House of Commons

Monday 17th November 2014 Commons Chamber

Monday 17 November 2014

The House met at half-past Two o’clock

Prayers

Monday 17th November 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker in the Chair]

Oral Answers to Questions

Monday 17th November 2014 Commons Chamber

The Secretary of State was asked—

[Pauline Latham (Mid Derbyshire) (Con)]

1. What steps she is taking to end modern slavery.

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

This Government are determined to stamp out the abhorrent crime of modern slavery. The Modern Slavery Bill will give law enforcement agencies the tools to tackle modern slavery, and enhance support and protection for victims. We will shortly publish our modern slavery strategy setting out wider work to tackle these terrible crimes. I was pleased to announce on Thursday the appointment of Kevin Hyland as designate independent anti-slavery commissioner.

[Pauline Latham]

Does my right hon. Friend share my belief that Government alone cannot end modern slavery and we also need businesses to take a lead and play their part in this? What steps has she taken to achieve that?

[Mrs May]

I absolutely agree that dealing with this crime is about more than action by Government. That is why I am pleased that we have introduced into the Modern Slavery Bill a clause that requires larger businesses to show what they are doing to ensure that slavery is not taking place in their supply chains. We must all work together on this issue. I am pleased that we have been able to introduce that amendment, and I am sure that it will be supported throughout this House.

[Fiona Mactaggart (Slough) (Lab)]

The national referral mechanism, which is one of the ways of identifying victims, is flawed—as, indeed, the Home Secretary’s recent report implies. What is she going to do to make sure that victims, whatever their immigration status, are identified and effectively protected?

[Mrs May]

The hon. Lady is right. Concerns about the national referral mechanism have been raised for some time. That is why the Government had a review of the NRM undertaken. That review has now been published, and we will set out our response to it in the modern slavery strategy that will, as I said, soon be published by the Government. We recognise the issues that have been raised in the review of the NRM, and I am pleased that it has taken place. We will of course put support for victims at the heart of what we are doing.

[Caroline Nokes (Romsey and Southampton North) (Con)]

Will my right hon. Friend join me in congratulating Kevin Hyland on his appointment as anti-slavery commissioner designate and expand a little on how his role will help to stamp out this dreadful crime?

[Mrs May]

I am pleased to join my hon. Friend in congratulating Kevin Hyland on his appointment. Many people in this House who have been involved in looking at the issues around human trafficking and modern slavery will know of the very good work that he did as a detective chief inspector in the Metropolitan police, particularly on human trafficking matters. As the anti-slavery commissioner, he will be able to ensure that the agencies, particularly law enforcement agencies, are doing what they need to be able to do tackle this crime. As right hon. and hon. Members may have seen, he has already said publicly that one of his concerns about identifying this crime is ensuring that when victims of trafficking and slavery come forward, the police are able to recognise that they have been victims.

[Mr Frank Field (Birkenhead) (Lab)]

As the Government have been so open in getting outside views, as well as views from this place, in building up their Bill, might not the Home Secretary adopt the same strategy with the implementation of the Bill that she has promised us in December? Would it not be possible to make that a Green Paper and for her then to come forward with her final proposals when, I hope, she secures Royal Assent in February next year?

[Mrs May]

The right hon. Gentleman has given considerable time and effort to this issue. We are grateful for the work that he has done with the Government in challenging us on the Bill and on the measures we are undertaking. The strategy has been developed with outside input; the Government have not just developed it themselves. I am sure that when the strategy is published, and as it is implemented, he will be very willing to come forward and provide views to the Government on it.

[David Rutley (Macclesfield) (Con)]

2. What assessment she has made of recent trends in the level of crime.

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

7. What assessment she has made of recent trends in the level of crime.

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

Police reform is working. Crime is down by more than a fifth under this Government, according to the independent crime survey for England and Wales. England and Wales are safer than they have been for decades, with the survey showing crime at its lowest levels since the survey began in 1981.

[David Rutley]

I would like to acknowledge the important role and hard work of the Cheshire constabulary in reducing crime in Cheshire by 17% since 2010. I also acknowledge the important role of the reforms in policing that this Government have taken through, with a more targeted approach to measures, stronger accountability, and a greater emphasis on innovation. What further steps are this Government taking to improve the effectiveness of policing in the fight against crime?

[Mrs May]

I am very happy to join my hon. Friend in congratulating the officers and staff of the Cheshire constabulary on the very good work they have done in helping to ensure that crime in that county has fallen by the percentage that he mentioned. We continue to work on driving out crime and on helping the police to be able to deal with crime. The College of Policing is further professionalising the police. The police innovation fund is genuinely looking for ways in which police forces can be provided with funding for innovative ideas to find new ways of dealing with crime and ensuring that we are able to drive crime down even further.

[Stephen Mosley]

This Friday the Cheshire police commissioner John Dwyer and I will hold a meeting with members of the Chester Asian community who are concerned about a recent spate of burglaries aimed at Asian families by people looking for gold and jewellery. What advice would my right hon. Friend give to people who are concerned about this spate of crime?

[Mrs May]

I congratulate my hon. Friend on arranging that meeting to look at a particular problem that affects the Asian community. There are, of course, other communities that are also particularly affected by gold theft. I am pleased to tell my hon. Friend that the crime prevention panel, which we have set up at the Home Office and which is looking at further ways to prevent crime from happening, is looking at that very issue. It is looking in particular at issues relating to the safe storage of gold and other similar valuable items in homes and external locations, and it hopes to be able to report on the matter in the new year.

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

Online child abuse is a horrendous and growing problem. Does the Home Secretary agree that those guilty of online child abuse should be barred from working with children?

[Mrs May]

I absolutely agree that all child abuse is a particularly abhorrent crime and, obviously, that which takes place online is no less abhorrent than that which takes place offline. That is why the Government have put a particular emphasis on dealing with online child abuse. A number of steps have been taken by the Government, led by the Prime Minister. I am pleased to say that next month the Prime Minister will also lead an international conference on online child sexual exploitation, endeavouring to further increase our ability to deal with these issues.

[Mr David Hanson (Delyn) (Lab)]

Given the importance of the European arrest warrant in bringing people to justice and reducing crime, will the Home Secretary explain to the House why today’s motion in the House of Lords gives peers a chance to vote on and specifically endorse the European arrest warrant, when last week, as you will recall, Mr Speaker, MPs were denied such an opportunity?

[Mrs May]

I was very clear about that. In fact, we spent a considerable amount of time last Monday discussing the Government’s motion. We were very clear that that motion would be binding on the Government in relation to the package of 35 measures. The regulations are now being discussed by the House of Lords. Sadly, of course, this House did not have a full opportunity to debate those matters last week, because the shadow Home Secretary, the right hon. Member for Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford (Yvette Cooper), chose to move a closure motion to stop debate.

[Michael Ellis (Northampton North) (Con)]

Will the Home Secretary join me in congratulating the Northamptonshire police, including not only Chief Constable Adrian Lee and Deputy Chief Constable Martin Jelley, but particularly officers of all ranks, on the fact that the crime rate in Northamptonshire is down by 21% since June 2010?

[Mrs May]

I am very happy to join my hon. Friend in congratulating not just the chief constable and his deputy, but officers of all ranks in the Northamptonshire constabulary on the work they have been doing to bring down crime to the extent of 21% over the past four and a half years. That is excellent news for members of the public. Once again, I congratulate the officers on the hard work they have done that has led to that fall in crime.

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

The Home Secretary will be aware that the National Crime Agency has the details of between 20,000 and 30,000 people who have accessed child abuse images online. There have been 600 arrests. What action is the Home Secretary taking to ensure that the many other thousands of perpetrators of this vile crime are brought to justice?

[Mrs May]

I am pleased to say that the National Crime Agency has enhanced the ability of police in this country to deal with these particularly abhorrent crimes. By bringing the Child Exploitation and Online Protection Centre under the NCA, it is now able to have access to the tasking powers of all police forces and to the national cyber crime unit and other functions within the NCA. The NCA is very clear that it is looking at all the evidence brought before it. I am pleased that it has already made the number of arrests that the hon. Gentleman has referred to and, as I have said, it will look at the evidence brought before it and take action appropriately.

[Mark Lazarowicz (Edinburgh North and Leith) (Lab/Co-op)]

3. When she next plans to meet the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills to discuss student immigration.

[The Minister for Security and Immigration (James Brokenshire)]

My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary meets colleagues regularly for discussions on a range of issues, including on how we can continue to attract the brightest and the best to the UK while bearing down on abuse.

[Mark Lazarowicz]

The Government’s arbitrary immigration target has clearly been shown to be both unworkable and misguided. A particularly misguided aspect is the decision to include international students in the target. There is now consensus—from the Labour party, political parties across the House and even Government Members, as well as from universities, trade unions and business—that the target should not include international students. Will the Home Secretary and the Minister join that consensus?

[James Brokenshire]

The short answer to the hon. Gentleman’s question is no, we will not, because students continue to use public services. If we look at the Office for National Statistics data for the 12 months to September 2013, we see that 50,000 non-EU students left, whereas 124,000 entered the country, which suggests that students have an impact on net migration.

I say to the hon. Gentleman and the sector generally that there is no cap on the number of legitimate students who can come to study within the UK. Indeed, we have seen significant increases from a number of countries, including China, Brazil and Malaysia. The UK very much remains open to business for students.

[Dr Julian Huppert (Cambridge) (LD)]

The Minister spoke at the Home Affairs Committee seminar on international students, but at the sessions in which he did not speak, there was heavy criticism of his policies. Indeed, the director general of the Institute of Directors, Simon Walker, said:

“When some politician in the House of Commons thinks it would be wonderful to say something [detrimental] about international students, or some clever minister thinks of sending out a van to hound immigrants, they don’t think what it would look like in international papers.”

Will the Minister listen to the voices of the Institute of Directors, universities and the business sector, and look again at such policies?

[James Brokenshire]

The hon. Gentleman will no doubt have heard from reports of that particular session in the conference hosted by the Home Affairs Committee that I made it very clear that we approach this issue in a measured fashion. The number of visa applications for our universities has gone up 5% this year, with an 8% increase for Russell Group universities. I very clearly say to the sector that trying to talk down the offer we have is not in the best interests of the sector or of our country. I certainly look forward to continuing to work with the sector to ensure that we attract students to our world-class institutions.

[Mrs Mary Glindon (North Tyneside) (Lab)]

4. What steps she is taking to reduce sickness and stress leave and raise morale in the police service.

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

The Home Office does not hold figures centrally on the number of police who go on sick leave with stress. We have a world-class police force, and the best way to get up police force morale is to support our police, and to say that they do a fantastic job and that we have the best police force in the world.

[Mrs Glindon]

In a recent survey on officers’ morale, the Police Federation found that nearly 5,000 officers are planning to leave the service within the next five years because of pay cuts and cuts in conditions. Another survey by Unison says that 75% of police staff feel increasingly stressed. Will the Minister heed the unions’ call to review the gap between rising demand for services and cutbacks to the workforce?

[Mike Penning]

As a trade unionist, I always listen to trade unions, but they are not always right. We will make sure that we listen very carefully. I have seen the figures for the slight increase in stress-related illness. We have committed £8 million to blue light services to try to help with stress and well-being. The best way to ensure that morale goes up in our police forces is for everybody in this House to support them and say what a fantastic job they do.

[Mark Pawsey (Rugby) (Con)]

Does the Minister agree that one of the key contributors to morale in any job is the satisfaction of doing a good job? On that basis, will he join me in praising Warwickshire police? Over the past year, there have been 1,185 fewer victims of crime than in the previous year.

[Mike Penning]

I do congratulate Warwickshire police on the 15% cut in crime since 2010. They are doing a fantastic job, and I hope to visit them soon.

[Jack Dromey (Birmingham, Erdington) (Lab)]

The Home Affairs Committee found that morale had sunk to its lowest ebb in recent memory. Surveys have demonstrated that 5,000 police officers want to leave the police service because of low morale. Figures have shown a staggering 63% increase in duty days lost to sickness owing to anxiety, while the sickness figures more generally are soaring. Does the Home Secretary accept that, with her demanding ever more out of a police service that she has cut by 16,000, she is making police officers sick?

[Mike Penning]

I get on very well with the shadow Minister, but what he has just said is appalling. He is running down the police force and the fantastic job they are doing. With less officers on the front line and less officers in the back-room staff, they are doing a fantastic job. He should be ashamed of himself, and he should praise the police.

[Richard Graham (Gloucester) (Con)]

5. What recent steps she has taken to speed up the process of deportation.

[Andrew Bridgen (North West Leicestershire) (Con)]

13. What recent steps she has taken to speed up the process of deportation.

[The Minister for Security and Immigration (James Brokenshire)]

Changes to the appeals and removals system introduced under the Immigration Act 2014 have reduced the number of immigration decisions that can be appealed from 17 to four. New appeal provisions now allow us to deport harmful individuals before their appeals are heard if there is no risk of serious, irreversible harm. We have also introduced new powers to stop foreign criminals using family life arguments to delay their deportation.

[Richard Graham]

I am encouraged by what the Minister has said, and I appreciate all that he and the Home Office are doing to deport criminals—including EU nationals—who are guilty of serious crimes. He will know of the case of Mr Peter Pavlisin, a Slovakian national who brutally attacked his pregnant Gloucester girlfriend in January 2013 and was sentenced. Will he update me on when a decision on Mr Pavlisin’s deportation will be made?

[James Brokenshire]

I cannot comment on the specifics of my hon. Friend’s case, but I can underline the Government’s commitment to removing foreign national offenders from this country—just under 5,100 were removed last year. There is a cross-Government approach to ensure that we do all we can to redocument and remove foreign national offenders and, with the changes in the Immigration Act 2014 that I underlined, we have changed the law to ensure that we speed up those deportations.

[Andrew Bridgen]

My constituents are rightly concerned about the £800 million annual cost to the taxpayer of housing more than 12,000 foreign offenders in UK jails. Will my hon. Friend outline what steps can be taken to reduce that cost, while still ensuring that justice is served?

[James Brokenshire]

I can certainly underline the steps that we are taking to speed up the process. Moving offenders straight from prison to deportation is saving the taxpayer £27.5 million, and Operation Nexus ensures that police officers work alongside immigration enforcement officers to ensure that the information needed to aid deportation later in the process is provided. We are taking an end-to-end approach.

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

Recently, the Australian Government decided to deport an individual following serious concerns about the impact of his views on the safety of women. To prevent us from having to deport individuals as the Australians did, and given that his seminars promote choking and sexual assaults in order to seduce women, will the Home Secretary consider using her powers to exclude Julien Blanc from the UK if, like me, she assesses that his presence is not conducive to the public good?

[James Brokenshire]

The Government firmly underline their commitment to promoting the role of women within government, business and the whole country, and they condemn any action that might stand against that. The hon. Lady has alluded to a case highlighted in the press. I cannot comment on the specifics of that particular case, but I can assure her about the steps this Government are taking, and about the record of this Home Secretary in excluding more people on grounds of unacceptable behaviour than any of her predecessors.

[Stephen Barclay (North East Cambridgeshire) (Con)]

6. How many vehicle scanning machines to identify stowaways at UK ports of entry the Government plan to buy in the next 12 months.

[The Minister for Security and Immigration (James Brokenshire)]

Border Force operates an array of search techniques as part of its multi-layered search regime, including detection dogs, carbon dioxide monitors, heartbeat detectors and scanners. In the past 12 months nearly £10 million has been invested to support and increase those methods of detection and bolster port security in the UK and at juxtaposed controls. The Government have also committed to invest £12 million at the port of Calais further to enhance security.

[Stephen Barclay]

May I draw the Minister’s attention to the fact that written parliamentary question 213850 on the number of lorries screened by body scanning machines and sniffer dogs when they enter the UK has not been answered? The Government have confirmed that currently just five vehicle scanning machines cover all our ports, including 51 points of entry. Will the Minister clarify why five is an adequate number?

[James Brokenshire]

Border Force uses an array of different techniques to secure our border which, as I have highlighted, include body detection dogs, carbon dioxide detectors, heartbeat monitors and scanners, as well as physical searches. I will look into the outstanding parliamentary question highlighted by my hon. Friend. Last year 18,000 people were detected at our juxtaposed controls—a 60% increase. That underlines the focus of our Border Force officers on preventing people who should not be here from coming to this country.

[Keith Vaz (Leicester East) (Lab)]

The Minister is right: those pieces of equipment are useful, but they are not 100% effective. As of today, 2,300 illegal migrants are in Calais, seeking to come to the United Kingdom. According to the mayor of Calais, in her evidence to Parliament on 28 October, some will risk their lives to do so. Does the Minister agree that we need to do much more work with the countries at the point of entry—Greece, Turkey and Italy—to prevent people from going there, rather than waiting until they get to Calais when it could be far too late?

[James Brokenshire]

I agree with the right hon. Gentleman in that we need to look beyond the borders of the EU. That is precisely the emphasis that has been given by several countries, including the UK and France. Indeed, Italy is hosting a conference in a few weeks to do precisely that in relation to the horn of Africa. He is right to make that point, but equally the Government are focused on security at Calais, and that is why my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has agreed with the French Government an investment of £12 million in security at that port.

[Bill Esterson (Sefton Central) (Lab)]

8. What recent progress the National Crime Agency has made in tackling online child abuse.

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

In its first full year, National Crime Agency activity has safeguarded or protected more than 1,000 children. As part of its response, the NCA is leading an unprecedented UK-wide operation called Notarise, which is identifying and taking action against individuals who view indecent images of children. To date, Operation Notarise alone has led to more than 700 arrests.

[Bill Esterson]

The head of the National Crime Agency made the link between online and physical child abuse. I am sure the Minister will agree that it is vital that we protect the most vulnerable children as part of stopping child abuse. What are the Government doing about the Education Committee’s findings in its inquiry into residential care, which found children’s homes in the same places as many abusers and potential abusers?

[Karen Bradley]

What is illegal offline is illegal online. It does not matter how the abuse takes place, it is still illegal activity and victims need our support and protection. My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary leads the cross-government response to this issue and we are working hard to make sure we give victims the support they need and deserve.

[Maria Miller (Basingstoke) (Con)]

As my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary mentioned earlier, the Prime Minister will lead an international conference on reducing and eradicating online child abuse. Will the Minister update the House on the measures that the Government are taking so that perpetrators of this appalling crime are brought to justice no matter where they live in the world?

[Karen Bradley]

My right hon. Friend is right to highlight the global response being led by the Government and the Prime Minister to make sure that we are doing everything we can to work globally with international partners and the private sector. We are taking steps, particularly in the Serious Crime Bill, to ensure that we are doing all we can to give the support and protection that is needed through law enforcement.

[Duncan Hames (Chippenham) (LD)]

What representations has the Home Secretary received from the Mayor of London or the Metropolitan police about the implications of ongoing investigations into organised child sexual abuse to ensure that he can adequately resource these exceptional police operations?

[Karen Bradley]

The national policing lead on this matter is involved in making sure that the resources are available. Funding is also available to police forces from the Home Office to give specific support if additional resources are required to tackle child abuse.

[Mr Laurence Robertson (Tewkesbury) (Con)]

9. What her policy is on the continued prohibition of recreational drugs.

[Greg Mulholland (Leeds North West) (LD)]

12. If she will undertake an assessment of the effects of the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971.

[The Minister for Crime Prevention (Lynne Featherstone)]

The Government’s drugs strategy sets out a balanced approach to tackling drug misuse, including controls under the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971. There are positive signs that our approach is working, such as a long-term downward trend in drug use, and people going into treatment are more likely to free themselves from dependency than ever before. An assessment of the drugs strategy is under way.

[Mr Robertson]

I am grateful to the Minister for that response and I certainly encourage her in that work, but does she agree that any attempt to decriminalise drugs would send completely the wrong message from this place to young people?

[Lynne Featherstone]

The coalition Government have no current intention to decriminalise drugs. Drugs are illegal where scientific and medical analysis has shown they are harmful to human health. We recognise that drugs are a complex and evolving issue, so we continue to develop our strategy and look at other evidence-based approaches to help us to respond to emerging threats and challenges.

[Greg Mulholland]

I am delighted to see my hon. Friend join the ministerial team. She is aware of the unanimous vote a few weeks ago for an impact assessment and cost-benefit analysis on this matter, but does she agree that to be tough on drugs we need to focus more police time on chasing drug dealers?

[Lynne Featherstone]

I could not agree more. Our focus absolutely has to be on those who deal, smuggle and do the most harm. That is where police time needs to be spent.

[Dan Jarvis (Barnsley Central) (Lab)]

I was pleased with the Minister’s confirmation, in a response to a recent parliamentary question, that the Government have accepted a recommendation to develop proposals for a blanket ban on the sale of new psychoactive substances—so-called legal highs. What work will now take place to ensure that that is a reality?

[Lynne Featherstone]

As the hon. Gentleman says, we accepted the panel’s recommendation to develop proposals for a blanket ban. We have already initiated statutory consultation on the proposals with the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs and we will consider its advice carefully. Work has begun and is moving swiftly. We will develop proposals for a blanket ban and set out further detail in due course.

[Heidi Alexander (Lewisham East) (Lab)]

10. How many Syrian refugees have been resettled in the UK under the Government’s vulnerable persons relocation scheme.

[The Minister for Security and Immigration (James Brokenshire)]

We remain on track to relocate several hundred people under the vulnerable persons relocation scheme in the next three years. Between the first group of arrivals on 25 March and the end of June, 50 people were relocated to the UK under the scheme. Numbers are released as part of the publication each quarter of the Home Office official statistics, and the increased number of arrivals under the scheme up to the end of September will be published on 27 November.

[Heidi Alexander]

On 9 December, the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees is staging a Syrian resettlement conference in Geneva. Given the unprecedented magnitude of the Syrian refugee crisis, will the Minister ensure that the UK Government are represented at that conference? Will he also take the opportunity to commit to expanding the vulnerable persons relocation scheme?

[James Brokenshire]

We certainly recognise the contribution and role played by the UNHCR. Indeed, the vulnerable persons relocation scheme has been developed alongside UNHCR and the specific cases we accept depend on referral by it. I underline to the hon. Lady the contribution the UK has made to the region: £700 million in aid, the vulnerable persons relocation scheme and the asylum claims we are accepting here.

[Sarah Teather (Brent Central) (LD)]

In the past few months there has been increasing evidence that the countries surrounding Syria have begun to close their borders to reduce the number of refugees they allow through, leaving many in a desperate situation. I join the hon. Member for Lewisham East (Heidi Alexander) in urging the Government to step up to the plate at the pledging conference because we have no ability to put diplomatic pressure on other countries if we are doing so pitifully ourselves.

[James Brokenshire]

The contribution of the UK stands up to scrutiny and our overall contribution bears comparison with any international country. We are providing £700 million in aid, which is assisting hundreds of thousands of people each month. The vulnerable persons relocation scheme deals with the most vulnerable individuals, and I underline the fact that we have granted asylum to 3,000 people from Syria since the start of the conflict.

[Stephen Doughty (Cardiff South and Penarth) (Lab/Co-op)]

23. I welcome what the Minister says on Syrian refugees coming in this direction, but will he comment on British citizens travelling in the opposite direction? He may be aware of a story in today’s Daily Mail regarding allegations that British citizens have been involved in barbaric and brutal beheadings in Syria and Iraq. Will he assure me that those claims will be investigated very urgently, including claims that an individual from Cardiff was involved? Will he join me in welcoming the absolute condemnation of those acts by the Muslim community across Cardiff?

[James Brokenshire]

I am sure that the whole House would join the hon. Gentleman and me in utterly condemning those responsible for the brutal murder of Peter Kassig and the appalling images we saw over the weekend. The Government remain resolute in confronting terrorism in all its forms and pursuing those responsible for heinous terrorist acts, and I endorse his comments about British Muslim communities across the country standing up against this brutality and heinous evil. We stand together in condemning these actions and taking whatever action is appropriate.

[Margot James (Stourbridge) (Con)]

The UNHCR report published in July called for participating states to plan for the resettlement of more vulnerable refugees from Syria in 2015 and 2016. Given that this tragic conflict shows little sign of abating, will my hon. Friend indicate what responsibilities we have regarding such forward planning?

[James Brokenshire]

As my hon. Friend will know, we have stated clearly that we intend to accept several hundred people under the vulnerable persons relocation scheme over the next three years, and we are doing exactly that and will be following through on it, but clearly we remain focused on getting a solution in-region, given the significant numbers affected, which is why our aid programme—the £700 million and the assistance it is directly providing—matters so much.

[Karl Turner (Kingston upon Hull East) (Lab)]

11. What steps the Government are taking to identify and safeguard girls at risk of female genital mutilation.

[The Minister for Crime Prevention (Lynne Featherstone)]

Female genital mutilation is an extremely harmful practice that we are committed to tackling. On 22 July, the Prime Minister hosted the UK’s first girls summit, demonstrating the Government’s commitment to tackling FGM here and overseas. At the summit, the UK announced an unprecedented package of measures to tackle FGM, including several commitments to strengthen the law, improve the law enforcement response, support front-line professionals and work with communities to prevent abuse.

[Karl Turner]

I thank the Minister and the Home Secretary for their work to tackle FGM, and I welcome the introduction of protection orders, but may I ask whether legal aid will be available in civil proceedings where people seek protection through the courts?

[Lynne Featherstone]

We are currently looking at that. Of course, legal aid is available for domestic violence, but we are looking at it specifically in relation to FGM.

[Mr Barry Sheerman (Huddersfield) (Lab/Co-op)]

I want to push the Minister and set this point in a broader context. There are worrying minorities in this country that do not believe in equal rights for women—it is not just FGM, but a number of other awful things that happen to women. Is it not time that women in this country, especially new immigrants, knew their rights and protections under the law?

[Lynne Featherstone]

I could not agree more, and that is why we are working closely across government and in communities to push this information down into those communities. As the hon. Gentleman will appreciate, some of these communities are particularly closed off, which makes it even more imperative to work with their members to take these messages in, including in schools and through front-line professionals.

[Mr William Bain (Glasgow North East) (Lab)]

14. How many foreign criminals have been deported from the UK in the last 12 months.

[The Minister for Security and Immigration (James Brokenshire)]

Last year, we removed just under 5,100 foreign national offenders—a 12% increase over the last two years—and since 2010 the Government have removed more than 22,000 foreign national offenders, despite a 28% increase over that period in the number of legal challenges and appeals designed to frustrate or delay removal.

[Mr Bain]

The Minister did not mention that the number of deportations of criminals has fallen by 7% since 2010. The recent National Audit Office report suggested that 40% of the delays were down to avoidable processing errors. Will he explain why the Home Office is so inefficient?

[James Brokenshire]

I do not think the hon. Gentleman was listening. Since 2010, we have seen a 28% increase in the number of legal challenges to deportation decisions designed to frustrate or delay the removal of foreign national offenders, and that is why we introduced the Immigration Act 2014 and other changes to speed up the deportation process. This Government are focused on this issue, unlike the previous one, who failed so miserably in office.

[Mrs Madeleine Moon (Bridgend) (Lab)]

What responsibility does the Home Office accept for its failure in the pre-vetting and walking-out process for the Libyan personnel who unleashed a tidal wave of criminal offences across the UK and then had to be deported from this country?

[James Brokenshire]

I think the hon. Lady is referring to the Libyan soldiers who are receiving training in Cambridgeshire. Clearly, action was taken in those circumstances and they were removed. Clearly, unacceptable offences took place, which have been investigated and the appropriate steps have been taken.

[Mr Philip Hollobone (Kettering) (Con)]

15. What changes there have been in levels of crime in (a) Kettering, (b) Northamptonshire and (c) England since May 2010.

[The Minister for Crime Prevention (Lynne Featherstone)]

Police reform is working and crime is down by more than a fifth under this Government, according to the independent crime survey for England and Wales. Since June 2010, the number of crimes recorded by the police has fallen by 12% in Kettering, by 21% in Northamptonshire and by 16% in England.

[Mr Hollobone]

I declare my interest as a special constable. How is the fantastically good work being done by Northamptonshire police being fed into the crime and policing knowledge hub within the Home Office so that Northamptonshire’s best practice can be spread throughout the country?

[Lynne Featherstone]

I congratulate my hon. Friend on being a special constable for the British Transport police. The information is being fed in through the College of Policing, and I am grateful to him for praising the crime and policing knowledge hub in the Home Office, which is developing a deep understanding of the various drivers of crime.

[Mr Speaker]

Parliamentary colleagues can walk along the streets of Northamptonshire safer and more emboldened in the knowledge of the deployment of the hon. Gentleman’s talents.

[Lilian Greenwood (Nottingham South) (Lab)]

Last week I met members of Nottingham’s Jewish community, which expressed deep concern about the dramatic increase in anti-Semitic abuse to which Members and others have been subjected on social media platforms, including Facebook and Twitter. I am sure that these concerns are shared across the east midlands, including in Kettering and Northamptonshire. I understand that when the police put in RIPA requests to Twitter, they are sent via America and it sometimes takes so long that potential investigations are hampered. What is the Minister doing to ensure that companies such as Twitter and Facebook fulfil their responsibilities under British law?

[Lynne Featherstone]

I thank the hon. Lady for her question. All anti-Semitic acts are absolutely deplorable. I can assure her that in the last two weeks, the Home Secretary met the Community Security Trust and the Board of British Deputies.

[Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con)]

It is quite extraordinary that crime has fallen by more than a fifth in Northamptonshire since this Government came to power. Could it be because under this Government, the proportion of police officers out on the streets catching criminals and deterring crime in Northamptonshire has gone up?

[Lynne Featherstone]

Yes.

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

The Government risk sounding very complacent about areas of crime that are still getting worse. Can the Minister explain the Government’s lack of action on violent assaults, which are up by 20% in London over the last year, and online banking fraud, which has soared by 70% nationally?

[Lynne Featherstone]

The national crime agency for banking fraud has been set up and people are, of course, coming forward to report crime when they previously did not.

[Steve McCabe (Birmingham, Selly Oak) (Lab)]

16. What assessment she has made of recent turnout in the police and crime commissioners by-elections.

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

In the west midlands, 200,000 people voted in the by-election for the PCC and in South Yorkshire it was 150,000. None of those would have had a vote if we had carried on with the old unaccountable police authorities—not one.

[Steve McCabe]

I understand that the rather low turnout for this quite unpopular experiment in policing has cost the taxpayer in excess of £5.3 million. Is that what the Government mean by “value for money”?

[Mike Penning]

I am very surprised by an Opposition and a Labour party that have PCCs out there such as Vera Baird—[Interruption.] Is the hon. Gentleman decrying the work that Vera Baird does? That is interesting—we have a Labour party that decries its own PCCs.

[Mr David Nuttall (Bury North) (Con)]

Does not my right hon. Friend agree that turnout in elections for PCCs might improve if we went back to using the tried and tested first-past-the-post method?

[Mike Penning]

We are thinking carefully about the two by-elections and about what methodology would help to increase turnout, but if Labour Members keep running them down, it is no surprise that police and crime commissioners in their own areas—and the shadow Minister told me that they were doing a fantastic job—[Interruption.] Members can try and shout me down, but, at the end of the day, they will not succeed.

[Roberta Blackman-Woods (City of Durham) (Lab)]

18. What discussions she has had with the Chancellor of the Exchequer on changes to police budgets in the next comprehensive spending review.

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

The Home Secretary and the Chancellor meet regularly to discuss budget matters. No decisions have been made about police budgets after March 2016.

[Roberta Blackman-Woods]

Does the Minister agree that many forces, including Durham police, will be unable to cope with large budget cuts—especially at a time when they must manage an historic level of demand as well as dealing with increasing challenges such as child exploitation and cybercrime—without cutting police numbers, which our police and crime commissioner, Ron Hogg, says is absolutely inevitable?

[Mike Penning]

No, I do not accept that. What I do accept is that where cuts have taken place, crime has fallen. Let us consider the area that the hon. Lady represents. I quote:

“Despite these difficult times, I am very proud to report that County Durham and Darlington remain among the safest places in the country to live…This performance puts us in an excellent starting position for the period of continued austerity.”

I believe that is from County Durham’s Labour police and crime commissioner, Ron Hogg.

[Heidi Alexander (Lewisham East) (Lab)]

T2. If she will make a statement on her departmental responsibilities.

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

Over the weekend we saw yet another brutal murder at the hands of ISIL, that of United States aid worker Peter Kassig. Both the hon. Member for Cardiff South and Penarth (Stephen Doughty) and the Minister for Security and Immigration, referred to it earlier. I am sure the House will agree that, along with the recent shocking attack on the Canadian Parliament, it demonstrates the deadly threat that we face from terrorism at home and abroad. That is why protecting the British public remains the Government’s No. 1 priority, and why we are taking urgent action to ensure that our police and intelligence agencies have all the tools that they need to keep people safe.

As I have told the House previously, and as the Prime Minister confirmed in Australia last week, we will shortly introduce a counter-terrorism Bill which will include new powers to disrupt people’s ability to travel abroad to fight as well as their ability to return here, and will combat the underlying ideology that feeds, supports and sanctions terrorism. The legislation will strengthen our armoury of powers, which will be among the toughest in the world in terms of cracking down on returning foreign fighters.

[Heidi Alexander]

May I associate myself with the Home Secretary’s comments about recent international events?

The National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children recently launched its “flaw in the law” campaign, which rightly demands legislative change to make it illegal for an adult to send a sexual message to a child. When will the Home Secretary give the police the power to intervene earlier, rather than leaving them unable to act until a child has been coerced into sharing an indecent image, lured to a meeting offline or, in the worst cases, sexually abused?

[Mrs May]

I agree that we need to be able to intervene earlier, so that we can ensure that predatory behaviour is tackled before children are put at risk. Officials had a further meeting with the NSPCC as recently as last Friday to discuss the matter further. I can assure the hon. Lady and the House that we will complete our consideration of the issue as a matter of urgency, so that we have the opportunity to table an amendment to the Serious Crime Bill should we wish to do so.

[Sarah Teather (Brent Central) (LD)]

T3. As the Minister will know, over the last few months I have been chairing an inquiry in which a cross-party group of Members of Parliament has been investigating immigration detention and the treatment of detainees. We have heard some very disturbing evidence from detainees themselves about the impact on their mental health, and also from representatives of the Royal College of Psychiatry and the British Medical Association. The panel would like an opportunity to discuss the Minister’s written evidence with him in person. May I encourage him to come and give evidence to our inquiry? We should be very happy to work around all manner of difficulties in his diary.

[The Minister for Security and Immigration (James Brokenshire)]

I welcome the work of the all-party parliamentary group. Let me emphasise that our priority is to ensure that detention is as short and possible, as well as being safe and secure. Obviously we have made changes in relation to the process for mental health provision, in which Public Health England has been involved, but I will certainly continue to reflect on the recommendations that the inquiry makes.

[Ian Austin (Dudley North) (Lab)]

T5. Magistrates in Dudley tell me that as a result of the reduction in the number of police officers people accused of quite serious crimes such as burglary, assault, domestic violence and even rape are no longer being taken to court in the black country. The number of cases taken to court by the police is down by a third. Why do the Government not understand that my constituents want to see police on the streets, offenders in court and criminals in jail?

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

I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will be pleased to know that there are now more police on the streets, not in back rooms. In my Ministry of Justice role, we have looked very carefully at cautions, which we feel were being used inappropriately. There are now pilots, and there will be a deferred prosecution, and if people do not abide by that, they will be in court. It is for the Crown Prosecution Service, not politicians, to decide who goes to court and who does not.

[Andrew Bridgen (North West Leicestershire) (Con)]

T4. Will my right hon. Friend join me in congratulating Leicestershire police on signing up to the “best use of stop-and-search” scheme, to use stop-and-search less and more fairly, saving police time and further increasing the trust between the police and the community they serve so well?

[Mrs May]

I am pleased to join my hon. Friend in congratulating Leicestershire police on signing up to the “best use of stop-and-search” scheme. I am very clear that the police should be using stop-and-search powers lawfully in a targeted, intelligence-led way. We want to ensure that local communities can hold their force to account for its use of the powers, and the scheme is part of a package of reform that will contribute to a significant reduction in the overall use of stop-and-search, but also the better use of stop-and-search and improved stop-to-arrest ratios. I also congratulate Leicestershire police on the fact that over the last four years crime has fallen by 22% in their force area.

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

May I join the Home Secretary in passing on the thoughts and prayers of those on the Opposition Benches to the family and friends of US aid worker Abdul-Rahman Kassig, murdered in an act of vile barbarism by ISIL?

This morning, we learned that a British terror suspect has left Britain, reportedly to join ISIL. He was previously on a terrorism prevention and investigation measure which, under the Home Secretary’s reforms, ran out in January. We understand she had already taken his passport away. She has told us that

“there has been no substantial increase in overall risk since the introduction of TPIMs”.—[Official Report, 4 November 2013; Vol. 570, c. 25.]

She told us, too, that when TPIMs ran out either people were no longer at risk or there would be sufficient surveillance and restrictions by the police and Security Service to manage the risk. How come that has completely failed in this case?

[Mrs May]

Of course, this country is now facing a more severe threat than it has in recent years. That was reflected in the fact that back in August the joint terrorism analysis centre raised the threat level from substantial to severe. That reflected concerns about western attack plans that were being put together in Syria and elsewhere. As the right hon. Lady knows—I referred to this in my answer to the first topical question—the Government are looking at further legislation that is needed and we will be publishing a counter-terrorism Bill so we can take this through this House. I look forward to her supporting the Government in taking further measures to ensure that we can deal with terrorists.

[Yvette Cooper]

The Home Secretary did not answer the question about what has happened to this man who has left the country to fight with our enemies, and I think Parliament has a right to know whether her change to the legislation made that possible. She talked about there being a more serious threat, but it is significant that there are hardly any TPIMs in use, raising serious questions about whether they are fit for purpose at the moment. Two terror suspects have absconded—one in a black cab and one in a burqa—because the Home Secretary removed the relocation powers and now another has absconded because there were not sufficient checks in place once the TPIM ran out. So will she agree as part of that legislation to reverse the Government’s position on the two main changes she made—first, to restore relocation powers and, secondly, to provide additional controls where needed once TPIMs run out, before any more terror suspects are able to run away?

[Mrs May]

The right hon. Lady will know that both I and the Prime Minister have made it clear that in the new counter-terrorism Bill we propose to bring forward the Government will be looking at the issue of TPIMs and looking to see whether any further measures are necessary. A number of proposals in relation to TPIMs have been made by the independent reviewer of counter-terrorism legislation, David Anderson, and the Government are looking at the package of proposals he has put forward.

[Dr Matthew Offord (Hendon) (Con)]

T7. What scientific and medical issues is the Department considering in relation to the introduction of water cannon in England and Wales, and what is the time frame for a decision on their introduction?

[Mike Penning]

The Home Secretary will look carefully before she makes any decision on whether water cannon can be deployed. We received a formal application from the lead officer on this only in March 2014, but once we have looked at all the appraisals relating to the need for water cannon, the Home Secretary will make a decision.

[Paul Flynn (Newport West) (Lab)]

T8. Can we do something practical about prosecuting cases of female genital mutilation? Many such cases have been taken to court in France, but we are in a disgraceful position here. Can we get it through to the communities that tolerate FGM that we in this country are serious about this issue? This barbarism has to stop.

[The Minister for Crime Prevention (Lynne Featherstone)]

I could not agree more with the hon. Gentleman, but I do not think that the Opposition should even begin to criticise the Government on this, because we have done more in two years than was done in the 13 years of the Labour Government. Prosecutions are important, and the first one will come to court after the new year, but our focus has to be on prevention and protection, and it is.

[Robert Halfon (Harlow) (Con)]

My hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock (Jackie Doyle-Price) and I have recently written to the Home Office about the problem of illegal encampments in Harlow and Thurrock, and about the police response to them. Will the Minister meet me to discuss this matter, and will he set out the powers that the police have to deal with illegal or unauthorised Travellers’ encampments?

[Mike Penning]

I would be more than happy to meet my hon. Friend and my hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock (Jackie Doyle-Price). I know both those areas well and I would be happy to talk to my hon. Friends at their convenience.

[Lilian Greenwood (Nottingham South) (Lab)]

T9. Given the 400% rise in anti-Semitic incidents this summer, I was pleased to hear that the Home Secretary had met representatives of the Board of Deputies of British Jews and of the Community Security Trust. Will she tell us what discussions she has had with Twitter and Facebook on this matter?

[Mrs May]

As the Minister for Crime Prevention has said, we have had discussions with the Board of Deputies of British Jews and the CST on the various issues that they have raised concerning anti-Semitic incidents, and in particular on how the police are responding to them. The extremism taskforce has been looking at how social media companies respond to Government requests relating to extremist material and hate crimes. We have initiated discussions on that matter and more generally on how extremist material can be taken down from such sites, and we will be progressing that work.

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

The Home Secretary will know that at least four people have recently been killed by a substance known as DNP, including, tragically, my 23-year-old constituent Sarah Houston. The substance is readily available on the internet, and the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency cannot ban it because it is not a pharmaceutical product. Will she look again at reclassifying this substance as a class C drug so that no further young lives are so tragically lost?

[Lynne Featherstone]

I am sorry to hear about my right hon. Friend’s constituent. We keep under constant review the way in which these matters are evolving and the way in which these substances are classified, and I undertake to look into the issue that she has raised.

[Stephen Pound (Ealing North) (Lab)]

Further to the question asked earlier by my hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham East (Heidi Alexander), may I tell the Home Secretary that my Syrian Christian constituents, the Fallou family, have relatives who have fled from Nineveh across the border into Turkey? They have applied to the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees and been told that the first interview that could possibly be timetabled for them would be in 2017. Will the Home Secretary raise this crucial matter at the conference in Switzerland later this year?

[James Brokenshire]

We work closely with the UNHCR in respect of the vulnerable persons relocation scheme. I note the point that the hon. Gentleman has made regarding the timetable for an interview, and I will certainly take that away.

[Julian Sturdy (York Outer) (Con)]

Will the Home Secretary join me in praising the work of North Yorkshire police? They have launched a street triage scheme in which York-based mental health professionals join police officers on their patrols. That partnership will allow vulnerable people to receive immediate assistance and a proper mental health assessment at the scene.

[Mrs May]

I am happy to join my hon. Friend in congratulating North Yorkshire police on the work they have done on this new street triage scheme in York, and indeed the other local parties who have made it possible. The changes the Government have introduced through the street triage pilots, which are now being taken up by a number of other forces, are having a significant impact on the way the police are dealing with people with mental health problems. That presence of a health care professional means that in many force areas we are seeing a significant reduction in the number of people who are being taken to a police cell as a place of safety. That is better for not only the police, but, crucially, the individuals themselves.

[Mr David Winnick (Walsall North) (Lab)]

In condemning, like everybody else, the barbaric murder carried by out by the ISIS gangsters, would the Home Secretary consider that the various aspects of the counter-terrorism Bill the Prime Minister referred to in Australia should be examined by various Committees of this House, particularly the Home Affairs Committee? Does she accept that there must be concern about police officers, instead of her, having the right to take away passports and about the whole question of whether people should be rendered stateless? I do not minimise the danger of those returning from Syria, but I hope the Home Secretary will bear it in mind that there are implications that should be examined by the various Committees.

[Mrs May]

When we publish the Bill, the hon. Gentleman will be able to see the details of our proposals, including on the temporary seizure of passports, which I have spoken about, as has the Prime Minister. The Bill will, of course, receive proper scrutiny in this House and in another place as it goes through its various stages. I do not think it is the job of the Home Secretary to suggest to the Chairman of the Home Affairs Committee whether or not he should have an inquiry into this Bill. I have noticed that the Home Affairs Committee is not backward in coming forward on looking at matters the Government propose.

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

[Mr Speaker]

Order. I am sorry to disappoint remaining colleagues, but there is pressure on parliamentary time and we must now move on.

Reserve Recruitment

Monday 17th November 2014 Commons Chamber

15:31

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

(Urgent Question): To ask the Secretary of State for Defence to make a statement on Army Reserve recruitment.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence (Mr Julian Brazier)]

I am most grateful to my hon. and gallant Friend for the opportunity to make this statement. Future Force 2020 represents one of the fundamental steps this Government have taken to ensure that our defence is delivered on a sustainable financial basis. The Government have ensured that the armed forces, both regular and reserve, are structured and resourced to meet the challenges of the 21st century. This is a far cry from the position we inherited, where our armed forces were run on a fundamentally unaffordable basis by the previous Government. After years of neglect, this Government are reforming and revitalising our reserve forces. We are investing £1.8 billion in better training and equipment, and reversing the decline and years of underinvestment in our reserves. We have always said that increasing the trained strength of the reserves to about 35,000 would not happen overnight; it is a five-year programme, but one year in we are making steady progress, and during the latest quarter we enlisted about twice as many people as we did in the equivalent period last year.

The expansion of the reserves is about doing defence differently. It is not about swapping regular personnel for reserves or doing defence on the cheap; it is about changing the way we deliver defence to make the best use of our resources and to harness the talents of the wider UK society. The contribution of our reserve forces will deliver, in a cost-effective way, the capable and usable armed forces that the nation needs. It will better harness the talents of the wider community and help restore the links and understanding between the armed forces and that community.

There have been a number of technical challenges affecting Army Reserve recruitment, which have been widely discussed in this House before, and we continue to introduce measures to improve recruitment. So far, those have included: improved financial incentives—much greater incentives with employers; removing delays, sometimes of many months, caused by medical documentation and security checks; increasing capacity at selection centres; and giving a key role for mentoring back to units.

The programme to grow the reserves is on track. We have reversed 18 years of decline. The Army’s latest projections indicate that the Army Reserve can reach its 30,000 trained strength target by April 2019. The Chief of the General Staff, the Secretary of State and I are all committed to achieving that target.

The future reserves programme is a bold change programme. It will make defence more flexible and able to deal with the changing demands placed upon it. I say this to the House: the plan is working.

[Mr Baron]

I thank the Minister for responding. No matter how he dresses up the figures, the latest recruitment figures for the Army Reserve show that the trained strength has fallen between April 2013 and October of this year. If one was being charitable, one would say that Government plans to replace 20,000 regulars with 30,000 reservists are struggling to say the least. Those of us who have opposed those plans have questioned the resulting capability gap as 20,000 regulars have been shown the door and the false economies that will loom as the Government are forced to throw more money at failing plans.

Let us be absolutely honest about this: these plans have been in a state of flux from the beginning. The 2010 strategic defence and security review showed haste and little strategic overlay. In 2011, the then Defence Secretary stated that he would keep the regulars in order to check that the reservist plan was working and to recruit those reservists. In 2012, that plan was changed, and the regulars were allowed to leave before we had recruited any reservists. Meanwhile, the start line keeps getting changed. We talk about “one year in”, but we are actually 18 months into this plan and there has been no acknowledgement from the Government. We now have this sorry state of affairs where 20,000 experienced troops have left, including some from my own battalion the 2nd Battalion of the Royal Regiment of Fusiliers, and we are now recruiting—even if one puts the most optimistic spin on these figures—at a rate of seven reservists a month. If we are to meet our deadline and targets, we need to be recruiting nearer 250 a month. Let us not forget that we are 18 months into the plan.

The Public Accounts Committee has condemned the plan. It said that the plan has put anticipated savings at risk

“and is not delivering value for money.”

The National Audit office was critical, saying:

“There are significant risks to value for money which are currently not well understood by the Department or the Army.”

It has even been said that these plans have been put on the Treasury’s watch list.

I have a series of questions for the Minister. There have been extra costs: £10,000 given to ex-regulars to join the reserves,£300 to the civvies, £500 to the employee reservist per calendar month, pension liabilities, and the IT fiasco. How much extra are these plans now costing over and above the original estimate?

Secondly, how big are our capability gaps? Can the Minister guarantee that there will be no operational fall-out from these plans and tell us what assessment has been made? Finally, in this increasingly uncertain world, surely the time has come for a fundamental reappraisal of the need for stronger defence. Trying to get our defence on the cheap is not the right approach. We should now start recruiting regulars to the Army to bring up the trained strength of the Regular Army to at least 100,000. I look forward to hearing the Minister’s response.

[Mr Brazier]

I am grateful to my hon. and gallant Friend for his thoughts. Let us be clear on the numbers. The Chief of the General Staff, the professional head of the Army, said to the Defence Committee on 5 November:

“Already, at the six-month point, we have got to 2,100”—

he was talking about new recruits to the reserves—

“and it is my sense that we will increase the numbers beyond the target in this year…It is not something that will be solved overnight, because we have had the last 10 or 15 years when we have not invested in the Reserve in the way that we are now investing in the Reserve.”

The point—I have tried to explain this to my hon. and gallant Friend a number of times—is that we had a very long period of decline and neglect. In setting up a new system that for the first time for a decade re-established proper medical checks and proper fitness checks, started to collate the numbers properly and so on, we had some glitches, which have been widely discussed. Most of the improvements we made have happened only in the past few months. In the last quarter, we recruited almost twice as many people as in the equivalent quarter last year. I am grateful to him for his continuing interest in the subject, but may I recommend that he does what almost every single unit I have visited recommends and visits some reserve units to discover the exciting things that are going on?

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

The Army Reserve has expanded by just 20 troops in the past year—20, not the 30,000 personnel promised by the Prime Minister. Capita is being paid £50 million a year to assist in recruitment, meaning that each new net recruit costs taxpayers £2.5 million. That does not include the millions spent on online and other advertising campaigns. The Minister is failing so badly, two years after the policy was announced, that the upper age limit for recruitment is now to be raised, even though, from his reply to the question, one would not think that anything had changed.

This is a shambles—yet more along the lines of the failed IT systems that wasted millions of pounds of taxpayers’ money and the repeatedly missed and repeatedly readjusted recruitment targets. Now we have the fiasco of the increase in the upper age limit for recruitment, changing the goalposts to meet the targets. Urgent clarity is needed on the level of integration between regular and reserve units following the recent statement by the new Chief of the General Staff. Will the Minister confirm whether it is now Government policy that reservists will not be called on routinely and will instead be used only in times of emergency? When was he consulted on that change in policy?

May I ask the Minister to be honest with the Army and the British people about what size he envisages not only the reserve but the British Army will be at the end of the process? He said that his policy is bold. Yes, it is bold, but it is fundamentally flawed, it has failed to be tested, and the tragic consequence will be that Britain's defence will be vulnerable for years to come.

[Mr Brazier]

I think that the hon. Gentleman had drafted his points before he heard my answer to my hon. and gallant Friend, so I will not repeat the same points about the changes in the system that are just coming through now and are evident in the latest quarter.

Let me deal with the hon. Gentleman’s more substantive questions. The message coming from the Chief of the General Staff has been cleared with the Secretary of State and me. We are all at one on this and I am grateful for the opportunity to make that clear. When we talk about integration, there is an important distinction to be made between compulsory call-out, which will occur only in times of public emergency—in the long term, because we suddenly hit an unexpected conflict, or in the short term, because of flooding and so on—and opportunities for intelligent mobilisation for formed bodies or individuals that will be there all the time. Most people join the reserves because they want an opportunity to deploy on operations. It may help the hon. Gentleman, whom I have known for a long time, if I give a few examples of that.

In February, under Operation Toral, the next phase in Afghanistan, a formed platoon from my local battalion, 3rd Battalion the Princess of Wales’s Royal Regiment, will go to Afghanistan with its sister unit, the Royal Anglians. We have 24 people, 19 of whom are medics, going out on the Ebola operation. In 2012, the framework battalion for Cyprus was a reserve battalion. The opportunities are there, but call-out will be compulsory only when there is a real emergency. It is worth noting that 25,000 individuals went through Iraq and Afghanistan, most of them under a Labour Government. All of them went through the intelligent mobilisation process, except for a relatively small number involved in the original Iraq operation.

My understanding throughout this has been that Labour’s policy is to support our plan in principle, while doing what an Opposition always should do: hold the Government to account for delivery. I have heard nothing in what the hon. Gentleman has said to suggest that that has changed, and I am pleased about that.

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

[Mr Speaker]

Order. A large number of hon. and right hon. Members are seeking to catch my eye. Ordinarily, I try to accommodate everybody; that probably will not be possible today, because there is considerable pressure on time, as there are two statements to follow. What is required is exemplary brevity, a tutorial in which can now be provided by Mr James Gray.

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

I will seek to do that, Mr Speaker. My hon. Friend the Minister has a long-standing commitment to the reserve Army, which I salute. I am proud that my Territorial Army regiment is, I understand, 125% above its recruitment target, which is great. Other regiments around England could follow that example. However, does he agree that we cannot replace regular soldiers with reserves on a regular basis? Would it not be better to do away with the 82,000 and 30,000 figures, and replace that with an Army of 112,000, which could be made up partly of one and partly of the other?

[Mr Brazier]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend, but I am not quite certain what he is proposing. We are planning for an Army of 82,000 regulars, and 30,000 reservists integrated with them—in other words, available as formed sub-units or individuals to supplement the regulars outside periods of great national emergency, and to be called up in much larger numbers during periods of great national emergency.

May I pick up on a point made by the hon. Member for North Durham (Mr Jones) that I failed to answer? We make no apology whatever for recruiting older people to specialist roles, such as intelligence roles, and as medics, where they have specialist skills. As for the new standards of fitness and so on that we are introducing for medics, there is no suggestion of having those people in the combat arms.

[Mr Bob Ainsworth (Coventry North East) (Lab)]

Those of us who, in principle, support what the Minister is trying to achieve have always warned about the potential for over-optimism, and about the resistance and about the need to drive this in. None of this appears to be working at the speed that was envisaged. The Government really have to accept that there is a bigger gap in capability than they have hitherto acknowledged, and that the gap will probably go on for longer than was planned. They must acknowledge that and say what they plan to do about it.

[Mr Brazier]

I have the greatest respect for the right hon. Gentleman. I am glad that he, too, buys into the principle of the plan. We are committed to the same targets. He will see that as the measures that we have taken to unblock the recruiting system feed through into the numbers—let us remember that we are looking at 12-month rolling data, and that will take time—we will achieve these targets. We are committed to getting 30,000 reservists trained by 2018. I look forward to further exchanges on this with Members from across the House.

[Crispin Blunt (Reigate) (Con)]

The assumptions underlying this policy were not tested because of the experiences of the Minister for the Armed Forces in the TA 30 years ago. I wrote to the Secretary of State over a year ago to point out that this policy was highly unlikely to work, and that the Department would have to throw a fortune at it to try to make it work. It is not working. When will Ministers face up to that? At the current rate of progress, it will take between 100 and 200 years to achieve the target.

[Mr Brazier]

I am grateful to my hon. and gallant Friend. He says that the policy should have been tested; the recommendations came out of an inquiry chaired by the Chief of the Defence Staff. They have been strongly and publicly supported by the Chief of the General Staff, both publicly in front of the Select Committee on Defence and privately in front of the all-party group, of which my hon. Friend is a member. We know that we can achieve this; the plain fact is that we said that it would take five years. We are unblocking the recruiting system. The units that I visit all suggest that they are well on their way. We will achieve the targets.

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

When those reforms were originally launched, one of the key principles was for the reservist force to “routinely share” jobs that were once the

“exclusive domain of Regular forces”.

There was therefore that integration. Back in October, when the Chief of the General Staff suggested that reservists would be used only in emergencies, he was kind of rebuked for not being in line with Government policy. Is not the reality now that the original policy of sharing is no longer possible, and we are reduced, because of the numbers, to using them only in national emergencies?

[Mr Brazier]

I have the greatest admiration for the hon. Lady. I sat next to her on the Defence Committee for four years, but she really has missed the point on this. Nobody has rebuked the CGS. The CGS designed the detail for this plan in his last job but one. The hon. Lady misunderstands the difference between opportunities for regular use of reserves, of which I have just given three examples, and compulsory call-out. That is the distinction she must understand.

[Martin Horwood (Cheltenham) (LD)]

Does the Minister agree that recruitment to the Army Reserve in the six months to 30 September will be well over 2,000 people, which represents a 60% increase on the same period last year? If that acceleration in Army Reserve recruitment is sustained, it will be in stark contrast to the planned reduction in the TA under the last Government?

[Mr Brazier]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. It is a 60% increase over six months, and as the bulk of that occurred during the most recent quarter, it is almost a doubling in that period. He is absolutely right. It is a tremendous turnaround after years of decline under the previous Government.

[Derek Twigg (Halton) (Lab)]

I thank the Minister for reversing the daft proposal to close the TA centre in Widnes following my representations. Does he have any concerns about how Capita is working? For example, a constituent of mine has applied to join the regulars but has been given four separate dates verbally and has still not been able to join the Army. Is not the problem with Capita as well?

[Mr Brazier]

Will the hon. Gentleman, for whom I have the greatest respect, write to me so that I can look into that individual case? We have had a number of delays in the system. We are sorting those out, and the process is now working much faster for both regulars and reservists, but I would be grateful for a letter.

[Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Con)]

I have been waiting by my phone for the call to join the Army Reserve, but so far nothing has happened. What percentage of the 30,000 Army Reserve personnel will be available for not a great national emergency at any one time—assuming we get 30,000?

[Mr Brazier]

Over a decade or so, 25,000 reservists were called out of what was then a falling institution. I have given my hon. and gallant Friend some examples of the things we are calling reservists out for now—on intelligent mobilisation, not compulsorily, for Afghanistan, for Cyprus, and for interesting exercises all over the world, such as the British Army Training Unit Suffield in Canada and live firing in Kenya. I cannot give him a firm number, but we have seen that large numbers of reserves are available and willing to come. Compulsory call out, as the CGS has made clear, will happen in a national emergency.

[Angus Robertson (Moray) (SNP)]

On 24 June, the MOD told me in answer to a written question that £300 million had been spent so far on the recruiting partnering project. How much money has been spent to date on this fiasco?

[Mr Brazier]

I will have to write to the hon. Gentleman to give him a total figure. I do not recognise the figure he quotes, but I will write to him. Most of the Capita programme is directed towards the regular forces. It has had some difficulties, some around software, which has been a feature of Governments of all complexions. It is in the process of a considerable set of improvements, most of which are now in place.

[Richard Drax (South Dorset) (Con)]

I congratulate my hon. and gallant Friend on all the efforts he is making in this regard, but may I make one small point? According to the sources I speak to, the smaller the Army gets, the more professional it needs to be in order to be more flexible in dealing with a greatly changing world, so the proportion should stay at 80:20 and not move to 70:30. Can we therefore go back the other way and have a smaller Army, yes, but one that is more professional, not less so? I am not saying that the part timers are not professional—they are—but a smaller full-time Army has the necessary flexibility.

[Mr Brazier]

I hear my hon. and gallant Friend with respect. However, if he visits, as I am sure he does from time to time, the Royal Wessex Yeomanry in his own constituency, he will see just how good that unit is and how much it can achieve. The size of the Regular Army came out of the very difficult decisions that we had to make in the strategic defence and security review. We have to be clear that if we want to have a framework to expand a small professional Army, and if we want to keep connections between that small professional Army and the wider civilian community, we need a substantial reserve.

[Mrs Madeleine Moon (Bridgend) (Lab)]

I do not think that anyone in the House would dispute the fact that this is a bold challenge. No one is unaware that there have been technical problems and glitches, but the Minister must know that there is a high degree of concern that only 32% of the regulars have confidence that reservists will be well integrated within their units, and that there has been a net increase to the reserves of only 20. What can we do to improve on those figures?

[Mr Brazier]

I have already answered the second question from the hon. Lady, who is another fellow member of the Select Committee, by listing the very many changes that we have made to the recruiting pipeline and noting that in the last quarter we almost doubled the numbers coming through. On her first point, there are indeed some in the Regular Army who do not agree with the changes, having seen former comrades leave, but the fact is that a Chief of the Defence Staff chaired the original commission that set out the overall plan and the Chief of the General Staff wrote the detailed blueprint.

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

[Mr Speaker]

Order. We need a pithy question without preamble, perhaps to be authored and delivered by the hon. Member for New Forest East (Dr Lewis).

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

Is not part of the problem that the increase in reserves has been seen as a cover for a cut in regular forces? What can the Minister, as a champion of the reserves even when we were spending more money on the armed forces, say to dispel that impression?

[Mr Brazier]

I am grateful for my hon. Friend’s question, not least because he is a former member of the Royal Naval Reserve, who are well ahead of their recruiting targets. The short answer is that if we want defence to prosper in this country when there are very many calls on the public purse, we need the footprint around the country that the reserve forces have—they are represented in half of all the constituencies in this House—to remind people what armed forces are all about.

[Mr George Howarth (Knowsley) (Lab)]

Does the Minister accept that part of the problem is that some applicants, although they have the potential, do not yet meet all the requirements? Does he believe that there is a place in the recruitment system for the military preparation course that was devised by Lieutenant Colonel Tony Hollingsworth, who runs Knowsley Skills Academy?

[Mr Brazier]

The right hon. Gentleman asks a really excellent question. This is why we are looking at the criteria again. We have reintroduced proper medicals, proper fitness tests, proper intelligence tests, and all the things that disappeared under the previous Government. He is right. There should be room for flexibility, and where people are, for example, a little bit below the right level in the fitness test, units have measures in place to give them coaching to bring them to up it. I would like to have a longer conversation with him about this another time.

[Sir Bob Russell (Colchester) (LD)]

I am proud of our reserve forces and grateful to employers who participate to allow workers to serve, but given the huge cuts in the regular forces what happens if recruitment for the reserve forces does not meet the targets the Minister is talking about?

[Mr Brazier]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his question. We are confident that we will meet the targets. I say again that in the last three-month period we achieved almost double the equivalent level for last year. We are committed to those targets so his question does not arise.

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

After this expensive disaster, does the Minister have a shred of a regret about hacking away 20% of the Army’s strength, particularly given the fact that some regular soldiers served in Iraq, in Afghanistan and at the Olympics and were then told, “There’s your P45. Now sod off.”? What a disgraceful way to treat soldiers.

[Mr Brazier]

This Government have taken huge steps to build the armed forces covenant and to ensure that veterans who left the armed forces on redundancy terms were well looked after. Members of the hon. Gentleman’s own Front-Bench team made it clear that under Labour there would have to be cuts in defence. The previous shadow Secretary of State said:

“The truth is the Labour Party would have to make cuts if we were in power.”

We have had to make difficult decisions because of the economic circumstances we inherited.

[Richard Benyon (Newbury) (Con)]

As someone who has visited reserve units, I find increasing optimism among commanding officers and others that they are going to achieve the targets. May I suggest a very small tweak? The emergency service cap on recruits needs to be reviewed. For example, in the Met police a reserve recruitment cap of 0.25% has existed since the cold war. This could be an ideal recruiting ground. Will the Minister look at it?

[Mr Brazier]

I am most grateful for the question from my hon. and gallant Friend, who served in the same regiment as I did, although he was a regular and I was a reservist. He is exactly right. The cap is being addressed. Clearly, the Metropolitan police need to have a cap, but it is much too low at present. There is a discussion going on. A commanding officer I met had lost three military police soldiers from her unit because they had got jobs with the Met and been made to resign because the quota was filled.

[Mr Barry Sheerman (Huddersfield) (Lab/Co-op)]

I am not a defence buff, but I believe in the security of our country and I recognise the dangers that are emerging across Europe. If I were sitting in the Kremlin right now, I would be very happy about the run-down of our regular forces. What does the Minister say about that?

[Mr Brazier]

I have too much respect for the hon. Gentleman to get too party political about what happened to our defences under the previous Government. If he chooses to cruise the BBC website, he will find that in the past four weeks Vladimir Putin has announced a very large expansion in the Russians’ part-time reserve army.

[John Glen (Salisbury) (Con)]

One area of apprehension in Salisbury is the package of incentives and support available to small and medium-sized employers. Will the Minister say something about why employers should be content to allow their employees to volunteer to join the reserves, and why that package has improved?

[Mr Brazier]

The first thing we should recognise is that this is part of corporate social responsibility. Any employer who signs up faces the prospect that in extremis his employee might be compulsorily mobilised. What he gets for that is somebody who is motivated and who is trained in a variety of ways not available in civilian life. What he gets also is a loyal employee with good values. The financial side has been improved in various ways, including the £500 a month extra compensation for a small business that loses an employee on operations, over and above the full compensation package.

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

How much money has been spent on television recruitment ads this year, and is the Minister happy with that cost?

[Mr Brazier]

I am sorry, I did not hear the question.

[Mr Speaker]

How much money has been spent on television recruitment advertisements this year?

[Mr Brazier]

I will have to write to the hon. Gentleman.

[Mr David Nuttall (Bury North) (Con)]

Does the Minister think that the closure of recruiting offices such as the one in Bury in my constituency has had any effect on the number of reservists being recruited?

[Mr Brazier]

I do not believe that that has had a direct effect. Most reservists join initially through their local reserve unit or, in some cases, through the national website. There was one immediate indirect effect—while all the glitches were in the system, which we have ironed out over the past few months, the lack of somebody immediately available on the high street to mentor somebody who had not already got dug in with a unit made a significant difference. I do not believe it will make a long-term difference.

[Paul Flynn (Newport West) (Lab)]

Being the fourth highest spender on defence in the world has led to the deaths of 632 of our brave British soldiers in pursuit of non-existent weapons of mass destruction and in Helmand in the belief that not a shot would be fired. Why cannot we pursue an independent foreign policy and recognise that spending above our budgets and trying to punch above our weight always results in dying beyond our responsibilities?

[Mr Brazier]

I am not sure how that fits into the statement, but I am very happy to comment. The fact is that we should be proud of what we have achieved in Helmand province. That operation started, as did the previous one, under a Labour Government.

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

[Mr Speaker]

Order. I am sorry to disappoint colleagues, but I have taken 20 Back Benchers and I did give notice that it might not be possible to accommodate everybody, rather exceptionally, today.

G20

Monday 17th November 2014 Commons Chamber

16:05

[The Prime Minister (Mr David Cameron)]

I am sure the whole House will join me in utterly condemning the sickening murder of American aid worker Peter Kassig. Our thoughts are with his family and friends at this time.

We will not be cowed by these sick terrorists. They will be defeated and they must face the justice they deserve. The threat is faced by countries right across the world. We must face it together. It featured strongly in the discussions I had with Prime Minister Tony Abbott in my bilateral visit to Australia. I took the opportunity of setting out further detail on some of the steps we will take as part of the counter-terrorism Bill here in the United Kingdom. As the House knows, they include new powers for police at ports to seize passports, to stop suspects travelling and to stop British nationals returning to the UK unless they do so on our terms. Also included are new rules to prevent airlines that do not comply with our no-fly lists, or our security screening measures, from landing in the UK. Every country across the world is examining what powers are necessary to keep their people safe, and I am determined that we should do that right here. We will make a full announcement about the counter-terrorism Bill soon.

Let me turn to the G20 summit in Brisbane this weekend. Australian Prime Minister Tony Abbott set a clear agenda for the world economy and we gave it our strong backing. The Brisbane action plan includes a commitment on dealing with our debts and an infrastructure hub that will see British companies as part of a global pipeline for the biggest projects on the planet, but above all it is a plan for growth and jobs, with every country pledging actions that will boost global growth and therefore help create jobs. The aim is an additional $2 trillion to be added to the global economy.

When it comes to growth last year, this year and the forecast for next year, as the head of the International Monetary Fund said in Brisbane, it is Britain and America that are leading the pack. However, it is also clear that growth is stalling in the eurozone, world trade is not developing as fast as it should, previously fast-growing economies are slowing down and only today Japan entered recession. Those warning signs in the global economy show that it is more important than ever that we stick to our long-term economic plan. That is the only way we can secure a better future for our country.

There were also important discussions on climate change, on which China and America took important steps forward at the Asia-Pacific Economic Co-operation summit in terms of moving towards a deal in Paris next year. Britain will continue to play a key role, including by using our already earmarked resources for the United Nations green climate fund. In terms of the global negotiations, the European Union has taken the lead with significant planned cuts in carbon emissions, and I made clear the importance of every country, Australia included, making a contribution to securing a deal next year.

My focus at this summit was on helping to deliver our long-term economic plan by addressing some of the big global challenges that could potentially threaten our recovery at home. There was important progress on fighting protectionism; on dealing with the damaging effects of global tax avoidance and corruption; and on confronting the instability caused by conflict and disease. I want briefly to take each of those in turn.

On fighting protectionism and promoting free trade, we welcomed the breakthrough on the Bali trade facilitation agreement, which had been stuck for so long. After an agreement between America and India, it will now go ahead. There was also an important meeting between the countries of the European Union and the United States to agree that an EU-US trade deal must be done next year. That could add £10 billion to the UK economy alone.

Such trade deals can mean jobs and growth for Britain, so I challenged European leaders to think ambitiously about other deals that could be done, including with our host, Australia, and with emerging markets such as India and China. We pressed for reform of the World Trade Organisation so that poverty-busting trade deals can be put together more quickly, and agreed and implemented. Britain, Germany and the US, among others, all agreed that the way this organisation works needs to change in the future.

Secondly, there was some progress on ensuring that big companies pay the taxes they owe. This is not just a technical issue; it is a moral one. Ensuring that the correct taxes are paid is vital in sustaining low taxes and enabling hard-working families and small businesses to keep more of the money that they earn. That is why Britain first put this on the international agenda at the G8 in Northern Ireland last year. This issue is now firmly hard-wired into the G20 agenda.

This summit agreed a G20-wide action plan to ensure that there is nowhere for large companies to avoid paying taxes that are due. Some 93 different countries and tax authorities are now signed up to sharing tax information automatically; before the G8 in Northern Ireland, the number was just 29. As the OECD set out in Brisbane, the action we have taken so far already means that, in its view, $37 billion of extra tax has been paid by big corporations.

The Lough Erne summit made important commitments at G8 level to stop the true owners of companies from hiding behind a veil of secrecy. That is vital in tackling the cancer of corruption that does so much to destroy countries and to increase risks to our own security. In Brisbane, we agreed to extend the work on beneficial ownership to cover the whole G20, China included.

Thirdly, Britain continued to play a leading role in dealing with the threat of conflict and disease. That is vital not only in keeping our people safe, but in ensuring our long-term prosperity. On the conflict in Ukraine, we called on Russia to respect the Minsk agreements and made it clear that if it does not, we remain ready to intensify sanctions. Of course, there is an economic cost to us from sanctions, but I believe that the cost of allowing such a fundamental breach of our rules-based system to go unchecked would be infinitely greater in the long run.

I met President Putin and once again made it clear that continued destabilisation of Ukraine can only mean more sanctions and more pressure. He has said that he does not want a frozen conflict and, as he put it to me, he sees Ukraine as a single political space, but he must be judged by his deeds, not by his words.

On Ebola, I wrote to Australian Prime Minister Abbott ahead of the summit to secure a specific G20 leaders’ statement with a clear plan for dealing with the disease and for improving our readiness to respond to such epidemics in future. Other countries, including South Korea, Japan and Australia, are now doing more to help with more money, trained medical staff and equipment, while the IMF agreed to double its current programmes in Sierra Leone, Liberia and Guinea and to provide additional debt relief.

The UK will continue to lead the way on the development of a vaccine, with the Wellcome Trust establishing a joint research fund of more than £1 million. We welcomed the support of the English and Scottish Football Associations, which will raise money at their friendly international tomorrow night. The UK Government will match fund any public donations up to £5 million.

I pushed the G20 to consider additional measures that could improve the ability of the global community to respond to a similar outbreak of disease in the future. This includes the possibility of a standing pool of global medical experts who can be deployed quickly during the early stages of a potential epidemic; strengthening in-country surveillance and health infrastructure; asking the IMF and the World Bank to explore new mechanisms for ensuring that the world is better prepared to deal with such pandemics in future; and doing more to fight bacteria that are resistant to present-day antibiotics. The World Health Organisation itself requires some fundamental reform.

This was a good G20 for Britain. We delivered progress on the key global economic challenges that will help to protect us from a global economic downturn. In doing so, we supported our long-term economic plan to repair the broken economy we inherited, and to deliver jobs and growth in every part of our country. I commend this statement to the House.

16:13

[Edward Miliband (Doncaster North) (Lab)]

I thank the Prime Minister for his statement. I join him in expressing horror and revulsion at the barbaric murder of US aid worker Peter Kassig. Once again, this is a demonstration of ISIL’s evil ideology perpetrated against the innocent—our thoughts go out to his family at this terrible time—and it reinforces our determination to defeat ISIL.

Let me start with the situation in Ukraine. The ceasefire agreed in September is extremely fragile, and there are recent reports, confirmed by the Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe, of further Russian military vehicles crossing the border. Does the Prime Minister think that enough is being done to send a clear message to Russia about its aggression, and to support President Poroshenko’s Government? Under what circumstances will the UK push for further sanctions against President Putin and Russia? We are all well aware of the way that a conflict such as the one in Ukraine can generate headlines and then be forgotten. This must not become a forgotten conflict.

Let me turn to the issues on the formal G20 agenda. As with any summit, the task is to turn good intentions into concrete measures. Tax avoidance is a problem that affects rich and poor countries alike. In June 2013 at the G8, the Prime Minister promised that all UK Crown dependencies and overseas territories would produce registers on who are the real owners of shell companies. Seventeen months on from the G8, may I ask for an update on progress towards those goals? This weekend the G20 repeated the commitment of the G8 that developing countries would have a place at the negotiating table as part of the process to reform global tax rules, but as I understand it, 18 months on from the G8 that has not happened. Can the Prime Minister explain why not?

