 124
Crossbench: 41
Liberal Democrat: 9
Independent: 3
Conservative: 2
Democratic Unionist Party: 1

Noes: 185

---

Conservative: 129
Liberal Democrat: 50
Ulster Unionist Party: 2
Crossbench: 2

18:49

Amendment 110 not moved.

Amendment 111

Moved by

[Lord Ramsbotham]

111: Clause 32, page 32, line 17, leave out from “43” to end of line 18 and insert “may not be made unless a draft of the instrument has been laid before, and approved by a resolution of, each House of Parliament”

[Lord Ramsbotham]

I wish to test the opinion of the House.

18:50

Division 2

Ayes: 178

---

Labour: 123
Crossbench: 36
Liberal Democrat: 9
Independent: 4
Democratic Unionist Party: 1
Bishops: 1

Noes: 191

---

Conservative: 132
Liberal Democrat: 50
Crossbench: 5
Ulster Unionist Party: 2

19:02

Amendment 111A not moved.

Amendments 112 and 113

Moved by

[Lord Faulks]

112: Before Schedule 5, insert the following new Schedule—
ScheduleMutual recognition of driving disqualification in UK and Republic of IrelandPart 1Further provisionCrime (International Co-operation) Act 2003 (c. 32)1 Chapter 1 of Part 3 of the Crime (International Co-operation) Act 2003 (EU Convention on driving disqualifications) is amended as follows.
2 (1) Section 54 (road traffic offences in UK: application of section 55) is amended as follows.
(2) In subsection (2)—
(a) in paragraph (a), after “Schedule 3” insert “or Part 1 of Schedule 3A”, and(b) in paragraph (b), for “that Schedule” substitute “Schedule 3 or Part 2 of Schedule 3A”.(3) For subsection (3) substitute—
“(3) The minimum period is—
(a) for an offence mentioned in Part 2 of Schedule 3 in relation to which the Secretary of State has by regulations specified a period of less than six months, that period;(b) for an offence mentioned in Part 2 of Schedule 3A in relation to which the Department has by regulations specified a period of less than six months, that period;(c) for any other offence, a period of six months.”(4) After that subsection insert—
“(3A) When determining whether the period of disqualification in respect of an offence mentioned in Part 2 of Schedule 3 is not less than the minimum period, an extension period imposed under any of the following is to be disregarded—
(a) section 35A or 35C of the Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988;(b) section 248D of the Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act 1995;(c) section 147A of the Powers of Criminal Courts (Sentencing) Act 2000.(3B) When determining whether the period of disqualification in respect of an offence mentioned in Part 2 of Schedule 3A is not less than the minimum period, an extension period imposed under any of the following is to be disregarded—
(a) Article 8A of the Criminal Justice (Northern Ireland) Order 1980 (S.I. 1980/704 (N.I. 6));(b) Article 40A of the Road Traffic Offenders (Northern Ireland) Order 1996 (S.I. 1996/1320 (N.I. 10));(c) Article 91A of the Criminal Justice (Northern Ireland) Order 2008 (S.I. 2008/1216 (N.I. 1)).”(5) After subsection (5) insert—
“(6) The Secretary of State may by regulations amend Schedule 3.
(7) The Department may by regulations amend Schedule 3A.”
3 (1) Section 55 (duty to give notice to foreign authorities of driving disqualification of a non-UK resident) is amended as follows.
(2) For the heading substitute “Duty to give notice to Republic of Ireland of UK driving disqualification”.
(3) In subsection (1), for “the State in which the offender is normally resident” substitute “the Republic of Ireland”.
(4) In subsection (2)(f), for “the convention on driving disqualifications” substitute “the specified agreement on driving disqualifications”.
(5) In subsection (9)—
(a) in paragraph (b), for “the State mentioned in subsection (1)” substitute “the Republic of Ireland”, and(b) for “the convention on driving disqualifications” substitute “the specified agreement on driving disqualifications”.4 For the italic heading before section 56 substitute “Road traffic offences in Republic of Ireland”.
5 (1) Section 56 (road traffic offences in Republic of Ireland: application of section 57) is amended as follows.
(2) For subsection (2) substitute—
“(2) The driving disqualification condition is met—
(a) in relation to an offence mentioned in Part 1 of Schedule 3B, if the offender is disqualified in the Republic of Ireland as a result of the offence; (b) in relation to an offence mentioned in Part 2 of that Schedule, if the offender is disqualified in the Republic of Ireland for a period not less than the minimum period as a result of the offence.”(3) In subsection (3)—
(a) for “a State” substitute “the Republic of Ireland”,(b) for “in that State” substitute “there”, and(c) for “the law of that State” substitute “the law of the Republic of Ireland”.(4) For subsection (4) substitute—
“(4) The minimum period is—
(a) for an offence in relation to which the Secretary of State has by regulations specified a period of less than six months, that period;(b) for any other offence, a period of six months.”(5) Omit subsection (5).
(6) In subsection (6), for “the part of the United Kingdom in which the offender is normally resident” substitute “the relevant part of the United Kingdom”.
(7) After that subsection insert—
“(6A) In subsection (6), “the relevant part of the United Kingdom” means—
(a) where the offender was normally resident in the United Kingdom when convicted, the part of the United Kingdom in which the offender was normally resident at that time;(b) where the offender was not normally resident in the United Kingdom when convicted but held a Great Britain licence or a Northern Ireland licence, the part of the United Kingdom in which the offender was last normally resident before conviction.”(8) Omit subsection (7).
(9) In subsection (8)—
(a) for “treating” substitute “about when”,(b) after the first “United Kingdom” insert “are to be treated for the purposes of this section”, and(c) for “a member state other than the United Kingdom” substitute “the Republic of Ireland”.(10) After subsection (9) insert—
“(10) The Secretary of State may by regulations amend Schedule 3B.”
6 (1) Section 57 (recognition in United Kingdom of foreign driving disqualification) is amended as follows.
(2) In the heading, for “foreign” substitute “Republic of Ireland”.
(3) In the following provisions, for “the foreign disqualification” substitute “the Republic of Ireland disqualification”—
(a) subsection (1)(a);(b) subsection (2) (in both places);(c) subsection (4)(b);(d) subsection (5)(b);(e) subsection (6);(f) subsection (8) (in both places).(4) In subsection (1)(a) and (b), for “one month” substitute “three months”.
(5) In subsection (2)(b), for “the State in which the offender was convicted” substitute “the Republic of Ireland”.
(6) In subsection (3)—
(a) for “a State” substitute “the Republic of Ireland”, and(b) for “in that State” substitute “there”.7 In section 58(1)(a) and (b) (notice under section 57), for “the foreign disqualification” substitute “the Republic of Ireland disqualification”.
8 (1) Section 63 (production of licence: Great Britain) is amended as follows.
(2) In subsection (4), for “the competent authority of the relevant State” substitute “the competent authority of the Republic of Ireland or the Department”.
(3) Omit subsection (5).
9 (1) Section 64 (production of licence: Northern Ireland) is amended as follows.
(2) In subsection (4), for “the competent authority of the relevant State” substitute “the competent authority of the Republic of Ireland or the Secretary of State”.
(3) Omit subsection (5).
10 In section 65(3) (production of licence: Community licence holders), for the words from “the same” to the end substitute “the Republic of Ireland”.
11 In section 68 (endorsement of licence: Great Britain), for subsection (1) substitute—
“(1) This section applies where a person who—
(a) is normally resident in Great Britain, or(b) is not normally resident in Great Britain but holds a Great Britain licence,is disqualified by virtue of section 57.”12 In section 69 (endorsement of licence: Northern Ireland), for subsection (1) substitute—
“(1) This section applies where a person who—
(a) is normally resident in Northern Ireland, or(b) is not normally resident in Northern Ireland but holds a Northern Ireland licence,is disqualified by virtue of section 57.”13 In section 70(1) (duty of appropriate Minister to inform competent authority)—
(a) for “any State” substitute “the Republic of Ireland”, and(b) for “the convention on driving disqualifications” substitute “the specified agreement on driving disqualifications”.14 (1) Section 72 (regulations: Great Britain) is amended as follows.
(2) In subsection (2), at the end insert “, subject to subsection (2A)”.
(3) After subsection (2) insert—
“(2A) A statutory instrument containing regulations under section 54(6), 56(10) or 71A may not be made unless a draft of the instrument has been laid before, and approved by a resolution of, each House of Parliament.”
15 (1) Section 73 (regulations: Northern Ireland) is amended as follows.
(2) In subsection (2), at the end insert “, subject to subsection (2A)”.
(3) After subsection (2) insert—
“(2A) Regulations made under section 54(7) may not be made unless a draft of the regulations has been laid before, and approved by a resolution of, the Northern Ireland Assembly.”
16 (1) Section 74(1) (interpretation) is amended as follows.
(2) For the definition of “central authority” substitute—
““central authority” means an authority designated by the Republic of Ireland as a central authority for the purposes of the specified agreement on driving disqualifications;”.(3) For the definition of “competent authority” substitute—
““competent authority” means an authority which is a competent authority in relation to the Republic of Ireland for the purposes of the specified agreement on driving disqualifications;”.(4) Omit the definition of “the convention on driving disqualifications”.
(5) In the definition of “disqualified”, after “and” insert “, except in section 71A,”.
(6) Omit the definition of “foreign disqualification”.
(7) At the end insert—
““Republic of Ireland disqualification” means the disqualification mentioned in section 56;“Republic of Ireland licence” means a licence to drive a motor vehicle granted under the law of the Republic of Ireland, including a learner permit.”17 In section 74(2) (interpretation of references to disqualification for life), for “foreign disqualification” substitute “Republic of Ireland disqualification”.
18 In section 74, at the end insert—
“(3) For the purposes of this Chapter, an individual is normally resident in, or in a part of, the United Kingdom, in Great Britain, in Northern Ireland or in the Republic of Ireland if his or her normal residence, as defined in Article 12 of Directive 2006/126/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20th December 2006 on driving licences, is there.”
19 (1) Schedule 3 (offences for the purposes of section 54) is amended as follows.
(2) In the heading, at the end insert “: Great Britain”.
(3) In paragraph 1, for sub-paragraph (2) substitute—
“(2) “Driver” has the same meaning as in the Road Traffic Act 1988.”(4) In paragraph 2, omit “or Article 43(1) of the Road Traffic Regulation (Northern Ireland) Order 1997 (S.I. 1997/276 (N.I. 2))”.
(5) In paragraph 3—
(a) omit “or Articles of the Road Traffic (Northern Ireland) Order 1995”,(b) in sub-paragraph (a), omit “or Article 9”,(c) in sub-paragraph (b), omit “or Article 10”,(d) in sub-paragraph (c), omit “or Article 12”,(e) in sub-paragraph (d), omit “or Article 14”,(f) in sub-paragraph (e), omit “or Article 15”,(g) in sub-paragraph (f), omit “or Article 16”,(h) in sub-paragraph (g), omit “or Article 17”, and(i) in sub-paragraph (h), omit “or Article 18”.(6) In paragraph 5, omit “or Article 167(1) of the Road Traffic (Northern Ireland) Order 1981 (S.I. 1981/154 (N.I. 1))”.
(7) In paragraph 6, omit “or Article 175(2) of the Road Traffic (Northern Ireland) Order 1981”.
(8) In paragraph 7(a), omit “or Part 1 of Schedule 1 to the Road Traffic Offenders (Northern Ireland) Order 1996 (S.I. 1996/1320 (N.I. 10))”.
20 After Schedule 3 insert—
Schedule 3AOffences for the purposes of section 54: Northern IrelandPart 1Offences where order of disqualification for a minimum period unnecessary1 (1) Manslaughter by the driver of a motor vehicle.
(2) “Driver” has the same meaning as in Article 2(2) of the Road Traffic (Northern Ireland) Order 1995 (S.I. 1995/2994 (N.I. 18)).
2 An offence under Article 168A(1)(c) of the Road Traffic (Northern Ireland) Order 1981 (S.I. 1981/154 (N.I. 1)) (driving while disqualified).
3 An offence under Article 175(2) of the Road Traffic (Northern Ireland) Order 1981 (S.I. 1981/154 (N.I. 1)) (failing to stop after accident and give particulars or report of accident).
4 An offence under any of the following Articles of the Road Traffic (Northern Ireland) Order 1995 (S.I. 1995/2994 (N.I. 18))—
(a) Article 9 (causing death or grievous bodily injury by dangerous driving),(b) Article 10 (dangerous driving),(c) Article 11A (causing death or grievous bodily injury by careless or inconsiderate driving),(d) Article 12 (careless, and inconsiderate, driving),(e) Article 12B (causing death or grievous bodily injury by driving: unlicensed, disqualified or uninsured drivers), (f) Article 14 (causing death or grievous bodily injury by careless driving when under the influence of drink or drugs),(g) Article 15 (driving, or being in charge, when under the influence of drink or drugs),(h) Article 16 (driving, or being in charge, of a motor vehicle with alcohol concentration above prescribed limit),(i) Article 17 (failing to provide a specimen of breath for a breath test), or(j) Article 18 (failing to provide a specimen for analysis or laboratory test).5 An offence under Article 43(1) of the Road Traffic Regulation (Northern Ireland) Order 1997 (S.I. 1997/276 (N.I. 2)) (exceeding speed limit).
Part 2Offences where order of disqualification for a minimum period necessary6 An offence which—
(a) is mentioned in Part 1 of Schedule 1 to the Road Traffic Offenders (Northern Ireland) Order 1996 (S.I. 1996/1320 (N.I. 10)), but(b) is not an offence mentioned in Part 1 of this Schedule.”21 After Schedule 3A insert—
Schedule 3BOffences for the purposes of section 56: Republic of IrelandPart 1Offences where order of disqualification for a minimum period unnecessary1 An offence arising from—
(a) reckless or dangerous driving, whether or not resulting in death, injury or serious risk,(b) wilful failure to carry out the obligations placed on drivers after being involved in road accidents,(c) driving a vehicle while under the influence of alcohol or other substances affecting or diminishing the mental and physical abilities of a driver,(d) refusal to submit to alcohol and drug tests,(e) driving a vehicle faster than the permitted speed, or(f) driving a vehicle while disqualified.Part 2Offences where order of disqualification for a minimum period necessary2 An offence arising from conduct which is a road traffic offence that is not mentioned in Part 1 of this Schedule.”
Coroners and Justice Act 2009 (c. 25)22 In Schedule 21 to the Coroners and Justice Act 2009 (consequential amendments), omit paragraph 93 (uncommenced amendment of section 54 of the Crime (International Co-operation) Act 2003).
Part 2Transition from EU Convention to new agreementTransitional period23 In this Part of this Schedule, “the transitional period” means the period—
(a) beginning with 1 December 2014, and(b) ending with the day before the first day on which—(i) section (Mutual recognition of driving disqualification in UK and Republic of Ireland)(2) to (5) are in force,(ii) the Secretary of State has specified an agreement under section 71A of the Crime (International Co-operation) Act 2003 (“the 2003 Act”), and(iii) that agreement has entered into force.Disapplication of duties and powers to give notices during the transitional period24 During the transitional period, the Secretary of State and the Department of the Environment in Northern Ireland—
(a) are not required to give a notice under section 55 of the 2003 Act (duty to give notice to foreign authorities of driving disqualification of a non-UK resident),(b) are not required or permitted to give a notice under section 57 of the 2003 Act (recognition in United Kingdom of foreign driving disqualification), and(c) are not required to give reasons under section 70(3) of the 2003 Act (duty to give reasons for not giving a notice under section 57).25 Paragraphs 23 and 24 are to be treated as having come into force on 1 December 2014.
Application of duties and powers to give notices after the transitional period26 After the end of the transitional period, the Secretary of State and the Department of the Environment in Northern Ireland—
(a) are required to give a notice under section 55 of the 2003 Act (duty to give notice to foreign authorities of driving disqualification of a non-UK resident),(b) are required or permitted to give a notice under section 57 of the 2003 Act (recognition in United Kingdom of foreign driving disqualification), and(c) are required to give reasons under section 70(3) of the 2003 Act (duty to give reasons for not giving a notice under section 57), only in a case in which the offence referred to in section 54(1) or 56(1) of the 2003 Act was committed after the end of the transitional period.Saving for pre-1 December 2014 cases27 The amendments made by section (Mutual recognition of driving disqualification in UK and Republic of Ireland) and Part 1 of this Schedule do not have effect in relation to a case in which a notice was given to an offender under section 57 of the 2003 Act before 1 December 2014.”

113: Before Schedule 5, insert the following new Schedule—
ScheduleDisclosing private sexual photographs or films: providers of information society servicesEngland and Wales service providers: extension of liability1 (1) This paragraph applies where a service provider is established in England and Wales (an “E&W service provider”).
(2) Section (Disclosing private sexual photographs and films with intent to cause distress) applies to an E&W service provider who—
(a) discloses a photograph or film in an EEA state other than the United Kingdom, and(b) does so in the course of providing information society services,as well as to a person who discloses a photograph or film in England and Wales.(3) In the case of an offence under section (Disclosing private sexual photographs and films with intent to cause distress), as it applies to an E&W service provider by virtue of sub-paragraph (2)—
(a) proceedings for the offence may be taken at any place in England and Wales, and(b) the offence may for all incidental purposes be treated as having been committed at any such place.(4) Nothing in this paragraph affects the operation of paragraphs 3 to 5.
Non-UK service providers: restriction on institution of proceedings2 (1) This paragraph applies where a service provider is established in an EEA state other than the United Kingdom (a “non-UK service provider”).
(2) Proceedings for an offence under section (Disclosing private sexual photographs and films with intent to cause distress) may not be instituted against a non-UK service provider in respect of anything done in the course of the provision of information society services unless the derogation condition is satisfied.
(3) The derogation condition is satisfied where the institution of proceedings—
(a) is necessary for the purposes of the public interest objective,(b) relates to an information society service that prejudices that objective or presents a serious and grave risk of prejudice to that objective, and(c) is proportionate to that objective.(4) “The public interest objective” means the pursuit of public policy.
Exceptions for mere conduits3 (1) A service provider is not capable of being guilty of an offence under section (Disclosing private sexual photographs and films with intent to cause distress) in respect of anything done in the course of providing so much of an information society service as consists in—
(a) the provision of access to a communication network, or(b) the transmission in a communication network of information provided by a recipient of the service,if the condition in sub-paragraph (2) is satisfied.(2) The condition is that the service provider does not—
(a) initiate the transmission,(b) select the recipient of the transmission, or(c) select or modify the information contained in the transmission.(3) For the purposes of sub-paragraph (1)—
(a) the provision of access to a communication network, and(b) the transmission of information in a communication network,includes the automatic, intermediate and transient storage of the information transmitted so far as the storage is solely for the purpose of carrying out the transmission in the network.(4) Sub-paragraph (3) does not apply if the information is stored for longer than is reasonably necessary for the transmission.
Exception for caching4 (1) This paragraph applies where an information society service consists in the transmission in a communication network of information provided by a recipient of the service.
(2) The service provider is not capable of being guilty of an offence under section (Disclosing private sexual photographs and films with intent to cause distress) in respect of the automatic, intermediate and temporary storage of information so provided, if—
(a) the storage of the information is solely for the purpose of making more efficient the onward transmission of the information to other recipients of the service at their request, and(b) the condition in sub-paragraph (3) is satisfied.(3) The condition is that the service provider—
(a) does not modify the information,(b) complies with any conditions attached to having access to the information, and(c) where sub-paragraph (4) applies, expeditiously removes the information or disables access to it.(4) This sub-paragraph applies if the service provider obtains actual knowledge that—
(a) the information at the initial source of the transmission has been removed from the network,(b) access to it has been disabled, or(c) a court or administrative authority has ordered the removal from the network of, or the disablement of access to, the information.Exception for hosting5 (1) A service provider is not capable of being guilty of an offence under section (Disclosing private sexual photographs and films with intent to cause distress) in respect of anything done in the course of providing so much of an information society service as consists in the storage of information provided by a recipient of the service if sub-paragraph (2) or (3) is satisfied.
(2) This sub-paragraph is satisfied if the service provider had no actual knowledge when the information was provided—
(a) that it consisted of or included a private sexual photograph or film,(b) that it was provided without the consent of an individual who appears in the photograph or film, or(c) that the disclosure of the photograph or film was provided with the intention of causing distress to that individual.(3) This sub-paragraph is satisfied if, on obtaining such knowledge, the service provider expeditiously removed the information or disabled access to it.
(4) Sub-paragraph (1) does not apply if the recipient of the service is acting under the authority or control of the service provider.
Interpretation6 (1) This paragraph applies for the purposes of this Schedule.
(2) “Disclose” and “photograph or film” have the meanings given in section (Meaning of “disclose” and “photograph or film”).
(3) “Information society services”—
(a) has the meaning given in Article 2(a) of the E-Commerce Directive (which refers to Article 1(2) of Directive 98/34/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 June 1998 laying down a procedure for the provision of information in the field of technical standards and regulations), and(b) is summarised in recital 17 of the E-Commerce Directive as covering “any service normally provided for remuneration, at a distance, by means of electronic equipment for the processing (including digital compression) and storage of data, and at the individual request of a recipient of a service”,(4) “Recipient”, in relation to a service, means a person who, for professional ends or otherwise, uses an information society service, in particular for the purposes of seeking information or making it accessible.
(5) “Service provider” means a person providing an information society service.
(6) For the purpose of interpreting references in this Schedule to a service provider who is established in England and Wales or an EEA state—
(a) a service provider is established in England and Wales, or in a particular EEA state, if the service provider—(i) effectively pursues an economic activity using a fixed establishment in England and Wales, or that EEA state, for an indefinite period, and(ii) is a national of an EEA state or a company or firm mentioned in Article 54 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union;(b) the presence or use in a particular place of equipment or other technical means of providing an information society service does not, of itself, constitute the establishment of a service provider;(c) where it cannot be determined from which of a number of establishments a given information society service is provided, that service is to be regarded as provided from the establishment at the centre of the service provider‘s activities relating to that service.”

