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].