On climate change, I agree with the Prime Minister on the welcome steps made by President Obama and President Xi last week on carbon emissions. I also welcome the agreement to support the climate fund that is designed to help with the effects of climate change. When will the UK announce our contribution to the climate fund, and will the Prime Minister explain why there has been a delay in doing so? What is being done to bring more sceptical countries with us for the ambitious agreement that we need at the vital talks in Paris next year?

On the Ebola crisis, I welcome the UK’s role as the second largest donor to help tackle this potential threat not just to people in west Africa, but across the world. However, the G20 conclusions were short on specific commitments from other countries. What does the Prime Minister think we can do to encourage further other countries—including those within the EU—to ensure that we tackle the crisis with aid, equipment and, especially, health workers?

Finally, let me turn to the G20 conclusions on global growth. Today the Prime Minister tells us that red lights are flashing in the global economy—I think that is what is known as getting your excuses in early. He used to tell us that the problems in the British economy were all to do with the British Government and nothing to do with international factors; now he wants to tell us that on his watch they are all to do with international factors and nothing to do with the British Government.

Is it not the truth that before the Prime Minister went to Brisbane we already knew that his export targets were off track and that the trade deficit was the highest it has been for 25 years? Before he went to Brisbane, we knew that Britain’s productivity had stagnated on his watch, and that average families are £1,600 a year worse off. He has gone from saying that everything is fixed thanks to him, to saying that everything is not fixed but it is nothing to do with him. All along he should have been listening to the British people, who see deep problems in an economy not working for them. Is it time that he stopped blaming everybody else for an economy that is great for a few people at the top, but that is not delivering for most working people?

[The Prime Minister]

Let me thank the right hon. Gentleman for his remarks about Peter Kassig on which there is complete unity across this House and country. He asked whether the message is clear enough on Ukraine, and I believe that all the European leaders, including the European Commission and others who had meetings with President Putin, gave a very clear message—it has actually been quite refreshing how much unity there has been between the countries of the European Union on the one hand, and the US on the other, in terms of giving a very clear message.

The right hon. Gentleman asked what would trigger further sanctions, and the easiest way to answer that is to say that further destabilisation would trigger further sanctions, just as taking down destabilisation would result in the removal of sanctions. He says that Ukraine should not be a forgotten conflict, and that is absolutely right. We must not have a frozen conflict in Europe in the way that the world—in my view, wrongly—moved on after the destabilisation of Georgia.

On the G20 tax agenda, every one of the Crown dependencies and overseas territories has signed up to having an action plan on beneficial ownership, which is progress. Some of them have registers and some are considering—as we are—making those public. Crucially, every single one has agreed to the automatic exchange of tax information. That is the real breakthrough, I think, because if all those tax authorities are exchanging information, it means that companies cannot hide where they are making their money and more and fairer taxes will be paid as a result.

On climate change, the right hon. Gentleman asks what is being done to persuade the sceptical countries. There is pressure on every country to bring forward its plans for the meeting in Paris, and that should include every country in the world. In terms of the climate fund, Britain has money available for climate funds—we were one of the first to put money to one side and make it available—but it is important this time to make sure that other countries are bringing in their donations. That has not always happened in the past, and I am glad that it is happening. The biggest breakthrough in recent days is the fact that China and America came to an agreement at the Asia-Pacific Economic Co-operation summit to put more on the table in terms of carbon emissions.

On Ebola, the right hon. Gentleman asked what specific pledges were made. At the G20, Korea and Japan made specific pledges and, of course, Australia has backed up its plan to provide 100 beds in Sierra Leone under the plans that we have. At the EU summit we managed to double other countries’ donations so that the EU is up to €1 billion.

The right hon. Gentleman ended with an extraordinary set of points on growth. I am very happy to defend and take some credit for what is happening in the British economy, which is growing at 3% and has the biggest fall in unemployment on record and 400,000 new businesses. Because of the difficult decisions that we took, the British economy is doing well. The difference is that while there are problems in the world economy, we can see that Britain is outperforming other countries. The figures speak for themselves.

It is always a pleasure to get back to Britain and find that some things have not changed: our language, the beauties of our climate—and, crucially, that the right hon. Gentleman is still in his place.

[Sir Peter Tapsell (Louth and Horncastle) (Con)]

Would my right hon. Friend’s reportedly robust private conversations with President Putin be even more persuasive if it was seen that Britain is rearming?

[The Prime Minister]

What I would say is that we have one of the top five defence budgets anywhere in the world. We spend more than £30 billion on defence and people know that we have hugely capable armed forces. Because of the difficult decisions we have made, we will see a drumbeat of new destroyers, new frigates, new aircraft carriers and new fighter jets coming off the production lines, so we are in a very strong position.

But I do not actually believe that the solution to Ukraine is a military solution. Of course it is right that NATO is helping to strengthen Ukraine’s defence infrastructure, as we agreed in Cardiff, but crucially what is required is a political settlement that respects the independence of Ukraine. What President Putin will respect is a unity of purpose on behalf of European countries and the United States to maintain the pressure and the sanctions until he changes his behaviour.

[Mr Jack Straw (Blackburn) (Lab)]

On the crucial issue of tax avoidance, could the Prime Minister say whether he is satisfied with the attitude and progress being made by Mr Juncker in respect of the scandalous behaviour by Luxembourg when he was its Prime Minister?

[The Prime Minister]

I am satisfied that every country in the European Union has signed up to the automatic exchange of tax information. For many years, it was not only Luxembourg but one or two other countries in the EU that did not sign up to that. We are making progress, but I will never be fully satisfied, because until every jurisdiction in the world signs up we will not be able to get rid of tax avoidance.

[Sir Malcolm Bruce (Gordon) (LD)]

In the conversations with Mr Putin, did the Prime Minister remind him of his unwelcome interventions in Georgia and Transnistria, and make it clear that the Baltic states were clearly off limits to the EU and NATO?

May I welcome what the Prime Minister said about additional funding for Ebola and the global attack on taxes? On climate change—on which Britain has been in the lead globally—can he indicate what Tony Abbott said Australia’s contribution would be?

[The Prime Minister]

To answer my right hon. Friend’s last question first, the Australians have pledged a 5% cut in carbon emissions, which they say is equivalent to a 19% cut on business as usual, but I think that they will face further pressure, as an important economy, to throw in more cuts to carbon as the whole world comes together in Paris.

On my right hon. Friend’s other questions, the discussions I had with President Putin were frank. We did not mention every problem and issue between Britain and Russia, but crucially we looked at how we could try to find a pathway by which Ukraine’s integrity and independence are respected. That is the key to de-escalating the situation, and I was very frank about that.

On Ebola, Britain has played a key part and we should be proud of that. Others are now stepping up and the World Bank is also looking at ways it can help us to sustain that commitment.

[Mr Speaker]

Perhaps my natural generosity got the better of me. For the avoidance of doubt, knights, no matter how distinguished and indeed amiable, do not have an automatic right to ask three questions rather than one.

[Mr Pat McFadden (Wolverhampton South East) (Lab)]

The Prime Minister mentioned the need for new anti-terror laws. Does he regret watering down the ones we had in the first place?

[The Prime Minister]

I think we have done the right thing in terms of listening to the security and intelligence services and listening to the independent reviewer of terrorism, who said he thinks the steps we have taken have been the right ones. Of course, we will announce the full range of measures we will be taking in the anti-terrorism Bill. The Bill will come before the House, I believe, before the end of the month.

[Sir Malcolm Rifkind (Kensington) (Con)]

While I pay tribute to the many robust exchanges that the Prime Minister and other western leaders had with Mr Putin on Ukraine, has there not yet again been a failure to make it clear to Mr Putin that the heavy Russian artillery and forces flooding into Ukraine as we speak will lead not just to sanctions but to economic and financial sanctions? Will my right hon. Friend not acknowledge that further visa controls and asset freezes on Mr Putin’s cronies will be as meaningless, impotent and irrelevant as they have been in the past?

[The Prime Minister]

I hugely respect my right hon. and learned Friend’s position, views and experience, but on this particular issue I do not entirely agree. If we look at the decline in the rouble, the difficulties Russian banks have had in raising finance and the fact that Russian growth has been downgraded, all combined with an oil price where the Russian budget does not remotely balance, I think there is economic pressure. As long as we stay united, keep up that pressure and respond to further destabilisation with further pressure, it may take time but I think we can persuade Russia that there is a different and better path to take.

[Mr Dennis Skinner (Bolsover) (Lab)]

Is there not something faintly comical about a British Prime Minister talking about putting more sanctions on Russia, while the same British Prime Minister is helping Russian oligarchs in Britain to bankroll the Tory party in which he is helping to make the money? It sounds to me like hypocrisy.

[The Prime Minister]

I do not even know where to start with the hon. Gentleman. When he started his question I thought perhaps he had forgotten that the communists were not running Russia any more. I know he used to back them in those days, but I thought he would have moved on a bit since then.

[Mr Kenneth Clarke (Rushcliffe) (Con)]

Does my right hon. Friend agree that, when one looks for concrete practical steps that might be taken to achieve the wholly desirable goal of increased growth in the global economy, a very great deal depends on the successful achievement of a comprehensive trade deal between the European Union and the United States? As this is one of the few areas on which the Republicans in the United States agree with the Obama Administration, did he press other European leaders to go for rapid progress on agreement at this stage in the short window of opportunity between the mid-term elections being over and the next presidential campaign beginning?

[The Prime Minister]

My right hon. and learned Friend is absolutely right. The change in Congress, if anything, makes the chances of a successful trade deal more likely and so we should push as hard as we possibly can. The point I made to other European leaders is that we need to work hard to quash some of the wholly false arguments that are being put about by opponents of the transatlantic trade and investment partnership. It does not in any way have to affect our national health service, for instance, and nor does it mean that we will be lowering food or health and safety standards. Indeed, there is an argument to make to non-governmental organisations and others that Europe and America setting some of these global standards is actually good for the world, as well as being a free trade deal that can lift growth and jobs.

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

Will the Prime Minister update the House on specific progress on delivering transparency in extractive industries, which we know cause so much corruption that is damaging to developing countries?

[The Prime Minister]

In this area, on this occasion, the G20 rather under-delivered. We have made progress on the exchange of tax information, which is vital, and on the idea that every country has to have a process of transparency for beneficial ownership so that tax authorities can find out who owns what, but the hon. Lady is right that the third leg is further progress on the extractive industries and the extractive industries transparency initiative. We made limited progress, but it was not a strong feature of what we agreed at the weekend.

[Mr John Redwood (Wokingham) (Con)]

Given that the United States has been the fastest-growing advanced economy since 2009, based on the exploitation of cheap energy, was there any discussion about what we and others need to do to compete with America industrially? We will need to invest in a lot of cheap energy to keep up.

[The Prime Minister]

There was a discussion about energy, and it is notable now that America starts these interventions by explaining that it is the world’s largest producer of oil and gas. My right hon. Friend makes an important point though: we should not be left out in the shale gas revolution. It has helped American competitiveness and energy prices, and I want to ensure that we do everything in the UK to take advantage of it too.

[Keith Vaz (Leicester East) (Lab)]

The summit marked the first face-to-face meeting between the Prime Minister and Indian Prime Minister, Narendra Modi. The right hon. Gentleman has said previously that trade between our two countries has barely scratched the surface of what is possible. Did he discuss specific measures for increasing trade, and did he persuade Mr Modi to visit the UK?

[The Prime Minister]

I had a very good meeting with Prime Minister Modi, who got the conference off to a good start by agreeing to lift India’s block to the Bali trade facilitation agreement, which is vital to helping drive global growth. On the British-India relationship, Britain is, I think, the second-largest inward investor in India, but the right hon. Gentleman is right that more could be done on trade. We discussed the need for the EU-India free-trade agreement to get going again and for structural reform in India to help open up her economy and lead to higher growth rates, and I am clear that Prime Minister Modi is a man with a clear vision for doing economically for his country what he succeeded in doing for Gujarat.

[Dr Liam Fox (North Somerset) (Con)]

I congratulate my right hon. Friend on some plain speaking on the European economic outlook, but does he accept that the poor performance of the eurozone is not the problem, but merely the symptom, and that the problem is the euro itself—still intellectually flawed and politically dangerous? Does he accept that until eurozone leaders are willing to de-risk the entire project, not only will it pose a threat to global economic stability, but millions of young Europeans will find their economic prospects sacrificed on the altar of a political project?

[The Prime Minister]

My views on the euro are well known: I do not think that Britain should join it. However, there are three steps that all countries should be taking, whether or not they are in the euro. First, they should be putting in place plans to deal with fiscal deficits and put them on a proper, long-term footing; secondly, they should be pursuing structural reforms, as we have done in this country, to make it easier to start and grow businesses—European countries could do more in that regard—and thirdly, and crucially, Britain and America have shown that an active monetary policy, delivered by an independent central bank, can make a real difference. Given the signs of rather staggered growth in Europe, I think the European Central Bank needs to take that action as well.

[Angus Robertson (Moray) (SNP)]

This is my first opportunity to congratulate Nicola Sturgeon on becoming leader of the Scottish National party and Scotland’s next First Minister and my hon. Friend the Member for Dundee East (Stewart Hosie) on becoming the deputy leader of the SNP, which is a political party now with more members in Scotland than all the other parties in the House combined.

A majority of G20 members, including the United States of America, have now committed to attending the international conference on the humanitarian consequences of nuclear weapons which will take place in a few weeks in Vienna. I ask the Prime Minister to confirm: will the UK be attending—yes or no?

[The Prime Minister]

First, I am very happy to congratulate Nicola Sturgeon on her election and appointment. One thing I noticed about the G20 was that almost every country made a point of saying how pleased it was that the UK had stayed together. It was a theme of unity, whether in discussions with the President of Burma or the President of the USA. On the Vienna conference, I will have to consider the hon. Gentleman’s question and get back to him.

[Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)]

Does my right hon. Friend agree with me that one can be a good, loyal, hard-working, tax-paying Conservative and worry over whether the best way to help the poor of the world is to spend £650 million on a climate fund, taken out of an aid budget that increased by 28% last year? Does he agree that those sort of Conservatives need to be reassured?

[The Prime Minister]

We made some very clear promises in our manifesto that we would lift our aid budget to reach the long-term target of 0.7% of gross national income. We made that promise, and I think that breaking our promise to the poorest people in the world would not be the right thing to do. When I think about some of the problems we face here in our country—whether it be the pressure of asylum seekers or the pressure of immigration —I realise that our aid budget is, if not the answer, part of the answer. If we can solve some of the underlying problems of instability in some of these countries—sometimes instability can be caused by the effects of climate change, making it harder for some countries to feed their people—I think we are doing the right thing.

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

The Save Remittance Giving Campaign, which is supported by MPs, 120,000 British people and Olympic gold medallist Mo Farah, called for a reduction in remittance costs. I very much welcome the G20 commitment to reduce it from 10% to 5% because remittance makes a big contribution to development, including economic development. Can the Prime Minister update us on when the money transfer service scheme will be implemented because countries such as Somalia are suffering, as there are no banking systems and no effective ways of getting money in if banks stop facilities as has happened, so we need urgent action?

[The Prime Minister]

The hon. Lady is absolutely right that remittances are a critical source of income for poor people in the poorest countries and they really do help with the reduction of poverty. Action by the G20 has been a success, resulting in the decrease of the G20 average cost from around 10% to 7.5%, but more needs to be done. Of course the problem she highlights, where remittances are particularly difficult for some countries such as Somalia, relates to the issues I dealt with in the previous question about the need to build capacity in these countries, including through honest banks and honest Governments, so that people can get the remittances they deserve.

[Sir Hugh Robertson (Faversham and Mid Kent) (Con)]

The Prime Minister is to be congratulated on the robust line he took with President Putin. Is he able to tell us whether there were any discussions with other G20 leaders on stemming the flow of funds to Islamic State, particularly from the Gulf region?

[The Prime Minister]

There were a number of discussions around the G20. I talked to President Obama about this issue and at some length with Prime Minister Abbott. I think there is a real commitment to recognise that we are in a fight that affects so many countries. Young people travelling from so many of our countries have been radicalised into fighting in this way, and we must do everything we can to cut off the sources of finance. That means action at the UN, which we will continue to take, but if we consider further action is necessary, we should take it.

[Derek Twigg (Halton) (Lab)]

In order to compete better globally, we need to do something about our productivity problems—a subject to which my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition referred earlier. How does having so many people on low pay and in insecure jobs with falling living standards address that productivity problem?

[The Prime Minister]

We first need to recognise that this year has seen the largest fall in unemployment in Britain since records began, and it is a complete fiction to say that all those jobs are low paid. That is not the case. A lot of those jobs are in more skilled professions where the pay levels are higher. On productivity, it is of course an important challenge for the UK, but I would say that one hopeful sign is that the increase in business investment—a key component of GDP—has rapidly increased this year and it can lead to an increase in productivity.

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

Would it not send a very bad signal to President Putin when he is eyeing up the Baltic states if Britain fell below the NATO recommended minimum of 2% of GDP going on defence? Will the Prime Minister give an undertaking not to do that as long as he is in office?

[The Prime Minister]

We have set out our plans for this Parliament, and we will have to set out our plans for the years ahead at the next election. As I said, we have maintained a £33 billion defence budget—one of the top five in the world. The most important message for the Baltic states is that they are full members of NATO. I think they are very grateful for that when they see the destabilisation that is taking place in other parts of the world. We need to guarantee to them that being full members of NATO means just that.

[John Woodcock (Barrow and Furness) (Lab/Co-op)]

Does the need for these measures signal that the United Kingdom’s budget deficit will take even longer to clear?

[The Prime Minister]

We have set out our plans in Budget and autumn statements, we have cut the budget deficit by a third, and we will be setting out the figures later in the month in the normal way.

[Martin Horwood (Cheltenham) (LD)]

The Inter-governmental Panel on Climate Change has warned of the terrifying prospect of global warming nearly 5° above pre-industrial levels, which would spell not just catastrophic but irreversible climate change. Will the Prime Minister play his part in ensuring that the third great economic bloc in the world, the European Union, is as committed as the United States and China to sealing a global climate change deal in Paris next year?

[The Prime Minister]

To be fair, I think that the European Union has been the leader in all this. We should note what Britain and other European countries are doing in terms of the commitment to reduce carbon emissions, and the fact that we have legal frameworks in place. There has just been an EU agreement on that. I think that we need other countries to come forward and put on the table measures such as those that we have already taken.

[Alison McGovern (Wirral South) (Lab)]

Immediate action on the Ebola crisis is important. I know that the Prime Minister will join me in thanking the British people for their characteristic generosity, but may I press him on the medium and long-term response to the crisis? People need health services, so will he campaign globally for an international goal of universal health coverage?

[The Prime Minister]

The hon. Lady is absolutely right. As we look for a replacement for the millennium development goals, we should bear it in mind that health provision is key to that. We also need to recognise that the global response to Ebola was too slow. Ebola could have been put on a downward path much earlier if more effective action had been taken more swiftly. While I do not blame the World Health Organisation, I think that we need to look into what immediate resources are available so that we can get stuck into countries where these issues arise, and where there are no health services.

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

Following the Russian invasion of eastern Ukraine, it is important for the international community to carry a big stick and to be resolute, steadfast and very firm with Russia. It may be necessary to increase the sanctions rather than decreasing them. However, no one in the world wishes to see a new cold war. Is there any way in which my right hon. Friend and the international community can speak softly in pointing out to President Putin and, indeed, to the Russian people that the west is no threat to them, and bring Russia back into a more stable community, perhaps a community of nations? That is where we would all like to be.

[The Prime Minister]

My right hon. Friend is absolutely right. We—Britain and the European Union—do not seek a confrontational relationship with Russia. What we have set up with the EU-Russia discussions and the NATO-Russia Council is a way of having proper discussions and proper relationships with Russia. What has changed is Russian behaviour in Ukraine. I think that if Russia could genuinely do what it says that it wants to do—recognise that Ukraine is a single political space and should be respected, and that it does not want a frozen conflict—and if it could make those pledges real, we could have the relationship of which my right hon. Friend speaks.

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

The Prime Minister seemed to be confident that the EU-US trade deal would not adversely affect the national health service, but there are some legitimate concerns. Will he be more precise about what has led him to be so certain that that will not happen?

[The Prime Minister]

What has led me to be so precise about this is the very clear statement by the EU Commissioner concerned that it is absolutely within our gift to leave parts of the public sector without these arrangements. I think that many people are raising concerns about the transatlantic trade and investment partnership which simply do not apply. I think that we, as elected politicians, should take on the arguments and deal with them one by one. Otherwise we shall face the risk of not receiving the benefits of TTIP, which could lead to growth and jobs in all our countries.

[Craig Whittaker (Calder Valley) (Con)]

Given that nearly 20% of my working constituents work in manufacturing, and given our low unemployment rate of 1.8%, I think it is safe to say that Calder Valley is punching well above its weight in terms of helping the UK economy. How worried need we be about the current slowdown in the world economy?

[The Prime Minister]

Our economy is performing well. We have seen growth of 3% this year, a fall in unemployment, the establishment of more businesses, and good business investment figures. However, I think we should be concerned about the situation in the eurozone. According to the most recent statistics, in the third quarter of 2014 Italy’s economy shrank by 0.1%, Germany’s grew by just 0.1%, and the euro area as a whole grew by 0.2%. Those are very soft and worrying figures. We need to see not just the United States growing, but the European Union—which is one of the engines of the world economy—firing up properly.

Let me return to the issue of TTIP. It is notable that the former EU Trade Commissioner Karel De Gucht said this in a BBC interview:

“Public services…there is no problem about exemption. The argument is abused in your country for political reasons but it has no grounds.”

I think it is important that that has been said.

[Ian Lucas (Wrexham) (Lab)]

If our economy is performing so well, why has the Budget deficit increased by over 10% during the course of the last year?

[The Prime Minister]

The Budget deficit has fallen. It has come down by a third since this Government came to office, and we will see the figures at the autumn statement in the normal way, but we should not forget what we inherited, which was a forecast for a Budget deficit at 11% of GDP. That was the highest of any country anywhere in the world. We will not forget that inheritance, and it is one we are dealing with.

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

Is not the danger with the policy of talking loudly but carrying a small stick that it eventually gets found out by the bullies in the playground?

[The Prime Minister]

I have great respect for my hon. Friend, but I just do not understand how it can be argued that a top five defence budget with £33 billion spent is not a big stick. The fact is we have some of the most capable armed forces anywhere in the world, and because of the difficult decisions we have taken we are going to see two new aircraft carriers, the new Type 45 destroyers coming out of our shipyards and the new global combat ship—the frigate. We have already got—based in my constituency—a superb fleet of the A400Ms now coming in to join the Voyager aircraft and all the Hercules we have. We have, of course, the joint strike fighters coming to back up our extraordinary Typhoon force. Britain has a full set of capabilities, including a nuclear deterrent, and I think that is absolutely right, and we should not talk down the scale of military commitment that we have; it is a very important part of our country.

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

Given that the Prime Minister announced at the weekend that he wants to put rocket boosters under the TTIP agreement, will he give a clear yes or no answer as to whether, under the agreement, a state or devolved health service could be forced to pay for a private company under the investor state dispute mechanism?

[The Prime Minister]

Again, on this issue of investor state dispute mechanisms, we have these in every single trade deal we have ever signed, and I think I am right in saying we have not lost a single case. Of course it is right that we debate all these issues but, as Members of Parliament we sometimes get a barrage of e-mails, that people have signed up to sometimes without fully understanding every part of what they are being asked to sign. People want to spread some fear about this thing, and I think we all have a role, as Members of Parliament, to try to explain properly why these things are good for our country.

[Sir Edward Garnier (Harborough) (Con)]

As so many other economies are either faltering or declining and thus affecting our potential exports, will my right hon. Friend and the Chancellor of the Exchequer do all they can further to reduce business taxes in this country?

[The Prime Minister]

What we have said is that we want to maintain our ambition to have the lowest rate of business tax of the advanced industrial economies. We have achieved that under this Government through getting corporation tax down to 20% and I think that is a very good calling card for Britain in the world to get people to come and invest here. We have a 20% tax rate, but we do believe that it is important that companies pay their tax, so I think it is both a good advert for Britain, but also in the long term a good way of protecting and raising our revenue.

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

I am sure the Prime Minister agrees that we should judge the success of greater transparency in global taxation by how much it benefits those who need it the most—the poorest countries in the world. He said in his statement that £37 billion of extra tax was being paid by big companies. Can he now tell the House how much of that money has gone to developing countries?

[The Prime Minister]

I do not have those figures for the hon. Lady. They were figures produced by the OECD at the meeting, but she is completely right that if all that happens is that the richest countries of the world agree to exchange tax information with each other, that will help us but it will not help the poorest. That is why we have to get into these countries and help them build their tax authorities and their capacity. That is why we have not just proposals but actions like tax inspectors without borders where we actually put the capacity into other countries. I want them to benefit from the good work that is being done.

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

Against the background of an uneven and fragile global economic recovery, may I congratulate the Prime Minister on a successful G20? I was particularly pleased to see that the G20 leaders supported the World Bank Group’s infrastructure facility. Will he tell us what role the UK will play following the launch of the G20’s global infrastructure initiative and hub?

[The Prime Minister]

I think this hub can matter because an enormous number of huge infrastructure projects need to be built, particularly in the developing world. Those projects could have a transformational effect on those countries’ economies as well as helping us with our trade, but they often need pump-priming and guarantees in order to get going because they will not be financed solely by public sector banks or institutions. The hub will bring together the World Bank, the International Monetary Fund and regional investment banks such as the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development to try to get those projects going. British companies and British business will benefit from that, which is why I think this is an important part of global growth.

[Sheila Gilmore (Edinburgh East) (Lab)]

A lot of people will like what the Prime Minister has said about TTIP and the health service, so what is his objection to incorporating an exemption in the treaty and campaigning with the other countries to ensure that that exemption happens?

[The Prime Minister]

As I said, these are all things that can be discussed and looked at. We should not be raising fears that our national health service is somehow going to be invaded when it is not. Let me quote the EU trade commissioner on this:

“Public services are always exempted—there is no problem about exemption. The argument is abused in your country for political reasons but it has no grounds.”

That is what was said on 13 September 2014.

[Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Con)]

President Putin has announced large increases in Russia’s armed forces in the past few weeks. As well as protesting about what has happened in Ukraine, did my right hon. Friend ask the G20 NATO members to stress to President Putin that hostile actions against any alliance member would be considered an act of aggression against all 28 members of the Atlantic alliance and possibly, as such, as an act of war, as per the NATO charter?

[The Prime Minister]

My hon. Friend knows these things well. President Putin is well aware that the NATO alliance has at its heart a clause on collective self-defence. That measure would be triggered if there were an attack on any NATO member. That is at the heart of our alliance, and it is obviously worth a huge amount to the Baltic states in terms of stability and security. This also shows how right we were to include those states in the NATO alliance.

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

Will the Prime Minister confirm that the Government will donate £650 million to the green climate fund?

[The Prime Minister]

We will make funds available in the right way following a pledging conference, but we want to ensure that other countries put down their money. All too often in the past, Britain has put its money in first and wondered why no one else has contributed. I am clear that we want to see other countries stepping up to the plate.

[Mr John Whittingdale (Maldon) (Con)]

Does my right hon. Friend accept not only that we are facing the threat of a further Russian military invasion of Ukraine but that we are in the middle of an information war? Will he consider what more can be done to counter the entirely false depiction of events in Ukraine that is being put out by the Russian media, both inside and outside Russia?

[The Prime Minister]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. A number of leaders in the Baltic states have said how damaging it is that so much of their television consists of Russian-backed news channels pumping out a completely distorted picture of what is happening. It is vital that we play our part in putting forward correct and accurate information, and I have raised this issue with President Obama.

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

The current and former independent reviewers of counter-terrorism legislation are both calling for the relocation powers to be brought back. In the light of the Prime Minister’s announcement to the Australian Parliament, will he also make an announcement to this Parliament on this matter? Will the relocation powers that his Government scrapped be brought back—yes or no?

[The Prime Minister]

The hon. Lady will have to wait for the announcement of the anti-terrorism Bill, which, as I say, will be introduced in this House before the end of the month. But it is notable that the independent reviewer of terrorism legislation, David Anderson, has said:

“There is no need to put the clock back. The majority of the changes introduced by the TPIMs Act have civilised the control order system without making it less effective.”

That is important, and I think we should seek to proceed on the basis of consensus.

[Richard Drax (South Dorset) (Con)]

May I congratulate my right hon. Friend on going to such a rough country without taking four warships with him? In all seriousness, Russia has stepped over a red line and the west is talking about sanctions. How long do we go on talking about sanctions? If they do not work, what does the west then do?

[The Prime Minister]

I do not believe that a military escalation is the answer to this problem. I think the answer to this problem is a robust, firm and united response from the countries of the European Union and from the United States to make it absolutely clear that if Russia persists in this destabilisation, its relationship with Europe, with Britain and with America, in terms of trade and normal contact, will be radically different in the future from what it has been in the past. I simply do not think that the idea that this cannot work or cannot have the effect is right; in the end, Russia needs the European Union and America more than America and the European Union need Russia. We need to make that relationship pay, and I think we can, therefore, get the right result.

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

As the Member responsible for introducing the Debt Relief (Developing Countries) Act 2010, I have a long-standing interest in tackling the vulture funds that prey on historical debts, often those of the poorest countries or countries in severe economic difficulty. Argentina is one of the latest being preyed upon and pursued. Will the Prime Minister set out for the House whether he fully supports the principles in the G20 statement on tackling this issue? Does it show a change in the UK’s position on vulture funds, after his Government voted against the United Nations resolution on sovereign debt restructuring earlier this year?

[The Prime Minister]

The hon. Gentleman raises a very important point, about which there was a long discussion at the G20. Of course I support what is in the communiqué—we fully agreed that. The problem we have is that there is sympathy for countries such as Argentina, which have tried to restructure their debt but then have vulture funds taking them to court in other countries and winning judgments that make it almost impossible for them to proceed and tip them into another technical default. The right position to take is not to override contract law and the way these things are dealt with in courts, because of course our whole system depends on that, but to try to find a workaround so that countries such as Argentina can get back on a proper footing.

[Stephen Phillips (Sleaford and North Hykeham) (Con)]

If Ebola is going to be beaten, it will have to be beaten in west Africa. However, two things that provide a disincentive to medical professionals going and helping are the absence of direct flights and the imposition by some countries of quarantine requirements on asymptomatic patients. What discussions did my right hon. Friend have at the G20 with other countries on the re-establishment of direct flights and on quarantine requirements being based only on scientific fact?

[The Prime Minister]

My hon. and learned Friend makes an important point. On quarantine, we have said that countries should listen very carefully to their chief medical officers and follow medical advice. That is what we are doing here and we advise others to do the same, although, of course, different countries do have slightly different circumstances, because sometimes very long flights are involved. I do not think it is necessary to restore direct flights, for instance, between Britain and these countries. It is necessary for health workers to know that there will be both good facilities in country and medical evacuation available. That is what we have made available to our own health workers, and we are able to offer it to other health workers who take part in the facilities that we are providing.

[Andy Sawford (Corby) (Lab/Co-op)]

Which Prime Minister showed up for the UK in the negotiations at the G20 on climate change—was it the Prime Minister who told the public that he wanted to hug a husky or the Prime Minister who tells his own right-wing Back Benchers that we ought to cut the “green crap”?

[The Prime Minister]

It was the Prime Minister who introduced the world’s first green investment bank, which is now being admired and potentially copied around the world; it was the Prime Minister who supported and helped to put on the table the legislation that made a big difference in this country and that is delivering cuts in carbon emission; and it was the Prime Minister who has restarted the nuclear programme, by going ahead with Hinkley Point C, after 13 years of a Labour Government who talked and talked about nuclear power but never did anything about it.

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

One myth about the trade deal with America is that it is a global stitch-up of big corporations. May I urge the Prime Minister to put his rocket boosters under the huge benefits of this deal for small and medium-sized businesses and for consumers?

[The Prime Minister]

My hon. Friend is right. Indeed, big businesses already have strong networks and lobbies in place to break into other markets, but it is the smaller businesses that we need to consider. When they look at whether they can export, they see all the difficulties and all the bureaucracy involved and sometimes decide against it. The transatlantic trade and investment partnership could make a particular difference to such enterprises.

[Paul Flynn (Newport West) (Lab)]

In implementing the summit’s call, which said that developments in green energy will support economic growth, will the Prime Minister concentrate not so much on nuclear, which is always billions over budget and years late, but on the vast resources that this country has in wind, wave and tide. All are green, clean and eternal.

[The Prime Minister]

I think we should do both. We need a balanced energy policy that draws our energy from many different sources. I am proud of the fact that we have in Britain the largest offshore wind market of any country anywhere in the world. The rate of investment in green technology and green energy has increased under this Government. It is worth while looking at the proposals for Swansea, in which the hon. Gentleman takes an interest. There are opportunities in these green technologies, and if they can be made to pay, we should use them.

[Mr David Nuttall (Bury North) (Con)]

Given Australia’s success in controlling immigration, did the Prime Minister pick up any useful tips?

[The Prime Minister]

I did discuss that issue with Tony Abbott, but Australia faces a rather different situation. Its focus has been on the problems of people potentially seeking asylum coming quite long distances across the Pacific ocean. Interestingly, if we look at immigration more generally, we see that there is quite a high level of immigration into Australia. Where there is real common ground is that both Britain and Australia can hold their heads high and say that we have created successful multi-racial democracies where people can come, make a home and a contribution and rise to the level that their talents allow.

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

Recognising the economic difficulties faced by the euro area as outlined by the Prime Minister, did he take the opportunity to speak to Mrs Merkel and other EU leaders on the matter? In particular, did he raise the possibility of a change of direction as recommended by the International Monetary Fund and other bodies?

[The Prime Minister]

There was a good discussion about what is happening in the eurozone. The European Central Bank is independent and cannot be given political direction in any way, but there is a growing global consensus that an active monetary policy is one part of a successful growth policy in the aftermath of a very severe crash and financial squeeze. The more widely that becomes understood, the easier it will be for the ECB to act.

[Michael Ellis (Northampton North) (Con)]

It has been reported that there is a risk that money given to charities can end up in terrorists’ hands, helping them carry out their threats, some of which have been made clear recently. Will the Prime Minister ensure that the Charity Commission, which is led by the excellent William Shawcross, has the powers and resources that it needs to deal with that problem?

[The Prime Minister]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right to raise that matter. There is a problem with some organisations using their charitable status to support extremism or the extremist narrative. There are two things we need to do here, which we have been looking at through the extremist taskforce: one is to help organisations that might need to take on lawyers or legal advice to throw extremists out of their organisations; and the second is to ensure that the Charity Commission has the resources and the teeth that it needs, including possibly new legal powers, to take action, too.

[Steve McCabe (Birmingham, Selly Oak) (Lab)]

If there is another global downturn, will the Prime Minister’s experience lead him to conclude that a fresh round of spending cuts is the best way forward?

[The Prime Minister]

One part of responding to these very difficult events is to ensure that one has a clear and sound fiscal policy, and that has involved making reductions in public spending. I think we should make it clear to members of the public that after the next election there will be further reductions in spending and that they need to happen as part of a long-term economic plan. We have started to set out the steps we are going to take, and it is important that we do so because the alternative of simply putting up taxes would destroy the recovery that is now gathering pace.

[Mr Robin Walker (Worcester) (Con)]

I commend the Prime Minister’s leadership on international tax transparency and his earlier answer on the extractives industry transparency initiative. Let me draw his attention to the recent inquiry by the Business, Innovation and Skills Committee into the extractive industries, which found that the previous Government’s launch of the EITI but refusal to have Britain sign up to it discouraged many of the developing countries that would have benefited most from signing up. Since he has now reversed that policy and signed the UK up to the EITI, may I recommend that he take up the Select Committee’s recommendation that the UK should become a beacon of best practice and promote it using our soft power around the world?

[The Prime Minister]

I will certainly look at that report. I am convinced that it was the right thing to do. It is no good preaching to others about transparency unless we are prepared to put it in place ourselves, which is why I reversed the policy we inherited. Many countries have discovered mineral wealth but found it to be a curse rather than a blessing, and greater transparency is one of the key ways of ensuring that some of the poorest people can benefit from the resources their countries have.

[Mr William Bain (Glasgow North East) (Lab)]

G20 countries have agreed to set out their post-2020 policies on climate change ahead of next year’s Paris conference on climate change. Does the Prime Minister agree that the UK’s position in leading that conference would be stronger if he adopted a 2030 energy decarbonisation target now?

[The Prime Minister]

I do not think that is necessary. We, along with the rest of the European Union, have adopted robust measures to cut carbon, but I believe that the right policy is to cut carbon at the lowest cost. Signing up to a complete decarbonisation target before we know that measures such as carbon capture and storage will work would be the height of irresponsibility, and politicians who propose this, like the hon. Gentleman, need to be honest with the public. If we cannot answer the question about where the cheap energy will come from, total decarbonisation will put money on people’s bills.

[Stephen Barclay (North East Cambridgeshire) (Con)]

Foreign nationals who are major funders of terrorism are on the UK sanctions list, but the House of Commons Library has confirmed that they are not automatically on the UK travel ban list. Is the Prime Minister aware of any individual on the UK sanctions list having travelled to the UK during this Parliament?

[The Prime Minister]

I am not aware of any, but I shall have to go away and look carefully at the point my hon. Friend makes. He has been making a series of extremely worthwhile interventions on this subject. For instance, we should ensure that we act consistently with partners at the UN to list and put sanctions on individuals, but the point he makes about ensuring that the people we sanction are also on travel bans is very good, and I will look into it and write to him.

[Mark Durkan (Foyle) (SDLP)]

Further to the Prime Minister’s point about the progress on corporate tax avoidance, he can acknowledge that many poor countries are unable to sign up for automatic exchange of information. Will his Government consider offering bilateral pilots to some of those countries, and will they also do a spill-over analysis, as requested by the OECD and carried out by the Irish and Dutch Governments, of the implications of the tax regime here for those poor countries? Would such an analysis consider the controlled foreign companies rules put in place by this Government, which are taking money away from poor Exchequers?

[The Prime Minister]

Where I would seek common cause with the hon. Gentleman is on the idea that poorer countries are often unable to take part in the tax exchange because they do not have the capacity to process the information and use it to raise funds. That is why initiatives such as tax inspectors without borders and putting resources into these countries to help with their tax regimes are important. I do not agree that what we have done to attract foreign companies is irresponsible. We charge our taxes properly, and it is good that some practices that were—let me put it this way—questionable, such as the so-called double Irish scheme, have been taken away. Low tax rates and the proper application of those tax rates are the prize we should be looking for.

[Andrew Jones (Harrogate and Knaresborough) (Con)]

The easiest way for people to travel to or from our country to participate in terrorism is obviously by plane, so will my right hon. Friend explain what penalties airlines would face if they failed to comply with our measures, such as no-fly lists, which play a key role in keeping our country safe?

[The Prime Minister]

My hon. Friend makes a good point. The main penalty that airlines will face if they do not comply with no-fly lists, or with the screening and security measures that we insist on, is not being able to fly to the UK. It is not a series of fines that we are looking at, but a prohibition on their flights unless they meet these tougher criteria.

[David Rutley (Macclesfield) (Con)]

What assessment has my right hon. Friend made of the UK’s readiness to face possible future international economic instability? How does it compare with the situation in 2008?

[The Prime Minister]

The point I would make is that to cope with instability, a country needs a long-term plan to get its deficit under control, and to live within its means. That is absolutely vital, and that is why the work that we have been doing for the last four and a half years, and will continue to do in the future, is so important.

[Henry Smith (Crawley) (Con)]

In the past, I have fortunately been granted an Adjournment debate on G20 membership, in which I questioned the validity of Argentina’s membership of the organisation under the Kirchner regime. Did the Argentine representation at the Brisbane conference make any approaches to other members of the G20, or to the International Monetary Fund or the World Bank, for funding?

[The Prime Minister]

In terms of Argentine representation, Mrs Kirchner, the President, was not there because she is recovering from an operation. Argentina was represented by its Finance Minister. The only real discussion that Argentina proposed at the G20 was on the issue of vulture funds, the fact that decisions in US courts have triggered a technical default in Argentina, and its problems with these funds. That was the issue under discussion.

[Mr Philip Hollobone (Kettering) (Con)]

ISIS is opposed to our way of life and hates everything that Britain stands for. Given that British jihadists are aiding and abetting the Queen’s enemies in Syria and Iraq, and that we have the appalling scenario of a British citizen beheading other British citizens and the citizens of our allies on international television, is it not time that we recognised that this is worse than murder or terrorism, and that British jihadists should be prosecuted for treason?

[The Prime Minister]

I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend: that sight, and the fact that people who were born, brought up, and educated in our country have been radicalised in this way and are murdering other British citizens in the deserts of Syria, makes me sick to the stomach. It is absolutely appalling that this is happening. It is not only the full force of the law that these people should face; they should also recognise that when they take up arms in this way in another country, they become enemies of the state. With our allies, we should do everything that we can to stop them carrying out their barbarity.

[Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con)]

I would like to thank the Prime Minister on behalf of the whole House, I am sure, for coming to update us. He must be a bit tired. I understand that President Putin, on the other hand, decided to leave the summit early on the grounds that he was tired and needed to catch up on his beauty sleep. Others say that he left because the Prime Minister stood up to him, and that, like most bullies, he ran away. Was President Putin looking tired at the summit?

[The Prime Minister]

I am not aware of exactly why President Putin left early, or what the circumstances were. My experience of these international meetings is that it is very important to stay right until the end, in case something gets agreed that you do not agree with.

Avian Influenza

Monday 17th November 2014 Commons Chamber

17:13

[The Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Elizabeth Truss)]

The chief veterinary officer has confirmed a case of avian flu at a duck breeding farm in east Yorkshire. We have taken immediate and robust action to control this outbreak and to prevent any potential spread of infection. My Department, which is responsible for animal and plant health, is working closely with Public Health England. which is responsible for human health, and the Food Standards Agency, which is responsible for food safety.

The Animal and Plant Health Agency laboratory at Weybridge—an internationally recognised avian influenza reference laboratory—has analysed samples from the farm and identified the presence of highly pathogenic H5 avian flu. They have ruled out H5N1, the virus that can cause severe disease in people who are infected through close contact with infected birds. Further tests are being run to identify the exact strain of the disease. Importantly, the chief medical officer and Public Health England have confirmed that the risk to public health is very low.

It is important to note that this disease is highly pathogenic for birds, but the Food Standards Agency has advised that avian flu does not pose a food safety risk. Protecting animal health is one of the top priorities for my Department and we have extensive and rigorous processes to identify and tackle disease outbreaks. As part of this approach I chair a monthly biosecurity meeting and have reinforced the importance of monitoring and planning for likely risk.

We have tried and tested procedures for dealing with such outbreaks and our experts immediately responded when suspicions of disease emerged. I would like to take a moment to update the House on the sequence of events over recent days and the steps we are taking. A possible case of a notifiable disease on the farm was reported by a private vet on the morning of Friday 14 November. A Government vet visited the premises that day and submitted samples to the Weybridge laboratory, and the premises were immediately placed under restriction.

A series of tests was undertaken during the weekend and testing confirmed the presence of notifiable H5 avian flu on Saturday evening. Further tests ruled out H5N1. As the test results were confirmed, the chief veterinary officer, Nigel Gibbens, called an amber emergency meeting to assess the situation, and as a result declared a disease outbreak. At that point the national disease control centre was established and the full operational response was initiated, including informing the public and notifying key industry bodies.

At the same time a 10 km restriction zone was imposed around the farm. This zone bans movements of all unlicensed poultry and products within the area. Bird gatherings such as shows and exhibitions are banned and game birds cannot be released. The 6,000 ducks on the farm where the disease has been identified are to be culled. Investigations are ongoing to discover the origin of the outbreak, including whether it is linked to recent cases found in the Netherlands and Germany. This is detailed work to ensure we have identified all possible sources of the outbreak. It is essential that anyone keeping poultry practises good biosecurity, is vigilant for any signs of disease and seeks prompt advice from their vet.

We are never complacent about such an important issue, and we have a strong track record of controlling and eliminating outbreaks of avian flu in the UK. We are working closely with operational partners, devolved Administration colleagues and the industry to deal effectively with this outbreak. I will keep the House updated on further developments. I commend this statement to the House.

17:18

[Maria Eagle (Garston and Halewood) (Lab)]

I thank the Secretary of State for an advance copy of her statement and, in particular, for the briefing I received from her officials this morning. She is right to bring the matter to the House at the earliest opportunity, and I commend her for doing so.

Avian flu is a serious contagious viral disease in animals with a potential for some strains to infect humans, with all the health implications of that. Fortunately, human infection is rare, and, thankfully, the Government have already confirmed that the strain of avian flu discovered in ducks on Nafferton farm in Yorkshire is not H5N1, which is one of the strains that impacts humans, though it is believed to be an H5 strain.

When is it likely that the Department will be able to confirm definitively what strain we are dealing with? The Secretary of State will know that outbreaks of H5N8 have been confirmed in Germany and Holland during the past two weeks. There may be some connection between these outbreaks, so what steps is she taking to ensure full co-operation between the veterinary authorities dealing with the outbreaks there, particularly if, in due course, it is confirmed that the outbreak she is dealing with is of the same serotype?

I understand that the authorities in the Netherlands have introduced a three-day nationwide ban on the transportation of poultry and eggs, yet, as I understand it from what the Secretary of State said, even in the 10 km restriction zone in place around the affected farm in Yorkshire, the measure she has announced bans movement of unlicensed poultry and products. Is she therefore allowing the movement of licensed poultry and poultry products? Will she give us a bit more information about what is and is not allowed within the zone? How sure is she that any potentially infected poultry has not been, and will not be, moved out of the zone prior to inspections, and that it will not enter the human food chain? What steps has she taken to ensure that there is no human exposure to the virus on Nafferton farm itself, either among farm staff or among the staff being sent to deal with the outbreak?

The Secretary of State does not yet quite know what the source of the outbreak is. Would not this information impact on what measures ought to be taken to contain it, and should she not therefore operate on the precautionary principle until she is clear what the strain is? There is clearly a possibility that the source is wild birds—a Royal Society for the Protection of Birds reserve is nearby. What steps is she taking to initiate sampling of wild bird populations? What is she doing to ensure that landowners and members of the public watch out for signs of the disease in such populations?

The Secretary of State said that the birds on the farm are to be culled, but this has not happened yet. When is it to be done? For how long does she expect the restrictions she has announced to be in place if the outbreak is confined to just one farm? What is she doing to get information out to members of the public who keep a few chickens or ducks within the affected areas?

At this important time for the industry, and for consumers, what is her advice to consumers considering ordering their Christmas birds, whether ducks, geese or turkeys? We have heard that the FSA has been clear about this, but what is the Secretary of State’s advice? Does she expect trade impacts on exports to the European Union and around the world? What steps is her Department taking to help industry to deal with any concerns? We know from recent history that long and complex supply chains have the ability to accelerate the spread of food problems across international borders before being identified and tackled, so what assurance can she give to UK consumers that contaminated poultry and poultry products did not enter the European supply chain before this latest outbreak was identified?

Finally, can the Secretary of State assure us that she has all the necessary resources to prevent the spread of this disease, including the surveillance of wild birds and the testing, monitoring and culling of infected birds, and to enable any necessary communication with the industry and the wider public?

[Elizabeth Truss]

I thank the hon. Lady for her response. I am sure she will agree that very swift action has already been taken from the time of the original notification on Friday. We have already seen the testing taking place and the imposition of the restriction zone within which no movements are allowed.

On the hon. Lady’s specific question, people will be able to do that only if they are issued with a specific licence, and that will follow testing. We have set up a national control centre to deal with this disease. A local operation will be run out of Beverley to make sure that appropriate resources are put in place for surveillance in the local area.

We are taking this extremely seriously. One of my priorities as Secretary of State is to make sure that we are protected from animal and plant disease. One of the things we have done since 2010 is to protect the number of veterinary staff within our organisations to make sure that we have the resources to deal with disease outbreaks such as this. We have a good record, but we cannot be complacent. That is why earlier this year the Government released a new strategy on dealing with biosecurity risks and notifiable diseases.

The hon. Lady asked a number of questions. First, let us be clear that the Food Standards Agency has said that this does not pose a risk to food safety for UK consumers. That is a very important point. The chicken and turkey that people eat continue to be safe. This is a live animal disease. It is very important that we take steps to deal with it as soon as we are able, and that is what we have done. It poses a risk to the bird population, but it is an animal disease, not a human disease. I want to make that point very clearly.

The hon. Lady asked about protection for people working in farms in the area. As regards the risk to human health, we have put in place protections for the people on the farm that has been affected, and other local farms also have those protections in place. However, as I have said, the risk to human health is very low. That view has been supported not just by Public Health England but by the chief medical officer.

We are working with our European counterparts. Our organisation, APHA—the Animal and Plant Health Agency—is closely co-operating with those in the Netherlands and Germany to make sure that we are fully updated on what is happening.

We are at the early stages of examining what strain this is. We have ruled out H5N1 but we are looking closely at what strain it is. That is the work of the chief veterinary officer and we will know more in the coming days. Detailed work needs to be done so we are continuing to do that.

We have seen a good co-ordinated effort from all kinds of organisations, including the industry, the National Farmers Union, the police and the Animal and Plant Health Agency, and we need to keep that up to make sure we stamp out this disease. All the experience of animal disease shows that it is important to take early and swift action and make sure it is stamped out.

[Sir Greg Knight (East Yorkshire) (Con)]

I am sure the whole House is grateful to the Minister for making this statement today. Will she confirm that resources will not be an issue, and that whatever needs to be done will be done to eradicate this outbreak? Does she agree that in due course there should be a review of what has happened so that lessons can be learned? Will she look at the question of compensation for those whose businesses have been adversely affected? For the present, will she confirm that no holidaymaker intending to come to the East Riding need change their plans, and that east Yorkshire remains open for business?

[Elizabeth Truss]

I can assure my right hon. Friend that east Yorkshire is most definitely open for business. The restrictions that we have put in place are specifically on the poultry industry. Compensation will be paid to farmers. We will do that in a robust fashion that is properly audited, learning lessons from previous disease outbreaks. My right hon. Friend is right that it is important that we see the value to the wider £210 billion rural economy. Food and farming are important, which is why we are dealing with this disease outbreak as quickly and as effectively as possible, but we must also see the wider benefits to the rural economy.

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

I thank the Secretary of State for her statement. She referred to work with operational partners and devolved Administrations. Will she outline the nature of those discussions with devolved Administrations, particularly the Northern Ireland Executive, so that the local poultry industry in Northern Ireland can be protected and public health safeguarded?

[Elizabeth Truss]

I can assure the hon. Lady that we had a meeting today, which was part of our national disease control meetings, in which the Northern Ireland Executive were involved, as were the relevant authorities from Scotland and Wales. It is very important that we communicate properly with the devolved Administrations, and that is what we are doing, so they are fully involved in all our operations.

[Mr Graham Stuart (Beverley and Holderness) (Con)]

Many of my constituents work in egg production and poultry. Earlier today I was contacted by Elliott Eggs of Bewholme just outside the exclusion zone, which is already struggling to meet the supply demands of its supermarket customers. How will my right hon. Friend strike the balance between effective eradication of the problem and continued production, particularly in this festive season?

[Elizabeth Truss]

As my hon. Friend points out, the poultry and egg industry is a vital part of our food and farming sector, which contributes £100 billion to the economy. My answer to him is that the best way for us to do that is to deal with this as swiftly as possible and make sure that we eradicate the disease. That is why we have taken swift action. As I mentioned, the disease was notified to us on Friday. On that day Government vets visited the farm and an immediate restriction was placed on the farm. As soon as the analysis came back from the tests, the chief veterinary officer placed a restriction on a 10 km zone, so we are taking swift action to deal with the problem as soon as possible. All the previous disease outbreaks have shown that rapid, concerted, robust action needs to be taken.

[Mrs Mary Glindon (North Tyneside) (Lab)]

The Secretary of State has said that the risk to public health is very low, but what discussions has she had with the Secretary of State for Health regarding the avian flu outbreak and this year’s winter flu jab campaign?

[Elizabeth Truss]

The chief veterinary officer and the chief medical officer have been working together very closely since the disease was identified. The chief medical officer and Public Health England have said that, based on the evidence they have received from the tests, there is a very low risk to public health. We will continue to work with those organisations.

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

I congratulate my right hon. Friend on the swift, proportionate and comprehensive action she has taken, but warn again that the resilience and capacity of our animal health precautions must be protected against future depredation by the Treasury. Will my right hon. Friend look again at how she can get the message across to the backyard poultry keepers, who are the most difficult to reach—they do not read the trade newspapers or have veterinary supervision at all times—about the symptoms they should be looking for in their birds so that they can report them?

[Elizabeth Truss]

First, I agree with my hon. Friend about the importance of animal and plant health. That is one of my key priorities as Secretary of State. As I have said, we have protected the number of vets in our organisation, despite the fact that we have had to make savings across the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs since 2010. As soon as we imposed the restriction zone, we put out the message in the media, as well as through many organisations such as the National Farmers Union and veterinary organisations. We want to get the message across to those members of the public who keep poultry that biosecurity measures are very important and that if they have any concerns they should speak to their vet.

[Andy Sawford (Corby) (Lab/Co-op)]

The Corby and east Northamptonshire food industry and farming industry, which is very significant, will be very concerned about the effects of this announcement on their already fragile industries, in the wake of events in recent years. On resources, the best thing to do is to focus tightly on the farm in question, as the Secretary of State has said. On the transportation of the carcases—she indicated that that will happen in 10 days’ time—will real precautions be taken regarding escorts and ensuring that the transportation is safe?

[Elizabeth Truss]

The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. We are taking a very close interest in what is happening in the local area. That is why we have put in place an operating base in Beverley, very close to the local area, so that we can make sure that we deal with any issues there. The hon. Gentleman also makes a good point about the transportation of any culled ducks. We will make sure that they are properly protected so that we can dispose of them safely.

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

Bearing in mind that Yorkshire is one of the largest and most intensive poultry producers, may I commend my right hon. Friend, the veterinary service and, indeed, the responsible producers on the action they have taken? Mindful of the fact that the chief veterinary officer is on record as saying that the British case may be linked to European outbreaks or, alternatively, that it may be found in migratory birds, will the Secretary of State make it a top priority of all the services to find out the source of the infection? Will she also send out a clear message that British poultry is still safe to eat after the bird has been cooked and that, on biosecurity and those trying to cover the story, it is absolutely essential that those trying to contain this very infectious disease are given the right of access?

[Elizabeth Truss]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right to say that poultry is safe to eat. The Food Standards Agency has confirmed that avian flu does not pose a food safety risk for UK consumers. We are very clear about that message. My hon. Friend is also right to say that Yorkshire is a key county for food production. I recently visited Yorkshire to see many of the different aspects of food production there. We will make sure that people get the message about biosecurity so that we can ensure that proper protection is in place. Swift action is the most important aspect.

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

What contingency plans does the Secretary of State have with regard to any threats to jobs in the supply chain?

[Elizabeth Truss]

The most immediate thing that we are focusing on—bear in mind that we were initially notified about the issue on Friday—is trying to nip the disease in the bud to make sure that it has the minimum possible impact. That is why it is important to take very urgent action.

[Mr David Davis (Haltemprice and Howden) (Con)]

From what the Secretary of State says, the responses of the farmer, the vet and the agencies were exemplary in both their swiftness and decisiveness. The suggestion that this outbreak has come from wild bird infection reminds us that east Yorkshire is part of a migratory network, as is much of the rest of the United Kingdom. What will she do to ensure that there is clear surveillance of areas subject to bird migration so that this cannot happen again?

[Elizabeth Truss]

My right hon. Friend is absolutely right. That is one of the possibilities that the chief veterinary officer is exploring. He is meeting the ornithological expert panel to look specifically at the migratory patterns of wild birds, which might be one of the factors. It is still early days, and we do not fully know the cause. His job is to investigate that, and he is working very hard on it.

[Andrew Jones (Harrogate and Knaresborough) (Con)]

Industry support and vigilance will be key to any success in implementing the restrictions, so what discussions is the Secretary of State’s Department having with trade bodies such as the NFU, the British Egg Industry Council or the British Poultry Council?

[Elizabeth Truss]

The Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, my hon. Friend the Member for Camborne and Redruth (George Eustice), who has responsibility for farming, has spoken to the British Poultry Council and the British Egg Industry Council, and I have spoken to the NFU. Those organisations are represented in our national disease control centre to ensure full industry inclusion in what we are doing and to ensure we can get our messages across properly.

[Julian Sturdy (York Outer) (Con)]

We are entering a very important time of the year for the poultry industry. What will the Secretary of State continue to do with her DEFRA colleagues to get out the strong message that although we have to tackle the outbreak head-on, poultry and eggs are still perfectly safe to eat? We still have the best animal welfare in this country, and such strong animal welfare will help us in tackling this disease.

[Elizabeth Truss]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right that this outbreak does not pose a food safety risk for UK consumers. The Food Standards Agency has been absolutely clear about that. We have very high welfare standards in this country, and we have a successful, competitive poultry industry. We are being very open and taking firm and decisive action so that we can stamp the disease out in the early stages.

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

I congratulate the Secretary of State and DEFRA on maintaining the reference laboratory at Weybridge, which meant that she could very rapidly rule out the possibility that the H5N1 strain was responsible. What role will Weybridge continue to play in a worldwide observatory on this important disease? Knowing where each strain is active may help in fighting the disease in future.

[Elizabeth Truss]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right to say that our facilities at Weybridge are world class. We have world-class experts on avian influenza, which is very important in being able to deal with this disease. They are discussing the outbreak with their counterparts in other countries, because there have been outbreaks elsewhere. At this stage, we do not know what the connection is with the outbreak in east Yorkshire. He is absolutely right that that vital facility is an important part of our armoury in dealing with animal disease.

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

The vet who turned up to the farm on Friday was clearly on the ball, and dealt with this outbreak efficiently and quickly. What more can we and the Department do to help the veterinary profession to ensure that everyone who goes out to farms is looking out for the symptoms of this disease?

[Elizabeth Truss]

The chief veterinary officer has been very active in working with the veterinary profession and the British Veterinary Association to make sure that we get such messages across. A lot of information is available on our gov.uk website for people to access. Getting the message across is very important, and vets have a very important role to play.

[Craig Whittaker (Calder Valley) (Con)]

Calder Valley has many smallholdings, as the Secretary of State knows. What advice would she give to smallholders about who would be the first point of contact if they suspect a problem in the coming weeks?

[Elizabeth Truss]

My hon. Friend is right: there are many smallholders, not just in Calder Valley but right across the country, and if people have concerns or suspicions, they should speak to their vet. That is the best course of action.

[Mike Crockart (Edinburgh West) (LD)]

While public health is rightly uppermost in our minds at the moment, this is, as my right hon. Friend has said, a live poultry disease. Live poultry exports are worth a significant proportion of the £3.3 billion that poultry generates for UK GDP. Has she made any further progress in including the concept of compartmentalisation and export health certificates, and negotiated with our export markets to protect this valuable industry?

[Elizabeth Truss]

The most important thing we can do to protect exports is ensure that we deal with the disease as swiftly and robustly as possible. That is what will help protect our export markets, which, as my hon. Friend rightly says, are very important—indeed, we are looking to expand them.

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

May I also congratulate the Secretary of State and her team on taking swift and decisive action in what is potentially a difficult situation? This is the busiest season, and in Chesham and Amersham there are some marvellous Aylesbury duck breeders who also produce excellent turkeys for the Christmas season. Can the Secretary of State assure me that she will put out regular bulletins and information—perhaps even send them to Members who have raised questions in the House—so that we can get those across to our constituents? Will she do absolutely everything to maintain consumer confidence at this critical time for many businesses across the country?

[Elizabeth Truss]

We are working closely with the Department of Health, which is represented in the Chamber this afternoon, as well as with the Food Standards Agency and Public Health England, to get the message across to consumers that there is no food safety risk to British poultry. My right hon. Friend is right to say that this industry is important. That is why it is important to be open about the disease and the way we are dealing with it, and to take swift, effective action.

[Dr Matthew Offord (Hendon) (Con)]

Given the proximity of the wild bird sanctuary to the area of contamination, does the Secretary of State feel that the exclusion zone of six miles is enough?

[Elizabeth Truss]

I thank my hon. Friend for the question about the exclusion zone. Earlier this year our Department set out a biosecurity strategy on notifiable diseases, and the 10 km exclusion zone was deemed to be a reasonable level to deliver the right amount of protection. The chief veterinary officer will be carrying out further work and investigating how the disease emerged, and following that work he will continue to work on our policy.

[Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Con)]

Further to the question from my right hon. Friend the Member for Haltemprice and Howden (Mr Davis), may I ask the Secretary of State whether local birds such as robins, sparrows, thrushes and blackbirds could carry avian flu away from the area?

[Elizabeth Truss]

The chief veterinary officer has been clear that we do not know the precise causes of the disease and where it has emerged from, and we will be undertaking that work over the coming weeks.

[Mr Philip Hollobone (Kettering) (Con)]

I understand from the statement that this case was found on a duck breeding farm. Do we know whether it was a duck or ducks that were affected, as opposed to some other form of poultry? As the Secretary of State addresses the House, is it the case that no recorded cases of avian flu in either a chicken or a turkey have been presented to her?

[Elizabeth Truss]

My understanding and the advice I have received from the chief veterinary officer is that only ducks were affected in this case.

Points of Order

Monday 17th November 2014 Commons Chamber

17:44

[Margot James (Stourbridge) (Con)]

On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Is it in order for a Labour MP to have joked about appalling death threats made against a female MP on Remembrance Sunday? Would it be in order for that colleague to come to the House immediately and apologise to you, Madam Deputy Speaker, and also to the Minister for Employment, my right hon. Friend the Member for Wirral West (Esther McVey)?

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Dawn Primarolo)]

I am sure that the hon. Lady will have notified the hon. Member to whom she is referring. As she knows—difficult as it is to chair the Chamber—the Chair is not responsible for what Members say outside this place or for interpreting the spirit in which any comment may have been made. For that I am grateful, given the point that the hon. Lady has made.

[John McDonnell (Hayes and Harlington) (Lab)]

Further to that point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker—

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

Order. I have not finished, Mr McDonnell.

I was going to suggest that perhaps such matters are better sorted out between Members over a cup of tea, but I understand that we now have another point of order. I hope that your point of order is further to this point of order, Mr McDonnell.

[John McDonnell]

Further to that point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. May I thank the hon. Member for Stourbridge (Margot James) for notifying me that she intended to raise this matter today? I thank her for raising it as it allows me the opportunity to put the matter straight. Various allegations have been made. Let me make it clear: I have never called for any harm to be done to any Member of this House or anyone else. I have reported statements that were made at a public meeting in the Wirral constituency. I did not agree with them, but I reported them.

I have no doubt that the hon. Lady is sincere in this, but she should be aware that what we witnessed last week was a choreographed exercise between the Daily Mail and Conservative central office to take a remark I made on the Sunday and publish it on the Thursday in order to detract from the speech made by the leader of the Labour party. If the hon. Lady is concerned, as I am, about women’s issues, she should join me in voting against the closure of women’s refuges and the charges—[Interruption.]

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

Order. I think that proves my point. Remarks made outside the Chamber should be settled between Members: it is not a matter for this House—

[John McDonnell]

Further to that point of order—

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

Order. I have not finished speaking yet, Mr McDonnell. As far as I am concerned, that closes the matter. The two Members should sort it out themselves: it is not a matter for me.

[John McDonnell]

On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I just want to say that I am happy with the recommendation to have a cup of tea.

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

The hon. Gentleman has made an offer, but whether the hon. Lady wants to take it up must be between them. We must move on because it is not for the Chair to referee between Members outside the Chamber.

Childcare Payments Bill

Monday 17th November 2014 Commons Chamber

Consideration of Bill, as amended in the Public Bill Committee

New Clause 1

Proposals relating to three and four year olds

‘(1) The Chancellor of the Exchequer shall within three months of this Act coming into force lay a report before the House of Commons setting out—

(a) an assessment of the benefits of top-up payments to people responsible for a child or children aged three to four years since the Act came into force; and

(b) an assessment of those benefits in addition to the likely benefits of funding 25 hours per week free childcare for working persons responsible for a child or children aged three and four.”—(Catherine McKinnell.)

Brought up, and read the First time.

17:48

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

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

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Amendment 2 in clause 1, page 2, line 4, at end insert—

‘( ) The amount of the top-up payment is 66.66 per cent. of the amount of the qualifying payment where the qualifying child is a disabled child.”

Amendment 1 in clause 14, page 8, line 42, at end add—

‘(3) A child is a qualifying child for the purposes of the Act until the last day of the week in which falls on the 1 September following the child’s eleventh birthday (or eighteenth birthday in the case of a disabled child).”

[Catherine McKinnell]

New clause 1 stands in my name and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Wirral South (Alison McGovern), whom I wish to congratulate on her new role. It calls on the Government to consider the necessary help that hundreds of thousands of parents of three to four-year-olds need now to cover the ever-rising costs of child care.

Before I elaborate on the new clause further, I wish to reiterate a point that the Opposition have stressed throughout proceedings on the Bill. We welcome any new investment in child care and, in particular, any extra support for hard-pressed parents and families up and down the country who are struggling to juggle work and family life. That is worth remembering because, after all, we are the party which, in government, pioneered investment in early years. The principle that every child matters was at the centre of the Labour Government’s work across all Departments. We are the party that, in government, made no apology for focusing our efforts on, and redirecting any available support to, the children and families who needed our help the most. We are the party that, in government, made it its business to tackle disadvantage and to improve the life chances of every single child from the earliest possible age to give them the best possible start in life.

[Andy Sawford (Corby) (Lab/Co-op)]

I agree with the case my hon. Friend is making. Does she share my concern about the closure across the country of Sure Start centres, which were a key part of that commitment to supporting children and families, including the Raunds Sure Start centre in my constituency, which the Tory county council is now going to close?

[Catherine McKinnell]

My hon. Friend makes a very valuable point and I was just about to come to that. We are the party of Sure Start and the thousands of Sure Start centres that existed in 2010. It is not specifically relevant to this debate, but we could not allow it to pass without mentioning the very deep concern up and down the country about the future of our Sure Start centres.

There are concerns, which were made abundantly clear by a number of witnesses in Committee last month, that the Bill does not go anywhere near far enough to provide the support that thousands of parents and families desperately need right now. They need that support now, not in 12 months’ time, which is why we tabled new clause 1. Based on the Family and Childcare Trust’s annual survey, we know that child care costs have risen five times faster than wages since 2010, at a time when wages have lagged behind prices, leaving people £1,600 a year worse off on average. This support is even more vital when we see how much parents have lost out as a result of the Government’s choices: the decisions to cut tax credits, child benefit and maternity pay, and to close thousands of Sure Start centres.

As we saw and read in the news yesterday, research from the London School of Economics and the Institute for Social and Economic Research at the university of Essex shows clearly how the burden of austerity under this Government has fallen most heavily on those with lower incomes. The research found that the Government’s tax and benefit changes have seen the poorest lose about 3% of their incomes, while the richest half of the country have actually seen their incomes increase by 1% to 2%. That blows away the Government’s claims from the start that we are somehow all in this together. The research highlighted the fact that families with children have fared worst of all, which confirms our worst fears. Single parent families, in particular, have lost far more through cuts to tax credits and other support than they may have gained through any tax changes, proving that the Government have given with one hand but taken away far more with the other—so much for being the most family-friendly country. Families have lost out on up to £1,500 a year due to changes to tax credits alone. Tax credits are a vital part of income for many working parents, especially those on the most modest incomes.

When we look at all the tax and benefit changes since 2010, including the Government’s much-lauded and touted personal allowance increases, we see that families have clearly been hit hardest of all, and that will remain the case right up to the general election. A family with both parents in work will be about £2,073 a year worse off and a family with a single parent in work will be about £1,300 a year worse off. Despite the Conservatives’ claim of creating the most family-friendly country and the Liberal Democrats’ supposed belief that families should get the support they need to thrive, the Government have not been family-friendly and they have not stepped in to provide families with the help they so desperately need to get to grips with the soaring costs of child care. Far from stepping in, they have pulled the rug from under the feet of many families. Any extra help for parents struggling with the cost of child care is clearly to be welcomed. However, not only is the Bill too little too late for hundreds of thousands of families, we are disappointed that the Government have so far refused to consider that additional support could be offered to families right now. That is why we have tabled new clause 1.

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

Does my hon. Friend agree that we can see the Government’s attitude to child care with their closure of more than 400 Sure Start centres?

[Catherine McKinnell]

Up and down the country, there is deep concern about the disappearing Sure Start services. We know that the worst is yet to come when we look at the dire straits in which many local authorities find themselves and the difficult decisions that many are having to make about their Sure Start services. My hon. Friend makes a very good point: that does sum up the Government’s attitude to support for children and families. They simply wash their hands of the issue whenever it is raised in this House.

We tabled new clause 1 because we want to compel the Government to explore the effectiveness of extending the free entitlement for three and four-year-olds when both parents are in work. The first part of new clause 1 seeks to understand what support the current proposals will provide to the parents who need it most. The free entitlement introduced under the Labour Government, which happily has been continued under this Government, makes a real difference to hard-pressed families. The simple truth is that, months after the Bill was first published and introduced, we are still none the wiser about exactly how many parents will be better off as a result of the top-up payments, or, crucially, by how much.

That stands in marked contrast to our plans to extend the free entitlement for three and four-year-olds, which will be worth £40 a week, or £1,500 a year, to about half a million children. We know from the Government’s impact assessment that of those families who will be newly eligible for support under the Bill—those who are self-employed, or those whose employers do not currently offer employer supported child care vouchers—the average benefit will be about £600 a year. Clearly, that is far lower than the £2,000 per child that the Government have been touting ever since they announced the policy for top-up payments in March.

It is worth remembering that some 520,000 families currently benefit from ESC vouchers. The Government’s impact assessment sets out a number of case studies where families might be better off or, indeed, worse off under the new top-up payments. The impact assessment suggests that families can retain their ESC vouchers if they wish, but goes on to list a whole range of caveats relating to whether parents will be able to continue to qualify, whether they would be better off remaining under the current voucher scheme, or whether the new top-up scheme might be better for them.

Clauses 62 and 63 seek to wind down the ESC scheme over the next few years, closing it to new entrants. Presumably, ESC vouchers will eventually vanish completely. If a parent changes jobs or if their employer stops offering vouchers—this could well happen, as voucher providers are set to see the majority of their business disappear—they will have no choice but to switch to top-up payments, leaving many worse off.

We heard evidence from a wide range of witnesses in Committee last month who cited the Resolution Foundation’s work. It is worrying that the Resolution Foundation had to undertake that work because the Government have not done sufficient work to look at the true impact on parents. The Resolution Foundation suggests that 80% of the families who will benefit from top-up payments are in the top 40% of income distribution. The remaining 20% will go to those in the middle of the distribution scale. If the key aims of the Bill are to support parents with the cost of child care and to help more parents back into work by making work an economically viable option, those figures raise questions about whether its aims are achievable through this Government scheme alone. In contrast, many child care experts agree that Labour’s child care plans, as outlined in new clause 1, meet these twin aims.

18:00

In a follow-up to one of our Committee sittings, the Minister made a worrying admission. In a letter to Committee members, she revealed that on her Department’s estimation almost 10% of eligible families—about 170,000 families—did not have access to the internet and therefore, effectively, might not have access to the top-up payments. The Bill requires that parents hold online child care accounts to receive the Government top-up payments. It is proposed that these would be administered by NS&I, with back-office functions provided by Atos. It now transpires, however, that about 170,000 families might be excluded from these top-up payments simply because they do not have access to the internet. That is another reason why the Government should support new clause 1 and our proposals to extend the free entitlement, which would not have any of these implications or complications for parents.

In response, the Government plan to make exceptions for certain people, such as those with a disability or those who live in remote areas and have poor internet connectivity, but the point still stands: if someone does not have a computer or internet-enabled device, either because they cannot afford one or because they choose not to have one, it could essentially exclude them from the top-up payments and child care support. I hope that the Minister will respond to that issue, which I am sure even she would agree is hugely concerning.

Putting aside the question of who will benefit, our other concern—and another reason why we will be pressing new clause 1 to a vote—is whether the Government scheme will be as valuable to parents in a few years as when it is introduced. Our new clause 1 suggests extending free entitlement for three to four-year-olds whose parents are both in work and is a supply-led form of support that experts agree would neither have the same implications for child care prices nor potentially expose parents to artificial inflation—a concern about the Bill that has been expressed repeatedly. We have heard from a wide variety of witnesses that the potential benefits of the scheme could be wiped out by future increases in child care costs, which we know have already risen by 30% in the past four years and will continue to rise and outstrip the value of the support.