Amendments 112 and 113 agreed.

Schedule 5: Secure colleges etc: further amendments

Amendments 114 to 117

Moved by

[Lord Faulks]

114: Schedule 5, page 95, line 1, after “In” insert “the English language text of”

115: Schedule 5, page 95, line 4, at end insert—
“( ) In the Welsh language text of that provision—
(a) for “Goron na” substitute “Goron,”, and(b) after “cyfarwyddwr)” insert “na phennaeth coleg diogel”.”

116: Schedule 5, page 95, line 5, after “In” insert “the English language text of”

117: Schedule 5, page 95, line 7, at end insert—
“( ) In the Welsh language text of that provision, in the definition of “llety cadw ieuenctid”, after paragraph (b) insert—
“(ba) coleg diogel;”.”

Amendments 114 to 117 agreed.

Amendments 117A and 117B not moved.

Schedule 6: Contracting out secure colleges

Amendment 118

Moved by

[Lord Ramsbotham]

118: Schedule 6, page 95, line 18, at end insert—
“(2A) No contract may be entered into under sub-paragraph (1) until the Secretary of State has, by regulations made by statutory instrument, specified the criteria to be applied in the selection of such contractors.
(2B) A statutory instrument containing regulations under sub-paragraph (2A) may not be made unless a draft of the instrument has been laid before, and approved by a resolution of, each House of Parliament.”

[Lord Ramsbotham]

My Lords, I will be brief because much of what I am going to say has already been said, particularly in relation to the criteria. I would like to raise two points. First, I am concerned about the criteria, about which we know nothing, relating to the selection of application for contractors. I remind the House that there used to be in the Ministry of Defence every year an exercise called “basket weaving”. The Secretary of State laid down precisely what was to be done, and then the Treasury produced the money. Then the staffs had to look at the money that had been provided and see whether it allowed the Secretary of State’s direction to be delivered. Invariably, there was not enough money, so people listed in different baskets what was essential to have to carry out the task, what would be desirable to have and what would be nice to have. Those three baskets were then presented to Ministers, who were invited to decide what should not be done because the funding was not available, or to go and ask for more money. That was the decision that they had to take.

The reason I tabled this amendment is that we do not know what it is that the Secretary of State is requiring the contractors to provide, not least in the provision of the specialist staff, whom many noble Lords have mentioned today in connection with looking after this group of younger people. Therefore, my reason for putting down the amendment was to encourage the Government to release these criteria so that we know, and the taxpayer then knows, and can therefore judge, what is actually missing when the contractor puts in their bid. We will not have any say over the bid, but it would be very interesting to know what parts of the original intention could not be provided for these young people because of funding.

My second point relates to a practicality of the delivery of the sort of thing that I know the Minister intends in the secure college. In 1966, the Army’s secondary school in Hohne, in Germany, was achieving remarkable results with children who came or left throughout the term, to and from schools almost anywhere in the world because of the movement of their fathers. When I asked the headmaster the secret of his success, he said that he ran a comprehensive school: every pupil was assessed for their ability in different subjects, and their daily programme was dictated by their ability: top form in maths, bottom in English and so on. When I told him that if that was comprehensive education, I was all for it, he warned me not to hold my breath because streaming by talent was frowned on in England. It worked, because motivated, compliant children got themselves to and from their programmed classes—a total impossibility both in security and in practical terms with the cohort that is likely to be in custody in a secure college. Has anyone thought through the practicalities of limited staff numbers trying to conduct 320 difficult, disruptive and damaged children with fragile motivation and questionable compliance to and from 30 hours of unspecified education, plus myriad other health and social care requirements on this cramped site?

I include that, first of all, as an example of what might be done with all of these children with different needs and problems, as to how to get them to go to where it is most appropriate; but also because I am concerned that this House has not yet had the criteria on which the judgment should be based as to which bid is going to be able to meet them. I strongly support the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Beecham, about limiting the contract to five, rather than 10, years because I believe that to tie future Governments for 10 years to this proposal—with all that has been said about it around the House today—is several years too long. I beg to move.

[Lord Beecham]

My Lords, I support the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham. My amendment is designed to avoid the situation that appears to be arising in relation to the awarding of contracts for the probation service. I do not know whether the Minister is in a position to confirm this or not, but it is said that the Government are deliberately proceeding with 10-year contracts for the outsourcing of that service, on the basis that, should a future Government decide to change the system, they would have, in effect, to pay up for the whole of the 10 years. In other words, it is really binding the hands of a future Government—in financial terms, if not necessarily in legal ones—in a way that is quite unacceptable. It would be quite wrong—perhaps, one could argue, even more wrong—to do so in this case, with a completely untried institution being set up. Whether or not that ultimately proves successful, in principle it would be entirely wrong. Five years is a perfectly adequate period within which to assess the merits of the proposal; that is, five years of operation, not just five years in chronological time, because the Minister has indicated that if the matter goes ahead, it will not be built until 2017. I hope that the Minister will accept both amendments, particularly the one in my name.

[Lord Faulks]

My Lords, I am grateful to both noble Lords who have spoken to these amendments relating to the contracting out of secure colleges. I recognise that at the heart of these amendments is an appetite to know more about the Government’s plans for the secure college pathfinder, which is to open in 2017, as the noble Lord, Lord Beecham, accurately said. Notwithstanding this understandable curiosity, I am concerned that the effect of these amendments would be to limit substantially the ability of the Secretary of State to secure both innovation and value for money from prospective operators of secure colleges.

The noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham, quite rightly described some of the educational challenges that will exist in relation to this cohort of young people. Of course, they exist now, albeit in different custodial establishments. There is nothing new about the challenge; the question is how you meet the challenge.

Amendment 118 proposes that the selection criteria for secure college operators should be set out in regulations, and that these regulations should be debated and approved by both Houses of Parliament. Noble Lords are aware of our desire to invite innovation in the provision of services to educate and rehabilitate young offenders in secure colleges, and in our view this amendment would undermine that ambition.

Similarly, Amendment 119 proposes a statutory limit of five years on the life of a contract for the operation of a secure college. Again, this would constrain providers in their ability to deliver efficiencies and improved outcomes, potentially undermining the very goals secure colleges seek to achieve. Of course, the Government are ever mindful of expense and this limitation would run counter, we suggest, to the interests of obtaining a satisfactory contractual relationship. It is important to stress that no such constraints apply to the Secretary of State’s powers to commission any other form of custodial provision, and we do not believe that they are appropriate here.

Our intention is to launch a competition next year for an operator of the pathfinder secure college. We will set out our expectations of providers in an operating specification and we will inform bidders of the criteria against which they and their proposals will be evaluated. We will then enter into a period of dialogue with bidders. The dialogue process will be a critical phase of the competition as it will allow us to refine our specification in light of the types of innovation suggested by bidders. I do not want to repeat what is already in the consultation rules that noble Lords will have seen but noble Lords will be aware of what we seek to achieve in terms of blocks of education.

In some areas of secure college provision, such as those identified for inclusion in the rules, the Government will want to clearly specify their requirements; in others, however, we will want to create a degree of flexibility for the experience and expertise of bidders to propose new ways of delivering services and improving outcomes for young offenders. I am sure that all noble Lords would agree that we need to improve those existing outcomes. Requiring the criteria by which an operator will be selected to be set out in secondary legislation would, I fear, both delay and hamper the established processes for procuring services that meet the Government’s expectations.

I hope it reassures noble Lords that we are working closely with the Youth Justice Board as we plan for the opening of the pathfinder secure college in 2017. Its expertise in commissioning custodial services for young people will directly inform both the operating specification issued to the market and the criteria by which successful bidders are to be identified.

To answer the question that the noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham, effectively posed—how will you assess the bids for the operation of the pathfinder secure college?—we will use a structured and objective evaluation process to identify the most economically advantageous tender. It will involve separate evaluation of the quality of the solutions and price; it will be conducted by a range of personnel with relevant experience—as I indicated, the YJB and the MoJ have extensive experience of objectively and robustly assessing operational service bids—and bids that fail to meet the prescribed minimum acceptable threshold level of the evaluation will be put aside and not considered further.

I understand why the noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham, would seek more detail than I am giving him but I hope that by outlining the process, and by the words I have used to describe it, he will understand why the Government are unable to accept his amendment. I hope he is reassured about the process by which secure college operators will be selected and will feel able to withdraw his amendment.

19:15

[Lord Ramsbotham]

My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister once again for the courtesy, care and attention he has paid to giving an answer, which, I must admit, was fuller and more reassuring than I had originally hoped.

I hope, however, that during this process between now and 2017 the same spirit of engagement between the Ministry of Justice, the Youth Justice Board and Members of both Houses will continue. As I am sure the Minister has detected, there is considerable interest, not just in the introduction of the secure college but in its method; we are particularly concerned about its ability to deal with these people.

The noble Lord mentioned the fact that staff move people around on sites but I am sure he reflects that very often the inertia in the day’s programme that prevents vast amounts of it being delivered is caused by trying to get people around a site and the problems that staff have in moving one lot while another lot have to stand fast, and so on. These are practicalities. If the complexity of the large site and keeping many groups separate is anything to go by, this is something that ought to be taken into account. Anyway, accepting the reassurances of the Minister, I withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 118 withdrawn.

Amendments 119 to 120B not moved.

Amendment 121

Moved by

[Lord Beecham]

121: Schedule 6, page 97, line 28, leave out paragraph 10 and insert—
“10 Secure college rules may only authorise the use of reasonable force on children—
(a) as a last resort;(b) for the purposes of preventing harm to the child or others; and(c) to the extent that the minimum force necessary should be used.”

[Lord Beecham]

I wish to test the opinion of the House.

19:18

Division 3

Ayes: 90

---

Labour: 64
Crossbench: 18
Liberal Democrat: 3
Independent: 2
Democratic Unionist Party: 1

Noes: 127

---

Conservative: 98
Liberal Democrat: 23
Crossbench: 5
Ulster Unionist Party: 1

19:30

Amendment 122

Moved by

[Lord Faulks]

122: Schedule 6, page 103, line 6, at end insert—
“Prison Act 1952 (c. 52)27A In section 52 of the Prison Act 1952 (exercise of power to make rules etc), after subsection (3) insert—
“(4) A statutory instrument containing rules under section 47 or 47A is subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament, subject to subsection (5).
(5) A statutory instrument containing rules under section 47 that (whether alone or with other provision)—
(a) authorise a secure college custody officer performing custodial duties at a secure college to use reasonable force, or(b) otherwise make a substantive change to the circumstances in which such an officer is authorised to do so,may not be made unless a draft of the instrument has been laid before, and approved by a resolution of, each House of Parliament. (6) In subsection (5), “secure college custody officer” has the same meaning as in Schedule 6 to the Criminal Justice and Courts Act 2014.”
Criminal Justice Act 1967 (c. 80)27B Omit section 66(4) of the Criminal Justice Act 1967 (exercise of powers to make rules under sections 47 and 47A of the Prison Act 1952).”

Amendment 122 agreed.

Consideration on Report adjourned until not before 8.31 pm.

Northern Ireland: Haass Talks

Wednesday 22nd October 2014 Lords Chamber

Question for Short Debate

19:31

Asked by

[Lord Dubs]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what steps they intend to take, together with the government of the Republic of Ireland and the Northern Ireland political parties, in reaching and implementing an agreement on dealing with the past in Northern Ireland, building on the draft conclusions of the Haass talks.

[Lord Dubs (Lab)]

My Lords, earlier this week, I attended a plenary of the British-Irish Parliamentary Assembly, and we spent last Monday visiting the World War I battlefields in Flanders, especially the graves of so many soldiers who died, including thousands of Irishmen who had volunteered to serve in the British Army. It was a very moving day, especially the ceremony at the Menin Gate at 8 pm that evening.

One of the places that we visited was the Island of Ireland Peace Park and Tower. At that place is a peace pledge from which I wish to quote briefly. It states:

“As Protestants and Catholics, we apologise for the terrible deeds we have done to each other and ask forgiveness. From this sacred shrine of remembrance, where soldiers of all nationalities, creeds and political allegiances were united in death, we appeal to all people in Ireland to help build a peaceful and tolerant society. Let us remember the solidarity and trust that developed between Protestant and Catholic Soldiers when they served together in these trenches”.

That is just an extract from the pledge.

I welcome this opportunity to draw attention to the Haass proposals, which cover parades, flags and dealing with the past. It is really too wide an area for this short debate, so I thought it better to concentrate on just one of these issues; namely, dealing with the past. I should pay tribute to the Eames-Bradley report and the noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Eames, for the part that they played in preparing the way for the Haass proposals. Indeed, I am sorry that the Eames-Bradley report did not get more attention at the time; it certainly deserved to. It is essential that the people of Northern Ireland should be helped to come to terms with the past, which still weighs heavily on them.

Much progress has of course been made in Northern Ireland since the Good Friday and St Andrews agreements, but the peace is still not solidly based and it is important to make progress on the outstanding issues. Indeed, I go so far as to say that the Good Friday agreement at this time looks vulnerable and fragile. Even at Stormont, the parties could not agree on appointing a new Speaker, having previously said that they would do so. It is a difficult situation and it is against this background that the Belfast talks started last Thursday. Does the Minister have any news about those talks? Will they consider the past and will there be some opportunity to learn more about what is happening there? It is clear that hopes rest heavily on those talks.

As I said, the Good Friday agreement led to the institutions and they have worked pretty well, but I believe that they are now distinctly fragile. Will the Minister confirm what would be the consequence of a collapse in the institutions? Does she feel that there are still people in Northern Ireland, some with considerable influence, who act as if they would not mind if the Executive collapsed? Does she agree that plan B—if one can call it that—would be joint rule by the British and Irish Governments with the strong likelihood of further elections? That would be a dire outcome, so it is even more essential that we do all we can to protect the Good Friday agreement and what it meant for the people of Northern Ireland.

I appreciate that there are other problems in giving effect to the Haass proposals—the Minister will no doubt mention that of the welfare cuts, which I put down as one of the issues that will have to be resolved—yet on the positive side, a few years ago, we had the Saville report on the events on Bloody Sunday. That at the time represented an important step forward—I think that it still is an important step forward— particularly as the Prime Minister endorsed it so warmly. However, that is only one aspect of the past and there are many unresolved issues. Haass represents the chance of moving forward. Have the Government yet endorsed the Haass recommendations? I do not think that they have. I wonder whether the Minister would be prepared to endorse them as a good way forward to encourage the Northern Ireland parties to act on them.

Let us look briefly at some of the proposals. Of course, essential should be support for victims and survivors, and there should be a strengthening of the Victims and Survivors Service that was established in 2012. There has been a suggestion that the commissioner should be encouraged to establish a mental trauma service. So many people in Northern Ireland have been severely damaged as a consequence of the Troubles. Anything that would help them as regards their mental well-being could only be a good thing.

A key proposal in the Haass report is to establish a historical investigations unit, which could on occasion refer cases to Public Prosecution Service. That unit would embrace some of the existing institutions and bring them together. If the Haass report is to be given effect to, it would certainly be a much more powerful weapon than we have at the moment. There should also be an independent commission for information retrieval.

To acknowledge the past must be difficult. It is fairly easy at this distance to say, “Get on with it and do it”, but I fully understand how difficult it must be for everyone involved in Northern Ireland to acknowledge some of the things that happened in the past. It is a very difficult psychological process. So many people experienced pain and loss during the conflict. For many, there has been no closure or comfort to date. Haass states:

“Some deaths can be attributed to state actors; the overwhelming majority, however, were caused by paramilitary organisations … For the vast majority of … people, there has been little in the way of closure or comfort; more than 3,000 conflict-related deaths were never solved”.

I shall not list all those deaths—there were many—but I happened to meet some time ago the families from Ballymurphy, scene of one of the painful episodes of the Troubles. As far as I know, there is no further process at the moment to look into what happened there. When I met the families, I said, “We can’t have another 10-year inquiry. It’s got to be much quicker than that, otherwise nobody will accept it”. I think that they agreed with that. Those families whom I met, and they may not be typical of everyone, said that all they wanted was for the truth to come out—no more or less than that. That seems very simple. It may be that other people want more than that; they may want action against people whom they see as the perpetrators. That becomes a more difficult process, because it undermines the way in which evidence can be collected. I was also assured that a lot of the evidence was in existence. Ballymurphy is only one of many incidents which need to be looked at.

In general, conflict situations are difficult to resolve, as we know. If no progress is made, it almost means that the process starts going backwards. It is clear that leadership is needed from all the parties on the Executive. The British Government together with the Irish Government can nudge the process on. We cannot solve it, because so many of the issues are devolved, although not all of them. For our part, if the House reports come to a positive conclusion, there will have to be some UK legislation as well coming through this House and the Commons. As I understand the position, we would need some legislation to deal with some of the issues raised by Haass. So I hope that that will also be possible.

There also needs to be the most widespread possible consultation in Northern Ireland. Just imposing a solution on them would simply not be acceptable. We have to bring the people of Northern Ireland with us in this process or the Northern Ireland Executive and politicians have to bring their people with them, and give the victims a chance to express their views and to comment specifically on any proposals.

I was in Northern Ireland as a junior Minister for two years, leading up to the Good Friday agreement and beyond. I always said to people, “I haven’t been personally affected by the Troubles. Nobody that I know has been affected by the Troubles so it is easier for me and the other Ministers to say hello to everybody and deal with everybody”. None of the backlog of problems affected us so it was easier. I fully understand, however, that for people in Northern Ireland it is a much more difficult situation. Nevertheless, we want that to be the norm in the peace process so that people can express their views and are able to deal with the people who have transgressed.

I believe that the events in Northern Ireland are at a critical stage—very critical. It is essential that the British and Irish Governments use all their influence to persuade the Northern Ireland political parties to move forward—and, I have to say, to do so quickly.

19:41

[Lord Patten (Con)]

My Lords, if incremental terrorism was the root of the problems that we now discuss, then only incremental reconciliation will slowly lay them to rest as both past and pain diminish with time. That is not to say that the recommendations by Dr Haass and that distinguished woman Professor O’Sullivan, his colleague, rightly highlighted by the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, are not worth while in themselves. They make some interesting proposals on commissions for information retrieval and all the rest.

Alas, however, that these proposals could not be generated from within Northern Ireland itself by the Northern Irish. There are only so many steps that our Government can take without them being firmly founded on the engaged consent of the population as a whole rather than the partisan responses to the well meant proposals of fly-by highly talented neutral diplomats, however skilled in peace processes—and however self-effacing—they may be.

Truly it is a sad reflection that there seem to be no home-bred great women or great men in Northern Ireland who can be accepted across the piece to undertake that reconciliation task, gaining that indigenous consent. In that fact is found the real measure of the problem and its likely longevity.

It seems that even the most anodyne suggestions from people without simply act as a lightning conductor to reignite ancient discontents, as we have seen in the reaction to the Haass and O’Sullivan reports—even prompting some again to reach for that pike hidden in the thatch. As with the fiscal, so with the peace process; people in the Province have to get a grip on it themselves and make it work. Just as the resolve will rapidly have to be found within the Province to run itself properly before it runs out of money very shortly by dealing with overspending in Northern Ireland, so reconciliation must come via resolve from within and with time. All that can be done in the mean time is to keep on trying; keep on keeping going until the pace of incremental reconciliation really gathers pace one day, when.

19:43

[Lord Alderdice (LD)]

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, for securing this debate. Given the number of speakers who wish to take the floor, we all have a very short period of time. In a sense that is the important message. All of us in this House who know about Northern Ireland, particularly those of us who live there, wanted to speak tonight because we are worried about the situation. The noble Lord described it as fragile, even perhaps critical. He is absolutely right about that. The situation is deteriorating politically—not so much in security terms at this point, but politically it is extremely serious.

The problem with the Haass process is that people seem to feel that what we needed was a political agreement or a political fix. But that is not the case. It is not a question of bringing forward yet more proposals. The noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Eames, and his colleague Mr Bradley have produced excellent proposals. The problem is not that. It is getting people emotionally as a community to the point where they are prepared to accept them. Although people have signed up for parity of esteem, the truth is that there are many people in the republican and nationalist community who still act as though they were victims rather than as though there were parity of esteem—and there are those in the loyalist and unionist community who act as though they were still dominant, when in fact there is parity of esteem written into the legislation.

The British Government also have a responsibility in this. Devolution did not mean everything and all responsibilities being handed over to people in Northern Ireland. This was a three-stranded process. The British and Irish Governments were the driver for the peace process—making sure that things continued and in the end came to a good conclusion. They retain a responsibility for making sure that it does not all fall to pieces—and, by the way, it is in their interests. If the devolution component of the three strands disappears, we do not end up with direct rule back to Westminster, but with de facto joint authority, with the north-south institutions that are in place remaining in place, but with a responsibility on the part of British Ministers to engage with Irish Ministers. The north-south thing remains with the British-Irish component: so there is a relationship. Indeed, when it comes to security, if those republicans who have engaged in the political process find that it does not work, it will be the most profound encouragement to those republicans who never believed in the political process and will want to return to the pike—perhaps no longer in the thatch, as the noble Lord has referred to.