The Institute for Public Policy Research and the Resolution Foundation have pointed to Australia and highlighted that demand-led subsidies, such as top-up payments, on their own, with no additional safeguards in place, only lead to even greater child care price inflation and pressure on hard-pressed parents’ budgets. Our new clause calls on the Government to consider a supply-led measure—extending the provision for three to four-year-olds—that is not so susceptible to the risk of price inflation. The Government have so far dismissed the widely expressed and legitimate concerns about the impact of the Bill on future child care prices. I hope the Minister can respond to these concerns, as expressed in new clause 1, as well as new clause 2, which we will come to later.

The third point I want to make concerns perhaps the most striking thing we took away from the evidence sessions last month and our line-by-line scrutiny sessions: the potential nightmare of complexity and confusion that parents might face following the introduction of top-up payments. The Bill proposes an entirely new mechanism for administering support for parents. By contrast, the measures in new clause 1 would simply extend an existing scheme—three to four-year-olds are already entitled to 15 hours of free child care—by providing an additional 10 hours where both parents are in work.

Widespread concerns have been raised that the Bill might add complexity and confusion when parents come to access child care support and have to decide whether to remain within the voucher scheme or switch to the top-up scheme. In particular, it might create additional confusion for parents on lower incomes who might not be in a position to make an active choice between schemes, but instead might have to move between schemes as their incomes fluctuate—as they move between being eligible for tax credits and universal credit support and losing that eligibility as they move into higher-paid work. We discussed those issues at length in Committee, but so far Ministers have failed to address them. For that reason, our new clause 1 seeks an alternative, additional support and cushion for vulnerable parents on the borderline between universal credit and the top-up payment scheme.

We know that there are plans to develop an online “better off” calculator, similar to the tax credit calculator, to aid parents in making these decisions, but if Ministers cannot tell hon. Members who will benefit from which scheme and by how much—depending on their income and circumstances—how do they propose to convey these messages to parents simply and effectively? How will parents be able to make a straightforward decision? So far, Ministers have been unable to answer these questions. Given that child care is vital for so many people who are in work, looking for work or looking to increase their hours, we need to know exactly how much support this scheme will provide for parents struggling with child care.

It is no use promising parents that the Government will provide thousands of pounds of support when in reality they will get much less; it is no good offering support to parents when the scheme comes into operation if in a short time that help will be worth far less; and it is no good dreaming up an entire new mechanism of child care support if it only makes parents’ lives more complicated —or, worse still, is prone to errors and failure. Furthermore, the scheme is untested and potentially costly. The figures have already been significantly revised, raising concerns about whether they have been properly calculated.

For those reasons, we have tabled new clause 1. Given the numerous concerns expressed about the Government’s top-up scheme, we urge Ministers to give proper consideration to an additional, alternative plan—one that we know works and will make a big difference to 500,000 working families with three to four-year-olds: the plan to extend Labour’s free entitlement for three to four-year-olds from 15 hours to 25 hours a week for 38 weeks a year. We know that it would be worth £1,500 per year per child; that the funding would go directly to child care providers and therefore would not leave parents so exposed to inflated child care prices; and that it would be simple and straightforward to administer and implement for both parents and the Government; and we know how it would be funded—through an increase in the bank levy, which has returned so much less than the Government said it would.

The free early education entitlement for three to four-year-olds introduced under Labour has been hugely successful in providing vital support for parents and in helping them back into work. We know from the latest data from the Department for Education this year that some 94% of three-year-olds and 99% of four-year-olds—around 1.3 million children in total—currently benefit from this provision, the vast majority of whom, 1.2 million children, benefit from the full 15 hours a week to which they are entitled.

Kitty Stewart, research associate and associate professor at the Centre for the Analysis of Social Exclusion at the London School of Economics gave evidence to the Bill Committee last month. She commented on the remarkable progress seen with this child care offer over the last decade or so, saying:

“Considerable progress has been made in expanding access to early education and childcare over the last decade. One million new places have been created and the near universal take up of the free entitlement for three and four year olds is a remarkable achievement, ensuring that those families who were least likely to use ECEC services now have access.”

That is why we believe, as set out in new clause 1, that the Government should consider extending this hugely successful and effective offer to three and four-year-olds whose parents both work, in addition to the support provided in the Bill. We believe that doing so would be a far more effective way of achieving the Government’s aim of supporting parents with the cost of child care and helping more parents get back into work—aims that I know we all support.

[Alex Cunningham (Stockton North) (Lab)]

I rise to support new clause 1 and specifically to speak to amendments 1 and 2, which are aimed at getting a fairer deal for parents with disabled children by respectively rethinking how we identify qualifying children to expand the definition beyond that planned by the Government, aligning it with the prescriptions of the Childcare Act 2006, and increasing the amount of top-up payment available to support parents of disabled children.

The provisions in clause 14 relate to “qualifying children” and lay out the criteria that such children must meet to be eligible for the scheme. Clause 14 is therefore fundamental to the entire Bill, so it is of the utmost importance that we get its provisions right. Failure to do so risks undermining the entire scheme.

After this amendment was brought forward in Committee, I understand that the Government’s intention was to frame regulations such that a “qualifying child” is defined as one aged under 12 or, in the case of a disabled child, under 17. I do not need to recap fully on the reasoning I set out in Committee; suffice it to say, as I mentioned at the time, that the stated definition of a disabled child does not fit easily with section 6 of the Childcare Act 2006, which places a duty on local authorities to provide sufficient child care for working parents with disabled children aged up to 18 “as far as practicable”.

The Exchequer Secretary objected to raising the age of eligibility for disabled children to 18 on the grounds that the age limit was set in line with the child care element of universal credit. However, it is important to recognise that the regulations on the child care element of universal credit reflect a maximum age that was set more than a decade ago when the child care element of working tax credit was established. Put simply, markedly less evidence was available on how families use child care, and our understanding has improved greatly since.

The Childcare Act 2006, however, was designed to take into account the evidence of child care needs in families with disabled children, which in many cases remain significant up to 18 and beyond. It therefore makes sense to adopt the maximum age set by the Childcare Act, which set a higher age because it was based on a comprehensive review of the available evidence, rather than revert back to an historical maximum age that no longer reflects our best understanding of families’ child care needs.

Through the tax-free child care scheme, the Government are committing significant new resources to support parents with child care costs. This will come at a cost of more than £800 million each year, and my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle upon Tyne North (Catherine McKinnell) made it very clear that we welcome that. There must be some scope to ensure that a balance exists between supporting all parents and those who face significant additional costs.

The additional costs of raising a disabled child are well documented, and the Minister herself noted in Committee that she was “conscious” of these additional child care costs that families with disabled children might have to meet. I need not go into any great detail, but these can include such things as extra nappies or continence supplies, specially designed shoes, IT adaptations and communication aids, as well as specially adapted toys or equipment. That is on top of the day-to-day premium that is paid already in the shape of higher travel and activity costs, and the like.

18:15

The Minister noted in Committee that the Government already provide additional support to disabled children, pointing to universal credit, which she suggested provides

“more generous support for disabled adults and disabled children than it does for people in similar circumstances who are not disabled.”––[Official Report, Childcare Payments Public Bill Committee, 23 October 2014; c. 192.]

However, it is critical that we are clear about this. This extra support for disabled children that comes as part of universal credit is designed to offset the extra costs that have already been acknowledged, and not to pay for child care. This is the difference. If child care costs could be met within the basic element of tax credits, there would be no need for a further child care element for all parents. That, however, is not the case, and the Government have recognised as much by accepting that the significant extra costs of child care justify an additional child care element.

Time and again, it has been emphasised that parents with disabled children often face markedly higher child care costs. As the Committee heard when taking oral evidence, 38% of parents with disabled children paid between £11 and £20 an hour for child care, while 5% paid more than £20 an hour. This is obviously very high when compared with the national average of £3.50 to £4.50 an hour. The support parents receive should reflect that reality.

This brings me nicely on to the case for amendment 2, which is designed explicitly to address the problem of affordability of child care for all parents with disabled children through the tax-free child care scheme by increasing the amount of support available through top-up payments. As Members are all aware, access to good-quality, affordable child care is important for all parents. Quality provision has positive impacts on children’s learning outcomes as well as wider benefits such as enabling parents to work.

However, the recent independent parliamentary inquiry into child care for disabled children highlighted that parents with disabled children are often excluded from child care owing to a range of barriers, including affordability. It is an uncomfortable reality that childhood disability is a not uncommon trigger for poverty because families incur considerable additional and ongoing expenses as a result. As I mentioned a few moments ago, the costs associated with bringing up a disabled child can be as much as three times higher than those incurred by bringing up a child without a disability.

The principal driver behind these high costs is the additional cost of one-to-one care or extra supervision, while suitable providers might need to meet the cost of physical adaptations and staff training. As I mentioned in Committee, I was pleased to see the Minister acknowledge these additional child care costs that families will need to meet and to hear her commitment to explore the possibility of going further to support these families. She now needs to do that. Even so, I hope that she will agree to examine the amendment in more detail, with a view to doubling the top-up available for disabled children from 20% to 40%.

Restrictively high child care costs are self-defeating in that they act as a barrier to inclusion for both parents and children. Of parents who responded to the inquiry survey, 80% of lone parents and 66% of couple parents who did not work full time said they wanted to find work or work more, while 72% of families with disabled children had cut back or given up work because of child care problems.

Worryingly, the survey also highlighted that parents without access to mainstream child care were struggling to find opportunities for their children to be independent, build confidence and make friends. Many Members will be aware that disabled children are much more dependent on organised activities, which fall within the child care registration system, to stay active, make friends and participate in activities outside of school.

As a direct consequence, parents with disabled children are more dependent on accessing child care provision to support family well-being and manage what is often an extremely tough combination of caring and work. However, with high child care costs and a reduced scope for work, these needs are all too often unmet. Indeed, the 1,200 parents and carers who responded to the independent parliamentary inquiry’s survey made it overwhelmingly clear that existing financial support for disabled children is not addressing the barriers of affordability. Despite the support that is currently available, child care is still beyond the reach of many families with disabled children because the hourly cost means that they quickly reach the weekly cap on support.

In addition to the burden imposed by higher everyday costs, there is the problem that less good-quality child care provision is available to parents of disabled children. Only two in five parent carers believe that child care providers in their areas can cater for their children’s disabilities, while only 35% feel that providers are available at times that conform with their daily commitments. According to the survey, matters are made even worse for parents of disabled children by the limited choice of suitable child care.

Both those issues must be addressed if the barriers to social inclusion are to be removed and parents are to be helped to work. The discrepancies in support for parents of disabled children are abundantly clear. Supporting amendment 1, and taking steps to align the maximum age of eligibility for the tax-free child care scheme and the child care element of universal credit with the Childcare Act 2006, would ensure that older disabled children benefited from financial support, and would help to remedy the poor provision for that age group. Failing to adopt the amendment would effectively mean that disabled children as young as 16 lost out. We all know that it would greatly improve the well-being of young people and benefit their families if support continued until after their 18th birthdays.

[Maria Miller (Basingstoke) (Con)]

I understand what the hon. Gentleman is saying, because it accords with my experience in my constituency, but does he not think that local authorities have an obligation to ensure that there is sufficient care for disabled children? KIDS nursery in my constituency is a specialist nursery for disabled children. Should not local authorities be thinking about providing such services as well?

[Alex Cunningham]

I have been fighting the ending of specialist nursing provision at my local hospital, because it meets the specific needs of parents of disabled children. There has been a considerable reduction in the amount of money that enables local authorities to meet the demand for essential services—if they were given more means, they might well be able to expand provision—but I agree with the right hon. Lady that someone should take responsibility, and I think that my amendment goes some way towards ensuring that that happens.

In Committee, the Minister said:

“It is right that we make the new scheme consistent with the current framework.”––[Official Report, Child care Payments Public Bill Committee, 23 October 2014; c. 192.]

I urge her to reconsider her decision not to increase support for parents of disabled children. She can help today by increasing the maximum age at which disabled children become eligible for the tax-free child care scheme—and, in future, for the child care element of universal credit —to 18, to align the scheme with the prescriptions of the Childcare Act sufficiency duty, and to give the families of disabled children the support that they need and deserve.

At the same time, the Government should aim to establish a framework that would include all children with disabilities in child care in order to fulfil the basic principles of equality and inclusion. Equitable access to affordable, flexible, high-quality child care would be hugely valuable to children’s social and educational development, not to mention parents’ well-being and long-term economic prospects. In its present form, however, the tax-free child care scheme will not effectively remove the additional affordability barriers from parents with disabled children. To address that inequality, the Government should provide the additional top-up payments for disabled children through the tax-free child care scheme that amendment 2 would provide. I hope that the Minister will consider that proposal.

[The Exchequer Secretary to the Treasury (Priti Patel)]

It gives me great pleasure to speak in the debate. Let me begin by thanking everyone who contributed to the Committee stage, engaging in constructive dialogue, submitting the Bill to line-by-line scrutiny, sharing their views and giving evidence. I think that all Members found the evidence sessions extremely helpful. Opposition Members tabled a number of well-considered probing amendments that were designed to seek clarification throughout—

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Dawn Primarolo)]

Order. This is not an opportunity to review all the work that was done in Committee. The debate is very narrow. The Minister should be responding to the debate on new clause 1 and the amendments. I do not want her to come to that gradually; it is the only thing that she should be doing. I have given her a little bit of latitude, but perhaps she will now return to new clause 1.

[Priti Patel]

I will do so very promptly, Madam Deputy Speaker.

New clause 1 would require the Government to publish, within three months of Royal Assent, an assessment of the benefits of this scheme to parents of three and four-year-old children, together with an assessment of the benefits in addition to the likely benefits of funding 25 hours of free child care per week for such parents.

The Government fully understand the importance of high-quality early education for that age group, which is why they fund 15 hours a week of early education for every three or four-year-old. We have extended that entitlement to the least advantaged 40% of two-year-olds, thus saving their families about £2,440 a year. By the end of this financial year, funding for early education places alone will have risen by over £1 billion during the current Parliament. We have committed ourselves to that substantial investment in early education because there is overwhelming evidence, here and elsewhere in the world, that high-quality early education has long-lasting benefits for children. We have seen big year-on-year improvements in the development of five-year-old children who have benefited from early learning, although we recognise that many factors influence school readiness and later attainment. We have commissioned academically robust and detailed research in order to understand more about the way in which high-quality early education affects children’s attainment and social and behavioural development.

However, it is important to recognise—as the Bill does—that the cost of child care is an issue not just for under-fives, but for school-age children. For many working families, the high costs of child care make it one of the largest parts of the household budget. The Government believe that there is a powerful case for improving access to child care throughout childhood, and to ensure that parents are helped to work if they choose to do so. The new scheme for children up to the age of 12 will build on the £5 billion per year that the Government already spend on early education and child care. It will help many more parents to meet their costs, including self-employed parents who cannot gain access to support under the existing employer-supported child-care scheme.

We recognise that every family is different, and will have different child-care needs and cost. We recognise that no one size fits all. The scheme is therefore designed to provide flexible support for working families, and to cater for different family circumstances. For example, it will allow parents to build up money in their child-care accounts to cover increased costs at holiday times.

As I have already said many times during our debates on the Bill, the Government have made a clear commitment to reviewing the impact of the scheme two years after its full implementation. That was made clear in the impact assessment that was published alongside the Bill. The review will consider the impact on all age groups within the scope of the scheme—which will, of course, include three and four-year olds—but it will not consider the effects of free early education, which is already the subject of extensive evaluation.

The Government take the evaluation of early education very seriously. We have commissioned a significant longitudinal study of early education and development, which will evaluate the effectiveness of the current early-education model in England and, more specifically, the impact of funded early-years education on two-year-olds from lower-income families. It will also update evidence from the effective pre-school and primary education project. It will continue until 2020.

The hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne North (Catherine McKinnell) made a number of points. For instance, she mentioned children’s centres. Let me reiterate that the Government want to see a strong network of children’s centres throughout the country, offering families access to a wide range of local and flexible services, tackling disadvantage, and preparing children for later life. Again, we covered in Committee many of the points about what goes on in centres and support in children’s centres.

The hon. Lady also specifically mentioned supply-side provision of child care, which we touched on in Committee, too. There are 100,000 more child care places than there were in 2009 and a lot of work is being done on the supply-side provision of child care, which is the point of this Bill.

18:30

On the quality side, we are providing £50 million in extra funding in 2015-16 to nurseries, schools and other providers of Government-funded early education, to support disadvantaged three and four-year-olds. This is also about improving quality as well as quantity, and improving qualifications for the early-years work force and introducing early-years educator qualifications are vital. We have discussed that, too.

The hon. Lady made a point about the overall support for child care and those on lower incomes. The overall system of child care support remains focused on those on lower incomes. The Government are already spending over £1 billion a year on child care support through tax credits and will extend this support in universal credit. Under UC, this Government are investing an additional £400 million so that families can claim up to 85% off the costs of child care from 2016, and £200 million is also being put in so that child care support will be available regardless of the number of hours worked.

The hon. Lady mentioned the impact assessment and the average increase in tax-free child care being £600. On average this increase in support is £600, but the average award will be higher because that is an average figure.

The hon. Lady also mentioned access to the internet for families—for 200,000 families—and I would like to bring some clarity on this point. The newspaper stories that appeared yesterday were inaccurate because what was reported is simply not fully the case; they distort the situation. As outlined in the letter circulated to Members of Parliament, there will be “assisted approaches” for families who cannot access the internet, which will make sure that no parent misses out. We do recognise that some parents will have difficulty accessing or using the internet, and in such cases Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs will support them to register and use their child care account online, providing opportunities for learning and, where appropriate, encouraging parents to use online services independently in future. I touched on this in Committee: the HMRC support is very specific and the support will be there. I want to make that clear so no Members leave the House tonight thinking there is no support for those families. Where parents are simply not able to access the internet, there will be facilities for them to access the scheme by telephone. That point was also made previously.

We also touched extensively in Committee on the point about the system being too complex. I want to assure all Members that this scheme is designed with parents in mind. It is intended to be streamlined in its application, and very straightforward, simple, flexible and convenient for parents. As I said in Committee, we are working with parents and many stakeholder groups—including many who gave evidence in Committee, and those we have been working with on the design of this scheme—to ensure that their suggestions, advice, counsel and guidance are taken on board.

This is not meant to be a complex scheme. It is meant to be as user-friendly for parents as possible, which is why we are listening and consulting, because it is all about the design and making sure that those who need to access the scheme can do so.

[Maria Miller]

The Minister will have provided a great deal of clarity today for parents who might have been concerned about some of the reports they had read in the papers. I thank her on behalf of my constituents for what she has said.

The Minister mentioned the communication she is having with stakeholder groups. Is she also communicating with employers to make sure they are aware of the way the new system will work, especially those who may want to make their own contributions to their staff’s child care costs?

[Priti Patel]

I thank my right hon. Friend for her intervention and comments. She is absolutely right; as she will know from discussions in Committee, this scheme has been designed to be parent-focused—parent-friendly is, I think, the term to use—and to work with employers, because this is about engaging both parties to communicate, educate and inform. Employers have an important role to play—we must not forget that—so working with employers on the scheme design is key.

The introduction of this new scheme sits alongside strong early-education entitlement for pre-schoolers to support families and hard-pressed families with their child care costs and support parents to work more if they want to do so.

As I said in Committee and we have touched on again today, we have already committed to reviewing the impact of this new scheme after two years, and it is hard to see what purpose would be served by a review only three months after Royal Assent, given the Government’s clear commitment to reviewing the scheme.

I shall now move on to the points made about amendments 2 and 1 and the comments of the hon. Member for Stockton North (Alex Cunningham). I welcome his comments and I followed his remarks with interest, and we discussed these matters in Committee. We fully accept that child care costs are higher for parents with disabled children; there is no disagreement here at all. The families and parents of disabled children struggle with the challenges of raising and looking after their children. We had a very fluid debate about this in Committee.

The effect of amendment 2 is straightforward. It would increase the level at which the Government top-up payments are paid to parents of disabled children from 20% to 40%. This would mean in practice that for every £10 spent on child care, the Government would contribute £4 and the parent the remaining £6. This contrasts with the position set out in the Bill, which is that the Government would contribute £2 of every £10 spent on child care.

I am very well aware of the keen interest the hon. Gentleman takes in families with disabled children. He spoke with great eloquence in Committee and I thank him for his contribution on this point. As he rightly pointed out, families with disabled children face significant costs, and that fact ought to be reflected in the scheme. A number of witnesses who gave evidence to the Committee made similar points. I have already put on the record that I fully understand the arguments the hon. Gentleman and others have made and it is absolutely right that parents of disabled children are properly supported, which brings me to why I will ask him not to press his amendments.

[Alex Cunningham]

I thank the Minister for her kind comments, but the multiplication that I want to achieve for disabled children does not even reflect the multiplication factor in their child care costs. Child care can cost £20 an hour, but all I am asking is that the Government double the amount of support they give. I am not asking them to increase it by four or five times.

[Priti Patel]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his comment. I outlined measures relating to disabled children in Committee. We recognise the high costs faced by parents of disabled children, and the specialist care that their children need, but increasing the amount of top-up is obviously not appropriate, for the reasons that I have already outlined. I have made a commitment on disabled children, and I am exploring the possibility of increasing the maximum amount that a parent of a disabled child can pay into their child care account. For those reasons, I ask the Opposition to withdraw their new clause.

[Catherine McKinnell]

I thank the Minister for her thorough reply to the concerns that I expressed earlier. She has gone some way towards alleviating them, but some concerns remain. We shall have to give the Government the benefit of the doubt on the delivery of her reassurances, but that does not take away from the fact that dealing with the supply-side issues and extending the free entitlement for three and four-year-olds would constitute a much better offer to parents. The Government could do that now to provide support for parents who are struggling with child care costs and with the cost of living more generally. We will therefore press new clause 1 to a vote.

Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.

18:41

Division 80

Ayes: 206

---

Labour: 197
Scottish National Party: 5
Social Democratic & Labour Party: 2
Plaid Cymru: 2
Independent: 1

Noes: 274

---

Conservative: 234
Liberal Democrat: 38

New Clause 2

Review of impact on childcare costs

‘(1) The Chancellor of the Exchequer shall, three months after this Act is passed, and every three years thereafter, review the impact of the measures in this Act on the cost of childcare with particular reference to—

(a) the effectiveness of this Act on making childcare more affordable;

(b) the average cost of childcare for parents in work, including the impact of other changes to the tax and benefits system and with reference to the trends in childcare costs since 2010; and

(c) the impact of supply-led measures on the cost of childcare.’—(Alison McGovern.)

Brought up, and read the First time.

[Alison McGovern (Wirral South) (Lab)]

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

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Mrs Eleanor Laing)]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Amendment 12, in clause 11, page 7, line 8, after “may —”, insert—

“(a) repeal this section, or”.

Amendment 13, in clause 15, page 9, line 10, after “may —”, insert—

“(a) amend this Act to allow childcare accounts to be held by persons other than those specified in subsection (1),”.

Amendment 3, in clause 30, page 17, line 3, leave out

“an award of tax credit is or has been made”

and insert

“an award of tax credit which includes the childcare element is or has been made”.

Amendment 4, page 17, line 18, after “credit”, insert

“which includes the childcare element”.

Amendment 5, page 17, line 22, after “credit”, insert

“which includes the childcare element”.

Amendment 6, page 17, line 31, after “credit”, insert

“which includes the childcare element”.

Amendment 7, in clause 32, page 19, line 16, after “credit”, insert

“which includes the childcare element”.

Amendment 8, in clause 35, page 21, line 21, after “credit”, insert

“which includes the childcare element”.

Amendment 9, page 21, line 32, after “credit”, insert

“which includes the childcare element”.

Amendment 10, in clause 36, page 22, line 12, after “credit”, insert

“which includes the childcare element”.

Amendment 11, page 22, line 24, after “credit”, insert

“which includes the childcare element”.

[Alison McGovern]

It is a pleasure to speak in support of new clause 2, which stands in my name and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle upon Tyne North (Catherine McKinnell). Before I continue, may I pause briefly to pay tribute to the outstanding work that my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester Central (Lucy Powell) did as my predecessor in this shadow position, and in particular to her scrutiny of the Bill in Committee?

In and of itself, this is not a bad Bill. We agree with its aims; it sets out to address serious issues relating to child care costs and affordability, which we recognise form a major part of the crisis hitting so many families in Britain today. Our concerns with the Bill are that, for all its good intentions in proposing this scheme for payments towards child care costs, Treasury Ministers have not thought through all the potential consequences.

Some of the Bill’s weaknesses may arise from the fact that, as far as the Government are concerned, this is purely a Treasury Bill; it has perhaps lacked some valuable input from those with a stronger experience of how the child care market actually operates—or, in far too many cases, fails to operate—in this country.

In oral evidence to the Committee, numerous organisations and experts raised concerns about the long-term effects of the Bill, and we have seen little movement from the Government to address those worries. The new clause seeks to go some way to rectifying that, by requiring the Chancellor to keep under review the impact the scheme has on issues of child care cost inflation and, thus, affordability.

Let me say a few words about the situation in which we find ourselves. There is, undeniably, a crisis in child care costs. There is no need to take my word for that or to rely on the testimony we hear on the doorsteps in our constituencies. The Office for National Statistics tells us that between 2010 and 2014 the cost of placing a two-year-old or older in nursery rose by 31%—wages rose by just under 4% in that period—and for under-twos the figure rose by 27%. [Interruption.] If the hon. Member for Taunton Deane (Mr Browne), who is sitting on the Liberal Democrat Front Bench, wants to intervene, he is welcome to. [Interruption.] I shall take that to mean he does not.

The figures also reveal that, as we have seen so often during the past four years, the areas seeing the least benefit from this weak and uneven recovery have been hit the hardest by child care cost increases. In my region of the north-west, costs are up by 46% in just four years. Over the Pennines, in the north-east, the figure is 47%. A family in my constituency is having to find, on average, £31 a week more to fund 25 hours of nursery for their two-year-old, three-year-old or four-year-old. That is a hefty sum in almost anyone’s money. When that is tied in with frozen wages, reduced tax credits, increased VAT and soaring housing costs, it all becomes a pretty desperate recipe—I hear testimony on that from my constituents week in, week out.

We know that not only are there regional biases to costs, but families with disabled children are being hit disproportionately hard as well. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Stockton North (Alex Cunningham), who was a doughty champion for the parents of disabled children in Committee and who has tabled amendments 1 to 13 today. The cross-party parliamentary inquiry on child care for disabled children, of which my hon. Friend was a member and which was chaired by my hon. Friend the Member for North West Durham (Pat Glass) and the hon. and learned Member for South Swindon (Mr Buckland), produced some valuable findings on that point.

19:00

Some 86% of parents with disabled children report paying above the average price for child care; in many cases, they are paying up to £20 a week more. Those parents will be hit even harder by the rapid rate of child care cost inflation. For too many families, child care costs are now their No.1 outgoing. If two parents work part time on average wages, it will be Thursday of each week before they have paid their child care bills and can move on to paying for everything else. That is a crisis indeed.

Put simply, the Government have not got to grips with child care costs, partly because they have failed so miserably to resolve the issues of availability of care, to which I will turn in just a moment. That failure has guaranteed that child care is one of the driving forces behind the feeling of so many families that they are not getting the benefits of economic recovery. If there is growth, too many people are just not feeling its benefits. Many parents find that going back to work, or going back to work for their preferred number of hours, is simply not financially viable. The policy reduces employment—it is why Britain has one of the lowest maternal employment rates in the OECD—and contributes to the gender pay gap. However, this is by no means a women-only issue; dads are hit by unaffordable child care too. By hitting family budgets and cutting the ability to earn, high child care costs contribute far too often to child poverty.

After more than a million children were lifted out of poverty under the previous Labour Government, progress has now ground to a halt. The Social Mobility and Child Poverty Commission says that if the Government continue on the current track, they are doomed to miss the 2020 target to eradicate child poverty. We will not meet that noble aim, established by the previous Government, without a serious policy on affordable child care.

Any steps to increase the support available to families are welcome. Labour’s Front-Bench team have made it clear at every stage that we do not oppose the Bill and that we support its aims. In some respects, it builds on the scheme introduced by my right hon. Friend the Member for Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath (Mr Brown) in 2004, which allowed for £50 of tax-free child care each week. The tax system is a valuable mechanism in securing more affordable child care, but there are limitations to its effectiveness.

As my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle upon Tyne North has already said in relation to new clause 1, there are real risks from adopting a demand-side-only approach to this issue. There is little in the Bill that seeks to address the underlying inflation of child care costs. Indeed, there is serious concern in many quarters that it could simply end up exacerbating those pressures. The Committee heard evidence from Australia that, following the introduction of a 30% child care rebate, the following decade saw child care costs rise by 100%, compared with an inflation rate of just 27%. There are similar such examples in the Netherlands.

We should be frank that the introduction of the UK tax credit system, immensely valuable as it was, was followed by a period when child care cost inflation was higher. We want the Government to learn properly from that experience. The simple fact is that many child care providers are close to breaking point. Their operating costs have risen significantly. Some held down price increases during the worst years of the downturn so as to retain customers and are now under even more strain. Some have gone under. This is not a market with lots of spare cash floating around, either from provider or consumer.

In the Bill, the Government propose to put a significant sum into the market, and that will be a welcome boost. However, it is only logical and understandable that businesses that face rising costs, and which may have attempted to restrain price increases in the worst years, should see the moment when consumer spending power increases overnight as an appropriate time to increase their fees. The National Day Nurseries Association told the Committee that its members needed to “play catch-up” with regard to prices. In written evidence, the Family and Childcare Trust said that

“there is little incentive for these providers not to increase prices to take advantage of the extra subsidy.”

The Institute for Public Policy Research has gone so far as to estimate that the inflationary pressures unleashed by the extra cash could negate the positive impact of the subsidy to families within a matter of just a few years. That is a crucial point of which the Government should be aware. If they really want each and every family in our country to see the benefit of growth, they must be aware of the risks that they face. Such an outcome would obviously be bad for parents, who would be paying as much as they do now for the same thing, but it would also mean that the Government had secured appalling value for money for their child care policy. We all have an interest, across the House, in ensuring that that does not happen. It is also why Labour is deeply sceptical about the wisdom of a demand-side-only approach.

[Hywel Williams (Arfon) (PC)]

Does the hon. Lady accept that there are particular stresses on parents in rural areas, as the cost of travel has to be added to the cost of child care itself? The money could be better deployed in such areas in increasing the provision rather than the amount that child care providers get.

[Alison McGovern]

It is important for all of us to recognise the extra pressures on families in rural areas. People’s circumstances are different. We want to increase employment in rural areas as well as in suburban and urban areas. The hon. Gentleman makes an important point.

[Alex Cunningham]

My hon. Friend helps me to talk about the needs of parents with disabled children. When inflation and prices go up, the increase is felt particularly acutely by those families. Does she agree that the Government really need to think again about that particular element?

[Alison McGovern]

Again, I support the views of my hon. Friend. Too often, parents of children with disabilities are forgotten in our debates. They have the most important responsibility. Children with disabilities deserve all our care and attention. I hope that, by raising this matter, we can remind ourselves that their parents might not have the time to make these points, so it is important that we all remember the extra costs and the circumstances that those parents face. We all have an interest in this matter. It is why Labour is sceptical about the wisdom of a demand-side-only approach.

In general, better value for money and better outcomes could be achieved through a radical expansion of the free child care entitlement to three and four-year-olds, from 15 hours a week to 25, paid for by an extension of the bank levy. There is no better week than this to be making the argument about extending the bank levy, as once again we are seeing banks being taken to task for their poor behaviour. I make no apology for reminding Members about the importance of that bank levy, especially as it could pay for something as vital as child care.

As we saw from the debate on new clause 1, the Government are not about to accept the policy—more fool them—but we want to ensure that Ministers are required to keep track of the inflationary impacts. New clause 2 requires that within three months of the Bill’s becoming an Act and every three years subsequently, the Chancellor will have to review the impact of the subsidy on making child care more affordable, on what the average cost of child care for parents in work is and on whether supply-led measures could be more effective. That is not a massively onerous burden on the immense capabilities of the Treasury, but a very valuable canary in the coal mine regarding child care inflation.

In Committee, the Minister was consistently against any suggestion of hourly rate capping or other means of placing a brake on any inflationary pressures arising from the policy. A regular review might demonstrate whether the post hoc implementation of such provisions might in fact be necessary if the subsidy is to be anything more than a damp squib.

The Bill is a blunt instrument that fails to target Government funding and gives the most financial support to the best-off families. It will possibly provide some short-term relief for parents, but does little to deal with the underlying problems of inflation, supply and quality in the child care system. There are 40,000 fewer child care places in England than there were when the Government came to power and almost 4,000 fewer suppliers. Childminder numbers are down by 13%. For tens and likely hundreds of thousands of families across the country, the proposals in the Bill will mean little or nothing because they simply cannot find a child care place or access one that will offer the flexibility in hours to fit around work. We need radical reform of the broken child care market. This Bill does not provide it, but by supporting new clause 2 today Members can at least take a step that will help guard against its being a worse than a useless creator of child care cost inflation.

[Alex Cunningham]

My hon. Friend the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne North (Catherine McKinnell) has already talked about the complexity of the Government’s scheme. Amendments 12, 13 and 3 to 11 are all aimed at simplifying the relationship and interaction between the tax-free child care scheme and other sources of support, particularly tax credits and universal credit.

Members might be aware that I tabled amendments 3 to 11 in Committee with the intention of broadening the provisions of the Bill and allowing those households in receipt of tax credits that do not receive any support for their child care costs in their tax credit award to receive support from the tax-free child care scheme. My hon. Friend the Member for Wirral South (Alison McGovern) has already outlined that the working poor have been hit most by the policies of this Government and I would like that not to apply to child care.

Giving those people help will entail several minor changes being made to the clauses dealing with the special rules affecting tax credits and universal credit claimants: specifically clauses 30, 32, 35 and 36. In Committee, the Minister was very clear about the need to deliver a welfare system that is

“designed to encourage progression into work”.––[Official Report, Childcare Payments Public Bill Committee, 23 October 2014; c. 223.]

However, that is not what will result from the Bill in its current form.

Let us take as an example a parent who is offered 15 hours of work a week on a low rate of pay. Most, if not all, of any gains from this employment could be totally lost in child care costs. They would not get any support from the Government to meet those costs and might therefore not be able to afford to take the work in the first place, and I for one would not be surprised if they chose to spend the time with their children instead. These amendments, however, would create a much greater financial incentive for people to start working part time.

It is important to be clear from the outset that the purpose of the tax-free child care scheme is to provide support for child care costs for those who are not eligible for help from elsewhere. As I mentioned when I raised the matter in Committee, there is an anomaly in the Bill if we are serious about encouraging people to go back into work or to stay in work—particularly those who are on the lowest earned incomes in our society.

The Bill as it stands says that the Minister recognises that there are some who do not get any help through tax credits but that the Government will do nothing to help. I am sure that that is not what she intends. Indeed, in Committee, she specified that the new scheme should not interfere with financial incentives for people to work more hours, let alone create perverse incentives, but that is precisely what the Bill will do.

Many parents who claim tax credits are both working and incurring child care costs, but they are not entitled to claim the child care element because, for instance, they do not meet the minimum number of working hours per week to qualify. Clause 30, however, makes it clear that any tax credit award will be terminated when a valid claim for the tax-free child care scheme is made, regardless of whether the child care element of working tax credit is received. Put into context, that means that households in which one parent is working full-time while the other works 12 hours a week will not be entitled to receive the child care element of tax credits to support them in the payment of child care costs. Similarly, single parents working 15 hours or fewer per week on average will also not be entitled to the child care element of working tax credit. Both would have to pay for their child care out of their own, potentially low, earnings.

19:15

There can be no doubt that that would be all the harder to swallow if such parents knew that their next door neighbour, who worked the additional hour to hit 16 hours a week at minimum wage, would get up to 70% of their child care costs paid through tax credits, or that their neighbour on the other side who earned too much to receive any tax credits would get support of up to £2,000 per child through each of their tax-free child care accounts.

We all know that many part-time workers have very little control over whether they can work more than 16 hours. Shift workers often have to work the hours that are available to them. It can be a big disincentive to work if people cannot guarantee that they will be able to secure 16 hours of work and qualify for the support that would mean that they would be able to cover the costs of child care. These amendments would give working families that security, allowing them to go to work safe in the knowledge that however many hours they work, they will have enough support to pay for their child care.

In Committee, the Minister highlighted the fact that as earnings increase tax credit payments are gradually reduced. That includes any child care element. However, that should not result in any additional complexity, because what matters under the amendment is a parent’s initial entitlement, not whether their final payment has been tapering off. At the same time, the amendment would also conveniently address another matter. As I said in Committee, many parents will be very aware that they do not receive help with child care costs from tax credits. Some are therefore likely to be confused by the message that the tax-free child care scheme is to provide support for child care costs to those who are not eligible for help from other sources that are state funded. Indeed, I for one would not consider it unreasonable or unforeseeable for parents in such circumstances to expect that they can claim tax-free child care in addition to tax credits. However, if they claim tax-free child care, their claim for tax credits will be stopped.

I hope that the Minister will examine very carefully what she could achieve by accepting this group of amendments. She could provide some very limited support to those who need it most and at relatively little cost. Once again, I ask her to consent to paying a 20% top-up on small contributions to child care made by some of our poorest working people who are otherwise at risk of slipping through the safety net.

Amendments 12 and 13 would similarly make provision to close potential holes in the safety net. They would allow the current scheme to go forward as designed, but, if it were deemed desirable following the necessary further consultation, they would create provision for tax-free child care and/or child care accounts to be expanded to households in receipt of universal credit or tax credits without the need for additional primary legislation. In Committee, the Minister argued that families in receipt of universal credit will

“already receive good, generous support for their child care costs”.––[Official Report, Childcare Payments Public Bill Committee, 21 October 2014; c. 176.]

However, she also pointed out that, as we all know, the roll-out of universal credit is ongoing and quite slow. Although I do not doubt that much work is going in to getting it right, that is not a guarantee that the right formula will be achieved straight away.

I was concerned, to say the least, that the Minister was unable to offer a definition of “changing circumstances” as that was deemed still to be a work in progress, and I feel it would be premature to rule out the possibility of extending the tax-free child care scheme and child care accounts without further primary legislation at this point. In essence, clause 11 specifies that neither a person receiving child care support under the tax-free scheme nor their partner can be in receipt of universal credit at the time of making a declaration of eligibility. Clause 15, on the other hand, deals with the rules that apply to child care accounts and sets out details such as who can hold an account and who can provide one. I will come to that in a few moments.

The Committee discussed in some detail the complexity of the interaction between the various sources of support for child care costs, whether through the tax-free child care scheme, tax credits or universal credit. There can be no doubt that there is potential for great confusion among parents. Indeed, I suggest that those interactions have still not been adequately considered. The Minister claimed in Committee that it was the Government’s

“objective and my mission to ensure that the scheme is easy for parents to use”––[Official Report, Childcare Payments Public Bill Committee, 21 October 2014; c. 176.]

I urge her to look again at these amendments.

The extreme complexity of the competing options is likely to lead to confusion for claimants, and to result in them having considerable difficulty making sensible and informed financial decisions. Take, for instance, the tax-free child care scheme in the Bill. The amount payable under the scheme is not means-tested, yet universal credit, tax credits and housing benefit are all means-tested, so the amounts payable will vary with income and circumstances. The upshot is that the system that is financially right for an individual will depend on a number of interconnected factors and will not always be immediately clear. It will, in short, become nigh on impossible for some to calculate.

For those who are on the threshold between different systems, the complexity will be greater still. For many, particularly those with fluctuating incomes such as the self- employed, or those likely to have a change in circumstances later in the year, the complexity will be so great that it is likely to be impossible to provide a better off calculator that can cover many of the situations in which claimants find themselves.

[Hywel Williams]

I very much agree with the thrust of the hon. Gentleman’s argument. His point applies particularly to people in seasonal industries such as agriculture or, as in my constituency, tourism. I am sure that he agrees that there is a particular problem for those sorts of workers.

[Alex Cunningham]

Yes. I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for that intervention. I most certainly do agree with him. Pieceworkers and others can have hours and wages that fluctuate over a long period; they will most certainly be affected. I feel that the

“easy-to-use online tool”––[Official Report, Childcare Payments Public Bill Committee, 23 October 2014; c. 222.]

promised by the Minister in Committee will prove elusive.

On top of the sizeable potential for confusion, the different mechanisms by which child care costs are to be paid under the tax-free child care scheme and universal credit are also worrying. As we are aware, under the tax-free scheme, payments will be made through child care accounts. That will provide families who are in receipt of tax-free child care with an important budgeting tool to help them manage their finances; that is particularly important as payments will be made through child care account top-ups before costs are paid by the parent. However, child care support received through tax credits and universal credit cannot be provided through child care accounts. That means that child care payments are not aligned, which gives rise to the potential for further confusion and complexity for parents, and it means that an important budgeting tool for households in receipt of tax-free child care is not available to those receiving child care support through universal credit.

It is worth highlighting that the Children’s Society report “The Debt Trap” found households in poverty containing dependent children to be twice as likely to be in some form of arrears as families on higher incomes. It is precisely these families who are most likely to need help with budgeting, but who will be given the least support. Moreover, universal credit payments of child care costs will be made in arrears. As Members will be aware, parents are usually required to pay child care providers one month in advance, but families on low incomes claiming universal credit are likely to have the lowest savings, if any at all; this will inevitably result in many being forced to borrow money to pay for their child care up front. We should be under no illusion: that could be a hefty sum, and if child care costs are higher during school holidays, further loans may be required to meet those costs. This runs the obvious risk of forging a cycle of dependence. Reporting requirements for universal credit are significantly greater than those for either tax credits or tax-free child care, and any failure to report in time will lead to the loss of all payments for that assessment period.

[Mark Durkan (Foyle) (SDLP)]

Does the hon. Gentleman not think it strange that in this time of austerity and everything else that we hear about, the Government have come forward, under this Bill, with a child care payment scheme that gives more, including more flexibility, to those who have more? I am thinking of the bankable allowances and so on. Compare that with what the Government are providing, in terms of child care, under the universal credit rules. It really is one scheme for the better-off, and another, much worse scheme for the less well-off.

[Alex Cunningham]

I most certainly do agree with my hon. Friend. It is a peculiar world—I would use the word “bonkers”—when someone earning £100,000 can benefit more from a new Government scheme than somebody on perhaps £20,000. It is important that the Government think again on some of these points.

Let us not forget that families on higher incomes will get their child care accounts topped up by the Government before they have to pay their provider, so the rich get paid up front, while the poor do not get any payment at all. One possible solution that could be explored further is the provision of child care accounts and tax-free child care to families in receipt of child care support through tax credits or universal credit. Allowing these claimants to use child care accounts to receive their payments of child care costs would allow receipt in advance of payment, but without the risk of any overpayments being lost within wider family budgets. However, as things stand, the Bill would not permit that without additional primary legislation. These minor amendments to clauses 11 and 15 would allow the tax-free child care scheme to go forward as designed, while allowing us the time to consult and to assess these issues fully. We would have the flexibility to make changes by regulation, rather than through additional primary legislation.

Universal credit is still in its infancy and is being gradually rolled out. It seems to make little sense to limit how it may evolve by putting barriers, in the form of primary legislation, in the way of what may be sensible reforms. I would like to hear from the Minister what further considerations she has given to extending the tax-free child care scheme in this way, and expanding child care accounts beyond the scheme. I hope that she will support these minor amendments, which would allow for the potential benefits that those changes could deliver, particularly for some of the poorest people in our society.

[Priti Patel]

I welcome the hon. Member for Wirral South (Alison McGovern) to her position and post. It is good to hear from her. Obviously, she did not have the full benefit of participating in the Committee, so it is good to hear her views today.

New clause 2 is about the Bill’s impact on child care costs, an issue that we discussed at some length in Committee. The new clause would require the Government to publish a review of the Bill’s impact on the cost of child care three months after it passed into law, and every three years thereafter. The review would have a particular focus on the effectiveness of the Act in making child care more affordable, the average cost of child care for working parents, and the impact of supply-led measures on costs.

As I have said many times in debates on this Bill, the Government have made a clear commitment to review the impact of the scheme two years after full implementation. That was set out in the impact assessment published alongside the Bill. The Government feel that a two-year assessment period is reasonable and will allow sufficient time for the scheme to become bedded in, so that the full impacts can be assessed and properly evaluated in the context of wider Government policy. We do not think that there is anything to be gained from adding a further review after only three months.

I think that all hon. and right hon. Members are rightly concerned about the impact that high child care costs have on working parents. We understand the cost of child care, and the Government are committed to supporting parents to meet that cost; that is the purpose of the Bill.

[Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Con)]

I assume that the Minister and her team will watch this very closely from the start. She may not need a review: if she saw something going wrong, she would take immediate action to correct it, before the two-year point.

[Priti Patel]

I thank my hon. Friend for his comment. Naturally, we want to get this right, so there is oversight at every level. Later in my remarks, I shall touch on areas where his remarks are valid and pertinent.

We know that child care is an expensive outgoing for many families across the country. This Government understand the need for both demand and supply-led measures to ensure that the costs of child care do not spiral out of control. We have been taking steps to ensure that both sides of the problem are properly considered. The Government believe that increasing supply is an effective way of limiting further price rises, and are therefore making significant reforms to support the child care sector in increasing the supply of places.

The Government are taking actions beyond the scope of the Bill to improve the quality and supply of child care provision. These reforms are designed to ensure that any increase in demand for child care arising from the new scheme will be matched by increased supply and not by increased costs. The latest figures show that there are about 100,000 more child care places than in 2009, and the Government are taking action to grow the supply of child care still further, which will improve choice and affordability for parents. For example, we are making start-up grants of up to £2 million available to help people set up new child care businesses. We are also enabling good and outstanding childminders to access funding for early education places. Only 4,000 do so currently, but as a result of our reforms, up to 32,000 will be automatically eligible. We are making it simpler and easier for schools and child care providers to work together to increase the amount of child care available on school sites, and only this year we have introduced childminder agencies, which are designed to improve the support available for both childminders and parents, and to simplify existing regulatory frameworks to allow nurseries to expand more easily.

We recognise that child care costs place a significant financial burden on many families, but research shows that after 12 years of consistently rising prices, the costs of child care in England have stabilised for the first time. There is encouraging evidence that costs of some of the most popular types of child care are falling in England. For example, the Family and Childcare Trust reported in March that the cost of nurseries in 2014 was 2% lower than in the previous year in real terms. Similarly, the cost of after-school clubs reduced by 5% in real terms during the same period. Once inflation is taken into account, costs for the majority of parents have fallen. This means that more parents are able to access affordable child care and support their families, and shows that the Government’s reforms are making a difference. We should compare that with the situation under Labour, when costs rose nearly 50% between 2002 and 2010, and the average cost of child care rose faster than inflation.

Alongside these measures to increase the provision of good quality, affordable child care, the Government have taken significant steps to support families in meeting their child care costs.

[Alex Cunningham]

I welcome the fact that more families may well be able to access child care because of falling costs, but the costs are still high and they are paid by the poor as well as the rich. Will the Minister please outline what she will do for the working poor who do not qualify for anything under any of her schemes?

[Priti Patel]

I will come on to the hon. Gentleman’s amendments and refer specifically to the points he makes.

For low earners, the Government will continue to pay up to 70% of child care costs through working tax credit, and under universal credit this support will be extended to up to 85% of costs when both parents are working, as all hon. Members heard in Committee. In addition, as we have touched on, the Government fund an early years entitlement of £15 a week.

The Government are making good progress in tackling the root causes of child poverty, to which the hon. Member for Wirral South referred. All Governments are committed to ending child poverty once and for all, but I reiterate that work remains the best route out of poverty. We discussed this at length in Committee, including the interactions between universal credit, making work pay, and interdepartmental measures on child poverty.

[Alison McGovern]

The Minister mentions universal credit and making work pay—for too many families I only wish it did. Will she comment on the role of universal credit in discouraging dual earners? In the context of this child care debate, does she think the Government should look again at its operation?

[Priti Patel]

We had much debate in Committee on universal credit and the way in which the scheme interacts with it. The hon. Member for Manchester Central (Lucy Powell) made some strong and valid contributions in this regard.

Amendment 12, tabled by the hon. Member for Stockton North (Alex Cunningham), would allow regulations in future to permit parents to receive support under the new scheme and universal credit at the same time. As I have said, we must not forget that families in receipt of universal credit already rightly receive generous support with their child care costs. Child care support is offered to parents on universal credit as part of a welfare system designed to make sure that work pays and that those who need the support get it. Up to 300,000 more people are likely to be in work as a result of universal credit, and we expect a significant proportion of those to be households with children. But it is not right for a parent to receive support under the new scheme in addition to universal credit, when parents will receive 85% of their child care costs from April 2016. It will be easy for parents to access support that best suits their circumstances, so I reassure the hon. Gentleman that parents who are eligible for universal credit will be able to opt out and claim support under the new scheme should they wish to do so. We shall be supporting parents in making those decisions.

As we said in Committee—hon. Members have touched on it again today—we shall be launching the online support tools, the calculator and clear guidance. Draft guidance has been published well ahead of the launch of the scheme and shows our commitment to work in close collaboration with parents, child care providers and employers, and their feedback will ensure that guidance is tailored to meet their needs.

This is about ensuring that support remains focused on those on lower incomes, and the introduction of the scheme gives parents confidence that as they increase their income and move off universal credit, they will continue to receive Government support with their child care costs, which is vital.

[Alex Cunningham]

I do not want to go over the top on this, but will the Minister please outline what help she proposes for families who do not qualify for anything at the moment but who are still the working poor?

[Priti Patel]

There is support that remains focused on those on lower incomes. As I said at length in Committee, the Government’s overall child care system is very much focused on those on lower incomes, and it is wrong to suggest that that is not the case. Families in receipt of tax credits receive more generous support with child care costs. We have already discussed universal credit, which is being extended to cover up to 85% of the costs of child care. All the analysis shows that the benefits of the scheme are focused on households on lower incomes. The new scheme ensures that for the first time parents can be certain that support will be available for them; yes, obviously, at the lower end, but importantly, as they move into work and increase their incomes too. The scheme is much more fairly targeted than the existing scheme of employer-supported child care. It supports working families, getting households and families back into work. It was debated at length in Committee, and I reassure the hon. Gentleman that that is the case.

Today’s debate has shown that the Government are taking a broad range of actions to support families with the costs of child care, not just through this scheme, but through improvements in the welfare scheme—

[Mark Durkan]

In considering how the Government can best take this forward, will the Minister take account of the fact that whenever the Northern Ireland Assembly debated the legislative consent motion, there was much confusion, even on the part of the junior Minister, about its impact on child care in Northern Ireland? Child care provision in Northern Ireland has a different profile from here, and it seems that the Government’s scheme will lead to degrees of confusion and uncertainty, particularly for existing schemes that are well favoured.

[Priti Patel]

I take this opportunity to re-emphasise that the scheme in no way creates confusion. In Committee we touched briefly on the situation in Northern Ireland and provided information and guidance in that regard. This is about working with all the players—parents, employers, and other stakeholders. It is about making the system abundantly clear and simple, not about complexity. Guidance has been drafted. We are working with third parties. We are designing a calculator tool, as we have discussed before. This is all about giving guidance and providing clarity.

I shall briefly cover amendments 3 to 11 on families in receipt of tax credits. The child care element of tax credits is just one component of the package of support designed to help lower-income households. I emphasise that there is support for those on low incomes, in particular. We should reflect on the fact that under the new scheme more working families than ever before will be eligible for support with child care costs. The scheme will be an important component of the overall offer to working families. It will sit alongside existing schemes to ensure that support is available to those increasing their incomes as they move off benefits.

[Alex Cunningham]

Does the Minister not see any advantage in leaving the door open by amending the Bill to allow for the scheme to be extended at a later stage? As I said in my speech, it will take primary legislation to extend the scheme any further, whereas she could accept an amendment that would mean that the door was open to simple, straightforward regulation instead.

[Priti Patel]

I commend the hon. Gentleman for his tenacity in making that point again, as is absolutely right and proper. I reiterate that the Government are committed to reviewing the scheme, as I have outlined previously in Committee and during today’s debates on new clauses 1 and 2. It has to be right and proper to have that review. Once the scheme has bedded down and we have had the full assessment and evaluation, we will look at all its aspects. I hope that I have given the hon. Gentleman sufficient reassurance. I ask him to withdraw his amendment and Labour Front Benchers to withdraw their new clause.

Question put, That the clause be read a Second time:—

19:43

Division 81

Ayes: 208

---

Labour: 198
Scottish National Party: 5
Social Democratic & Labour Party: 2
Plaid Cymru: 2
Independent: 1

Noes: 272

---

Conservative: 230
Liberal Democrat: 39
Independent: 1

Third Reading

19:50

[Priti Patel]

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

The Bill has been many months in development through consultation, drafting and detailed discussion in Parliament, and I am sure the House will agree that it will leave the Commons in good shape.

Before I proceed, I would like to pay tribute to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education who, as Financial Secretary, was responsible for some of the key features of the scheme and introduced the Bill in the House of Commons in June. I spoke on Second Reading as a Back Bencher, and it is an honour for me to appear today as the Minister responsible for the Bill.

I welcome this further opportunity to speak on the Bill and to reflect on the important role it will play in the Government’s broader strategy to get people into work. One of our fundamental principles has been that every person who can stand on their own two feet should do so. That means being in work, making their contribution and taking responsibility. We want to empower people in their choices. As a mother myself, I strongly believe that child care costs should not be a barrier to work. Since 2010 we have introduced a comprehensive package of measures to help working families cover nursery costs for their children. The new child care scheme will greatly expand the support we provide to working families towards their child care costs.

Even before the financial crisis, there were around 5 million people in the United Kingdom of working age on out-of-work benefits, some 1.4 million of whom have spent the past decade unemployed. The number of households where no one had ever worked almost doubled between 1997 and 2010, so when we took office in 2010 we made getting people back into work one of our key priorities. We can be proud of some major successes. Figures from the Office for National Statistics have shown that unemployment fell by 154,000 to below 1.97 million in the three months to the end of August, the first time it has been below 2 million since 2008. Since 2010, the UK has created over 2 million more jobs for people to go to—the fastest rate of job creation of any major economy, or, as the Financial Times put it in September, more jobs than the rest of the European Union combined. Female participation in the work force is at an all-time high, and we should welcome that.

As ever, there is more that can be done. If we had the same levels of men and women participating in the labour market, the OECD says that could lead to an increase in GDP of around 10% by 2030. Survey data from the Department for Education suggest that more than half of mothers would prefer to be in paid employment if they could arrange reliable, convenient, affordable, good quality child care. The Government are therefore taking action to ensure that high-quality child care is available and affordable. We recognise that child care costs are a major part of most working families’ budgets so we are putting in place measures to help every working family in the UK with their child care costs.

We have almost doubled the amount of child care support available to most middle earners, and we are doing even more for those on low pay. We are already funding 15 hours a week of free child care for every three and four-year-old, funding 15 hours a week of free child care for 40% of two-year-olds, and increasing the child care support for low income families to 85% under universal credit. Now, this scheme will significantly broaden access to child care support. Hundreds of thousands of families who are excluded from the current employer-supported child care scheme will be able to benefit from the scheme, and up to 200,000 self-employed parents will have access to child care support.

We have paid particular attention to designing the scheme so that it suits the needs of part-time workers. Parents earning as little as £52 per week—averaged over a quarterly entitlement period, or over a tax year for self-employed parents—will qualify for support.

We do not believe, however, that providing direct support to parents is the only way to address the high cost of child care. That is best achieved by supporting the child care sector to increase supply, which will ensure that any increase in demand for child care will be matched by increased supply measures, rather than just increased costs.

The latest figures show there are now 100,000 more child care places than there were in 2009. We are making start-up grants available to help people set up new child care businesses. We have made up to 32,000 good and outstanding childminders automatically eligible for early education funding. We are making it simpler and easier for schools and child care providers to work together to increase the amount of child care available on school sites before and after school. Only this year, we have created childminder agencies, which will improve the support available both for childminders and for parents, and simplified existing regulatory frameworks to allow nurseries to expand more easily.

The evidence shows that our reforms are having an effect. After 12 years of consistently rising prices, the costs of child care in England have stabilised for the first time. Indeed, the costs of some of the most popular types of child care in England are now falling. Once inflation is taken into account, costs for the majority of parents have actually fallen, which means that more parents are able to access affordable child care and support their families. By contrast, the costs of some types of care have risen in Scotland and Wales, where these reforms do not apply.

As we have discussed in previous debates on the Bill, child care costs are not the only pressure on family budgets. We can never forget the impact of the 2008 recession and its effect on incomes for every household.

[Alex Cunningham]

I welcome the fact that prices are coming down and that more places are available, but the vast majority of the new jobs to which the Exchequer Secretary has referred are low-paid, part-time, insecure and involve zero-hours contracts and similar, which do not make anybody’s life easier as they consider care for their children. Perhaps that is why we are seeing an overspend of many billions of pounds in the Government’s social security budget.

[Priti Patel]

I re-emphasise a point I have made consistently throughout the passage of the Bill: the Government’s overall system of child care remains focused on those who are on lower incomes. We are concentrating on supporting families getting into work and ensuring, as we have touched on in previous debates, not only that work pays, but that child care support remains focused on those on lower incomes.

Living standards—the cash in people’s pockets and what they can buy with it—are perhaps the biggest issue facing British families. The tough decisions we have taken as a Government have a very clear end in mind, which is to help create prosperity and boost living standards. Alongside that, we want to make sure that the Government have the right measures to support working families and households and to ensure that work pays.

Since coming to power, this Government have taken decisive action to ease the pressure on households and families. We are providing free school meals for all infant school pupils in reception year and in years 1 and 2. We have increased the personal allowance to £10,000 and in April 2015 it will increase to £10,500. During the course of this Parliament, we have cut the income tax of the typical taxpayer by £805, taking more than 3.2 million individuals out of income tax by 2015-16 and boosting the take-home pay of 25 million people.

Additional measures on living standards include freezing council tax in real terms and cutting the cost of driving by freezing fuel duty until the end of this Parliament, saving a typical motorist £680. We recently announced that the cost of driving licences will also be cut. Ultimately, however, as every family knows, the best way to raise living standards is by being in work, and we are pulling out all the stops to help those who want to work get into work by making work pay and introducing this Bill, which provides important financial measures to support child care.

I thank all Members for the opportunity to debate all the issues associated with child poverty as the Bill has passed through the House. Child poverty is an extremely important issue and this Government are fully committed to the goal of ending child poverty in the UK by the end of 2020.

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

As my hon. Friend the Member for Foyle (Mark Durkan) said on Report, the Northern Ireland Assembly has already debated the legislative consent motion, which will enable enactment of the legislation in Northern Ireland. Does the Minister accept that there are fewer opportunities to access child care in Northern Ireland and fewer job opportunities? Will she consider allowing the other place to debate the extension of the child care voucher scheme so that it can remain in place while the measures are being implemented and both the scheme and the Bill can run concurrently?

[Priti Patel]

I will come on to Northern Ireland in a moment, because I want to finish addressing child poverty. Our child poverty strategy 2014-17, which was published in June, outlines our plans to tackle the root causes of child poverty, including parents being out of work, low earnings and educational failure. That approach reflects the reality of child poverty today and, importantly, reflects our determination to achieve lasting change to protect the poorest in our society.

The evidence is clear that work remains the best route out of poverty, and children are three times as likely to be in poverty if they live in a workless family. That is why we are taking decisive action to make work pay and reform the welfare system. We have touched on universal credit, the child care support we are providing and increasing the national minimum wage.

This is a complex, multifaceted problem, and it would be wrong to suggest that there is a silver bullet. We have made good progress, but there is more to do in tackling child poverty. The Bill will support this Government’s efforts to tackle the root causes of one of our greatest social ills.

I am grateful to all those who have participated in the debates on the Bill. I welcome the support from both sides of the House for this important new scheme, which marks such an improvement on the current support available to parents. I am particularly delighted that the Northern Ireland Assembly recently voted in favour of a legislative consent motion to enable the scheme to be available to families in Northern Ireland in the same way as it will be to families elsewhere in the UK. That was entirely a matter for the Assembly, which has given the scheme a positive vote of confidence.

I understand that the Offices of the First Minister and of the Deputy First Minister will consider the impact of the scheme and its interaction with other initiatives in the context of wider work on the development of their own child care strategy, so it would be inappropriate for me to make further comment on those devolved matters. Obviously, that is work in progress.

During all stages of the Bill, we have consulted widely on the design of the scheme over the past year. We have listened to feedback from parents, employers, the child care industry and all stakeholders.

Following those discussions, we are already making several changes. We are rolling the scheme out to families more quickly. Within a year of its introduction, all families will be able to apply for support, which is significantly faster than the previously announced timetable for the roll-out, of seven years. There is a more generous cap so that families can receive up to £2,000 of Government support per child. We are making the scheme available throughout periods of paid and unpaid parental leave, and we are making changes to the minimum income level to support those in self-employment. We are extending to 14 days the time during which parents can access the scheme before starting work. I have committed to looking at the cap with reference to the costs of caring for disabled children.

The scheme will not only deliver valued support to hard-working families, but it will do so in a way that works for parents. It will be a smooth, simple and secure scheme. From the outset, it has been designed to have parents at its heart. Rather than requiring parents to report changes of circumstances in real time, the scheme will be based on quarterly entitlement periods. That will give parents the certainty that they will continue to be eligible for support for three months at a time, regardless of any unexpected changes in their circumstances. For parents to reconfirm for the next quarter will simply take a few clicks through the system that we are designing and setting up. Those are just some of the ways in which we have engaged with stakeholders and, importantly, learned lessons from the experience of tax credits. Our ambition is for the new scheme to represent a real step change in user experience.

The scheme will be a vast improvement on the current employer-supported child care scheme, which provides support to a limited number of employees. As well as being available much more widely, it will be better targeted, make payments on a fairer basis—on the number of children, rather than the number of adults—and will be much more efficient. That is why we will close the current scheme to new entrants when the scheme is introduced, although those who already receive support under it can stay in it, if they so choose, for as long as they wish.

As a result of the Bill, more working families than ever will be eligible for Government support with their child care costs. Our proposals have been welcomed by families and child care providers around the country. The Bill represents an important part of the Government’s strategy to get people into work, and I commend it to the House.

20:11

[Catherine McKinnell]

Any new investment in child care—particularly support for struggling families up and down the country who are battling to juggle their work and family lives—is clearly welcome. The Bill is therefore important, but it is long overdue for thousands of parents.

Fundamentally, we remain concerned that the Bill will simply not address the situation in which too many parents have been left. The evidence is now overwhelming. The cumulative changes to tax and benefits over the Government’s time in office have hit families hardest, as is clearly shown by new research published today. From our analysis of official statistics, we know that some families in which both parents are in work will be £2,000 a year worse off on average by the next election as a direct result of the Government’s tax and benefits choices. Researchers from the London School of Economics and the university of Essex have released findings showing that the clear losers under the Government are lone-parent families, large families and children.

This summer, the Prime Minister announced that all Government policies have to pass a families test. It is interesting that that is his aspiration only now, because it is abundantly clear that the Government have completely failed the families test to date. We share the widely expressed concern that the Bill will not go anywhere like far enough to make up the shortfall that families face, partly because of the tax and benefits changes, but also because of soaring child care costs.

Aside from that central issue, we have several other concerns. We are worried that parents will be left exposed to inflated child care prices, as my hon. Friend the Member for Wirral South (Alison McGovern) clearly set out in her speech on new clause 2. The Government have only one chance to get the hugely important IT infrastructure right, but crucially there is huge concern that parents might face a nightmare of complexity and confusion if the Government fail to provide adequate support and information to help them to make informed choices and to navigate between the schemes for universal credit and for the top-up payments.

Welcome though the support is, for far too many parents it will be far too little, far too late. I hope that the Minister has taken on board the concerns we raised throughout the proceedings in Committee and on Report, whether on some of the more technical aspects of the Bill’s operation or on the more fundamental issues.

[Ms Ritchie]

My hon. Friend is making some compelling points. Is she aware of research by the Resolution Foundation that found that 80% of the families who will benefit from the top-up payments available through the tax-free child care scheme are in the top 40% of the income distribution scale, and that the remaining 20% will go to families in the middle of it? How will the scheme help those on low incomes, lone parents and those with large families?

[Catherine McKinnell]

My hon. Friend has herself made the point very powerfully. I was concerned when the Minister spoke at length about child poverty because the Bill will do very little to deal with such issues, and we know that such figures will only increase. Levels of child poverty have increased significantly under this Government, as the facts and evidence prove.

Although we should focus on what the Bill will achieve—it will provide support in meeting demand for some payments for child care—my hon. Friend clearly sets out which parents will benefit most from the support. However, even those parents are concerned that the scheme might unduly complicate their lives. It might be burdensome for parents to navigate it, particularly those at the lower end of the income scale who have to navigate between a reduction in universal credit support and a movement into the top-up payments scheme, where potentially disastrous child care support pitfalls await them. We discussed that at length in Committee and we have put our concerns on the record. Other Opposition Members and I very much hope that the Minister has taken all such concerns on board and can deliver on the reassurances that she has given.

Let me take this last opportunity to urge the Government to recognise the value to parents not only of this support with child care costs, but of the extension of the free entitlement to three and four-year-olds. Quite simply, that would ensure that working parents are better off. It would help more parents to get back into work or to work more hours, and it would help to bring home more pay for the hours they work. We know that so many parents are desperate for such support. It would be simple and effective, and it would not place any more burdens on parents than those they already face. It would not add any more complexity to a child care market that is already hugely complicated.

Parents have struggled for four years under this Government with a child care crunch of rising prices alongside stagnant wages. Although we will support the Bill tonight, I urge the Minister to ensure that she, her officials and her partners who deliver the scheme fulfil the promises that have been made during its passage in Committee so that parents can receive this much-needed support.

I look forward to the arrival, in 2015, of a Labour Government who will ensure that parents receive not only the support provided in the Bill, but an additional 10 hours of free child care for three and four-year-olds. That will deal with many of the supply-side and price inflation concerns, and it will also provide child care support for the parents who will not benefit at all from the scheme.

20:19

[Maria Miller]

It has been a privilege to have served on the Bill Committee, and I pay tribute to the two hon. Ladies who have led the debate. My hon. Friend the Minister has navigated us through the Bill with incredible style. She has listened to the arguments, acted on what she has heard and understood the importance of flexibility for parents in this scheme.

The Minister also listened closely to the hon. Member for Stockton North (Alex Cunningham) and his powerful arguments, both today and in Committee, about the particular needs of disabled children. None of us could have anything but admiration for the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne North (Catherine McKinnell), who obviously has her own interest in child care issues. She has led from the Opposition Benches incredibly well.

My hon. Friend the Minister is right to say that child care costs should not be a barrier to work for parents, and the Bill goes further than ever before to help achieve what we all want—for parents to have the opportunity to go back to work after they have had children, or to continue in employment when they have children of a young age. I am glad that the Opposition will support this important Bill tonight, because child care costs are not a problem only for those on very low wages; they are a problem for almost all the parents I have talked to, and it is right for the Government to consider how to address it.

Under this Government, more women are in work than ever before and, interestingly, the cost of child care for parents is falling—perhaps those two issues are not entirely separate. The Government have set the standard when it comes to enhancements to child care, not only by taking on what the Labour Government put in place, but frankly by going a great deal further: free entitlement to 15 hours a week of early-years care for four and five-year-olds and 40% of two-year-olds; new support under universal credit; and tax-free child care, which will mean that for the first time ever, people who are self-employed can get access to important child care help and support when running their own businesses.

I disagree with comments made by the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne North about the Prime Minister and the families test, because I think the Bill passes that test with flying colours. It shows that we have been listening to parents and families, and that the Government have acted.

Parents want choice on child care—the Minister knows that, as do the Government. We all want child care that will fit around our children’s lives and needs and our family life. I believe that the Bill takes us one step further towards giving freedom to parents to choose the child care they want and need for their children. That will provide an enduring framework for changes to child care in the future. I hope the Minister will come back to the Dispatch Box when the Bill becomes an Act, and say how we can use it as a framework to provide further support in the future. I am sure she will.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed.

Business without Debate

Monday 17th November 2014 Commons Chamber

delegated legislation

Monday 17th November 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

With the leave of the House, we shall take motions 2 to 7 together.

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

Terms and Conditions of Employment

That the draft Shared Parental Leave and Paternity and Adoption Leave (Adoptions from Overseas) Regulations 2014, which were laid before this House on 13 October, be approved.

That the draft Paternity, Adoption and Shared Parental Leave (Parental Order Cases) Regulations 2014, which were laid before this House on 13 October, be approved.

That the draft Employment Rights Act 1996 (Application of Sections 75G and 75H to Adoptions from Overseas) Regulations 2014, which were laid before this House on 13 October, be approved.

That the draft Statutory Shared Parental Pay (Parental Order Cases) Regulations 2014, which were laid before this House on 13 October, be approved.

That the draft Employment Rights Act 1996 (Application of Sections 75A, 75B, 75G, 75H, 80A and 80B to Parental Order Cases) Regulations 2014, which were laid before this House on 13 October, be approved.

That the draft Statutory Shared Parental Pay (Adoption from Overseas) Regulations 2014, which were laid before this House on 13 October, be approved. —(Dr Thérèse Coffey.)

Question agreed to.

Business of the House

Monday 17th November 2014 Commons Chamber

Ordered,

That at the sitting on Wednesday 19 November paragraph (2) of Standing Order No. 31 (Questions on amendments) shall apply to the Motion in the name of Edward Miliband as if the day were an Opposition Day; proceedings on the Motion may continue, though opposed, for three hours and shall then lapse if not previously disposed of; and Standing Order No. 41A (Deferred divisions) shall not apply.—(Dr Thérèse Coffey.)

Christina Edkins

Monday 17th November 2014 Commons Chamber

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—(Dr Thérèse Coffey.)

20:24

[James Morris (Halesowen and Rowley Regis) (Con)]

The murder of Christina Edkins on 7 March 2013 in a random knife attack on the No. 9 bus, while travelling from Birmingham to school in my constituency, was a devastating blow to her family, friends and the community where she lived in Birmingham, and where she went to school in Halesowen. Nobody could imagine the depth of pain and anguish that the Edkins family have had to suffer, and I will read an extract from their victim impact statement:

“The school have been wonderful and so have all of Christina’s friends, who have also been affected by her death. They wanted us to come to the Prom for Christina, but we couldn’t do it, it would have been too difficult…Some months after her death, we had a parcel delivered—it was Christina’s exam results, she had done really well. Also enclosed was the school year book, where Christina was included, and at the back they had done a tribute page to her. There was a poem and lots of photographs of her and a quote by her headmaster ‘if a school could choose its pupils, it would be full of Christinas’…Our family are so devastated I don’t know how we will get over what has happened. We are a big family and no one has been left untouched. Christina loved her family and her cousins—they all called her CJ. Our lives have been changed beyond all belief by that knock on the door on 7 March 2013. Our lives will never be the same and I don’t know what we will do without our precious daughter Christina.”

At first, the focus following this act was on the use of a knife in the attack by Phillip Simelane. Immediately after the incident I called on the Prime Minister in Prime Minister’s questions to tighten knife laws, and I supported an amendment to the Criminal Courts and Justice Bill, which has significantly strengthened our knife laws.

It became clear when matters were brought to court that Phillip Simelane was unable to make a plea because he was considered too mentally ill to do so. In September 2013 he appeared in court, and in October 2013 he was convicted of manslaughter on the grounds of diminished responsibility and detained in a psychiatric hospital. During court proceedings, the judge at Birmingham Crown court raised a number of issues and questions about the mental health of Simelane. Why had he not been admitted to a psychiatric hospital? Why had he been discharged from HMP Birmingham without any follow-up? Why did the services he was involved with prior to being admitted to HMP Hewell not deem him to require treatment.

As a result of questions raised by the trial judge, Birmingham and Solihull Mental Health NHS Foundation Trust initiated a serious incident review. Culminating in the report chaired by Dr Alison Reed, the review revealed more than a decade of contact by services with Phillip Simelane, including Birmingham and Solihull mental health trust, the Black Country Partnership mental health trust, Sandwell social services, Worcestershire Health and Care NHS Trust, Phillip Simelane’s GP, the West Midlands police, Sandwell Women’s Aid, HMP Hewell in Birmingham, the Crown Prosecution Service, and Her Majesty’s Courts and Tribunals Service. The report revealed a litany of service and system failures that led it to conclude:

“The homicide of Christina by P was directly related to his mental illness and could have been prevented if his mental health needs had been identified and met.”

The report revealed a lack of co-ordination between services over a long period, from the time that problems with Simelane were raised in school, through to his discharge from HMP Birmingham almost a decade later. It identified the complete breakdown of communication between different services that came into contact with Simelane over a 10-year period. It identified the unrealistic responsibility that was placed on Simelane and his mother—to whom he had made several violent threats and actions—to initiate and engage with health care services, including his GP, child and adolescent mental health services, and the Prison Service, when it became increasingly clear that Simelane was not in a position to judge his own mental health needs.

Paragraph 64 of the report illustrates one of the issues. On 26 March 2009, Phillip Simelane’s GP called his mother on the telephone. The report says:

“There was a further discussion about whether P was involved with drugs, but she had not discovered any illicit substances. It was reported to the GP that P had admitted to using alcohol/cannabis in the past. The GP recorded that the plan was to refer P to the BCPFT Community Mental Health Team and ask them to assess P soon. The BCPFT Oldbury & Smethwick Community Mental Health Team sent an ‘opt in’ letter to P on 1 April 2009 asking him to contact them to make a ‘mutually convenient appointment’ within the next 14 days. The letter also stated, ‘If we do not hear from you within two weeks, we will assume you do not need our service’. On the 20th April 2009 the team wrote back to the GP saying they had not had any response from P and were therefore discharging him back to the GP’s care. The case was closed. P did not receive any written confirmation that his case had been closed. On interview, the GP stated that if a GP expressed concerns to a mental health specialist about a patient, then at the very least the patient should be seen.”

My intention is to raise the serious problems with the idea that people should “opt in” to mental health care.

The next issue is the repeated failures of professionals across the agencies to determine Simelane’s future risk to himself, his family and the public, with often contradictory assessments of his mental health state over a 10-year period. Another issue is the lack of basic information sharing between agencies and within the prison and courts system, leading to bad or confused decision making about the care—or lack of care—of Phillip Simelane. As an example, attempts were made in 2012, some six months before the incident took place, by the Black Country Partnership mental health trust crisis team to raise their concerns about Phillip Simelane with HMP Hewell, but these were not followed up.

One of the most devastating indictments in the report is that in October 2012 Simelane was released from HMP Hewell on licence, with no notification to his GP of prescribed medication and no mental health follow-up. He was also discharged with only three days of anti-psychotic medication. After he had reoffended while on licence, he was released from HMP Birmingham having been rendered homeless. An injunction was at his mother’s address. Again, there was no notification to his GP from the Prison Service and no mental health follow-up.

The failures identified in the report have a depressing familiarity. The truth is that they are failings that have been identified many times in previous reviews. We now have a duty to the memory of Christina Edkins and the anguish suffered by her family to act, and to do everything that we can to stop a repeat of this tragedy.

I ask the Minister to take specific actions to address the concerns and failings highlighted in the report. First, we need to address the consistent failure of all agencies involved to share crucial information about Phillip Simelane. How do we ensure that we implement a radical culture change so that there is a presumption that relevant information will be shared across agencies? Will the Minister consider a potential role for the Care Quality Commission, as part of its inspection responsibilities, to ensure that that happens? How do we move to a more systematic and standardised assessment of risk that properly pulls together different perspectives and evaluations of individuals such as Phillip Simelane?

The interaction of Simelane with the child and adolescent mental health services reveals some well-known limitations of, and issues with, those services. How do we approach the treatment of people who, at one stage in their life, are deemed to be below the threshold? How do we overcome poor communication and lack of information sharing between GPs, schools, services and the voluntary sector? Will the Minister commit to a review of CAMHS, building on the recent Health Committee report on their functioning to take into account the particular examples in the report on Simelane?

The report reveals significant failings in HMP Hewell and HMP Birmingham while Simelane was in prison. Again, there was a lack of information sharing, of care plans, of co-ordination and of communication, including—incredibly—no notification of Simelane’s release from prison to his GP. Can the Minister commit to working with colleagues in the Ministry of Justice to address the issue of mental health in prisons and to ensure that appropriate care plans are in place on release? Will the Minister also reflect on the status of this report? It was commissioned by the Birmingham and Solihull Mental Health NHS Foundation Trust and co-ordinated by the cross-Birmingham clinical commissioning group. It was commissioned locally but has wide national applicability. How can we ensure that the lessons of this report and its recommendations are implemented nationally?

The family of Christina Edkins has written to NHS England to raise concerns and to ask whether a further independent inquiry is needed. Will the Minister commit tonight to discuss immediately with NHS England its views on the need for a further independent inquiry as a matter of urgency? In the end, nothing will diminish the pain and anguish suffered by the family of Christina Edkins, but those in positions of public responsibility should now do everything they can to ensure that the tragic circumstances of this case are not repeated.

20:37

[The Minister of State, Department of Health (Norman Lamb)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Halesowen and Rowley Regis (James Morris) on securing this debate on this incredibly important and difficult issue. He asked some specific questions. First, he talked about the failure of organisations to share information, and I will develop my thoughts on that in due course. He made a particular point about the role of the Care Quality Commission. Under the new inspection regime, the CQC will undertake much more detailed inspections of providers than has been the case in the past, and it will be able to take into account issues such as the importance of sharing information to ensure good care. I will make sure it receives the Hansard report of this debate, so it can take on board the specific points he makes.

My hon. Friend talked about the importance of a more systematic and standardised assessment of risk. That is one of the points the Government need to respond to in terms of the report. At the end of his speech he asked about the status of the report. It is clear that the report raises issues of both local and national significance. It is incredibly important that the Government recognise that and seek to address and respond to the concerns identified. I am happy to write to him to pursue that further, but I am intent on ensuring that we respond as soon as possible where it is clear that there are national lessons to be learned. This tragic case raises issues that have been raised before—they are not new. It is imperative for all of us to seek to address the issues identified in the report.

My hon. Friend raised a concern about individuals who do not hit the threshold for admission to secondary care. He also asked whether I would be prepared to review child and adolescent mental health services. I am pleased to say that in the summer I announced a taskforce to review the way in which CAMHS operate. I do not think that the way we commission or organise CAMHS is fit for purpose. There is a need for a fundamental review of how the services are organised and commissioned. The findings of the report can absolutely feed into that taskforce.

I would just like to dwell on some of the issues we need to look at in the taskforce process. At the moment, four organisations are involved in the commissioning of services for children and young people: local authorities, schools, clinical commissioning groups and NHS England. The fragmented arrangement for commissioning care does not lead to the best chance of joined-up services and that fundamentally needs to change. We recognise that it is very clear that only a minority of youngsters who have mental health problems receive access to any service at all. That has been the case for a very long time, but it does not make it right.

It is clear that many interventions deployed with youngsters have a very strong evidence base. For example, early intervention in psychosis—after the first episode of psychosis—can stop deterioration occurring. However, around the country the position is variable. In some areas there is access to good services, but in other areas there is either no service at all or people have to wait a very long time. I am therefore very pleased that the Prime Minister announced in October the introduction, for the first time, of an access waiting time standard of two weeks for early intervention in psychosis. We start with 50% of everyone who experiences an episode of psychosis. In future years, the aim would be to raise that percentage so that as many people as possible have access to support as fast as possible, and access to a service that is evidence-based, NICE-based and approved.

That is a breakthrough and a watershed moment for mental health services, but another area that the CAMHS taskforce wants to look at is how to improve access more generally. In Australia there is something called Headspace, which involves non-stigmatised access to services often provided by third sector consortia. There are local Headspace centres around the country, and a telephone service and an online service. That means that far more youngsters can receive access to some support at a much earlier stage than is the case in this country—and was the case in Australia before it introduced Headspace. We can learn lessons from the way services are commissioned and provided, and there is a lot we can do to improve access to support in those earlier years.

Moving on from the specific points my hon. Friend raised, I should put on the record my horror at Christina’s murder. I share his sentiments and wish to extend my personal sympathies to the family. What they must have been through is unimaginable, and my heart goes out to them. Christina Edkins was a happy, well-loved teenager with a bright future ahead of her. She was doing well academically, she played netball for the school team and enjoyed writing. She had ambitions to become a midwife and was already working with young children in a nursery school. Her death was tragic. We should all be able to go about our daily lives without fear of violence.

As Dr Reed’s report says, the attack was random and unprovoked. The question is whether it was preventable. As my hon. Friend made clear, Phillip Simelane’s mother tried for many years to get him the help she knew he needed. The system has let down that family as well as the victim’s family, and one’s heart goes out to his mother for what she must have gone through, having tried so hard to get help over many years. She herself suffered a number of attacks by Phillip, and she knew that his mental state was deteriorating and tried to get help. We cannot say what would have happened had she been successful, but it could hardly have been worse than what took place in March 2013. I am sure I speak for everyone here when I say that my heartfelt sympathies go out to the families of both Christina Edkins and Phillip Simelane.

Nothing we can do can return Christina to her family, but as my hon. Friend said, we can ensure that lessons are learned and that appropriate action is taken to prevent, as far as is humanly possible, any similar event from happening again. This afternoon, I met Dr Reed, who wrote the homicide report into Christina’s death, and discussed with her at length both her report and the importance of responding to the recommendations raised in it. Lessons can be learned from this tragic incident, both locally and nationally, and we are considering the national recommendations in the report. As well as explaining some of the actions today, I would be happy to write to my hon. Friend setting out in more detail what action the Government are taking to address the recommendations. I want us to be clear about the time scale for responding more fully and about what actions might follow a formal written response.

Before I turn to the specifics of the report, I would first like to touch on the importance of parity of esteem for mental health, which has long been a personal priority of mine and of my hon. Friend. The Government are clear that mental health care is as important as physical health care. It is unacceptable that in this time of modern medicine three out of four people with common mental health problems receive no treatment. If three out of four people with diabetes, for example, received no treatment, we would all be completely outraged. Mental health problems can have a huge impact on the quality of life of individuals and their families and friends and should be taken as seriously as physical health problems. I think that this simple principle of equality is starting to be accepted, but there remains a big and frustrating time lag when it comes to translating it into practice in terms of the responsiveness of services on the ground.

It is clear from the homicide investigation report that Phillip Simelane did not receive the treatment he needed for his mental health conditions. His mother repeatedly attempted to get appropriate treatment for her son from the time he was 14. The report found that there were multiple opportunities for Mr Simelane to be given access to mental health interventions or treatment, but many opportunities were missed. In some cases, Mr Simelane did not meet the provider’s criteria for specific services—a point made by my hon. Friend—such as admission to a psychiatric intensive care unit. In others, he was not able or willing to engage with services. During this time, his behaviour deteriorated and his mother became increasingly concerned and at risk. One can only begin to imagine how hard it must have been for her to see the deterioration happening before her eyes, to be at risk herself yet to have no proper response from the authorities, who ought to have been safeguarding her and ensuring that others were safeguarded from the actions of someone whose condition was deteriorating.

In total, Mr Simelane was reviewed or formally assessed for mental health conditions 17 times by four different organisations between April 2009 and December 2012. Quite a lot of effort and time were put into assessing him, but there was precious little action or support. None of this resulted in him getting the help he actually needed.

The 2014-15 mandate to the NHS sets out an explicit target for NHS England to make measurable progress to ensure that

“everyone who needs it has timely access to evidence-based services”,

whether it be for mental health or physical health. We have identified £40 million of additional spending to kick-start change in mental health services in the current year, and a further £80 million for 2015-16. As I said, this will for the first time enable the setting of access and waiting time standards in mental health services. This will include 75% of people referred to the improving access to psychological therapies programme being treated within six weeks of referral, and 95% being treated within 18 weeks of referral as a backstop. At last, people with a mental health condition—depression, anxiety or a condition such as obsessive-compulsive disorder—will have an entitlement, just like those with a physical health problem, to access treatment on a timely basis. Furthermore, at least 50% of patients experiencing a first episode of psychosis will be treated with a NICE-approved care package within two weeks of referral, while £30 million-worth of targeted investment from within the total £80 million envelope will be spent on effective models of liaison psychiatry in more acute hospitals.

Crisis care is one area where the gap between the experience of those with physical and mental health problems is at its greatest. If someone suffers a physical health crisis, they will know what will happen—an ambulance will arrive and they will be taken to A and E. The system may be under pressure, but access will be granted to a specialist who can help with the particular condition. If someone suffers a mental health crisis, however, God knows what will happen. They may have a good service, but too often it falls short. Too often still, people end up in police cells when they are in the middle of a mental health crisis.

[James Morris]

One crucial aspect of this particular report is the interaction between crisis care services and the Prison Service. One of the big gaps revealed by the report relates to what happens when someone is released from prison with known mental health problems. In this case, nothing happened and the individual was lost to services. Will the Minister reflect a little on how we might be able to join the Prison Service and health services more closely?

[Norman Lamb]

I completely agree with my hon. Friend on that point. The first incredibly positive thing to say is that we have embarked on the national roll-out of a liaison and diversion service, the purpose of which is to ensure that when a person first appears in the criminal justice system—whether at a court or a police station—someone will be able to assess their mental health. If they have an identifiable mental health problem, they will be referred straight away for treatment and support. They may still go through the criminal justice system and may still end up in prison, but their condition will have been identified and they will have been referred for the treatment that may help them to address their offending behaviour.

So far we have spent £25 million in the current financial year. We have covered about 25% of the country, and next year we will cover more than 50%. Our aim is a national roll-out by 2017, subject to the making of a business case to the Treasury, and that in itself will make a dramatic difference. No other country in the world is pursuing this on such an industrial scale. Moreover, what we are doing is evidence-based, and as we build on the programme, we will develop the evidence and ensure that we apply it. There is also the issue of what happens to someone who is in the system and what happens when the person leaves prison, and I shall deal with that in a moment.

The Department has funded nine street triage pilots this year, in which police and mental health professionals have worked together to support people who are experiencing mental health crises. Perhaps most relevant to cases such as that of Mr Simelane is the £25 million to which I referred earlier, which constitutes the first stage of the roll-out of a national liaison and diversion service.

Before my hon. Friend intervened, I was talking about the unacceptable practice of allowing people who are in the middle of mental health crises to end up in police cells. It is good news that between the 2012-13 and 2013-14 financial years there was a 24% reduction in the use of police cells, and evidence suggests that that trend is continuing in the current year. Earlier this year we published the mental health crisis care concordat, in which more than 20 national organisations committed themselves to standards of care in mental health crisis for the first time. Our objectives were a 50% reduction in the use of police cells in the current financial year compared with two years ago, and a complete ending of the use of police cells for children. My right hon. Friend the Minister for Policing, Criminal Justice and Victims and I are currently writing to local authorities asking them to take seriously their responsibility to end that unacceptable practice. I think everyone would agree that the practice of allowing a child under the age of 18 to end up behind bars in a police station must be brought to an end.

A key finding of the homicide report was that information sharing within and between organisations involved in Mr Simelane’s case was not effective. The sharing of information between organisations that are responsible for the care of vulnerable people has many benefits, and all organisations of that kind should strive to communicate and share information effectively. Indeed, I believe that they have a duty to do so. At the heart of most of the scandals over the years when something dreadful has happened has been a failure to share information effectively, and that certainly includes the case of Mr Simelane.

I realise that, in practice, such information sharing is difficult to achieve, but it must be an absolute priority, and the organisations involved must actively seek solutions. We recently issued a simple one-page guide for practitioners working in the health system, which emphasised the importance of sharing information. We are right to focus on the importance of confidentiality, but, in doing so, we sometimes forget that need to share information to ensure that good care is provided.

Electronic patient records are becoming more prevalent and are making information sharing easier, but they are not foolproof, and there are still security and confidentiality issues that limit the sharing of some information. For the time being, such systems should be seen as adding an additional layer of patient safety, and it is important for all clinicians receiving a referred patient to satisfy themselves that they have a thorough understanding of the patient’s history. Clinicians also have the ability to request additional information from other clinicians or relevant professionals if they feel that such information would be beneficial in making an accurate assessment of the patient.

The Ministry of Justice is responsible for the management of offenders in the community. Care and supervision may be delivered by a number of agencies working together to share information, including health, social care, probation and other authorities. This enables appropriate action to be taken if an offender’s behaviour escalates to present a risk to the public, and that may include intervention by professionals or even recall to prison or to another appropriate facility.

We come back to the need for appropriate sharing of information among organisations. As I have said, this can in practice be complex and difficult to implement. However, organisations with a responsibility to care for vulnerable people and to protect the public must be able to work effectively together. Dr Reed’s report was only published in September and there will be no quick fixes for the organisations involved in this case. We expect NHS England to work with all the NHS providers involved to ensure that they address the recommendations in the report. This will require NHS providers to work with non-NHS organisations, including the Prison Service, to ensure that the lessons that need to be learned from this report are implemented across the board.

The issues identified in the report as essentially local will probably be common to many other organisations around the country, and we owe it to the families who have been devastated by this tragedy to ensure that those local lessons with wider applications and the issues identified as of national importance are all properly addressed, and I am happy to work with my hon. Friend to try to achieve that.

[James Morris]

On the specific point about the status of this report, I know that the Edkins family have written to NHS England expressing concerns about some of the findings in the report and asking whether there needs to be a further independent review. I think NHS England has promised to get back to them. Could the Minister use his good offices to communicate with NHS England to get back to the family?

[Norman Lamb]

I absolutely will communicate with NHS England and seek to ensure that the family get a response to that request.

As I said earlier, I shall write to my hon. Friend on all the issues that emanate from the report, and in doing so I will summarise the work being undertaken by the Government in response to this report. Work on this has already begun. The health care providers at HMP Hewell and HMP Birmingham have developed action plans in response to the recommendations in the report. NHS England’s Shropshire and Staffordshire area team is monitoring progress closely to make sure that all recommendations are met. The report also contained national recommendations for NHS England, and the Department of Health and the Ministry of Justice will work with partner organisation to address these recommendations.

Black Country Partnership NHS Foundation Trust has already implemented some changes in response to Christina’s death. It has phased out the use of “opt-in” letters, which my hon. Friend specifically referred to. Their use was an extraordinary practice when one thinks about it, given the nature of the condition that individuals such as Mr Simelane suffer from. Opt-in letters were previously used to invite patients to make an appointment, but they allowed someone to be discharged from secondary care if they did not respond. This practice has to end. The trust now proactively assesses all patients referred to it. That issue has wide application across the country.

The trust is working to improve the way its services join up with others, particularly those provided by external agencies, in the care of someone with severe mental illness. The trust will shortly be introducing electronic patient records which will enable teams across different parts of the service to access relevant patient information more quickly.

Birmingham and Solihull Mental Health NHS Foundation Trust has also implemented changes, including putting in place a robust escalation process for all cases in which disputes or concerns are raised about the outcome of a prison assessment, and ensuring that a full check is made on the HMP health care patient information recording system to identify any previous significant physical and/or mental health history.

The trust also has work under way. This includes changing psychiatric intensive care unit induction and training for doctors and nurses to include training on how to undertake prison assessments; introducing a review of all new prisoners by a nurse specialist within 24 hours when mental health concerns have been raised and, if recommended, by a psychiatrist within a maximum of five working days; and including in health screening on discharge cross-checking and reference between the health and prison records systems. The trust aims to have these and other changes in place by March 2015.

The investigation makes national recommendations, including the implementation of new supervision requirements for offenders who have served sentences of under 12 months, as was the case for Mr Simelane at the time of the incident. As part of the Transforming Rehabilitation programme, the National Offender Management Service is working with the NHS on through-the-prison-gate support for offenders serving sentences of under 12 months, including those offenders who are known to have mental health problems.

The Ministry of Justice is putting in place an unprecedented nationwide resettlement service, which will mean that most offenders are given continuous support by one provider from custody into the community. The Ministry will ensure that most offenders are held in a prison designated to their area for at least three months before release. This will mean better continuity of supervision and rehabilitation services, as well as better family links for those offenders and a network of prisons more specifically catering for the needs of short-term offenders. As my hon. Friend has pointed out, continuity of care and support when an individual leaves prison is of fundamental importance.

None of the changes made in response to Dr Reed’s report can bring Christina Edkins back, but we can all do our very best to ensure that no other family suffers in the way that Christina’s has done. None of the recommendations in the report is unachievable. They will require hard work on the part of many organisations, but the result will be better care, supervision and support for some of our society’s most vulnerable people.

I close by once again offering my heartfelt condolences to Christina’s family and assuring them that we will ensure that everything that can be done to prevent similar tragic events in future will be done. I shall be happy to work with my hon. Friend and to continue a dialogue with him to ensure that we maintain momentum in addressing the recommendations in the report and the concerns of the family.

Question put and agreed to.

21:07

House adjourned.

Petition

Monday 17th November 2014 Petitions

Monday 17 November 2014

Heart of England NHS Foundation Trust

Monday 17th November 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 publically 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 on 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, Official Report, 22 October 2014; Vol. 586, c. 13P.]

[P001392]

Observations from the Secretary of State for Department of Health:

NHS staff, present and former, should be able to come forward with any concerns about patient safety. We expect those working in the NHS to be supported in raising concerns. Trusts should have whistle blowing policies in place that are compliant with the Public Interest Disclosure Act 1998 (PIDA). To that end, on 24 June 2014, I commissioned Sir Robert Francis QC to carry out the Freedom to Speak Up review, to provide independent advice and recommendations on creating a more open and honest reporting culture in the NHS, to identify measures to help foster a culture of reporting and consider what more can be done to further protect NHS workers who speak out in the public interest. The review is expected to report at the end of November 2014.

The concept of vicarious liability in the context of whistle blowing was introduced through section 19 of the Enterprise and Regulatory Reform Act 2013, and came into effect on 25 June 2013. We welcomed this change in employment law which provides even greater whistle blowing protections. Introduction of these provisions mean that where bullying or harassment of a whistle blower by a fellow worker is proved, this is treated as being done by the employer.

Furthermore, in March 2014, the Government published their response to the call by the Department of Business, Innovation and Skills for evidence on the whistle blowing framework which details both legislative and non-legislative measures which will be taken to clarify and strengthen whistle blowing legislation and demonstrate the valuable role whistle blowing can play in an organisation.

It is for the Public Accounts Committee and Health Committee respectively to determine the matters they will consider.

Written Statement

Monday 17th November 2014 Written Statements

Monday 17 November 2014

Court-based Witness Service

Monday 17th November 2014 Written Statements

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

One of my priorities is to ensure that victims and witnesses have the support and information they need as they give evidence to the court. Support for witnesses at criminal courts across England and Wales is currently provided by Victim Support through a grant funded by the Ministry of Justice. This grant comes to an end on 31 March 2015 and the Ministry of Justice has undertaken a publicly competed exercise for funding for the provision of the court-based witness service from 1 April 2015 for a period of two years.

I am today announcing that following this competition, the Ministry of Justice has awarded a 2 year grant totalling £24 million to Citizens Advice to provide the court-based witness service. Citizens Advice will take over the provision of this service from Victim Support with effect from April 2015.

Citizens Advice will deliver a service that provides victims and witnesses with the support and information they need, and will work as a key partner with criminal justice stakeholders to ensure the service plays its part in helping put victims and witnesses at the heart of the criminal justice system.

I would like to record my appreciation to Victim Support for their work in supporting victims and witnesses, and in particular for providing support to witnesses at court over many years.

I look forward to working with Citizens Advice to ensure that victims and witnesses receive the support they need as they give the evidence on which a fair and effective criminal justice system is so dependent.

Grand Committee

Monday 17th November 2014 Grand Committee

Monday, 17 November 2014.

Employment Rights Act 1996 (Application of Sections 75G and 75H to Adoptions from Overseas) Regulations 2014

Monday 17th November 2014 Grand Committee

Motion to Consider

15:30

Moved by

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe]

That the Grand Committee do consider the Employment Rights Act 1996 (Application of Sections 75G and 75H to Adoptions from Overseas) Regulations 2014.

Relevant document: 9th Report from the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Business, Innovation and Skills (Baroness Neville-Rolfe) (Con)]

My Lords, with the leave of the Committee, I shall address the six sets of regulations to be considered together.

On 10 November, my noble friend Lord Bourne led the debate on the legal framework that creates a new statutory right to shared parental leave and pay for eligible working parents. This new entitlement will apply to the parents of babies who are due to be born on or after 5 April 2015. It will also apply to parents who adopt on or after that date. To coincide with the introduction of shared parental leave and pay, the Government are changing the statutory adoption regime to give adopters an entitlement to adoption leave and pay that mirrors the arrangements currently enjoyed by birth parents. From 5 April 2015, adoption leave will become a day-one right and the adopter’s pay will be enhanced—that is, increased—in the first six weeks.

We are also making changes that will extend the entitlement to adoption leave and pay to new groups of working parents, including those who are having a baby with the help of a surrogate. This will be achieved through the regulations that we are considering today. So we will have a framework that would give a surrogate parent 90% of their salary in the first six weeks following the birth of their baby, and after that £138.18 a week for the remaining 33 weeks. These changes will give new groups access to the benefits and protections that other parents currently enjoy. This ensures that the law on adoption leave and pay keeps pace with modern family life and the arrangements that would-be parents are already making.

The regulations enable the intended parents in a surrogacy arrangement and those who are adopting a child from outside Great Britain to opt in to the new shared parental leave and pay system if they wish. The entitlement to shared parental leave and pay will arise where the adopter gives up some of their statutory adoption leave and pay to create shared parental leave for them or their partner to take.

One of the key benefits of a shared parental leave system is that it allows the other person to start taking leave while the adopter is still absent from work on adoption leave. This will enable both parents to be at home together with the child—or children—or to take their leave at different times so that one of them is always at home with the child in the first year following adoption.

There are many benefits to shared parental leave and pay, including stronger links to the labour market for parents who intend to share the caring responsibility for their children. Shared parental leave and pay can be good for business as well, as individual employees who want to return to work—say, after six months—or to do a specific project can do so, allowing their partner to care for the child. They can return to shared parental leave when the project finishes.

Unsurprisingly, the Government are keen to enable as many working parents as possible, and their employers, to benefit from the new system. These regulations do this. They extend entitlement to shared parental leave and pay to parents who are adopting from overseas or who are eligible for and intend to apply for a parental order following a surrogacy arrangement. They also put in place the legal framework that will enable these groups of parents to use shared parental leave and pay in practice. They ensure that those who use the new system are not disadvantaged because they choose to exercise their statutory right to leave and pay. For example, an employer may not refuse a pay award or bonus to an employee, or overlook them for promotion, simply because they are taking shared parental leave.

The regulations provide greater flexibility and extend those protections currently accorded to employees who have had children to intended parents in surrogacy arrangements and to those adopting from overseas. They bring the legal framework up to date with the widening accessibility of advances in medical practice and they adapt to broader societal changes. I therefore commend the regulations to the Committee and beg to move.

[Lord Young of Norwood Green (Lab)]

My Lords, I welcome the Minister’s introduction, but we should remind ourselves that, in government, Labour transformed rights for women and families to help the balance between earning a living and caring for a family. Over 13 years, Labour extended paid maternity leave to nine months and the right to take maternity leave up to 12 months. It gave new entitlements to paternity leave and pay to fathers. Indeed, it was also a Labour Government that introduced the right to request flexible working in 2009, which was extended to parents with children up to the age of 16. We introduced a right to request flexible working for people with caring responsibilities for disabled or elderly relatives and for parents with disabled children up to the age of 18. We ought to remind ourselves that it was David Cameron, now the Prime Minister, and the Conservatives, who voted against the introduction of paternity leave, the extension of maternity leave and the right to request flexible working. I welcome the conversion.

We support today’s regulations, which, as the noble Baroness rightly said, are an extension of what we debated last week. It is absolutely right that we take into account the variety of today’s familial arrangements. We support reform of the work-life balance for fairness. Shared parental leave for all families is a step towards levelling the playing field for fathers, which is to be welcomed.

However, we have to recognise that this is a cultural change in a way, both for parents and for employers. I would welcome some comment from the Minister about how we intend to review the introduction of these regulations. I think there was some discussion with the previous regulations about the estimated take-up, which has not been quite as good as we would have wished. Given that this is a cultural change, perhaps that is not surprising, so I would welcome the Minister, in her reply, giving us some indication of how the Government intend to ensure that employers are given advice. As I read through them, my brain started to ache a bit with the complexity of the various arrangements. I am sure that I will not be the only one; a number of employers out there will need to be advised and encouraged to ensure that these arrangements are adopted and have the effect that the Government wish them to have.

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe]

I thank the noble Lord for his comments. I was very pleased to hear about the record of success in this area, first under the previous Government. He mentioned cultural change, and I feel that there has been an acceleration of the effort to create a family-friendly culture under the coalition Government. As noble Lords can imagine, I am very keen, as a mother of four and the grandparent of a child of a working mother, on having very good family-flexible arrangements. The addition of these regulations relating to the important areas of overseas adoption and surrogacy is a great step forward.

The noble Lord asked about review of the regulations. The Government have committed to review the implementation of the regulations by 2018. We need time to allow them to bed in and for the cultural change that he mentioned to gather momentum.

The regulations that we have debated today give more working parents access to shared parental leave and pay. This is a very good thing, and I am delighted that the noble Lord is able to support them. I commend the statutory instruments to the Committee.

[Lord Young of Norwood Green]

What arrangements have we made for encouraging and advising employers and parents about the extent of the new arrangements?

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe]

I know that there is information available on GOV.UK, which is to be publicised through our communications campaign. We are engaging with stakeholders to promote and raise awareness of the new system. We are making material available to those stakeholders for them to use in appropriate formats with their existing customers and clients. From reading the Hansard report of the debate that the noble Lord had with my noble friend Lord Bourne, I notice that there were also comments about trying to engage some of the business bodies, such as the CBI. I have found, having tried to use some of the online material available on family-friendly rights of various kinds, that the websites do a very good job, and that does help. I hope that that meets the point that the noble Lord addressed.

Motion agreed.

Shared Parental Leave and Paternity and Adoption Leave (Adoptions from Overseas) Regulations 2014

Monday 17th November 2014 Grand Committee

Motion to Consider

15:41

Moved by

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe]

That the Grand Committee do consider the Shared Parental Leave and Paternity and Adoption Leave (Adoptions from Overseas) Regulations 2014.

Relevant document: 9th Report from the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments

Motion agreed.

Statutory Shared Parental Pay (Adoption from Overseas) Regulations 2014

Monday 17th November 2014 Grand Committee

Motion to Consider

15:41

Moved by

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe]

That the Grand Committee do consider the Statutory Shared Parental Pay (Adoption from Overseas) Regulations 2014.

Relevant document: 9th Report from the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments

Motion agreed.

Employment Rights Act 1996 (Application of Sections 75A, 75B, 75G, 75H, 80A and 80B to Parental Order Cases) Regulations 2014

Monday 17th November 2014 Grand Committee

Motion to Consider

15:42

Moved by

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe]

That the Grand Committee do consider the Employment Rights Act 1996 (Application of Sections 75A, 75B, 75G, 75H, 80A and 80B to Parental Order Cases) Regulations 2014.

Relevant Document: 9th Report from the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments

Motion agreed.

Paternity, Adoption and Shared Parental Leave (Parental Order Cases) Regulations 2014

Monday 17th November 2014 Grand Committee

Motion to Consider

15:42

Moved by

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe]

That the Grand Committee do consider the Paternity, Adoption and Shared Parental Leave (Parental Order Cases) Regulations 2014.

Relevant document: 9th Report from the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments

Motion agreed.

Statutory Shared Parental Pay (Parental Order Cases) Regulations 2014

Monday 17th November 2014 Grand Committee

Motion to Consider

15:43

Moved by

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe]

That the Grand Committee do consider the Statutory Shared Parental Pay (Parental Order Cases) Regulations 2014.

Relevant document: 9th Report from the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments

Motion agreed.

Social Security (Contributions) (Amendment No. 5) Regulations 2014

Monday 17th November 2014 Grand Committee

Motion to Consider

15:44

Moved by

[Lord Newby]

That the Grand Committee do consider the Social Security (Contributions) (Amendment No. 5) Regulations 2014.

Relevant document: 9th Report from the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments

[Lord Newby (LD)]

My Lords, as both sets of regulations deal with national insurance contributions and arise from the changes made to the taxation and charging of national insurance consequent to changes made to the treatment of partnerships in the Finance Act 2014 and the National Insurance Contributions Act 2014, it seems sensible to debate them together. The Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments considered these regulations and has not raised any issues relating to them, and I can confirm that they are compatible with the European Convention on Human Rights.

I turn first to the Social Security (Contributions) (Amendment No. 5) Regulations. Section 13 of the National Insurance Act 2014 provides a power to make regulations to modify the way in which the liabilities of members of certain partnerships to class 4 national insurance contributions are determined. That section addressed an issue arising under existing partnership rules whereby the immediate entitlement to partnership profit is restricted by the alternative investment fund managers directive. Under existing partnership rules, tax and national insurance contributions are charged on profits as they are earned rather than when they are received. An unfunded NICs charge can therefore arise on profits that are allocated to an individual partner of an alternative investment fund management partnership and which are then deferred in line with the regulatory requirements of the AIFMD. This is because the partner cannot access the profits in the year they arise. Following discussions with fund sector representatives and the Financial Conduct Authority, the Government have put in place a statutory mechanism to address this issue. These regulations remove the charge to class 4 NICs when the profits are allocated to an individual but access is restricted under AIFMD, and reinstate the charge when those profits are eventually vested in the individual. As a result, the individual will be liable to pay class 4 NICs only when they have unfettered access to the profit. To ensure consistent treatment between NICs and tax, these regulations mirror income tax legislation.

Turning now to the Social Security Contributions (Limited Liability Partnership) Regulations, Section 14 of the National Insurance Act 2014 provides an express power to regulate to treat some members of a limited liability partnership who meet certain conditions as employed earners for NICs. Similar provisions treating these members as employees for income tax purposes can be found in the Finance Act 2014. Previously, all members of an LLP were treated for tax and national insurance contributions as self-employed. They benefited from the tax and NICs rules for the self-employed and the LLP did not have to pay employer’s NICs.

The treatment of members of LLPs as being self-employed for tax and NICs was designed to replicate the position of traditional partnerships. However, LLPs have increasingly been used to disguise employment relationships and to avoid accounting for employment taxes and NICs. The new measures in these regulations and the Finance Act ensure that the original intent—that of treating members of a LLP the same as traditional partnerships—is not used to create a tax and NICs advantage. They create a level playing field for those who have not sought to misuse the rules for a tax and NICs advantage and those who have.

When certain conditions are met, a member of an LLP will be treated instead as an employee for the purposes of NICs. Broadly, that means that they will have employee NICs deducted from payments to them and the LLP will have to account for employer NICs and assume the other responsibilities arising from being the secondary contributor. The conditions were introduced by the Finance Act 2014, and are that the individual member of the LLP has little or no real economic interest or risk in the LLP, no significant influence over its affairs, and is largely rewarded by a fixed salary. During the course of the consultation in 2013 and 2014, HMRC became aware of proposals to create structures with corporate members to avoid the impact of the proposed changes. The proposals involved the individual establishing a personal service company or other intermediary and that intermediary becoming a member of the LLP in place of the individual. These regulations contain measures to counteract the artificial interposition of a company or other intermediary to avoid the impact of the legislation.

The regulations apply where the new tax provisions apply and an individual salaried member of an LLP is treated for income tax purposes as an employee of the LLP under a contract of service. For the purposes of NICs, the salaried member is treated as an employee and their income is treated as earnings, and the benefits in kind regime applies to them. As the salaried members are treated as employees for the purposes of employee NICs, the LLP is treated as an employer for NICs purposes and must account for employer NICs. The employer as secondary contributor is also responsible for statutory sick pay, statutory maternity pay, statutory paternity pay and statutory adoption pay. These regulations provide that the LLP will be responsible for these statutory payments in respect of salaried members.

As I have mentioned, HMRC became aware of schemes to avoid the impact of the Government’s partnership proposals. The tax legislation to prevent such avoidance provides that where an individual provides services to the LLP through an arrangement involving a member of the LLP who is not an individual—generally a personal service company—the individual providing the services is then treated as a salaried member. So an individual cannot sidestep the impact of these measures by interposing a company or other intermediary between themselves and the LLP. These regulations ensure that where the tax anti-avoidance measure is in play, the like NICs consequences will follow.

To avoid a double charge arising where the anti-avoidance measure applies and the intermediaries legislation, commonly known as IR35, also applies, the regulations in respect of IR35 are modified so that only one charge under these regulations can occur. To ensure consistent treatment for NICs and income tax, these regulations mirror the tax legislation, relying on mirroring definitions. These provisions are part of a package of tax and NICs measures that will yield £3.2 billion over the period to April 2019. The regulations contain mirror provisions applying to Great Britain and to Northern Ireland.

I commend the statutory instruments to the Committee.

[Lord McKenzie of Luton (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for introducing these regulations. I am reverting to dealing with Treasury matters today because my noble friend Lord Tunnicliffe is in the Chamber.

As the Minister explained, these regulations spring from a review of the taxation liabilities of partnerships, and elements of avoidance related to the conversion of employment income into self-employment income, particularly regarding mixed partnerships, with individuals and corporates, and the allocation of profits and gains on a favourable basis. I should make it clear that we support the tackling of such avoidance; it is absolutely right that we do so.

The Explanatory Memorandum to the second set of regulations made reference to estimated,

“tax and NICs revenue of £3.27 billion over the forecast period to 2018-19”.

In the light of tax receipts to date, will the Minister comment on how robust that figure is and whether there is a revision on the cards? Unless he can respond, we may have to wait for the OBR report in a few weeks’ time.

As I said, we support the principle of those with disguised self-employment income being treated as employees for both income tax and national insurance purposes. Can the Minister say a little more to clarify the precise circumstances under which these provisions will apply? I looked at the summary of responses in HMRC’s document, Partnerships: A Review of Two Aspects of the Tax Rules. Pages 11 and 12 set out the Government’s proposals for when the rules would apply, and state:

“Where all of new conditions A to C (as set out below) are met, then with effect from 6 April 2014”—

I note that these measures are retrospective, and we support that—

“an individual member of an LLP will be treated as an employee of the LLP for tax and NICs purposes”.

Condition A then states that,

“the member is to perform the services for the LLP in his or her capacity as a member, and is expected to be wholly or substantially wholly rewarded through a ‘disguised salary’ that is fixed or, if varied, varied without reference to the profits or losses of the LLP”.

That is one of the three tests, and I understand that all three must be satisfied. If that is one of the planks that the Government are moving forward on, it would not be too difficult to circumvent and seems somewhat flimsy.

Condition B in the Government’s response is that,

“the member does not have significant influence over the affairs of the partnership”.

I wonder about the extent to which that condition reflects what happens in lots of partnerships at the moment. I remember being, in a former life, a partner in Price Waterhouse, but as a new equity partner, with another 120 partners at the same time, frankly one’s influence over the business was quite small. A lot of these partnerships have grown much broader in the intervening years. I would have thought it quite likely that someone who is a genuine equity partner does not have significant influence over the affairs of the partnership. Collectively, equity partners do, but individually they do not. Perhaps the Minister will help us with that.

Will he also say something about the territorial aspects? The regulations refer to partnerships that are constituted under UK law and, clearly, that are operational in the UK. What happens to partnerships that are constituted under the rules of a territory outside the UK?

Do any other consequences flow from treating income as employment income? The Minister referred to statutory payments, but there are issues around employment rights and health and safety. For example, there are some changes in legislation that are looking to exempt a huge swathe of the self-employed from the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act. Would that continue to apply to people who purport to be self-employed, notwithstanding that they are being treated as employed for the purposes of tax and national insurance contributions?

I move briefly to the regulations that relate to the AIFM arrangements. As the Minister explained, these apply to class 4 self-employed contributions. What is the situation of somebody who is treated as an employed person under the other regulations? How does this work for such people? That is very unclear. The regulations seem to focus just on class 4, which presumably applies only to those who have deferred income arising and are accepted as being genuinely self-employed, and not to this other category, which we are seeking to address in the other regulations. I must say, I am a little confused about how that works.

Paragraph 4.4 of the Explanatory Memorandum refers to class 4 contributions applying when profits,

“vest in the individual partner, if that partner is carrying on the AIFM trade at the time of the vesting”.

What if the individual is not carrying on the trade at the point of vesting? I am not sure technically how that would work, but clearly the Explanatory Memorandum recognises that it is a possibility. When does class 4 bite in those circumstances?

I should be grateful for the Minister’s help on those points, in follow-up if not here today. Clearly, we have no problem with these regulations and we support the thrust of the anti-avoidance provisions that they seek to address.

[Lord Newby]

I am most grateful to the noble Lord for his support for these SIs and for his questions. On his first question about the revenue of £3.2 billion, the formal answer is, of course, that as this has just started and is looking at the period to 2018-19, it is far too early to tell. To the extent that there has been any weakness in income tax receipts, it is due to shortfalls in income from people at the lower end of the income spectrum. These people are definitely not there. Given that the sector we are talking about is doing pretty well at the minute, there is certainly no reason to think that that figure is unlikely to be met.

The noble Lord asked about the territoriality of the measure. My understanding is that it applies to UK-constituted partnerships only. He asked about the conditions, of which there are three. Condition A is that reward is largely fixed. The use of “largely” simply allows for small variations to take place but for an individual still to fall within that condition. As regards exactly what is meant by the second condition, HMRC has issued detailed guidance, which was written following extensive consultation and discussion with the sector.

I am sure that I have not responded to one or two points and I am very grateful to the noble Lord for being willing to accept a letter dealing with those remaining points. With those responses to the noble Lord’s comments, I commend the regulations to the Committee.

Motion agreed.

Social Security Contributions (Limited Liability Partnership) Regulations 2014

Monday 17th November 2014 Grand Committee

Motion to Consider

16:01

Moved by

[Lord Newby]

That the Grand Committee do consider the Social Security Contributions (Limited Liability Partnership) Regulations 2014.

Relevant document: 9th Report from the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments

Motion agreed.

Broadcasting (Independent Productions) (Amendment) Order 2014

Monday 17th November 2014 Grand Committee

Motion to Consider

16:02

Moved by

[Lord Gardiner of Kimble]

That the Grand Committee do consider the Broadcasting (Independent Productions) (Amendment) Order 2014.

Relevant document: 8th Report from the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments

[Lord Gardiner of Kimble (Con)]

My Lords, the order aims to ensure that the definition of independent producer for the purposes of commissioning television programmes excludes only those production companies that are UK-broadcaster owned from being considered “independent”. The order does not extend the definition of qualified independent producers to producers owned by UK broadcasters that do not qualify at present. The order merely seeks to reaffirm what has been the agreed policy over the last 10 years, which is that a producer which is owned by a non-UK broadcaster, or is part of the same group of companies as a non-UK broadcaster, should not be prevented from being classified as an independent producer if they meet the qualifying criteria.

The Communications Act 2003 requires the public service broadcasters—the BBC, the Channel 3 companies, Channel 4, Channel 5 and S4C—to ensure that in each year not less than 25% of the total amount of time they allocate to the broadcasting of qualifying programmes is allocated to the broadcasting of a range and diversity of independent productions. The Communications Act 2003 also applies a similar “10% independent productions” requirement to all digital service broadcasters that are not public service broadcasters. The aim of the independent productions quota is threefold: to promote cultural diversity and to open up the production system to new energies and voices; to stimulate the growth of small and medium-sized enterprises, promoting creativity and fostering new talent; and to tackle vertical integration within the UK programme supply market. It is widely considered that the independent productions quota has been working well over a number of years, providing competition and a stimulus to originality that has benefited programme supply in the UK.

However, a few issues with the legislation as currently drafted have been identified and the amendments made through this order are designed to deal with them. Perhaps I may explain a little more. The Communications Act requires that the terms “independent productions” and “qualifying programmes” are defined by order. Article 3(4) of the Broadcasting (Independent Productions) Order 1991 defines an independent producer as a producer who is not employed by a broadcaster, who does not have a shareholding greater than 25% in a broadcaster, and in which any one UK broadcaster has a shareholding greater than 25% or any two or more UK broadcasters have an aggregate shareholding greater than 50%. This definition must also be read in accordance with Article 3(5) of the order, which stipulates that “any person connected” to a producer—that is, in the same ownership chain—must also not be employed by a broadcaster, own more than 25% of a broadcaster, or be more than 25%-owned by one UK broadcaster for the producer to be considered as independent. The meaning of the terms was first specified in the 1991 order, which was subsequently amended in 1995 and in 2003. It is the last of those amendments, to the 2003 order, which failed to reflect fully the policy in relation to ownership of a UK production company that Parliament agreed to. That policy was, in essence, to allow a producer to be treated as an independent producer even if it was owned by a foreign broadcaster so long as the foreign broadcaster’s services did not target the UK.

So, while the 2003 amendment amended certain elements of the definition of independent producers, including introducing the qualification that ownership of the producer by a UK broadcaster was a disqualification, it did not amend Article 3(5) in relation to “any person connected” to that broadcaster or producer. This means that if a person connected to the producer fails any of the tests in Article 3(4) which define “independent producers”, the producer cannot be considered “independent”. That connected person could be, for example, part of a group of companies which include not only a UK broadcaster but any broadcaster anywhere in the world. The net result is that the current definition still excludes some producers that the Government and, crucially, the industry itself believed were within the definition. Ofcom has told us that these production companies include such high-profile ones as Zodiak Media, the maker of programmes such as “Wallander” and “Being Human” for the BBC, and FremantleMedia, which produces the likes of “Take Me Out” and “Through the Keyhole” for ITV. Both companies are owned by broadcasters that predominately operate in other parts of the world. So although a public service broadcaster could commission programmes from these producers according to the strict letter of the legislation as it currently stands, that public service broadcaster could not count those programmes towards its 25% independent productions quota.

It is essential that we clarify this anomaly for broadcasters and producers, as well as for Ofcom, whose regulatory role is to ensure that broadcasters comply with the independent production quota set out in their licences. This order rectifies the situation by redefining the term “broadcaster” to ensure that it refers only to UK broadcasters or broadcasters whose transmissions are primarily aimed at the UK consistently in Article 3. The amendments preserve independent status for producers who are connected to a person who owns or is owned by a broadcaster that does not aim its services primarily at the UK. The order does this by removing the references to “producer” in Article 3(5) so that only the producer has to meet the tests—not the producer and any person connected with the producer. Any producer owned by a UK broadcaster will still be excluded from the definition of an independent producer, continuing to prevent vertical integration in the UK supply market. Whoever holds the licence for a public service broadcaster, whether it is a British or foreign company, has to comply with the public service obligation set out in the broadcasting licence. These obligations are enshrined in legislation and include quotas for UK-originated content and content made in the regions and nations of the UK.

These changes are being made with the support of the industry. The DCMS wrote to all broadcasters last summer to notify them of our intention to correct the legislation. We received no comments opposing the move and, just prior to laying the order before your Lordships’ House, we gave broadcasters the opportunity to comment on the draft. I can confirm that all were supportive of the changes being made. We also worked with Ofcom and PACT, the member body for the UK independent production sector, on this order to ensure that it is fit for purpose. To date, the industry has been applying the definition set out in the policy rather than what is contained in the legislation. These amendments will ensure the policy intent and the legislation are fully aligned.

This is an important clarification for the industry—the public service broadcasters and all other commercial digital channel operators in the UK that rely on the definition to identify whom they commission from to fulfil their quotas for independent production—and will enable Ofcom to undertake its regulatory duties more effectively. This legislation is therefore needed and proportionate, and I commend the order to the Committee.

[Lord Clement-Jones (LD)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for a very clear exposition. I very much agree that the connected person issue needed to be addressed, and has been very adequately addressed in the order.

However, this is an opportunity to make a slight diversion in terms of independent production. I noticed that the Minister went back to the original 1990 Broadcasting Act and talked about the three limbs and the reasons for the independent production quotas that were set out in that Act: promoting cultural diversity; stimulating the growth of small and medium-sized enterprises; and tackling vertical integration. It is worth while reminding ourselves of those. I noticed that when the committee met in the Commons, everybody vied to talk about their favourite programme and which independent production companies made “The Great British Bake Off”, “Sherlock”, “Rev.” and the like.

However, the fact is that independent does not necessarily mean small—some of these independent companies are very large and it is a very contestable market out there between some of the independent production companies. In that context, it is very interesting that the noble Lord, Lord Hall, in a speech in July, talked about opening up the BBC further to independent production. That then leads on to the BBC charter review and the review by Ofcom of PSB, which I think will be complete next year. PACT has some very interesting ideas about how the BBC might, in its words, become much more of a “publisher broadcaster” over time. All these are very interesting ideas that do not flow directly from this order but certainly form part of a general thinking—a rethinking, if you like—about the role of independent producers.

Since 1990, we have had a particular regime. Is it time, now we have such a robust independent production sector, to move further? Should we be encouraging the BBC—not only with the actions of the noble Lord, Lord Hall, but through the charter review—to engage more in independent commissioning? I notice that the noble Lord, Lord Hall, has plans effectively to make the BBC’s in-house production part of a market in which it will be competing, in a sense, against the independent producers. Again, that is a very interesting idea, and it is very forward-thinking of him. I assume it is to make sure that that production is seen as being as efficient as it can be and is not characterised as bloated or whatever, as it has been in the past by certain commentators. That sounds a very defensible action. It will be interesting to hear the Minister’s comments on whether DCMS was thinking in that direction and on what thoughts it had on the subject generally. I support the order.

16:15

[Lord Stevenson of Balmacara (Lab)]

My Lords, I, too, support the order which at its heart is simply a correction of an earlier infelicitous piece of drafting. Although it has taken a very long time to come through, it is an important step in the right way. Having said that, I slightly wonder why, given that we have been waiting for this, in some senses, since 1990, the Minister feels that it is necessary for it to come into force on the day on which it is made, which I presume will be tomorrow, rather than on one of the common commencement dates, 1 October or 6 April, for the good reason that that would give the industry time to plan and to think through the issues. The Minister will be aware that I have spoken about this in respect of other draft orders laid before Parliament. It is important that if the Government are going to depart from common commencement dates, they should have a very good reason for doing so. Advice to officials is quite clear on that. Certain steps have to be taken, certain requirements have to be met and approvals have to be sought from a central committee, and I do not think that that has happened in this case.

Like the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, I was struck by the way in which the Explanatory Memorandum and the Minister’s introduction to the order—which he did very well—centre around the original three limbs of cultural diversity, the growth of small and medium-sized businesses and tackling vertical integration. It is interesting that the argument used throughout the Explanatory Memorandum veers towards the last of those, rather than the first two, in trying to come up with answers for why this regulation is in place at all, let alone why it needs to be corrected. My point on this is slightly different from that of the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones. It is that although they are admirable in every way as aspirations for a system, they are, as he said, possibly a bit otiose in terms of what we now see when we look out to that area, not that we should not be constantly on our guard to make sure that there is a vibrant independent production sector. Will the Minister tell us when it is intended to have a look at them? Are they still the main drivers for these regulatory structures? If they are, and the Government are happy with them, when were they last reviewed? If it was not reasonably recently, when might they be reviewed? I say this in particular because the Government announced in the Secretary of State’s speech to the RTS conference in September 2014 that they were going to redo this order, although information had been circulating for some time about the need for it, particularly Ofcom’s letter of the previous December. In stressing that the Government have been clear that the order before us today does not reflect an intention to amend the rationale for the intervention that has been made, nor to amend the qualification criteria—in other words, the three limbs we were talking about earlier—the Secretary of State left an impression that some form of review was taking place on this. He went on to say that the Government will consider these issues,

“once Ofcom has published its PSB review next summer”.

What will be included in that review announced by the Secretary of State? It is just the three limbs, as previously talked about, or it is some other variation on this matter? I would be grateful for any clarification the Minister can give on that.

Finally, the wording we are faced with in this order, although absolutely correct in terms of the original drafting in 1990 and 2003, speaks to a form of distribution of television that is changing rather fast. While we probably still have independent producers and, to some extent, broadcasters, the consumption patterns of programmes no longer fit the standard definitions that were once the very bedrock on which these regulatory structures were put up. If, as my children do, people consume television entirely through an internet connection on iPads and even iPods and do not subscribe to the idea of having a regulated channel system, whereby broadcasters take programmes and send them round to people to receive through aerials and satellite dishes into their homes, what will it mean in terms of these definitions? I understand that the point here is to catch up with how the industry has defined itself over the past 10 years—that is a good thing—but I wonder whether the order is future-proofed in any way. Perhaps the Minister could reflect on that because, although there is no immediate need for a change here, I signal the fact that this set of definitions will not survive for very much longer.

[Lord Gardiner of Kimble]

My Lords, I thank your Lordships for their comments. As my noble friend Lord Clement-Jones has said, we are going through a time when the general landscape is being considered and reviewed. Obviously, the comments of PACT and the recent observations by the noble Lord, Lord Hall of Birkenhead, also mean that this whole area is under considerable scrutiny and consideration. My own view is that this is about the quality and the ability of the productions.

The noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, referred to the three limbs. Looking at them again, I think that they are still as relevant, and some of these principles may remain relevant for a very long period of time, because the promotion of small and medium-sized enterprises, diversity and a whole range of issues are important. Certainly, the whole reason why we all wish to review, now or in the future, is because we wish to ensure that we have a vibrant sector. In British television, compared with many other parts of the world, we have not only a vibrant but in many respects high-quality sector.

I will look at Hansard and, if there are some points of timing on which I can help the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, I shall write further. As for the changes in the market and terms of trade between indies and broadcasters, that is clearly an issue that has provoked much recent debate among public service broadcasters. The terms of trade have been a key reason why the UK independent sector is such a success story both here and abroad. Of course, this Government want to see that sector grow from strength to strength. The time to consider whether any policy changes are required to ensure that that success can continue and be built on further is after Ofcom has published its PSB review next summer, given that the independent production sector is a key theme of the review.

On the question asked by the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, about why we cannot have a common commencement date, if any apologies are due, I of course give them. However, I understand that Ofcom set guidance for this year’s quota of reporting requirements in October, and the legislation had to be updated to confirm that guidance as soon as possible. As I say, if any further apology is due, I give it now.

It has been very helpful to discuss these points, and I shall want to reflect and speak to colleagues about timings of any further work. In the mean time, I commend the order to your Lordships.

Motion agreed.

Legislative Reform (Entertainment Licensing) Order 2014

Monday 17th November 2014 Grand Committee

Motion to Consider

16:24

Moved by

[Lord Gardiner of Kimble]

That the Grand Committee do consider the Legislative Reform (Entertainment Licensing) Order 2014.

Relevant document: 6th Report from the Regulatory Reform Committee

[Lord Gardiner of Kimble (Con)]

My Lords, in 2011 the Government launched a consultation that examined the regulatory regime for entertainment licensing under the Licensing Act 2003 with the aim of removing any regulation which unnecessarily restricts creativity, community expression and economic growth. This has been and is being taken forward in three phases.

On 3 June last year, your Lordships considered and approved the first of three phases of reform of regulated entertainment. That phase related to performances of plays, dance and indoor sporting events. The second phase is a clause in the Deregulation Bill before your Lordships’ House and seeks to deregulate the exhibition of film in community premises, about which the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson of Balmacara, and I had an interesting exchange last week.

The order today is the third element of the reform package. The Government launched a consultation on the details of individual measures on 22 October last year. The intention of the order is to reduce the burden of licensing on entertainment organisers through the introduction of a range of targeted licensing exemptions for lower risk entertainment activities that are subject to the satisfaction of important conditions. These exemptions take into account the four licensing objectives: the prevention of crime and disorder; the prevention of public nuisance; public safety; and the protection of children from harm.

The order removes the need for licences between 8 am and 11 pm for many public entertainment performances in lower risk circumstances. The order brings common sense to the licensing framework. Where an entertainment activity is organised by a local authority on its own premises, that local authority will no longer have to grant a licence to itself. The order will make it less bureaucratic for parent-teacher associations to stage entertainment in support of schools. A healthcare provider can organise entertainment on its own hospital premises without needing prior authorisation. The order will enable greater numbers of businesses and performers to benefit from the conditional deregulation of live music entertainment in alcohol-licensed premises and workplaces. It will do this by increasing the audience size limit to 500 people. The order will remove the licensing burden on music entertainment in village halls and other community premises that are not licensed for the supply of alcohol on the premises. The order will also put travelling circus entertainment on a clearer statutory footing, assisting both licensing authorities and circus operators.

As long as an activity meets the criteria for an exemption, organisers will no longer have to incur the administrative, and sometimes financial, cost of acquiring a licence authorisation. For instance, PTA UK estimates that this order will probably save £0.25 million a year, which can be ploughed back into activities and support schools. Overall, this order will probably save organisers about £1 million a year, which is a useful financial advantage and, more particularly, will be of great assistance in reducing administrative burdens. Where the criteria for an activity are not met, for example where live music is performed until the early hours of the morning, a licence will still be required.

The order also extends the licence review mechanism to include recorded music in alcohol-licensed pubs and clubs. That is an important safeguard for local residents. Anyone with legitimate grounds can ask their licensing authority to review the alcohol licence on the grounds of noise from performances of live or recorded music. Conditions can then be imposed or reimposed on the music performances where necessary to protect the licensing objectives.

16:29

Organisers of entertainment events will also continue to be subject to health and safety, environmental protection and fire safety legislation that provide safeguards for the public without imposing unnecessary double regulation through the licensing regime for lower-risk entertainment. Indeed, given the new arrangements, work is already in hand with stakeholders, such as PTA UK, to formulate guidance to assist organisers. As I said, this order deregulates in lower risk circumstances. I emphasise that it does not remove licensing from the sale and supply of alcohol, nor does it deregulate sexual entertainment or mixed martial arts.

The Government believe that the order strikes an appropriate balance between encouraging entertainment in local communities and promoting the licensing objectives. As I said, it will remove some of the costs and bureaucracy that can sap the will of volunteers and soak up often scarce financial resources. In response to the consultation, 75% of respondents were either supportive or offered qualified support for the proposals. This included a wide range of performers, entertainment industry members and local authorities. The Voluntary Arts Network said of the measures:

“The … burden of entertainment licensing … has in recent years been a major obstacle to voluntary arts groups putting on small local events and performances”.

And the Musicians’ Union said:

“We agree that these proposals would lead to more performances of live music, particularly in small venues. Over the past few years our members have been telling us that the number of gigs available to young musicians who are still perfecting their craft has gone down”.

This is sensible deregulation of activities which we believe should not be caught by the Licensing Act. The Government’s view is that existing safeguards put in place under alcohol controls, fire, health and safety and anti-social behaviour legislation mean that it is sensible to remove these lower risk activities from regulation. The removal of this cost and bureaucracy will help sustain community entertainment, such as live music, which I think we all believe is part of the cultural heritage of England and Wales. For those reasons, I commend the order to the Committee.

[Lord Clement-Jones (LD)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for that exposition, which brings back happy memories of my Second Reading Speech on the Live Music Bill back in 2011. I wholly support the rationale for the deregulation of live music. It may have taken some time, and I must be a collector of consultations in one way or another since 2011, but it has been a very careful and stately progress towards building on the Live Music Act exemption for venues with an audience capacity of 200, which will be extended to 500 if this order goes through. It is as if, between 2012 and now, Christmas has arrived after many years of waiting under the previous Government. I remember first raising the deregulation of live music performances in 2007. I kept being told that reviews would take place. I think that a consultation paper was issued in early 2010 and thereafter, of course, a new Government took office, so I am extremely pleased to see this on foot. I thought that the original 5,000 figure was rather extravagant. I do not know whether it was aversion therapy or whatever, but certainly I expect that local authorities made their views known about the idea of deregulating an audience of up to 5,000 for live music.

There are still areas of live music which could be improved, but I was very pleased to see stated in the LRO consultation of July 2014:

“The coming into force of the Live Music Act 2012 has not negatively impacted the licensing objectives and the Government considers that having an audience limit of not more than 500 people for music entertainment in relevant premises strikes the right balance between those who welcome it, and those who have concerns about noise nuisance”.

That is a very fair and balanced approach.

I am often critical of the Government’s impact assessments, but the impact assessment that assesses the administrative savings from the reduced need to apply for licences and TENs for business and third-sector organisations states the figures at £5.9 million and £3.8 million. Over the appraisal period, that may sound slightly spuriously precise, but I am sure that there will be considerable administrative savings as a result of this order.

Again, I welcome the order, but there are further steps that we should take to free up live music. We had some sensible proposals on how leafleting for live events and small social and cultural events is going to be treated, on which DCLG is consulting at the moment, and I welcome them. I have spoken on busking, and I promoted an amendment to the Deregulation Bill, but had somebody else speak to it. The way in which the planning law operates is still a problem for some small venues, as many people know, and there are petitions on changing the law, which I hope will make progress.

My only question for the Minister at this stage is about the guidance. Chapter 15 of the current guidance deals with regulated entertainment. Of course, it took a little bit of time to consult over exactly how the guidance needed to be changed last time around. Does the Minister consider that it will take an equivalent time this time or can the process be speeded up? I hope that it will come into effect as quickly as possible.

[Lord Stevenson of Balmacara (Lab)]

My Lords, I, too, welcome the order. I have no particular objection to it as it stands, and I agree with many points made by the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, in his current mainstream form, although I have welcomed him in surrogate packaging form on a couple of other recent occasions.

First, I want to say how nice it is that this order will come into force on 6 April 2015, which is one of the common commencement dates, and that the department has been able to find a way in which to make that happen this time. However, I do not quite follow the argument that I heard the Minister make about how the four principal objectives of public licensing come through in the specifics of some of the issues raised by this order. The one on which I want to concentrate particularly is children. I understand that crime, public safety and public nuisance issues are well dealt with because there are other ways in which they can be addressed. The choice of low-risk venues and the experience over a reasonable period with deregulated live music gives us all confidence that there are ways in which this will come through. However, I put one caveat on that, in that I worry slightly about the size of some of these venues.

In preparing for the debate that we had last week on the deregulation of community cinema, we were told by a number of expert witnesses that the size specified of 500 people was very large in proportion to existing community premises, which tend to be much smaller, and to the licensed exhibition of films. Sadly, these days there are very few cinemas; there used to be cinemas that could hold up to 2,000, particularly in London, whereas most cinemas now hold something of the order of between 300 and 500 people. So we talking about deregulating what is admittedly a low-risk environment—venues that are probably not in existence and are unlikely to be built. I wonder slightly about that, but it is not my main concern, which is that in crime, public safety and public nuisance we have reasonable experience of what has happened in the deregulatory phases of the past two years, and we understand how the regulations will apply.

Let me just take two issues. It may be a good thing to ensure that the licensing treatment for peripatetic circuses is evened up across the country. Removing regulations is a novel way of doing this—although I understand the reasoning—since it avoids the possibility of different approaches in different areas. However, circuses are aimed at children and in my experience, although I have not been to a circus for many years, most of the performances include bringing children on stage, or certainly engaging them through the clowns and various other aspects. There must a priori be an interest in ensuring that the child protection aspects of that are well considered. Will the Minister point out where that appears in the order, as I could not see it in relation to circuses? As I read the order, there is nothing specific addressing children. There is a lacuna there that we might wish to reflect on.

Secondly, there is the addition, for reasons that I do not quite understand and would like an explanation about, of Greco-Roman and freestyle wrestling. I am not a wrestling aficionado and am certainly not an expert, but I do not quite get why they have been picked out in preference to many other styles of wrestling. I do not really understand how it can be said that they are by some definition freer from concerns about public order issues than might apparently apply to Cumbrian wrestling or indeed, if we were talking about Scotland, which sadly we are not, Scottish wrestling, which is, as far as I understand it, certainly not public nuisance-free. It seems to take place in Scottish highland games, at which there are very large amounts of alcohol copiously available. Apparently for Greco-Roman and freestyle wrestling you have to be not only an aficionado but under the auspices of British Wrestling, an organisation I am not familiar with, but which is apparently the one specified. By some miraculous arrangement—perhaps the Greco-Roman gods are looking over this—there is no alcohol present because that just does not happen. That may be true, but it seems rather odd to have picked out Greco-Roman and freestyle wrestling for this, particularly as the order makes provision for this to take place in venues for up to 1,000. Not 200, not 500, but 1,000 people can gather together for an alcohol-free festival of Greco-Roman and freestyle wrestling. That is good news. Again, I worry a bit about that, but I worry also about the child protection aspects. This is an area where, presumably, young people are being brought to encourage them. It is very physical and very direct exercise—it was pretty good in the Olympic Games, and it was interesting that in the audience, there were quite a lot of children watching. My concerns are therefore obvious and I will be grateful if the Minister will respond to them.

Other than that, we think that the order is well presented. Like the noble Lord, I thought the Explanatory Memorandum was very good. I enjoyed reading it and felt it answered many of the questions I had.

[Lord Gardiner of Kimble]

My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lord Clement-Jones and the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, for their overarching welcome for the thrust of what we are seeking to achieve. I understand my noble friend Lord Clement-Jones’s reference to stately progress. It is sometimes important to get it right, but I understand the frustrations when things take rather longer than one would wish. My noble friend used the words “the right balance”. The Government have sought to find the right balance. The whole purpose of this is to ensure that the activities that we seek to deregulate are at the lower risk end. This is not about in any way changing the main thrust of what is required if there were problems.

On audience limits for live music, we believe—and this is something that has been felt across the piece generally—that 500 achieves a fair balance between promoting creativity and ensuring the sustainability of live music and entertainment yet at the same time protecting local communities from unwanted noise nuisance. In the end, where people run these events, they will be part of the local community, and where you have live music, very often it will affect people in the community who might well go to the pub or to various events. We have this safety mechanism in that when someone has an alcohol licence and the music is causing a problem, there are ways in which the licensing authority can trigger reimposition of sanctions. We have been seeking to achieve the right balance here.

16:45

I will deal with the other points in no particular order. I am very much at one with the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson of Balmacara, in not being an expert on Greco-Roman or indeed freestyle wrestling. These types of wrestling are ancient combat sports where a competitor seeks to gain control over his or her opponent through the use of throws, locks and clinching techniques. In the Greco-Roman discipline, competitors may not attack their opponent’s legs or use their own legs to trip, lift or execute other moves. It has to take place in a controlled environment and usually takes place in seated indoor arenas. For those reasons, it was considered that spectator safety can be safeguarded for those particular types of wrestling.

The noble Lord mentioned other types of wrestling, including Scottish wrestling, but there is also Cornish and Cumbrian wrestling. These very often take place outdoors as part of festivals, and therefore on balance they are not considered to be as low in risk with reference to the licensing objective for public safety.

[Lord Stevenson of Balmacara]

I am grateful to the Minister for explaining that. However, my other point was that it seemed odd to choose those particular styles of wrestling. The reason as he explained it may well be sufficient, but the bulk of the interest as I understand it is in martial arts, particularly kick-boxing and the like. I am a bit surprised that that is not the way the mind is moving; audiences would certainly be more active in those sort of events, which take place in sports halls and other recreation centres.

[Lord Gardiner of Kimble]

I am obviously not in a position to say that we might be thinking of extending this beyond these two activities, but as I say, those two—the Greco-Roman and the freestyle—are the only Olympic wrestling events. It may also have something to do with a view that, on balance, they are at the lower-risk end. We will see, but I think that is sensible.

Quite rightly, none of us would wish to do anything in terms of deregulation if for one moment it was to put any child in jeopardy. As for children going into circuses, they provide family-oriented entertainment and are not typically licensed for alcohol purposes. The protection of children from harm is about sexual entertainment and alcohol harm, not about regulating circus performance, which it would arguably be disproportionate to do. I know the noble Lord did not mention this, but in terms for instance of the protection of children who are part of circuses, there are separate child performance regulations covering how many hours a child may perform, which are administered by local authorities. My guess is that most children would go to a circus either with their parents, in a school group, or whatever. I take the point very seriously, but there is no lacuna because these regulations are about ensuring that the key points of the licensing objectives are retained.

Going back somewhat to the size of venues, if someone is organising an event, there may be a limit of 500. However, if you were thinking of getting 500 in a very small pub, that would not necessarily pass the test in terms of all the key factors that a publican or an organiser has to ensure such as fire safety, health and safety, and all the existing legislation and regulations. We are not removing those—we are deregulating for music in this instance.

Again, I will look at Hansard and see whether there are any outstanding reassurance that may be needed, but I think this sets the right balance and is an appropriate form of our deregulation task. I very much commend the order to your Lordships.

Motion agreed.

Committee adjourned at 4.50 pm.

House of Lords

Monday 17th November 2014 Lords Chamber

Monday, 17 November 2014.

14:30

Prayers—read by the Lord Bishop of Worcester.

Retirement of a Member: Lord Chorley

Monday 17th November 2014 Lords Chamber

Announcement

14:36

[The Lord Speaker (Baroness D’Souza)]

My Lords, I should like to notify the House of the retirement, with effect from today, of the noble Lord, Lord Chorley, pursuant to Section 1 of the House of Lords Reform Act 2014. On behalf of the House, I should like to thank the noble Lord for his much valued service to the House.

Health: HIV

Monday 17th November 2014 Lords Chamber

Question

14:37

Asked by

[Lord Fowler]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what is their latest estimate of the number of men, women and children around the world who have contracted HIV.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for International Development (Baroness Northover) (LD)]

My Lords, according to the UNAIDS Gap report published in July 2014, globally it is estimated that 2.1 million men, women and children became newly infected with HIV in 2013, which is down from 3.4 million in 2001. It is estimated that 35 million people are now living with HIV.

[Lord Fowler (Con)]

My Lords, is not the worst feature of that figure of 35 million people living with HIV around the world that half of them are undiagnosed, and the principal reason is that people are prevented coming forward for testing because of the prejudice and fear that surrounds this area? As we approach World AIDS Day in about a week’s time, will the Government renew their efforts to persuade a change of policy in the 80 countries around the world, several of which are in the Commonwealth, where homosexuality is still a criminal offence?

[Baroness Northover]

I start by paying tribute to my noble friend for his outstanding work in this field, and not least for his new book, which I have been reading with great interest, AIDS: Don’t Die of Prejudice. He makes a very strong case not only for action in the United Kingdom—which, of course, he led on, and which I hope he will agree we have maintained—but for very active work overseas. It is by being inclusive, not stigmatising, and by making sure that prevention, treatment and care are all taken forward for everybody that we will indeed turn this around.

[Baroness Meacher (CB)]

Is the Minister aware that many people suffering with HIV are in fact addicted to drugs and that it is the interpretation of the UN conventions that is failing HIV patients and also failing the rest of the world? As 5.5 billion people do not have access to essential pain-relieving medicines, will the Minister support the guidance being prepared by the All-Party Parliamentary Group for Drug Policy Reform, which we are doing in conjunction with the Mexican, Colombian and Guatemalan Governments? Will she support that guidance on the reinterpretation of the UN conventions?

[Baroness Northover]

The noble Baroness is right to associate this with the use of drugs, and she will also know that in those countries that have addressed needle use HIV has been reduced—for example, in the United Kingdom it is minimal. We realise the significance of this challenge worldwide, particularly, for example, in eastern Europe. I will look closely at what she has suggested.

[Baroness Kinnock of Holyhead (Lab)]

My Lords, while HIV is clearly a health issue, does the Minister agree that in many countries gender inequalities remain the driving force behind this epidemic? Studies have shown that women and girls experience violence and are, therefore, at increased risk from HIV and live lives full of threat. Does the Minister agree that the needs and rights of women and girls are not being adequately addressed in response to HIV, and will DfID call for an in-country response to HIV, which includes, as the UN has requested, the creation of specific budgets intended to cater for the specific needs of women and girls?

[Baroness Northover]

The noble Baroness is quite right to associate this with violence against women and girls and the inequality of women and girls. She will know that the infection rate among young women is twice as high as that for young men, for the very reasons she has given. It is absolutely fundamental to our approach to address that inequality and try to combat violence against women and girls.

[Baroness Barker (LD)]

My Lords, an increasing number of people with HIV, although very poor and marginalised in their own communities, live in middle-income countries. To date, DfID’s grant support has been crucially important to the HIV prevention and treatment programmes in those countries. What will happen when the funding ceases in 2015?

[Baroness Northover]

My noble friend is probably aware that we are a major donor to the Global Fund, which works internationally in middle and low-income countries. She is right that our bilateral programmes focus on the poorest countries, but through our enormous contribution to the Global Fund—we are the second largest international donor in this area—we are supporting those with HIV in middle-income countries.

[Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)]

My Lords, I am aware that the Minister recently visited the IAVI lab in London. What consideration has her department given to the role of a vaccine in controlling the HIV/AIDS epidemic?

[Baroness Northover]

Like the noble Lord opposite, I had an extremely instructive visit to the IAVI lab at Imperial College. He will have noted, as I did, the challenge of trying to find a vaccine for HIV because of the difficulty with the way the virus mutates. This is in contrast, for example, with seeking to find a vaccine for Ebola. We continue to emphasise the need for research in this area, but it is immensely challenging.

[Baroness Tonge (Ind LD)]

My Lords, does my noble friend agree that, when the Global Fund launched its great campaign to get antiretroviral drugs out to AIDS sufferers all over the world, it missed an opportunity to ensure that there were simple primary care health systems set up on the back of the campaign, and people in Africa are suffering from that now?

[Baroness Northover]

The noble Baroness is right in her analysis of what happened in the first instance. Because HIV was such a major catastrophe, it was targeted separately from the health systems. However, the lesson was quickly learned that these needed to be integrated. Our emphasis now is absolutely that this needs to be integrated with the health systems in the relevant countries, and this has benefits across the board.

[Lord Ramsbotham (CB)]

The Minister mentioned the giving of money overseas. I ask the Government not to forget the need to provide funding to look after the treatment of those people with HIV in our prisons.