This is serious. I deeply hope that my noble friend can not just tell me that there is a process under way with the Secretary of State and her opposite number, but show an appreciation of the gravity of the political situation at present. It is serious. If this House does not find a way of encouraging the Government to take it seriously, we will find ourselves back having to deal with some of the really contentious issues that we had desperately hoped were no longer on our plate.

19:46

[Lord Eames (CB)]

My Lords, we frequently hear the phrase that is the headline for this debate: “dealing with the past”. But less frequently do we consider what those words mean. Thirty years of conflict, 3,500 deaths, family life subjected to unbelievable stress, victimhood inflicted on thousands, and memories of loved ones injured and scarred for life, both in uniform and out of it. I speak after more than 40 years of pastoral work in Northern Ireland, 20 of them as Anglican archbishop. The recollection of numerous funerals and the attempts to support broken families will go with me to my grave.

When people talk about dealing with the past, it is much more than statistics that can be dismissed with the stroke of the political pen. It is about faces, voices, tears and frustration: little children deprived of parents. It is about people. Many of those people today ask for justice for themselves or for a loved one. Three thousand unsolved deaths remain to be addressed. They ask for justice, but justice comes in many forms: someone standing in the dock, someone taking responsibility, someone offering an apology—and some simply want to know what happened. I could quote many examples of each of those categories. Above all, they emphasise that foremost in any solution to the past must be the victims and the survivors.

The Consultative Group on the Past, of which I was privileged to be co-chairman, produced the suggestion of a legacy commission that would combine the elements of reconciliation, investigation and storytelling. It should last for five years and it should bring a form of closure to dealing with the past. We presented that blueprint more than five years ago. Whatever else was rejected in our report, the seeds of a legacy commission remain a talking point today, and indeed have surfaced in one form in the recent Haass proposals.

Northern Ireland is tired of political posturing and endless discredited proposals. Most of its people want to move on and live their lives. Today health, education and jobs are the real issues. However, until and unless there is the political will to deal with the past, our community will lurch from one disclosure, one media speculation and one blame game to another. I beg the Minister to take some of this frustration back to the Government, for I honestly believe that until there is some redress and the political will to address the issues of the tragic past, a lot else will fail.

19:50

[Lord Browne of Belmont (DUP)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, for introducing this timely debate and for his supportive interest in Northern Ireland affairs.

I want to make three observations and one plea to the Government. First, it is important to remember how far we have come in Northern Ireland over the past few years. Northern Ireland is a transformed society. The Province is almost unrecognisable from what it was like just a quarter of a century ago. Northern Ireland is a place where people now want to come and to invest, where our young people want to stay and make their lives, and where relative peace and stability are now the norm. That progress has been built on the restoration of devolved powers.

Secondly, we should remember just how slow that progress has been. Though it is now 20 years since the announcement of the first IRA ceasefire and the loyalist ceasefires, and 16 years since the Belfast agreement, it is still only seven years since devolution was restored on a stable and lasting basis—it is fair to say that we never rush these things. So while it is easy to become frustrated with the pace of change, we must not become discouraged. Nor should we have unrealistic expectations about quick solutions to the most difficult issues that have so far eluded us. It is hardly surprising that the issues that have yet to be fully and comprehensively addressed are some of the most difficult. The reality is that it has proved to be easier to share power than to agree what happened in the past.

Thirdly, we should be aware that it is not the problems of flags, parading or the past that currently threaten the process, but the issue of the implementation of the UK coalition Government’s welfare reform policy. It is indeed regrettable that the nationalist parties in the Northern Ireland Assembly have refused to support legislation to implement those reforms.

The cost of this failure to reach consensus, in terms of penalties imposed by the Treasury and IT costs, will quickly increase to hundreds of millions of pounds a year. Given the already constrained fiscal position, cuts of this magnitude would simply not be deliverable and would jeopardize the future viability of devolved government. My party, while opposing aspects of welfare reform in this Parliament, accepts that the parity principle that has served us well in Northern Ireland should be adhered to. In addition, we have proposed to fund from our own budget in Northern Ireland measures designed to alleviate the burden of the reductions in welfare payments on those least able to afford them.

I want to see the parties in Northern Ireland agreeing a way forward on welfare reform. However, if they cannot, my plea to the Government is simple: they must act quickly and, if necessary, legislate in order to save the rest of the devolved settlement. If this issue is not addressed quickly, there will not be a functioning Stormont to consider solutions to other problems, such as the issue of the past.

I trust that in the weeks to come the parties will be given the opportunity and encouragement to find local solutions—but, if they do not, the Government must act to preserve and protect the progress that has been made to ensure that Stormont can continue to function.

19:54

[Lord Lexden (Con)]

This is an extraordinarily timely debate, for which we are all most grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Dubs. Following the restoration of devolution in the Province, there is always a danger that the affairs of this part of our country will slip too far down Westminster’s agenda. A debate such as this helps to ensure that that does not happen. With the whole constitutional order in flux after the Scottish referendum, it is especially important that full attention is given to Northern Ireland’s place in the significant changes that are under consideration to recreate constitutional stability throughout our land.

The need for an agreement on dealing with the past, with which this Motion is concerned, will clearly be at the centre of the cross-party talks that my right honourable friend the Secretary State for Northern Ireland initiated last week. As she stressed, continuing disputes over the truth of what happened during the Troubles, and the deep, still raw grief in both communities, about which the noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Eames, once again spoke so movingly and eloquently, contribute significantly to the difficulty of sustaining the progress that has been made in Northern Ireland, as do disputes over flags and parades. They consume ever-increasing amounts of time and resources, which so badly need to be redirected to securing our fellow countrymen’s and women’s shared future together with the rest of us.

In the last 30 years of the 20th century, all the irreconcilables of Irish history came to dwell in the north. They do not yield readily to the healing processes in which so many fine people, both here and in Northern Ireland, have been engaged and must continue to be engaged until the vital goal of a shared future firmly within the framework of the United Kingdom has been attained.

We are all surely united in wishing the Secretary of State every success in her endeavours. The challenge for her and all the participants in the discussions that are about to take place is to extract from the Haass talks last year the elements that can be incorporated in a firm agreement, along with proposals to settle the increasingly bitter disagreements within the Northern Ireland Assembly over budgetary matters and welfare reform that are tearing it apart. That is a tall order, but the very obduracy of the problems underlines the need to seek every means of reducing them.

As regards the past, we surely need irrefutable concrete evidence on which to base action, and that cannot come solely from official records. There can be no special treatment for one side of the conflict. Everything must be open and nothing concealed. There must be no repetition of the appalling secret scheme that benefited some 200 terrorist suspects under the previous Government and this one. Dealing with the past must not be at the expense of handling current issues, as the Chief Constable of Northern Ireland has rightly warned.

These are some of the principles that might usefully help to guide the discussions that are to unfold. As the draft prepared at the end of the Haass talks states:

“It is clear that the vast majority of citizens and communities wish to live free of the division and enmity that has too often defined this society”.

They are our fellow citizens, our fellow communities. As someone once said: “We are all in this together”.

19:57

[Lord Empey (UUP)]

My Lords, as other Members have stated, we are indebted to the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, whom we all regard as a good friend of Northern Ireland, both as a Minister and as a Member of your Lordships’ House.

Mention has been made of the budget. Never before, despite all the difficulties, have the Northern Ireland Executive failed to balance their books. While welfare reform is a significant part of the difficulty, it is much less than half the financial shortfall that the Executive are facing, so even if welfare reform were resolved, that would not be the solution in itself. Let us not get into the mindset that if this welfare reform issue had not arisen, we would be fine—we would not.

This is the first time ever that we have been in a position to have to come running in the way that the Executive did a few weeks ago. Ironically, the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Treasury are now in the financial driving seat and conditions have been laid down. A budget for next year is to be agreed by the end of this month, and conditions apply. We describe it as a Wonga result for the Executive, so this is a very sad day.

With regard to the Haass talks, the noble Lord, Lord Patten, is not quite correct to say that a lot of these proposals came from Haass. Haass brought a lot of them together but a lot of them were indigenous proposals from different parties at the talks. I can tell him and the House that, had there been an agreement on the past at the Haass talks in January, a few weeks subsequent to that agreement we would have been left in the ludicrous position of learning about the on-the-runs issue and our credibility with the community would have been reduced to zero. So there is an absence of belief in frankness. There is an absence of belief that we know all that has been and is going on, which is a major consideration.

Of course, if we do not solve the financial problems it is rather irrelevant because devolution will not survive the absence of a financial resolve. That is common sense. Haass, however, in the proposals for a historic inquiries unit meant the establishment of a parallel police force outwith the control of the chief constable. This also meant a hugely costly, open-ended process whereby the state would always be at a disadvantage because it has the records and the paramilitary organisations do not. That imbalance is always there and has to be resolved before there will be any agreement. In the expectation that the Secretary of State’s process were to produce a result, or even not, can the Minister tell the House whether the Secretary of State is prepared to put her proposals to a referendum or to recommend another Assembly election to ratify anything that might emerge from the process?

20:00

[Lord Hylton (CB)]

My Lords, we all know that Northern Ireland is still deeply divided. One has only to look at segregated education and housing, walls separating communities, flags, parades, emblems, unsolved historic crimes and mixed marriages. Tonight’s debate refers to the conclusions of the Haass talks. These seem to be the recommendations of mediators trying to propose rational compromises. The parties may well not accept them because they do not feel they own them. There is a further flaw. The parties get many votes at elections but that does not always mean that the votes reflect the views of most peace-loving citizens. Such people want to get on with their lives. Therefore, they will usually back the least bad candidates. This means that the opinions of civil society, trade unions, business groups and voluntary organisations, including churches, should be taken into account when trying to deal with the most divisive issues. Will the Government do so and, if so, how?

My experience of visiting prisoners, some politically motivated and some not, together with my association with NIACRO and other voluntary groups, makes me think that a method, so far untried, may prove helpful. This is professionally assisted conflict analysis. This can be provided by networks of disinterested individuals, some of whom have built up their expertise in other conflicts. Facilitated analysis looks at the causes, rather than the symptoms, of conflict. It helps participants to focus on win-win solutions, which satisfy real felt needs, especially identity needs. The difficulty is to find the right participants, available for long enough—people who represent significant groups or who can form public opinion.

I have outlined the method of conflict analysis to the Secretary of State and the First and Deputy First Ministers. Some 20 years after the main ceasefires and 16 years after the Belfast agreement, we still face deep divisions. Perhaps it is time to try a new method. I have given notice, and look forward to the Government’s response.

20:03

[Lord Bew (CB)]

My Lords, I, too, thank the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, for securing this important debate. He has always been a great friend to Northern Ireland. I regret that what I have to say will be relatively cautious in the context of so many earlier eloquent speeches. I hope it will not appear negative but I think it is important to register certain points.

One concern is the cost of the Haass proposals. I fully support the Treasury’s decision to make the loan of £110 million and to ease the immediate crisis in the Executive. However, as the noble Lord, Lord Empey, has said, in the context of strict repayment conditions it is very difficult for Northern Ireland to take on board new commitment to public expenditure. If it is true that the Haass proposals amounted to hundreds of millions, that has to be something that we consider carefully. I ask the Minister to give us some help on exactly how costly they might have been. Also, Dr Haass’s proposal outwith the talks when he accepted the Tipperary peace prize for making the Irish language a second official language cannot be, whatever its other merits or demerits, a cost-free proposal.

The other crucial point I want to make is that I have come—I regret to say this because I feel the needs of the victims so strongly and it is such a disappointing thing to say, particularly for those young scholars who want to participate in this process—increasingly to the view that the idea of a shared process of recovery from the past is not a very likely project. It was one I used to strongly and until recently believe in. I have not given up on it completely but I am increasingly sceptical. The unionist community basically believes that the state is responsible for only 10% of deaths, loyalist paramilitaries for 30% and republicans for 60%. They therefore believe that any narrative must reflect the fact that the lion’s share of the killing was carried out by republicans. It is quite straightforward: that is their view of the matter and that is what they want to hear. The republican community, on the other hand, with the support of a large cast of journalists, clerics and NGOs, focuses on broader explanatory factors which emphasise long-term structural factors, discrimination, sectarianism, institutional culpability and collusion. This can sometimes be linked to a broader discourse of human rights, transitional justice and reconciliation. These are two world views you can accept or quote. They are fundamentally opposed. It is hard to see how you can have a shared process when you acknowledge this fact.

Finally, there is the question raised very sharply—it has already been alluded to—by Mr Adams at the weekend when, under pressure, he made an important comment about the Maria Cahill case, which has attracted a lot of attention. It was an alleged rape by a suspected IRA member in 1997. Mr Adams has been under a great degree of media pressure in both the north and the south about this. He said:

“The IRA has long since left the scene so there is no corporate way of verifying”,

what happened in this case. What does this mean for any wider shared process of recovery from the past? The state definitely has a corporate memory but he is now saying the IRA has no corporate memory. It has disappeared. What can this possibly mean for a shared process? These are the reasons for my scepticism. I regret to say these things. I think there are things that the state can do unilaterally and a great deal of consideration should be given to those things, but the shared process seems at this moment, I deeply regret to say, very elusive.

20:07

[Baroness Harris of Richmond (LD)]

My Lords, I, too, am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, for securing this debate. All these issues around flags, parades and the past are interrelated and it is very important that they are not considered in isolation from each other. Many of the social problems facing communities in Northern Ireland are either a product of, or are compounded by, sectarian divisions. It is deeply depressing that the divisions that run deep in Northern Ireland’s society have been left alone in the “too difficult to handle” box. Effective and sustainable solutions can come only as part of a shared approach, which acknowledges that disengagement, disaffection and disadvantage affect both communities—loyalists and nationalists.

Building a shared future is the single biggest challenge facing Northern Ireland, and it will not achieve what it should for its citizens, either economically or socially, if this critical issue is not addressed. However, it will not be addressed by tinkering at the edges, by trying to manage the symptoms of the problem or by looking at issues in a piecemeal fashion. Although a critical part of finding a means of dealing with the past, it is only one part of the equation. There is a moral duty to provide justice or some other form of truth and reconciliation to those who were the victims of years of terror, especially those who have been bereaved.

The work done by the noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Eames, and Denis Bradley needs to be taken from the shelf, dusted down and much of it implemented, as it gave a road map for this particularly difficult area. It is crucial that victims are at the centre of any process dealing with the past, because without resolving their issues with openness and integrity, society in Northern Ireland cannot hope to make progress on other issues such as the economy and education. The proposals of Richard Haass and Meghan O’Sullivan went a long way to finding justice and truth for all victims in Northern Ireland, and have provided an opportunity that Northern Ireland cannot afford to miss.

However, underpinning all this must be the matter of security. I have talked many times of the difficulties being placed on the PSNI and make no apology for doing so again. The PSNI has £100 million less for policing this year than last. Patten envisaged an establishment figure of 7,500 police officers in a peacetime scenario. We are still far from that and the PSNI now has only 6,600 officers to deal with the continuing unrest. By the close of 2013, Northern Ireland had witnessed 41 gun and 85 bomb attacks, many of which were targeted at police officers, both on and off duty. Imagine that happening on the mainland. Mainly as a result of public disorder, 820 officers have been injured while policing the flag protests and contentious parades. The ACC stated last week that some of the 84 neighbourhood policing teams across Northern Ireland would have to be closed because of the lack of funds.

Other serious consequential problems arise because of not finding a solution to the budget shortfall. This simply cannot continue. The people of Northern Ireland need a real solution to these issues and to the current impasse on the budget. There is now a fresh opportunity, with the current talks, for politicians there to show real leadership and to work together to deliver shared solutions to shared problems.

20:11

[Lord Kilclooney (CB)]

My Lords, the Belfast agreement provided for a shared Administration of Stormont but, unfortunately, it is now possible for an individual political party to exercise a veto over that shared Administration. It has happened, for example, in welfare reform. We now have a budgetary crisis in Northern Ireland.

The credibility of the Stormont Administration is at a very low level. They have lost respect across the Province. There has been little legislation in that Assembly for the past few years. We have lost Ryanair and John Lewis’s store through a lack of decision. The Belfast agreement itself has not been fully honoured. Even from the outset, the IRA could not call the country “Northern Ireland”. That was the way in which we implemented the Belfast agreement.

The noble Lord, Lord Hylton, is a great supporter of integrated education. We who negotiated the Belfast agreement, and paragraph 13 on rights and equalities, asked the Stormont Administration to promote integrated education. Perhaps the noble Lord does not realise that yesterday the Roman Catholic Church demanded that the Stormont Assembly drop the promotion of integrated education in Northern Ireland. That is a reality.

The Haass recommendations were not popular across Northern Ireland; let us not pretend otherwise. They did not even mention the IRA. The noble Lord, Lord Bew, mentions, quite properly, the cost of the six quangos that were recommended. They were not costed; we do not know what they were going to be. All we know is that the Secretary of State confirmed that they would have to come out of the devolved budget, and not from Westminster.

You could see the hand of the Irish-American lady deputy throughout the entire Haass report. This was a diplomat who spent four years in Iraq abolishing the Iraqi army, sacking all 80,000 civil servants and creating a sectarian constitution in Iraq which has brought us to the chaos we have there.

I am glad that the Secretary of State has confirmed that the Republic of Ireland will not be involved in the internal affairs of Northern Ireland. I say to the noble Lords, Lord Dubs and Lord Alderdice, that it is dangerous to tell the majority community in Northern Ireland that, if devolution ceases, the Republic of Ireland will be involved in the internal affairs of Northern Ireland. That would set off a fire across Northern Ireland, let us not pretend otherwise.

On participation, all parties must be involved in the talks. The political landscape in Northern Ireland has changed in the past four years and 100,000 unionists from the previous election are excluded from these talks while 210,000 are included. If you exclude such a large proportion of unionists from the talks, you are already writing a formula for the talks’ collapse. The way forward must be to address the flags issues immediately. It can be done, it is not impossible; the Flag Institute has confirmed that there is no flag for Northern Ireland. Above all, we must restructure the Stormont Assembly, retaining a cross-community future and providing an Official Opposition, to be fairly funded.

20:14

[Lord McAvoy (Lab)]

My Lords, I join other noble Lords in paying tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, not only for securing this debate tonight but for his long, positive involvement in Northern Ireland, to which many colleagues have referred. He has a reputation and is extremely well thought of.

Northern Ireland has in recent years made great progress. Peter Robinson and Martin McGuinness must be complimented on attracting compelling inward and foreign direct investment. However, Stormont’s five main parties have failed to make concrete political progress on issues such as flags, parades and the legacy of the Troubles.

I think that this House’s message to all of Northern Ireland is clear. Individuals, politicians and executive leaders have done so much to steer Northern Ireland in the right direction that it would be a calamity if successive years of co-operation led to gridlock. It is essential that the Belfast agreement is fully implemented. Sinn Fein must be encouraged to engage itself in welfare reform, which is obviously going to affect Northern Ireland. Meanwhile, the Democratic Unionist Party and other unionist parties must support other cross-party agreements, such as those in relation to the appointment of a Speaker. If we get into a tit-for-tat situation, we really are in trouble.

In preparing for tonight, I had assistance from a young man called Duncan McEwen. It hit home once again how long the Troubles have been with us when he was able to say that such-and-such an event happened on a day 30 years before he was born. That is another lesson to us: we must do something positive.

In situations such as these, standing still is surely equivalent to moving backwards, antagonism is equivalent to failure and intolerance is equal to that of the past. Working together may not require friendship or even forgiveness, but surely requires mutual respect and a recognition of unavoidable compromise. The construction of the road to peace has not yet been completed. Engineers from all parties must show leadership, tolerance and an ability to accept compromise to oversee its finalisation.

The sombre statement of fact from the noble Lord, Lord Alderdice, about the constitutional position of Northern Ireland if the Assembly were to collapse is absolutely correct. While I might not totally endorse the language of the noble Lord, Lord Kilclooney, such a situation would inevitably be extremely difficult. Such problems have arisen because there is a feeling that the current Government have distanced themselves from Northern Ireland. I call upon the Government to work exhaustively to end the current stalemate and, if appropriate and necessary, to work with the Irish Government to provide a framework for talks, nominating a chair accepted by all parties. I once again thank the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, and ask the Minister to state the Government’s response to this situation.

20:18

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Wales Office (Baroness Randerson) (LD)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, for his thoughtful speech and for the opportunity he has given us for what has been a high-quality debate on this issue. I thank noble Lords for their participation.

In any debate on Northern Ireland’s troubled past, we must acknowledge the pain and suffering inflicted on so many people. As a Government, we are acutely aware of the many victims of the Troubles in Northern Ireland, many of whom still bear the physical and emotional scars. We must never forget the many thousands who lost their lives, as several noble Lords have mentioned this evening.

This Government believe that it is essential that the Northern Ireland parties find an agreed way forward on how to deal with the past in Northern Ireland. However, we recognise, as have many noble Lords this evening, the challenge that this presents. There have been several attempts to reach agreement and many suggestions put forward. The Eames-Bradley report, in 2009, made a number of recommendations, but it also demonstrated the strength of feeling around this issue. I greatly appreciate the participation of the noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Eames, this evening. More than one noble Lord this evening has referred to the fact that there are issues of great relevance in that report, and things that deserve to be looked at again.

There were also, as many noble Lords have said, the talks led by Dr Richard Haass late last year. Many commentators have remarked that of flags, parades and the past, the past could well be the most difficult issue to resolve. Yet, remarkably, the past was arguably the issue on which the greatest amount of progress was made in those talks. Although an overall agreement proved elusive, much progress was made between the parties. Following those talks, the Government continued to press the Northern Ireland parties to resume their negotiations and find a way forward.

As my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland has set out clearly, it is our best assessment that the time is now right for a new set of talks on the range of challenges faced in Northern Ireland. Those talks started in Belfast last week, and we have on balance taken encouragement from the approach adopted by the parties thus far. The discussions were serious and businesslike and we hope that all the parties will continue to engage positively in the process.

However, these talks are not and cannot be about the Government intervening to impose solutions on the Northern Ireland parties; they are about helping, supporting and facilitating in order to reach agreement on the issues for which the Northern Ireland parties have primary responsibility. The system of government established under the various agreements enables Northern Ireland’s political leaders to make decisions on local issues.

We are, however, willing to help and support them where we can. The Secretary of State chaired an initial meeting of the parties last week, as well as a number of bilateral meetings. Over the next few weeks the talks will look at a number of issues, including: finance and budgets—including welfare reform, to which noble Lords referred this evening; the working of the Assembly and the Executive; and outstanding commitments of the agreements.

There are many challenges ahead, and the parties are of the view that they cannot resolve these alone, so we will support, guide and facilitate, providing advice where we can. The Secretary of State is leading those discussions and the Irish Government are likewise involved. Consistent with previous talks processes, they are structured according to the three-stranded approach referred to by my noble friend Lord Alderdice.

The talks will also look at another set of issues. The Government have long pressed the parties to reach agreement on the legacy issues of flags, parades and the past. Tomorrow the focus of the talks will be on those issues. The Secretary of State will again emphasise the need for a way forward, because the prize for doing so is immense.

As the noble Lords, Lord Browne and Lord McAvoy, said, Northern Ireland is a society much changed since the dark days of the Troubles. It is a modern, vibrant society with real potential, which has demonstrated its ability to play a major role on the world stage; for example, with the G8 summit. However, the legacy of division looms large in political life, often at the expense of developing the economy and building a shared future. That needs to change.

I will respond to points and questions asked by noble Lords. The noble Lord, Lord Dubs, asked about the consequences of the collapse of the institutions. He is right to suggest that the default position will be that there will be an election. There were resignations so that the institutions could not operate; there must be fresh elections. There are no longer any statutory powers to impose direct rule. It is important that anyone who thinks that the resolution of the current problems faced by the Executive would lie in a short period of direct rule should understand that that is no longer the case. It would prove very difficult indeed to re-establish the institutions if it were necessary eventually to resort to something like that.

In response to the noble Lord’s question on the Haass recommendations, as he knows, some of the parties in the negotiations chaired by Dr Haass endorsed his final proposals. Others did not. The Secretary of State has made it clear that if the parties endorsed recommendations of that sort, we should be prepared to operate them. She has made it clear that a structured approach to the past may be a great advance.

My noble friend Lord Alderdice asked about the situation and emphasised that it is very serious. I say to him that we do not for a moment underestimate the high stakes in the present talks. It is essential that we find a way to ensure that power-sharing in the institutions carries on.

The noble Lords, Lord Browne and Lord Empey, referred to the need for agreement on welfare and the fact that the financial problems facing the Executive are not by any means entirely down to the lack of agreement on welfare. We regard it as essential that the Executive re-establish orderly finances. It is simply not possible for the current situation to continue—it must be addressed.

The noble Lord, Lord Hylton, asked whether the Government would take account of the views of civil society as well as those of the political parties. I am very pleased indeed that the noble Lord raised that issue. We welcome the activity by members of civil society, and by church leaders, in providing leadership at this difficult time. For example, we welcome the work of the Make It Work campaign, which provides a point of focus other than the political parties, which is to be welcomed across society in Northern Ireland. The noble Lord also asked about professionally facilitated conflict analysis. That is certainly an interesting idea, but of course it is something that we would consult the parties on. I emphasise again that this process is led by the political parties and no longer by the British and Irish Governments. We have facilitated, brought them together and are urging them on, but the process has to be undertaken and agreed to by the political parties.

[Lord Kilclooney]

If the process is being led by the political parties, why have the Government therefore excluded the unionist representatives of one-third of the unionist vote in Northern Ireland? Some 100,000 unionist voters are not represented at these talks; 200,000 unionist voters are. That is no formula for success.

[Baroness Randerson]

The parties represented at the talks are those represented within the Executive, and it is important to bear in mind that the talks are going ahead with the agreement of the parties concerned.

I must complete my remarks now. The noble Lord, Lord Empey, referred to the need for an election or a referendum on the outcome of the talks. I will ensure that his point is conveyed to the Secretary of State, but I would point out that there is an election coming up in the near future in any event.

[Lord Empey]

I did not ask for those; I just wondered whether the Minister would be prepared to hold them. I am not advocating them.

[Baroness Randerson]

In that case I misunderstood the noble Lord. I apologise for that. I will of course review the record of the debate, and if there are any outstanding questions that I have failed to answer, I shall ensure that I write to noble Lords on those issues. I thank them for raising such important points this evening.

Criminal Justice and Courts Bill

Wednesday 22nd October 2014 Lords Chamber

Report (2nd Day) (Continued)

20:31

Amendment 122A

Moved by

[The Earl of Listowel]

122A: After Clause 35, insert the following new Clause—
“Lifetime reporting restrictions in criminal proceedings involving children under 18
(1) The Youth Justice and Criminal Evidence Act 1999 is amended as follows.
(2) After section 45 (power to restrict reporting of criminal proceedings involving persons under 18) insert—
“45A Power to restrict reporting of criminal proceedings for lifetime of persons under 18
(1) This section applies in relation to—
(a) any criminal proceedings in any court (other than a service court) in England and Wales, and(b) any proceedings (whether in the United Kingdom or elsewhere) in any service court.(2) The court may make a direction (“a reporting direction”) that no matter relating to a person mentioned in subsection (3) shall during that person’s lifetime be included in any publication if it is likely to lead members of the public to identify that person as being concerned in the proceedings.
(3) A reporting direction may be made only in respect of a person who is under the age of 18 when the proceedings commence.
(4) For the purposes of subsection (2), matters relating to a person in respect of whom the reporting direction is made include—
(a) the person’s name,(b) the person’s address,(c) the identity of any school or other educational establishment attended by the person,(d) the identity of any place of work of the person, and(e) any still or moving picture of the person.(5) In determining whether to make a reporting direction in respect of a person, the court must have regard to—
(a) the welfare of that person,(b) whether it would be in the interests of justice to make the direction, and(c) the public interest in avoiding the imposition of a substantial and unreasonable restriction on the reporting of the proceedings.(6) A reporting direction may be revoked by the court or an appellate court.
(7) The court or an appellate court may by direction (“an excepting direction”) dispense, to any extent specified in the excepting direction, with the restrictions imposed by a reporting direction.
(8) The court or an appellate court may only make an excepting direction if—
(a) it is satisfied that it is necessary in the interests of justice to do so, or(b) it is satisfied that—(i) the effect of the reporting direction is to impose a substantial and unreasonable restriction on the reporting of the proceedings, and (ii) it is in the public interest to remove or relax that restriction.(9) No excepting direction shall be given under subsection (8)(b) by reason only of the fact that the proceedings have been determined in any way or have been abandoned.
(10) In determining whether to make an excepting direction in respect of a person, the court or the appellate court must have regard to the welfare of that person.
(11) An excepting direction—
(a) may be given at the time the reporting direction is given or subsequently, and(b) may be varied or revoked by the court or an appellate court.(12) For the purposes of this section—
(a) criminal proceedings in a court other than a service court commence when proceedings are instituted for the purposes of Part 1 of the Prosecution of Offences Act 1985, in accordance with section 15(2) of that Act;(b) proceedings in a service court commence when the charge is brought under section 122 of the Armed Forces Act 2006.(13) In this section “appellate court”, in relation to any proceedings in a court, means a court dealing with an appeal (including an appeal by way of case stated) arising out of the proceedings or with any further appeal.
(3) In section 49 (offences under Chapter 4)—
(a) after subsection (1) insert—“(1A) This section also applies—
(a) in England and Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland, if a publication includes any matter in contravention of a direction under section 45A(2) made by a service court;(b) in England and Wales, if a publication includes any matter in contravention of a direction under section 45A(2) made by a court other than a service court;”, and(b) at the end insert—“(7) Schedule 2A makes special provision in connection with the operation of this section, so far as it relates to a publication that includes matter in contravention of a direction under section 45A(2), in relation to persons providing information society services.”
(4) In section 50 (defences)—
(a) after subsection (6) insert—“(6A) Where—
(a) a person is charged with an offence under section 49, and(b) the offence relates to the inclusion of any matter in a publication in contravention of a direction under section 45A(2),it shall be a defence, unless subsection (6B) or (8) applies, to prove that the person in relation to whom the direction was given had given written consent to the inclusion of that matter in the publication.(6B) Written consent is not a defence by virtue of subsection (6A) if the person was under the age of 18 at the time the consent was given.”, and
(b) in subsection (8), after “defence” insert “by virtue of subsections (5) to (7)”.”

[The Earl of Listowel (CB)]

The amendment stands in my name and in that of the noble Lord, Lord Carlile of Berriew. I am afraid that it is a little technical, and I may have to speak for seven or eight minutes. I apologise for that, and I will try to be as quick as possible at this hour.

Amendment 122A proposes a solution to the problems that we face concerning anonymity for children in court proceedings. It creates a default anonymity into adulthood, and allows the court to remove this where it considers necessary. I welcome the amendments that the Government have tabled in this group, but I feel that they do not go quite far enough, and I hope to persuade your Lordships, and the Minister, that perhaps he might like to look at this area again before Third Reading and table something to meet some of the concerns that I, along with the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, are about to raise.

Since the Children and Young Persons Act was passed in 1933, children in court have been entitled to remain anonymous, whether they are defendants, victims or witnesses, and Sections 39 and 49 of that Act impose different reporting restrictions, depending on whether a case is in the youth court or a different court. These prevent information being published that could lead to the identification of a child. However, whether those restrictions must be respected after a child turns 18, when proceedings have been concluded before then, is a complex question, which seems to have caused great confusion.

So far as I am aware, media organisations have generally respected reporting restrictions even after a child has reached 18, where the proceedings had concluded before then. So children who had historically been involved in court proceedings have not been named in practice, even after they have reached adulthood, whether they were victims, witnesses or defendants.

However, in a recent judgment, Lord Justice Leveson interpreted a Section 39 order to expire once a child reaches 18, as there is nothing specifically stating that anonymity should extend into adulthood. The same analysis would apply to Section 49. The case, which is being appealed, has serious consequences. First, the implication of the judgment is that criminal courts have no power to provide child victims, witnesses or defendants with anonymity into adulthood. As Lord Justice Leveson himself pointed out, this leaves child victims and witnesses with less protection than vulnerable adult victims and witnesses, who can be granted anonymity. Secondly, because the judgment has drawn attention to the law, it is likely that we will see children who were historically involved in court proceedings being identified by the media after they reach 18.

The question that Parliament now has to answer is what to do about this state of affairs. In Committee we debated one solution to the problem, and amendments were tabled that would have set it in statute that Section 39 orders and protection under section 49 would last for a child’s whole life, subject to applications to the contrary. The Government said that there were technical flaws with the amendments, and promised to return to the issue on Report. Last week the Minister, the noble Lord, Lord Faulks, duly tabled Amendment 139, which sets out an alternative. It would create an entirely new order, which could provide child victims and witnesses with anonymity into adulthood—but only if they can show that failure to do so would diminish the child’s evidence or co-operation in the case. Defendants cannot be the subject of the new order at all.

There are two serious problems with the Government’s amendment. First, it introduces a high test, which victims and witnesses must pass if they are to access this anonymity; that is, the test of diminished evidence and co-operation. Sections 39 and 49 of the Children and Young Persons Act do not require a child to meet any kind of test to be granted anonymity. As I have said, prior to the Leveson judgment, Sections 39 and 49 seem generally to have been respected by media organisations after a child turned 18. Why should it now be necessary for victims and witnesses to meet this test, before being granted anonymity? I feel it is unhelpful. Coming forward as a victim or a witness takes real courage, particularly as a child. Making anonymity harder to access is unlikely to encourage anyone to come forward.

My second concern with the Government’s proposal is the distinction that it makes between victims, witnesses and child defendants, and the fact that it excludes children who are defendants from the new anonymity orders. Their amendment would leave criminal courts with no means to provide a child defendant with protection after they turn 18. The only way for a child defendant to remain anonymous after the age of 18 would be for a civil injunction to be sought. This is unsatisfactory.

I see that the rest of my briefing paper has now disappeared from my iPad, so I shall refresh it and hope that the briefing will return. I may have to ask the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, to take my place for a moment. I have it back now; there is a little lacuna in it, but I do have some more of it here. I apologise for the break, my Lords.

The Government have made clear that they consider reducing reoffending a priority, particularly among children. This is a laudable aim, which I am sure that we all fully support. I believe that achieving that aim will be hindered by refusing anonymity to child defendants as soon as they turn 18. My Amendment 122A puts forward an alternative solution to the problem— one that seeks to overcome the difficulties with the Government’s proposals. Like the government amendment, my amendment introduces a new order that would provide all children in court proceedings with anonymity into adulthood, unless an application were made to vary it. It therefore reverses the burden.

My amendment would be available to child victims, witnesses and defendants, and does not contain the high-threshold test included in the government amendment. Like the government amendment, my amendment would still require the court, when making an order, to consider,

“the public interest in avoiding the imposition of a substantial and unreasonable restriction on the reporting of the proceedings”.

It cannot therefore be said to constitute an undue interference with open justice or press freedom.

We should not underestimate the impact of this matter on child victims, witnesses and defendants, or on the operation of the youth justice system itself. I very much hope that, for the reasons that I have outlined, the Government will agree that my proposed solution is a more productive way forward, and accept my amendment.

I now turn briefly to government amendments 140 and 141, which also relate to anonymity for children in court. I welcome the principle of ensuring that reporting restrictions cover social media, which I understand is the intention of those two amendments. I note that Amendment 140 would prevent Section 39 of the Children and Young Persons Act applying to proceedings in criminal courts. Can the Government explain why this provision is necessary? I imagine that they intend to bring Section 45 of the Youth Justice and Criminal Evidence Act 1999 into force to replace Section 39. Can the Minister confirm whether that is the case, and if so, give us an indication of when they plan to bring Section 45 into force? If I am speaking too quickly, I am very happy to repeat anything that I have just said.

The government amendments do not mention Section 49 of the Children and Young Persons Act 1933, so far as I can see. Section 49 provides default anonymity for proceedings in the youth court. I am anxious that this is preserved. Will the Government reassure us that they have no plans to alter the default anonymity in the youth court and clarify whether their amendments extend Section 49 so that it explicitly covers social media?

To go back briefly over what I have said, I am concerned that when a person who has committed a crime in his childhood turns 18 and perhaps goes into higher education or university or starts a career, he may find that the facts of his past emerge, which may cause great impediment to achieving success in his career and seriously hinder his rehabilitation. I would appreciate reassurance that the Government have considered that point. I look forward to hearing the Government’s position on these matters. I beg to move.

[Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames (LD)]

My Lords, in this group I will speak only to Amendment 122AA standing in my name. This amendment deals with preserving the anonymity of children who are subject to a criminal investigation but who have not yet been charged with any offence. The lack of anonymity for such children is an anomaly in the law as they are protected from being named once they are charged, as the noble Earl, Lord Listowel, has just explained.

This anomaly was to be addressed by Section 44 of the Youth Justice and Criminal Evidence Act 1999, which would apply to reporting in respect of persons under 18 after a criminal investigation into an alleged offence has begun. However, that section has not been brought into force. My amendment would amend the section to add its application to sound and television broadcasts or public electronic communications networks and would bring it into force on the passing of the Bill.

The undesirability of the present position was graphically illustrated when the Sun published the name of the boy later to be accused of murdering the Leeds schoolteacher Ann Maguire before he was charged. It is, of course, now illegal to name him as he is a party to court proceedings. It is obvious that if a child is named pre-charge, that undermines any anonymity later afforded by court proceedings.

In Committee, my noble friend the Minister said that,

“in the light of the significant changes to press self-regulation recently introduced by the Government … Both the industry and the Government agree that independent self-regulation is the way forward. … We should therefore give this new approach a chance to succeed”.—[Official Report, 23/7/14; col. 1198.]

I regret that I do not share my noble friend’s optimism as to the present effectiveness of self-regulation. Furthermore, even if press self-regulation may work for newspapers in future, it has no effect on preventing pre-charge publication in the social media.

This is, of course, a probing amendment. It has been agreed that Section 44 will not in fact be brought into force unless it is debated by both Houses and subject to affirmative resolution. Nevertheless, I would ask my noble friend to make clear in this debate whether he agrees that pre-charge anonymity ought to be guaranteed—and, if so, will he please say how he proposes that it should be achieved?

20:45

[Baroness Howe of Idlicote (CB)]

My Lords, I will speak to Amendments 122A and 139. Amendment 122A and government Amendment 139 both aim to address the problem of what happens to the anonymity granted to children in court proceedings when these children turn 18. This is obviously a pressing issue thanks to the case of JC & RT, as we have already heard, in which Lord Justice Leveson ruled that Section 39 reporting restrictions expire when a child reaches 18. I gather that that case is subject to appeal.

The government amendment seeks to create a new lifelong anonymity order, but this cannot be granted to defendants: so these new orders allow a court to provide child victims and witnesses with anonymity post-18, but not child defendants. As far as I am aware, this means that the only way for a child defendant to be granted post-18 anonymity would be for them to seek a civil injunction. Unless they have such an injunction, the press, or individuals on social media, will automatically have the right to identify any child defendant as soon as they reach 18.

I understand that the Government’s position is that they do not want all child defendants automatically to be granted post-18 anonymity, but will there not be some cases in which the court should have the ability to impose lasting reporting restrictions? What about cases where a child is found not guilty of an offence? What about cases where vigilantism is a real possibility? Amendment 122A would allow defendants to be subject to the new lifelong anonymity orders and would provide courts with the means to impose restrictions if they choose. This may be the most sensible way forward.

Under Amendment 139, child victims and witnesses will have to show that their evidence or co-operation would be diminished if they were to be granted post-18 anonymity. Under the current law, victims and witnesses do not have to meet any tests to be granted the same anonymity. Like my noble friend Lord Listowel, I am concerned that this test may deter victims and witnesses. I am also concerned about what will happen when proceedings have already concluded and the child victim or witness has now reached 18 years of age. Presumably, anyone over the age of 18 who has ever been a child victim or witness and who does not want to be identified will have to go back to court and apply for one of the new orders that the Government propose. Surely it is unlikely that most people will know that they can do this. Even if they did, would legal aid be available to assist them?

This is a serious issue if victims and witnesses in historic cases start to be named in the press without their prior knowledge. This is likely to deter potential victims and witnesses from coming forward, as well as being potentially harmful to those identified. Like my noble friend Lord Listowel, I hope that the Government will take these concerns into consideration and, in particular, come back with a rather more acceptable amendment at Third Reading.

[Lord Carlile of Berriew (LD)]

My Lords, this has been a rather intimidating debate so far, in the sense that I notice that two of the three noble Lords who have spoken did so from their tablets. To the public mind, tablets in your Lordships’ House are probably seen to be what most of us take at some point during the day. Anybody who thinks that we are not a modern House should take account of what has just happened.

I support the speeches of all three noble Lords—in particular, that of the noble Earl, who opened cogently the debate on the amendment, which also has my name upon it. I am concerned that there should be a discretion vested in the court to allow anonymity for defendants. One could think of hundreds of examples where this would be just. I shall give the House one, which involves a situation in which parents have been instrumental in the child committing a crime. It may be the father who is a thief and has given the child the stolen goods to look after; or it may be a mother who is involved in some other offence in which she relies upon her child to protect her and, for example, warn her if the police are appearing.

For any of your Lordships are devotees of film noir, in a recent episode of that splendid drama, “The Bridge”, an animal rights terrorist involved his brother in a terrorist act and the brother undoubtedly committed criminal offences—we will have to wait and see whether he is prosecuted in the next episode—for his brother’s protection. It is self-evident that there will be cases such as the more real examples that I mentioned earlier, in which there should be a discretion in the court to protect the child from being named.

We are not saying in this amendment that it should happen. We are saying that surely it could happen. I hope that the Minister will tell me that I am wrong— I would be delighted if he did—and say that powers either exist or will shortly exist that will leave this discretion within the criminal court. There are, as the noble Earl said, civil powers that could be used, but these are complex and difficult to access, and we have the problem that legal aid is not necessarily available for such cases. We therefore need to ensure that children who have committed crime and may be only marginally to blame for their involvement have this protection.

We know that historically there are some cases of great notoriety in which, after the child’s release from custody, lifelong anonymity has been granted. It would be right to at least give the criminal court the power to grant such anonymity for a period, so that the notoriety of the child is protected, even if the merits indicate that this matter should be dealt with by a civil court at a much later stage.