[Baroness Northover]

Indeed, we are acutely aware of that. The information that I have is that we are very effective in dealing with that.

[Baroness Gould of Potternewton (Lab)]

My Lords, I was pleased to hear the Minister talk about the importance of research for a vaccine. How much is the British Government’s contribution towards that research? Do they intend to maintain that level or increase it?

[Baroness Northover]

I will write to the noble Baroness with the figures on that.

NHS: Funding

Monday 17th November 2014 Lords Chamber

Question

14:45

Asked by

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what action they intend to take to deal with the projected funding gap for the National Health Service in England.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health (Earl Howe) (Con)]

My Lords, NHS spending has increased in real terms by £5 billion over this Parliament, underlining the priority the Government place on the NHS. NHS England’s Five Year Forward View set out a range of future scenarios. While NHS funding beyond 2015-16 will be a matter for the next spending review, the Government believe that changes in the way that services are delivered are essential, both to moderate rapid increases in demand and to improve efficiency.

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab)]

My Lords, I first declare an interest as president of the Society of Chiropodists and Podiatrists, a small trade union professional association that has members working in the health service.

Is the noble Earl aware of the concerns of the BMA and others that the recent changes to NHS structures, particularly funding structures, actually risk worsening health inequalities? What will the noble Earl do to ensure that that does not come to fruition?

[Earl Howe]

My Lords, tackling health inequalities is one of the major tasks facing NHS England. It is built not only into its mandate but into legislation, and we expect NHS England to address it at every level—both in the acute area and in the community. It is of course up to local commissioners to prioritise their funding, but we expect to see over the next few years a shift from care in the acute sector to care in the community, both to prevent acute admissions and to ensure that people stay healthy for longer in their own homes.

[Lord Ribeiro (Con)]

My Lords, the 2004 GP contract, which was introduced by the party opposite, forced GPs to come off on-call rotas at night and at weekends, thus removing them from out-of-hours services. The impact of this on our emergency departments has been quite dramatic. Will my noble friend confirm that the introduction of the Better Care Fund will go a long way not only to integrate these services between primary and secondary care but to remove pressure on our A&E services in the acute sector?

[Earl Howe]

I agree with my noble friend that the primary purpose of the Better Care Fund is clearly to make care better, but it is also a major step forward in making our health and care services more sustainable, and moving to a preventive model that delivers care closer to home and keeps people healthy in the community. GPs have a major part to play in this and I am encouraged by the extent to which they are now engaging in the task of addressing the BCF.

[Lord Reid of Cardowan (Lab)]

Will the noble Earl correct the inadvertent misleading of the House by the last noble Lord who spoke? The obligation for doctors to serve at weekends and in the evenings was not removed in 2004 but many years before—as it happens, under the Conservative Government. What happened in 2004 was that although they were not serving at weekends or in the evenings, as had been allowed by the previous Conservative Government, doctors were spending an increasing amount of time on the bureaucracy of finding a replacement doctor. That bureaucratic burden was what was removed from them. Will he confirm that that was the case, not for the first time but for the second time, because I asked him last year and he confirmed that by 2004 almost 90% of doctors had already opted out of night work and weekend work?

[Earl Howe]

The noble Lord has huge experience in this area and his outline is of course right, in that before 2004 we had largely a system of co-operatives in which GPs could elect to work out of hours if they wished. The 2004 contract gave individual GPs and GP practices the option not to do that. While there was no obligation to move away from out-of-hours care, many GPs have chosen to do that.

[Lord Patel (CB)]

My Lords, as it is nearly Christmas I have not given the Minister the advantage of seeing the question beforehand, but with his dexterity in answering I am sure that he will answer it straight. Can he predict which party, elected into government next May, will keep the NHS free at the point of need?

[Earl Howe]

My Lords, I cannot speak for a party other than my own, but I can tell the noble Lord firmly that we are averse to any system of charging and wish to keep the NHS free at the point of use, regardless of ability to pay.

[Baroness Manzoor (LD)]

My Lords, the NHS five-year review clearly highlighted that there was a need to upgrade preventive and public health services. Can my noble friend the Minister say how this will be done, particularly when you go back to the 2011 WHO agreement on 25 goals, under which 25% of deaths have to be reduced by 2025?

[Earl Howe]

My noble friend is right to highlight the role of public health. That is why many people are encouraged that health and well-being boards, which now oversee the planning and prioritisation of healthcare in their local areas, are taking those public health goals into account and building them into the strategic health assessments. So the co-ordination of healthcare and public health is in a much better position than it was before the reforms.

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)]

My Lords, the Minister referred to the Better Care Fund. How does he respond to the criticisms made by the National Audit Office in the last few days? It said that the programme had poor management and hugely unrealistic expectations, and that it was not going to reduce emergency admissions. Can the Minister explain why the NAO concluded that the programme had no national leadership, limited risk analysis and no analysis of local planning capability?

[Earl Howe]

My Lords, that report is somewhat out of date. Plans have now been through the nationally consistent assurance review. The results have been published and shared with local areas, which have stated some clear ambitions. They are to have 163,000 fewer stays in A&E, to make £532 million savings for health and care services, and to have 101,000 fewer unnecessary delays spent in hospitals, along with other goals besides. We are very satisfied with progress reached in producing the Better Care Fund plans. Not all plans have been approved, but we are well on course.

Financial Services: Cold Calling

Monday 17th November 2014 Lords Chamber

Question

14:52

Asked by

[Lord Sharkey]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what steps they are taking to bring organisations which make cold calls connected with the promotion, or sale, of financial services or products under the regulation of the Financial Conduct Authority.

[Lord Newby (LD)]

My Lords, the FCA’s financial promotion rules apply to regulated financial services and products, and cover all forms of financial promotion, including cold calling. On consumer credit, the FCA requires regulated firms that accept business from unregulated lead generators to take reasonable steps to ensure that the business operates in compliance with legal requirements. The Information Commissioner’s Office can also issue a penalty of up to £500,000 to any organisation that breaches the legal requirements around cold calling.

[Lord Sharkey (LD)]

My Lords, 31 million adults say that they have been offered fee-charging debt management via cold calls and texts. When these calls are from intermediaries, as they usually are, they are not in fact regulated by the FCA. As a result, the callers are not obliged to tell of the existence of free debt management services, which would be the case if the calls came directly from the debt management companies. The FCA already bans cold-call selling of mortgages. Will the Government consider doing the same for payday loans and fee-charging debt management services?

[Lord Newby]

My Lords, all debt management companies themselves are required to advise on free debt management options at their first contact with a potential customer, so even when lead generators are being used there should be no cases in which people sign up for advice without having been told about the free alternatives. That is the key requirement. The circumstances that led to the banning of cold calling on mortgages a number of years ago, around the right to buy, were very different from the broader considerations that apply more generally.

[Lord Hughes of Woodside (Lab)]

My Lords, does the Minister recollect that when the announcement was made that pensioners could withdraw their pension funds, I asked him if he was aware of the spectre of cold calls every day seeking to advise people. He advised me then that there was no need to worry. Does he now accept that what is happening today, yesterday and the next day is that dozens of phone calls are being made advising people how they may access their pension pot? If the practice goes unfettered, is he aware that thousands, if not hundreds of thousands, of people will lose out very badly? Is it not now time to regulate that sort of thing?

[Lord Newby]

My Lords, the easiest way to ensure that people do not get that plethora of calls is for them to sign up to the Telephone Preference Service, which will mean that they do not get the bulk of calls coming in. As far as the potential mis-selling of pensions is concerned, the FCA has a very wide remit and toolkit to deal with any potential mis-selling, and I know that it is working very hard in this area.

[Lord Naseby (Con)]

Is my noble friend aware that there is something wrong with the Telephone Preference Service, in that numerous calls are made to, I suspect, every Member of your Lordships’ House from overseas, and even from the UK, extensively for financial products, and is it not time that Ofcom and the FCA sat down together, with the help of government, to try to tighten up this whole area?

[Lord Newby]

My Lords, the regulation of cold calling is split between the FCA, the Information Commissioner’s Office and Ofcom. The Nuisance Calls Action Plan was issued by the Government earlier in the year, one of the key parts of which is to bring these components together and to work with equivalent bodies in other parts of the world from where people make cold calls. In addition, a consultation is currently under way, which recommends that it should be much easier in future for the Information Commissioner’s Office to take action and to enforce penalties against people who are breaking the rules.

[Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town (Lab)]

My Lords, next week we will have our amendment to the Consumer Rights Bill to deal with nuisance calls. It would make it compulsory for every marketing call to reveal its number, either for blocking purposes or to enable action to be taken. Will the Minister ask his friends in BIS to support that amendment when it comes to the House next week?

[Lord Newby]

I will definitely relay the noble Baroness’s request to my noble friends. As she will know from Committee on the Bill, a number of examples were given which made it less straightforward than she suggests, not least in terms of family members having access to calls being made from organisations such as helplines.

[The Lord Bishop of St Albans]

My Lords, I wonder if I could press the Minister again, particularly on payday loans. The recent report published by the Children’s Society, Playday not Payday, has highlighted the regulatory gap whereby payday loan companies can make unsolicited marketing calls, whereas, as we have heard, mortgage providers are not allowed to. That report showed that over 40% of people who have taken out payday loans are receiving on average more than one unsolicited phone call a day. Does the Minister not agree that the provisions that prevent the mortgage providers from making that sort of marketing approach really must now be brought in for the payday loan companies in order to protect those who are most vulnerable?

[Lord Newby]

The very specific arguments that apply in respect of mortgages do not apply to payday loans. The key thing about payday loans at the moment is that the payday loan companies are being regulated for the first time, which is leading to a collapse in the number of payday loan companies, so that it is expected that we may end up with as few as four payday loan companies in operation at the end of this process. However, the FCA is undertaking an in-depth thematic review of the debt management sector to assess the quality of advice and the area mentioned by the right reverend Prelate. If it finds substantial evidence of consumer detriment of the kind he suggests, it will be able to consider the scope of further regulations.

Children: Alcohol Harm

Monday 17th November 2014 Lords Chamber

Question

14:59

Asked by

[Lord Brooke of Alverthorpe]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government whether they will review their policies to protect children from alcohol harm.

[Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)]

My Lords, the Government take very seriously the sale of alcohol to those under the age of 18. The Government have brought into force much tougher punishments for the offence of persistently selling alcohol to children and more powers for the police and the licensing authorities to take action locally. Last month, the Government introduced further changes to strengthen requirements on retailers of alcohol to carry out age verification checks.

[Lord Brooke of Alverthorpe (Lab)]

My Lords, I am grateful for the Minister’s reply and the progress that has been made. Is it not true, however, that the number of children presenting drunk at A&E departments went up substantially in 2013? Is it not also true that the Government have responded to the industry’s pressure to remove the law that currently deters the sale of liquor to children in other forms in food? Because the sale of alcohol in liquid form has been declining, the industry is now seeking to extend the areas in which it is selling alcohol in other foods, particularly those available to children such as ice cream or sorbet containing vodka. I have written to the Government to seek their intervention on this, but they have declined. Why have they responded solely to the industry’s pressure to repeal that law—the only one that protects children—when nobody else, including parents and the Chief Medical Officer, has asked the Government to do this?

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

My Lords, I shall try to answer all those questions. On admissions to A&E, I do not disagree with the noble Lord, but we are working with health practitioners to ensure that there is a model and a guidance procedure not just for treatment but for follow-up care for children who present. I do not agree with the noble Lord that we have bowed to the industry. I was just reflecting on that point about liquor in chocolates: I recall that when I was a child, the one sweet that would never be eaten were the chocolate liqueurs because they were so revolting. Should a child decide to eat them, however, they would have to eat vast quantities of chocolates in order to have the equivalent of one glass of wine. As for the ice cream and sorbet, about which the noble Lord was concerned, they are subject to the same rules as alcohol itself and cannot be sold to children under the age of 18.

[Baroness Brinton (LD)]

My Lords, the damage to the foetus from maternal drinking, especially in the first three months, can take the form of foetal alcohol spectrum disorder, which includes heart defects, learning difficulties, kidney defects and other impairments. Will the Minister encourage the Home Office to consider a publicity campaign as hard-hitting as the “Don’t drink and drive” campaign to make prospective mothers aware of the problems?

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

I thank my noble friend for raising that point: it is an incredibly worrying trend. While we believe that adults should take responsibility for their own actions, the number of cases of this disorder is rising; I understand that there is currently a case in court on it. We certainly are very keen to promote health awareness in this area.

[The Earl of Listowel (CB)]

My Lords, has the Minister, as I have, heard of the child of an adult alcoholic speak about being home for his mother when his father returns from the pub, so that he can get between his drunk father and his mother? It can be a catastrophe for children when parents drink too much or are alcoholics. In that light, is it not regrettable that the Government are not moving forward as many have wished in respect of minimum standards for alcohol pricing, or have I missed their change in direction here?

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

My Lords, minimum alcohol unit pricing is still under consideration. I totally agree with the noble Earl: it is a tragedy and it would be even more of a tragedy if both social services and other local agencies were not on to such families where children are basically being abused.

[Baroness McIntosh of Hudnall (Lab)]

My Lords, will the Minister take a moment to respond to the question that my noble friend Lord Brooke asked her about the impact of lobbying from the drinks industry? Can she tell the House whether any other group or individual apart from that industry has asked for the deregulation that is in the Bill to which he referred?

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

My Lords, I answered three of the questions asked by the noble Lord, Lord Brooke. On the point of lobbying by other industries, I do not know of any industries that have lobbied the Government, but I can write to the noble Baroness and confirm that. The Government have requested the drinks industry to take responsibility, or else we will.

[Lord McColl of Dulwich (Con)]

My Lords, is the Minister aware that the advice given to pregnant women not to drink alcohol is as old as the hills—3,000 years old? The mother of Samson was told when she was pregnant not to have alcohol.

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

I totally agree with my noble friend.

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

My Lords, I wonder whether the Minister would like to reflect on a couple of the answers that she has given. She said that the Government are considering minimum alcohol pricing, yet the Home Secretary said that—no ifs, no buts—the Government would introduce it. I would also like the Minister to clarify the point that she made in answer to my noble friend Lord Brooke of Alverthorpe, who raised the issue of alcohol being able to be sold in forms other than liquid to those under 16. Will she confirm, as she implied in her answer, that that is not the case and that the Government’s proposals in the Deregulation Bill will not make any changes in that regard?

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

I said that minimum unit pricing was “under consideration”. It is, and the case of Scotland is being closely watched. On alcohol in forms other than liquid, the rules set a limit of 0.2 litres per kilogram of confection. That is to stop vast quantities of alcohol being put into food. That is the situation as I understand it.

[Baroness Walmsley (LD)]

Is my noble friend the Minister aware that all good PSHE courses contain some alcohol education and should be taught in every school? Does she agree that when children become involved in sport, they become very aware of their bodies’ efficiency and the effect of alcohol and are much less likely to drink more than a minimal amount? Therefore, what are the Government doing to encourage all schools to teach PSHE and children to take part in sport?

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

I agree with my noble friend. Good PSHE in schools will certainly refer to that. Schools have a duty to teach children about the harms of drug, alcohol and tobacco abuse. I fully endorse her point about sport, although that seemed to go out the window with my son when he reached the age of 18.

Immigration Act 2014 (Bank Accounts) Regulations 2014

Monday 17th November 2014 Lords Chamber

Immigration Act 2014 (Bank Accounts) (Amendment) Order 2014

Immigration Act 2014 (Bank Accounts) (Prohibition on Opening Current Accounts for Disqualified Persons) Order 2014

Motions to Approve

15:07

Moved by

[Lord Newby]

That the draft regulations and orders laid before the House on 22 July be approved.

Relevant document: 8th Report from the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments. Considered in Grand Committee on 10 November.

Motions agreed.

Statutory Shared Parental Pay (General) Regulations 2014

Monday 17th November 2014 Lords Chamber

Maternity and Adoption Leave (Curtailment of Statutory Rights to Leave) Regulations 2014

Shared Parental Leave Regulations 2014

Motions to Approve

15:07

Moved by

[Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth]

That the draft regulations laid before the House on 21 July be approved.

Relevant document: 8th Report from the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments. Considered in Grand Committee on 10 November.

Motions agreed.

Regulation of Investigatory Powers (Covert Surveillance and Property Interference: Code of Practice) Order 2014

Monday 17th November 2014 Lords Chamber

Regulation of Investigatory Powers (Covert Human Intelligence Sources: Code of Practice) Order 2014

Motions to Approve

15:08

Moved by

[Lord Bates]

That the draft orders laid before the House on 22 July be approved.

Relevant document: 8th Report from the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments. Considered in Grand Committee on 10 November.

Motions agreed.

Arrangement of Business

Monday 17th November 2014 Lords Chamber

Announcement

15:08

[Baroness Garden of Frognal (LD)]

My Lords, there are 31 speakers for the Second Reading of the Modern Slavery Bill today. If Back-Bench contributions are kept to around eight minutes, the committal Motion in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Bates, would begin at approximately 8 pm.

Modern Slavery Bill

Monday 17th November 2014 Lords Chamber

Second Reading

15:09

Moved by

[Lord Bates]

That the Bill be read a second time.

[Lord Bates]

My Lords, in few other crimes are human beings used as commodities for the personal gain of others as they are in the appalling crime of modern slavery. Men, women and children, British and foreign nationals, suffer a life of servitude and abuse: women forced into prostitution and denied their liberty; children trafficked and sexually exploited for profit; vulnerable men tricked into brutal and inhumane labour; and, throughout, accounts of sexual violence, beatings, humiliation, hunger and mental torture.

Modern slavery is a crime taking place, hidden from view, across Britain today. I am sure the House will agree that it should be consigned to history. That is the purpose of the Modern Slavery Bill—the first of its kind in Europe—which we will discuss in your Lordships’ House today. Having looked down the list of speakers, I am sure that your Lordships are particularly looking forward to the maiden speeches of the noble Lord, Lord Cashman, and the noble Baronesses, Lady Chisholm and Lady Mobarik. This will be an important step towards achieving that goal. It will ensure that we can effectively prosecute perpetrators, properly punish offenders and help prevent more crimes from taking place. It will enhance protection and support for the victims of these dreadful crimes. It will encourage business to take action to eliminate modern slavery from the global supply chains involved in providing goods and services to British consumers. Of course, tackling modern slavery will require more than legislation alone. It will take a determined and focused law enforcement response, greater awareness among front-line professionals, co-ordinated police action internationally, close working with business, and the support of communities, charities and faith groups.

In bringing the Bill forward, I pay tribute to all those who have campaigned tirelessly over recent years to bring this largely hidden crime into the light. I am particularly grateful to noble Lords who sat on the pre-legislative scrutiny committee. This committee held an intensive and thorough inquiry. I pay tribute in particular to the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, for her leadership, commitment and expertise on the issue. Thanks to their efforts, the Bill today is substantially different from the draft Bill published in December last year. It has benefited enormously from pre-legislative scrutiny and from scrutiny in another place. The Government have listened carefully and added very valuable additional provisions relating to protections for victims and business supply chains. I expect that careful scrutiny of the Bill will continue in your Lordships’ House.

I now turn to the specifics of the Bill. Part 1 deals with offences, sentences, reparation, and asset recovery. In this part, traffickers and slave drivers must know that their crimes will not be tolerated and that they will be caught and sent to prison for a very long time. The Bill consolidates the existing slavery and human trafficking offences, making it easier for prosecutors and the police to understand the available modern slavery offences when investigating these crimes. The offences have also been improved, including in response to pre-legislative scrutiny. It is now clearer that the slavery, servitude and forced labour offence can be effectively prosecuted where the victim is vulnerable; for example, a child.

The Bill increases the maximum available sentence for modern slavery offences to life imprisonment, ensuring that the worst perpetrators can get the lengthy custodial sentences they deserve and victims need. Criminals and organised gangs who trade in human beings do so for profit. Wherever possible, we must ensure that the illicit gains made from the trade in human misery are seized. The Modern Slavery Bill makes both slavery and trafficking offences criminal lifestyle offences for the purposes of criminal confiscation under the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002, subjecting convicted slavers and traffickers to the toughest confiscation regime possible.

Wherever possible, assets seized from a perpetrator should be used to provide reparation to their victims. Courts currently have the power to order convicted traffickers to pay compensation to their victims and can use money collected under the confiscation order to ensure that such compensation is paid in full. Therefore, it is unacceptable that in the past 11 years there have been only three such cases where criminals convicted of a principal offence of human trafficking have been ordered to pay compensation in this way. The Bill seeks to remedy this by creating a bespoke order for modern slavery offences, so that where the perpetrator has assets available, evidenced by a confiscation order, the court must consider making an order to provide reparation to the victim, and give reasons if it does not.

Part 2 relates to preventive orders. It introduces a vital new tool to prevent modern slavery offences, modelled on existing powers to stop sexual harm and with similar, substantial safeguards to ensure appropriate use. Slavery and trafficking prevention orders will target convicted traffickers and slave drivers and can be used to prevent further modern slavery offences from taking place—for example, by stopping an offender from working with children, acting as a gangmaster or travelling to specific countries.

Slavery and trafficking risk orders will restrict the activity of individuals suspected of being complicit in modern slavery offences where this is necessary to prevent the harm that would be likely to be caused by future offences. For example, they could be used to stop activity where there is insufficient evidence to bring a successful prosecution now, but there is clear evidence of the risk of future trafficking or slavery offences being commissioned.

Part 3 deals with maritime powers. It is aimed to close a gap in existing legislation. There are currently no applicable express policing powers to stop, divert or detain vessels at sea where law enforcement authorities suspect that individuals are being trafficked or forced to work. In the past three years, there have been eight such occasions. The Bill will provide law enforcement with clear powers to take action on these boats, arresting those responsible and rescuing more victims.

Part 4 provides for an Independent Anti-slavery Commissioner. In the past, the number of prosecutions and convictions for these specific offences has not reflected the scale or seriousness of the problem. In 2013, there were only 68 convictions, and that is not good enough. To tackle modern slavery effectively, we need effective co-operation across law enforcement borders in immigration and local services. We need a senior figure dedicated to the UK’s fight against modern slavery to strengthen law enforcement efforts in the UK and ensure that a wide range of public authorities work effectively to identify victims. That is why the Bill includes an Independent Anti-slavery Commissioner to encourage good practice in the prevention, detection, investigation and prosecution of modern slavery cases, as well as improving the identification of victims.

The commissioner’s role is set out in a similar way to other commissioners. The commissioner will be independent and his annual reports will be laid before Parliament. Given the urgent need to see improvements in our approach to tackling modern slavery, the Home Secretary has recently appointed Mr Kevin Hyland as designate Independent Anti-slavery Commissioner, following an open selection process. As the first UK commissioner, Mr Hyland will use his extensive knowledge, gained in the Met, and first-hand experience of working with modern slavery victims to ensure that public authorities do more effectively to tackle the despicable individuals behind these crimes and, importantly, to identify and protect more victims.

Part 5 deals with the protection of victims. At the heart of the Bill and all our work is the desire to ensure that victims receive the protection and support that they deserve and which will help them to recover. Fear of prosecution can deter victims from coming forward to help the police with their investigations and from acting as witnesses in court. It is vital that we give them the confidence to come forward.

The Crown Prosecution Service already has guidance in place to prevent the prosecution of victims who have been forced to commit crime, but we can and should go further. The Bill includes a statutory defence for victims with safeguards against abuse. Even in cases where the defence does not apply, prosecutors will still need to look carefully at all the circumstances to see whether it is in the public interest to prosecute victims.

Helping more victims to testify in court is crucial in our fight against the perpetrators. We need to give victims greater assurance that they can access special measures, such as giving evidence by video link or from behind a screen, so the Bill extends to all modern slavery victims existing provisions which help trafficking victims gain access to special measures.

Whether victims appear in court or not, we need to identify them so that they can receive help and support. That is why the Home Secretary set in motion a review of the national referral mechanism, to ensure that the care and support provided is effective. The review has just reported—last week. The Government will respond to the review in the modern slavery strategy, which will be published ahead of our Committee debates, scheduled for early December. In addition, the Bill includes a provision for statutory guidance for the identification and support of victims to ensure a consistent and effective approach.

One of the most heinous aspects of modern slavery is the trafficking and enslavement of children—robbing them of their childhood and casting a long shadow over their future. Child trafficking victims are exceptionally vulnerable and require specialist support and care. We are currently trialling a scheme of child trafficking advocates in 23 local authorities in England. The Bill includes provisions, which were strengthened in another place, to enable Parliament to place these advocates on a statutory footing once the trial has been completed and, following the evaluation of the trial, to establish how we can provide the best protection and support to this particularly vulnerable group of children.

The Bill also ensures that where the age of a trafficking victim is uncertain and there are reasons to believe that they are a child, public authorities will presume that victim to be a child for the purposes of providing assistance and support. We need to ensure that law enforcement has good data on this largely hidden crime so that we can develop an effective strategic response. Therefore, we are placing a legal duty on public bodies to report suspected victims of slavery or human trafficking.

Part 6 deals with transparency in supply chains. Modern slavery in supply chains is an issue which the Government take extremely seriously. We do not want businesses in the UK to have any connection with these abhorrent crimes and UK consumers should not be put in the position where they inadvertently buy goods that could have been produced by abused and enslaved individuals. In this regard I pay tribute to the noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy of Cradley, for introducing a timely and thought-provoking debate on the subject in your Lordships’ House on 30 October. That is why I am extremely pleased that the Bill was amended in another place to require organisations carrying on a business in the UK above a certain size threshold to disclose each year what they have done to ensure that there is no modern slavery in the supply chains of their organisation.

Modern slavery is an evil against which this Government are determined to take a stand. I know that that view and belief is shared across the House. This Bill is an important measure as it will help effectively to punish the criminals and organised gangs behind this appalling crime, ensure victims receive the protection and support that they deserve, prevent other vulnerable people from becoming victims and encourage action by business to eliminate modern slavery from supply chains. It stands alongside non-legislative actions such as making tackling this crime a priority for the National Crime Agency. Ahead of the Committee stage, the Government will publish a comprehensive modern slavery strategy.

I am under no illusion about the scale of the task ahead. The Bill can be only one step along the path to ending slavery. However, I believe that by acting together in this Parliament we can send a powerful message that we are determined that traffickers and slave drivers will be prosecuted and punished and that the victims of their appalling crimes will be returned to freedom. I beg to move.

15:22

[Lord Tunnicliffe (Lab)]

My Lords, in rising to speak on this important Second Reading I must first pass on the apologies of my noble friend Lady Royall. The noble Baroness, assisted by my noble friend Lord Rosser, will be leading for the Opposition on this very important Bill, but unfortunately today she has to attend a family funeral.

We often think of slavery as history, a story of atrocities past and fights fought and won. The harrowing film “12 Years a Slave” and Doris Kearns Goodwin’s compelling account of Lincoln’s fight for abolition both tell of events that took place centuries ago. However, slavery is not a thing of the past. Sylvia, one of the women whom the Eaves Poppy Project has helped, is 47 years old. She came to the UK from Uganda to escape an abusive husband, after a friend told her that she could work for his friend’s company. On arriving, however, she was taken to a house in Manchester, locked in a room with another girl, raped, beaten and forced into prostitution. Her traffickers would film and photograph her. She was given just one meal a day and not allowed any contact with her son. After four months she escaped but was so scared that she went into hiding. Finally she got the courage to get help and claim asylum, but the Home Office sent her to Yarl’s Wood immigration centre. There, fortunately, she came across the Eaves Poppy Project, which helped to secure her release and prevented her being sent back to Uganda.

This is what 21st-century slavery looks like in Britain: women raped, beaten and forced into prostitution; children groomed and sexually exploited for profit; men exploited, conned and forced to work in inhuman and degrading conditions; families trafficked by gangs across borders but also within our country and sometimes within the same area. I am proud of the work that we did in government through criminalising trafficking in the Sexual Offences Act 2003 and the Asylum and Immigration Act of 2004; the introduction of the offence of forced labour, slavery or servitude; the national referral mechanism; the creation of the UK Human Trafficking Centre; and, of course, the introduction of the Human Rights Act. But we agree that more needs to be done, so I welcome the Bill.

I pay tribute to the Members of this House who have worked so hard on this issue, particularly the noble Lord, Lord McColl, who is tireless in his fight for trafficked children and victims generally, and the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss. I also pay tribute to members of the Joint Committee, including my noble friends Lady Kennedy and Lord Warner, the noble Baronesses, Lady Hanham and Lady Doocey, and the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Derby.

The invaluable campaign briefings of the many organisations that fight for the victims will also inform our proceedings. The victims of these terrible crimes should be at the centre of everything we do. We owe it to them to make the Bill as good as it can be. We think that it should go further in tackling the problems it seeks to resolve and we will work with colleagues across the House to amend it accordingly. I will now touch on one or two of the issues that we will pursue.

Let me start with the offences at the heart of the Bill. In 2011-12, there were 15 prosecutions for slavery but no convictions. In the same year, there were 150 prosecutions for trafficking but only eight convictions. Ensuring that the offences under the Bill are well drafted, clear and strong enough to allow us to prosecute and secure more convictions of these criminals is therefore crucial. Currently, the Bill transposes existing offences from three pieces of legislation, maintaining the current offences of holding someone in slavery and merging two existing offences of human trafficking into a single one. Worryingly, the threshold needed to secure convictions is very high.

I am sure that we have all heard of the case of Craig Kinsella. Craig was held captive by the Rooke family in Sheffield and forced to work from 7.30 am until midnight for no pay. He was starved and beaten. Craig was not trafficked into the country: a British national, he voluntarily moved in with the family but was then subjected to appalling abuse and exploitation. Despite extensive evidence, the Rookes were convicted of false imprisonment and other lesser offences, not of slavery and trafficking.

A similar situation arose in Kent, involving 29 Lithuanian chicken catchers. They were beaten and had their wages stolen, and they were living in appalling conditions. The police thought that this was criminal conduct but the CPS said that there was not enough evidence to prosecute. Following this case, Detective Inspector Roberts of Kent Police gave evidence to the Joint Committee and said that they had,

“quite considerable difficulty in working out what is criminal exploitation”.

I am worried that these cases would still not be covered under the Bill. Like the Joint Committee, the Anti-Trafficking Monitoring Group, the Joseph Rowntree Trust and others, I believe that there should be separate offences of exploitation.

If the examples of adults being exploited are abhorrent, the idea of a child being subjected to these crimes does not bear thinking about. The numbers are even more shocking. In 2013, the national referral mechanism received 1,746 separate cases of human trafficking, 432 of them involving minors. The UK Human Trafficking Centre identified 2,744 victims last year, including 600 children—yet, since the introduction of the offence, there have been no prosecutions where the victim was a child.

There is much we could do in the Bill to improve the situation for children. Crucially, we need to introduce new offences of child trafficking and exploitation. Have the Government considered child exploitation in relation to recent UK cases, particularly the sexual exploitation of girls in Rotherham, Rochdale, Oxford and elsewhere? These girls were neither trafficked nor held in slavery, but they were exploited. Putting specific offences in the Bill would move the legislative framework from one looking at individual sexual acts to one in which exerting control over a course of behaviour is more important.

The notion that a child could ever consent to their exploitation is beyond my comprehension. They very rarely understand that they have been trafficked and are often duped by those who traffic them. I do not understand the Government’s reticence on this point and we will want to unpick this in Committee. I am pleased to see a basis for the guardianship system in the Bill—once again, I pay tribute again to the noble Lord, Lord McColl, for his work on this—and welcome the requirement for the advocate to act in the child’s best interests, but this was added late in the Commons and we will want to look again at the strength of the clause. We must also look at the issue of the statutory defence for children. The Bill as it stands does not reflect the specific vulnerabilities of children, and that cannot be right.

It is also key that we look at the role that the regulatory framework and the UK industry have to play. We have all heard calls for stronger action on supply chains. Noble Lords will, like me, have been shocked by stories of men trafficked from Burma and Cambodia and forced to work 20 hours a day for no pay, fishing for prawns for UK shops; and by the collapse of the Rana Plaza factory, where 1,200 people making clothes lost their lives. We need stronger legislation to prevent this happening; other countries are doing it and it has the support of 82% of the British public.

I am pleased that the Government have listened and introduced a new clause. I am not sure, though, that it is strong enough. We need to ensure that it has a wide coverage, that consumers are able to compare and assess how different companies are doing, and that the provisions can be adequately enforced. The Government have to play their part as well. Legislating for supply chains without also looking at expanding the powers and remit of the Gangmasters Licensing Authority to other sectors where forced labour is prevalent, such as hospitality, construction and catering, does not make sense.

It is disappointing that Ministers would not even consider the amendment put forward by my colleagues in the Commons, which was only an enabling power. We will also come back to this in Committee. I am also deeply concerned about the issue of domestic workers being tied to abusive employers. The last Government put in place a regime for migrant domestic workers who accompanied employers to the UK that was internationally recognised as good practice. The current Government changed the regime in April 2012. These individuals are now tied to their original employer and their visas are not renewable beyond the initial six-month duration.

Mira, a Filipina domestic worker, was brought by her employers from the Middle East to the UK. She worked 16 hours a day with no time off, shared a room with the family’s children and had no private time or space. Mira’s employer retained her passport and paid her nothing while she was in the UK. She ate only leftovers and if the family ate out, she went hungry. One day, Mira found her passport and sought help from Kalayaan, which advised that she had only a tied domestic worker’s visa. Thankfully, Kalayaan found Mira legal assistance and referred her to the national referral mechanism. Kalayaan found that 92% of those on the new visa were unable to leave the house unaccompanied. This is clearly unacceptable.

Victims of trafficking should be at the heart of the Bill. If we do not support them, we are leaving people who have been abused to be betrayed once again. The national referral mechanism needs to be strengthened. In 2012, the UK Human Trafficking Centre identified 2,255 victims, but the NRM identified only just over 1,000. Too often, they are treated merely as immigration cases.

At the moment the NRM is an internal process of the Home Office, and there is no transparency or appeal. We have an opportunity to place it on a statutory footing and give it a greater ability and authority to support victims at the time when they need it most. I am aware that the review of the NRM has recently concluded, and we will want to look at its findings in Committee.

Victims should be better compensated. We support the provisions to define trafficking as a lifestyle offence, but I urge the Government to look again at proposals that we made in the Serious Crime Bill to strengthen the recovery of assets. Money cannot go to the victims if we are not recovering it from criminals in the first place. I also welcome the creation of reparation orders, but we must ensure that victims can be compensated even when there has not been a specific conviction.

While I welcome the introduction of the anti-slavery commissioner, their remit needs to be strengthened. At present, it is extremely limited to doing little more than acting as directed by the Home Office. The remit should include supporting victims and a clear mandate to make recommendations across government. We also want greater independence for the commissioner, and that is simply not established by the mere addition of the word “independent” to the title.

The Government are rightly proud of having introduced the Bill, but the victims of trafficking need us to do more. A fortnight ago we found out that the UK will no longer support future search and rescue operations to prevent migrants drowning in the Mediterranean. Many of the men, women and children on these boats will be victims of traffickers—gangs who are exploiting people’s desperation by sending them on unsafe journeys and sometimes deliberately killing them. In that context I am glad that we are opting back in to the European arrest warrant, but there is a lot more we could be doing, whether to prevent families undertaking these dreadful journeys in the first place or to tackle these crimes more generally, if it were not for this Government’s reluctance to work with our European partners.

Abraham Lincoln once wrote:

“If slavery is not wrong, nothing is wrong”.

All of us agree that slavery is wrong. That is not the issue today. The Bill is not a party-political Bill. It is about the abuse of human rights; it is about the most vulnerable men, women and children who are exploited by their fellow human beings; and it is about victims, their rights, and our ability to support them and bring perpetrators to justice. I am deeply ashamed that in 21st-century Britain slavery is flourishing and blighting the lives of many. Over the coming weeks, as we debate and seek to improve the Bill, we should keep uppermost in our minds the plight of the all too many victims of this terrible crime; think of Sylvia, Craig and Mira. Working to build on the legacy of William Wilberforce, let us ensure that through the Bill we in this House do everything possible to end this heinous practice. We have a responsibility to work together on all sides of this Chamber to ensure that this good Bill can be an even better one.

15:38

[Baroness Butler-Sloss (CB)]

My Lords, I declare an interest as co-chairman of the All-Party Parliamentary Group on Human Trafficking and Modern-Day Slavery, and as a trustee of the Human Trafficking Foundation.

I do not want to weary the House but I might add to what the Minister has said about slavery. Approximately 29.8 million people—men, women and children—are trafficked and enslaved across the world, more than the entire transatlantic trade 200 years ago. Slavery and trafficking is the second most valuable illegal business in the world, at least $150 billon a year, which includes prostitution, forced labour, domestic servitude, begging, thieving, debt bondage and benefit claims. So far, as noble Lords have already heard, very few traffickers and slave owners have been convicted of these crimes, which is why the Bill is now before the House. In my view, its Second Reading is a historic and exciting moment. The Prime Minister and the Home Secretary are to be congratulated on bringing it forward, and I am aware that both of them are passionate about it.

The background is that in October 2013, the Home Secretary asked Frank Field MP to set up an informal inquiry as a prelude to drafting the first draft of the Modern Slavery Bill. He, John Randall MP and I heard evidence and provided a report. That report and the evidence were incorporated into the evidence of the Select Committee of both Houses, of which Frank Field was chairman and I was a member. We had a lot more evidence, and in our report we bravely, or rashly, drafted our own version of the Bill. Not surprisingly, the Government version did not adopt all our suggestions, but there have been further discussions and more changes made in the other place.

Where have we got to? In my view this is a good Bill, but, of course, in several ways it could be improved. I feel that this Bill is the start of a process, and as we see how it works, we can in the future press for improvements. I therefore suggest that we should not be too ambitious with this Bill. I should like to make a few comments about the contents, but inevitably more issues will arise in Committee, many of which the noble Lord, Lord Tunnicliffe, has already referred to.

It is good to have all the major offences under one umbrella, but I am not entirely happy with the wording in Part 1. There is considerable momentum to include in Part 1 a clause defining child exploitation as a separate set of offences. This, in principle, may seem appropriate but there are certain difficulties which need to be overcome. Proof of the age of a young person under 18 in the criminal courts can be a long, drawn-out and possibly distracting exercise. One needs to bear in mind that the sentence in the Bill for the most serious offences against adults is life imprisonment. You cannot get more than life. There is the possibility that it may make prosecutions more difficult and consequently reduce the protection of child victims. The Home Secretary at Third Reading in the other place spoke of unintended consequences. I am a bit concerned that the offence of child exploitation without some restrictions on its interpretation is too wide.

I am, therefore, now somewhat ambivalent about whether a clause especially for children is really necessary or appropriate. The issue of consent does not arise in Clauses 1 and 2 for adults as I read them. I sought the assistance of a number of former Supreme Court judges who have taken the same view. However, there is strong support for a child clause, and I was strongly in support of it myself at one stage. I am not actually opposed—as I say, I am ambivalent—so I look forward to future more careful consideration in Committee.

As has been said, the sentences for slavery and trafficking in the Bill are increased to life. It will therefore be important for the judiciary in the Crown Court to have some sentencing guidelines. In a recent case in Sussex, a sentence of four years, reduced to two and a half, on a trafficker of 70 women appears to be on the low side. So far, the Proceeds of Crime Act has been less than effective in this area of criminal law. I hope that the changes in the Bill will make a difference and that the assets of alleged traffickers will be frozen at an early stage of the investigation. Equally, reparation for victims is an important part of doing justice to the victims.

It is excellent that the post of commissioner is in the Bill. The word “independent” has just been inserted into the title of the appointment clause. There is a strongly held view, set out already by the noble Lord, Lord Tunnicliffe, that this word alone will not make him sufficiently independent and that his duties should be more directed towards the protection of victims. I think that we should wait to see how the first commissioner, just appointed, carries out his duties. Kevin Hyland, who I have the good fortune to know, is an excellent choice. We shall have to see whether he will find himself constrained or others will find his duties are too narrowly expressed. If that proves to be so we can press for changes in future legislation.

There is a pilot scheme for child advocates with a statutory requirement to act in the child’s best interests, an issue close to the hearts of the noble Lord, Lord McColl, and myself, and the important requirement to report on the pilot to Parliament. I naturally hope that this will form part of future legislation.

Clauses for protection of victims include a partial defence of victims against prosecution, and I agree that there must be exceptions as set out in Schedule 3. We need to see how the defences work out, and whether any of the exceptions prove to be unfair to a victim. If they prove to be unfair, and the victim faces prosecution when the offence was directly the result of slavery, this will need to be revisited. Again, however, it is hugely to the credit of the Government that they have accepted the need for that degree of protection of victims.

There are special measures to help witnesses in criminal proceedings, which is a most important aid to getting victims to give evidence. Very much to the credit of the Government, who have listened to advice, is the requirement for companies to investigate their supply chains, but I find the wording of the supply chain clauses somewhat overelaborate. Two excellent reports have been published on the national referral mechanism which propose the improvement of the system for identifying victims. I hope that those recommendations will be taken up and put into effect. I would like to see in the Bill an enabling clause that gives the power to the Home Secretary to put the NRM on a statutory basis without requiring any further primary legislation.

I turn very briefly to the support for victims, most of which is not appropriate for primary legislation but which is the most important part of the battle against traffickers and slave owners. There are two reasons, one moral and one practical, why this country should put in place adequate and continuing support towards those identified as needing that help. The moral reason is obvious: we have a duty to look after those men, women and children who have been brought into this country to be slaves, and those within the UK who are also enslaved. Indeed, the girls in Rotherham were slaves. The practical reason underpins the main purpose of the Bill, which is that the Government naturally want to improve the number of successful prosecutions. To a very great extent that depends on victims being prepared to give evidence.

In this country we comply with the Palermo agreement, the Council of Europe convention and the EU directive by offering accommodation and support for those going through the identification process. The UK offers 45 days—more than the minimum requirement of 30 days—and for some people a longer period. However, prosecutions may take over a year to be heard in the Crown Courts. So far, many if not most victims who would be witnesses are not given sufficient help after 45 days by way of accommodation, financial support and many other much needed services such as counselling and access to mental health help, which are so badly needed by many utterly traumatised people. After 45 days many go missing, some are retrafficked and some are living on the streets. Read the excellent final report of Jeremy Oppenheim on the NRM. He sets out the plight of those people in clear terms and describes our manifest failure to give sufficient help in all sorts of ways which I do not have time to set out today—and I apologise for going a minute over. The USA and Taiwan have statutory requirements which would be well worth considering. The way in which the strategy policy of the Government and local governments is implemented will define and judge the United Kingdom as a caring or non-caring country and will have a marked effect on whether we achieve the level of successful prosecutions that the Government are seeking to achieve by introducing the Bill.

15:48

[Lord McColl of Dulwich (Con)]

My Lords, I will concentrate on three areas: the first is support for adult victims of trafficking. Victims of trafficking are entitled to know exactly the support to which they are entitled. That support should be spelt out in statute to avoid ambiguity. The Bill contains a clause requiring the Home Secretary to issue guidance about the support provided to adult victims, but I am not convinced that guidance provides an adequate guarantee to a victim of the assistance to which he is entitled under the EU directive and European convention. If the Bill is truly to serve the needs of victims as well as the justice system, it needs to contain a clear statement of the minimum assistance available to a victim of trafficking in accordance with our international obligations.

I also believe that, as the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, has just said, we need to reconsider the length of time that such support is available. The current 45-day reflection and recovery period is far too little to enable a person to make a proper recovery from their ordeal. Many charities recommend a period of 90 days. Indeed, the United Nations commentary on the EU directive states:

“When transposing the Directive into national legislation, Member States are encouraged to include in their national legislation a period of reflection and recovery of a minimum of 90 days for all victims of trafficking”.

Even 90 days will not be sufficient for some people to take significant steps towards recovery when they experience post-traumatic stress disorder, but we need to ensure that we are protecting and supporting victims to begin that longer-term recovery. One of the recommendations from the recent review of the national referral mechanism is that consideration should be given to the support available to individuals following conclusive identification as victims. I look forward to seeing the Government’s response to this recommendation in due course.

In the context of this Bill, I also want to raise the fact that I have heard from charities that provide assistance to victims of trafficking that many of their clients who are EU nationals are having extreme difficulties accessing welfare benefits due to the application of a more stringent habitual residence test and changes to housing benefit eligibility introduced earlier this year. Understandably, many victims of trafficking are unable to demonstrate when they entered the country, and their labour exploitation does not seem to be valid work for the purposes of these tests. I cannot believe that victims of the heinous crime of trafficking were our intended target in the restriction of welfare benefits. Indeed, if victims are unable to receive this support, I very much doubt that they will be able to remain in this country to assist with police investigations and prosecutions, which is one of the key aims of the Bill before us today. Can the Minister indicate what steps are being taken to ensure that victims of trafficking are not being detrimentally affected by the application of residence tests for welfare benefits and whether he would consider amending the regulations to ensure that victims of trafficking are exempt from these tests?

The second area where I would like to see improvements in the Bill is the protection of children. In September 2013, the report Still at Risk, produced by the Children’s Society and the Refugee Council, stated that a system of protection needs to be developed,

“that includes an independent trusted adult appointed to a separated child as soon as they come to an authority’s attention. This person’s role would be to ensure that all potential victims of trafficking are able to understand their rights, ensure that their voice is heard in decisions that affect them and are supported effectively through the different legal processes that they are engaged in”.

However, still the Government have not been willing to support this proposal in all its fullness. They have accepted the need to introduce trials of specialist independent advocates for trafficked children, which were to be introduced from 1 July across 23 local authorities. We were reassured on 7 April that they,

“will be experts in trafficking, and completely independent of the local authority and social services department. Their role will be to steer the child through the complexity of the multiple government agencies—not just local-authority care, immigration and criminal justice but all government departments. This is to ensure that the child's voice is heard ... these advocates will have the capacity and the expertise to address the additional needs of the child. They will attend meetings, speak for them and act as advocates for them”.

The Minister, my noble friend Lord Taylor, said:

“By getting alongside children and supporting them in this way, the advocates will have a role in ensuring that the risk of children going missing and disappearing will be reduced”.—[Official Report, 7/4/14; col. 1156.]

He said that the timing,

“will enable us to consider the impact of the specialist independent child trafficking advocates, as well as how the scheme worked, during the passage of the modern slavery Bill, which should be before one or other of our two Houses of Parliament. The modern slavery Bill is a much better place to make these changes”.

I specifically asked the Minister why he was not proposing that advocates had a legal status. He said:

“That is a question that the modern slavery Bill will indeed be able to consider”.—[Official Report, 7/4/14; col. 1158.]

We welcome that.

The third area of the Bill where I have particular concerns is the role of the Anti-slavery Commissioner. As presently drafted, the commissioner’s remit is too restrictive to enable him or her to protect victims effectively. Furthermore, the Bill’s provisions need revision to ensure the independence of the commissioner—I refer to the report published recently by the Joint Committee on Human Rights. One other matter that I must put on the record is my deep unease with the fact that the Home Office has proceeded in recruiting and appointing a person as the Anti-slavery Commissioner before the role has been sanctioned by Parliament.

When it comes to statutory support services for victims and statutory child trafficking guardians, the truth is that the political context in which we find ourselves has changed quite dramatically in the last month. Northern Ireland embarked on the road to its modern slavery Bill, called the Human Trafficking and Exploitation (Further Provisions and Support for Victims) Bill, rather earlier than England and Wales. That Bill proposed both statutory support services for victims and statutory child trafficking guardians and on 20 and 21 October the Northern Ireland Assembly voted for those provisions. Of course, central to devolution is the idea that different parts of the United Kingdom can do things differently. However, I want very gently to ask the question: do we want rescued trafficked children to be afforded fewer rights in England and Wales than in Northern Ireland? I think not, and I hope that by the time this Bill leaves your Lordships’ House it will at least be as robust as the Northern Ireland legislation. Incidentally, I pay tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Morrow, who has taken this legislation through the Northern Ireland Assembly, and to the Justice Minister, David Ford, the leader of the Alliance Party, who has worked so closely with the noble Lord on this Bill. It is very encouraging to see all the main parties in Northern Ireland coming together to generate some excellent legislation, and I look forward to their taking the lead and generating ground-breaking legislation in other areas, too.

I welcome the Bill; it is a good Bill and has developed since the draft Bill was published in December. However, I do not believe that it is yet the world-leading legislation that we would like it to be. I am confident that, through the careful examination of noble Lords, this House will achieve some of the key improvements that are needed.

15:58

[Baroness Kennedy of Cradley (Lab)]

My Lords, I was very pleased to be appointed to the Joint Committee on this Bill. I care passionately about this issue, so the opportunity to play a part in shaping the legislation was extremely welcome.

Tragically, as others have said, slavery is all around us. It is hidden in our communities, yet is taking place openly on our streets, in our farms and in our factories. Daily we hear stories of more adults and children being denied their freedom by another in pursuit of profit and personal gain. As many have said, modern-day slavery is an evil trade and that is why there is strong support on all sides of the House for this Bill. It is a much needed piece of legislation that will rightly get the support of many in this House

There is, however, strong support for this Bill to go further in some areas, to make this the world-leading legislation that everyone wants to see. Given the time today, I will focus on four items. There are two areas that I want to see developed further. These are ensuring that this Bill gives the best protection it can to children, and the best support to businesses in their supply chains in the fight against slavery. The other two areas that I think need to be included are clauses to develop the Gangmasters Licensing Authority, and a change in the Immigration Rules for migrant domestic workers.

First, we must give children the best protection we can. From home and abroad, children are exploited in Britain by criminals every day. The Refugee Children’s Consortium has made it very clear to us all what it thinks needs to be made clearer in the Bill to protect children, and I hope that the Government will listen carefully to the arguments it puts forward. I want to focus on one of the specific areas it has highlighted: that the Bill should include a statutory principle of non-prosecution for children. Of the main children’s issues covered in the Bill, a strengthened non-prosecution principle for children who are detained and prosecuted for crimes they are forced to commit has received the least attention. Despite CPS guidance on the non-prosecution of trafficking victims, children are still being punished for offences that are a direct result of their slavery and exploitation. It cannot be right to prosecute a child who has been forced to commit a crime by their slave master. Enslaved children are victims of abuse: they need guardians, support and protection from repeat exploitation. Clause 45 sets out three elements to that defence. One of them is that a person needs to prove they were compelled to act. As UNICEF has stated, this clause is not in line with international law, which states that trafficked children do not have to prove they were compelled to commit a crime. These are the most vulnerable children. They invariably have little or no English, they are scared, have no family to protect them and are completely reliant on their trafficker. The burden of proof should not rest with the child.

The second area which needs further development is the very welcome new Clause 51 on transparency in supply chains. As other noble Lords have said, publishing the Bill without such a clause was a glaring omission and I am delighted to see it included now. We need businesses to help in the fight against slavery. Multinational organisations have the power to make a real difference to the working lives of millions and improve the working conditions of those enslaved by exploitative suppliers. They have the power to shorten their supply chains and to reform their business models so they are less reliant on outsourcing and suppliers who need to subcontract. They have the power to support good suppliers, encourage trade unions, and insist on proper inspection regimes. Fighting slavery and forced labour at home and across the world cannot happen without businesses playing their part. It is not their fight alone: the Government, the voluntary sector and, most importantly, the consumer—through the purchasing choices they make—have the real power to help eradicate slavery. Thanks to this clause, consumers will now have the information to make more informed choices about where they shop.

However, despite this clause being a huge step forward, there are five areas that need further consideration. First, it is essential that the Bill specifies a set of minimum criteria for disclosure in the organisation’s annual slavery and human trafficking statement. This is vital because we need this supply chain clause to act as a catalyst for change, creating public pressure and competition between businesses so more are encouraged to act. The minimum criteria in any organisation’s statement include the need to conduct risk assessments by product, industry and geography; the need to set out who has identified the risks; what action has been taken to mitigate the risks; and what has been the impact of those actions. Without these criteria, comparisons between companies will be impossible to make, the level playing field desired by good businesses will be difficult to achieve, and the Government will not get the transparency or the world-leading legislation they say they want.

Secondly, the statement needs to be a corporate—and therefore a CEO— responsibility. In his evidence to the Joint Committee, Andrew Forrest, founder of the Walk Free Foundation and chairman of Fortescue Metals Group, which has a supply chain of 3,000 suppliers, summed up perfectly why leadership from the top of the company is necessary. He said:

“The only reason that we found slavery in our supply chain was that it was mandated to be searched for by the chairman … without that leadership from the top, it just would not have happened”.

Thirdly, the Government also need to take leadership from the top and set out actions that allow for the monitoring, enforcement and review of this new clause. There should be a central government portal where all the annual statements are aggregated online, along with a commentary on or analysis of them, especially highlighting who is not complying with the new legislation. Will national and local government be expected to take responsibility for auditing their own procurement practices and supply chains?

Fourthly, the size of the business that will have to comply with this clause will be set out in regulations after a consultation. Given the importance of this issue, will the Government set out the timescale for this consultation and when we will see the proposed regulations?

I also want to discuss support for business in this clause. We all recognise that it will take a few years for businesses to successfully map, audit and evaluate every tier of their supply chains. As we discuss this legislation, it is important that the Government set out how they intend to help business to comply with this clause.

When considering how the Government can help businesses fight slavery we also have to look at the Gangmasters Licensing Authority—the GLA. I completely agree with my noble friend Lord Tunnicliffe that its work is vital in the UK’s fight against modern slavery. It can also play an increased role in supporting businesses in their efforts to eradicate slavery. Since 2006, it has done a great job in raising standards, controlling exploitation and driving out poor performance in the sectors for which it is currently responsible.

Ten years ago when the GLA was set up, limiting its sector focus made sense but now it makes little sense. Many high-risk sectors fall outside remit of the GLA—hospitality, construction, clothing, cleaning and social care. The Bill cannot ignore the exploitation faced by workers who fall outside its remit. There is huge support for a review of the GLA with a view to extending its role and remit, and I urge the Government to look again at this.

The Bill needs to be amended to reverse the 2012 changes to the Immigration Rules for migrant domestic workers—changes which prohibit this vulnerable group of workers from leaving their employers, effectively putting them in an enslaved situation. No matter how they are treated, they have no right to leave. They have no right to withdraw their labour without being rendered illegal.

We are all aware that migrant domestic workers are vulnerable enough without the added burden of being unable to escape their employers. Research by Kalayaan has shown that migrant domestic workers tied to their employers are more likely to be victims of trafficking, more likely to have their passports withheld and twice as likely to report having being physically abused as those who were not tied to their employers.

Amending the Bill to go back to the pre-2012 visa arrangements introduced by Labour in 1998, which allowed migrant domestic workers the right to change employers, is the right thing to do. That has been recommended by both the Joint Committee on the draft Modern Slavery Bill and the Joint Committee on Human Rights. It is incongruous to seek to pass world-leading anti-slavery legislation on the one hand and on the other continue with an immigration rule that allows a vulnerable group of workers to be effectively enslaved by their employers. I urge the Government to look again at the domestic worker visa and the increased risks faced by these workers who are unable to escape.

With this Bill we have the chance to be bold and brave. It is an opportunity to walk in the footsteps of Wilberforce and make him proud. There is much to be welcomed in the Bill. There is strong support, but there are areas for further development and I look forward to debating the issues in the House as we move forward on this legislation.

16:07

[Baroness Suttie (LD)]

My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy of Cradley, who I know has done so much on this Bill. I am also greatly looking forward to hearing the maiden speech by the noble Lord, Lord Cashman, who is someone I have known for many years. We were in the European Parliament at the same time.

Like so many of the previous speakers, I greatly welcome the Bill. It is an opportunity to protect some of the most vulnerable in society and to remove practices that really should have no place in 21st-century Britain. It is a highly complex subject which crosses over into immigration policy, employment law, trade and economic policy and, in the sense that so many of the issues arise from the source countries in the first instance, international development and foreign policy.

The process of pre-legislative scrutiny and the considerable number of concessions made on Report in the House of Commons are also greatly to be welcomed and in particular the concessions made on the supply chain. But it is extremely important to seize this opportunity to ensure that the Bill is exemplary and as world class as possible and where necessary to enable further progress as circumstances change in the future. We should remember that this is an excellent start, but it is only the beginning of a process in eradicating these appalling crimes.

My noble friend Lady Hamwee, as the lead spokesperson from the Liberal Democrat Benches, will cover the Bill in some detail in her speech and my noble friend Lady Doocey will concentrate on issues of child exploitation in her speech, an area in which she has a considerable amount of expertise. I shall limit myself to three areas of the Bill, where I believe that further clarification, probing and possibly further changes would be welcome—the remit of the Gangmasters Licensing Authority, issues surrounding the definition of exploitation, and issues of the accountability and independence of the Anti-slavery Commissioner.

Unlike many noble Lords who have spoken, I am not an expert on this subject. My personal interest stems from an interest and involvement in issues of homelessness and the spread of infectious diseases such as TB, particularly in London. It comes also from a concern for some migrant workers who have found themselves trapped in a spiral of exploitation that is very hard to escape.

I think particularly of a young Bulgarian homeless man whom I got to know earlier this year. One day he told me that he was extremely pleased to have been offered work on a building site in south London. He was especially pleased that accommodation was also being provided. I accept that it is perfectly possible that everything has worked out well for him, and that he has employment and accommodation now, but I would like reassurance that this Bill will result in it becoming much harder in future for someone like this young homeless Bulgarian man to be exploited by an unscrupulous gangmaster.

An excellent report by the Joseph Rowntree Foundation of June this year lists some truly horrific examples of forced labour and exploitation that should have no place in 21st-century Britain. The wages of some of these exploited workers are often tied to their living in pretty appalling, cramped accommodation, resulting in a very real risk of an infectious disease such as TB. The Gangmasters Licensing Authority is extremely highly regarded by the organisations to which we have had the opportunity to speak and may already be stretched to full capacity on its current resources. But it is worth exploring whether its remit can in some way be extended also to cover the construction, catering and hospitality industries where we know that risks of labour exploitation exist.

The second area where I hope that we can probe more deeply is in the definition of exploitation and whether there is a case for a separate offence of exploitation. I would like to seek reassurance that the current definitions do not accidentally result in loopholes.

My final point is about the independence and accountability of the Anti-slavery Commissioner. I would like us to explore in Committee whether there should be an annual report to Parliament.

As I said in my opening remarks, this is a good and welcome Bill, but we need to seize the opportunity to ensure that it is a truly world-class piece of legislation.

16:12

[The Lord Bishop of Derby]

My Lords, I was privileged to be on the Joint Select Committee and I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Bates, on his very positive introduction. I also express my appreciation to the Government for listening and being willing to negotiate and explore options as this legislation unfolds.

I remind your Lordships that this is not just a huge and wicked crime. It is, as the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, says, increasing as we talk, massively. It treats human beings as commodities to be traded. The challenge of this legislation is to stop this practice. I am delighted that the Government are committed to producing a slavery strategy to complement the Bill and I hope that many of our concerns can be refined through that strategy. I would like to raise three of four things that might benefit from further scrutiny and wider debate in our process.

The issue of supply chains, about which the noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy, has spoken, sparked a debate a few weeks ago. It is good that the Government have listened and have a genuine commitment to trying to tackle supply chains, which are key to this appalling crime. At the moment, the connection is not clear enough between the kind of information required, by asking companies to be more transparent about supply chains, and the accountability of directors for listening to that information and doing something about it. Many companies already put things about supply chains on their websites, but, as I have said, the crime is increasing. We must be more focused, sharper and tougher.

It may be important to think about the Companies Act being amended, although I know that this is not popular and is continually sidelined. This is not least because the Government have admitted that they recognise that human rights reporting includes supply chain integrity. However, an amendment to connect our aspirations in this Bill with an amendment to the Companies Act would require shareholders and directors to be accountable for what the company was doing with supply chains, and it would be a model that other countries that have companies Acts but not legislation about slavery could easily follow and get up to speed on, and therefore it would be a world leader. It would create a level playing field for all companies, so I flag up the Companies Act as a way of strengthening what we are trying to do.

Also with regard to supply chains, I want to mention the issue of scale. The Government are committed to finding a level at which companies will be required to do some kind of reporting, but the way our economy is developing, with the devolution of much activity into very small-scale, local subcontracting enterprises, that is where much slavery happens, and it is well out of the purview of major operators, which have a vast scale of operation. My right reverend friend the Bishop of Norwich, who is in his place, has been talking to me about evidence from Norfolk that points to a strong connection between something as basic as a car wash and a traded group of people who are doing that labour. It is very difficult to catch that kind of gangmaster activity, where people gather a group of people, force them to do the job, pay them peanuts, often confiscate their passports and entrap them where they do not know the language and do not have connections.

That is why I welcome the suggestion that the Gangmasters Licensing Authority has it remit extended, because part of the problem is we have a very low level of inspection. If the GLA had a wider remit and a stronger base to do inspections, that could be helpful. Another case I referred to briefly in our debate a couple of weeks ago was that in Derbyshire the local police, with the GLA, are targeting companies that might be susceptible to trafficking in their systems and going out to do preventive work, to help them recognise the signs, take appropriate measures and improve their performance. If the GLA had more resources and a wider remit, it could do proactive preventive work as well as inspections and helping with challenging the crime more directly.

I also flag up an amendment in the Commons, which was unsuccessful, introduced by a member of the Select Committee, Fiona Mactaggart, about demand in terms of the sex trade. Although I do not think it would be suitable to have legislation in this Bill about prostitution and criminalising payment for sex, many countries, especially the Nordic countries, have done a lot of work to show that sexual exploitation flourishes through prostitution and that where there has been legislation to criminalise the purchase of sex—which is the commodification of other human beings—that has had a dramatic effect on the level of sexual exploitation and slavery.

I will briefly say something about the national referral mechanism. I congratulate Jeremy Oppenheim on his report and will just pick out a phrase that I think is very helpful for what we are trying to do. He says that we should not talk about first responders—who sound like some kind of St John Ambulance coming in from the touchline—but should call the people on the front line “slavery safeguarding leads”. Slavery is a safeguarding issue. It is about vulnerable adults being taken advantage of, and if we can use the word “safeguarding”, that makes sense to people in our culture and our society. I also endorse the very important point he makes, which we may want to pursue further, when he says that the 45 days, which we all know is inadequate for many purposes, is not a period for rehabilitation. We may need to separate out what space we need to make decisions about legal process and what space we need to try to support people, rehabilitate them and put them back on their feet.

Finally, the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, mentioned the need to have a victim-centred Bill. We have to find a way of privileging victims because they are so abused and so sinned against. At the moment victims fall at many fences. Legal aid changes are beginning to put them in a disadvantaged place in trying to secure any legal support. With benefits systems, residency, housing, jobseeker’s allowance and all those kinds of things, the norms that we have for those bits of welfare activity are making it very hard for people who have been enslaved and have no documents or a settled address to access the welfare system. I wonder whether there is some way of privileging people once they have been recognised as having been exploited or enslaved, to give them a different way of accessing benefits and support because they have been enslaved and treated as commodities. That would make an enormous difference.

Finally, I welcome the nomination of Kevin Hyland as the first Anti-slavery Commissioner. I, too, have had the privilege of working with him and he is one of the great experts in our country. He has been at the forefront of putting victims at the front of this legislation and the work of the Metropolitan Police. He could be an exciting ally in this kind of work. I welcome the Bill and look forward to debating some of the big issues, but I plead that we think seriously about recognising how commodified people are in slavery and about whether they need a special prioritisation through the welfare system.

16:20

[Baroness Newlove (Con)]

My Lords, I am really pleased to speak on this very important Bill. It is very important because we are speaking about victims of modern slavery. There is much in the Bill that I welcome: simplifying existing slavery and trafficking offences; increasing maximum sentences; creating civil orders and establishing a legal duty to report potential victims of trafficking to the National Crime Agency. All of these seem like sensible measures to improve detection, enforcement and punishment.

However, I am concerned that the Bill says very little about what will be done to help and support the victims of slavery. It is almost as if the physical, emotional and practical impact on those affected by this terrible crime has somehow been forgotten in the drive to bring the perpetrators to justice. I therefore speak on Parts 4 and 5 of the Bill today. We are told that legislation is not the only way that the Government will seek to tackle modern slavery and that there is a non-legislative programme of action but placing support for victims of slavery on a statutory footing would send out a very powerful message. It would say that victims of slavery have a legal right to help and that it is not being given as a concession or favour. The Government have recently announced their intention to introduce a law for victims of crime, so why should victims of slavery be excluded?

I know there is excellent help and support available for victims of slavery. Earlier this year, I saw for myself the work of the Salvation Army when I visited its safe houses. I would like to pay tribute to the Salvation Army for the outstanding work that it does in this field. I met a number of women who had been trafficked for prostitution and domestic servitude. One woman, Esther, left Nigeria with her mother when she was 14 to go on what she thought was a holiday. After a week, her mother left and she was forced into domestic servitude where she was beaten, starved and abused. After three years, she escaped but supported herself through prostitution and was too scared to go to the authorities. It was only when she was picked up by the immigration services several years later that she was referred to the Salvation Army. There, she has had counselling to help her come to terms with what had happened to her, as well as practical help to resolve her immigration status, find accommodation and prepare to find employment.

The staff at the Salvation Army house were nothing but short of incredible yet a vast amount of their time was taken up with dealing with the bureaucratic processes relating to immigration status, benefits and other practical issues. I appreciate that decisions about someone’s right to remain in this country cannot be made overnight, but I ask my noble friend the Minister to think about what it might feel like to be Esther, who has escaped years of abuse and is now safe. What must it feel like not to know whether she will be sent back to Nigeria and what might await her there? She does not know whether her mother was complicit in her being trafficked or what she could do to support herself if she was returned. This will clearly make her vulnerable to further abuses, including the risk of being retrafficked.

Delays in decision-making do not mean just that an organisation has not met its targets; it also means that somebody’s liberty, security and safety are at stake. I ask my noble friend the Minister to ensure that all government departments work smarter together to ensure that victims of slavery receive that emotional, physical and practical support in a much more co-ordinated, consistent and timely manner. We need local authorities to take responsibility for supporting recognised victims of human trafficking as “vulnerable adults” and to provide suitable housing for them. The sad fact is that very few local authorities do this. Victims of slavery also need support if they are to provide evidence against their abusers in court and they must not be abandoned afterwards. Using victims for our own purpose of securing a conviction and then failing to support them afterwards risks abusing them all over again.

I welcome the steps being taken to reduce the prosecution of victims where the criminal act has been intrinsically linked to their enslavement. I welcome the review of the national referral mechanism, particularly those recommendations related to victims who are moving on from Salvation Army safe houses. I know that the Salvation Army is confident that its subcontractors make every effort to ensure the safety and well-being of victims leaving the service. Many of them provide programmes and “drop-ins” while others provide an “open door” to those who still wish to remain in contact for occasional advice and support. Some of this post-exit support has been funded by the Salvation Army’s victim care fund, but otherwise this funding has had to be found by the subcontractors. We must ensure that support for victims is adequately funded.

The recently announced Independent Anti-slavery Commissioner, Kevin Hyland, has a wealth of knowledge and experience in the field of human trafficking. I wish him well in taking up this new role. However, apart from a statement that the commissioner will act strongly in the interests of victims and potential victims by making sure that the law enforcement response to modern slavery is focused, co-ordinated and effective, there is very little substance on what support will be made available for the victims. As Victims’ Commissioner for England and Wales, I look forward to an early meeting with the commissioner to see how best both our roles can complement each other to ensure that each and every victim gets the help and support that they need.

I know that every one of us in your Lordships’ House feels angry and sickened by the existence of this wicked trade in what we call a “modern society” and that we all agree that detection, prevention and prosecution are important. However, it is just as important to include provisions for emotional, professional and legal support for these victims of crime lest we forget that behind every statistic on modern slavery is a human being in grave danger and in a lot of pain.

16:29

[Lord Cashman (Lab) (Maiden Speech)]

My Lords, I rise for the first time in your Lordships’ noble House, and in so doing I respect the normal courtesies of thanks and recognition. But this time it is so very different.

I seek no support, no sympathy in what I am about to say, because it is a matter of fact—though, to me, of huge significance. Three days before I was introduced to this noble House, my partner of 31 years, and husband of eight years, Paul Cottingham, died after a ferocious battle with cancer. Before he died, I spoke of maybe postponing my introduction to another time. We spoke, too, of him attending with the necessary medical assistance. It was not to be. But his insistence was that I enter this House, this noble House, and nobility it has shown me and Paul’s family. Kindness and understanding have come from all quarters: the catering personnel; Mr Phipps and the doorkeepers; the staff and officers; Nicola Rivis in Black Rod’s office; and your Lordships. That is why my thanks today are not part of the usual courtesy: they are as urgent and sincere as any I have ever felt. This is public life at its best. I thank the leader of the Opposition, my right honourable friend Ed Miliband, and his staff, particularly Anna Yearley and Rachel Kinnock, for the love, care and deep affection they have shown me; and—if noble Lords will allow me—the all-embracing care of my Labour Party family. I have found this truly humbling.

My journey to this House has been, in comparison to the lives of others, good. Yet I am fully aware that I have not achieved a place in your Lordships’ House on my own. Thousands of generations of people before me have made possible what I have today by their sacrifices and through the challenges, discrimination and persecution that they faced; minorities of all different hues, but all experiencing one thing in common—inhumane and degrading treatment.

As a gay man who grew up in the fifties—and after the ray of hope of decriminalisation in the 1960s there followed new legislative discrimination in 1988—I can never forget the sacrifices of LGBTI people, and the sacrifices they are still making, despite progress, today. It is through them and because of them, and other much maligned and misrepresented minorities, that I am here today. I do not take that responsibility lightly. Indeed, I am deeply honoured to have recently been appointed as the leader of the Opposition’s global envoy on LGBTI issues—a challenging task.

Of course, at times I will fail. However, if to succeed is our objective, then to fail in trying to do so should be understood. All human beings who imagine a better future, which we do with this Bill, and seek to achieve it, will fall short. It is the intention, the persistence and the weight of time and respect for it that matter most, especially when giving a voice to those who otherwise would remain unheard and unnoticed. That is why I wanted to speak in this debate today, because central to the issues we are discussing are human rights and civil liberties—or rather the denial of those rights.

I make no pretence at being an expert on the minutiae of the Bill, but since when has that ever stopped anyone offering their opinion? However, I have listened carefully to those who are experts and it is clear that there is room for improvement—as noble Lords have already outlined—in particular, in relation to overseas domestic workers; migrant workers; specific offences of child and adult exploitation; measures relating to the supply chains of UK companies; and coherence with the Gangmasters Licensing Authority.

It is worth reminding ourselves that these practices are not happening in some remote part of the United Kingdom or on the other side of the world; they are happening in our cities, our towns, our villages, in the things we buy, the services we employ and the people we subcontract. It is all around us: the exploitation of women, children and men—women, children and men who dare to imagine a better life, and seeking that better life are impoverished and subjected to inhumane and degrading treatment. It has always happened in our society, and it has always happened to migrants in particular. It happened to generations of migrants who made their way to this beacon of democracy, fleeing wars, famine, persecution and wanton discrimination—like my own family, who crossed continents and then the Irish Sea—arriving not welcomed but abused. It is happening still.

Those of us in public life should always be careful about the language we use. Each and every time migrants and minorities are defamed and misrepresented, there are consequences. If we dehumanise people, is it any wonder that others feel they have a licence to treat them as subhuman? The search for the scapegoat has happened for centuries and never more so than in times of economic downturn. However, I sense I am straying into the used bathwater of controversy so I merely say this. I have every hope that the Bill will address these abhorrent injustices. I therefore also hope that the Minister will take on board amendments to deliver effective and dissuasive measures across the board. Now is not the time to reinforce a hierarchy of equality.

Before I pay my final thanks, let me quickly put the Bill into a broader context. I believe that at the heart of everything we do, we should reinforce the concept of civil liberties and responsibilities, and universal human rights. The Council of Europe and the European Convention on Human Rights were both born from the ashes of the Second World War—so too was the concept of the European Union—ensuring that all citizens would have a basic set of transferable rights; that borders would not inhibit those human rights; nor would one group, nationality or minority be bartered away for another’s short-term gain or short-term freedom.

I state that because it has become all too fashionable to argue for change without knowing what you actually want to achieve. The EU, born out of the ashes of the Second World War, has at its heart a small set of fundamental principles that must not be diluted. To do so, especially in times of economic downturn and crisis, would once again raise the ugly face of narrow nationalism, pitting nation against nation, minority against minority. In the end, it is always the individual who suffers.

Finally, I cannot help but reflect that I was born in Limehouse, east London, three weeks before my time, primarily due to my mother attempting to defend my father in a street fight outside Stepney East station. It has been a long road, with many a fight along the way, metaphorically, and I am sure that there are more to come, but the results have been worth it. So, as I began, I thank my dear friends Lady Turner of Camden and Lady Kinnock for agreeing to sponsor me into this noble House. They are two noble ladies whom I have had the comfort and privilege to work with and admire and whom I hold in the highest esteem. I thank your Lordships.

16:37

[Lord Patel (CB)]

My Lords, I am sure that I speak for the whole House when I say that the noble Lord, Lord Cashman, has the sympathy of the whole House for the loss of his partner of 31 years at such a crucial time in his life.