I agree also with the noble Earl’s comments in relation to victims and witnesses. Child witnesses are often very intimidated by the prospect of giving evidence. They know that they are going to be cross-examined and face what may be an unpleasant experience. They will be told that the experience is sometimes well controlled, which is true—but unfortunately it is far from always well controlled. If we are to value the need to obtain child witnesses, particularly in abuse cases and matters of that kind, we should have stronger provision than is contained in the Bill. With those views, I support the amendment and the amendment spoken to by my noble friend Lord Marks, and hope that the Government will say that they would like to take another look at these provisions.

[Baroness Hamwee (LD)]

My Lords, the world now knows about the technology used by your Lordships and their Saturday night viewing habits. I associate myself with the remarks that have been made. I was not able to be in the House while the Bill was in Committee. However, I was a bit surprised that, rather than a quite simple but perhaps simplistic amendment which restored what everyone had thought of as the status quo, instead the amendment is around 10 lines in length. Those among your Lordships and from the Government who carried out the drafting have come up with very many lines, which can sometimes prove more difficult than a more straightforward and prescribed amendment.

Having said that, I want to mention the position of defendants. I agree very much with what has been said, and I simply add that not to provide anonymity or reporting restrictions—whatever term you apply, although of course they are not necessarily the same thing—seems to me to undermine the whole purpose of the youth justice system, which is rehabilitation, reintegration, and so on. An enormously important principle is at stake here. The same really applies to the amendment of my noble friend Lord Marks. One cannot separate out the stages. I am sure that there is a sporting analogy for this. Having lost anonymity at that early point before being charged, there is really nothing more that one can sensibly do afterwards to fulfil the spirit of what the Government themselves seem to consider important, even if we would like to have more than the Government’s amendment.

[Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab)]

My Lords, my Amendment 123 is largely superfluous in the light of the government amendments. The Standing Committee for Youth Justice has sent to all noble Lords who have taken part in this debate, I suspect, a briefing which was largely laid out by the noble Earl. He made the point very well about the high threshold test proposed by the Government in their amendments. He summarised that by saying that the new threshold test would be a diminishment of co-operation or evidence through fear on behalf of the witnesses or the victims. The Standing Committee for Youth Justice briefing makes the point that this higher threshold is even higher than that in the Children and Young Persons Act. This is an important point, which I hope that the noble Lord will be able to address.

This is a very difficult area of legislation. In my brief time in the courts, although the law has not changed in the adult courts, in practice what magistrates view as appropriate use of media within a courtroom has changed quite a lot. This is largely at the discretion of the magistrates and district judges involved. I very much hope that the noble Lord will agree that whichever amendments are agreed tonight will be kept under review, because this is such a delicate and difficult matter.

Where I diverge from the noble Earl and the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, is whether lifetime anonymity should be given to child offenders. The briefing was rather less nuanced than the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Carlile. To put it in stark terms, I do not think it reasonable that a young person of 17 and a half should get a lifetime of anonymity, whereas someone who is 18 gets no anonymity if they have committed largely the same offence. If one were to rely on the briefing alone, that is the burden of the argument which is being made. I know that that is not the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Carlile; he presented his case in a more nuanced way. However, I find it troubling that there is potentially a very stark difference in the way that people are treated on either side of the 18 years of age barrier.

I would like to make a further point, which may be a technical one. I noticed that the briefing continually refers to child defendants and not to child offenders, whereas of course all the children about whom we are talking have either pleaded guilty or been found guilty in a court. They are not, in my understanding, child defendants. Having said all that, it is a real issue about the availability of the internet and how that might affect the rehabilitation and reintegration of young offenders into the community.

I conclude with an anecdote, which is not to do with youth. Recently, my wife employed a female offender who was still in prison but on release when she was employed by my wife. It was a wholly positive experience in that the offender worked well and the organisation benefited. However, when my wife searched the internet for the offences that the woman had committed, the information she got was not what she had been told by the offender or the organisation which facilitated the work placement. Nevertheless, I support the Government in their objectives.

21:00

[The Minister of State, Ministry of Justice (Lord Faulks) (Con)]

My Lords, I am grateful to all those who contributed to this debate on these complex issues involving the conflict between a free press, the public’s right to know and the natural desire we have to protect young people from publicity to make sure that they do not suffer for life for any sins they committed in their youth. In acknowledging everyone’s contribution, perhaps I may single out the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, who I think, although I may be wrong, is making his debut from the Opposition Front Bench. Noble Lords are shaking their heads and I understand that he is not. Therefore, my congratulations are late but none the less sincere.

Amendment 139 provides the criminal courts with a discretionary power to order reporting restrictions that last for the lifetime of a victim or witness in criminal proceedings who is under the age of 18 at the time those proceedings commence. Amendments 140, 141, 175, 183 and 184 widen the scope of reporting restrictions applying specifically to under-18s from print and broadcast media to include online content as well. Amendment 139 tracks the circumstances in which a lifelong reporting restriction may be available to an adult witness. The criminal courts are therefore given an additional statutory discretion to order lifelong protection for victims and witnesses under the age of 18 to secure their best evidence or co-operation. However, if it is not reasonable or proportionate to make use of this power, the court may continue to rely on the existing youth reporting restrictions available to children and young people.

As these amendments have been tabled in response to the High Court judgment and the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, bringing it to our attention in Committee, consultation with the Scottish Government is ongoing and the government amendments are not intended to change the situation in Scotland. Some further technical amendments may be required at Third Reading in respect of territorial extent.

The issue of criminal investigations is covered by Amendment 122AA, which is tabled by my noble friend Lord Marks. This amendment seeks to commence Section 44 of the Youth Justice and Criminal Evidence Act 1999. It is similar to an amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, in Committee. On previous occasions, I explained to your Lordships that, given the significant restriction that Section 44 potentially imposes on freedom of the press and the possibility that its aims might be achievable through other means, it was determined by the then Government in 1999 that Section 44 should be commenced in relation to victims and witnesses only after both Houses have been given the opportunity to debate the issue again.

I fear that I must repeat what I said in Committee. The Government do not believe that this is the right time to consider commencing Section 44 in light of the significant changes to independent press self-regulation that we have introduced. The Privy Council granted a royal charter that has been sealed. The Government believe that that is the best way to ensure that independent press self-regulation operates successfully and that we should give this new approach a chance to succeed. I am sorry that my noble friend Lord Marks does not have much confidence in this. Furthermore, we have some misgivings about Section 44 as drafted, as it imposes restrictions on the press that are so broad as to be potentially impractical.

However, I reassure my noble friend that it is unnecessary to amend Section 44 in order to extend it to online content as we believe that it already covers such media. Section 44 adopts a definition of “publication” that is wide enough to include online content. I will explain this further in dealing with the final set of government amendments and, in due course, I will ask the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment.

In respect of online content and youth reporting restrictions, Amendments 140, 141, 175, 183 and 184 widen the scope of reporting restrictions applying specifically to under-18s. Through these amendments, and by commencing Section 45 and the relevant parts of Section 48 of the YJCE Act 1999, restrictions will also be applicable to online content. The Government intend to commence the relevant provisions of the 1999 Act when the amendments to this Bill come into force.

Youth reporting restrictions will rely on an existing statutory definition of publication, which includes any speech, writing, relevant programme or other communication in whatever form, which is addressed to the public at large or any section of the public, but does not include an indictment or other document prepared for use in particular legal proceedings. By using this definition of publication we will broaden the scope of youth reporting restrictions to create consistency with other reporting restrictions already on the statute book, such as those that apply to adult witnesses and victims of sexual offences. It would also be in line with the definition used in Section 2(1) of the Contempt of Court Act 1981 which the Law Commission recently concluded was,

“wide enough to cover the content of new media and probably in the future too”.

The Government agree with that interpretation and have therefore adopted the same definition of publication when extending the scope of youth reporting restrictions to online content. I hope that that reassures the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, that the purpose of his Amendment 123 has been met—and I would therefore ask him not to press it.

During the course of the debate there was some reference to whether there was any justification for the distinction between victims and witnesses and defendants. There are a number of statutory protections within the criminal justice system that are applicable only to victims and witnesses. One example is Section 46 of the YJCE Act 1999, which provides for the possibility of lifetime reporting restrictions for adult witnesses. The Sexual Offences (Amendment) Act provides for automatic reporting restrictions for victims of sexual offences. Similar statutory powers are not available for defendants.

I respectfully agree with what the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, said about the position of someone who is 17 and then becomes 18. He asked why there should be a difference so that if someone is 17 they have lifetime anonymity. Of course, there are remedies available. If your Lordships accept the Government’s amendments, it is argued that the current position reflects a fair balance between the various considerations that apply in this field. More clarity may be needed in this area of concern, which we will be considering.

I understand that Impress, the second potential self-regulator, is currently appointing its board. We would respectfully suggest that these are matters for the industry and not for government. I also understand that David Wolfe QC has been appointed chair of the independent Recognition Panel and that the board appointment process is also under way. This is a matter for the Commissioner for Public Appointments and not for government. Therefore, for the moment the Government have done all that they need to do.

[The Earl of Listowel]

My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for his reply. I note the emphasis he puts on the charter and the institution that is set in place to improve the way in which the media control themselves. From what he said, I take it that he has an open mind to a certain extent. These are new developments. The charter is a new thing. He will keep looking at it to see if it provides sufficient protection for young people. I am grateful for that open-mindedness.

I was grateful for what the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, said. He referred to 17 and a half and 18 year-olds and that it seemed unfair to distinguish so much between the two when there was such a small gap. My response might be: can we not be generous to children? They are still children until the age of 18: can we not err on the side of generosity towards them? I am grateful to all noble Lords who have taken part in this debate and I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.

Amendment 122A withdrawn.

Amendment 122AA not moved.

Amendment 122B

Moved by

[The Earl of Listowel]

122B: After Clause 38, insert the following new Clause—
“Duties of custody officer before charge
In section 37(15) of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 (duties of custody officer before charge), for “17” substitute “18”.”

[The Earl of Listowel]

My Lords, I hope that my iPad performs better on this occasion. My amendment would give 17 year-olds detained by the police the right to be held in local authority accommodation rather than overnight detention in a police cell. I tabled amendments to the same effect in Committee and during that debate I explained the importance of the matter. I was grateful for the sympathetic response from the Minister at the time and for his letter in July which laid out the timetable for the Government’s response to this question.

I will not repeat all the arguments other than to say that children under the age of 17 already have the right not to be detained in a police cell, but to be transferred to a local authority bed. Those aged 16 and under are already protected from being placed in police custody, an unsuitable and detrimental environment for the overnight detention of children. The recent tragic cases where teenagers have died after being treated as adults while at the police station remind us all too well of this fact. The UN Convention on the Rights of the Child is clear that 17 year-olds are children. However, the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984, known as PACE, which governs the operation of police stations, is currently inconsistent on this point. It is this Act which I am seeking to amend, specifically to enable 17 year-old children to access local authority accommodation.

In his reply in Committee, the Minister explained that the Government were holding an internal review of all the legislation where 17 year-olds are treated as adults in the criminal justice system. He explained that the review included looking at the necessary consequential amendments that would result from the proposed change in the law, and that the Government would need to ensure that such a change was workable. He concluded by saying:

“While this is clearly an important issue and one that the Government take extremely seriously, for the reasons I have given I am unable to commit myself to having an answer by Report. I hope that we will have, but I am afraid that I am unable to give that commitment”.—[Official Report, 23/7/14; col. 1205.]

I have tabled this amendment in the hope that the Minister might possibly be in a position to give the answer he hoped to have. I note from his letter in July that in fact the timetable he has set would give us a result in the spring of next year, but I hope that just possibly the Government have moved faster than he expected, because this needs to be addressed as soon as possible.

The charity Just for Kids Law has told me that it understands that the Home Office PACE strategy board, comprised of the police, civil servants and other relevant parties, has now met a number of times and that the last meeting of the board was held on 22 September. I am told that the charity has had sight of the minutes of that meeting and that civil servants have committed to submitting to Ministers an amendment to transfer 17 year-olds from police cells to local authority accommodation. As I say, I hope that the Minister might have some good news for us tonight. Is he in a position to confirm that this work has been done and, if so, can he tell the House that the Government are in agreement that this is the way to proceed now?

The Bill provides an ideal opportunity to amend PACE with regard to 17 year-olds as recommended by the internal review, and I hope that the Government will take it. I believe that there is a need to act with some urgency to ensure that there are no more teenage suicides as a consequence of their time in police custody. Since 2011 there has been one suicide a year where children were treated as adults at the police station. I am concerned that this issue should not be kicked into the long grass, as it has been in the past. In 2010 the Government committed to extending the appropriate adult provision to 17 year-olds, but it took seven years and a court decision before anything was done. In the interim, two children died after being treated as adults in police custody. The parents of Joseph Lawton, a successful and popular A-level student with no mental health problems, believe wholeheartedly that his suicide was the consequence of being kept in a police station overnight and their not being informed of what was happening. This simple amendment could prevent the death of another bright and successful child. The House should not forget the potential consequences of not amending the legislation. We owe it to the devastated parents who have campaigned on this issue and to all children. As parliamentarians, we have a duty to protect them and we should act as soon as possible.

Beyond children themselves, the people this change will impact on the most is the police. They support the change and have said this to the Home Office. I have also seen an e-mail on behalf of the national policing lead, Dawn Copley—who is also assistant chief constable of Greater Manchester Police, the area where all three 17 year-olds died—stating that,

“it is the National Policing position as held by Dawn Copley who is the national lead for Custody that PACE should be changed so that 17 year olds are treated as children in all the provisions of the Act”.

Given the importance of the issues at stake, with the police and bereaved parents stating that they are in agreement for change, and seeing the Government’s own independent review advising them the same, I hope that the Minister will indicate that the Government are able to support my amendment tonight. I beg to move.

21:15

[Lord Ashton of Hyde (Con)]

My Lords, I fully appreciate the laudable aims of this amendment, which seeks to make a positive change following the tragic cases of the three 17 year-olds who committed suicide following their encounters with the police. To lose a child is a tragedy, particularly in the sad circumstances surrounding the deaths of Joseph Lawton, Edward Thornber and Kesia Leatherbarrow. This Government have the utmost respect for the dedicated commitment of their families, who continue to campaign on this important issue.

The Government acted swiftly to ensure that they complied in full with the High Court decision in the judgment of Hughes Cousins-Chang. Changes were made as soon as possible following the statutory obligation to consult on PACE code changes. PACE codes C and H have been amended, and it is now mandatory that 17 year-olds have an appropriate adult with them at the police station and that the police inform a parent or guardian of their arrest and detention.

When this amendment was debated in the House on 23 July, noble Lords observed that the amendments to the PACE codes introduced inconsistencies between the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984—the primary legislation—and the PACE codes with respect to the treatment of 17 year-olds. On the one hand, they are treated as children and bestowed with the appropriate safeguards. However, when it comes to the location of their detention overnight post-charge, and their pre-court appearance, the noble Earl, Lord Listowel, and the noble Baronesses, Lady Kennedy and Lady Howe, made the point that the Police and Criminal Evidence Act continues to treat 17 year-olds as adults. They acknowledged that, while 17 year-olds may look like adults and sometimes act like adults, they are still children who find the environment of the police station to be frightening and threatening.

There are, of course, already in place important safeguards for all children under 18 who come into contact with the police. Section 11 of the Children Act 2004 places the police under an obligation to make arrangements to safeguard and promote the welfare of children when exercising their functions. This means that the police have to make arrangements to safeguard and promote the welfare of 17 year-olds detained post-charge overnight in the police station, and this is one way of ensuring that the best interests of those children can be upheld. Additionally, children under 18 have access to appropriate adults at the police station, who are with them throughout interviews and during procedures such as the taking of fingerprints and samples.

The Government are committed to ensuring that young people are protected and treated appropriately while in police custody. The noble Earl, Lord Listowel, spoke passionately in Committee on this matter, so I hope he will be pleased that, shortly after the High Court’s decision in the case of Hughes Cousins-Chang, the Government launched a review of the remaining pieces of primary legislation that treat 17 year-olds as adults. We expect the review to report shortly. As he mentioned, the working group responsible for reviewing the legislation reported to the PACE strategy board earlier this month.

The Home Office review was wider-reaching than the amendment. If it is indeed right to amend the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 so that it treats 17 year-olds as children, then that principle should relate to all sections in the Act and not just the section that relates to overnight accommodation. Furthermore, any change to primary legislation needs full scrutiny, consultation and appropriate consideration by Parliament. This amendment is laudable in its aims but, in our opinion, represents a too-hurried and partial approach to the issue of how we treat young people at the age of 17 at the front end of the criminal justice system. There is more to be gained by pausing on this matter for the time being to enable the Home Office to consider the conclusions of its review. For these reasons, although I understand the reasoning behind the amendment, I respectfully ask the noble Earl to withdraw his amendment.

[The Earl of Listowel]

My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for his careful response and for his recognition of the great distress that these sad events have caused the families in question. I was very pleased to hear that his department has undertaken to review these matters so that they can be changed as soon as possible.

I wonder if it might just be possible for him to go back and speak to his department to see if something could be done by Third Reading in this area, but I understand from what he said that this is unlikely. I appreciate that the Government are doing all they can as fast as they can to remedy this. I encourage them to work as hard as they can on this because I am sure that they, as much as any of us, wish to avoid these tragic events befalling any more children and families in the future. I am grateful to the Minister for his reply and I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.

Amendment 122B withdrawn.

Amendment 123 not moved.

Amendment 124

Moved by

[Lord Faulks]

124: Before Clause 44, insert the following new Clause—
“Time limit for bringing certain criminal proceedingsOffence of making improper use of public electronic communications network
(1) In section 127 of the Communications Act 2003 (improper use of public electronic communications network), at the end insert—
“(5) An information or complaint relating to an offence under this section may be tried by a magistrates’ court in England and Wales or Northern Ireland if it is laid or made—
(a) before the end of the period of 3 years beginning with the day on which the offence was committed, and(b) before the end of the period of 6 months beginning with the day on which evidence comes to the knowledge of the prosecutor which the prosecutor considers sufficient to justify proceedings.(6) Summary proceedings for an offence under this section may be commenced in Scotland—
(a) before the end of the period of 3 years beginning with the day on which the offence was committed, and(b) before the end of the period of 6 months beginning with the day on which evidence comes to the knowledge of the prosecutor which the prosecutor considers sufficient to justify proceedings,and section 136(3) of the Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act 1995 (date when proceedings deemed to be commenced) applies for the purposes of this subsection as it applies for the purposes of that section.(7) A certificate of a prosecutor as to the date on which evidence described in subsection (5)(b) or (6)(b) came to his or her knowledge is conclusive evidence of that fact.”
(2) The amendment made by this section applies only in relation to an offence committed on or after the day on which it comes into force.”

Amendment 124 agreed.

Clause 46: Criminal courts charge

Amendment 124A

Moved by

[Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames]

124A: Clause 46, page 43, line 31, leave out “order” and insert “consider ordering”

[Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames]

My Lords, my amendments in this group, which largely repeat the amendments I put down in Committee, have a simple purpose, which is to permit the court a discretion as to whether or not to impose the criminal courts charge. Because they largely repeat earlier amendments, I will be brief.

Under the new Section 21A proposed in Clause 46, the court has no discretion but to order a person over 18 convicted of an offence that is not excluded by regulations to pay the charge. Since Committee, I have moved towards the Government’s position by suggesting in these amendments that a relevant court must “consider ordering” that the criminal courts charge be paid, so that while they would have a discretion, the courts would receive a clear message that such a charge should be expected in the generality of cases, and the legislation would act as an indication as to how the discretion should generally be exercised.

However, I maintain the general position I took in Committee in suggesting that it would be completely senseless to make an order that a criminal courts charge be paid in every case. There would be many cases heard every day in criminal courts where orders were made and everyone in the court would know that there was not the slightest chance of the charges ever being paid. That would make a nonsense of the provisions, I suggest, and would risk bringing the courts into disrepute. Relying on a later power to remit the charge in such cases is unnecessarily burdensome on the courts and wasteful of everybody’s time.

Furthermore, I am concerned that imposing a charge upon offenders who are already without means and often in serious personal and financial difficulties is likely to reduce their chances of rehabilitation. The outstanding charge may have a significant impact on their ability to secure work and to meet necessary expenses, particularly where they need credit in order to do so and the outstanding charge will impede their obtaining such credit. For those reasons, I suggest that the imposition of a criminal courts charge needs to be discretionary.

I further suggest that it is not sensible to deny the court any discretion as to the level of the charge to be imposed. That is the reason for my Amendment 125D. New Section 21C would require the amount of the charge to be the amount specified in regulations. My amendment would simply make that amount a maximum. There will be cases where offenders of limited means will wish, or at least be prepared, to meet their obligations and pay the charge if they can afford it. I suggest that a sensible way of dealing with such offenders is for the court to set the charge at a level the offenders can afford, rather than charging them the full amount specified in the regulations and forcing them to come back on an application to remit the charge at a later date or, worse, leading them to the position where they do not pay anything. I beg to move.

[Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede]

My Lords, I shall speak to my amendments in this group. I support 100% what the noble Lord, Lord Marks, has said. I moved similar amendments in Committee and the amendments that I am putting forward on Report are by way of a compromise. I regard my position as a fallback position and the position of the noble Lord, Lord Marks, as the primary position on judicial discretion.

My Amendments 125, 126 and 127 would allow the Criminal Procedure Rule Committee to specify the circumstances in which the charge should not be imposed. The idea behind this group of amendments is that it would provide an opportunity for the CPRC to ensure appropriate judicial discretion, while providing greater clarity than a more permissive wording, which is what the noble Lord, Lord Marks, is seeking. Of course, the CPRC operates independently of government.

I also thank the Minister’s officials for clarifying to me in the past few days that the court’s charge can be treated the same way as the victim surcharge under Section 135 of the Magistrates’ Court Act 1980, which gives magistrates a general power to order a brief period of detention when a defendant is in default of any fine imposed by the court, particularly when that defendant is homeless and cannot pay. This, as any magistrate or lawyer will know, is a regular occurrence in London magistrates’ courts. This is the only practical way of dealing with this type of case.

I conclude on a wider point, by reiterating some of the points that the noble Lord, Lord Marks, has made. Notwithstanding the people who are homeless and literally do not have any money in their pockets, there are many other people we regularly see in courts who are on benefits, perhaps because of disabilities. Any additional cost that is given to them will remain unpaid and accrue as a greater debt. Every day of the court’s week, magistrates and judges impose fines where they have discretion and come up with appropriate fines that they believe are realistic. They put in place tough measures, namely collection orders, to recover those fines, so magistrates and judges are well able to exercise discretion, and they should be given the opportunity to do so over the court’s charge.

21:30

[Lord Faulks]

My Lords, I am grateful for the speeches made by my noble friend Lord Marks and the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, in this group of amendments concerning the criminal courts charge. There was lengthy debate in Committee, and I responded at some length, so I hope they will not consider it any disrespect to their arguments if I summarise the Government’s position fairly briefly.

The question of discretion has arisen once more. My noble friend Lord Marks seeks to vary his original suggestion by fettering the discretion somewhat but nevertheless importing a degree of discretion, as was discussed at length. It is the Government’s position that that is inappropriate.

The point was made in Committee and this evening that many noble Lords consider the charge unfair in the case of poor offenders. The Government believe that it is right that all adult offenders, whatever their means, pay towards the cost of running the courts, alleviating the burden on the taxpayer. I know that noble Lords who are concerned about this area will have seen the figures published on the website before Committee stage about the charges by band. They are quite modest, but it is nevertheless hoped that they will reflect some compensation to the country for defendants who use the courts because they have committed offences. As I said previously, offenders can apply to vary payment rates if their financial circumstances change. In addition, offenders who comply with their payment terms and who do not reoffend can have their charge remitted after a specified period. The imposition of this charge is not designed to be a punishment, so confusing it with the various discretionary powers that the court has rather misses the point.

Amendment 125D would stipulate that the charge cannot exceed the amount specified by the Lord Chancellor in the regulations. The Bill is drafted so that a charge to be paid is of an amount specified by the Lord Chancellor, so I am sure that my noble friend Lord Marks will agree that this leaves no room for charges exceeding the amount specified to be imposed, which should mean that the amendment is unnecessary.

Amendment 126A would omit the requirement for a specified period of time to have passed before the court charge debt can be written off. If accepted, it would provide the court with wide discretion to remit the charge early, as and when it sees fit. The clause as it currently stands has the benefit of allowing a court to remit the charge where the offender has taken all reasonable steps to pay and does not reoffend. This is a powerful incentive for offenders to repay the charge and refrain from reoffending, ensuring that a specified period is a fundamental feature of the remission provisions—a key aspect of this policy which I hope the House will not overlook.

Amendment 125E seeks to specify that where a charge can be remitted it can include the remission of interest. I respectfully point out to my noble friend Lord Marks that Clause 42 gives the magistrates’ court power to remit the charge under particular circumstances. It is intended that this provision be used where an offender has paid accordingly and has not gone on to reoffend. It can also be remitted where the debt is unenforceable.

New Section 21D(4) of the Prosecution of Offences Act 1985, inserted by Clause 46, makes it clear that interest payable under the regulations is to be treated as part of the charge. It therefore follows that any remission of the charge would comprise the whole debt, including the interest. I hope that reassures the House that the Government have carefully considered this provision and will satisfy my noble friend such that he might not press his amendment.

I stress, however, that this is a novel scheme and the Government have already agreed to review the policy after three years. Of course, we will monitor its impact closely until then. The Lord Chancellor must repeal the provisions if he considers it appropriate, having regard to that review. I am sure that the noble Lord will agree that this further safeguard demonstrates the Government’s commitment to getting this right.

I turn finally to the Criminal Procedure Rules and the amendments tabled by the noble Lords, Lord Ponsonby and Lord Beecham, which seek to widen the conditions that must be met for the courts charge to be remitted. The amendments would broaden the court’s power to such an extent that the charge could be remitted also in cases specified in those rules.

The effect of the amendments would be to confer on the Criminal Procedure Rule Committee a jurisdictional power by enabling it to set rules concerning substantive legal matters and by giving it a significant level of discretion to prescribe the circumstances in which the charge could be remitted. This would of course contravene the Government’s position that it is an administrative charge.

If I understand the noble Lord’s arguments correctly, he is seeking to afford the committee the power to determine the instances in which the criminal court charges might be remitted, although he does not give a clear indication as to which cases would be specified in the rules to which discretion may be applied.

The Bill as it stands already allows for the courts to cancel the charge, as I have indicated, but we submit that it is inappropriate to use these rules as a means to set the criteria for remission. I am sure noble Lords are aware that the function of the Criminal Procedure Rules is to govern the practice and procedure of the criminal courts. The responsibility of the Criminal Procedure Rule Committee is to make those rules. With great respect, this amendment would afford that committee a power beyond its current jurisdiction. The choice of criteria for remission should be one for Parliament itself. I fear I cannot agree that it is appropriate for this power to be attributed to the committee.

I understand the noble Lord’s concern about the impact of the charge on particular offenders whom he encounters in his capacity as a magistrate. The Government are aware of that risk and are monitoring any adverse impacts. I also confirm what the noble Lord said about his discussion with my officials in relation to Section 135 of the Magistrates’ Courts Act 1980. I hope that I have satisfied the noble Lord and that he will withdraw his amendment.

[Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames]

My Lords, I will of course seek leave to withdraw the amendment in a moment. Very briefly, the point of tabling further amendments on Report, following the debate in Committee, which move slightly towards the Government’s position, was in the hope that the Government might have considered the debate and moved towards our position. So I make no apology for repeating the position that I took in Committee.

I also want to make it clear that I think all of us in this House agree with the general principles stated by my noble friend that there is a very strong case for ordering defendants who can pay a criminal courts charge on conviction so to pay it. Our concern is with those who plainly cannot pay it or cannot pay all of it. I entirely accept and appreciate the support of the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, for my position. However, I am not sure that the traditional punishment meted out to those who are drunk and brought before the magistrates’ court of £1 or a day—that kind of formulation of giving a period of custody in default of payment right at the outset—will mitigate the mischief at which my amendments are aimed.

I shall also simply say two further things. First, the point of my Amendment 125D and the words “no greater than” is to make sure that the amount specified in the regulations is the maximum that can be charged, but that the court would have the power to impose a lesser charge. I believe that the amendment, if implemented, would have achieved that end.

Finally, I suspect that when it comes to the review of the operation of this charge in three years’ time, Parliament and the Government may well find that the procedure for remitting the charge and having hearings as to whether or not a charge should be cancelled at a later date is unduly unwieldy, cumbersome and expensive. With those observations, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.

Amendment 124A withdrawn.

Amendments 124B to 127 not moved.

Clause 49: Personal injury claims: cases of fundamental dishonesty

Amendment 128

Moved by

[Lord Hunt of Wirral]

128: Clause 49, page 48, line 11, after “claim” insert “which consists of or includes a claim”

[Lord Hunt of Wirral (Con)]

My Lords, I am moved to move this amendment, inserting the words,

“which consists of or includes a claim”,

so that Clause 49 would read,

“proceedings on a claim which consists of or includes a claim for damages in respect of personal injury”,

because immediately after Committee, when we had a very good debate on what is now Clause 49, a number of people on all sides of the House expressed to me concern that quite often a claim for personal injury is accompanied by another claim, such as a claim for credit hire, that is often found to be bogus, made up, exaggerated or just plucked out of the air. Also, so far as whiplash injuries were concerned, a number of colleagues were concerned about the allegation that we had become the whiplash capital of the world, and wanted to create a deterrent to someone who had damaged their vehicle through a shunt or an accident, had recovered the repairs to their vehicle but then, as a result of a text message or some other marketing effort, decided to bring a claim for whiplash. It was put to me that thousands of such claims were being made that really were promoted by claims management companies without any substantial reason for the claim being made in the first place.

So I have tried here to extend the remit of the sanction for fundamental dishonesty to cover not only injury claims but claims presented where the injury itself is used as a means by which a dishonest claim—for example, a claim for credit hire—is made. I do this by aligning the wording in Clause 49 with that in, for example, Rule 44.13 of the Civil Procedure Rules 1998, which spells out the scope and intention of qualified one-way cost shifting. I hope that noble Lords will understand that I do not really need to repeat in detail the Civil Procedure Rules; suffice to say that I am aligning the amendment in accordance with that rule. Its wording is also aligned with Section 11 of the Limitation Act 1980. Again, for the record, I say that it is Section 11.

The amendment would capture vehicle repair costs paid before a dishonest injury claim was presented, but I believe that its greater impact would be in the arena of credit hire claims where genuine injury claims are frequently used as a means to present a dishonest, either fabricated or exaggerated, claim for hire. I could cite a whole series of relevant cases but I am not sure that noble Lords wish me to go into too much detail. There are a number of them where claims management companies, one in particular, presented 36 claims, 35 of which subsequently proved to be completely fabricated and, when challenged, were withdrawn. One claim was pursued but dismissed at first instance. As a result of that dismissal there was an appeal to the Court of Appeal, which said, “I think there should be a retrial”. The retrial began but, after evidence-in-chief, the claim was suddenly withdrawn so no claim for damages was maintained. Of course one can only speculate about why it was withdrawn. I refer to the case of Basharat Hussain v Adil Hussain v AVIVA UK Insurance Ltd, a reported case that is an example of exactly what I am hoping this amendment will stop—fabricated claims associated with an injury claim being made. I am sure that there would be all sorts of problems, but I hope that my noble friend will agree at least to give this a little further thought so that we can ensure that Section 49 is effective.

21:45

I shall also speak to my Amendment 130, on a matter where there is a government amendment already. This applies to Clause 49(5). Section 51 of the Senior Courts Act 1981 states that:

“Subject to the provisions of this or any other enactment and to rules of court, the costs of and incidental to all proceedings in … the civil division of the Court of Appeal”,

or any court, are in the discretion of the court. Based on the original draft of Clause 49(5), it would not appear that it was the intention to remove the discretion as to the costs order to be made. The proposed amendment tabled by my noble friend the Minister conflates the order and the assessment, but it is unlikely that the assessment of costs will take place at the same time as the costs order is made. Therefore, surely it should be clear that, first, the court retains a discretion as to the costs order made; and, secondly, that the costs still need to be assessed separately. Once the costs have been assessed, if an order is made in the defendant’s favour, then the sum recorded in accordance with subsection (4) as to the amount the court would have awarded in damages is deducted from the assessed sum.

I hope that my noble friend the Minister will regard this amendment as necessary to ensure that what he intends to do is properly reflected in the statute. So far as Amendment 128 is concerned, I beg to move.

[Lord Hope of Craighead (CB)]

My Lords, I am very much in sympathy with the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Wirral. He was inviting the Minister, I think, to examine the entire clause to see whether what he is proposing fits in with all of it. I draw the Minister’s attention to just one point. Clause 49(3) states:

“The duty under subsection (2)”—

which is one to dismiss a primary claim—

“includes the dismissal of any element of the primary claim in respect of which the claimant has not been dishonest”.

It is conceivable that there could be elements in the broad formula which the noble Lord has proposed in Amendment 128 which would not be tainted by the dishonesty. I do not believe that it is his intention that that should actually be struck out. If the Minister and his advisers are considering the wording, one point to look at with care, I suggest, is whether some allowance should be made for the possibility that there are claims within claims which are not tainted by the dishonesty—which of course everybody would like to see visited with the sanction that Clause 49 is designed to impose.

[Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames]

My Lords, in Committee I moved an amendment suggesting that the duty to dismiss personal injury claims tainted by fundamental dishonesty should be a discretionary power rather than a duty. In other words, courts should be entitled to dismiss such claims, but not bound to do so. I also suggested that there should be a power to reduce such claims in appropriate cases rather than to dismiss them altogether, which is a view that I have long held.

I recognise now, as I recognised then, that the Government are concerned to tackle the challenge posed by the proliferation of thoroughly dishonest, largely small, personal injury claims following accidents, particularly motor accidents. I agree that this is a serious problem that needs to be met head on. I was particularly impressed in Committee by the speech of my noble friend Lord Hunt of Wirral on the issue. He speaks of course with a wealth of experience of cases in this area and of the challenges faced by the insurance industry in dealing with them. He spoke then of the evil of the proliferation of whiplash claims. I agree with his Amendment 128 today that any claim included in a personal injury claim should be caught by the section. In answer to the point made by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, I say the section as amended by my amendments—because the problem at the moment is that the whole claim has to be dismissed. That is one of the problems that is addressed by my amendments.

I have in this case modified my amendment substantially for Report in the light of the debate in Committee. My Amendment 128B draws a sharp distinction between smaller claims and more substantial ones. I recognise that the problem that the Government seek to address—the multiplication of fundamentally dishonest claims—arises mostly in the case of smaller claims. My new amendment today would effectively maintain the Government’s position in respect of any claim worth less than £25,000 overall.

However, I maintain my concerns in respect of more substantial personal injury claims. I have conducted over the years a great many claims in this category and I refer to my interest in the register as a practising barrister in this regard. Unfortunately, many of these substantial claims are also tainted by fundamental dishonesty. In Committee I gave the example, hypothetical but not untypical, of a very substantial claim for damages for personal injuries following a serious accident. Out of a total claim value of about £6 million, one element—or head of claim—was a claim for loss of earnings of about £500,000. That head of claim was fundamentally dishonest, because the claimant had suppressed a notice of redundancy given to him before the accident so that the substantial loss of earnings claimed would in fact have been sustained had the accident not occurred. It was therefore, of course, irrecoverable from the defendant.

Nevertheless, the claimant had a valid care claim—a different head of claim, untainted by dishonesty, to take the point of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope—worth about £4 million. That claim would have covered the cost of his full-time residential care, with carers, for the rest of his life. The nub of this point is that he himself would not suffer injustice if his whole care claim was dismissed because his care would be paid for by the state in any event. The exception in the clause covering the case—that the claimant would suffer substantial injustice—would therefore not bite.

However, it would certainly be wrong for his entire claim to be dismissed. The right course would be to reduce his claim. Obviously, his loss of earnings claim would be dismissed because that would fail in any event, but the court might also decide to reduce other elements of his damages as well—notably his personal award, which is not tied to specific loss, for general damages, pain, suffering and loss of amenity—to mark the dishonesty. However, without the discretion to reduce the claim instead of dismissing it altogether, the outcome would be that the entire claim would be dismissed—all its heads—and in this example that would cost the state a great deal of money that the negligent defender’s insurers ought to be paying.

I suggest that the clear way to resolve this difficulty is for there to be a power in larger cases either to dismiss a claim tainted by fundamental dishonesty or to reduce the award of damages in such a way as the court deems just. Judges have plenty of experience in dealing with dishonest claims. They can tell what is fundamental dishonesty and what is not, and they can tell what is just and what is not. As one might expect, judges generally dislike dishonest claims intensely and can be trusted to deal with them with appropriate toughness. I invite the Government to agree that mandating courts to dismiss small claims, unless to do so would cause the claimant substantial injustice, but leaving judges free to deal appropriately with larger cases, would be a sensible and proportionate way to approach this issue.

I hope that my noble friend might return at Third Reading, after considering this issue along the lines that I have mentioned, with a solution. I should say that I will not press Amendment 128F in respect of subsection (5), because a combination of the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Faulks, and the amendment moved by my noble friend Lord Hunt would meet the requirements of orders to cost. That said, I invite my noble friend and the Government to consider this further.

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab)]

My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Wirral, raised some very important issues, and mentioned claims management companies. Since I came to the House I have raised the issue many times; the more dubious end of the industry is a problem. I know that he mentioned it before, but the claims management regulation unit at the MoJ, run by Mr Kevin Roussell, does a good job on that. I pay tribute to the work that it does and say to the Government that if it had a few more resources it would be able to do an even better job. Pointless, vexatious claims waste our time and cost us money, and the more help we can give to that unit at the MoJ, the better.

[Lord Beecham (Lab)]

My Lords, I expect that other Members of your Lordships’ House will have had my experience of being called about accidents or insurance policies that I have never had, and I entirely sympathise with my noble friend’s last observations. Clearly, no one would wish dishonesty in the presentation of a claim to go without penalty. However, there are some questions to be asked about this provision. The first of those is, why should any change in the law, which we are now progressing, apply only to PI cases? The noble Lord, Lord Hunt, has broadened that somewhat, and is in a sense making my case for me, because he cited a case in which there is both an alleged personal injury and an accident. However, the driver who sues for a personal injury and is deemed to have been fundamentally dishonest will of course be penalised, and rightly so—although how the penalty is levied is perhaps debatable. However, if the claim is only for the damage to the vehicle, he will not be caught by the present clause, and nor, of course, would somebody fundamentally dishonest—whatever that means; that is perhaps another issue, but let us take it as a given at the moment—in a whole variety of other claims. Why should not somebody making a claim—for example, as regards breach of contract, professional negligence or any number of claims that have a monetary element in them for some breach of duty other than involving personal injury—also be brought within the framework? It seems odd to single out this group, albeit there clearly are cases where claims management companies and the like deliberately promote false claims.

Having listened to the noble Lord, Lord Marks, I am not entirely sure that this binary system of small claims and larger claims is appropriate. What might be a small claim to me and some other Members of your Lordships’ House is not necessarily a small claim to the individual claiming £25,000. One needs to have the same approach overall. However, there is then an issue about what constitutes substantial justice, and that is also unclear.

The major issue to which my amendment is addressed is why the courts should have to strike out a claim—an argument made, up to a point, by the noble Lord, Lord Marks—in its entirety on the balance of probabilities, as opposed to the criminal standard of proof. After all, we are talking about essentially criminal behaviour—it is essentially fraud. That is unsatisfactory, particularly if a claim is to be dismissed on that basis, hence my amendment. Of course, as I informed the House in Committee, in the case of Fairclough Homes v Summers in the Supreme Court, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Clarke, said:

“It is for the court, not for Parliament, to protect the court’s process. The power to strike out is not a power to punish but to protect the court’s process”.

He said that the existing power to strike out should,

“only be exercised where it is just and proportionate to do so, which is likely to be only in very exceptional circumstances”.

One has to take that judgment into account in determining how to apply the test. I invite the Minister to reconsider whether the balance of probabilities is not a safer and better test to apply before further draconian action—which must in part be justified by fraudulent behaviour—is taken.

22:00

[Lord Faulks]

My Lords, I am most grateful to all those who have spoken in the debate. This is not, I readily concede, a straightforward provision. Our debates both in Committee and on Report have been illuminating. The stance taken by the noble Lord, Lord Beecham, tonight is somewhat different from that which he took in Committee—but I commend him on his mental agility in that regard. Of course, the fact that his arguments have somewhat changed—

[Lord Beecham]

My Lords, will the Minister take it from me that I can count?

[Lord Faulks]

The noble Lord’s arguments do not deserve lesser consideration for their recent arrival in our debate. He asked, for instance, why personal injuries, rather than other fields, should be singled out for attention. The answer is simply this. Of course fraud has a role in the law of contract, the law of property and other areas of the law. But this is a provision to deal with a particular mischief, of which we are all aware in one form or another. Unfortunately, the explosion of claims, with dishonest claims and people calling others to invite them to participate in dishonest claims, has become widespread, and the Government are responding in a variety of different ways, including by regulating claims management companies—I am glad to see the reduction in the number of such companies—and by introducing this provision.

Amendment 128 was tabled by my noble friend Lord Hunt of Wirral, to whom the House listens very carefully on all things, but perhaps particularly in areas such as this. It would extend the scope of Clause 49 to cover claims for items linked to the personal injury claim. As he has indicated, this could typically include items such as damage to property and the cost of credit hire. The effect of the amendment would be that where the court was satisfied that the claimant had been fundamentally dishonest, its order would dismiss any such related elements, as well as the claim for personal injury—when, for example, a claim for personal injury is used as a vehicle for other fraud.

I understand precisely what my noble friend says, and I have considerable sympathy for what lies behind the amendment, which is to make the clause as strong a deterrent as possible. However, after careful consideration by my officials and myself, I believe, on balance, that it would unnecessarily complicate the clause, and could have unintended consequences that would not be desirable.

The types of loss that would be caught by the amendment arise primarily in motor accident claims, and in practice payments for such losses are generally made up front by the claimant’s insurer, and are then recovered by them from the defendant’s insurer in the event that negligence is admitted or proved. This means that the amendment could affect subrogated rights between insurers, and could operate to the disadvantage of the claimant’s insurer, who would find it much more difficult to recover such sums. That might in turn have the undesirable consequence of making insurers less inclined to make payments in respect of this kind of loss to genuine victims of accidents for whom, for example, the rapid replacement of a vehicle could be essential.