It is a pleasure to speak following the noble Lord and a privilege to thank him, on behalf of the whole House, for his brilliant maiden speech. He became a household name in 1986, when he was cast as Colin Russell in the BBC programme “EastEnders”. I have no doubt that he is destined to become famous again in a different programme, or House. I have to disappoint him, however, because I have never watched the programme. My excuse is that by the time I was ready to watch it, he had departed the programme, so there was not much point.

As the noble Lord mentioned, he has championed the cause of human rights and civil liberties all his life, and no doubt we will continue to hear him do that. Following the controversy of Section 28, together with Ian McKellen he founded Stonewall. In this House, we heard a lot about Stonewall during the passage of the Bill on gay rights.

As a Member of the European Parliament, elected in 1999, he also used that position to defend human rights and civil liberties. He was successful in introducing legislation in the European Parliament. He served on the Labour Party’s National Executive Committee between 1998 and 1999 and again between 2001 and 2012, serving as chair in his last year. Following that, I wonder whether he is destined for high office on the Front Bench in this House in due course.

Michael received a special service award, I am pleased to say, from the American Association of Physicians for Human Rights—they do not give awards lightly—and an honorary doctorate from Staffordshire University for his work in the field of human rights. We look forward to hearing him many times, and I thank him today for his maiden speech.

I turn now to the Bill to make my small contribution. Before I do so, I pay tribute to the noble Lord, Lord McColl, and to the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, who have both championed the cause of trafficked children and modern slavery for some time. It is in no small measure due to them that we have this Bill today.

I listened very carefully, and with great respect, to both their contributions and I listened to the caution the noble and learned Baroness gave about us not striving to get too much in the way of changes to the legislation. However, I also listened to my noble friend Lord McColl—the fraternity of medicine and friendship goes well beyond the politics of the House, so I refer to him as my friend, my senior friend. I listened very carefully to his plea for trafficked children in particular, and that we make sure that the legislation protects them.

I also congratulate the Government on bringing this Bill forward. It goes a significant way to eliminating in the UK the modern form of slavery, which is, as the Explanatory Notes say, a brutal form of organised crime that treats vulnerable human beings, mostly women and children, as commodities. However, the Bill is more about prosecuting those who traffic, and it goes a long way towards doing so. However, it is light in legislation that would provide victim support, and in this area the Bill could be strengthened.

I recognise the Government’s commitment to tackling slavery, child trafficking and exploitation. However, the Bill misses an opportunity to afford better protection for child victims. The fact that there has not been a single prosecution for child trafficking proves the point, I think: it may well be linked to poor victim support. It is despite the 600 to 1,000 children who, it is estimated, are trafficked. The Bill needs to include a specific offence of child exploitation and trafficking. I look forward to the arguments of the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, as to why that might not be necessary—if she agrees—in Committee.

Given the vulnerability of children, current law relating to the offence of human trafficking fails children, in part due to those charged with protecting them not fully understanding the law. That may well be the cause of the lack of prosecutions. On Report in the Commons, the Minister indicated that she was minded to consider the issue of consent as it applies to children. The noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, also referred to that: children held in slavery, servitude and required to perform forced labour. If that is the intention, why not include it in the Bill by amending Clause 47, as part of the new offence of child exploitation? Children will then get justice, where they currently seem not to.

Legislation also needs to go further in relation to child trafficking advocates. The noble Lord, Lord McColl, has championed this for many a year, if not for decades. While the amendment introduced in the Commons to what is now Clause 47(5) makes it clear that advocates must act in the best interests of the child, legislation needs to be extended to give child trafficking advocates legal powers—powers that include holding authorities to account and instructing solicitors on behalf of the child, in order to truly represent their best interests. An advocate acting as a friend—even a litigation friend, as suggested—does not fulfil the need to instruct solicitors nor compel local authorities to act to enable children to access the services that they need.

An amendment to Clause 47 should also be extended to include the provision of legal advocates for all separated migrant children, as recommended by the Joint Committee on Human Rights. Evidence shows that separated migrant children are often trafficked and the vulnerability of these children is already recognised in international law—and, within the United Kingdom, by Scotland and Northern Ireland. Why would it therefore be inappropriate to do the same in the rest of the UK?

Perhaps I may speak briefly about the role of the so-called independent anti-slavery commissioner. If the Government are to meet their ambition of truly making the UK free from modern slavery, the anti-slavery commissioner needs to have wider powers—powers that include true independence from the Government by reporting to Parliament, and powers to monitor victim assistance measures, to collect data from a wide range of other bodies and to monitor the impact of policies and legislation. The current powers of the commissioner, as stated in the Bill, are too narrow and will not deliver the improvement in prosecution and conviction rates that the Government wish to have. In her recent statements, the Home Secretary recognised the need for victim support and the protection of victims. Why should we not then have those in the powers of the commissioner? The argument put forward by the Government—that the role of the anti-slavery commissioner should not duplicate the roles of other commissioners—is weak. That argument was rejected by the Joint Committee on Human Rights and should be rejected by this House.

The victim protection provision in Part 5 also needs to be further strengthened to include, as has been mentioned, a duty on public authorities to assist victims and to include protection for migrant domestic workers on the overseas domestic workers’ visa. The current rules relating to employment and visa renewal end up with these workers being treated as modern-day slaves. If the legislation is different in other parts of the United Kingdom, my one question to the Minister would be: how would a commissioner whose responsibility goes throughout the United Kingdom be able to deliver efficiency unless the legislation is similar in all parts of the United Kingdom?

16:47

[Baroness Doocey (LD)]

My Lords, first, I declare an interest as a vice-chair of the All-Party Group on Human Trafficking and Modern-Day Slavery. I, too, served on the Joint Committee that looked at the draft Modern Slavery Bill. The dedication and sense of shared purpose with which members of all parties carried out the committee’s work is a testament to the excellent leadership of our chair, Frank Field MP. It is therefore regrettable that the Government chose to ignore many of the committee’s recommendations.

I, too, applaud the Home Secretary for bringing forward the long-overdue Bill. However, a number of issues need to be addressed to turn this into a Bill which would set the standard for the rest of the world. My key interest in the Bill is in offences against children, an area which is not adequately covered. Part 1 requires evidence of forced or compulsory labour. However, this should not be required in the case of children. A child can be controlled far more easily than an adult—in many cases, without force or compulsion—so we should accept this and include in the Bill a separate offence for child exploitation. There are a number of circumstances where children are being exploited but which would not be deemed an offence under the Bill, as drafted. Let me give just three examples.

The first is of children being exploited for benefit fraud. A regular scam being used is for a female so-called relative to claim that a child’s mother has been killed in her home country. She then claims asylum for the child, whom she says she is now looking after. If officers allow the child to stay with the woman, she will receive asylum support until the child reaches the age of 16. The same child is then passed from one person to another for the sole purpose of making multiple claims for the same child in various parts of the UK.

My second example concerns children being brought in from baby farms for the purpose of illegal adoption. The CPS has continually failed to demonstrate how it will prosecute anyone for the trafficking of babies and infants. Because infants cannot, by definition, give evidence, these cases simply cannot reach the threshold for slavery, or forced or compulsory labour. An offence of child exploitation would be an unambiguous solution to this problem.

My final example concerns children being exploited for criminal purposes such as begging. Children cannot consent to being exploited, but in most cases they will accept what they are being asked to do by family members without question, because doing what adults tell them is considered normal. Exploiting children is big business. The Metropolitan Police estimates that each child used for begging in London can bring in up to £100,000 per annum for their gangmaster. The committee on which I sat recommended a specific offence which says simply that it is illegal to exploit a child, or to obtain benefit from the use of a child, for the purpose of exploitation. That is simple, yet, for reasons which I fail to comprehend, the Government do not agree. However, those charities that work daily with vulnerable children, including UNICEF, the Children’s Society and ECPAT, believe that the case for a separate child exploitation offence is overwhelming. They are right.

I will briefly mention one other area of the Bill which I believe needs to be enhanced. Like the noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy of Cradley, I, too, have concerns about Clause 45, which provides a statutory defence for slavery or trafficking victims who are compelled to commit a criminal offence. This does not go far enough to protect children, because to be able to use the protection of this defence, an already traumatised child needs to prove that they were compelled to commit an offence and, in addition, that it was a direct result of slavery or trafficking. This is an unnecessary burden and goes against our human rights obligations, because we are required to ensure that trafficked children are protected and not treated as criminals when the crimes they commit are integral to, or consequent on, their trafficking or exploitation.

In conclusion, the National Crime Agency estimates that more than 600 children were trafficked into the UK in 2013 for the purposes of exploitation. This is, on average, almost two children every day. Girls were exploited predominantly sexually and boys largely for criminal or labour purposes. These are shocking statistics, but there is a general consensus among all the agencies that work in this field that the true figure is likely to be significantly higher. People trafficking is the second or third largest source of income for organised crime, up there with drugs and the arms trade. We must do everything in our power to enable the police to prosecute these criminals.

The way we treat our children defines us as a society. It is almost beyond belief that child slavery and exploitation is still happening in this country. A separate child exploitation offence would make a fundamental difference to the lives of hundreds, if not thousands, of children who are being exploited daily. This is a golden opportunity. Let us not waste it.

16:54

[Baroness Chisholm of Owlpen (Con) (Maiden Speech)]

My Lords, it is an honour to be standing here today, but I stand with some trepidation knowing the history and experience that precede me. This is indeed a place full of expertise. My journey over the past few weeks from Robing Room to maiden speech has been made a great deal easier by the overwhelming kindness shown by your Lordships, the officers and staff and my supporters, my noble friends Lord King and Lady Jenkin, and my mentor, my noble friend Lord Mancroft. This is indeed a welcoming place, especially as it serves crumpets and Marmite for tea. My father, John Egremont, introduced a debate on 13 July 1965 on the Motion that,

“speeches in this House should be shorter”.

Being well brought up, I have of course always taken careful note of any advice given to me by my father, so I will not keep your Lordships long.

I speak for the first time in your Lordships’ House with a sense of how much I would like to contribute to the quality of legislation and seriousness of debate that is so important to our democracy. I have chosen this debate for my maiden speech because over many years as a registered nurse and a former leading Samaritan and, more recently, given my involvement with a drug and alcohol treatment centre in Gloucestershire, I have real concerns about vulnerable people in our society.

I have told your Lordships a little about myself but now I turn to the issue of modern slavery and human trafficking and the growing number of victims being moved across the globe, robbed of their liberty and forced into a life of servitude. As a former nurse and charity worker, I have seen vulnerable people used by manipulative criminals to promote their illegal profiteering. Modern slavery and human trafficking is recognised as one of the most financially lucrative crimes committed domestically and internationally. For the organised crime group it is a low-risk and high-profit pursuit, but for the victims it is a harrowing and traumatic experience and one they will never forget.

As I stand here before your Lordships, there are men, women and children in the UK who have no life at all. They are trafficked into this country and duped into a life of prostitution, labour exploitation, petty crime and domestic slavery, and they are kept in conditions that would seem unimaginable to anyone lucky enough to enjoy hot food and a bed. The key drivers are lack of education, poverty, limited opportunities, an unstable home, unstable Governments and conflicts. It is difficult to estimate how many victims we have in the UK, but in 2013 more than 2,500 cases of slavery were reported to UK law enforcement agencies. We can assume that this is a gross underestimate because this is a crime that all too often goes unseen, and the criminals who trade in human beings work underground.

Nearly two years ago the Centre for Social Justice published a report, It Happens Here, which made a number of recommendations. I am proud to be a supporter of a Government who have subsequently brought forward a modern-day slavery Bill. However, this is just an opening chapter of a horror story which, sadly, is fact, not fiction, and has more chapters to go before we can feel comfortable enough to close the book.

I have said that I come from a nursing background. I would like to see more victims identified and treated, not just for the visible scars derived from beatings and coercion but for those mental scars that run more deeply and last much longer. We all of us have a part to play in helping victims of modern-day slavery and human trafficking: communities, local authorities, the educational establishment, health workers—the list is not exhaustive. Law enforcement has a key role to play in working with all groups to ensure that we have a joined-up approach.

Catching more criminals will surely lead to fewer victims. Importantly, we need to provide the kind of services that help victims to become survivors. It is imperative for the victims to have the right support from the moment that they are identified. The evidence that they give is helped by the effectiveness and quality of support that they receive.

Liz Hales from the Institute of Criminology at Cambridge University said, “You’re being processed along a conveyor belt and unless you have someone to hold your hand, you are lost”. We must ensure that the victims are never again vulnerable to the evil slave drivers who will commit any act, however inhumane, in the name of profit.

I thank your Lordships for the opportunity to speak today, but mindful of my father’s views on the length of speeches, I feel I should now stop. I look forward to contributing to your Lordships’ work in the future and will consider it an honour to do so.

17:00

[Baroness Cox (CB)]

My Lords, it is a great pleasure and privilege to congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Chisholm of Owlpen, on her superb maiden speech. It was a powerful, moving and very constructive response to the important Bill before us today. As someone with a nursing background myself, it is an especial delight to welcome another former nurse to your Lordships’ House. As the noble Baroness was speaking, I thought that perhaps the fundamental values underpinning her commitment to a major caring profession, were reflected in the sensitivity and compassion of a truly memorable maiden speech. I look forward very much to sharing nursing interests in the Chamber and, in nursing parlance, off duty. However, I am sure that every noble Lord here today looks forward greatly to benefiting from the noble Baroness’s distinctive contributions very soon and very often.

I warmly commend the Government for introducing this path-breaking legislation to endeavour to eradicate the barbaric phenomenon of slavery, which continues to inflict indescribable suffering on millions of men, women and children in our world today. I welcome many of the provisions in the Bill. As time is limited, I will focus not on those which I strongly endorse but on three ways in which I sincerely hope that the Bill will be amended in order to achieve its worthy aims.

The first issue relates to the Bill’s failure adequately to tackle slavery in supply chains, as has already been highlighted by many other noble Lords. Forced labour and slavery are flourishing in our global supply chains of raw materials and manufactured goods. I myself may inadvertently be wearing clothes and eating food rendered cheap by slave labour. Every day, millions of modern-day slaves are forced to work in appalling conditions for derisory or no pay. Their suffering is too often hidden at the bottom of long, complex international supply chains which allow some big companies to abdicate responsibility and ignore the suffering involved in the manufacture of many low-price products. The majority are in the private sector, particularly in manufacture, construction and agriculture.

Excellent research by a number of NGOs has exposed the routine use of forced labour in the supply chains of some of the biggest British high-street stores and supermarkets. According to the International Labour Organization, this form of slavery generates an annual profit of $150 billion. Therefore, legislation to ensure scrutiny of the exploitation and working conditions of those at the very bottom of the supply chain is crucial. I join other noble Lords in welcoming the Government’s agreement to include measures to address this issue in this Bill.

However, it is essential that minimum measures of disclosure will be specified. This will not only meet the Government’s aspirations for greater transparency but provide a level playing field for business. Therefore, requiring big businesses to state publicly what action they have taken to eliminate slavery from their supply chains is a significant step forward.

But the devil is in the detail. It is essential that minimum measures of disclosure are specified, particularly the requirements, as mentioned by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Derby, that such information be published in each company’s directors’ report and that this reporting should be annual and progressive. This will demonstrate that businesses are operating ethically and that those which eliminate slavery from their supply chains will not be disadvantaged. This has been welcomed by many business leaders, such as one who said, “We warmly welcome this legislation as it will level the playing field for us. We are free of slavery in our practices here in the UK and we want our global competitors to be, too”.

The second issue I wish to highlight has already been emphasised by a number of other noble Lords. I refer, briefly, to the plight of overseas domestic workers, who remain excluded in spite of strong recommendations from the Joint Committee on the draft Bill. It found that the current visa system, introduced in April 2012,

“unintentionally strengthened the hand of the slave master against the victim of slavery”,

and recommended the restoration of the pre-2012 visa. All the evidence shows that migrant domestic workers remain in a situation of vulnerability, which is morally unacceptable and which undermines the intentions of the Bill. The protections for migrant domestic workers promised by the Minister, such as handing them an information card on entry to the UK or clarifying the contracts submitted with applications for the visa, are welcome, but they cannot replace the basic rights of changing employer and renewing a visa. I hope that the Minister will be able to give assurance of sympathetic consideration of amending the Bill to solve that problem.

The third area where I wish to see the Bill amended relates to the global perspective of slavery. The title of the report from the Modern Slavery Bill Evidence Review, Establishing Britain as a World Leader in the Fight against Modern Slavery, reflects the laudable aspirations of the Government. However, while tackling modern slavery in the UK—including human trafficking—is a moral imperative, it may not impact what is truly a global issue and may also move the problem to other areas of the globe. The Global Slavery Index estimates the number of slaves in the UK to be between 4,200 and 4,600. While that is 4,200 or 4,600 too many, and nothing can lessen the tragedy for each individual, it is a drop in the ocean compared with the global estimate of nearly 30 million.

In my humanitarian work with victims of oppression I have been involved with the redemption of hundreds of slaves in Sudan, abducted by the regime in Khartoum; I have met victims of sexual slavery and forced labour in Burma; children and teenagers abducted by the notorious Lord’s Resistance Army in Uganda, who were subjected to indescribable brutality; and devadasi, or temple prostitutes, in India. I have heard, too often, their anguished, heart-wrenching stories. Their experiences also highlight the need for appropriate aftercare, which is currently inadequate in this country, but which is sadly all too often completely lacking for victims in other countries.

We have a moral responsibility to work on behalf of those who are exploited, wherever they are in the world. To be a truly global leader, Britain must give a rallying call to all countries and work with as many countries as possible to tackle slavery wherever it happens. The Bill provides an opportunity to address slavery and the suffering it inflicts on its victims wherever it exists, and it would be shameful not to take that opportunity now.

While recognising the limitations of legislating on global slavery in the same manner as slavery in this country, three actions could be taken. First, a statutory statement within the Bill which recognised modern slavery as a global issue requiring a global solution and which committed the United Kingdom to assist with exposing and tackling it wherever it exists would be an important signal and declaration of intent. That would need to be followed by Britain taking the initiative in launching collaborative programmes with business, NGOs, public bodies and local communities, sharing expertise, knowledge, intelligence, resources, best practice and political leadership which would engage every sector of society in the fight against slavery.

Secondly, there should be a requirement for all British embassies, high commissions and consulates to assess the prevalence of slavery in the countries where they are located, regardless of whether there is a direct link to the UK, and to support collaborative programmes, especially on-the-ground anti-trafficking and anti-slavery initiatives. Thirdly, the publication of an annual report would assess the extent of modern slavery globally, the progress of measures to address the issue, give an overview of initiatives undertaken by the FCO, DfID and other UK departments, as well as by UK-based NGOs, and would identify actions that would still need to be taken.

If the Bill is to achieve the Government’s stated intention to establish Britain as a,

“world leader in the fight against modern slavery”,

the UK must be at the forefront of making everywhere in the world a “no-go zone” for human trafficking and slavery, shining a light on modern slavery wherever it is taking place and facilitating the sharing of skills, expertise and resources to expose and eradicate slavery in all its forms, everywhere. Only then can Britain truly claim to be a world leader.

G20 Summit

Monday 17th November 2014 Lords Chamber

Statement

17:09

[The Lord Privy Seal (Baroness Stowell of Beeston) (Con)]

My Lords, with the leave of the House, I will now repeat a Statement made by my right honourable friend the Prime Minister in another place. The Statement is as follows.

“I am sure the whole House will join me in utterly condemning the sickening murder of American aid worker Peter Kassig. Our thoughts are with his family and his friends at this time. We will not be cowed by these sick terrorists. They will be defeated and they must face the justice that they deserve. This threat is faced by countries right across the world. We must face it together. It featured strongly in the discussions I had with Prime Minister Tony Abbott in my bilateral visit to Australia.

I took the opportunity of setting out further detail on some of the steps we will take as part of the counterterrorism Bill here in the United Kingdom. As the House knows, these include new powers for police at ports to seize passports, to stop suspects from travelling and to stop British nationals returning to the UK unless they do so on our terms. It also includes new rules to prevent airlines that do not comply with our no-fly lists, or our security screening measures, from landing in the UK. Every country across the world is examining what powers are necessary to keep their people safe, and I am determined that we will do that right here. We will make a full announcement about the counterterrorism Bill soon.

Let me turn to the G20 summit in Brisbane this weekend. Australian Prime Minister Tony Abbott set a clear agenda for the world economy and we gave it our strong backing. The Brisbane Action Plan includes a commitment on dealing with our debts and an infrastructure hub that will see British companies as part of a global pipeline for the biggest projects on the planet. But above all it is a plan for growth and jobs, with every country pledging actions that will boost global growth and therefore help create jobs. The aim is an additional $2 trillion to be added to the global economy.

When it comes to growth last year, this year and the forecast for next year, as the head of the IMF said in Brisbane, it is Britain and America that are leading the pack. However, it is also clear that growth is stalling in the eurozone, that world trade is not developing as fast as it should and that previously fast-growing economies are slowing down. Only today Japan entered recession. These warning signs in the global economy show that it is more important than ever that we stick to our long-term economic plan. That is the only way we can secure a better future for our country.

There were also important discussions on climate change, where China and America took important steps forward at the APEC summit in terms of moving towards a deal in Paris next year. Britain will continue to play a key role, including by using our already earmarked resources for the UN Green Climate Fund.

In terms of the global negotiations, the EU has taken the lead with significant planned cuts in carbon emissions. I made clear the importance of every country—Australia included—making a contribution to securing a deal next year.

My focus at this summit was on helping to deliver our long-term economic plan by addressing some of the big global challenges that could potentially threaten our recovery at home. There was important progress on fighting protectionism, on dealing with the damaging effects of global tax avoidance and corruption, and on confronting the instability caused by conflict and disease. I want to take each briefly in turn.

On fighting protectionism and promoting free trade, we welcomed the breakthrough on the Bali trade facilitation agreement, which had been stuck for so long. After an agreement between America and India, it will now go ahead. There was also an important meeting between the countries of the European Union and the United States to agree that an EU-US trade deal must be done next year. This could add £10 billion to the UK economy alone. These trade deals can mean jobs and growth for Britain, so I challenged European leaders to think ambitiously about other deals that could be done, including with our hosts, Australia, and with emerging markets such as India and China.

We pressed for reform of the World Trade Organization so that poverty-busting trade deals can be put together, agreed and implemented more quickly. Britain, Germany and the US, among others, all agreed that the way this organisation works needs to change in the future.

Secondly, there was progress on ensuring that big companies pay the taxes they owe. This is not just a technical issue; it is a moral one. Ensuring the correct taxes are paid is vital in sustaining low taxes and enabling hardworking families and small businesses to keep more of the money they earn. That is why Britain first put this on the international agenda at the G8 in Northern Ireland last year. This issue has now been firmly hard-wired into the G20 agenda. This summit agreed a G20-wide action plan to ensure there is nowhere for large companies to hide to avoid paying the taxes that are due. There are now 93 different countries and tax authorities signed up automatically to sharing tax information. Before the G8 in Northern Ireland last year it was just 29. As the OECD set out in Brisbane, the action we have taken so far in its view has already meant $37 billion of extra tax being paid by big corporations.

The Lough Erne summit also made important commitments at G8 level to stop the true owners of companies hiding behind a veil of secrecy. This is vital in tackling the cancer of corruption that does so much to destroy countries and increase the risks to our security. In Brisbane we agreed to extend this work on beneficial ownership to cover the whole G20—China included.

Thirdly, Britain continued to play a leading role in dealing with the threat of conflict and disease which is vital not only in keeping our own people safe but in ensuring our long-term prosperity. On the conflict in Ukraine, we called on Russia to respect the Minsk agreements and made it clear that if it does not we remain ready to intensify sanctions. Of course, there is an economic cost to us from sanctions. But the cost of allowing such a fundamental breach of our rules-based system to go unchecked would be infinitely greater in terms of cost in the long run. I met President Putin and once again made it clear that continued destabilisation of Ukraine can mean only more sanctions and more pressure. He has said that he does not want a frozen conflict and, as he put it to me, sees Ukraine as a single political space but he must be judged by his deeds not his words.

On Ebola, I wrote to Australian Prime Minister Abbott ahead of the summit to secure a specific G20 leaders’ statement, with a clear plan for dealing with this disease and for improving our readiness to respond to such epidemics in future. Other countries including South Korea, Japan and Australia are now doing more to help with more money, trained medical staff and equipment, while the IMF agreed to double its current programmes in Sierra Leone, Liberia and Guinea and to provide additional debt relief.

The UK will continue to lead the way on the development of a vaccine, with the Wellcome Trust establishing a joint research fund of more than £1 million. We also welcomed the support of the English and Scottish Football Associations which will be raising money at their friendly international tomorrow night. The UK Government will match-fund any public donations up to £5 million.

I also pushed the G20 to consider additional measures that could improve the ability of the global community to respond to a similar outbreak of disease in the future. This could include the possibility of a standing pool of global medical experts who can be deployed quickly during the early stages of a potential epidemic, strengthening in-country surveillance and health infrastructure, asking the IMF and World Bank to explore new mechanisms for ensuring the world is better prepared to deal with such pandemics in future and doing more to fight bacteria resistant to present-day antibiotics. The World Health Organization itself also requires reform.

This was a good G20 for Britain. We delivered progress on the key global economic challenges that will help to protect us from a global economic downturn. In doing so we supported our long-term economic plan to repair the broken economy that we inherited and to deliver jobs and growth in every part of our country. I commend this Statement to the House”.

My Lords, that concludes the Statement.

17:19

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the Leader of the House for repeating the Prime Minister’s Statement in the other place. I join her in expressing horror and revulsion at the barbaric murder of US aid worker Peter Kassig. Once again, this is a demonstration of ISIL’s evil ideology against innocent people. Our thoughts go out to his family at this terrible time. It reinforces our determination to defeat ISIL.

I will turn to the situation in Ukraine. The ceasefire agreed in September is extremely fragile and there are recent reports, confirmed by the OSCE, of further Russian military vehicles crossing the border. The noble Baroness reported on the Prime Minister’s meeting with Mr Putin. Does she think enough is being done to send a clear message to Russia about its aggression and to support President Poroshenko’s Government? Under what circumstances will the UK be pushing for further sanctions against President Putin and Russia? We are all aware of the way in which a conflict such as the one in Ukraine can generate headlines for a few weeks then be forgotten. This must not become a forgotten conflict.

I turn to the issues raised on the formal G20 agenda. As with any summit, the task is to turn good intentions into concrete measures. Tax avoidance is a problem which affects rich and poor countries alike. In June 2013, at the G8 summit, the Prime Minister promised that all UK Crown dependencies and overseas territories would produce registers on the real owners of shell companies. We are 17 months on from that summit: will the Leader of the House give an update on progress? This weekend, the G20 repeated the G8’s commitment that developing countries would have a place at the negotiating table, as part of the process to reform global tax rules. Can the noble Baroness say what progress has been made 18 months after the G8?

On climate change, I agree with her on the welcome steps on carbon emissions made by President Obama and the Chinese President last week. I also welcome the agreement to support the climate fund designed to help with the effects of climate change. When will the UK be announcing our contribution? Can the noble Baroness explain the delay in doing so? What is she doing to bring more sceptical countries with us for an ambitious agreement in Paris next year, not to mention the more sceptical noble Lords who sit behind her?

On the Ebola crisis, I welcome the UK’s role as the second-largest donor in helping tackle this potential threat to people, not just in west Africa but across the world. The G20 conclusions were short on specific commitments from other countries. What does the noble Baroness think we can do further to encourage other countries, including those in the EU, to ensure we tackle the crisis with aid, equipment and—especially—health workers?

Finally, I turn to the G20 conclusions on global growth. Today, the Prime Minister told us that there are red lights flashing in the global economy. This is what is known as getting your excuses in early. The Prime Minister used to tell us that the problems in the British economy were all to do with the British Government and nothing to do with international factors. Now he wants to tell us that, on his watch, they are all to do with international factors and nothing to do with the British Government.

Is it not true that, even before the Prime Minister went to Brisbane, we already knew his export target was off track and that the trade deficit is the highest it has been for 25 years? Before he went to Brisbane, he knew that Britain’s productivity had stagnated on his watch and that average families are £1,600 per annum worse off. The Prime Minister has gone from saying that everything is fixed thanks to him to saying everything is not fixed but it is nothing to do with him. He should have been listening all along to the British people, who see deep problems in an economy that is not working for them. Is it not time that the Prime Minister stopped blaming everybody else for an economy that is great for a few people at the top but is not delivering for most working people?

17:24

[Baroness Stowell of Beeston]

I thank the noble Lord for his remarks about Peter Kassig. I join him in sending condolences to his friends and family. Across this House, and the country as a whole, there is unity in our views on the terrible atrocities that have happened and in the support we send out to the victims.

I turn to the noble Lord’s comments about the Prime Minister’s Statement and the events at the G20 summit. The Prime Minister’s Statement shows that the UK is setting the agenda at global summits and leading the way when it comes to action. The noble Lord asked specific questions about tax and tax avoidance. My right honourable friend the Prime Minister made this a high priority at the G8 summit last year. Because of doing so, we now see some real progress in this area. Every one of the Crown dependencies and British Overseas Territories has signed up to an action plan on beneficial ownership, so that is clearly progress. Some of them have registers and some are considering making them public, but crucially, every single one of them has agreed to automatic exchange of tax information. That is a real breakthrough because it means that all these tax authorities are exchanging that information and companies cannot hide where they are making their money. As I said when I repeated the Prime Minister’s Statement, when they pay their fair share in tax it means that there is less burden on everyone else.

The noble Lord asked about Ukraine and whether the message to Russia was clear enough. One interesting thing at the G20 summit was that all the foreign leaders present were clear and united in their message to President Putin. There can be no mistake about their views on the need to withdraw from Ukraine. Clearly, if there is more destabilisation in Ukraine, that would trigger greater sanctions. Similarly, if there were a taking down of destabilisation, that would lead to removal of sanctions. But I agree with the noble Lord that what is really important is that this conflict is not forgotten and does not become a so-called frozen conflict in Europe in the way that the world moved on after the destabilisation of Georgia.

Again, we were very much in the lead in ensuring that climate change was part of the agenda for debate and discussion at the G20 summit. There is pressure on all countries to bring forward their plans for the meeting in Paris next year. We have set money aside ready to make our contribution to the climate fund, and will do so in the way to which we have been committed. We are proud to be in the lead on that.

The noble Lord asked about specific pledges made on Ebola. At the G20, Korea and Japan made specific pledges and of course Australia backed up its plan to provide 100 beds in Sierra Leone. As the House will recall from the Statement that I repeated after the recent European Council summit, the Prime Minister was successful in ensuring that the combined contribution from European countries to Ebola has increased to €1 billion. We should not forget that on Ebola it is not just about financial support. There are very many other ways in which countries are lending their support, which is an important aspect of our efforts in the fight against that dreadful disease.

As far as what the noble Lord said about the economy and the Prime Minister’s remarks this morning, let us be absolutely clear: the UK is leading the world, along with America, in terms of growth. That was recognised at the G20 by the head of the IMF. It is only now that we are seeing the problems that other countries face that we can see just how well this country is performing because of the measures that we implemented, and the plans that we have for the future are essential to that continuing. The private sector has created 2 million more new jobs in the past four years and 400,000 new businesses have got off the ground. We are leading the way. We must, however, be very conscious that there are serious threats from elsewhere, but there is no question that we are not on the right course economically.

[Baroness Garden of Frognal (LD)]

My Lords, may I just remind noble Lords that there are 20 minutes for questions? As a matter of courtesy, it would be much appreciated if noble Lords could keep their interventions brief.

17:30

[Baroness Falkner of Margravine (LD)]

My Lords, through my noble friend, the Prime Minister should be congratulated on the agreement on beneficial ownership transparency. She knows, however, that the World Bank believes that the United States and the United Kingdom are the two jurisdictions where most companies that hold proceeds of corruption incorporate. It is a little disappointing to see in the communiqué that, while countries are required to submit action plans, there is no time target for how long the approximately 90 of them that have signed up will take in terms of sharing information and achieving the action plans. Can my noble friend tell the House if there is any discussion about that?

[Baroness Stowell of Beeston]

On transparency overall we have made a huge breakthrough over the past few years, but my noble friend is right to express some frustration on beneficial ownership transparency. It is an area in which we would like to see greater progress. We have taken concrete action and are establishing this public central registry for company beneficial ownership information. We are working hard to ensure that others follow our lead, but I do not have any further details to offer at this time.

[Lord Hylton (CB)]

My Lords, we all condemn acts of terrorism. However, does the Leader of the House think that it is productive to use words such as “mindless” or “sick” in describing such acts? That kind of rhetoric should perhaps be removed. As for the long term, it will be better ideas and better practice that defeat the jihadis. The Statement refers to what happens when British nationals return to this country. Can she throw more light on the meaning of,

“unless they do so on our terms”?

Will there be some kind of probation? Surely the long-term objective should be to rehabilitate and reintegrate such people.

[Baroness Stowell of Beeston]

I have huge respect for the noble Lord, but I disagree with his comments about the language that the Prime Minister has used to describe the terrible beheadings that have taken place, and the actions against innocent people who have gone to these countries with the sole purpose of helping those in such desperate need.

On the matter of the counterterrorism measures referred to by my right honourable friend the Prime Minister when he was in Australia, more detail will come shortly. We expect the new legislation to be introduced in the Commons later this month. I do not know when it will arrive in this House. When it is introduced, clearly there will be an opportunity for proper scrutiny of it in the normal way.

[Lord Soley (Lab)]

The Statement refers to the Prime Minister’s concern about a number of instability factors, with reduced growth in the global economy. I understand that. But I am troubled that one of the factors over which he has control is the instability caused by Britain’s threat to withdraw from the European Union. This not only reduces investment in the European Union and here, but also increases the instability. Why does he not say very clearly that under his watch Britain will not withdraw from the EU?

[Baroness Stowell of Beeston]

My right honourable friend the Prime Minister has been clear that reform of the European Union is needed. He has great support for this in the European Union. Reform of it would be in the interest of the British people and that is totally consistent with his plans for ongoing growth in this country.

[Lord Hannay of Chiswick (CB)]

My Lords, does the Minister recognise that what was decided on trade—in particular, the agreement that the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership would be concluded next year—was very welcome? Can she say whether President Obama gave any indication of whether he was now likely to get fast-track authority to conduct that negotiation? What are the Government doing to deal with the broadly spread misconceptions, in this country as well as elsewhere in the European Union, about the risks of such an agreement, particularly stories that this would lead to the undermining of the National Health Service, for which there is no foundation whatever? These misconceptions need countering. Are the Government doing something about that?

On the World Health Organization, it is right, as the Statement says, that it needs some reform. Above all, it needs some resources. There is strong evidence that an absence of resources was part of the reason why it was rather slow off the mark when the Ebola outbreak began.

[Baroness Stowell of Beeston]

On the question of the transatlantic trade talks, or TTIP, the Prime Minister was very much in the lead in ensuring that there was an opportunity for those discussions to take place outside the main G20 summit. He is reported as saying that, in the course of those discussions, rocket boosters were put under the need for agreement on this trade deal. It is so essential to our economy and the European economy more broadly. That is an additional point that I would like to make to the noble Lord, Lord Soley, in response to his comments on Europe. This is a trade deal between Europe and the United States, and the Prime Minister is in the lead in ensuring that this is agreed.

I cannot vouch for what President Obama said during the discussions, but it is noted that the change after the recent mid-term elections and the Republicans securing control of Congress make a deal on TTIP that much more likely. This is clearly a good thing. The noble Lord is right to highlight the misconceptions of the risks in TTIP. There has been some worrying scaremongering about this being a threat to the National Health Service or food standards. That is completely wrong, in each case. The European Union Development Commissioner has made it clear that the public sector is excluded from TTIP. But the noble Lord is right: we must continue to make these things quite clear.

As far as his remarks about the World Health Organization are concerned, I do not know whether things got as far as talking about funding. In looking at its reform, how to make it more effective is key.

[Lord Howell of Guildford (Con)]

My Lords, I seem to agree with my noble friend that if anything the words used to describe the Islamic caliphate were not strong enough. Its habits are to decapitate its prisoners, murder aid workers, violate women and produce the kind of medieval butchery that we thought had been expunged from the planet. The rhetoric aside, can she say whether at the G20 there was any readiness to recognise that more than speeches are needed, that action from all the partners in the G20 throughout the world is needed, and that to try to contain the caliphate and its murderous habits is not just a western task? It is a task for all civilised nations, whether we are talking about China, Australia, the United States or even Russia, whose values are equally threatened. Can she say whether something more definite was put forward in those terms at the G20?

[Baroness Stowell of Beeston]

I am grateful to my noble friend for his endorsement of what I said about rhetoric. I agree with him: there are no words strong enough to describe what has happened at the hands of these people in Syria and Iraq. As to his question about action from all the G20 partners, certainly the Prime Minister urged all the G20 partners to demonstrate their support for the Iraqi Government and the international efforts to counter ISIL, as well as the need to work against Assad and condemn his regime, which has allowed terrorism to flourish. As my noble friend said, we must all recognise—which I think is now starting to happen—that there are threats from ISIL to all parts of the world and it is not just a threat that we face in the West.

[Lord Brooke of Sutton Mandeville (Con)]

My Lords, in the tax and transparency portion of the Statement, there is a reference to the OECD saying that $37 billion of extra tax is being paid by big companies. Can my noble friend give us any information as to how much of that extra tax is being paid to G20 countries and how much is being paid to the rest of the world?

[Baroness Stowell of Beeston]

I am afraid that I do not have the level of detail to answer my noble friend so I will provide further information in writing, if I may.

[Lord Williams of Elvel (Lab)]

My Lords, will the noble Baroness say a little bit more about the alleged Russian intrusion into eastern Ukraine? We have heard a lot about this. President Putin says that there is no Russian infiltration into eastern Ukraine; the Canadian Prime Minister says that he is lying. We have seen one or two clips on YouTube or iPhones of the alleged military intervention. There are, after all, satellites in the area. Not a mouse can move without a satellite taking a picture of it. May we have some indication of when NATO or Her Majesty’s Government will publish proper evidence of what the situation in Ukraine is?

[Baroness Stowell of Beeston]

There is a united view that Russia is threatening and destabilising Ukraine and that its actions are having that impact. As I said in response to the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, there was unanimity among the leaders at the G20 in their steps to seek to apply pressure on President Putin to disengage, and there is absolute commitment to ensuring that stability is returned to Ukraine as soon as possible.

[Lord Jopling (Con)]

My Lords, in her reply to the noble Lord, Lord Hannay, the noble Baroness was not able to answer his question about the TTIP arrangements. If President Obama agrees that the plan is to get agreement on that next year, it will not happen unless the Americans get the fast-track arrangement from Congress. As Congress is now Republican-dominated, did the President give an undertaking at the meeting that he had got agreement from both Houses of Congress for the fast-track procedure?

[Baroness Stowell of Beeston]

As my noble friend knows, sadly I was not at the G20 summit or privy to those discussions. What I know from the briefing that I have received is that there is agreement between the European leaders who were at the G20 and President Obama that this deal is incredibly important and they want to see it reached by the end of next year. If I can offer any more information to my noble friend after the Statement, I will certainly do so, but I can absolutely assure him that there is no unwillingness on behalf of the President to get this deal sorted.

[Lord McFall of Alcluith (Lab)]

My Lords, at Brisbane the issue of falling wages and job insecurity was discussed by a delegation of trade unions, including the general secretary of the TUC, Frances O’Grady, which met the German Chancellor Angela Merkel and President Obama. It is reported that the Prime Minister did not have time to meet them. Will the Leader of the House take a message back that this is a very important subject for ordinary working people in the country and that it would help both sides if the Prime Minister met Ms O’Grady and others to discuss the issue?

[Baroness Stowell of Beeston]

It is quite clear that jobs are at the absolute top of the Prime Minister’s agenda, and ensuring that the economy is on a sure footing and that more jobs can be created, as indeed they already have been. I have no doubt whatever that he continues to be absolutely committed to that.

[Baroness Perry of Southwark (Con)]

In response to the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, will my noble friend confirm that the coalition Government have in fact shown great and practical compassion to some of the most vulnerable people in the country, by raising the basic tax level; by providing free school meals for the youngest children and help with childcare; by increasing the state pension for the elderly people; and by providing a real means to tackle failing schools and the lack of any hope for so many young people? Will my noble friend confirm that these measures, among many others, are evidence of the coalition Government’s real compassion?

[Baroness Stowell of Beeston]

I absolutely agree with my noble friend. She is right to outline a whole range of measures through which this Government have ensured that the success of this country is felt by everyone. That is what we are trying to do. By putting the economy at the top of our agenda, we are ensuring that there is security and stability for everybody, and if we have a sound economy we can ensure that the reforms we have introduced, whether in education or welfare or the way that we are ensuring the future of the NHS, mean that everyone in this country benefits from the future success of this country.

[Lord Dobbs (Con)]

My Lords, I want to return to one of the more compelling points made by the noble Lord, Lord Hunt—I thought some of his remarks later on were getting a little desperate; one might almost think we had an election in the offing—when he mentioned Ukraine. There can be no doubt that the Kremlin has acted irresponsibly, impetuously and almost certainly illegally, but much the same would have been said about the Kremlin during the whole of the Cold War and yet during that time we always kept the channels of negotiation open. There are reports in America that the Russians may wish to withdraw from nuclear safety discussions, which would be entirely short-sighted. Will she take that message back and ensure that the channels of communication are always kept open, no matter how desperate the situation gets? After all, that helped bring the world back from the precipice in the Cold War. We should regard what is going on now not as a fight to the end but, I hope, a battle for what might be a new beginning.

[Baroness Stowell of Beeston]

My noble friend is right to emphasise the importance of retaining communication at all times. Indeed, that is certainly what we in the UK are doing. My right honourable friend the Prime Minister had a bilateral with President Putin at the G20. Others did as well. There is certainly no question of us seeking to close down those channels of communication and we would urge all other nations to keep those channels open.

Modern Slavery Bill

Monday 17th November 2014 Lords Chamber

Second Reading (Continued)

17:48

[Baroness Hanham (Con)]

My Lords, I am very conscious that I am following on from two excellent maiden speeches, and there is a third one to come. I welcome the noble Lord, Lord Cashman, and the noble Baroness, Lady Chisholm, who is not in her place, and congratulate them on the speeches they have made today.

It was a great privilege to be part of the Joint Committee on the draft Modern Slavery Bill. As other noble Lords have said—in fact, it may be only one; I think the noble Baroness, Lady Doocey, is the only one to have mentioned him so far—it was most ably chaired by the honourable Member for Birkenhead, Frank Field. Our own noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, was the vice-chairman and she helped guide us through the discussions. I believe that we came up with a very compelling report on the draft Bill, and it has also been really helpful that there has been cross-party support and, mainly, cross-party agreement for the Bill itself.

It is welcome that the Government have responded positively to the committee’s recommendations—at least in part; I hope they will be persuaded to respond positively to even more recommendations before we are finished—and made some changes to the Bill. These concerns include, as we have heard, issues surrounding the transparency of chains and the independence of the anti-slavery commissioner. However, the response still leaves a number of questions unanswered. Regarding future legislation—and I do not agree with the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, on this—it is very unlikely that legislative time will be given in the future for a comprehensive consolidation Bill such as this, so we have to get this Bill as nearly right as we possibly can.

I make no apology for returning to the matter of the anti-slavery commissioner. As other noble Lords have said, the commissioner was appointed during the course of the Bill’s passage in the other place. I have no argument or disagreement at all regarding the appointee. I believe that he is perfectly the right person and know that he has gone through a perfectly proper process. It was good to see that the Government have indicated, and put into the legislation, that he will be independent. However, he has been appointed by the Home Office. He will sit in the Home Office and be paid by the Home Office. Can the Minister tell us who will appoint and pay for his staff and office, or is it the intention that the Home Office will also pay for those? If I am correct in all of that, what assurance can the Minister give us that that oversight by the Home Office will allow him to be truly independent of the Government? One hopes that he will continue to be able to alert Parliament to issues if he feels that that is necessary, and to do so without having to gain the Home Secretary’s permission. It is also unfortunate that his annual report to Parliament will apparently have Home Office scrutiny before publication. Perhaps the Minister can give us a better indication of how this “independence” will be independent. The job description also suggests that the commissioner will have a great deal of liaising to do. Can the Minister tell us what authority he will have to compel compliance and co-operation and to take independent action where necessary?

We have been told that the modern slavery strategy—and the Minister confirmed it this afternoon—is being developed to run alongside the legislation. The Minister said that it will be available shortly. However, who will be responsible for implementation and monitoring of the strategy? Will the independent commissioner’s strategy link in with this strategy, or will there be two separate strategies running on two verging train lines? Strategies—and also legislation, now that I think about it—frequently become lost once the first excitement has died down. It would assist our discussions to have sight of the strategy before Committee, if that is possible. Can the Minister commit to that?

That leads me to ask about the work of the multi-agency safeguarding and anti-trafficking teams at the borders of the country. What powers will those involved have to identify and, where thought appropriate, question domestic workers who may be suspected of being subject to a tied visa? I understand that the idea is for them to be given at least a card with information about where they can get help if they need it. If that is what is being done, perhaps the Minister’s officials can arrange for us to see an example of a card. It would be helpful if we can see what will be put out so that we can judge whether it is likely to be adequate. If the safeguarding agency is doing more than that, it would be helpful if we could be told so before Committee. Slavery is a dreadful form of abuse and, as with other suspected trafficking for other purposes, those who are subjected to it must be able to find an easy and non-threatening way to escape.

Other colleagues from the Joint Committee have raised and will raise other important issues, particularly on the trafficking of children and the need to ensure that they have early protection and access to advice and support. It is essential that an early assessment of the trial on child advocates is made, even if that is a part-assessment. We need to know where these child advocates are going and what they can do either under legislation or by regulation.

I want to raise one matter that I do not think that previous speakers have raised—the prevention orders about which the committee had some considerable concern; not the prevention orders that are likely to be given as a result of a sentence following a conviction on trial but the risk orders. People can be put under the subjection of these orders on the basis of a supposition that they might be about to be involved in trafficking. We heard evidence from the Magistrates’ Association and others. My concern as a former magistrate is that if you cannot find enough evidence to put before the court for a judgment to be made, it looks very odd to try to put forward the suggestion that there “may be a suspicion of” and get that through a court system. I will particularly want to return to this because we need to make sure that what these orders do is sufficient and that they are not going to leave courts, in particular, in a huge dilemma about the decisions they have to make.

In general, the Government are demonstrating and have demonstrated that they are and have been listening to what has been said inside and outside Parliament, both before this legislation came forward while discussions were taking place and subsequently during its passage through Parliament. My honourable friend Karen Bradley, in the other place, who is leading as Minister, has done an exceptional job in talking to people and ensuring that their concerns have been put forward. However, I hope the Government will take courage and go further as we debate these issues so that, at least as far as possible, the concerns of all those who have any part to play in dealing with the victims of these horrific abuses are heard and learnt from. None of us who has been associated with the Bill or the discussions beforehand will want to leave this matter—after all the work that has gone in not only to the Bill but to all the preliminary processes—without being reasonably satisfied that the job has been done.

17:57

[Lord Warner (Lab)]

My Lords, let me, as the first Labour speaker since my noble friend Lord Cashman’s excellent speech, congratulate him on his maiden speech and commiserate with him on his loss. As someone heavily involved in bringing forward the Human Rights Act 1998, I was pleased to hear his trenchant words of warning about undermining important bulwarks of liberty; long may he continue to chide us, encourage us and speak to us about those bulwarks. I cannot improve on the tributes offered by the noble Lord, Lord Patel, but I have to confess that my own mother was a fanatical supporter of “Coronation Street”, so my filial duty was never to watch “EastEnders” under any circumstances at all.

I approach this Bill as a critical friend who was pleased to serve on the Joint Committee on the draft Bill under the excellent chairmanship of my right honourable friend Frank Field. Modern slavery is one of the great disgraces of our time, and none of us can be comfortable about how it continues to flourish. Our cheap food and clothing too often come at a terrible personal price at the point of their origin. Too often that price is paid by children. The Government are to be congratulated on their commitment to this Bill, particularly in the final legislative programme of a Government. Other people have commented on that well deserved congratulation.

However, as a number of noble Lords have said today, the Bill could still be improved considerably. I suggest to the House that a good starting point in looking at those improvements is the Joint Committee’s report, where there were a large number of well argued, backed-up-by-evidence recommendations which the Government have slightly turned their back on. They need to revisit that report and some of the evidence which led to those recommendations being made, particularly as we go into Committee. If they do not, we will probably bring forward amendments to encourage them further to have a look at some of those arguments again.

I am afraid that I am not as ambivalent as the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, on the offence of child exploitation—I rarely take issue with her on these matters—but I am four-square behind the noble Baroness, Lady Doocey. The lack of successful prosecutions of offences involving children does not suggest that the police and CPS have been doing a crackingly good job in this area. We need to try to do something different. The Joint Committee’s report argued that there was a danger in the way that Part 1 is framed, even as amended, of villains slipping through the net. We need to revisit this issue in Committee and have a good look at the arguments again.

Let me turn briefly to the unsatisfactory position on the national referral mechanism. It was a source of great frustration to the committee that the Home Office took so long to establish that review. It is true that what has come out from it is an extremely good and helpful piece of work which we now need to build on, but now that we have got the review’s report and the rather sorry picture that it paints of the NRM’s effectiveness, we need to consider very seriously—and the committee had some discussions on it—whether we put in the Bill some provisions relating to it. Because we need to consider the detail of that review report, we may well not be able to put a lot of detail in the Bill, but there is a strong case for what I inferred from my first read of the report: that we should make the NRM a statutory entity and should not be afraid to give wide powers to the Home Secretary in establishing that body to draw on the evidence from the report in making sure that it works more effectively. The arguments about leaving these matters to administrative practices will not be very reassuring to many stakeholders and will not do enough to safeguard the position of victims. I hope that the Minister will be receptive at a later stage to amendments in this area. It would be helpful to know how the Home Secretary proposes to deal with the review’s report.

I want briefly to flag up four other areas of concern: protection of domestic migrant workers; the remit of the anti-slavery commissioner; issues around the supply chain; and support for victims. On the first of these, it is very simple: the Government should reverse the 2012 changes to the Immigration Rules to restore the previous protections for domestic migrant workers. They can either assure us that they will amend the Immigration Rules, which may cause a bit of discomfort in some quarters, or must be prepared for us to consider amendments to the Bill.

On the second area, it is a missed opportunity to draw the remit of the new commissioner so narrowly. It is a big decision—a big call—to do so. The noble Baroness, Lady Hanham, has rightly made the point that there will be no quick revising regulation. To make the system work better, we should draw the commissioner’s remit very widely and at the same time take another, rather critical look at the remit of the Gangmasters Licensing Authority.

Thirdly, although the Government have moved on the supply chain, we need to check whether it is as far as we need to go. Like my noble friend Lady Kennedy, I was much impressed by the trenchant remarks from Australia and California about how they had gone about securing change in this area.

Finally, we need to think again about whether the Bill provides adequate protection for child victims. We have come some way since the draft Bill was first framed, but we have to consider providing much greater protection for children and much greater support for those who have been victims, and giving them the chance to make full recoveries from their experiences. I was much taken with the remarks of the right reverend Prelate and of the noble Lord, Lord McColl, about privileging victims in this area. I hope that the Government will look sympathetically at some of those issues.

This is an important Bill. We need to spend the time to put it in better shape and to help the Home Secretary achieve her ambition of a world-leading legislative measure to combat the scourge of modern slavery.

18:06

[Lord Alton of Liverpool (CB)]

My Lords, Article 4 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights states:

“No one shall be held in slavery or servitude; slavery and the slave trade shall be prohibited in all their forms”.

Since those words were crafted in 1948, many new forms of slavery and human trafficking have emerged and, as many noble Lords have said during this Second Reading debate, this Bill is as timely as it is welcome. However, following on from what was said by the noble Lord, Lord Warner, with whose speech I entirely agreed, it seems that the proverbial words about the curate’s egg apply to the Bill: it is good in parts; there is much to commend, but there is still work to be done in Committee to improve it in all the areas that he identified. I hope that the Bill will emerge with a post-legislative provision. The Minister spoke at the outset about the important work done by the pre-legislative scrutiny committee, and many noble Lords have paid tribute to it, but a sunset clause requiring us to return to this Bill in a relatively short time—let us say, three years—to look again at how it has worked, on everything from the anti-slavery commissioner to supply chain transparency and victim support, should be put in the Bill.

In June 2002, I attempted to amend the Proceeds of Crime Bill, referred to earlier, having read in a Written Answer from the then Government:

“At present there is no specific offence of trafficking in human beings and so no data exist about the confiscation of assets of those engaged in this practice”.—[Official Report, 18/6/02; col. WA70.]

People trafficking had become the fastest growing facet of organised crime, generating around £4.3 billion a year—the third largest source of profit for organised crime after the trafficking of drugs and firearms. In 2002 I told the story of how an Albanian woman, kidnapped, raped and believing she had been rescued, was brought to London only to be forced into prostitution—an issue mentioned by the right reverend Prelate—by her trafficker. A year later, I described Saw Naing Gae, an eight year-old Burmese child whose parents were shot dead by the Burmese military. He was then trafficked across the border and sold to a Thai family. Those are two cases among hundreds of thousands, cases which demonstrate that this is a global issue demanding global solutions. I entirely agree with what was said earlier by my noble friend Lady Cox, who described the situation in places such as Burma and Sudan, and indeed in North Korea—which I visited with her on three occasions.

Back in 2002, my amendments called for the proceeds of trafficking to be channelled into the support of victims and the resourcing of a strategy to tackle this scourge at source—something that I was glad to see Kevin Hyland, the new anti-slavery commissioner, say in an interview in the Sunday Times over the weekend and an issue that I hope the Government will revisit. Supporting me back in 2002, the late Lord Wilberforce, a Law Lord and descendent of William Wilberforce, described trafficking as,

“a pervasive crime committed in all kinds of areas by all kinds of people. It must be dealt with by a great variety of authorities and police forces all over the country, many of which have no idea of the nature of the crime or the remedies available to deal with it”.—[Official Report, 25/6/02; col. 1225.]

Two years after he made those remarks, the failure to combat human trafficking was underlined by the tragic death of 23 Chinese cockle pickers who died in Lancashire in Morecambe Bay, part of a criminal racket exploiting workers all over England and estimated to funnel £1 million a day back into China.

In 2006, Parliament created the Gangmasters Licensing Authority, but 2013 research by Durham University found that that legislation has insufficient teeth and that those trafficked for labour exploitation would soon exceed those trafficked for sexual exploitation. Professor Gary Craig said there was a “real problem” getting people to acknowledge that,

“slavery exists in the UK”,

and that his research,

“suggests there may be upwards of 10,000 people at any one time in the UK in conditions which we would class as modern slavery”.

The mandate of the GLA should be extended, it should have powers of arrest and investigation, and keep fines to fund its work. Professor Craig says the resources directed to the GLA are “totally inadequate”.

Part of the hold over migrant workers such as the cockle pickers is debt bondage, which affects more than 20 million people. Modern day forms of slavery, based on discrimination because of racial origin, forced labour, child labour, trafficking and debt bondage, all underpin the economic and trade relationships from which we, and many other countries, continue to benefit. In confronting all this does the Bill do enough? Does it justify the Government’s claim to be “world leading” and to be making “legislative history”? We must measure this claim against the independence of the anti-slavery commissioner, the treatment of victims and migrant domestic workers, the development of transparency of supply chains, and the protection of children, points to which many noble Lords, particularly the noble Baroness, Lady Doocey, referred earlier in the debate.

In April, the House decisively supported the proposal of the noble Lord, Lord McColl, for introducing child trafficking guardians. However, we should compare the weakness of Clause 47, stating simply that the Home Secretary will merely produce guidance on support services, with the definition of the role that we voted in favour of in April. The most vulnerable group of victims will, as so many noble Lords have said, always be children. It is said that 60% to 70% of trafficked children have gone missing in this country from care. Therefore, like other noble Lords, I do not want to be ambivalent about this, and, for once, I find myself in mild disagreement with my noble and learned friend Lady Butler-Sloss. I would like to see the Bill introduce a specific offence of child exploitation and trafficking and include a statutory principle of non-prosecution so that children who have been trafficked are not detained, prosecuted or punished for offences committed as a direct consequence of their trafficking, slavery or exploitation. I also think the Bill fails migrant workers. That is something we will no doubt want to return to in Committee.

Last week I met the Transparency in Supply Chains Coalition and I strongly support its proposals to strengthen the Bill in five respects: coverage; minimum requirements; reporting; monitoring and enforcement; and review. These recommendations draw on its wide experience of corporate responsibility and supply chain management. However, we should also act in the light of the implementation of the California Transparency in Supply Chains Act 2010.

The need for measures to tackle modern slavery in company chains is amply demonstrated by the abuses and exploitation of workers in cotton mills in places such as Tamil Nadu in India or, for that matter, the situation of children of brick kiln workers in places such as India and Pakistan. The report, Flawed Fabrics, published in October, detailed forced labour abuses, including shocking “prison-like conditions”. The report makes several recommendations on brands, retailers and manufacturers, and highlights the need for supply chain mapping, transparency and the identification of risks.

There should be a requirement in the Bill that a company’s report on slavery in the supply chain must be referenced in the directors’ report for each financial year; a requirement in the Bill that reports should be placed in a prominent position on the company’s website; a central repository of the company reports on a government website; a clarification in the Bill that the provision should be the responsibility of the board and/or CEO; and a recognition that year on year reporting should be progressive.

Many of our predecessors in this House, back in the 1820s and 1830s, argued against repeal of the then slave laws, insisting that to do so would spell ruinous economic disaster for England and her empire. Economic interests remain a potent factor in the continuation of slavery. That is why today even more people are enslaved than in those distant times. According to the International Labour Organization, around 21 million men, women and children around the world are in a form of slavery, estimating profits generated of around $150 billion a year. It is significant that Rathbones, which can count Liverpool’s William Rathbone IV as one of the strong voices raised against historic slavery, has been at the forefront of the campaign for transparency in supply chains. It says:

“The power of business needs be enlisted in the fight against modern slavery, as only business has the global reach and necessary resource to make a genuine difference”.

Rathbones has promoted transparency and published a letter signed by investors with £950 billion of assets under management. Alongside investors like that, this legislation can play a very significant part in that fight. However, we will need to do far more in this House to improve it when it comes to the Committee stage.

18:16

[Baroness Mobarik (Con) (Maiden Speech)]

My Lords, when I was first given news of my appointment to your Lordships’ House, I must admit I was astounded, and, on my introduction, most honoured and flattered to be in your Lordships’ distinguished and learned company. In the few weeks that I have been here, I have found this to be a truly enlightened place, where civility and kindness predominate throughout—from the attentive Doorkeepers and helpful security guards to the courteous catering staff. At my every wrong turn in the many corridors of your Lordships’ House, there has been someone to offer assistance, and always with a welcoming smile and warm words.

I feel truly blessed by this and because I have been introduced to the House by my esteemed and noble friend Lord Strathclyde, having had the honour of serving on his commission on further devolution in Scotland on behalf of the Conservative Party, and the esteemed and noble Lord, Lord Smith of Kelvin, whom I have known for many years. Our paths crossed in the business world in Scotland, most recently in meetings in his capacity as chairman of Glasgow 2014 and the Commonwealth Games, and mine as chair of CBI Scotland. I also offer my gratitude for the guidance offered to me on entering the House by my noble friend Lord Younger of Leckie.

Having been asked by some as to what brought me here, I can only say that it is as a result of a series of rather random activities in my life, including some attempt at academia, as well as involvement with business, voluntary roles and charitable causes. Certainly there was no master plan, only a desire to engage and play a part in the wider world, which I hope that this new chapter in life will further allow me to do. Indeed, my 89 year-old father, someone in possession of one of the strongest personalities I have come across, now believes me to be finally qualified to write the occasional letter for him. I feel that I have finally arrived.

When taking stock of life on an occasion such as this, it is important to remember one’s elders and forefathers. My father and late mother were unique individuals, who gave much of their time and wealth to serving their community and to charitable causes. My father, having served in the British Indian Army during the Second World War, went on to establish a successful business in Pakistan, post-partition. In 1958, he ventured out of his homeland with the intention of exploring business possibilities in Canada, but stopped off in Scotland having heard much about its natural beauty from a British officer whom he had befriended during his Army years. The rest is history. He stayed in Scotland where he established several more successful businesses. However, that was only part of his achievement.

As I have already declared, both of my parents had a great belief in serving their community and in helping others who were less privileged—something which I, too, believe in and aspire to. Hence I choose this debate on the Modern Slavery Bill to make my maiden speech—not because I have significant expertise in the subject but because, for me, there can be no better reason to serve in this House than to speak for those who have been denied a voice.

There are many issues in the world today which are of great concern and need our attention: war and conflict, poverty and disease, food, energy and water scarcity, lack of education and healthcare, and the plight of persecuted minorities of all ethnicities and religions around the globe. Here in our country and in my city of Glasgow, there are those who feel disfranchised, struggle to make ends meet or are in a downward spiral of drink and drugs. All those social issues need our attention, and many are surely interconnected, but slavery in all of its insidious manifestations—human trafficking, bonded labour, domestic servitude—is such a direct attack on the human spirit.

I am conscious that while I sit in this glorious Chamber in comfort to contemplate and debate among your Lordships, countless others live in squalor and fear. While I am able to walk freely among nature and appreciate God’s bounty, for others there is only endless toil. It is estimated that 21 million people—according to some sources, as many as 30 million—are in some form of slavery today. Just a short distance from here in Westminster Abbey lies William Wilberforce who, with others, took up the cause of the abolition of the slave trade in the 19th century, which eventually led to the Slavery Abolition Act 1833. It is indeed disturbing to think that in 2014 we still face this moral outrage.

The Prime Minister has committed that Britain must once again lead the way in tackling slavery globally. Today we have the Second Reading of the Modern Slavery Bill, and I welcome the Government’s introduction on Report in another place of measures to address the issue of transparency in business supply chains, building on the pre-legislative scrutiny committee and recommendations of the evidence review. It is heartening to know that there was a clear and strong cross-party consensus in this regard, with certain reporting requirements to be included in the Bill.

Although it is important that we do not place undue burden on business, it is the moral duty of business to take positive action to eliminate this practice. No legitimate business would wish to tolerate any element of forced labour in its supply chain, and it is right that the Government legislate and provide the tools for business to audit effectively. Clearly, the financial gain which is derived by illicit and unethical practice is what drives bonded and forced labour and ultimately distorts markets. As a small business owner and a member of the council of CBI Scotland for many years, I can say that my colleagues, many representing big business, were highly principled, cared about social issues and would wish always to act ethically.

I have always believed that business has a very significant part to play in delivering prosperity for all and can be a great force for good. As the Institute for Human Rights and Business stated,

“as part of their responsibility to respect human rights, companies must be prepared to ensure the safety and dignity of all those who make their products or provide services”.

The Centre for Social Justice set up by my right honourable friend in the other place, Iain Duncan Smith, and its slavery working group report has exposed some of the shocking circumstances of those who are trapped in slavery. It has made recommendations for a fresh approach to tackle it, including equipping those on the front line to recognise modern slavery and act, offering compassion and support to rebuild those whose lives are affected and ensuring the part that business has to play in effecting transparency in its global supply chains.

The press has highlighted the issue of slavery in the shrimp trade in Thailand and the global garment supply chain, which directly impacts on our retail sector, but slavery does not only happen elsewhere; it exists here in the UK. The UK Human Trafficking Centre has evidence of forced labour in industries such as agriculture, food processing, construction and tarmacking, where vulnerable people are exploited by unscrupulous gangs and individuals.

It is not an exaggeration to say that modern day slavery is one of the humanitarian catastrophes of our age and I, for one, hope to be fully engaged in following the Bill through its passage in Parliament, so that we can put in place legislation which will help to eradicate this scourge from our midst.

18:26

[Lord Crisp (CB)]

My Lords, I am delighted to be able to speak after the noble Baroness, Lady Mobarik, and to congratulate her on behalf of the whole House on her excellent speech. I did not know her before today, but when I did my research, I found what your Lordships have already heard—that she is a passionate champion of business and of social cohesion. This is two-way. As she has said elsewhere, businesses can be immensely more effective through a better understanding of the communities they serve—locally, nationally and globally. She has demonstrated that. In line with that commitment, the noble Baroness is a prominent member of the CBI in Scotland and has done a lot of work with a number of charities within the country. She also plays a global role, including as chair of the Pakistan-Britain Trade and Investment Forum.

I also found a statement which I think will resonate with your Lordships’ House. The noble Baroness says that she,

“believes that, although globalization brings us ever closer in some ways, in others it creates an ever-widening gulf making it incumbent on all of us to try to help bring about positive change, in eradicating poverty and bridging the gap between people of different faiths and cultures”.

That is what she talked about in her speech today, and it is entirely appropriate that her maiden speech should be about business and also about global issues. In congratulating her once again on her speech, I look forward to many more such contributions in future.

Turning to the Bill, like others, I very much welcome it and I congratulate noble Lords and others who have put in so much hard work to get us where we are today, with a very effective Bill in front of us. A great deal has been achieved. I also applaud the ambition to be world-class, but there is more to do to make sure that that is realised. I note the point made by my noble and learned friend, Lady Butler-Sloss, that we do not want to overelaborate the Bill; that is practical advice and recognises that this is new ground and there is much to learn. We will not get everything right first time. For that reason, I entirely support the point just made by my noble friend Lord Alton about the need to return to this in a few years’ time to review what has actually happened.

Bearing that in mind, I want to raise just a few issues. The first is on the supply chain. I have read letters about the great willingness of British business to engage with this exercise—the noble Baroness, Lady Mobarik, just reminded us of that—but there are also those who are unwilling to engage. There is a key role here for public and consumer scrutiny. To enable that, key requirements in the report that businesses will produce each year need to be specified in the Bill. That will allow for some monitoring, at least at the level of collating and sharing the information, as proposed by my noble friend Lord Alton, so that we can see what is happening across the country, not only to see the good and bad things but to promote good practice, because this area is developing as we speak.

This may be envisaged as the role of the commissioner and is perhaps something that the Minister could come back to.

Turning to victims, and particularly to children, I would like to understand better at what stage in the process child trafficking advocates will be appointed. It is very important whether or not this is early on in the process and whether it covers many children or only a few. I particularly want to raise the question of what they or others can do to ensure that there is long-term support for victims. This is not, by any means, a short-term matter for children. In this context the noble Lord, Lord Tunnicliffe, and others have drawn out the point that there is exploitation that is not covered by this Bill and that many children need support. It points to an appalling gap in care support for exploited and neglected young people in our society.

There are, as noble Lords know, many hidden things happening in our streets and towns. I say this from having recently visited Kids Company here in London and heard some appalling stories there. Support for victims long after the period of abuse or exploitation is very important and we need to discuss it further during the development of this Bill. I also echo the remarks of the noble Baroness, Lady Chisholm, in her excellent speech, about the importance—not just for children but also for adults—of helping victims to become survivors. This is about long-term recovery, and more help is needed.

On the commissioner’s role, I agree with others that it needs to be broadened. The role will develop through experience but it is important that it starts more broadly than is written at the moment, in order to allow the commissioner to develop the role that will best work in practice for all the stakeholders. Obviously, in the light of what I have already said, I believe that there is an important role for the commissioner in monitoring and in victim support, and that his or her role—his in the first case—should not be limited to the legal aspects but should also include thinking about the long-term impact on our society.

I also pick up the point about international issues and the importance that the commissioner potentially has as an international player—linking with others, sharing and learning. In this I echo what my noble friend Lady Cox said. If this is going to be a world-leading Bill it needs to have a proper global perspective. Not just the commissioner but others need to be engaged in the global debate and global influence. How will this be achieved? I liked my noble friend Lady Cox’s suggestions and I look forward to the response to them in due course, and to further debate about this widening international role.

Finally, I look forward to the Bill continuing to be improved and ultimately to it helping to improve the lives of many people around the world.

18:32

[Baroness Kennedy of The Shaws (Lab)]

My Lords, I congratulate the Government on their recognition of the seriousness of this issue and I welcome the Home Secretary’s determination to see that the United Kingdom leads the international community in tackling one of the most serious human rights challenges in the contemporary world. As others have said, in this area there can be unity in this House and a strong, coherent piece of legislation can be produced which has cross-party support.

There is nothing new about the exploitation of human beings by their fellow man. Slavery is of ancient vintage, as we know. What is new is globalisation. While many people have been lifted from poverty by the expansion of markets, many others live on the dark side. All the advances in technology and communications which stimulate the operation of global markets, from cell phones to connection through e-mail and the internet, from the electronic transfer of money to ease of travel—all those things which help markets to work also feed the murky underbelly of the market with equal assiduity. I know this from my work in the criminal courts. Globalisation has brought in its wake an explosive increase in illegal trade—in arms, drugs, fissile material, human organs, genetic material such as human eggs, babies for illegal adoption, women, children and young men for sex or for domestic servitude or forced labour, as others have said. There is nothing that cannot be sold and I emphasise that law is fundamental in addressing this, both nationally and internationally.

I had the privilege of acting as the investigative commissioner for the Equality and Human Rights Commission in Scotland, which reported on human trafficking. It was the UK Equality and Human Rights Commission that had charge of this inquiry. We looked at Scotland because it gave us an insight into a smaller area that could provide lessons for the whole United Kingdom. I also sit on the Joint Committee on Human Rights and have acted in a professional capacity as a lawyer for trafficked women. This is, therefore, a field in which I have a special interest and perhaps some expertise.

I, too, would like to see this Bill being more victim-focused—at the moment it is not. The reason prosecutions are difficult to bring and convictions hard to secure is that victims are in abject terror. I have taken evidence from victims of trafficking, and you can feel the fear in the room when they give their accounts. Their fear is not just for their own lives but those of their children—if they have children back home—of their parents, and of other people they love. They know the kind of people they are dealing with. They know the consequences of involving the authorities. They are often also fearful of authority, because they come from places where authority is not to be trusted. It is fair to say that they do not know who to trust.

The way to secure better outcomes and to end this vile abuse of human rights is to concentrate on the victims. That is how you get successful prosecutions; that is how you get to the traffickers. So there should be a statutory right to assistance—as others have said in this Chamber—with a requirement to conduct individual assessments, case by case, of those who we fear have been trafficked.

The national referral mechanism has to be reviewed and the time for reflection extended to—I agree on this with the noble Lord, Lord McColl—at least 90 days. People who are afraid and who start giving their account need time to reflect on the implications of it. They have to be sure what the future will hold for them before they can feel confident enough to commit themselves to giving evidence in court against those who have trafficked them. Victims need reassurance that they will be well catered to. As the noble Lord, Lord McColl, says, this should be spelt out in the Bill. I agree with him—I thought he made one of the most powerful speeches in this debate.

There are lots of good things in the Bill. I welcome the special measures extension to trafficked victims: that they should be able to give their evidence via video and avoid all contact with those they accuse. However, I am very concerned about the problems in securing the welfare of victims while they are waiting, before there can be any prosecutions. They need support, housing and legal aid for many other matters they have to deal with. I would like to see special arrangements. I welcome the suggestion by the right reverend Prelate that there should be some privileging of the position of those who have been trafficked.

In the months before a case comes to trial many witnesses are traduced by their traffickers—they are found. It is amazing how it happens, but they can often be traced. Family members of the trafficked person are prevailed upon to seek to induce them to take their evidence away. We have to find ways of providing the right kind of support before a matter comes to trial. I have had evidence from women of the ways in which, even in the aftermath of trials, they have had pressure put on them or threats made to their lives.

I, too, would like to see a greater synergy with Northern Ireland and what is being drafted in Scotland. I think it right that we have been ousted by Northern Ireland’s progressiveness on this. As I understand it, in Scotland, too, the First Minister, Nicola Sturgeon, is giving this priority and will shortly be announcing the Bill that will be going through the Scottish Parliament. Again, there should be much greater coherence among the different parts of the United Kingdom.

I agree with other noble Lords about the need to strengthen the powers, scope and remit of the Independent Anti-slavery Commissioner, which really are not framed well enough at the moment. I also agree with others in being somewhat disappointed that the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, who is such an authority on issues to do with abuse, children and so forth, is too accepting of what arrangements are in the Bill, which could be greatly strengthened. When the Joint Committee on Human Rights reported on this, it made some very sensible suggestions.

On children, I agree with the criticisms made by other noble Lords. We should have a special offence in relation to the exploitation of children—and, as a lawyer, that is not to deny the problems that there are in defining exploitation. That will not be easy but we have to take a crack at it. I would like to see greater powers and independence in the role of the child advocate, in the way that was described by the noble Lord, Lord McColl.

On the Gangmasters Licensing Authority, I, too, want to see an expansion of its powers. When I took testimony from it, I was greatly impressed by the work that it was doing. It really is one of the keys to improving the working conditions of exploited labour and I emphasise some of the points raised about how important it is.