The complexity of the law on subrogated rights means that the potential for this type of unintended consequence would be high. In any event, I do not consider the amendment necessary. The existing focus of the clause on personal injury claims avoids complexities of this nature, and ensures that the core matter in relation to which the claimant has actually been dishonest, and where the main scope for dishonest behaviour arises—the personal injury claim—will be dismissed whenever the court considers it appropriate. We are confident that this should provide a sufficiently powerful deterrent to discourage claimants from seeking to bring fraudulent and exaggerated claims, and believe that the amendment could on balance run the risk of creating uncertainty in the law and would make the clause unnecessarily complex in practice.

On Amendment 128A, the noble Lord, Lord Beecham, said that it would be more appropriate to have not the civil standard of proof but the criminal standard of proof. I think that he refers—if not explicitly, implicitly—to a recommendation of the Joint Committee on Human Rights on this, which based its recommendation on the view that the inclusion of the relevant measure is indicative of the quasi-criminal nature of the sanction imposed by the dismissal of the claim. The Government strongly disagree that that is the case. Subsection (7) simply ensures that the order for dismissal can be taken into account by a court hearing any proceedings against the claimant in relation to the same dishonest behaviour, whether they be civil or criminal proceedings for contempt or a criminal prosecution. This is to ensure that the claimant is dealt with fairly and that any punishment imposed in those proceedings is proportionate given the overall effect of the consequences of the claimant’s dishonest behaviour upon him or her. This approach is also reflected in other aspects of the clause—in particular, subsection (5) in relation to costs sanctions.

As we have set out in the ECHR memorandum accompanying the Bill, we consider that the adoption of a civil standard of proof can be fully justified. The sanction of deprivation of property involved in the dismissal of the claim would occur in the context of civil proceedings in relation to civil compensation, proceedings which are brought by the claimant, not the state. No criminal conviction could arise from the dismissal process itself, and it does not involve anything that could be said to be a criminal charge. We consider that the analogy drawn in the ECHR memorandum with the approach of the European Court of Human Rights and the domestic courts to confiscation proceedings under the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002, in which a civil standard of proof has been upheld, is a valid one, and that the adoption of the civil standard of proof in Clause 49 is both fair and appropriate.

Amendments 128B, 128C, 128D, 128E, 130A and 130B tabled by my noble friend Lord Marks are similar but not identical to those tabled by him in Committee, save that the court is given a discretion to reduce the award of damages rather than dismiss the claim entirely, or, it would seem, take no action at all, in circumstances where the genuine part of the award is £25,000 or more. We do not believe that it is appropriate to impose a financial limit of this nature. I endorse what the noble Lord, Lord Beecham, said about this. Although the widening of the court’s discretion not to dismiss the claim is of a lesser extent to that which the noble Lord previously suggested, the amendments would still weaken the effect of the clause and interfere with its effective operation by imposing what is inevitably an arbitrary dividing line.

As I explained in Committee, the sanction imposed by this clause—the denial of compensation—is a serious one, and will be imposed only where the claimant’s dishonest behaviour goes to the heart of the claim. If the court, having heard all the evidence, is satisfied that that is the case, I believe that it is right that it should be required to dismiss the entire claim unless doing so would cause substantial injustice to the claimant. People who behave in such a way should not be able to get compensation regardless, whatever the amount involved.

The amount of compensation which the claimant would otherwise have been awarded, and the proportion of the overall claim which that represents, will, of course, be matters that the court may wish to take into consideration in deciding whether the claimant has been fundamentally dishonest and, if so, whether its discretion not to dismiss the claim should be exercised. Where the effect on the claimant might be particularly harsh or unfair on the facts of the case, the substantial injustice test will provide sufficient protection. The addition of a further discretion simply waters down the deterrent effect of this provision.

On Amendment 129, during the debate in Committee some uncertainty was expressed about the policy intention underlying subsection (5) of Clause 49, and whether the existing drafting of the subsection clearly and accurately captured that intention. In the light of those concerns, we have tabled government Amendment 129, which clarifies the position by replacing the existing subsection with a new subsection. This provides that when assessing costs in the proceedings, a court which dismisses a claim because of the claimant’s fundamental dishonesty must deduct the amount of damages that it would have awarded to the claimant from the amount of costs which it would otherwise order the claimant to pay in respect of the defendant’s costs. The intention underlying this provision is, as I have previously explained, to ensure that claimants are not excessively sanctioned by both losing the genuine element of the award of damages and having to pay the defendant’s costs without any credit for what the defendant has saved by avoiding payment of the genuine element of the award. I should add that one of the main intentions behind this provision is to deter people from bringing these claims at all, or at least deter them from being dishonest when advancing them.

Beyond that, it is not our intention to interfere more generally with the court’s discretion on whether to make a costs order and, if so, in what terms. We believe that the court should be able to make whatever orders it considers appropriate. In many cases the court will doubtless decide to award the defendant’s costs in full, apart from the sum deducted under this subsection. However, in some cases, it may decide only to award the defendant some of its costs in circumstances where it considers that certain costs have been unnecessarily incurred—for example, where the defendant had spent money pursuing an irrelevant issue.

Amendment 129 preserves the court’s discretion to do this, or indeed to decide, in the circumstances of a particular case, to make no award of costs at all. We believe that it is important for a provision on this issue to remain in the clause to ensure that it operates in a fair and proportionate way, and I am therefore—although I do not think my noble friend is pursuing it with any vigour—unable to accept Amendment 128F, which would remove it altogether.

My noble friend Lord Hunt has indicated that he remains concerned that Amendment 129, the government amendment, may still create some confusion, and has proposed Amendment 130 instead. While I share my noble friend’s concern to ensure that the provision is as clear as possible, on careful consideration, we do not believe that his fears about our amendment are justified.

In particular, I should point out that, even if the actual assessment of the amount of costs payable is undertaken by a different judge or officer at a later date, as would normally be the case in a detailed assessment of costs, assessment is still being undertaken by the same court that has dismissed the claim, and so the requirement to deduct the amount recorded in subsection (4) from the ultimate costs “bill” that the claimant may have to pay applies regardless of the point of time at which, or judge by which, the costs payable are determined. I am also concerned that my noble friend’s amendment simply restates the existing law confirming the discretion of the court to award costs. On balance, we feel that it is unnecessary to restate this in legislation, and it might be taken to imply that this was not already the position, or that special rules regarding the court’s discretion as to costs are required in these cases. That would be contrary to the policy, which is not intended to make any changes to the rules on costs themselves.

On reflection, I consider that government Amendment 129 makes it amply clear that if the court decides to order costs against the claimant, it must deduct the amount of the damages it would have awarded but for the effect of Clause 49, so that the claimant has to pay whatever costs, if any, that are ordered net of that amount. I believe that the Government’s amendment clarifies this policy intention in a way that removes any ambiguity that might have arisen from the previous text of the subsection. However, I remain extremely grateful to my noble friend for drawing that to the attention of the House. I am sorry that I detained the House a little longer than might be desirable at this time but these are complex provisions, and it may be helpful if I provide a little detail about this.

I conclude by dealing with the question of where parts of a claim may be involved. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, pointed out a possible ambiguity. It may be that this is what he has in mind. I shall answer the question: why does the court have a discretion not to dismiss the claim when the claimant would suffer a substantial injustice? We believe that an element of discretion is necessary because difficult cases may arise where depriving the claimant entirely of damages may cause substantial injustice. This might be the case, for example, where a claimant had genuinely been very seriously injured through another person’s negligence, perhaps requiring substantial ongoing future care and support as a result, but stupidly colluded in a bogus minor injury claim by a family member in relation to the same accident. We do not, however, think there is any need to amend the provisions. We think that judges will be able to work with these provisions and that the Government’s intention and, I hope, that of noble Lords from all around the House, will be achieved by these important provisions. I hope that all noble Lords who have tabled amendments will agree to withdraw or not move them.

22:14

[Lord Hunt of Wirral]

My Lords, I first remind the House of my interests as declared in the register. Secondly, I thank my noble friend the Minister for his very careful consideration of all the points which have been raised, and for his recognition that these are genuine attempts to eradicate a practice which has arisen and which must be stopped. I will of course very carefully consider all the points he has made, and in the mean time I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.

Amendment 128 withdrawn.

Amendments 128A to 128F not moved.

Amendment 129

Moved by

[Lord Faulks]

129: Clause 49, page 48, line 26, leave out subsection (5) and insert—
“( ) When assessing costs in the proceedings, a court which dismisses a claim under this section must deduct the amount recorded in accordance with subsection (4) from the amount which it would otherwise order the claimant to pay in respect of costs incurred by the defendant.”

Amendment 129 agreed.

Amendments 130 to 130B not moved.

Clause 50: Rules against inducements to make personal injury claims

Amendment 131

Moved by

[Lord Faulks]

131: Clause 50, page 49, line 10, at end insert “or is treated as doing so under subsection (3A)”

[Lord Faulks]

My Lords, I am grateful once again to my noble friend Lord Hunt of Wirral for raising this issue in Committee. During that debate, I indicated that we would consider his amendment further. There has been widespread support for the ban on offering inducements to bring personal injury claims in Clauses 50 to 52, but I am concerned to make this as effective as possible. Having reflected over the summer—I have been given a great deal on which to reflect over the course of the Bill—I agree with my noble friend that we should seek to prevent regulated persons avoiding the ban by offering an inducement through third parties.

The noble Lord’s amendment was prompted by a concern that it is now increasingly common for solicitors to operate as part of larger groups of companies, or to have subsidiary or linked companies offering services alongside them. Those subsidiary or linked companies are not always regulated, and it would be relatively easy for, say, a solicitor simply to route an inducement through an unregulated company, thus avoiding the ban.

For the avoidance of doubt, I add that we do not wish to regulate third parties, only to prevent regulated persons from avoiding the ban by offering an inducement via an unregulated subsidiary or a linked business or individual. I believe that this amendment is a proportionate means of making the necessary ban on inducements more effective, and I beg to move.

[Lord Hunt of Wirral]

I am very grateful to my noble friend the Minister.

[Lord Beecham]

I am afraid I cannot beat the brevity of that. I would like a little guidance from the Minister about the nature of the regulation. Can he give any indication of how effective whatever the regulatory body is—I confess that I do not know which it is—in overseeing this practice? I am entirely with the Government in wishing to ensure that such practices are limited as much as possible, for precisely the reasons that were mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, and with which we all concur: the promulgation of false claims, which is wrong in itself and, of course, a drain on the economy generally. I am not clear what the regulatory system currently is, or how effective it is. While supporting the Government’s intentions in the amendment, it would be helpful to have an impression of that.

[Lord Faulks]

I am happy to write to the noble Lord with as much detail as we have. In the mean time, I can tell him and the House that anecdotal evidence shows that the practice is more prevalent among solicitors than non-regulated persons. However, once there is a ban in place preventing legal services providers from offering an incentive to issue claims, there is a possibility that non-regulated persons offering inducements to issue claims with legal services providers will be used as a way around the ban.

As to what types of third party rather than regulated persons might offer a benefit, these are likely to be but not restricted to those working in what are described as “first notification of loss teams”. The teams are used by insurers and are the central point that clients contact when they wish to make a claim on their insurance policy. The intention is to ban any inducement which encourages or might have the effect of encouraging a person to make a claim or seek advice about making a claim, including so-called welcome payments, free gifts and cash advances.

The noble Lord will know that there is far too much by way of unsolicited phone calls going on in relation to personal injury claims, which is another matter we take seriously. It is a complex issue that requires action on a number of fronts, both legislative and non-legislative. We have taken a number of measures as set out in our nuisance calls action plan of 30 March. I can give the website address if necessary. It includes increasing the fines that Ofcom can issue from £50,000 to £2 million, enabling the Information Commissioner’s Office to issue fines of up to £500,000, and providing simple and consistent information to consumers on preventive action that they can take and how they can complain about unsolicited phone calls via Ofcom.

If the noble Lord is having particular difficulty with being asked to make fraudulent claims, which I am sure we have all encountered, he may wish to know that he can register with the Telephone Preference Service, which should result in his avoiding such claims. I hope that that provides some further information, but I undertake to give more information in due course.

[Lord Beecham]

I thank the noble Lord for providing further information, but it is not terribly helpful because the Telephone Preference Service seems to be totally useless. Apart from anything else, it does not seem to work with a BlackBerry these days. It is quite extraordinary. Having appreciated that regulated persons include members of my profession and that of the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, I am sure that he will agree that it is a very sad commentary on the current state of what was a profession and is now increasingly descending, if I may put it that way, into a rather unscrupulous business —which is a matter I think we would both deplore.

Amendment 131 agreed.

Amendments 132 to 135

Moved by

[Lord Faulks]

132: Clause 50, page 49, line 18, leave out “by a regulated person”

133: Clause 50, page 49, line 23, leave out “A benefit offered by a regulated person” and insert “An offer of a benefit”

134: Clause 50, page 49, line 30, at end insert—
“(3A) If a person other than a regulated person offers a benefit in accordance with arrangements made by or on behalf of a regulated person—
(a) the regulated person is to be treated as offering the benefit, and(b) the offer of the benefit is to be treated as satisfying subsection (2)(a) if the arrangements were intended to encourage people to make claims or seek advice from a regulated person with a view to making a claim.”

135: Clause 50, page 49, line 32, leave out “offered by a regulated person”

Amendments 132 to 135 agreed.

Clause 51: Effect of rules against inducements

Amendment 136

Moved by

[Lord Faulks]

136: Clause 51, page 50, line 9, after second “person” insert “or is treated as having done so under section 50(3A)”

Amendment 136 agreed.

Clause 52: Inducements: interpretation

Amendment 137

Moved by

[Lord Faulks]

137: Clause 52, page 50, line 33, after “The” insert “Chartered”

Amendment 137 agreed.

Amendment 138

Moved by

[Lord Faulks]

138: Before Clause 54, insert the following new Clause—
“Appeals from the Court of Protection
(1) Section 53 of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (rights of appeal from the Court of Protection) is amended as follows.
(2) For subsection (2) substitute—
“(2) Court of Protection Rules may provide that, where a decision of the court is made by a specified description of person, an appeal from the decision lies to a specified description of judge of the court and not to the Court of Appeal.”
(3) Omit subsection (3).
(4) In subsection (4)(d), omit “higher”.”

[Lord Faulks]

My Lords, I shall speak to three amendments tabled in my name on behalf of the Government. We have the pleasure of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, in the Chamber in respect of these amendments and I thank him for his patience for remaining for so long. Amendments 138 and 181 seek to rectify an omission in relation to appeals from decisions at lower levels in the Court of Protection, which was not addressed when the range of judicial officeholders able to sit as judges of the Court of Protection was expanded in the Crime and Courts Act 2013.

The need for the amendment does not only arise from, but has been starkly highlighted by, the decision of the Supreme Court in what has become known as the Cheshire West case. That decision required a radical reassessment of cases in which it may now be considered that a person who lacks mental capacity to consent to care arrangements is deprived of liberty as a result of those arrangements, so that the authorisation of the court is required for such a deprivation of liberty.

As a result, it is predicted that there will be a significant increase in the number of cases coming before the Court of Protection for declarations authorising deprivation of liberty in cases where, prior to Cheshire West, no such authorisation was considered necessary. It is considered that the figure may well be in excess of 28,000 additional applications annually. To deal with this increase in workload, deputy district judges and judges from other jurisdictions are being deployed to the Court of Protection for the first time. The Crime and Courts Act 2013 allowed for this wider range of judges to deal with Court of Protection cases but did not address the question of appeals.

The current provision in the Mental Capacity Act 2005 governing the route of appeal from decisions in the Court of Protection allows for decisions of specified judges to lie to a higher judge in the Court of Protection rather than directly to the Court of Appeal. However, the judges specified are limited to district judges and circuit judges, and the provision does not cover decisions of any of the wider range of judicial officeholders now able to sit as judges of the Court of Protection. The Crime and Courts Act omitted to amend it to align with that wider range. Without this amendment, appeals from decisions of judges in that wider range—even though they are decisions of the same sort as those of a district judge at present, for example—would have to go to the Court of Appeal, thereby increasing workload in the appeal court. This amendment makes good the omission.

The judges whose decisions may be appealed within the Court of Protection and the higher judges to whom appeal against those decisions will lie within the Court of Protection will, as now, be specified in Rules of Court, namely the Court of Protection Rules. This will prevent the Court of Appeal being unnecessarily burdened by a significant increase in cases and allow the Court of Protection the flexibility to deal with resources efficiently. This, in turn, will reduce delays and the need for cases to be transferred to a different court. It will also provide greater consistency in how appeals are managed across other jurisdictions.

Members of the House of Lords Select Committee on the Mental Capacity Act 2005—I should declare an interest as having been a member of that committee for some time—were given written notice of this proposed amendment which was made available in early August to allow time for consideration.

Amendment 142 would have the effect of allowing the President of the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom to make written representations to Parliament about the Supreme Court and its jurisdiction in the same way as the Lord Chief Justice of any part of the United Kingdom can do already under Section 5 of the Constitutional Reform Act 2005. The Lord Chief Justice of England and Wales has used the provision under Section 5 to lay before Parliament his annual report, which highlights his accountability for oversight of the judiciary in England and Wales. This amendment would give the President of the Supreme Court the same avenue to raise similar matters to Parliament. The proposed amendments were initially tabled by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope of Craighead, and I am grateful to him for bringing this matter to our attention. The Government have considered and reflected further on the implications of this proposal and agree that the change is justified,

Amendment 143 was also tabled in Committee by the noble Lord. This amendment would have the effect of allowing the United Kingdom Supreme Court the flexibility to appoint judges to the Supplementary Panel within two years of their retirement, provided that they are under the age of 75. At present, it is impossible for the Supreme Court to identify particular skills or expertise which might be of use in the future—particularly without knowledge of future workloads. This makes it difficult to identify which qualifying judges should be added to the Supplementary Panel before they retire from full-time judicial office. The amendment provides greater flexibility in this respect.

These are minor but sensible amendments which I hope the House will agree to. I beg to move.

22:30

[Lord Hardie (CB)]

My Lords, I apologise for speaking at this late hour and detaining your Lordships but Amendment 138 is important for the application of the safeguards in the Mental Capacity Act against depriving people of their liberty without justification and for the need to provide proper judicial supervision of such actions. I declare an interest in that I was chairman of the Select Committee on the post-legislative scrutiny of the Act.

The consequence of the need to ensure that these safeguards are in place is that there should be adequate resources to decide cases at first instance and on appeal within the Court of Protection. These cases should be decided by the appropriate level of judges. I am grateful to the Minister for explaining the reasoning behind this amendment. I understand that the decision in the Cheshire West case, in which the Supreme Court concluded that each of the three appellants who had mental or physical disabilities or had suffered deprivation of their liberty within the meaning of Section 64(5) of the Mental Capacity Act 2005, had the effect of increasing the workload of the system.

I should advise the House that I have been told that the number of cases involving an alleged deprivation of liberty referred to local authorities for assessment, which is the first stage, has increased dramatically. There has been a ninefold increase in monthly referrals. The total number since April this year is almost 33,000, compared with 8,455 for the whole of 2012-13. This will not come as a surprise to the members of the Select Committee on post-legislative scrutiny of the Act, which I had the honour to chair and of which the Minister was a distinguished member before his justifiable appointment to ministerial office.

Our report predated the decision in Cheshire West by, I think, about a week. We heard evidence over a number of months suggesting that the then available figures did not accurately reflect the number of people who were actually subject to deprivation of liberty. Perhaps I may quote from paragraph 270 of the report, where we record our conclusion on that evidence:

“We are concerned that there is a very real risk that the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards are frequently not used when they should be, leaving individuals without the safeguards Parliament intended, and leaving care providers vulnerable to legal challenge”.

Against that background, it is not surprising that the Government are anxious to take a more flexible approach to appeals, but it is equally important that these appeals are held by judges of higher authority than first-instance judges. The existing provisions in the Act have a hierarchy where the first-instance judges are set out as people who are drafted in—district court judges or circuit judges—and there is a hierarchy of appeals. From those who are drafted in, there is a right of appeal to the district court judge or the circuit judge. From the district court judge there is a right of appeal to the circuit judge, and from any of the three of them there is an appeal to the senior judges who are nominated to serve in the Court of Appeal.

In Scotland, England and Wales appeals are generally heard by an appeal court that is comprised of more than one judge, but there are exceptions where appeals may be heard by a single judge. In Scotland, for example, one might appeal against a decision of a sheriff to the sheriff principal. We have seen that in England and Wales there is the possibility of an appeal to a single judge in the Court of Protection. But where it is an appeal to a single judge, it is always an appeal to a single judge of a higher status and legal authority. That is preserved in the original provision, but in the amendment being proposed no reference is made to it. I appreciate that the likelihood is that the rules council would not permit an appeal to someone of equal or lower status, but I am concerned that it should be put on the record that that would not happen, because otherwise there might be a suggestion to the more vulnerable members of society that their appeals were not being treated with equal concern and consideration as those of the more able.