On supply chains, very quickly, when the Rana Plaza collapsed in Bangladesh, 200 companies in the clothing retail sector got together with their competitors to say that there had to be inspectorates, support for health and safety audits and so on. Corporates are engaging with human rights issues, which matter to their brands. The UN has produced some principles, which are called the Ruggie principles after the professor of law at Harvard who put them together with help from places such as Oxford University, where I am based. We put together a set of principles to which the corporates are now signing up. I support what my noble friend and namesake Lady Kennedy said about the importance of this part of the Bill and how it can be strengthened.

There are many entrenched and vested interests in all this, some of which might to be do with businesses that are not so highly ambitious as some of the corporates. However, men and patriarchy have to be addressed, too. The idea that there is an entitlement to sexual servicing is one of the problems in all this. Men could play a vital role in ending the kind of sexual exploitation which I have seen trafficked women experience. I urge all noble Lords to try to get the Bill to a better place. It is highly important as its subject is serious human rights abuse.

18:42

[Baroness Young of Hornsey (CB)]

My Lords, I hope that the Minister is as gratified as I am by the extent to which noble Lords have greeted the Bill. I very much welcome it, too. I hope that this bodes well, as we all want to work hard to do our best to improve it. It represents a major step forward through the consolidation of existing legislation and it is clear that it has so much support, not only within the House but in the other place and outside. It is very heartening to hear of such a strong consensus across so many organisations and individuals.

Both here and in the other place, the name of William Wilberforce is inevitably invoked in this context. There is an implied link between his work and the Government’s desire to establish the UK as world leaders in combating modern forms of slavery in all its ugly manifestations. But it is as well to reiterate that the abolition of the slave trade was not brought about by Wilberforce alone but by a broad-based, campaigning coalition of people across Britain and internationally. I imagine that the likes of Olaudah Equiano, Hannah More, Thomas Clarkson and William Wilberforce, as well as Mary Prince and the working people of Manchester who petitioned Parliament to abolish the trade in humans, would be rather disappointed that some 200 years later there are even more people subjected to the horrors of enslavement and so on than there were during those brutal centuries of the transatlantic trade. Likewise, I hope that we can recognise today the efforts and sacrifices made by all those who struggle daily against the horrible conditions which we are talking about and those individuals, organisations, companies and so on that stand beside them.

I hope your Lordships will forgive me if I repeat some of the points made earlier by other noble Lords. At this stage in the programme, it is hard to bring something original to the table but I will focus on two main areas where we could make some real improvements to the Bill and which other noble Lords have mentioned repeatedly.

First, on the Independent Anti-slavery Commissioner, like several others I query whether the insertion of “Independent” into the title has made any difference to the way that the role will function. The recent report from the Joint Committee on Human Rights states that,

“there remain several provisions in or omissions from the Bill which mean that the Commissioner cannot be described as ‘independent’ in any meaningful sense”.

Paragraph 1.51 of its report lists six key indicators of the lack of independence in the role as it stands which, by and large, refer in one way or another to the relationship of the commissioner to the Secretary of State. They cover such things as: the lack of specificity with regard to the duration and conditions of the terms of employment; the commissioner’s lack of power to recruit his own staff; the fact that the commissioner may report only on what the Secretary of States wishes him to report on; the Secretary of State having to approve the commissioner’s strategic plans; the fact that the commissioner may be directed by the Secretary of State to redact or omit any part of his report deemed against the national interest before it is laid before Parliament; and the Secretary of State having the power to state which public bodies have a,

“duty to co-operate with the Commissioner”.

In conclusion, the JCHR locates the problem of the commissioner’s status in being “an adjunct” of the Home Office rather than part of the human rights machinery, which is a fair point.

Other critiques of the commissioner’s role include the lack of adequate monitoring. To echo the comments of several other noble Lords, particularly the noble Baroness, Lady Newlove, and my noble friend Lord Patel, these concerns are about the remit of the commissioner being primarily focused on law enforcement but with little to say about how the interests of victims will be served by him other than through that route. Of course law enforcement is crucial but it needs to go hand in hand with the protection and support of victims, holding government and other bodies accountable for their performance and ensuring that policies are effective.

The commissioner should, then, be truly independent of the Government and free to decide the focus of their annual plan of activities and hire their own staff. They should: have the power to monitor the implementation of all policies relevant to modern forms of slavery; have statutory powers to collect and request data from a wide range of government and non-government agencies; be empowered to hold inquiries; and report directly to Parliament. These amendments to the role would then complement the models developed in Finland and the Netherlands, which are considered to be leaders in the field.

The second area I want to examine is Part 6, on reporting transparency in supply chains. Here, I declare my interest as chair of the APPG on Ethics and Sustainability in Fashion. I am also a patron of Anti-Slavery International and on the board of Cotton Made in Africa. The Government have listened to Members in the other place, as well as business and NGOs, and introduced Part 6 on transparency and mandatory disclosure of efforts of private and public companies to address the risks of modern slavery in supply chains. This is a really important step forward and, again, it is gratifying that the Government have listened and tried to do something about this issue. However, as other noble Lords have said, it really does not quite go far enough. For example, it still does not incorporate requirements provided for in EU directive 2011/36/EU,

“on preventing and combating trafficking in human beings and protecting its victims”.

The directive includes a requirement for each member state to establish jurisdiction for trafficking offences committed by one of its nationals and provides for the criminal liability of those who benefit from human trafficking in Article 5. This provision is already binding for the UK and its inclusion in the Bill would reinforce the transparency and supply chain provisions, and ensure that a mechanism is available to sanction those companies that choose modern forms of slavery as their business model.

As businesses’ supply chains extend into parts of the world with high levels of corruption and poor rule of law, so the probability increases that these supply chains will be rife with forced labour of one kind or another. This has been demonstrated by a number of organisations, including Anti-Slavery International, in relation to the forced labour of young women and girls in southern Indian textile manufacture. I am sure that many noble Lords will also be aware of how the Government of Uzbekistan derive an unfair advantage by the use of forced labour, forcing their citizens to abandon their jobs every year during harvest season and go to the fields to pick cotton. Thanks to international pressure there are fewer children involved in that forced labour, but there has been an unprecedented mobilisation of public sector workers in Uzbekistan. The UK needs to send a clear message to such countries that it is not acceptable to force their citizens to work in this way.

It has been said that consumers have a responsibility to pressure business to improve the situation in their supply chains. This is so, to some extent, but it is highly likely that the cotton in the clothes of many of us in the Chamber today will have been picked by forced labour. Who can tell? We do not know and have no real way of knowing. Such is the nature of supply chains that we can hardly ever be sure.

We can make Part 6 more effective, and the noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy of Cradley, and my noble friend Lady Cox have both made several suggestions on this issue with which I broadly agree. There needs to be more detail in the Bill, mainly to support business to adapt to this new legislation. A threshold of global turnover above which companies have to comply with Part 6 should be specified so that there is little room for pleas of ignorance or ambiguity. That is how the California Act works. There also need to be strong guidelines and the company’s reporting statement should be in a prominent place on the company’s website, not tucked away at the back, and in the company’s annual report.

Will the Minister clarify what, if any, consequences will arise from a company failing to produce a report, or consistently producing a report basically stating that the company has not sought to discover whether human rights abuses, in the form of forced labour, take place in its supply chain? Will he also clarify whether a person or individual can be prosecuted under any other section of the Bill for failure to address slavery or forced labour in their supply chain?

In conclusion, given the widespread support for the general principles of the Bill from all parts of your Lordships’ House, I hope that we will see the strongest possible legislation enacted. Virtually everybody who has spoken today has urged the Government to go further, not to pull back. I hope that, when amendments are tabled, the Government are open to listening and to strengthening this. Then, perhaps, we could start to think about claiming to be world leaders in the field.

18:52

[Lord Luke (Con)]

My Lords, I am a great supporter of the Bill, although I am very sad that there is such a need for it. I particularly welcome the option for life sentences for those caught in this awful crime against humanity and the provisions and protections in place for victims of slavery. Slavery, as we have heard several times today, has been with us for thousands of years, although I do not know how we can have much idea of the number of slaves at the time, say, of the height of the Roman Empire, 2,000 years ago. Yet I read, with heartache, estimates that there are more people in slavery in the world today than at any other time in history. It is almost unbelievable, but there it is. Why is it so?

I believe it is because global commercialism has never been as booming a part of industry as it is now, with improvements in methods, machinery and technology. Demand for things, for services and for low costs has never been greater than it is at this moment. This has provided a breeding ground for exploitation to continue to flourish. Slavery is an industry all of its own. I have seen figures of profit margins ranging from between £34 billion to £90 billion per annum—the latter being, for instance, three times the profit of the computer company, Apple. It seems entirely sensible to me that the responsibilities of businesses are one of the central themes of the Bill.

Slavery only exists because, crassly, there is a market for it. I am a strong supporter of the principle in the Bill that business supply chains will have to be certain with whom they do business and produce annual slavery and human trafficking statements, as many noble Lords have said. However, Clause 51 makes provision only for commercial organisations over a certain size, based on turnover, which is yet to be set and determined by the Secretary of State. Does my noble friend have any idea where this threshold might be pitched? Will he explain why there needs to be a threshold at all? Surely, all businesses should be subject to this rule of investigation into their own practices annually.

Under Clause 51(9) civil proceedings can be brought against any company which does not produce a statement. I very much welcome this. Will my noble friend tell the House what this civil punishment might range from and to? Will proceedings also be brought against any organisation which knowingly or negligently produces a slavery and human trafficking statement which is incorrect; that is to say, if a company were found not to have investigated or reported on their supply chains properly? Who will oversee this reporting? Will it come under the remit of the Independent Anti-slavery Commissioner’s office?

On the topic of the Independent Anti-slavery Commissioner, what is the application process for this job? Has the Secretary of State any individual in mind? What happens when slavery is discovered by businesses through this mandatory reporting practice? Presumably, if it is occurring in the UK, the police will be notified—that makes sense—and the Act will come into play; but what if the supply chain involved in forcing people into slavery is based abroad, as we know so much of it is? What can be done in this instance? Will there be some type of register for known slave traders and companies using people as slaves? This is, surely, one of the many good reasons for keeping the European arrest warrant, as mentioned by other noble Lords.

I know that there are going to be special advocates who will work with and offer guidance and care to people who are discovered in the UK who have been forced into slavery. What special powers will these advocates have which existing workers in this field do not already possess? What will occur when people forced into slavery in the UK are not UK nationals? Will they be granted care and leave to remain in the UK? I can just see instances where people might be too afraid to speak out about their ordeals if they fear they will be sent back to their home countries, where their fate might be much worse, or where they would almost certainly be captured and traded again. Where the victims are children, who cannot look after themselves, is the Minister happy that arrangements are in place to look after children who have been misled in this way?

I know that the Government are working hard with companies, charities and organisations already doing fantastic work in this area. Has thought been given to launching a campaign aimed at better educating the public, as well as current victims, making us more aware of the signs of slavery? A helpline number might be provided, perhaps at UK entry points and other key points, so that we can all keep our eyes open and know what to do in order to do our bit, mostly for the victims, who far too often do not know their rights. I am sure that consideration must have been given to this. Too often there is a slippery slope between abuses in the workplace and modern slavery. I think it would be of enormous benefit for all of us to be more educated in what signs to look out for, and for potential victims to be able to recognise their rights and what they can do about their situations. It is a simple idea; can my noble friend say if it is in the pipeline? He has just nodded at me: I hope that that means that it is.

I am sad that, under our watch, slavery could be worse than it has ever been in history. We learn from the past that slavery cannot be eradicated by legislation alone; we need to climb into people’s minds and get the public and business leaders to see red flags when they see unnaturally cheap products or, indeed, weary souls performing services, and not simply see bargains or savings in their budgets. I believe that the provisions in the Bill will start to make real change for the incredibly vulnerable group of modern slaves who are hidden, often in plain sight, in our communities, on our streets and sometimes in our homes, through either forced domestic service, sexual exploitation or via the products sitting on our shelves or in our wardrobes that have been made in illegal factories worldwide. We all need to protect these people together, and the Bill goes a long way towards bringing attention and legal redress to this abhorrent crime.

19:00

[Lord Hylton (CB)]

My Lords, I wish that I had not been involved with the issue of domestic slavery for so long and with particular reference to London. This goes back to 1990 and, later, to a Private Member’s Bill that I took through your Lordships’ House. Like my noble friend Lord Alton, I regret that more progress has not been made in all these years.

We know that foreign visitors may now bring domestic workers with them for up to six months, while foreign diplomats may import such workers for up to five years. Both categories must have visas and contracts of employment, but I must ask the Minister: when the visa is issued, does anyone check that the previous employment outside this country was not abusive? Are the contracts of employment scrutinised to see that they comply with British practice?

Clause 1(4) provides for vulnerable people. Like the noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy of Cradley, I submit that all foreign domestic workers coming into this country are ipso facto vulnerable because they are tied to one employer for the duration of their stay and mostly live on the employer’s premises. I agree with the Joint Committee on the draft Bill that public agencies and NGOs should be able to remove a domestic from an abusive employer and to recover their passport. I point also to its recommendation that diplomatic domestics should have contracts directly with the embassy or consulate. Decisions of our courts or employment tribunals should be made enforceable against the embassies concerned—thus, I admit, limiting full diplomatic immunity.

How many complaints have been received in recent years about diplomats and embassies? The Home Office appears to think that foreign domestics are all unskilled workers. In fact, often they are highly skilled in childcare and cooking. Lest your Lordships should think that abuses are trivial, I will give brief details of the wrongdoing observed over many years and continuing to this day. It is common for employers to withhold upon arrival the passports of domestics and to confine them to their houses. This cuts off access to citizens advice bureaux, legal advice, employment tribunals and the police, not to speak of friends and recreation. The non-payment of wages or the payment of less than the national minimum have often been reported, together with physical and sexual violence. Normal contract terms are often breached—for example, no time off or paid holidays; no privacy or own room; being forced to sleep in a corridor or bathroom; and excessive hours without overtime payments. It is a disgrace that such things have been allowed to happen, despite questions and debates in both Houses and despite the evidence collected by trades unions and voluntary organisations, some of which was presented to the Joint Committee.

Such things cannot be allowed to continue. I therefore ask the Minister to assure the House that the Bill covers all the abuses complained of. There has been general impunity up to now. Will abuses now be rigorously prosecuted? Will the Government accept amendments dealing with foreign embassies and help with their drafting? On the question of children, I must ask: how will the Bill, the proposed independent commissioner or the child trafficking advocates help to prevent children in local authority care being lured away or kidnapped? Over the years many have disappeared, and better prevention is urgently needed. The Bill has good intentions and is a step in the right direction, but I am sure that it can be improved and I hope that it will be, with all-party support.

19:06

[Baroness Lawrence of Clarendon (Lab)]

My Lords, I declare an interest in the debate as a trustee of the campaigning organisation Liberty. I urge all of us to ask ourselves: is this Bill all that we can do? Have we given everything that we can? If there is one more victim, one more slave, as there definitely will be, will we be able to look them in the eye?

It is an honour to sit in your Lordships’ House in the Parliament of a country that so often has been defined by what it stands for as well as what it does. As we have just commemorated, we have fought for freedom from international tyranny so that people and communities across the world may have the opportunity to live with dignity and hope. That is our fundamental human desire, for ourselves and for our children—that we might have the chance to live lives of dignity where we might put our talents to good use and see just how much we can do, with the simple hope that tomorrow might be better than today.

One could of course quote the Universal Declaration of Human Rights at length to show the extent of international agreement on this, but we know what we want for our children when they are born. It is not for them to be spirited across borders against their will, to work backbreaking hours with little or no pay, with the promise of only a beating if they try to escape, or to live their lives under the violent control of others, exploited for their labour and robbed of their free will and hope. That is not what we want for our children.

Sitting in your Lordships’ House, I have come to realise that all the people in this country whom we represent, whether or not they were born here, are our children. It is their right to have a future that we must honour and secure. Therefore, I welcome the fact that we have come so far in progressing the Bill and I acknowledge the dedication and commitment of so many in your Lordships’ House, the other place and the public realm to bringing the freeing power of light to an issue that has known too much darkness.

However, as we consider the Bill today, even with the changes that have been made, we know that it is not all that we can do. The Bill currently suggests that our primary objective is to punish the perpetrators, not to give victims a life where they can enjoy their inherent human rights. I strongly support the inclusion of measures such as the restoration of legal aid for all potentially trafficked people, to give them access to their rights, protection from further abuse and a strong voice in the system. The experts, including the Prime Minister’s former special envoy on human trafficking, Anthony Steen, are clear that a Bill without strong victim protection and victims’ rights at its heart will not be as effective as it should be, either in giving victims of exploitation back their lives or in securing conviction—the worst of both worlds.

The Bill currently sacrifices pragmatism and outcome for symbolic efficiency. While I wholeheartedly support the principle of consolidation, by not breaking down human trafficking into its component crimes we make it much harder to secure conviction. I strongly endorse the proposition of being more specific in setting out separate offences not only to ensure that we can secure convictions but also to address all forms of exploitation. The absence of specific definitions and clauses relating to child exploitation are a powerful example of this Bill being strong on intent but weak in delivery.

The Bill currently has our values and leadership a distant second to political expediency. Some say that because of potential public confusion about victims of trafficking and immigrants, the Bill has pulled its punches in terms of victim protection and support. If we do not offer victim support, we abdicate not only our moral duty but also our responsibility to the economy, as forced labour undercuts the job market. The current Government’s 2012 visa changes to overseas domestic workers—tying them to one employer and drastically increasing the number of people at risk of domestic slavery—are a worrying example of this. The Bill is politically strong for the Conservatives on immigration, but it is weak on compassion and human rights.

In the other place, William Wilberforce spent 25 years fighting for the abolition of the slave trade. While we are part of that same arc of history, our struggle to bend society towards abolition and towards justice will be much easier and quicker if we choose to achieve that end. The moral argument has been won: every country condemns slavery. The economic argument has been won: the cost of ending slavery is just a fraction of the value freed slaves will create for economies. The legal argument has been won: legislation is not the silver bullet, but it certainly plays a large role, as we acknowledge here today.

The intent of the Bill is good. However, we are talking about the rights and futures of our children. In that light, the Bill does not go far enough. Their lives are too important for political expediency. Our children call on us for moral leadership. We have to send a clear message to the boys, girls, men and women who are currently enslaved, living lives where hope becomes more distant and the future more bleak. We have to say: “We will not let you live lives without dignity, without rights, without a future worth living. You are our children, too”. I ask your Lordships to ensure that, through this debate and our subsequent work, we make the Bill worthy of this Chamber, this country and the people whom we represent.

19:15

[The Earl of Listowel (CB)]

My Lords, this has been a remarkable and moving debate. We have heard about the charities that are doing such remarkable work and the debate has made me think about the work that the Government have done in this area. The noble Lord, Lord Tunnicliffe, mentioned the Poppy Project, which reached out to the woman in Yarl’s Wood and rescued her from what must have been an appalling experience. We heard about the exploitation of young women and girls who were taken from foreign countries and brought to this country for sexual exploitation. I thought about the remarkable work of the coalition Government in terms of their commitment to international development and the education of girls. The millennium development goals recognise the need to educate children in the developing world. Of course, if girls can read and write, they are far less able to be controlled by others and they have access to the internet and to knowledge.

The debate has also made me think of an experience that I had as a teenager working in Greece, picking oranges. It was an interesting experience. A rumour went round that some of the employers were confiscating passports. We just turned up at a café in the morning and were hired or not. I guess that I was bit vulnerable back then.

The debate has also made me think principally of the young men whom I have known who have come to this country as children, separated from their families. They may not have been trafficked, but they are still extremely vulnerable. I remember particularly one young man who arrived here from Eritrea. His mother was Eritrean and his father was Ethiopian. At the time, the two nations were at war with each other. He was here with his sister as a child. He was a remarkably bright and diligent young man. He worked hard, got good A-levels and went on to University College, I think, read civil engineering, qualified as a civil engineer and was eager to return to his own country to make a difference as it recovered from the civil war. He kept up with his home language, Amharic, and was an altar boy in the Coptic church, not far from here.

I remember another young man, an Albanian in a hostel, with whom I used to play chess over several months. His father was a teacher. He was a bright young man and yet, meeting him with some of the people whom he came across in London, I worried that he might be drawn into a gang of criminal culture. The point that I want to make is that these young people have great potential and it is a criminal waste to allow any young person’s potential to be wasted. I have met other young people—again, perhaps, not trafficked—who have come to this country and have not had the support that they have needed and have ended up in mental health institutions.

I therefore warmly welcome this Bill and am most grateful to the Minister for introducing its Second Reading. I welcome the work of the campaigning organisations, the parliamentary groups and parliamentarians who have done such good work in bringing the Bill forward.

Much has already been said about children. The Bill offers an important opportunity to protect child victims of trafficking. I would like to remind your Lordships of further facts about children. The International Labour Organization has conservatively estimated that 5.5 million children are trafficked every year—that is 26% of total victims. In the UK, we have seen a significant increase in the number of children identified as potential victims of trafficking. At least 10 children are trafficked every week in the UK, but many remain undetected. The real scale of trafficking is likely to be substantially higher.

Trafficked children are alone, frightened and traumatised, facing uncertain futures and often struggling to access the support that they need. It is therefore imperative that we do all that we can, both through legislation and through practice, to ensure that those children, whether British-born or migrants, are safe, protected and able to rebuild their lives. I am keen for us to move forward, beyond even the welcome measures in the Bill, to strengthen the protections of these young people, in particular with regard to the child trafficking advocates, so I welcome the enabling provision in the Bill. However, I am worried that, unless advocates are given legal powers, they will lack the ability to step in at times when they are most needed, to hold authorities to account, to instruct solicitors on behalf of a child and to truly to represent that child’s interests. If those children are to have faith in their advocates, they need to see that their advocates have clout, that they can make a difference and that they will not disappoint them.

The Northern Ireland Assembly has just introduced provision for that in the human traffic and exploitation Bill, to which the noble Lord, Lord McColl, referred, and I hope that the Government will soon follow the Assembly’s lead. An advocate who can instruct a solicitor to act in the child’s best interest is needed because trafficked children do not disclose that they have been trafficked, as they have been manipulated by their trafficker, are afraid of what the trafficker will do to their family, or have not understood or psychologically accepted that they have been trafficked. That may particularly be the case if they were trafficked by a family member. That means that, if the victim of trafficking were to instruct a solicitor, it could be contrary to their best interests, safety and protection and it might protect their trafficker.

In Committee in the House of Commons, the Minister explained that the advocate would act as a litigation friend. However, that does not go far enough, as my noble friend said. A litigation friend cannot instruct solicitors or act in immigration, asylum or criminal proceedings. There are also issues with local authorities; I am very aware of that from my work as vice-chair of the all-party parliamentary group on young people in care. Again, being able to instruct a solicitor can help children to get services from local authorities that they might not otherwise be able to access. I am therefore keen to see that power of instruction and for us to reach out to all separated children, because often we do not identify that they have been trafficked until it is too late and they have been taken away from their care home or foster care.

At the same time, I recognise that the Government have come a long way with the Bill—I heard the concerns expressed by my noble and learned friend Lady Butler-Sloss, who said that we need to acknowledge how far the Government have come. I will therefore look to my noble and learned friend for a cue on how fast we have to move forward with these issues. In conclusion, once again, I very much welcome the Bill and I look forward to the Minister’s response.

19:22

[Baroness Hodgson of Abinger (Con)]

My Lords, other noble Lords have already referred to William Wilberforce; 181 years after his death it is utterly horrifying that slavery continues to exist. As he once said:

“You may choose to look the other way but you can never say again that you did not know”.

I am pleased to add my voice to the many others welcoming this Bill on modern slavery, and I commend the Home Secretary and the Government for bringing it forward. It is a hugely positive and important step in trying to combat this horrendous crime. I also pay tribute to the many campaigners and organisations that work and campaign so tirelessly in this area.

Modern slavery is indeed a most heinous practice, inflicting immense suffering and misery. As the director of UN Women, Phumzile Mlambo-Ngcuka, says:

“Trafficking in persons is a grave human rights violation and a serious crime”.

As we have already heard, while accurate statistics are unknown, the National Crime Agency recently estimated that nearly 3,000 people were trafficked for exploitation in the UK last year—a 22% increase on 2012. Meanwhile, the conviction rate of traffickers is astonishingly low. I am told that only eight were convicted in 2011, 12 in 2012, and 19 last year. Perhaps the Minister can confirm whether those figures are accurate.

As has already been discussed, people are being trafficked here for a variety of reasons, from forced labour and domestic servitude to sexual exploitation and forced marriage. I agree with other noble Lords that, as vital as it is to apprehend and prosecute the traffickers, it is of equal importance that we support the victims and help them restore their lives; one cannot begin to imagine what these people have suffered. I hope that the Bill, when finalised, will robustly address both these approaches.

The charity Eaves, which works to address exploitation of women, states that very few victims of trafficking are willing to get involved in prosecuting their traffickers due to threats to themselves or their family back home if they talk to the police, as we already heard from the noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy. I hope that this House can look further at ways in which support can be given to victims to address that, because traffickers need to be brought to justice.

Victims of trafficking often face what can be described as a double trauma—being enslaved; and, upon release or escape, finding themselves prosecuted for crimes that their traffickers forced them to commit or that they committed in an attempt to escape. I emphasise my support for the measures in Part 5 which provide a statutory defence for victims of slavery and trafficking. It is important that the level of evidence must not be too burdensome on the trafficked victim, who may well find being interrogated by the police intimidating, only adding to their trauma. A general principle of non-prosecution of victims except in extreme circumstances might be considered.

As other noble Lords have mentioned, in the wider sense I would like to see the Bill go further in making support provisions for victims. The current model of assistance, which has already been referred to, through the national referral mechanism, provides only 45 days of shelter and legal and medical assistance. After that time they must leave and are in effect abandoned. What happens to them then? They are all alone in a strange country, maybe not speaking the language and without any money. I was recently told by the Human Trafficking Foundation of widespread suspicions that they often have to fall back on the original perpetrator through lack of other support. Assets recovered can perhaps be deployed towards compensating and helping those victims. We simply must do more to help those people rebuild their lives and return home if they want to.

As was already discussed, the establishment of an anti-slavery commissioner will be absolutely pivotal, and it is extremely important that he can oversee and cohesively draw together the work of the various agencies—the police, border officials, health workers, local authorities, third-sector organisations and others—involved in preventing and penalising slavery. I agree that this will lead to a more efficient and effective system, which will ultimately result in increased numbers of prosecutions. I also support the view that this role creates an opportunity to provide better support and protection to victims. The office can provide a central resource for best practice, as well as gather data and information, monitor trends and the impact of policies and legislation, and develop protocols on dealing with victims. It must also ensure that UK measures against trafficking comply and co-ordinate effectively with those already in place in Europe and internationally, including CEDAW and UN conventions.

Without doubt, prostitution is one of the main drivers of women and girls being trafficked. While the Bill does not deal with the laws on prostitution—rightly—I very much hope that the commissioner will make a thorough review of those. It is considered important that this commissioner is independent, but can that truly be the case if that role sits in the Home Office as well as being appointed by and accountable to the Home Secretary? One can look at similar roles in other countries. I understand that the Joint Committee that looked at the draft Bill took evidence from the Dutch national rapporteur on trafficking in human beings, who emphasised that her role’s long-term success lay in its statutory independence, and there is a similar situation in Finland. I hope that that aspect will be examined again as the Bill passes through your Lordships’ House; the Minister could comment on that.

Much has already been said about children, but it is utterly shocking that some victims of trafficking are children. As has already been identified, it is particularly important that the Bill works to protect them. The introduction of child trafficking advocates will, I hope, provide child victims with better safety and support. As we have already heard, there has been a significant increase in the number of children involved in trafficking in recent years; apparently at least 10 children are trafficked every week in the UK. It must be such a terrifying experience for a child, and we must ensure that they are always treated as victims and not perpetrators.

UNICEF told me the story of a girl named Katja. Katja was trafficked into the UK as a teenager and was forced to work on a cannabis farm. When found, she was taken into custody and then into care. She soon escaped, disappearing back into the hands of her traffickers. She was then sexually exploited and became pregnant. She was found again in hospital, alone and unable to deal with the pregnancy.

Katja’s story is frighteningly common. Over 60% of trafficked children taken into care go missing. Most fall back into this life of exploitation and abuse through desperation and lack of support. Children such as Katja need somebody whom they can trust and who will keep them safe and make sure that they get the support they need.

It is crucial that these advocates are able to act in the child’s best interests, and I welcomed the recent government amendment to that effect. It is also widely felt that these advocates must be wholly independent and, as the noble Earl, Lord Listowel, said, that they must have significant authority in their supervision of the child, including legal powers, as is the case in the Netherlands. This will provide appropriate support, especially in criminal proceedings, where they can instruct solicitors on the child’s behalf, thus ensuring the child’s best defence in court. And surely child trafficking should always carry particularly heavy sentences.

Above all, wherever possible, we need to help these children return to their homes. Life in care is not a satisfactory outcome, as demonstrated by the fact that so many children want to escape.

I think we all recognise how complex a problem modern slavery and trafficking is. This Bill will go a long way in helping law enforcers to target traffickers but it can go further to improve support and protection for victims. As others have already said, this must be a world-class Bill.

Longer-term education and awareness-raising are also crucial, and we must continue to work with businesses and other countries to tackle the problem at its source. This includes understanding the factors that increase people’s vulnerability to trafficking and, in particular, the specific needs of women and children.

I conclude by quoting again the UN Women executive director, Phumzile Mlambo-Ngcuka, speaking on the first World Day against Trafficking in Persons:

“We must redouble our efforts to stamp out trafficking in persons, to return hope to those who have suffered this injustice and to build a future where these crimes no longer threaten any person, anywhere”.

19:32

[Baroness Howe of Idlicote (CB)]

My Lords, I am very pleased to speak in this Second Reading debate on the Modern Slavery Bill. I commend the Government for bringing the Bill forward and for the increased focus that the heinous practices of slavery and trafficking will receive as a result of this proposed legislation and the measures within it. However, like many other noble Lords, I believe that there is significant scope for improvement.

Like many, I was very concerned that when the draft Bill was published it seemed more like a Modern Slavery (Criminal Justice) Bill than a credible, ground-breaking Modern Slavery Bill. It simply dealt with the traffickers and not the trafficked, and to that extent it was very lop-sided. Any Modern Slavery Bill worthy of the name must put in place both better provisions for catching traffickers and better provisions for caring for the victims of trafficking.

The Bill before us today is improved in two crucial respects, although there is still much work to be done. In the first instance, the Government have responded to the concerns expressed by the Joint Committee on the draft Bill about the absence of any victim care provision through the introduction of a new clause, Clause 48, which says that the Secretary of State must offer guidance on victim care. This falls far short of the provision of a statement of support services for victims of trafficking that you would expect to be itemised on the face of any Modern Slavery Bill, but at least it is something.

In the second instance, the Government have taken a step on the journey to converting this from a Modern Slavery (Criminal Justice) Bill into a credible Modern Slavery Bill, principally, I think it is fair to say, as a result of a vote in your Lordships’ House on 7 April this year. My noble and learned friend Lady Butler-Sloss, supported by the noble Lord, Lord McColl, and others, moved an amendment to the Immigration Bill introducing child trafficking guardians. This was opposed by the Government, who were then defeated by 98 votes.

Let us remind ourselves of the facts. Many children who have been trafficked go missing from care after they have been identified and rescued. Reports from the Child Exploitation and Online Protection Centre record that between 2005 and 2010 almost a third of the children identified as probable victims of trafficking and being “looked after” by local authorities had gone missing. I have also seen other localised studies which give the much higher figure of 60% of children going missing.

Until a foreign trafficked child comes into the care of the authorities, the only people in this country whom they may know or trust are likely to be their traffickers. Children are vulnerable to being manipulated and threatened. They are told not to trust the police or other authorities and they can be warned by traffickers that the authorities will imprison them or treat them badly. They can be manipulated into trusting and caring for their traffickers as if they were members of their family. Protecting trafficked children from the continued influence of their traffickers once they come to the attention of the authorities must therefore be of the highest priority. One key way to do this is by providing these children with the support of a person with specialist understanding of the particular needs and challenges experienced by child victims of trafficking.

The Still at Risk report commissioned by the Home Office and conducted by the Refugee Council and the Children’s Society, already referred to by the noble Lord, Lord McColl, following debates in your Lordships’ House in 2012 noted:

“Respondents in this research felt that the immediate provision of intensive, one-to-one support for these children by an adult who the child can form a trusting relationship with, and who could help them to make sense of the different processes and professionals that they encounter, would reduce the risk of the child going missing”.

That description perfectly describes the role that a child trafficking advocate should play. Clearly, the factors involved in a child going missing are many and complex. However, one step is to provide the child with support from someone with specialist expertise who will be able to build a relationship of trust with the child and will advocate for the child to receive the sort of accommodation, legal advice and care that will best help to protect them from their traffickers.

Part of the rationale for moving the child trafficking guardian amendment on 7 April was that, since the Government had made it plain that they were not interested in having such a provision in their Modern Slavery Bill, we must look elsewhere. When confronted by the amendment to the Immigration Bill, however, the Government resisted it on the basis that a better place for it would be the Modern Slavery Bill. When they were defeated, they agreed to reintroduce a provision in the Modern Slavery Bill—Clause 47.

Although I am very pleased that noble Lords played a key role in helping to deliver a second victim support clause in the Bill, helping to give grounds for the claim that this is a wide-ranging Modern Slavery Bill, I have to say that in the same way that Clause 48 is very disappointing for merely delivering guidance, Clause 47 is very disappointing because it is bereft of the proper definition of a child trafficking guardian which your Lordships’ House voted for so overwhelmingly on 7 April. Clause 57, which commences Clause 47, also remains equivocal about whether these guardians will ever come about, putting this off to a future decision.

As I survey these two clauses, I am glad that the Bill now has two victim care clauses. These two steps forward are welcome but the Government have given so little away that, to me, the Bill still feels more like a Modern Slavery (Criminal Justice) Bill than a genuine Modern Slavery Bill. Further steps now need to be taken and I very much hope that they will be taken in your Lordships’ House. We need Clause 48 to move from guidance to statutory support services for victims and we need to amend Clause 47 and Clause 57, which commences Clause 47, so that Clause 47 contains a proper definition of child trafficking advocates and ends all equivocation about whether such guardians will be provided.

Again, as the noble Lord, Lord McColl, mentioned, the imperative for this change is now greatly strengthened by the fact that the Northern Ireland Assembly voted to introduce both provisions last month through the Human Trafficking and Exploitation (Further Provisions and Support for Victims) Bill which, while sounding less grand than our Modern Slavery Bill, actually goes further. This should, indeed, give us pause for thought. I do not want—neither I am sure do your Lordships—victims of trafficking in England and Wales, both adults and children, to be given fewer rights than victims in Northern Ireland.

This is a very important Bill but there is clearly still work to be done during its remaining stages. I hope and believe that we shall succeed in improving it still further.

19:41

[Baroness Goudie (Lab)]

My Lords, I congratulate my three new colleagues on their maiden speeches this evening. It is important to say that because they were tremendous. I also congratulate the Government on this Bill. I see it as a global Bill and will discuss that shortly. I also see it as an across-the-divide Bill, and I hope that if we work together to strengthen it, we can get it through the House on a correct timetable to have it on the statute book before the general election. In the next year or two after that, having worked with it as an Act, it can then be amended. I am very keen to get this Bill through; it is absolutely vital.

Human trafficking is not a woman’s, a man’s or a child’s issue; it is a human issue that traverses political divides in all countries. We are at a crossroads and better enforcement mechanisms, as well as improved harmonisation efforts, are needed successfully to combat human trafficking of persons and modern-day slavery. I see this country as one of the leaders on how to take this across borders, as in the Council of Europe’s directive on human trafficking, from which this Government took the amendments. We can prosecute across borders and recover so-called funds.

We know that human trafficking is worth at least $32 billion around the world. It is a cash industry. The World Bank has spent its time going round telling countries in eastern Europe and others how they should not be dealing with suitcases of cash. We know that even in this country illicit cash is banked. We have the mechanisms to ensure that this does not happen, and we have to look at that part of human trafficking. It is a cash industry and one in which the middle managers are women. That is a hurtful thing to say but children, men and other women trust women, as we all do. It is very important to look at that side of human trafficking.

I support the noble Lord, Lord McColl, in what he said today. I remember when we had problems during the ratification of the Council of Europe’s human trafficking directive. We had trouble with the previous Government when they thought that the time we were asking for was too much. We really do need 90 days. I congratulate both the Salvation Army and the Poppy Project on the work that they do with victims. Besides needing to trust, they also need to be healthy and to have food. They need a lot of comfort to make them feel comfortable to give evidence and to stay.

These victims may stay or go back to their own countries. If we do not treat them properly, what will they think of Britain plc in two or three years’ time, or in 10 years? They may be in a position when they can give us support, so we should look at them as victims and help them to become survivors and no longer victims. They do not want to be victims for life; they want to be survivors. We need to give them time to help them to be survivors.

We also need them to see the perpetrators put in prison and having their funds sequestered. I am very keen on recovery of cash because we know that the cash is there. I wrote an article for the Guardian earlier this year about the amount of money going into the banks and their lawyers went all over it. It was published and had quite a lot of support. It is interesting that the banks did not complain, and nor did their lawyers go to the Guardian—so it shows you.

One of the main issues on which I feel strongly is the supply chain for companies. This is an issue that we have to take on board, and if we can amend this Bill a bit, we should. We know that it is not difficult. Companies procure goods every day and do so in all sorts of ways. We should look at it as a health and safety issue, so procurement departments should also have to look at that. If necessary, they should travel to see where and how the flowers are picked, and how they are parcelled up. We all know that there is evidence of fishing boats off Australia, New Zealand and other parts of Asia. People die on those boats; they never come off. The supermarkets and restaurant traders take the fish and sell it on. It is the same with flowers and other agricultural products. We know that there is bonded and slave labour in the agricultural trade as well as in the retail trade.

The retail trade is even worse because we know that cheap football garments sold in our country and in others by the football clubs come from parts of Turkey where there is slave labour. We know that it is the same in India, and there is proof that the footballs come from there. When I challenged some football clubs at a sports conference two years ago in Qatar, they did not deny it, but said, “We’re clean because we get the goods from X”. When I asked, “When did you go to see where they come from?”, the reply was, “Well, we didn’t actually go”. It is the same with retailers.

We have to go back to them and say that we want corporates to include in their audits on gender pay, equal pay, and all sorts of other issues, to say where they got their goods. There should be confirmation and some form of mark to show that they are not produced by bonded or slave labour. We also have to understand that we have to pay more for goods. Why should we live off the backs of other people? We know that anybody who has been trafficked and lived in this way never lives a long life. They never have the life that we are lucky to have. We need to look closely and come back to the issue of the supply chain.

I agree with all the issues that have been mentioned around children and victims, but there is also the question of the commissioner. I am not sure to whom this person will be accountable. What is the budget and what about the staff? Will there be a separate legal department or will it be part of the Solicitor General’s department or the Home Office? We have not had many cases, but it is there for us to be able to do that. Lawyers and policemen are being trained to recognise what is human trafficking. As we agree, there have not been many prosecutions, and those that there have been have not been very successful. I am not sure where the accountability of the commissioner will be. Is the commissioner accountable to the Home Office or to Parliament? How do we ask questions? We know with quangos that if we ask a question in this House or in the Commons, we cannot always get an answer because it is out of the mandate of Parliament. I have a number of questions about the commissioner—or should we, in the short term, look at the office as being a unit within the Home Office that will stand alone once it is set up with all its powers? I feel that that will be a very important issue.

19:49

[The Earl of Sandwich (CB)]

My Lords, the anti-slavery campaign lies at the heart of our democracy. It was the great cause, not only of famous parliamentary reformers, but of ordinary people who did not have the vote at that time yet who petitioned Parliament, lobbied and became the forerunners of today’s civil society. This subject regularly produces great passion in this House and it is no surprise that we are discussing it again today. The contributions of our maiden speakers were eloquent examples.

This cause has become so universal it has even been adopted by government. The Prime Minister and Home Secretary are among the leading campaigners; the Home Office and NSPCC website is testimony to that. It is an impressive vindication of the Government’s commitment, beyond trafficking, to other issues. It is also rare to see a Bill that has already had the benefit of scrutiny by the House of Commons and two Joint Committees. We must be especially grateful for the typical thoroughness of the Human Rights Committee. Some lobbyists have already had a fair wind from the Government and I imagine we need to thank the Lib Dem side of the coalition for that.

The Bill is evolving and there is a lot of consensus that it needs improvement. The Government have already accepted some amendments and the Minister is probably preparing more. I hope, therefore, that he will not see our suggestions as carping but will agree to the changes further down the line. He has obviously seen many of them before but, after he has dealt with Protocol 36 and all the opt-ins, he will have to look at them again—and again.

We should acknowledge that behind these changes there are quite a few prominent NGOs with real experience of the issues. One or two prompted the previous Government’s interest in the first place. This is important because I sometimes wonder what Governments would do without the benefit of specialist NGOs. I single out Anti-Slavery International, partly because I declare an interest as a former council member but also because, as the noble Baroness, Lady Cox, knows, it has built up expertise over a much longer period all over the world and, increasingly, in the UK. It is 175 years old this year and pre-dates every other voluntary organisation: one could go back to 1839 or earlier.

Mr Hyland’s appointment as the first independent commissioner must be welcomed, not least because of his relevant experience, provided he remains truly independent and is given the power to hold inquiries. I am glad that the noble Baroness, Lady Hanham, is pursuing this. I join many other noble Lords in asking for a specific offence of child trafficking and exploitation in Part 1. Advocacy support or guardianship—whatever we are now calling it—for child victims has long been recommended by Frank Field’s committee and others, yet the Government still hold out against this seemingly obvious improvement. Legal aid is going to be a contentious issue again. One example is claims for compensation from the CICA, for which legal aid is not currently available. There are other improvements, such as putting the NRM on a statutory basis. The recommendations made by my noble and learned friend and the noble Lord, Lord Warner, extend the 45 days—or, as the noble Lord, Lord McColl, said, double it.

On Report, the Government introduced a new Part 6 on supply chains, which is welcome. The Joseph Rowntree Foundation has carried out thoughtful research on this subject and points out that there is a spectrum of exploitation which, as the right reverend Prelate said, is very difficult to define when it comes to offences. However, there should be an obligation on companies over a certain threshold to report regularly and provide monitoring of their compliance. This recommendation, set out by the noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy, comes from a wide coalition of NGOs.

In 2012, Rowntree looked at the UK food sector, where there have been several examples of forced labour and exploitation. Here, I declare a tangential interest in that I have some experience of the sandwich industry, in which migrant workers play an essential part. It was alleged last week that Hungarians now have to make our sandwiches because we Brits cannot or will not make them any more. It is true that it is boring, repetitive work at an industrial level, but I remember seeing lines of Lithuanians making sandwiches in a small factory in the East End. In that case, they were contented workers in perfectly hygienic conditions, but there is no doubt that there is exploitation in some of our factories. Rowntree’s research found at least 14 forced labour practices through interviews with 62 workers. Interestingly, most were breaches of contract or lack of contract; non-payment of wages; or payment below the minimum wage. In half the cases there was purposeful isolation and psychological harm.

The noble Lord, Lord Tunnicliffe, briefly mentioned a prominent case of a licensed gangmaster in Maidstone who supplied workers to Nobel Foods, a major processor of eggs and chickens which supplies our major supermarkets. The gangmaster appealed but eventually lost his licence. The GLA called it one of the worst cases of exploitation ever uncovered in the food industry. The point here is that, although companies’ practices down the supply chain must obviously be brought to account, the legislation covering the work of the GLA must be strengthened and its powers extended into other areas. Forced labourers must be given the same level of protection as victims of trafficking.

My noble friend Lord Hylton said it all on overseas domestic workers and I will be brief. I remember some of us giving the previous Government heart-rending evidence during immigration Bills. Some migrant workers are, literally, bonded: their passports dictate that they cannot change to a new employer. The Minister may correct me, but the Government appear to have ignored the advice of both Joint Committees on this, even on bringing back the level of protection these workers had before 2012. I hope they will rethink that particular point. There will be a lot of strong feeling on this in Committee. The tied visa is morally wrong, it is a blatant injustice and the Government should move quickly to change it.

Kalayaan, the charity involved, has given us a picture of the average domestic worker. She lives on less than £50 per week; she is rarely allowed to go out; she is wholly dependent; she may live at risk and yet can do nothing about it. I will keep the case study of Maria for Committee—unless the Government can do, or even promise to do, something to help her first.

19:49

[Lord Judd (Lab)]

My Lords, it is always good to follow the noble Earl. Earlier in the debate, the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Derby, in one of his characteristically thoughtful contributions to our deliberations, spoke about how he wished we would talk more of safeguarding and get this concept more deeply rooted into our community. I am very much with him, but wonder whether he could have a little coalition with me in saying that that should go alongside support and solidarity. It often strikes me that people in the midst of the experiences which we have been hearing about and describing are going through a nightmare. They have never had decent human relations; they often do not know what it is to have a reliable friend; they have certainly never had the experience of being loved. Getting the legislation right will solve nothing in itself; it is the spirit and motivation and the values which operate within the legislation which will ensure that we are really tackling the issue as we should.

This cannot be separated from the context in which the problems we are discussing arise. They arise in a society in which there is too much talk of market without the ethics that must underlie any meaningful, socially justifiable market system. A market without ethics is, in itself, highly dangerous and relevant to the issue of trafficking. It is about the prevailing characteristic of greed in our society and the concept of instant satisfaction. This is partly aided and abetted by the rapid development of information technology. Everything is instantaneous, everybody wants instant satisfaction and, therefore, they do not stop to think.

This brings us to the importance of the context of social education in which young people, but not only young people, are beginning to understand their responsibilities. As the noble Lord, Lord Luke, so rightly said, all this happens because there is a demand. I do not advocate that young men—or men of any age—rush off to prostitutes. But how often do people who use a prostitute—I employ the word “use” deliberately—have any thought about the story behind that prostitute and what they may be aiding and abetting? There must be a development of social responsibility and social education.

In his remarks, the noble Earl referred to non-governmental organisations. As noble Lords will know, I have spent a great deal of my life in non-governmental organisations. In this sphere, we are extremely fortunate to have the non-governmental organisations from which we have been hearing. They speak with the authority of engagement. They have high-quality people thinking about the issues, and not just academically: they are thinking about them in the context of the work that they are doing with real people in real situations. It would be very unwise of us not to listen to what they have to say.

In reading the evidence that has been coming to me, I have been struck that there is no antipathy towards the Bill at all from the NGOs. They welcome it as a step forward. Their concern is to strengthen it and give more effect to its intentions. That is what this is about. It is a highly constructive operation. We should listen to them and not be ashamed to bring their perspectives into the argument. That is what I will do for a moment or two before I complete my own observations.

An organisation called the Anti Trafficking Monitoring Group brings together a number of these organisations with intimate experience of the issues. It talks about the importance of:

“Inclusion of a duty on public authorities to identify and assist victims

Inclusion of the minimum standards for protection and support

Provision for the establishment of the”,

national referral mechanism,

“and the key principles which underpin it, including the principle of non-discrimination and the right to recourse against erroneous decision-making”,

and that there should be:

“Inclusion of protection provisions for migrant domestic workers on the Overseas Domestic Workers visa”.

At a minimum, the group argues for,

“the right to change employer and to apply to renew their visa while in full time employment as a domestic worker”.

Then there is the whole issue of children, and there is no shortage of charities and voluntary agencies with great insight and experience in that area. UNICEF UK makes its case strongly. It is very much supported, again, by the Refugee Children’s Consortium, which brings together a number of organisations working in this sphere. I want to share for a moment the very specific priorities of the Refugee Children’s Consortium. It believes that,

“a specific offence of child exploitation and trafficking”,

should be included in the Bill to,

“recognise the particular vulnerability of children, both those trafficked within and to the UK, as well as the fact that they cannot legally consent to any form of exploitation”.

The consortium continues:

“The Bill should include a statutory principle of non-prosecution”,

and be,

“amended to include legal powers for child trafficking advocates”.

The consortium believes that,

“advocates should be allocated to all separated migrant children”,

and that,

“the current clause on age assessment is unclear and should be redrafted to ensure these assessments do not take place by default. Legal aid should be restored for victims of trafficking and slavery”.

There is strong feeling, too, on the issue of the commissioner. There is a feeling that the commissioner must be independent in order to be effective. He should:

“Be independent from the government to freely decide activities, hire staff and control the office budget … Oversee victim assistance measures including the statutory child protection response for child victims … Have statutory powers to collect and request data and information on trafficking from a wide range of statutory non-statutory bodies … Monitor trends and assess the impact of policies and legislation relevant to trafficking… Hold inquiries”,

and must be able to “Report directly to Parliament”.

These are issues about which we will hear a great deal from the NGOs in Committee and we need to take them very seriously. But I want to end by underlining what my noble friend Lady Goudie just said, because it is terribly important. There is the whole issue of the supply chain. All the NGOs feel that if we are taking the Bill seriously, we cannot give too much priority to scrutinising the whole issue of the supply chain, ensuring that there are effective measures in place to call to justice those who abuse it.

20:06

[Baroness Hamwee (LD)]

My Lords, something very significant happened two or three weeks ago. Forced labour featured on television in an episode of “Scott & Bailey”, with some very sensitive questioning, I am happy to say, by the police officer involved. I wonder whether it will do as much to raise public awareness of slavery as the body under the patio in “Brookside” did for domestic violence.

In the preface to his review of the national referral mechanism, Jeremy Oppenheim comments on,

“the commitment across sectors, organisations, disciplines and generations”,

but even so,

“there are passionate differences of opinion as to how to achieve”,

the goal of erasing the evil of trafficking. I thank all those who have briefed us; their commitment shines through. Like others I welcome the Bill both for what it is and as an opportunity to do more to achieve that goal.

I am happy to be able to congratulate the maiden speakers at this point. All three made clear their enthusiasm to contribute to the work of the House, although I have to say, in the rapidly decreasing temperature of the Chamber, that I could have done without the mention of crumpets. I know that all three will contribute very effectively.

It is obviously not possible to cover every issue at this point, but I start as others have done—and as we should always start—with the victim, or as the noble Baroness, Lady Goudie, said, with the survivor.

The Bill’s provisions are welcome. It is shocking that someone cultivating cannabis can be prosecuted while his traffickers are not. We will examine whether “compulsion” and “characteristics”—terms used in the Bill—are wide enough, as well as whether the crimes excluded from the new defence need a more subtle approach. A victim may need considerable time, patience, professional expertise and therapy to be able to tell his or her story. The right reverend Prelate rightly reminded us that this is not to be confused or conflated with the 45-day period. There are risks of retraumatisation by requiring the victim to relate and repeat the story. There are so many matters about which so many of us need more understanding.

The reasons why someone may not be able to give a complete or consistent story is an issue for everyone, including those in the criminal justice system. The noble Baroness, Lady Newlove, said, and I agree, that if we use the person only for evidence then we are committing abuse again. The first encounter with the criminal justice system is very significant. Not all police forces make preparations to receive victims when they are rescued with the appropriate care and support. Not all are alert to the need to preserve evidence. I understand that in New York the police immediately photograph the living conditions of people who have been found in servitude before anyone has a chance to make everything look normal; they may bring in health and safety officers, for instance. We must not overlook support for those who are working on these issues in a range of capacities. Everyone’s resilience, even judges’, has its limit. What happens when the breakdown van breaks down?

From this country, through the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and DfID, we are providing training through the preventing sexual violence initiative in countries affected by sexual violence in conflict, where many of the same issues arise. Let us use the expertise here for ourselves. An area of information and training across all relevant sectors and stakeholders is something that I too would like to see embraced by the commissioner.

Like others, I am disappointed that the appointment of the commissioner went ahead based on a job description written before Parliament had agreed what that job should be. Like others I hope that it will be about more than enforcement. The word “holistic” is overused but it should be used here. Nevertheless, I trust that we can consider the role, remit and powers applied to carry it out. The Home Secretary herself has said that the protection of victims is part of the role, although that does not appear in the Bill. A lot will depend on the individual, as it does with many of the commissioners, but it is a pity that the commissioner has not been appointed as a cross-departmental position, which, as others have reminded us, is the case in the Netherlands and Finland. After all, the interdepartmental ministerial group that we have includes the MoJ, the Department for Education, the Department of Health, and the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, so we have accepted the principle. Others have referred to the importance of reporting directly to Parliament. The JCHR remarked that the commissioner,

“looks very much like a creature of the Home Office, with very little interaction with Parliament”.

The Bill is about people, but it must be right technically. I confess to having concerns about the definitions. Are they complete in themselves? Do they leave any lacunae, particularly as trafficking is an international crime and needs an international response? Are they sufficiently extensive? I am particularly concerned about exploitation, which may not be quite forced labour—although so far I am with the noble and learned Baroness on this. I am not persuaded that a separate offence of child exploitation is desirable. I am talking not about necessity but about desirability because of difficulties, for instance, regarding the establishment of age. I am very aware that consent is relevant in the cases of many who are not children, as well. The supply chain provisions are or should be detailed technically. They will amount to little if there are no effective sanctions. The noble Lord, Lord Alton, listed the recommendations of the coalition working on this and I will not take more time on it now, although I would like to.

The JCHR has reminded us that the UK’s scheme for overseas domestic workers between 1998 and 2012, when the visa rules allowed for a change of employer but not of sector, was cited by the ILO and the UN special rapporteur as best practice. The logic of that tells me that what we have now is not best practice. There seems to be widespread agreement—although, sadly, not extending to the Home Office—that allowing a change of employer is the only way of addressing the situation. The point at which an officer at a port of entry hands over a card—in English, I assume—detailing the worker’s rights, or more likely slips this inside her passport, which her employer then takes from her, may be the last time that that woman is visible.

Looking at the civil orders included in the Bill, we must not, of course, forget our own values in other ways too. The JCHR has recommended an explicit reference to the applicable standard of proof, in other words akin to the criminal standard. The Government say that it is sufficient to rely on case law. With regard to criminal behaviour orders, the same was initially said during the passage of the Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act. To my delight—one occasionally has these small triumphs—that was then amended, when the Government had decided, according to the noble Lord, Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon, that there were grounds for making that change “on reflection”. I cannot remember whether he had more or less than 45 days to reflect on it, which is another matter to which we will come back. I am with the noble Baroness, Lady Hanham, in this area. I am also fairly clear that the orders, as they are, are not clear or not clear enough. We risk failure unless both the legislation and the guidance are tightened up.

My noble friend Lady Suttie remarked to me, although not during the debate, an interesting point about assessing the costs and benefits of extending the remit with the necessary resources of the Gangmasters Licensing Authority. It appears perverse not to extend the good experience to sectors where we know there are bad experiences. Last week I heard of another failure to join up the dots. A woman who had been trafficked was held in immigration detention, but never referred to the NRM.

In the debate that we had on supply chains, I quoted Frederick Douglass, the African-American who escaped slavery to become a social reformer. I will end by indulging myself with another quote from him:

“Man’s greatness consists in his ability to do and the proper application of his powers to things needed to be done”.

This Bill has been notable for the cross-party approach at all stages. My noble friend Lady Doocey mentioned the shared sense of purpose of the pre-legislative scrutiny committee. All politicians and those of no party want to do the best. There is remarkable uniformity across the House so it is appropriate to end with Oliver Twist’s request for more.

20:17

[Lord Young of Norwood Green (Lab)]

My Lords, I will be brief as I am speaking in the gap and I am conscious of time. I declare an interest as the former vice-chair of the Ethical Trading Initiative, so I have a deep and abiding interest in this. I, too, congratulate the Government on making time and bringing forward a very important piece of legislation.

I congratulate my noble friend Lady Kennedy on introducing a debate on supply chains a short while ago, which anticipated this debate. I want to focus on that issue. They are a key part of the challenge we face, not just in the UK but, as we know, in global supply chains that truly stretch around the world. My mind was concentrated over the weekend by an article I read on cotton, of which probably everybody in this Chamber is wearing an item, and the appalling conditions in India, where young women are, in effect, in bonded slavery. They cannot escape from their employers and if they try to they are often captured and brought back. They are working in conditions that are nothing less than slavery, with the thought that they are eventually going to earn enough money to release themselves from this bondage, which of course they never do. How difficult is it for companies to find out about the cotton they are using in the garments they manufacture? It is quite difficult and we should not underestimate that challenge. It is not for me to stand up here and be an apologist for companies but I hope to address the topic in a realistic way.

If the Bill is going to have the impact that we all want it to have, we know the importance of companies taking this issue seriously from the very top and ensuring that it is dealt with in their annual report in a serious way. I was interested in what the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Derby said about whether we should be looking at the Companies Act. Certainly we have debated previously the importance of companies being involved and setting the threshold of the size of those companies.

My last point concerns the role of the Gangmasters Licensing Authority, which I am proud to say the Ethical Trading Initiative played a leading role in bringing into being. A number of people have already made the point that it is probably the most important organisation in trying to ensure that we do not have even more slavery in this country than currently exists. I hope that the Minister will look carefully at ensuring that the Gangmasters Licensing Authority is properly resourced, as well as the question of extending its remit.

The challenge for us as we try to get this legislation through will probably be selecting the amendments that are the ones that we really need to focus on, so that we do not swamp the Bill with amendments and defeat the main objective.

20:21

[Lord Rosser (Lab)]

My Lords, I extend my congratulations to my noble friend Lord Cashman and the noble Baronesses, Lady Chisholm of Owlpen and Lady Mobarik, on their very different but equally powerful and thoughtful maiden speeches. I, too, hope they will continue to give us the benefit of their knowledge and expertise in other debates in the future. I will not be able to match the expertise and power of so many of the contributions we have been privileged to hear today but I hope that that will not be taken as indicating a lack of understanding or appreciation on my part of either the importance or the awfulness of the issue we have been considering for the past few hours.

I know that the Government are endeavouring to raise awareness of modern slavery in the United Kingdom and to promote a new modern slavery helpline and website, and have allocated a budget of £2.3 million. What has surprised me, though, is that according to a recent Parliamentary Written Answer, the Government have paid £154,000 for sponsored online and print articles in the Daily Mail and Mail on Sunday and have placed sponsored articles in the Daily Telegraph and Sunday Telegraph at a cost of £125,000. This raises a number of questions but it would be inappropriate to pursue them today.

We have had a constructive, informed and, at times, passionate debate on a Bill that has support from all sides of the House. The concerns and differences of view that have been expressed relate not to the principles or objectives of the Bill but to whether it will achieve what it sets out to do and whether it should and could go further than it does in a number of areas, in addressing and combating the increasing scourge that is modern slavery, whether by human trafficking, slavery, forced labour or domestic servitude, and the horrors involved for its vulnerable victims.

Freedom from slavery is a fundamental human right; yet contrary to the popular view that we abolished slavery some two centuries ago, and contrary to the European Convention on Human Rights, it continues to exist as a global issue, not just in other parts of the world—which, as the noble Baroness, Lady Cox, reminded us, is bad enough—but also here on our very own doorstep. We have had spelt out to us during this debate specific and detailed examples of abuse, exploitation and denial of fundamental human rights. It is difficult to comprehend that these can occur to a sustained and far-from-isolated extent in a highly developed and democratic society such as ours that values individual freedoms and rights and the rule of law.

It is not so much the fact that abhorrent episodes of this kind can occur at all that is difficult to comprehend, since there have always been individuals for whom the prospect of abusing, exploiting and exercising unchecked power over others—particularly when allied to the ability to make considerable sums of money in the process—means that every concept of humanity and decency can be ignored and thrown out of the window. Rather, the aspect that shakes one to the core is the fact that the episodes we have heard about today, which are but examples, have gone on for so long, and involved so many victims, without either being known about or detected; or, if there were warning signs or claims that something was seriously amiss, these were not taken seriously or properly investigated by those in a position—or, indeed, whose job it was—to do just that. It has been a case too often of closing eyes or crossing over and walking by on the other side of the road.

The Bill is not the first legislation on this issue, as my noble friend Lord Tunnicliffe reminded us. Criminalising trafficking was included in the Sexual Offences Act 2003 and the Asylum and Immigration Act 2004. The Coroners and Justice Act 2009 then saw the introduction of offences of forced labour, slavery and servitude, recognising that slavery is not just about international forced travel. That same year also saw the introduction of the national referral mechanism as the means to identify victims of human trafficking in the United Kingdom, act as a gateway to victim support services and be a source of data on the extent of trafficking.

The intention of the Bill, among other things, is to make it easier to prosecute those involved in the crime that is modern-day slavery through consolidating and strengthening the law. Let us hope that when the Bill finally leaves this House and becomes law, its terms will enable that objective to be achieved, because the number of prosecutions to date for trafficking offences has not exactly been overwhelming, running now at way below 50 each year, with the number of successful prosecutions each year being even lower and not always even into double figures. In 2012, however, the UK Human Trafficking Centre—part of the National Crime Agency—identified 2,255 human trafficking victims, many of them children. Even the Home Office internal process, which is the national referral system—about which there is little transparency and from which there is no appeal against decisions taken by competent authorities on whether a person is a victim—identified more than 1,000 victims. The contrast between even the national referral system figure for human trafficking victims, and the number of prosecutions—let alone successful prosecutions—should be a cause for concern before we even start to consider the very large discrepancy between the UK Human Trafficking Centre figure and that from the national referral mechanism.

We need to look at what we do to support victims, and make sure that an actual or perceived lack of support, and an actual or perceived inability by the authorities and organisations concerned to work together to understand and identify abuse and exploitation do not lead victims to feel that they have little alternative but to keep quiet and accept their lot. That is an issue about the people involved and the training they receive, and also about the way the different authorities and organisations involved with victims do or do not operate and work together to focus on them as victims. I appreciate that there is a review, but we need to look at the status, standing and role of the national referral mechanism, particularly in relation to victims, and the case for putting it on a statutory footing to enhance its authority.

A number of references have been made during this debate to the proposed Anti-slavery Commissioner and the role and powers of the position. The role of the commissioner under the Bill is to encourage good practice in the identification of victims and enforcement, which is fine, but not to also have an emphasis on providing support for victims either directly or indirectly, which is not so fine. There is also the question of the independence, or lack of it, of the commissioner.

Some 25% of the victims of human trafficking identified in 2012 were children. Too often, as with adults, they seem to be regarded as immigration cases rather than trafficking victims. Of those who are rescued by the authorities and put into care, two- thirds go missing again from a system that was intended to protect them; no doubt they end up back with the only people they probably know, namely those involved in trafficking and exploiting them in the first place. We welcome the first moves towards the introduction of a system of child advocates, but will want to ensure that such an arrangement will be as strong as it needs to be. Trafficked children are not just abused; they can be led to believe that the trafficker, who may be the only adult with whom they are acquainted and who speaks their language, is their friend or relation, and end up saying and doing what the trafficker wants. We need to ensure that child advocates have the necessary authority and can act independently of local authorities in addition to acting in the best interests of the child. We also need separate offences of child exploitation and child trafficking.

Some of the worst cases of slavery that have occurred during the past two or three decades have had as their victims people who have come to the United Kingdom as a domestic employee of an international employer. We introduced the domestic workers visa, which gave an opportunity to people to get out of slavery and go to work for another employer. The Government effectively abolished those visas. Research undertaken by a charity closely involved in this area indicates that, since those visas were significantly changed, 60% of those on the new domestic workers visa, which does not allow such domestic workers to escape to another employer, were paid no salary compared with 14% on the original visa. The same research also showed that 92% of those on the Government’s new visa were unable to leave the house unaccompanied, which sounds suspiciously like slavery. Those who escape under the new visa system, which ties them to their employer, have the choice of either going back to their employer or being deported. Under the previous visa arrangements, they could have been helped to find other work.

This is not the only area that needs to be addressed in the world of work. The Gangmasters Licensing Authority has made a significant difference in preventing the exploitation of workers but only in the limited areas in which it could exert its influence and use its powers. We should look at building on the work of Gangmasters Licensing Authority by considering how that work might be extended to cover exploitation in hospitality, care and construction, as well as looking at how the law on exploitation in the workplace can be strengthened.

We recently had a short debate in this House on the importance of tackling modern slavery and the supply chains of the goods we buy that are imported from other countries from around the world. It was a debate initiated by my noble friend Lady Kennedy of Cradley. There was no reference to this issue in the Bill when it was first published, and the debate that we had in this House drew attention to that unfortunate fact. The Government subsequently put down an amendment in the last stages of the Bill’s progression through the other place. We will want to discuss that amendment during its passage through this House, since there appear to be doubts—doubts that have been expressed today—as to whether the amendment will necessarily deliver what it says on the tin.

My noble friend Lord Tunnicliffe set out the issues that we will wish to pursue and consider in more detail in Committee, and I have referred to many of them again. The Government produced a draft Bill and we have also had the benefit of pre-legislative scrutiny of the Bill by a Joint Committee which included Members of your Lordships’ House. I add my thanks to those already expressed to the members of that committee.

The Government accepted some of the changes proposed in the light of the pre-legislative scrutiny but not as many as one might have hoped. It is now a case not of opposing a Bill whose aims and objectives have been widely welcomed but, rather, trying to improve it further. It is right that our legislation should be strengthened to recognise the different forms of human trafficking and slavery and make it possible to prosecute those who enslave, abuse and exploit. It is right that penalties should be increased with the Bill, enabling trafficking offences to be given the maximum of a life sentence as well as making provisions in relation to asset seizures and reparation orders. It is right also to establish an Anti-slavery Commissioner to provide a statutory defence for victims, to lay down a duty to notify the National Crime Agency and to have undertaken work on prevention and risk orders.

However, the Bill needs to be carefully considered and improved to ensure that its terms and provisions deliver its stated objective. We need to be clear about the specific factors and considerations that allow modern slavery in its various forms to exist and expand in our country, and about whether the specific provisions in the Bill will effectively confront and eliminate or minimise those factors and considerations, as well as the difficulties over securing successful prosecutions for trafficking. It is clear from the concerns that have been expressed today, not least over support and assistance for victims, that there are real doubts that the Bill, despite its admirable intentions, will actually deliver those important objectives. This, rather than ministerial assertions about world-class legislation, will surely be the test by which the effectiveness or otherwise of the Bill will be judged, including by the victims of modern slavery themselves.

I hope that the Government will accept during further consideration of the Bill, that we should all strive to ensure that the obscenity of slavery—which in its most open and obvious forms was addressed some 200 years ago—is now decisively addressed in the Bill in the more hidden and less obvious but equally obscene forms in which it still exists in our country and in our supply chains today.

20:35

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Home Office (Lord Bates) (Con)]

My Lords, this has been an outstanding debate to be part of and to listen to. There have been 31 excellent contributions and it is absolutely right that, before I move on, I should mention three in particular—the maiden speeches. The noble Lord, Lord Cashman, spoke of this place, having just arrived, as being public life at its best. Many of us who have been here a little longer will understand and respect that. We welcome very much his journey from the East End to the West End and hope that he is as effective and successful here. My noble friend Lady Chisholm spoke of her personal experiences in this area, from her life as a nurse and from her time dealing with those with drug and alcohol issues. Again, I think that that experience will be helpful. My noble friend Lady Mobarik brings great expertise from the world of business, which will be crucial as we get into the area of the supply chain.

I have the easy task of summing up 31 speeches, to which I have—and I counted—42 pages of notes from the Box, in not more than 15 or 20 minutes. I say at the outset that it is an impossible task. I know that many noble Lords on the other side, who have stood where I have, realise that. However, I think that, following the debate, we should perhaps respond with a substantial letter, copied to all Members. That can be a basis, as we go into Committee, for examining the many issues in much greater detail.

I recognise the passion that noble Lords have brought to the debate. Many who took part spoke from personal experience, whether it was the noble Baroness, Lady Cox, speaking with international experience of freeing people from slavery in Sudan, the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Derby, talking about his experiences in his diocese, or the noble Baroness, Lady Doocey, and my noble friend Lord McColl, with their experiences in this area.

Responding to my noble friend Lord McColl gives me the opportunity again, like the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, to pay tribute to the excellent work undertaken by the pre-legislative scrutiny committee. Often we complain about systems and processes for examining legislation in this place. I think that this might be one case where it is not complete yet but is heading in the right direction. As well as the pre-legislative scrutiny and a draft Bill, there was, as the noble Earl, Lord Sandwich, mentioned, the consideration by the Joint Committee on Human Rights, which also looked at the Bill. One of the comments that more or less summed up where we were on this was made by the noble Baroness, Lady Young of Hornsey. She began her remarks by saying that she hoped that I and the noble Baroness, Lady Garden of Frognal, who is with me on the Front Bench, would be gratified by the warm reception that the legislation had received. She then proceeded over the subsequent seven minutes to tell me all the things that needed to be added to it to make it acceptable. We can all see the gaps, but it will be a long process.

I was grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, for pointing out in his winding-up speech that this is not something that we have just alighted on. It has been a long-standing problem tackled by successive Governments. As the noble Baroness, Lady Goudie, pointed out, it will have to be revisited in future. The reason for that is interesting. I had occasion to visit the National Crime Agency’s human trafficking unit to receive a report from it. It is mind-blowing to think that the things that it was telling me about are going on in this country. If it had told me that these things were going on in Sudan or North Korea, which the noble Lord, Lord Alton, mentioned, I might have believed it, but they are going on in this country.

That was why it was so important that the Centre for Social Justice, referred to by my noble friend Lady Newlove, entitled its 2013 report It Happens Here. We need humility. We tend to look around the world to point out the gaps where other people are falling short, so removing the plank from our own eye is a good place to start. One reason driving that, according to the report’s analysis, was that our action against the drug trade and the movement of weapons, guns and contraband was so successful in closing those activities down that organised crime gangs were now switching to another commodity—trafficking human beings and exploiting them. That is horrific and certainly deserves the increased sentences that we propose.

I turn to some particular issues. Given the work that my noble friend Lady Newlove does across government as Victims’ Commissioner, it is important that victims are at the heart of this. She and the newly appointed commissioner should address it and make recommendations.

My noble friend Lord McColl and many other noble Lords referred to child trafficking advocates and the importance of including them in the Bill. A number of references were made to how Northern Ireland had spelt out the responsibilities and that that was a better way forward. Of course we will look at what Northern Ireland has done, but we have taken a slightly different approach. We have simply said that we will undertake trials across 23 local authority areas, working with Barnardo’s, which will have child trafficking advocates who will speak up for the children. We will learn from that and on that basis set out in regulations what those responsibilities should be. That is exactly the same as what has happened in Northern Ireland, except that there it has happened in primary rather than secondary legislation. We feel that it is more suitable to have those responsibilities, which may be subject to change over time, dealt with in regulations rather than in the Bill.

I absolutely accept the chiding of my noble friend Lady Hanham when she said that it was critical that the evaluation of this exercise should happen promptly and that we should not waste any time. Of course that is our intention. As the Bill progresses, we will come forward with some of our early thoughts about the timing of when all that will happen.

There was reference to the national referral mechanism, which was introduced by the previous Government in 2009. It is worth putting a couple of figures on the record. In 2009, there were 535 referrals on to the national referral mechanism. Last year, that had increased to 1,746. My noble friend Lady Hamwee was on to something when she talked about the importance of raising awareness about this issue. Sadly, too few people are aware that this is something that is happening right here.

That is the role of the new commissioner. The new commissioner has very much to engage with these forces, with local authorities, to ensure that those referrals happen and that prosecutions are brought. I very much subscribe to the view of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Derby when he talked about people seeing themselves as “slavery safeguarding leads”—that is a very good way of describing it. However, out of the referrals that have happened so far, 42% came through the Home Office, 25% came through the police, 21% came through NGOs—reference has been made to some of those excellent NGOs—but only 9% came through local authorities, 2% through the National Crime Agency and 1% through the Gangmasters Licensing Authority. There is progress, but attention needs to be drawn to this issue. The role of the commissioner is very much to ensure that those numbers increase and that the number of prosecutions increases. He has to report to Parliament each year and parliamentarians will have an opportunity to give their views on his progress.

There were comments from several Members on the period for reflection—about what the figure was, whether 45 days was too short and whether it should be 90 days, as was suggested. The Council of Europe convention which provides for this said that it should be 30 days. We have said here that it should be a minimum of 45 days. That is not a maximum: in fact it will go on longer than that in many cases. There is no maximum time for this but I reassure noble Lords that that element is there. However, again, we will come back to it and look at the appropriateness of it, and of course we will get feedback on it—a lot, crucially, from the child trafficking advocates. When they have undertaken their work they will be able to offer us some feedback about it.

Several Members—I think it was the noble Baroness, Lady Howe, who focused on this—spoke about the fine balance: whether it was a criminal justice measure or something aimed at victims. The answer has to be that it is both. The crucial element we are after here is to disrupt and prevent the organised gangs which are undertaking this work. Part of that is to do with this Bill; part of it was to do with legislation we passed in the earlier Serious Crime Bill, which has now gone down to the other place with amendments. That Bill looked at tackling and restricting the work of the criminal gangs behind these activities. That is an extremely important part of it.