[Lord Hope of Craighead]

My Lords, I take this opportunity to say a few words about Amendments 142 and 143, which have been spoken to by the Minister. First, I thank him for his kind words. Secondly, I thank the Government for bringing these amendments forward. As the Minister has explained, I brought forward amendments in almost exactly the same terms in Committee. At that point it was necessary for the Government to provide support because I did not imagine that if this went to a vote, it would carry much weight because of the technical nature of the two points that are dealt with. I am therefore extremely grateful to the Minister and his team for picking up these points, and I know that the President of the Supreme Court is, too.

I will mention two particular points about Amendment 142. The first is that it was necessary to obtain the agreement of the Lord Chief Justices of England and Wales and Northern Ireland and their equivalent in Scotland, the Lord President. That agreement has been confirmed and the proposed amendment has the support of all the senior judges involved. Secondly, the wording that I proposed in Committee was the agreed wording, and I made the point that it was very necessary to try to stick as closely as possible to those words if the Government were to bring forward an amendment on Report. I am grateful to the Government for doing exactly that, and therefore we can be certain that what is being proposed now has the support of all the judges concerned.

[Lord Faulks]

I am very grateful, first, to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hardie, who was himself an extremely distinguished chairman of the post-legislative scrutiny committee on the Mental Capacity Act 2005. I thank him for his valuable remarks about the appeal process, based on his experience and his recognition of the particular difficulties to which these cases can give rise. I certainly undertake to ensure that his remarks will be passed on to the rule committee through the channels that are available to me, and I thank him for that.

Similarly, I thank the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, for his acknowledgement of the Government’s co-operation and entire acceptance of his suggested drafting, and I thank him as well for securing the support of all the senior judges for what is now a satisfactory state of affairs.

Amendment 138 agreed.

Amendments 139 to 143

Moved by

[Lord Faulks]

139: After Clause 68, insert the following new Clause—
“Reporting restrictionsLifetime reporting restrictions in criminal proceedings for witnesses and victims under 18
(1) The Youth Justice and Criminal Evidence Act 1999 is amended as follows.
(2) After section 45 (power to restrict reporting of criminal proceedings involving persons under 18) insert—
“45A Power to restrict reporting of criminal proceedings for lifetime of witnesses and victims under 18
(1) This section applies in relation to—
(a) any criminal proceedings in any court (other than a service court) in England and Wales, and(b) any proceedings (whether in the United Kingdom or elsewhere) in any service court.(2) The court may make a direction (“a reporting direction”) that no matter relating to a person mentioned in subsection (3) shall during that person’s lifetime be included in any publication if it is likely to lead members of the public to identify that person as being concerned in the proceedings.
(3) A reporting direction may be made only in respect of a person who is under the age of 18 when the proceedings commence and who is—
(a) a witness, other than an accused, in the proceedings;(b) a person against whom the offence, which is the subject of the proceedings, is alleged to have been committed.(4) For the purposes of subsection (2), matters relating to a person in respect of whom the reporting direction is made include—
(a) the person’s name,(b) the person’s address,(c) the identity of any school or other educational establishment attended by the person,(d) the identity of any place of work of the person, and(e) any still or moving picture of the person.(5) The court may make a reporting direction in respect of a person only if it is satisfied that—
(a) the quality of any evidence given by the person, or(b) the level of co-operation given by the person to any party to the proceedings in connection with that party’s preparation of its case,is likely to be diminished by reason of fear or distress on the part of the person in connection with being identified by members of the public as a person concerned in the proceedings.(6) In determining whether subsection (5) is satisfied, the court must in particular take into account—
(a) the nature and alleged circumstances of the offence to which the proceedings relate;(b) the age of the person;(c) such of the following as appear to the court to be relevant—(i) the social and cultural background and ethnic origins of the person,(ii) the domestic, educational and employment circumstances of the person, and(iii) any religious beliefs or political opinions of the person;(d) any behaviour towards the person on the part of—(i) an accused,(ii) members of the family or associates of an accused, or(iii) any other person who is likely to be an accused or a witness in the proceedings.(7) In determining that question the court must in addition consider any views expressed—
(a) by the person in respect of whom the reporting restriction may be made, and(b) where that person is under the age of 16, by an appropriate person other than an accused.(8) In determining whether to make a reporting direction in respect of a person, the court must have regard to—
(a) the welfare of that person,(b) whether it would be in the interests of justice to make the direction, and (c) the public interest in avoiding the imposition of a substantial and unreasonable restriction on the reporting of the proceedings.(9) A reporting direction may be revoked by the court or an appellate court.
(10) The court or an appellate court may by direction (“an excepting direction”) dispense, to any extent specified in the excepting direction, with the restrictions imposed by a reporting direction.
(11) The court or an appellate court may only make an excepting direction if—
(a) it is satisfied that it is necessary in the interests of justice to do so, or(b) it is satisfied that—(i) the effect of the reporting direction is to impose a substantial and unreasonable restriction on the reporting of the proceedings, and(ii) it is in the public interest to remove or relax that restriction.(12) No excepting direction shall be given under subsection (11)(b) by reason only of the fact that the proceedings have been determined in any way or have been abandoned.
(13) In determining whether to make an excepting direction in respect of a person, the court or the appellate court must have regard to the welfare of that person.
(14) An excepting direction—
(a) may be given at the time the reporting direction is given or subsequently, and(b) may be varied or revoked by the court or an appellate court.(15) For the purposes of this section—
(a) criminal proceedings in a court other than a service court commence when proceedings are instituted for the purposes of Part 1 of the Prosecution of Offences Act 1985, in accordance with section 15(2) of that Act;(b) proceedings in a service court commence when the charge is brought under section 122 of the Armed Forces Act 2006. (16) In this section—
(a) “appellate court”, in relation to any proceedings in a court, means a court dealing with an appeal (including an appeal by way of case stated) arising out of the proceedings or with any further appeal;(b) “appropriate person” has the same meaning as in section 50;(c) references to the quality of evidence given by a person are to its quality in terms of completeness, coherence and accuracy (and for this purpose “coherence” refers to a person’s ability in giving evidence to give answers which address the questions put to the person and can be understood both individually and collectively);(d) references to the preparation of the case of a party to any proceedings include, where the party is the prosecution, the carrying out of investigations into any offence at any time charged in the proceedings.”(3) In section 49 (offences under Chapter 4)—
(a) after subsection (1) insert—“(1A) This section also applies—
(a) in England and Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland, if a publication includes any matter in contravention of a direction under section 45A(2) made by a service court;(b) in England and Wales, if a publication includes any matter in contravention of a direction under section 45A(2) made by a court other than a service court.”, and(b) at the end insert—“(7) Schedule 2A makes special provision in connection with the operation of this section, so far as it relates to a publication that includes matter in contravention of a direction under section 45A(2), in relation to persons providing information society services.”
(4) In section 50 (defences)—
(a) after subsection (6) insert—“(6A) Where—
(a) a person is charged with an offence under section 49, and(b) the offence relates to the inclusion of any matter in a publication in contravention of a direction under section 45A(2),it shall be a defence, unless subsection (6B) or (8) applies, to prove that the person in relation to whom the direction was given had given written consent to the inclusion of that matter in the publication.(6B) Written consent is not a defence by virtue of subsection (6A) if the person was under the age of 18 at the time the consent was given.”, and
(b) in subsection (8), after “defence” insert “by virtue of subsections (5) to (7)”.”

140: After Clause 68, insert the following new Clause—
“Reporting restrictions in proceedings other than criminal proceedings
(1) Section 39 of the Children and Young Persons Act 1933 (power to prohibit publication of certain matter in newspapers) is amended as follows.
(2) In subsection (1)—
(a) after “any proceedings” insert “, other than criminal proceedings,”, and(b) after “direct that” insert “the following may not be included in a publication”.(3) In subsection (1)(a)—
(a) omit “no newspaper report of the proceedings shall reveal”, and(b) omit “, or include any particulars calculated to lead to the identification,”.(4) In subsection (1), after paragraph (a) insert—
“(aa) any particulars calculated to lead to the identification of a child or young person so concerned in the proceedings;”.(5) In subsection (1)(b)—
(a) for “no picture shall be published in any newspaper as being or including” substitute “a picture that is or includes”, and(b) omit “as aforesaid”.(6) In subsection (2), for “publishes any matter” substitute “includes matter in a publication”.
(7) After subsection (2) insert—
“(3) In this section—
“publication” includes any speech, writing, relevant programme or other communication in whatever form, which is addressed to the public at large or any section of the public (and for this purpose every relevant programme shall be taken to be so addressed), but does not include a document prepared for use in particular legal proceedings;
“relevant programme” means a programme included in a programme service within the meaning of the Broadcasting Act 1990.”
(8) In the heading of that section, omit “in newspapers”.
(9) After that section insert—
“39A Prohibition on publication of certain matters: providers of information society services
Schedule 1A makes special provision in connection with the operation of section 39 in relation to persons providing information society services.” (10) In section 57(3) of the Children and Young Persons Act 1963 (extending section 39 of the Children and Young Persons Act 1933 to Scotland) after paragraph (a) (but before “and”) insert—
“(aa) as it extends to Scotland, the said section 39 has effect as if the references to a publication were references to a newspaper;”.(11) In consequence of the amendment made by subsection (2)(a), omit paragraph 2 of Schedule 2 to the Youth Justice and Criminal Evidence Act 1999.
(12) Subsection (2)(a) does not affect the operation of section 39 of the Children and Young Persons Act 1933 in relation to criminal proceedings instituted before the day on which it comes into force.
(13) For the purposes of subsection (12)—
(a) proceedings other than proceedings on appeal are instituted when proceedings are instituted for the purposes of Part 1 of the Prosecution of Offences Act 1985, in accordance with section 15(2) of that Act;(b) proceedings on appeal are instituted when the notice of appeal is given or the reference under section 9 or 11 of the Criminal Appeal Act 1995 is made.”

141: After Clause 68, insert the following new Clause—
“Reporting restrictions: information society services
Schedule (Reporting restrictions: providers of information society services) makes special provision in connection with the operation of the following in relation to persons providing information society services—(a) section 39 of the Children and Young Persons Act 1933;(b) section 49 of the Youth Justice and Criminal Evidence Act 1999 as it applies to a publication that includes matter in contravention of a direction under section 45A(2) of that Act.”

142: Before Clause 69, insert the following new Clause—
“Representations to Parliament by the President of the Supreme Court
(1) Section 5 of the Constitutional Reform Act 2005 (representations to Parliament) is amended as follows.
(2) At the beginning insert—
“(A1) The President of the Supreme Court may lay before Parliament written representations on matters that appear to the President to be matters of importance relating to the Supreme Court or to the jurisdiction it exercises.”
(3) In subsections (2) and (3), for “those matters” substitute “the matters mentioned in subsections (A1) and (1)”.”

143: Before Clause 69, insert the following new Clause—
“The supplementary panel of the Supreme Court
In section 39(4) of the Constitutional Reform Act 2005 (circumstances in which a judge of the Supreme Court becomes a member of the supplementary panel), after “while he holds such office” insert “or within 2 years of ceasing to hold such office”.”

Amendments 139 to 143 agreed.

Amendment 144

Moved by

[Baroness Howe of Idlicote]

144: After Clause 69, insert the following new Clause—
“Giving evidence at remote sites
In the Youth Justice and Criminal Evidence Act 1999, after section 30 (aids to communcation) insert—“30A Giving evidence at remote sites
(1) A special measures direction may provide for persons eligible for assistance under section 16 (witness eligible for assistance on grounds of age or incapacity) to give evidence at a remote site.
(2) For the purposes of this section, any facility may be designated as a remote site where the court is satisfied that all of the following criteria have been met—
(a) the facility must be suitable for hearing evidence;(b) the facility must be absent from the court building;(c) the location of the facility must be appropriate to meet the needs and promote the welfare of the witness; and(d) the arrangement must not prevent the witness from being able to see, and to be seen by—(i) the judge or justices (or both) and the jury (if there is one);(ii) legal representatives acting in the proceedings; and(iii) any interpreter or other person appointed (in pursuance of the direction or otherwise) to assist the witness.””

[Baroness Howe of Idlicote]

My Lords, I will speak to Amendments 144 and 145 together, as they both concern the use and availability of special measures for child victims and witnesses during a criminal trial. The amendments relate specifically to remote live link sites, which allow children to give their evidence away from a court building and with registered intermediaries —communication professionals who help children communicate with the police, legal representatives and the court.

These new clauses are supported by the NSPCC, Barnardo’s and Victim Support. I am sure that noble Lords will agree with me that never before has such a stark spotlight been shone on child abuse, with increasing numbers of victims coming forward and arrests made. It is clearly important that we should be doing everything in our power to support child victims and witnesses to give their best evidence and minimise the trauma of their court experience. NSPCC research found that more than half of young witnesses experienced stress symptoms ranging from sleeping and eating problems, to depression, bed-wetting and self-harming. A child’s evidence can be crucial in deciding the outcome of a case. Where this involves sexual abuse, they are often the only witnesses. However, the current special measures designed to support children in these circumstances are being used too inconsistently.

The purpose of these new clauses is to highlight the urgent need to increase their use and availability. The new clause proposed in Amendment 144 requires the availability of a remote videolink site away from court for all young witnesses. I share the view of the NSPCC that a criminal court is not an appropriate place for a child and that no child should give evidence in a court building unless they expressly wish to do so. The hostility, unfamiliarity and alien nature of the court and the proximity of the defendants and their supporters all serve to make a child’s experience far more traumatic. This can increase the likelihood of a child failing to give their best evidence and justice not being served. Indeed, in some cases children are so upset by their time in court that they are unable to give their evidence at all.

It is now 25 years since the landmark Pigot report recommended that children should give evidence in surroundings and circumstances that do not intimidate or overawe them, and yet a recent FOI request by the NSPCC showed that there are currently only a handful of remote sites across England and Wales where children can give evidence by videolink away from court. Judge Pigot’s recommendations were made in 1989, well before the dawn of the digital age. It does not seem right that in 2014, when people are able to make video calls to the other side of the world in a matter of seconds and prisoners routinely give evidence from their cells, that still only 1% of children have the option of giving evidence away from a court building. Establishing a remote link is not prohibitively complex and can cost as little as £10,000 to £12,000.

I welcome the Government’s recent commitment to ensuring that there is one remote site in each court region by March 2015. That is a welcome step in the right direction but there are only six court regions across England and Wales. This commitment is nowhere near the level of ambition we should expect for our most vulnerable victims. My amendment would ensure that remote sites are available to all children who require one. I would welcome clarity on the Government’s commitment to remote sites beyond establishing one in each court region.

In their recent package of measures for victims, the Government announced the rollout of pre-recorded evidence. This will undoubtedly make a huge difference to vulnerable children, reducing the delay and trauma involved in giving evidence during a live trial, but will the Minister give his assurance that children will be able to pre-record their evidence at a location away from a court building? I see no reason why remote sites should not be routinely used for this purpose, but this will require a concerted effort to increase their number.

The new clause proposed in Amendment 145 requires the availability of registered intermediaries for all children under 11 years of age—another valuable special measure which child witnesses are eligible for but which is used far too infrequently. Even bright, normally developing children find court communication methods and language challenging simply because of their age. Research has shown that 90% of children under the age of 10 reported being unable to understand the questions they were asked in court.

An intermediary is an officer of the court who facilitates communication between vulnerable witnesses and the criminal justice system. Unfortunately, just 3.8% of young witnesses in England and Wales have access to a registered intermediary to help them understand what is happening during a trial. This stems from a stark shortage in numbers and a low awareness of the benefits of the service within the criminal justice system. Judges widely agree that RIs provide enormous value to the handling of cases involving young witnesses. Yet, astonishingly, there are fewer than 75 in England and Wales to support the 21,000 children giving evidence each year. Even after accounting for a recent recruitment drive by the Ministry of Justice, we are still a very long way from a sustainable service which addresses the level of need.

22:45

I hope the Minister will commit to further recruitment of registered intermediaries and will clarify what steps the Government are taking to address the long-term challenges facing the service and ensure that every child victim has access to it. I hope that in his reply the Minister will clarify the government vision for expanding the availability of both these special measures for children. Surely this is the moment for the Government to take a leading role in improving the treatment of young victims and witnesses. We cannot afford to wait another 25 years to ensure that the right support is in place for our most vulnerable children. I beg to move.

[Lord Hope of Craighead]

My Lords, I want to make one or two points about Amendment 145, based upon my experience as a prosecutor taking evidence from very young children. One has to bear in mind that not every case in which a child is giving evidence is a case of child abuse. Some of them may be cases such as theft or something of that kind where the child is an essential witness but in no sense has been traumatised by the event about which they are speaking. One has to be a little careful about spreading the protection wider than is necessary.

The other point is that, speaking from my experience of prosecuting before juries, it is extremely important that juries should have an opportunity to assess the credibility of the child witness. I recall a particular case where I led evidence from a child aged six who was completely convincing and apparently unconcerned about the surroundings in which she was giving her evidence. The fact that she was so obviously credible made all the difference in securing a conviction against somebody who had in that case abducted her. I am a little nervous about intermediaries because that reduces the impact of the utter frankness which this little girl displayed when she was describing what happened to her. She could not, for obvious reasons, give a full account of all that was done to her because she did not have the language, but her account was absolutely gripping, and the jury, I could feel, sensed immediately that she was undoubtedly speaking the truth. It would not have been nearly so obvious if there had been some kind of protection around her.

There may be cases where the protection is essential; there may be others where it would be unwise if convictions are to be obtained. I am sure the Government will wish to think very carefully about the extremely important points that have been raised. It does require quite careful scrutiny.

[Lord Ashton of Hyde]

My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Howe, for waiting so long to express her views on this issue to the House and her commitment to these issues. If I understand her intention correctly, she is seeking to introduce, through Amendment 144, a new clause which would provide for the use of remote sites for certain young witnesses and, through Amendment 145, to mandate the use of intermediaries for witnesses under the age of 11.

I first reassure the noble Baroness and this House that the Government take seriously the support of victims and witnesses across the criminal justice system. Indeed, special measures are already available to assist vulnerable and intimidated witnesses in court, including all witnesses under 18 years old. These measures can include screens round the witness box to shield the witness from the defendant, evidence by live link and the use of a registered intermediary or communications specialist to ensure that the witness understands the questions being asked.

Children are automatically eligible for special measures to ensure that they are able to give their best evidence. The presumption is that in most cases children should give their evidence by video-recorded statement, which would be played during the trial as their evidence in chief. In addition, any further evidence or cross-examination will ordinarily be conducted via live link and the court may permit a supporter to be present. The aim is to minimise the number of times a child is questioned and to enable them to give evidence from outside the courtroom.

We fully support looking at other ways to help vulnerable and intimidated witnesses give their best evidence. We know that the court environment can be challenging for some witnesses and are exploring ways in which we can use remote links and developments in technology to help such witnesses give evidence from outside the court building.

On Amendment 144, I advise the House that a majority of Crown and magistrates’ courts already have the facilities that allow witnesses to appear by secure videolink from a different location to the trial court. The use of remote videolinks, and extending this to other non-court sites, will not require any new legislation. We have recently committed to establishing at least one non-court location in each court area for vulnerable witnesses to give their evidence, as the noble Baroness mentioned.

The noble Baroness asked what else we were doing in this regard. We are using live-link technology in piloting pre-trial cross-examination in Kingston, Leeds and Liverpool Crown Courts to help vulnerable witnesses give their best evidence. This has the advantage of sparing witnesses from the full courtroom atmosphere by allowing the cross-examination to take place before the trial, as well as allowing evidence to be given closer to the time of the event. The pilot will end this month, followed by an evaluation and decision early next year on any further rollout if the measure is successful.

On Amendment 145, I am afraid that the Government are not convinced that the mandatory provision of a registered intermediary is necessary or always helpful—this pertains to the point made by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope. Intermediaries and other special measures should be used based on a witness’s assessed needs rather than offering blanket provision to any group. Witnesses retain the right to decline the offer of assistance from an intermediary if they do not want this assistance. We must instead ensure that witnesses receive the right type of special measure and that they are fully informed and supported, especially young children.

We are working closely with our partners in the criminal justice system to ensure that a witness’s need for a registered intermediary is identified. We continue to assess regularly the capacity of the intermediary workforce to ensure that we can plan for and meet demand. This includes considering future plans to increase the number of intermediaries available. We know that the demand for registered intermediaries is steadily increasing and is at its highest level since the start of the scheme 10 years ago, which is very encouraging. We are working with the police and the CPS to improve identification of the need for registered intermediaries for vulnerable witnesses in addition to assessing workforce capacity given the current demands for the scheme. This would include planning for future recruitment campaigns. On the details of Amendment 145, I can assure the noble Baroness that intermediaries must be screened by the Disclosure and Barring Service and meet a number of other criteria before joining the witness intermediary scheme.

I recognise and support the sentiments behind the amendments. However, in the light of our work in this area, the Government do not feel that either is necessary. In the light of my explanation, I hope that the noble Baroness will reconsider her position and not press her amendments.

[Baroness Howe of Idlicote]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for the attention that he has given to both the amendments. I also thank the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, for what he said.

It is encouraging to hear that the Government are doing their best to increase the number of registered intermediaries, but one would need to know a little more about just how fast it is likely to happen. Obviously, I will read carefully what has been said by everyone in this debate. For the moment, I will withdraw my amendment, but it is possible that we will be back with another comment at a later stage.

Amendment 144 withdrawn.

Amendment 145 not moved.

Consideration on Report adjourned.

House adjourned at 10.55 pm.