Several Members also referred to the supply chain. I have already referred to the noble Baroness, Lady Mobarik, but of course the noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy of Cradley, led that excellent debate on 30 October which to we have referred. It is critical that we do this. I was mindful, when she was talking about it, that I myself had had some experience of dealing with suppliers overseas. Often, if you could only get people to apply the same standards to quality of product as they do to the terms and conditions of employment of people then the problem would be solved overnight. There is no question that people here demand the highest standards of quality—they do not flinch from that for one second, because reputations depend on it. We want them to take the same approach when considering the quality and the terms and conditions which they are applying.

I cannot remember exactly who it was but there was reference to the importance these days of brands. It may have been the namesake noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy of The Shaws, so I pay tribute to her work in looking at the human rights element in this and her experience in dealing with victims at first hand. Brand is absolutely mission-critical to any business. The impact of having one of those stories which, sadly, we regularly find in our newspapers—the effect of having loose practice in supply chains—can be tremendously damaging to brands. I would have thought that it would behove any director or senior management team of any company to want to protect their brand above all things. This is a key element and the more aware that the public are of it, the more that will come to the fore.

There was reference to the Gangmasters Licensing Authority, whose work was recognised by many people and which was introduced by the previous Government. It has been a success. After the horrific example referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Alton, of the deaths in Morecambe Bay of 23 Chinese nationals, the establishment of the Gangmasters Licensing Authority brought some order into a disorderly marketplace and applied some structures. One of the problems is that whenever any organisation is successful, we immediately want to broaden its remit. Before we do that, we have to be very careful that in seeking to broaden its remit into the other, vulnerable sectors that have been mentioned, we would not undermine the good work that it is doing already. At the moment, it is doing a very focused job in an excellent way and having a positive effect in the broader fight against exploitation. We want that to continue but it is something that we will keep under review. I am sure that we will come back to it in Committee and listen very carefully to the suggestions that are made.

Several noble Lords referred to the fact that there are far too few prosecutions. My noble friend Lady Hodgson asked me to confirm the paltry number of prosecutions which have been brought forward, compared to the scale of the problem of which we are aware. I think that the noble Lord, Lord Warner, also referred to our needing to do much more to increase the number of convictions. I know this is coming back to a criminal justice focus but there is no doubt that when people see regular, severe sentences being handed out which meet the scale of the crime, that will act as a deterrent effect—as has happened in other areas of organised criminal activity. To do that, it is absolutely critical that we provide more support to victims so that they feel that they can come forward and bring their concerns to the public without fearing that they will end up in the dock, when it is the criminals who have brought them here or exploited them. I think that a lot of the measures that area are broadly welcomed.

In terms of the statutory footing, I am running out of time so I will be into the territory of reaching for that letter faster than I thought. However, the international effort is really important and we are already talking about it with the Department for International Development, which I know was referred to, and the FCO, which is working to see what more can be done in tackling this, as well as the National Crime Agency, which is working overseas as well.

I should probably be drawing my remarks to a close there. Again, I apologise to your Lordships for not being able to address all the points which have been made. I hope that we have provided some reassurance that, in the words of the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, we are no longer walking by on the other side and closing our eyes to this problem. I look forward to debating all these issues and more in Committee and I am sure that they will be debated in the informed, constructive and engaged spirit that has made tonight such an impressive occasion. At the heart of our further deliberations on the Bill should be the victim. I have no doubt that the true mark of the success of the Bill, and our continued fight against modern slavery, will be fewer victims whose lives are blighted by modern slavery.

[Lord Tunnicliffe]

For the avoidance of doubt, is the Minister assuring us that he will write on all the points he has not covered and circulate that to all noble Lords who participated in the debate?

[Lord Bates]

I am very happy to give the noble Lord that assurance. Many hundreds of points have been raised, but the substantive points will certainly be covered and that will form the basis of our discussions in Committee. Fewer victims whose lives are blighted by modern slavery is what we all seek, and I commend the Bill to the House.

Bill read a second time and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

Criminal Justice and Data Protection (Protocol No. 36) Regulations 2014

Monday 17th November 2014 Lords Chamber

Motion to Approve

20:56

Moved by

[Lord Bates]

That the draft regulations laid before the House on 3 November be approved, and to move to resolve that this House thereby endorses the Government’s formal application to rejoin 35 European Union Justice and Home Affairs measures.

Relevant documents: 13th Report (Session 2012-13) and 5th Report (Session 2013-14) from the European Union Committee, 12th Report from the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments (special attention drawn to the instrument), 13th Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee, 1st Report from the Extradition Law Committee

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Home Office (Lord Bates)]

My Lords, we return to a detailed European matter that, over the last 18 months, has become very familiar to many in this House. Indeed, this is the third time the House has debated this matter on a government Motion this year alone. I remind noble Lords of the background to this matter. Protocol 36 is the part of the Lisbon treaty which relates to the United Kingdom’s opt-out from those policing and criminal justice measures which were adopted before the Lisbon treaty came into force. The opt-out provisions are unique to the United Kingdom and were negotiated by the previous Administration.

Under the terms of Protocol 36, the United Kingdom had to decide before the end of May 2014 whether we wished to opt out of all those police and criminal justice measures, around 135 in all, which predate the Lisbon treaty. This opt-out had to be exercised en masse: we could not simply leave the measures that we did not like. In July last year this House endorsed the Government’s decision to exercise this opt-out and we have until 1 December to notify the Council which measures we would like to remain party to. However, this process must be completed well in advance of December. As a result of the final member state, Spain, not lifting its reserve on the deal we negotiated until 10 days ago, we are running short of time.

The Government have always been clear that, in exercising the UK’s opt-out, we wanted to remain part of a smaller number of measures which give our police and law enforcement agencies vital and practical help in the fight against crime. In July last year, this House endorsed 35 measures, set out in Command Paper 8671, which help our law enforcement agencies to tackle serious crime and keep this country safe. That package was the product of careful deliberation in this House and beyond. It follows consultation with the police, the Crown Prosecution Service, our security and intelligence agencies, the devolved Administrations, the Lord Advocate in Scotland, the Government of Gibraltar, victims’ groups and many more. It has been scrutinised by parliamentary committees in both Houses.

I pay tribute to the work carried out by the EU Committee of this House in scrutinising these matters and thank the Committee for its well considered and very detailed reports. I express my thanks to the noble Lords, Lord Hannay and Lord Boswell, and to the noble Baronesses, Lady Corston and Lady Prashar, for their leadership on this matter and for the guidance that they have provided to the House.

In July this year my noble friend Lord Taylor of Holbeach addressed this House with an update on the Government’s negotiations. He informed the House that good progress had been made in negotiations with the European Commission and other member states, and that we were close to reaching an in-principle agreement. My noble friend also informed the House that this matter had been discussed at the General Affairs Council in June but that some member states—Austria, Poland and Spain—had expressed technical reservations.

The Government published another Command Paper, 8897, which included the full list of measures included in the in-principle agreement discussed at the General Affairs Council, and impact assessments on each of those measures. The Government had hoped to be able to provide a further opportunity for Parliament to consider this matter before the Summer Recess, but the reservations expressed by other member states meant that it was not possible to do so. In September two of those member states lifted their reserves, and I am pleased to be able to inform the House that Spain, the remaining member state blocking the deal, formally lifted its reservation in Brussels 10 days ago.

The deal that the Government have negotiated in Europe is a very good one for the UK. The package of 35 measures that we would like to remain part of includes Europol, which does excellent work under its British director, Rob Wainwright, to tackle cross-border crimes. It includes Eurojust, which facilitates co-operation between our police and prosecutors and their European counterparts, and has proved instrumental in the prosecution of animal rights extremists here in the UK.

The package includes the second generation Schengen Information System or SIS II, which will further strengthen our ability to detect foreign criminals at the border, including individuals wanted in their own countries for serious crimes such as rape and murder. It also includes the Council decision on child pornography, which ensures that international co-operation to tackle this abhorrent crime is prioritised and that collective pressure is put on internet companies to tackle the disgusting crime of online child sex abuse wherever it takes place.

I shall say a little about the timing and format of the decision before the House today, as I know that it is a matter of interest to many. Now that the final reservation has been lifted on our deal, we must allow for discussion at the Council in Brussels before the month is out. That means that we do not have long to complete our domestic processes. This means we must be ready to ensure that we can transpose those measures that are not yet fully transposed in our domestic law on 1 December. It is therefore very important that this House completes the necessary legislative steps as soon as possible. The other place has already voted by a substantial majority to do so.

The Government propose to transpose the measures in the regulations using Section 2(2) of the European Communities Act 1972, but we do not have the vires to do so until 1 December. That is why we have chosen to bring forward an affirmative instrument to enable the House to see the regulations and debate the whole package of 35 measures that we will seek to rejoin. Many of those measures are inextricably bound together, and all of them are the result of a successful negotiation. That is why we are asking the House to consider them as a package and take a single decision on a single Motion.

The amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Boswell, questions the Government’s approach to this matter. I reassure him and other noble Lords that there is nothing nefarious about this approach. Noble Lords will of course be aware that almost all these measures, including the European arrest warrant, have already been endorsed by this House in the vote of July 2013. Unlike in the other place, it is open to us in this House to amend the normal Motion for approving affirmative instruments to make reference to the package of 35 measures that the Government will seek to rejoin. That is why the Government have amended the Motion to put beyond doubt that we see tonight’s debate and decision, just as we saw the debate and decision in the other place last week, as on the whole package of 35 measures that the Government will seek to rejoin in the national interest.

The decision before the House today is no different from the decision that was before the other place last week. The Home Secretary made clear throughout that debate that a vote to approve the Motion would be a vote in favour of the wider package of 35 measures. The House of Commons approved that Motion, and it remains the Government’s intention to rejoin the whole package of police and criminal justice measures, as it is in the national interest so to do. It is now time for this House to make the same decision.

I acknowledge the amendment to the Motion tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Boswell. I have explained why the Government have proceeded in the way that we have, and I believe that the Government have gone out of our way to provide opportunities for this House to consider this matter over the past year. I urge noble Lords to ensure that, when they consider the amendment, they focus on the proceedings in this House today. As I have explained, only a certain number of the 35 measures require transposing through the regulations before the House today.

Before I go further, I say how grateful I am for the work done in short order by the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee of this House, led admirably and skilfully by the noble Lord, Lord Goodlad. It would be remiss of me not to mention the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments and the helpful work that it has undertaken to assist the Government with their preparation of the SI that we are debating.

The regulations include the measures which provide for the freezing and confiscation of criminal assets and which will simplify the current processes significantly. The regulations also make provision to give effect to the European supervision order in England and Wales and in Northern Ireland. This allows British subjects to be bailed back to the UK, rather than spend months abroad awaiting trial.

Another measure covered by the regulations is the European Criminal Record Information System, or ECRIS. It also includes the Swedish initiative which simplifies the exchange of information and intelligence between law enforcement agencies, and the data protection measure protecting personal data transferred in the fight against crime. These all require transposing, and are covered in the regulations.

Another measure covered by the regulations provides for joint investigation teams between our police and their European counterparts. These allow our police to participate in cross-border operations such as Operation Birkhill, which saw five criminals sentenced to a total of 36 years’ imprisonment this summer for their involvement in the degrading trafficking of over 120 women from Hungary, the Czech Republic and Poland into the UK, or Operation Rico, which resulted in 110 arrests, mostly in the UK and Spain. We are also seeking to remain part of the prisoner transfer framework decision, which helps us to remove foreign criminals from British jails.

The remaining measures from our package which require transposing are the mutual recognition of financial penalties, which increases the effectiveness of financial sanctions by providing that they can be enforced across the EU, and a measure ensuring consistency with regard to trials in absentia, providing safeguards for dependants.

I am aware that the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee considered these regulations last week and felt that more information was required on the policy objectives of these instruments. I hope that today’s debate has helped to clarify some of these matters. This is a hugely complex matter and the Government are limited by the guidance on the length of these documents. There are many lengthy documents, including two Command Papers referred to in the Explanatory Memoranda, that sit alongside the substantial evidence provided to the committees of this House and the other place that set this out in full. The Government will respond to the committee and will support any further scrutiny that they undertake.

I turn to the European arrest warrant. Noble Lords will be aware that the Government have legislated to reform the operation of the arrest warrant and increase the protections offered to British people and others who are wanted for extradition. The changes that we have made through the Anti-Social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act mean that the arrest warrant which sits in our package of 35 measures is a better and safer arrest warrant than the one which operated over the last decade.

First, the Government have changed the law to ensure arrest warrants are refused for those suspected of minor offences. A British judge now considers whether the alleged offence and likely penalty are sufficient to make someone’s extradition proportionate. And a British judge considers whether there are measures less coercive than extradition that are available to foreign authorities.

Secondly, the Government have clarified the rules on dual criminality to ensure that an arrest warrant must be refused if all or part of the conduct for which a person is wanted took place in the UK and is not a criminal offence in this country. The National Crime Agency is now refusing arrest warrants where it is obvious that the dual criminality test has not been met. It has done so nearly 40 times since our reforms came into force in July.

Thirdly, the Government have changed the law to require that a decision to charge and a decision to try the person have been made by the requesting country before they can be extradited. That will help to prevent lengthy periods of pre-trial detention, which I know have been of concern to many noble Lords, as they have been to the Government. All these provisions have been made in UK law and came into effect earlier this year. All our reforms are based on existing law and practice in other member states and are already making an important difference to the operation of the arrest warrant.

The package of measures in which the arrest warrant sits is a set of vital tools for our police and law enforcement agencies. That package represents a good deal for the United Kingdom which will keep this country and its inhabitants safe, and bring criminals to justice. We must now vote to seal that deal and transpose those measures which require transposing. I beg to move.

Amendment to the Motion

Moved by

[Lord Boswell of Aynho]

At end to insert “, but that this House, having regard to earlier undertakings by Ministers, regrets the inappropriate manner in which the Government have sought parliamentary approval for their application.”

[Lord Boswell of Aynho (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, my amendment to the Motion expresses regret at the inappropriate manner in which the Government have sought parliamentary approval for their application to rejoin the 35 justice and home affairs measures.

Nevertheless, in moving this critical amendment I thank the Minister for his efforts in his introduction to this debate. This is an important issue which deserves calm and considered debate. I trust that the wording of the Motion before us, which the Government amended late last Tuesday—just before we went for a short break—so as to include explicit reference to the 35 measures, along with the Minister’s thoughtful opening, mean that we will not see any repeat of the chaotic and acrimonious scenes that were played out in the House of Commons this time last week.

The amendment, which I have tabled with the support of the European Union Committee, which I chair, refers to undertakings by Ministers. I should begin by putting those before the House. They could hardly have been clearer. On 15 October 2012, the Home Secretary said to the House of Commons:

“I hope that today I have conveyed to the House not only the Government’s full commitment to holding a vote on the 2014 decision in this House and the other place, but the importance that we will accord to Parliament in the process leading up to that vote”.—[Official Report, Commons, 15/10/12; col. 35.]

That was more than two years ago. As recently as 8 May of this year, the noble Lord, Lord Faulks, who is of course in his place, repeated the Home Secretary’s undertaking on the Floor of this House, saying:

“The Government have been clear throughout this process that Parliament will be given a vote on the final list of measures that the Government apply to rejoin, and I am happy to repeat that commitment today”.—[Official Report, 8/5/14; col. 1587.]

It is thus crystal clear that the Government explicitly promised both Houses a vote on the “final list of measures” that the United Kingdom would be rejoining. This is not a recent matter; it has been understood on all sides for more than two years.

I emphasise the words “final list”, not because of pedantry but because the list has changed substantially over time. It is all very well for the Minister to say that we had a debate in July, but at the time of that debate the Government’s list and the Commission’s list were different. Even on 5 August, when the Home Office and the Ministry of Justice wrote to the Committee, they were unable to confirm that their list was final, although they did not at that time “anticipate” any further changes. It was not until 30 October—less than three weeks ago—that Ministers finally wrote to confirm that negotiations with the Commission had finished and that there would be no further changes to the list.

I will make one further observation on the Government’s account of our debate in July, which was given in a letter I received from the Leader of the House earlier today. The Government claim that the debate on the package of measures, which took place in this House on 17 July, was on—and I quote from the Leader’s letter—an “amendable and divisible motion”. I remind Members of the House of the wording of that Motion. It was:

“That this House has considered the United Kingdom’s Justice and Home Affairs Opt-Outs”.

Are the Government really saying that the House, if it wanted to vote, should have voted on the question of whether or not it had considered the opt-out—on an entirely neutral statement of fact debated as last business on a Thursday? Frankly, the Government should really stop digging on this.

21:14

Moving on, on 3 November the Government laid draft regulations before Parliament, the effect of which, as the Minister said, will be to transpose 10 of the 35 relevant measures contained in the final list into UK law. I note in passing that these 10 measures are not new. For example, the European supervision order was adopted in 2009, with a deadline for implementation in December 2012. The EU Committee accordingly recommended its immediate transposition into UK law in January 2013. Noble Lords may well wonder why it has taken so long for this Government finally to get their act together and comply with obligations which they had themselves entered into.

More generally, I think that the House should be aware that the draft regulations were laid only because the European Commission, quite reasonably, required that the 10 measures be transposed into United Kingdom law before it would ratify the United Kingdom’s application to rejoin them. These regulations make no mention of key measures—essential, as the Minister said, to United Kingdom national interests—which we are seeking to rejoin, among them the European arrest warrant and the Europol and Eurojust decisions, which are outwith the specific regulations.

Nevertheless, the Government in the House of Commons, instead of tabling a Motion inviting that House to approve the Government’s decision to rejoin the final list of 35 measures, as they had undertaken to do and which they could have done with no difficulty, tabled a Motion merely to approve the draft regulations. Ministers sought to present this as a vote on the complete package, but it was immediately obvious to anyone with the slightest understanding of the issues that it would not wash, and last Monday the whole thing predictably and spectacularly blew up in the Government’s face.

The same approach was initially tried with the earlier Motion—the one initially tabled in this House. The Motion tabled by the Government on Monday night was also a simple approval Motion, but in the course of Tuesday either the extent of the disaster sank in or wiser counsels prevailed, because by Tuesday evening the Government had in effect hauled up the white flag by tacking a measure for resolution Motion endorsing the Government’s application on to the basic approval Motion for the regulations.

Of course, I welcome that change because it goes at least a small way to fulfilling the Government’s repeated undertakings. However, while from a procedural point of view the Government are entitled to use pretty much whatever word they like in a Motion for resolution, from a logical perspective the Motion is utterly incoherent. It states that a big decision endorsing the application to opt in to all 35 measures, including the vital European arrest warrant, Europol and Eurojust, is somehow implicit in a rather small decision to approve regulations transposing just 10 technical measures out of the 35 into domestic law. This really is nonsense. The Motion seems to be more about the Home Secretary saving face than about submitting government actions to proper parliamentary scrutiny and oversight. I am afraid that this is disappointingly typical behaviour in some of these technical matters from the Government, and from the Home Office in particular.

Of course, the European Union is not perfect—very far from it—but I am clear that United Kingdom membership of, and constructive engagement with, the EU is overwhelmingly in our national interest and in the interests of our friends in the other 27 member states. The United Kingdom is stronger in the European Union and the European Union is stronger with the United Kingdom in it. I think that this engages very much with the issues that the House is discussing tonight.

It follows that all of us—Ministers and parliamentarians alike—have a collective responsibility to engage critically but constructively with the European Union and its institutions. This, indeed, is the work which this House has remitted to our European Union Committee and its six sub-committees. I am hugely proud of the work we do, and every one of our 74 Members in promoting that kind of constructive engagement. That is why we have been scrutinising the United Kingdom’s block opt-out and the decision to opt back into these 35 measures so closely and for so long. In fairness to the Minister, he has acknowledged that.

The problem now is a handling issue. The Government—particularly the Home Office—seem to be crippled by fear. Instead of encouraging a frank debate and a clear vote on their decision, they have resorted to undignified and ultimately self-defeating procedural dodges. For the avoidance of doubt, I emphasise that I fully support the Government’s application to rejoin the 35 measures. Indeed, my committee urged the Government to opt back into some more of the 130 measures that were originally subject to the United Kingdom’s block opt-out. If it were to come to a vote I would support the Government’s Motion, whether or not it had been amended.

I am also confident that the House, if given a proper opportunity for an informed debate on the European arrest warrant and the decisions on Europol and Eurojust and all 35 measures, would listen to the arguments and in the end, not unanimously but overwhelmingly, support the Government’s application. It is a shame that that debate, instead of being held openly and with proper warning—after all we have known it has been coming for five years—has been tacked on an inappropriate Motion, the wording of which was changed at the last minute and which will be decided conspicuously late on a Monday evening.

I repeat that I am genuinely grateful to the Minister for his attempt to deal with these issues and present them to the House, and for his genuine willingness in other contexts to engage with the European Committee and the House. However, I would say, with great respect, that the department to which he belongs needs to wake up to its responsibilities, to take parliamentary scrutiny and accountability seriously and, if I may say so, to start making the case for the United Kingdom’s continuing engagement with the European Union. I have said my piece and look forward to the debate. I beg to move.

[Lord Lamont of Lerwick (Con)]

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Bates, for introducing this Motion, albeit that he did so at a somewhat galloping pace, which is perhaps not surprising after the marathon that he has already performed today. I agree with the criticisms of the procedures made by the noble Lord, Lord Boswell, although, unlike him, I have some wider reservations about the whole 35 measures that the Government propose to opt into.

The noble Lord, Lord Boswell, talked about the procedure in this House and in the Commons. Of course, a very important point in the other place was that a specific vote was promised on the issue of the arrest warrant. That is an extremely important point. In November 2013 the House of Commons European Security Committee concluded that the vote on opting back in,

“should ensure there is a genuine opportunity for the House to determine the measures the Government intends to rejoin. To consider the 35 measures as a ‘block opt-in’, subject to one motion, would be seriously to misconceive the individual significance of some of the measures … We ask the Government to reflect this by … tabling separate motions for each of the measures in which it wishes to opt back in”.

That was in paragraphs 571 to 574 of the report.

It was a great pity that there was not a specific debate on the arrest warrant as it was impossible for Members of the House of Commons to talk about individual cases as they affected individuals. When one Member of Parliament, Mr Wiggin, attempted to do that, to give an illustration of what this meant for one of his constituents, he was told by the Speaker that he could not go on describing that and that it was out of order.

My second important point is that the European Scrutiny Committee in the House of Commons concluded that the opt-out, combined with the Government’s proposals for opting back into certain laws, represented no significant repatriation of powers from the EU. Indeed, the Home Affairs Committee thought that it could result in a net flow of powers to the EU, given the introduction of full European Court of Justice jurisdiction. This is because of the relative impact of the laws the Government wish to back into, measured against the lesser importance of many of the other measures under the opt-out.

Another important question is whether we have legally binding agreements, treaties or co-operation. In their command paper of July 2013, the Government said that, in some cases, there was no need for legally binding agreements for practical co-operation to take place with other EU countries to tackle cross-border crime. In the case of some of the 35 EU laws which the Government propose to opt back into, the need for binding law is highly questionable. For example, do we really need to have supranational measures to deal with the exchange of information between member states to police international football matches? The Government also said that, where a binding agreement is needed, an alternative to opting back into EU legislation—which is irreversible and entails full ECJ jurisdiction—is a bilateral treaty between the UK and the EU as a whole. This could apply to extradition.

A fundamental problem with opting back into these EU laws with full ECJ jurisdiction was expressed by the Government in 2012 in response to the European Committee of this House. They stated:

“The practical effect of the ECJ gaining full jurisdiction in this area after the transitional period from 1 December 2014 is that the ECJ may interpret these measures expansively and beyond the scope originally intended. This concern is compounded by the fact that the ECJ has previously ruled in the area of Justice and Home Affairs in unexpected and unhelpful ways from a UK perspective”.

Those are not my words but the words of the Government, and we should take them extremely seriously.

Instead of opting back into the legislation, an alternative would be a new bilateral treaty on the matters in question. This would have the following advantages. The UK would negotiate as a sovereign state regarding the relevant matters. A UK-EU bilateral treaty would enable the UK to avoid coming under the jurisdiction of the ECJ; we could apply different rules and safeguards for British citizens. It would also allow us to withdraw from it if it began operating against the national interest; it would not be frozen in aspic for ever.

[Lord Hannay of Chiswick (CB)]

I am grateful to the noble Lord for giving way. He has quoted extensively from the committees in another place and from evidence given by Ministers but he has not seen fit to refer once to the two reports made to this House. Could he come on to those, because they answer every single point he has made?

[Lord Lamont of Lerwick]

The noble Lord can, I am sure, speak and answer my points. I have not yet finished my speech: I have quite a few more points to make. I know that the committee in this place went in a completely different direction from those in the House of Commons. I confess that I found those in the House of Commons more persuasive than the committee in this House. However, it is, as always, open to the noble Lord to speak and I am sure he will do so as persuasively and charmingly tonight as he always does.

Pursuing the point about a bilateral treaty between ourselves and the EU, there is a precedent for this. Denmark has its own opt-out on justice and home affairs and concluded three treaties with the EC prior to the Lisbon treaty. The point is often made that the three EU-Denmark treaties under the provision are subject to the ECJ. That is true, but it does not follow that a UK-EU agreement would have to be: it depends entirely on what we say. It depends what the Government negotiate. A UK-EU treaty could provide an alternative dispute mechanism as the EU has some treaties with various other countries. Of course, I accept that a treaty would take time, but the EU treaty—specifically Article 10(4) of the Protocol on Transitional Provisions—allows the Council on a proposal from the Commission to agree to transitional arrangements in the light of the opt-out. The UK could ask for the relevant pieces of the EU legislation, such as the arrest warrant, to continue to apply for a period of time that allowed for the conclusion of a replacement bilateral treaty. That would not entail opting back in—which is, as I say, irreversible.

21:30

The Government have argued that the protocol provides for continued application of the EU legislation only for a very short period of time—weeks or days—and then only on the basis that the UK would be opting back in. But that is not what the Government have always said. On 3 November 2014, the Government said as part of their evidence to the European Scrutiny Committee in the Commons that the EU had “wide power” under Article 10(4) to adopt consequential and transitional arrangements. Even if the Government’s contradictory claims of the narrowness of Article 10(4) is correct—and the text of the protocol, I am informed, does not provide much evidence for that—fast-track EU legislation under the main justice and home affairs section could be used, entering into force immediately after the block opt-out took place on 1 December. That could apply to the relevant EU laws for a period of time.

I will try to be brief, but I now turn to the arrest warrant. I acknowledge what the Minister said about two changes that have been made that he said make it “safer”. The first was proportionality and the second was the test of whether a decision to charge and try had been taken. I welcome the change on proportionality, but I note the considerable worries about this expressed by the Law Society. The society, in evidence to the House of Commons Home Affairs Committee—I apologise for referring to that committee, but that was where the evidence was given—said that,

“we do have some concerns regarding legal certainty and whether this proposal would be in accordance with the underlying Framework Decision”.

In its response to the Government’s review of extradition arrangements arranged in 2007, the Law Society of England and Wales said that,

“there are clearly shortcomings in the EAW scheme, such as the lack of a proportionality test, which cannot be addressed by UK implementing legislation alone but only by amendments to the EAW scheme itself”—

that is to say at the European level. It is not enough to do it at UK level because it is subject to the ECJ.

I come now to the more important issue, which is the question of whether a decision to charge and try has been taken. I acknowledge the great expertise and knowledge of my noble friend Lord Faulks—I am not sure whether he or my noble friend Lord Bates will reply to the debate—but there is a distinction between charging and trying. I notice from an Answer to a Parliamentary Question asked by, I believe, the honourable Member Mr Jacob Rees-Mogg that no arrest warrants had been blocked under this test to charge and to try since it came into force in July, even though 302 extraditions from the UK have taken place under the EAW in that period.

While a country may take a decision to try, that does not necessarily mean that it is ready to conduct the trial immediately. In addition, the UK legislation makes a distinction between a decision to charge and a decision to try, requiring both to be satisfied. However, Article 1 of the EU legislation establishing the EAW says that an EAW is issued,

“for the purposes of conducting a criminal prosecution or executing a custodial sentence”.

I ask the Minister whether requiring a decision to try in addition to a decision to charge will be deemed by the ECJ to be compatible with EU legislation. That is the point. This will now be justiciable by the ECJ.

Furthermore, it is highly unlikely that these changes to the Extradition Act would have stopped the extradition of Andrew Symeou. I will not go into the details of this case. It has been highly publicised. People tried to refer to it briefly in the debate in the House of Commons. There is also the case of Mr Garry Mann. Both men gave evidence to the Home Affairs Committee in the House of Commons. In Mr Symeou’s case the Greek authorities had made the decision to take him to trial at the point of his extradition, even though there was subsequently a very long delay before he was actually brought to trial.

Since the Extradition Act was passed, British courts have also been able to consider whether carrying out an EAW would violate the subject’s human rights under the Human Rights Act. These include the right to a fair trial and the right to liberty, which includes the right of the arrested person to be brought promptly before a judge. However, British courts have applied this safeguard restrictively and it is not stopping the many injustices that have occurred to date under the EAW. The test has not been altered with this year’s reforms to the Extradition Act. If British courts began applying the test more generously, they could surely be overwritten again by the European Court of Justice, which may give more weight to speedy extradition as a component of European integration and a vigorous enforcement of individual rights.

The basic flaw in the European arrest warrant, which has been stated many times, is the concept of giving parity of esteem within the European Union to different legal systems. Frankly, without being rude about other countries, I believe that there is no way that the legal systems of post-communist Balkan countries could be equated with those of our own or of western Europe. That is precisely why the Government have programmes to give assistance on justice and home affairs and why they spend money and send Ministers to advise these countries on how to improve their systems.

There have been a number of cases of British subjects who have suffered appallingly. I will not go into them in detail. Mr Symeou was one such case. In the Mail on Sunday this weekend there was a case that I had not heard of before, concerning a Mr Hainsworth and a terrifying experience in Greece. There were also the cases of Garry Mann and Mr Dines.

It is often forgotten that standing trial abroad, when charged abroad, is very different from standing trial in one’s own country. First, language facilities may not be available. That ought to be a basic right, but often that is not the case. People do not understand what is going on. Secondly, often there is no bail abroad. Logically, if you have a Euro-arrest warrant system, you ought to have a Euro-bail system. Yet people who are extradited to Greece or to Balkan countries are then refused bail on the grounds that they have come from a foreign country and there is a risk of flight. There are of course the extra costs as well. Lastly, as I have observed, remand conditions in many of these countries are simply appalling. We have an NGO, which used to be called Fair Trials Abroad and is now called Fair Trials International, because of the difficulty that individuals get into when they are extradited and face charges abroad. That presumably is why so many countries have been historically reluctant to extradite their own nationals.

The point has been made, and I know it will be made again and again in this debate, that the EAW is not just about extraditing UK citizens abroad; it is also about the people whom we want to extradite—vastly more numbers, we are told: the terrorists, the paedophiles—and get them back here. Of course that is true, but we cannot regard this as just some sort of balance of trade, with so many one way, so many the other—as long as we get people back from abroad, if a few of our own citizens are wrongly imprisoned, so what?

It used to be said that it was better for five guilty men to go free than for one innocent man to be wrongly imprisoned. That principle—that value—seems to have been completely and totally forgotten. Of course we want people to be extradited back here, but I am absolutely convinced that if we were to attempt to have a treaty with other countries and negotiate with other countries as a bloc, it would be in their interests, just as it is in our interests, to negotiate an extradition arrangement. Italy, France and Germany are not going to refuse to extradite terrorists back to us simply because we have a different institutional arrangement.

Frankly, I am amazed that there is not more concern about this issue. Yes, it is our duty to protect British citizens against terrorism. That is true, but it is also our duty to ensure that British citizens have fair justice. I am afraid to say that I am not so far convinced that the proposals that the Government have brought forward actually achieve that. I shall listen to my noble friend’s arguments but I remain profoundly sceptical about and worried by these proposals.

[Lord Davies of Stamford (Lab)]

My Lords, I listened with great attention, as I always do, to the criticisms made by the noble Lord, Lord Lamont, of the 35 measures and the European arrest warrant. I thought that his points made no sense at all. His principal objection to the European arrest warrant seemed to be that it involved the jurisdiction of the ECJ, but then a few sentences later, having complained about the ECJ, he started complaining about the British courts and said that they were too restrictive in applying rights. Well, if you did not have the ECJ you would presumably be entirely and exclusively at the mercy of British justice. He does not like British justice, he does not like the ECJ—what exactly does he like?

The noble Lord then complained about the fact that we did not have exactly the same procedures for handling criminal cases in all the member states of the European Union. Surely if he wants some standardisation of procedures, which is a perfectly reasonable thing to demand, what he wants is indeed a treaty and what he wants to do is to support the Commission with its road map on procedural rights, which I hope he is aware of, which takes us in exactly that direction. But presumably he would not support that proposal because it is European. It is quite clear that his objection, as is always the objection of Eurosceptics to practical, sensible measures in this field, is entirely theological. One cannot do anything about that kind of impenetrable theology but one can at least try to make sure that as a House, as a whole, we look at the national interest in a cool, calm and logical fashion. That attitude has been notably missing from this whole debate over the past two or three years.

I have very little sympathy for the Government over this. The Government last week tried to make a fool of the House of Commons, which is a very undesirable thing for a Government to try to do. They ended up making fools of themselves and no doubt they are very conscious of that at the moment. The way that they have treated this House, as the noble Lord, Lord Boswell, so lucidly set out, is pretty close to duplicitous at times. It is very worrying indeed that we should be treated in that fashion.

The whole thing is completely unnecessary and pointless. It was quite obvious from the beginning that the Government were going to get parliamentary approval for these measures. It was equally quite obvious from the beginning that there was no need whatever, on substance, to opt out of anything at all. There is no objection in terms of national interest—nor has anybody ever suggested it from the government Benches—to any of the measures that we are not opting back in to. They were all secondary, technical measures or else they were redundant or obsolete. They could have been left quite happily and quite safely to wither on the vine. If we had wanted to make some changes in them, we could have negotiated changes.

Where we have in fact gone forward with these 35 measures, we have succeeded very well, I think. I congratulate the Government on getting some practical improvements—for example, in the area of proportionality in the case of the European arrest warrant—and I gather that we have persuaded the Poles, who were issuing warrants far too lightly and easily, to desist from that. That is the way forward, of course, in the European Union generally: quiet, sensible and constructive diplomacy. That works and confrontation does not.

I have to say to the noble Lord, Lord Lamont, and others who think it will be possible to negotiate a treaty between the European Union and the United Kingdom to replace the 35 measures, who is to say that the European Union would agree to anything of the kind? There are very considerable constitutional difficulties about the European Union. It is not provided for in the treaties at all—having a treaty with a member state of itself. It is a very peculiar philosophical and constitutional concept indeed. I do not think it is a precedent that the Union would wish to extend. It certainly has no reason to do so at the present time. Its obvious answer would be, “If the United Kingdom has come out with all these bizarre new proposals and suggestions and special requests, we will have to look at them all together. Since we are going to have a renegotiation by 2017, maybe we will look at it then in that context”. Some of our partners would not want to be helpful at all. As the House knows, Spain, until 10 days ago, was actually objecting to our opting back in. No doubt it would have come to us and said, “We would like a concession on Gibraltar or something in return for our support”. We would have ended up in a complete mare’s nest going down that path. Thank goodness that we did not. It would have been extremely dangerous.

21:45

I have to say, in case it has not already come to the attention of every Member of the House, that there is not a single police force or anybody connected to the criminal justice community in this country who does not think that these 35 measures are absolutely necessary, including, of course, the European arrest warrant. There is nobody who has been dealing with them to whom I have spoken who does not think that the experience of these measures has actually been a very happy one for this country. We have enormously increased the effectiveness of law enforcement. I have the figures here. We have now managed to get extraditions from EU partner states in an average of 45 days. It used to be, under the old 1957 convention, an average of 18 months. I say to the noble Lord, Lord Lamont, that we often did not get terrorists repatriated. I remember very clearly that, when I was shadow Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, the Government of the Irish Republic were most reluctant to allow us to repatriate some very nasty terrorists. It was a major political issue in Ireland and Ministers in Ireland were under considerable political pressure not to extradite. A number of very nasty terrorists managed to get away with murders and less onerous offences as a result of that. That is the system that worked badly. The present one is working well. In 2013, the last year for which there are figures, the EU surrendered 127 suspects to the United Kingdom and the UK surrendered 1,126 arrested persons to other EU countries, 96% of whom were not British citizens but were citizens of other countries, mostly other EU countries. We were well rid of those suspected malefactors and we would not have been able to get rid of them before in the same way.

The arrest warrant is working extremely well. You do not, if you are sensible in life, throw over and destroy a mechanism—particularly if it is a complicated mechanism that depends on the co-operation of 28 other nation states—unless there are very sound reasons for doing so in substance. Not a single sound reason for doing so in substance has come to my attention either in this debate or in the debates in the House of Commons which I tried to follow last week. This House should support the Government on the substance of these issues. I pay tribute to the way that they handled their dealings with the European Union on this matter in substance, while berating them over, and regretting very profoundly, the way that they think they can treat Parliament. They must not be allowed to get away with that; they must remember that. They must never try on again the tactics that they used either in the House of Commons last week or those that they have used—as the noble Lord, Lord Boswell, set out—in dealing with this matter in the House of Lords. It is quite a disgraceful episode and it should be carved on the record of this Government that they actually descended—quite unnecessarily, quite absurdly—to such very disgraceful behaviour.

[Baroness Ludford (LD)]

My Lords, on behalf of these Benches, I strongly welcome the prospect of finalising renewed participation in the 35 measures, even if the procedures—as outlined by the noble Lord, Lord Boswell—have been far from ideal. It is, as other noble Lords have said, axiomatic that cross-border co-operation against major crime and terrorism is essential for the security of the UK and the safety of its people. Just this evening, the London Evening Standard headline is: “Met war on 200 cyber crime gangs”. You do not really need to read the rest to know that their operations are extending across the United States, Russia and the rest of Europe.

I am proud of the Liberal Democrats’ role in this coalition. As my noble friend Lord Stoneham said in the debate on 17 July:

“I hate to think what would have happened if the disciplines and the support of the coalition had not been in place”.—[Official Report, 17/7/14; col. 753.]

However, perhaps we would not have chosen to start from here. I say to the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Stamford, that the opportunity of the opt-out—in the words of the EU Committee, its origins are obscure—was essentially drawn up on the back of an envelope by the previous Prime Minister, Gordon Brown, on the margins of the intergovernmental conference in Lisbon seven years ago, presumably to avoid a referendum. The former Home Secretary Charles Clarke has said that he regretted that it had been negotiated, so perhaps there has to be some humility on the Benches opposite about why we are in what the noble Lord, Lord Hannay, has referred to as,

“the infernal machinery of Protocol 36”.—[Official Report, 17/7/14; col. 761.]

There were strong arguments that measures that were old or defunct could have been allowed to wither on the vine. The idea that the European Commission was going to concern itself with pursuing infringement proceedings for some ancient joint action from the 1990s was fanciful; it will have an enormous amount on its hands just making sure that 28 member states properly implement the most important measures, including the European arrest warrant.

It is unfortunate that this decision is preceding rather than following the results of the balance of competences review on policing and criminal justice, because that review could have enlightened the decision-making on this exercise, but I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Stamford, that it needs to be a pragmatic, not an ideological, exercise.

UK leadership on justice and security is very strong and these Benches believe that it must continue. We have had two British directors-general in the European Commission dealing with these matters; as has already been noted by the noble Lord, Lord Bates, the current director of Europol, Rob Wainwright, is British; we have had two British presidents of Eurojust; the present Lord Chief Justice, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas, was—as Sir John Thomas—chairman of the European Networks of Councils for the Judiciary in 2008 to 2010; we had the European Police College here, although it is no longer; and we have had judges and advocates-general in the Court of Justice.

Given that we are so strong, with a strong reputation for the credibility of our police—notwithstanding a few recent problems—and given the depth of reputation of our judges and our upholding of the rule of law, we should lead in this area of justice and policing. Our not doing so is having an unfortunate effect on negotiations in Brussels on the measures that we are trying to opt in to. That is perhaps not so much the case in the Council of Ministers but, from my recent experience up till last May in the European Parliament, I know that it is difficult to persuade MEPs to make changes, as they should, to accommodate the common law if they are not sure whether the UK will participate. Some of those changes are ones that they are prepared to make, but they would not be necessary if we were not around. It is necessary for the European Commission to do some spring-cleaning of the list of old measures and it is a pity that it did not do that before this exercise had to be undertaken.

I understand the frustrations expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Boswell, and strongly thank him and his colleagues, the chairmen and the previous chairmen of Sub-Committees E and F.

I can count only 10 measures in the Explanatory Note to the regulations, but 11 are cited in the Explanatory Memorandum. I think that the missing one is the in absentia measure—which seems ironically apt—because I suppose that it is incorporated in other legal measures.

It is not appropriate to fear the jurisdiction of the European Court of Justice. There is no evidence of judicial activism in this area. In fact, the court has to be very cautious, including in the case of Radu, about a European arrest warrant, when there were great hopes two years ago that the court would rule on a proportionality test at EU level. Unfortunately it shied away and decided on a technical basis. However, that in itself demonstrates that the court is being quite cautious on criminal justice. The Government have said on record that they have no objection in principle to the jurisdiction of the CJEU and, of course, we welcome it in other areas such as the single market.

I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Lamont, that the preference should be to reform the EAW at EU level. I was grateful to be able to give evidence recently to the Extradition Law Committee, led by my noble friend Lord Inglewood, which very speedily got out its extremely useful interim report. I agree with the reforms that the Government made in August, although we have not fully seen how they are going to pan out. It would be preferable to have a proportionality-checking issuing state, and to have a broader human rights refusal test than the one we have incorporated in UK law, which the courts have regarded as a high threshold.

There are other flanking measures we need to do the procedural rights. The European investigation order, when it comes into place, will take some of the weight off the European arrest warrant, which should be a last not a first resort—certainly when things such as video interviewing or temporary transfers can be done instead of reaching for it. We need much more to be done at EU level to stop unnecessary pre-trial detention.

It would have been absurd if the Government had not implemented the European supervision order, which, although not sufficient to ensure that people will stay in their home country on bail, is a necessary step to ensure that that would happen. I am fully conscious both as of a patron of Fair Trials International—which I should perhaps declare in this debate—and as a then constituency MEP for Andrew Symeou, just how appalling an experience he and his whole family had a few years ago. He conducted himself with huge dignity through that.

I finish by saying that other noble Lords have mentioned some omissions that would be nice to see, perhaps principally in the European probation order. I hope the Government will be able to give that real consideration in the future, and consider opting in. The UK Government were one of the instigators of the Prüm decisions on the exchange of biometric information, DNA and fingerprints, because we are putting much more into the pool than we are getting back. Therefore, that would be a good one to pursue. Regarding the framework decision on incitement to racial hatred, we lead in Europe on these measures. It is sad that we are not opting into that. There are also one or two others that I have not got time to mention.

There are also some current measures, not part of the mass opt-out but part of the case-by-case decision on whether to opt in, that I hope the Government consider further. One is the internal security fund which, in its previous incarnations, has given considerable funding to UK police and NGOs for investigative operations, for instance Operation Golf, a Metropolitan Police investigation into a child trafficking ring, and other projects. The second is the directive on the right to a lawyer. The Government have rightly pointed out, in their opt in to the framework decision on child pornography, that Articles 72 and 276 in the EU treaty put the maintenance of law and order and safeguarding national security outside EU law and court jurisdiction. That means, for instance, that if there was real suspected criminality, you could intervene on legal, professional privilege, but not in an illegitimate way. I ask the Government to have another serious look at that measure, because we set the gold standard in Europe on access to lawyers—this is not about legal aid but on the right to have a lawyer present.

These are my last words. We do not want to become, in the words of Professor Steve Peers,

“a kind of Brazil of Europe, without the nicer weather. A place that you”—

that is, criminals—

“would flee to or move assets to”.

Britain should not become a safe haven for criminals, and I strongly welcome opting in to the 35 measures.

22:00

[Lord Bassam of Brighton (Lab)]

My Lords, before we go further with this, it is now 10 o’clock. I get the sense that the House will be detained for a considerable time. Usually, the House concludes at 10 o’clock. Perhaps the Government can explain how much longer they intend the debate to continue. It is extremely unusual for us to consider a controversial measure such as this so late in the day and for us to continue so long at this late hour. Perhaps someone from the Government Front Bench can explain exactly how they intend to proceed.

[Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)]

My Lords, usually where there is no limit on time for debates such as this, it is advised that people keep within 15 minutes— but given the lateness of the hour, perhaps the general principle of the House is that people keep their contributions brief.

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

My Lords, it seems to me completely unreasonable for the Government to schedule this debate so late at night—it did not start until three minutes before nine o’clock—when a number of Members wish to speak: noble Lords with considerable expertise on this issue. The Government’s response is to tell them to keep speeches short. That is completely and totally unreasonable.

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

My Lords, it is not unusual to refer to the Companion on the general principles of conduct of the House. We have had the Modern Slavery Bill and the Statement today, which were expected to conclude earlier than they did. I am just giving guidance.

[Lord Hannay of Chiswick]

I have every sympathy with the noble Baroness’s response, but she is aware that someone from her Front Bench spoke for a pretty lengthy time at the beginning of this debate, and now she is asking everyone else to take a lot less time. I think it would be best if we got on with it.

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

I think that it would be a good idea to get on with things. I am simply giving guidance from the Companion, rather than dictating to anyone that they curtail their remarks.

[Baroness Prashar (CB)]

My Lords, I shall be brief. I chair the Home Affairs Sub-Committee, and I want to start by thanking the Minister for acknowledging the work done by the EU Select Committee and the Home Affairs Sub-Committee. The Sub-Committee was previously chaired by the noble Lord, Lord Hannay, who made a great contribution in bringing some clarity to a complex issue and enabling us to have some calm debate. It is a pity that those reports have not been referred to.

I will say just two things at the outset. First, I entirely support the Government in their intention to opt back into the 35 measures. Indeed, I wish that they had gone further and opted back into a number of other measures, as advised by the Home Affairs and Justice Sub-Committees jointly in two reports in 2013. I am particularly disappointed that the Government have not sought to rejoin measures to combat racism and xenophobia, the European judicial network and the European probation order. I do not find their explanations for not seeking to join them very convincing, because I do not think that they have given significant consideration to the substantive and reputational damage of not seeking to rejoin them. So be it.

Secondly, I entirely share the dismay expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Boswell of Aynho, about the failure of Ministers to abide by the undertakings that they have time and again given to the House that they would allow a full debate on these issues. The process by which Ministers have sought parliamentary approval of these very important matters brings them little credit.

I want to confine my comments mainly to the point of view of the sub-committee charged with the scrutiny of such measures. In the 15 years since the entry into force of the Treaty of Amsterdam, all of these measures dealing with home affairs, together with those on data protection, have, prior to their adoption, been scrutinised by the Home Affairs Sub-Committee. A number of these measures have also been the subject of inquiries by the Home Affairs Committee.

I illustrate this by looking at the example of Europol. The list of 35 measures includes the 2009 Council decision establishing Europol. Europol has been the subject of eight inquiries and reports by the European Union Committee. The first five of them pre-date July 1999, when Europol was still being set up and before it began operations. The last major report on Europol, published in 2008, was into the draft Council decision under which Europol is now constituted. Last year the sub-committee, then chaired by the noble Lord, Lord Hannay of Chiswick, reported on the draft regulation which will replace the Council decision and recommended that the Government should opt into that regulation. This advice, sadly, was not followed.

We continue to hold the matter under scrutiny and have expressed our concerns about a number of issues, not least about the opportunity which, under the treaties, your Lordships’ House will have to take part in parliamentary scrutiny of Europol. In other words, we are trying to ensure that this Parliament, and Parliaments of other member states, have as effective a part to play as the European Parliament, and are not subordinated to it.

Scrutiny can be conducted only with the full co-operation of government and the timely provision of Explanatory Memorandums. Within the next three weeks, four decisions must be adopted if the Government are to be able to opt back into the 35 measures. Two of these are Council decisions which must be adopted next week, since they come into force on 1 December. One of them extends the application of these 35 measures by a further week, to give the institutions time to consider and agree the United Kingdom’s application to opt in, for you cannot opt into something before your opt-out has taken effect. So these two decisions are vital, and so is our scrutiny of them. Yet that scrutiny is wholly frustrated by our not receiving in reasonable time the Explanatory Memorandum that is essential for our scrutiny.

In the first week of December, the Council will—I hope—adopt the decision finally authorising the United Kingdom to rejoin six Schengen measures. The Commission will be adopting a similar decision in relation to the remaining 29 measures. These decisions could hardly be more important but we have not yet seen them in draft, we have not received Explanatory Memorandums about them, Ministers have not written to us with details, and it is only this evening that we heard that the reservations have been removed. We do not know whether the Commission will be satisfied that the draft regulations we are considering tonight are sufficient to transpose into United Kingdom law the measures which have not so far been transposed.

The Government's involvement of Parliament in the process has fallen short of the ideal and is inexcusable. I hope that the Minister will be able to deal with these issues and to reassure the House that, in the final lap, the Government will attempt to redeem themselves.

[Lord Lawson of Blaby (Con)]

My Lords, I sense the mood of the House, so I shall be very brief indeed. Who knows, maybe it will set an example to others—but I am not holding my breath.

I shall focus exclusively on the issue of the European arrest warrant, which is at the heart of this matter. There is no dispute whatever that mutual extradition arrangements between us and our friends across the Channel are vital. The issue is that identified by my noble friend Lord Lamont of whether we would do better to rejoin the European arrest warrant—to opt back into it—or to negotiate bilaterally with the other member countries of the European Union, or the European Union as a bloc.

I have no doubt that on economic grounds alone, this country would be far better off outside the European Union. If that were the case, as I hope it will be in due course, then of course we will negotiate such bilateral agreements, as we have done with most of the other countries in the world. Some of those agreements are not so satisfactory but others are perfectly satisfactory, so that is what we would do. The question, as my noble friend, for whom I have very high regard, said, is whether we can do that while remaining within the European Union. My belief is that that is not an option and that—I may be mistaken—so long as we remain within the European Union, we have to opt back in to the European arrest warrant if we want mutual extradition arrangements, which are essential.

Can my noble friend Lord Faulks, who is an outstanding legal brain and knows everything far better than anybody else in this august House, say clearly and categorically whether the alternative proposed by my noble friend Lord Lamont is an option? If it is an option, why did the Government reject it or is it, as I sadly believe, not an option? I look forward to his reply.

[Lord Willoughby de Broke (UKIP)]

My Lords, I am delighted to follow the noble Lord, Lord Lawson, and I will certainly follow his recommendation to be very brief. He is of course absolutely right to say that on constitutional grounds, extradition should be a matter for our own courts and not for the European Court of Justice. No matter how the Government try to play this and finesse it, the fact is that through this measure of opting in we are handing over the rights of extradition from our own courts to the European Court of Justice.

The noble Lord, Lord Lamont, made the point that we would be handing our citizens over to very different systems of justice. For example, there would be no habeas corpus, no protection from trial in absentia, no right to silence and no requirement for prima facie evidence to justify extradition. This is a major transfer of power that really cannot be justified by anything that I have heard so far, certainly not to satisfy the Government’s rather rushed timetable. As someone said, the Government have now had more than four years to consider this matter and here we are, only two weeks from the deadline with the Government still trying to push it through.

Neither is this all justified on the grounds of satisfying police leaders, who claim that they need these powers to protect the public from dangerous criminals. Like the Government, the police always want more powers. Some noble Lords will remember when they wanted the power to detain suspects for 90 days. After a very long debate, led by the Liberal Democrat Benches, this House denied the police those powers that they asked for. I do not think that the ceiling fell in after that.

[Lord Hannay of Chiswick]

Perhaps the noble Lord would take into account the fact that the police are not asking for more powers. They are asking to not have fewer powers.

[Lord Willoughby de Broke]

I will accept that distinction but our joining the ECJ will in fact give them more powers—and the police always want more powers, as I have said.

I must remind noble Lords that far from being an efficient tool of justice, the European arrest warrant has been, in many cases, the cause of serious injustice. There was the case which the noble Lord mentioned, which I will not go into, of Andrew Symeou. He also mentioned Fair Trials International, which has brought to my attention one of the cases that it mentions. It is of an Italian, Mr Edmond Arapi, who was subject to extradition from Britain to serve 16 years in a prison for a murder in a city in which he never committed the crime and had never visited. The murder was committed on a day when he was actually at work in the UK. What Mr Arapi said was—this was reported by Fair Trials International, so I presume it is correct:

“I had overwhelming evidence that I could not have committed the crime yet they didn’t care. All they cared about was following the procedures of the arrest warrant, and I spent six weeks in jail as a result”.

I really do not think that that is the EU arrest warrant working as perfectly as the noble Lord on the Labour Benches said. It is yet another reason why we should not go back into this extraordinary arrangement and not give our powers away like this.

22:15

There are many other examples, but since the hour is late, I shall not go into them. As things stand at the moment, if we do not opt in, as I understand it, our courts will still have the right and the powers of extradition on 1 December. However, a minute after midnight, if we opt in, they will be gone—all those powers will be given, for ever, to the ECJ. That is the position as I understand it. This is really an abject surrender of power, but, of course, it is coming from a Prime Minister who is busy trying to pretend to the country that he wants to repatriate powers from the EU. As the noble Lord, Lord Lamont, said, this is not repatriation of powers, it is giving them away.

The electorate will form its own judgment, starting on Thursday.

[Lord Inglewood (Con)]

My Lords, I shall be brief, because I like to be brief. I rise to speak because I have the good fortune to be chairman of your Lordships’ Select Committee on Extradition Law, which is looking at extradition law in a wide context and which is due to report in March. We did, however, because of the very considerable political controversy surrounding the question of whether or not we should opt back in to the European arrest warrant, produce an interim report which was published last Monday. It was based on a debate between my noble friend Lady Ludford and the honourable Member for North East Somerset, who was standing at the Bar a few minutes ago. It was also informed by all the evidence we had earlier heard about extradition more generally. We did it in the expectation that it would help your Lordships and in the hope that it might help Members of the other place.

The conclusion we reached in paragraph 20 of the report was that:

“On the basis of the evidence we have received, there is no convincing case for disagreeing with the conclusions previously reached by the European Union Committee that”,

basically, we should opt back in. The consequences of that conclusion are that the majority of the committee believed that we should opt back in and a minority believed that there was not enough evidence to form a proper view. It is very interesting, and also very significant, that since that date we have had evidence submitted to the committee by the Lord Chief Justice of England and Wales, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd—I hope that I have pronounced that properly. Having made it clear that the decision as to whether or not to opt back in is a matter for Parliament and not for him, he said:

“Had I been able to do so, I would have expressed the view that all of the evidence I have seen would lead me to a conclusion similar to that in paragraph 20 of your report”—

that is to say, what I have just read out to your Lordships and the conclusion as reached by the European Union Committee. I must confess, and I hope that it will not upset my noble friend Lord Lamont too much, that I find the authority of the Lord Chief Justice a bit more persuasive and authoritative than his views.

My noble friend raised a number of serious points, but if he had heard the evidence and seen the transcripts of the evidence that our committee received, I am sure he would agree with me that much of the concern that he expressed has, in fact, now become misplaced. We have seen an evolution in the way in which the courts deal with matters of extradition which goes to remedy a number of the shortcomings that I think it is agreed by everyone, not least by the Lord Chief Justice, were there in years gone by. I believe that it is dangerous to extrapolate from past cases what is actually happening now.

Something that I think was very telling about the inquiry that we conducted was that we tried to find a respected and regular practitioner at the extradition Bar who worked in the courts in this area and who advocated this country not opting back in, but we could not find such a person. That does not mean that they may not exist, but we were unable to identify them. If we do not opt back in, I believe that we shall be creating a judicial no man’s land in which for years, not months, there will be no proper legal regime covering the kind of problems that are increasingly prevalent in the world in which we live, where movement, legal or illegal, is ever more prevalent.

Concerns have rightly been expressed about miscarriages of justice, but let us be clear about this: that is a phenomenon that, regretfully and to our national shame, is not unknown in this country. It does not follow that our courts are necessarily not going to carry out miscarriages of justice, although obviously we try not to do it. To suggest that somehow all foreign courts are therefore not going to deliver justice is not true. What we have to do is try to ensure that the system works in the interests of justice as best it can.

As I have already explained, I and the committee believe that the more recent modifications to the modus operandi of the extradition process here in Britain both materially make our system better and what is more—this is important bearing in mind the point that was raised earlier—are compatible with EU law if we opt back in. Most of the objections to our opting back in to the European arrest warrant are matters of constitutional principle, not constitutional propriety, and fundamentally are not based on a concern for justice. I believe that if we do not opt back in, it will be bad for justice, for law and order and for UK citizens.

[Lord Hannay of Chiswick]

My Lords, I think that tonight’s debate marks the final parliamentary chapter in this tangled tale of Britain’s block opt-out from pre-Lisbon justice and home affairs legislation, and of its aim to rejoin those 35 significant measures. Your Lordships’ House has been closely involved in this matter from the very start. It has been a tangled tale over the past two years, and I suspect that some Members may be heartily sick of a process that has involved two weighty reports from your Lordships’ Select Committee, three full-scale debates and any amount of behind-the-scenes work and consultation. Dry, complex and technical though the process may have been, however, it concerns matters that are crucial to Britain’s ability to maintain our own internal security and to combat effectively the continuously rising tide of international cross-border crime. Whether you are talking about drugs, human trafficking, money laundering, cybercrime, terrorism or child pornography, all these matters are assisted by those 35 measures.

The role that your Lordships’ House has played in terms of parliamentary scrutiny and holding the Government to account has been an exemplary one, and I pay tribute to those others, along with myself, who participated in it and to the noble Lord, Lord Boswell, who led our efforts. We should register tonight that the processes in this House have worked well. It is not part of our duty to intrude on the private grief of another place; suffice it to say that the processes there seem to be a good deal suboptimal.

We are in a totally different position, as the Minister said when he opened the debate, because when we debated and approved the triggering of the block opt-out we also approved the reintroduction of the 35 measures. We decided that in July 2013. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Lamont, and others will forgive me for pointing out that pretty well everyone who has criticised the line that the Government are now taking failed to speak in any of those debates.

Now we are where we are. I welcome the fact that the Government adjusted their Motion for tonight’s debate to take into account the fact that the 35 measures needed to be explicitly referred to. It was, I think, a bit of a mistake not to have done that in the other place. I have no hesitation in supporting the Government in the measures they now wish to rejoin. I equally have no hesitation whatever in supporting the noble Lord, Lord Boswell, in the criticism that he has made of the processes that have led us here.

I find it saddening that these European debates descend so much into what I can only describe as ideology, and are not enough concentrated on the substance of the matter—about which the evidence taken by the committee that I and others served on was pretty conclusive. It is a pity. Europe is not religion, it is politics; and in politics you have to make compromises. In this case, I believe that the Government have reached a very satisfactory compromise.

[Lord Pearson of Rannoch]

My Lords, when the noble Lord, Lord Hannay, accuses some of us of religious fervour, I have to say to him: “Da che pulpito vien la predica?”. From what pulpit comes the sermon? As noble Lords have said, as part of the block opt-in we are talking about tonight, we are looking at the European arrest warrant. The overriding objection to the European arrest warrant can be simply put. It allows the extradition, pretrial detention, trial, sentencing and imprisonment of British citizens in inferior foreign jurisdictions under the final jurisdiction of the inferior Luxembourg court. Trial by jury largely disappears in these cases and so does habeas corpus. Under Napoleonic law, the investigator and the judge are often the same person. There have already been several famous miscarriages of justice and I have no doubt that there will be more, whatever tinkering takes places with the system. My noble friend Lord Willoughby de Broke and others have mentioned some of those cases.

When I say that we are dealing with inferior foreign jurisdictions, I mean that we do so under the final auspices of, believe it or not, that engine of the treaties, the European court of so-called justice in Luxembourg, which is not a court of law at all—it is the engine of the treaties. It has to find in favour of ever closer union because that is what its instructions are from the treaties. When I say that we are dealing with inferior foreign jurisdictions, let me give you the example of just one of them—my beloved Italy. In Italy, pretrial detainees make up around 40% of the prison population. In this country, it is around 15%. Court processes in Italy last an average of 116 months. In the UK, it is an average of six months, rising to 10 at the Crown Court. In Italy, the maximum pretrial detention is 18 months. In England and Wales, this is set at six months, but a recent report found that our average was 13 weeks.

Under English and Welsh law, there is a presumption in favour of releasing the defendant pending trial. In Italy, circumstantial evidence is enough for a judge to order a pretrial detention. In Italy, a pretrial detention is decided not in open court but by a judge in chambers, possibly by the same chap who investigated the case in the first place. The defendant has no right to take part in the decision-making process and is not represented by a lawyer.

I hope that that is enough for Italy. Then there is Greece, that cradle of the Symeou case. I could go on about other EU jurisdictions, but I hope that I have said enough to make my point. No amount of convenience can override the principle that we should not be sending our citizens into these rotten systems, unless our courts are satisfied that the evidence which sends them there is sufficient.

There is only one advantage in going ahead with the European arrest warrant and these opt-ins. They will move the United Kingdom even further along the road to leaving the failed project that is the European Union.

22:29

[Lord Bowness (Con)]

My Lords, I am very pleased to support the content of the Government’s Motion. It seems a very long time ago that in July 2013, with the co-operation of my noble friends Lord Taylor of Holbeach and Lord McNally, we agreed a Motion that endorsed the decision to rejoin the 35 measures. Tonight’s Motion reiterates that and is all the more welcome for it. I am sorry that it has taken so long. In all the debates we have had we were told that time was not a problem, but we are now 13 days—unlucky for some—before 1 December, and we have ended up taking matters to the wire. That I very much regret. At this time of the evening, I think noble Lords will not wish me to say any more about the issues other than that I very much support what the noble Lord, Lord Boswell, said about the procedures.

I have one question for the Minister. The other place was told, if I correctly interpret its proceedings last Monday—both from reading and viewing them—that the vote was merely to approve the statutory instruments necessary for the implementation of the 10 or 11 of the 35 measures, but that a positive vote would be indicative of support for the measures, including the important and controversial European arrest warrant, and that the Government could proceed with that without any further formalities or legislation. Is that the case? Do the Government consider that, subject to the vote here tonight, nothing further needs to be done in Parliament before the formal notification to the Council and our opt-in to the 35? Can we be assured that, whatever further debates are held on the issue in another place—I understand this week—the matter will be considered concluded and a done deal when we rise this evening?

[Lord Kerr of Kinlochard (CB)]

My Lords, I, too, will ask a question of the Minister, which arises from the remarkable filibuster of the noble Lord, Lord Lamont of Lerwick. The noble Lord, Lord Lawson, inquired whether it would be possible for a member state of the European Union to conclude a treaty with the European Union. I will ask a different question. If it did, would the European Union involvement mean that the involvement of the European Court of Justice was automatic, and hence that the solution proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Lamont, to his problem—which is the involvement of the European Court of Justice—would in itself bring in the European Court of Justice very much quicker?

I do not wish to heap coals of fire on the Minister’s head—we come to bury Protocol 36, not to praise it, and the Minister is not only a learned but an honourable man. Therefore I do not want to say how much I share the criticisms made by the noble Lord, Lord Boswell, on grounds of procedure, and I do not want to say how, if he chose to press his amendment, I would willingly vote for it. It is very unfair on the noble Lord, Lord Faulks, that having himself repeated Mrs May’s commitment to a full debate and a vote in this House he is put in the position of having to dishonour his commitment. He is an honourable man—Brutus is an honourable man—and certainly I do not wish to bury him.

The only corner of this House so far, apart from the noble Lord, Lord Lamont of Lerwick, that is not backing the Government in what they propose to do, asks a question about the extradition—civis romanus sum—of the British citizen exported abroad to vile conditions in a foreign dungeon. Can the Minister tell us how many of the 105 people extradited from this country on murder charges under the European arrest warrant since 2009 were British citizens? I believe that the number is extremely small. Do we want to keep these people on our streets? Do we want to keep them in our jails? Why do we not send them back to face trial in their own countries? The civis romanus sum point is a good one—and I understand what is being said by the noble Lords, Lord Pearson of Rannoch and Lord Willoughby de Broke—but it is a very small point against the fact that bringing back murderers and rapists from abroad for trial in this country and sending abroad for trial foreign citizens in this country wanted in their countries for these crimes is clearly the right thing to do.

I believe that if we did not opt back into the European arrest warrant, we would be faced with negotiating a tangle of bilateral agreements. Of course it could be done, but it takes time. I know a little bit about these things. We should remember how long the UK-US agreement took and how controversial its terms were in the end. We should remember how, in some quarters, it is still controversial. It is not easy to do these things, and we would have to do them extraordinarily fast. I remind the noble Lord, Lord Lamont, that we have two weeks to go. If we do not opt back in again, the whole structure falls. We would then either be stuck with his course of trying to negotiate in a hurry an agreement with the EU as a block, or the EU as such—and the Minister will tell us whether that would be effective in achieving the purpose of the noble Lord, Lord Lamont—or we would have to negotiate a very large number of bilateral treaties with people who would be pretty discontented with us because we would be causing them quite unnecessary confusion and wasting time.

Therefore, I strongly support the Government on the substance and, because I am being brief and I do not want to cause any embarrassment at all to the Minister, I will not say how appalling I think the procedure has been.

[Lord Sharkey (LD)]

My Lords, I note that the Minister, the noble Lord, Lord Bates, has been in his place since 3 pm this afternoon and that he came to this debate straight from the Second Reading of the Modern Slavery Bill. In the circumstances, he might wonder whether the definition of slavery is quite comprehensive enough.

This House has debated the Protocol 36 imbroglio many times and I do not want to revisit all the arguments made in these debates, but I want to emphasise a few points, and I want to comment on the Motions before us and to ask the Minister a couple of questions.

The Government are proposing to opt back in to the 35 measures set out in Command Paper 8897. As I said in our last debate on the subject, I very much support rejoining these measures, especially the improved European arrest warrant. The Government have chosen these rejoin measures very well, although of course they should not have had to choose at all. None of the measures that the Government are choosing not to rejoin is at all harmful to the United Kingdom’s interests. By deciding to abandon some measures and keep others, the Government have wasted their own and parliamentary time. They have unnecessarily spent political capital negotiating all this with the Council and the Commission. By trying to keep the number of rejoins low, they have rejected, at the very least, four perfectly good and valuable measures. The fact is that, very regrettably, the Government have been at best extremely clumsy in the way they have treated Parliament throughout the entire Protocol 36 debate. Others today and in previous debates have listed the delays, the absence of Explanatory Memoranda and the unsatisfactorily worded Motions.

The letter of last Wednesday from the noble Lord, Lord Boswell, notes the Government’s failure to adhere to the commitments they have made to Parliament on this matter. As he says, the Government have persisted to the very end in presenting this House with a deeply unsatisfactory and illogical Motion. The government Motion asks the House to approve the draft regulations transposing 11 measures into UK law. Ten of these are among the 35 measures that the Government are seeking to opt back in to. The Commission has advised that they need to be transposed now if we are going to be able to opt back in to them.

But what of the other 25 measures? The government Motion says that by agreeing to the transposition of 11 measures we endorse the formal application to rejoin all 35. Why do it this way? Why make endorsement of the 35 simply consequential on agreeing to transposition of 11 measures, one of which is not even a Protocol 36 measure? If it was an attempt to avoid discussion of the European arrest warrant then it has clearly failed to do that, as has again been demonstrated tonight.

I entirely agree with the conclusions of the noble Lord, Lord Boswell, on this matter. It is a profoundly unsatisfactory approach to parliamentary scrutiny and oversight. The approach also raises some questions. The Government are seeking to rejoin 35 measures, 29 of which are non-Schengen. This means that the Commission is obliged to approve our application if the package is coherent and practicable. It seems clear that, provided we transpose 10 measures into UK law, that will be the case. However, that leaves six non-Schengen measures. Here, it is the Council who must decide to allow rejoin or not.

There are some confusing and worrying signals. The Minister has already mentioned Spain. The Times reported last Friday that Spain had forced a concession from the Government on the Prüm decisions. The article said that the Home Secretary, to secure Spain’s agreement to the rejoins, agreed to run a small-scale Prüm pilot. The article went on to list expressions of outrage at this agreement from Tory Eurosceptic MPs. I was surprised by this—not by the expressions of outrage so much but because I had thought, as I said in a debate on Protocol 36 on 17 July, that the Government had already committed to running a small-scale Prüm pilot anyway. I had thought that this was on the Government’s own unforced initiative. Perhaps the Minister can tell the House whether Spain, as the Times reported, had in fact demanded this concession.

Perhaps the Minister can also tell the House whether Spain, as it is rumoured, has used Gibraltar as a reason for raising objections to the opt back in. Is it just Spain? Can the Minister say if other member states have forced concessions from us in our negotiations to rejoin the six non-Schengen measures? It is worth bearing in mind that no concessions of any kind would have been necessary had we not decided to exercise, quite unnecessarily, the block opt-out. I very much hope that the Motion tonight will be the end of this sorry saga, at least in your Lordships’ House. I hope that it will allow the Government to spend their time on more productive and substantive conversations with our partners in the European Union.

[Lord Stoddart of Swindon (Ind Lab)]

My Lords, I shall be very brief and begin with a declaration that I always make when I speak about European Union matters: I was never in favour of joining the EEC or the Common Market, as it then was, and I am now in favour of getting out as soon as we possibly can. The House will understand that I cannot support the regulations. I do not think they should be made and we should not be part of the European construct.

What I do want to say, and the reason I have risen to my feet, is to support the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Boswell. If he puts it to a vote, I shall, of course, vote for it. I really am ashamed of the Government and the way in which they have handled this whole issue. These regulations were put before the House of Commons, which expected to have a long debate on them, and if possible, to discuss individual matters contained within them. They were so disappointing that the Speaker reprimanded the Government on the way in which they handled the matter, and the House itself was completely and utterly outraged. There was chaos in the House of Commons. The Government have almost done the same here—of course, in a much more polite way. They put up a Second Reading debate with 32 speakers, interspersed with a Statement which took about an hour, before the debate on the regulations. The result is that we reached this very important debate at a quarter to nine.

As has already been pointed out on the opposition Benches, that is simply not good enough. I object very much to Parliament being treated in that sort of way. I hope they will take a lesson from the way they have handled this, and the way in which the debate has been interspersed with criticism from the opposition Benches, to ensure that when important matters of this sort are discussed in future, the House will have adequate time before 10 pm.

22:45

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

As I rise to speak at 10.45 pm, I am reminded of my former constituent who, as I left the gym one morning, pointed out that, as a member of the House of Lords, I must be semi-retired. Little did he know. The noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, ended on a very important point. We started this debate at 8.56 pm, after a very long Second Reading debate. It was not rocket science for the Government to understand that a number of noble Lords, who have great expertise and knowledge on these issues, might wish to contribute. Your Lordships have been remarkably self-disciplined in keeping the debate so short and precise. We have had numerous debates of this kind in which many—but not all—noble Lords here this evening have taken part. Given the importance of tonight, and the mess the Government made of it last week in the House of Commons, they should have got it right. I am sorry and disappointed at the way the Government have behaved.

The Motion before us tonight is, as we have heard, different from what the Government originally intended. It is right that the Government have changed their proposal after the chaos and criticism of their approach in the other place last week. Parliament should have the right to debate and vote on the opt-in of the 35 measures that the Government have decided are the most important and crucial to national security and public safety, including—but not only—the European arrest warrant. The confusion we saw last week in the House of Commons was caused by the Government undertaking a rather curious and disingenuous procedural sleight of hand by referring to just 11 of the measures and not the full 35, including the European arrest warrant and then, against the Speaker’s ruling, claiming that it did include them. I hope this does not sound pompous—I have never been accused of being pompous and it is not meant to sound like that—but that does not do anything to enhance the reputation and integrity of the Government where Europe is concerned or to give any confidence that the Government can be relied on to put national interest and public security before party-political interest.

The Government have amended the Motion they originally intended to be debated this evening. The new Motion clarifies the fact that your Lordships’ House can support, or indeed oppose, all 35 of the measures, including the EAW. That is very simple and is largely what the Home Secretary and Prime Minister promised. However, I was surprised that the Minister did not mention, earlier in the debate, a point referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Hannay. When this House discussed the negotiations regarding the opt-in, we endorsed the 35 measures at that time. This was not the Motion before the House of Commons. I listened with great care to the excellent speech by the noble Lord, Lord Boswell, which I think he made more in sorrow and disappointment than in anger. I have known the noble Lord for a long time. In the first committee I ever served on in Parliament, the noble Lord was leading from his party as the shadow Minister and I was on the government side. We were bringing in the national minimum wage and he was leading a team of very able opposition Back-Benchers against it. Recognising the noble Lord’s experience, I hope that the Minister accepts the amendment, which is very precise and fair in its criticisms.

The noble Lord, Lord Boswell, referred to a letter that he received from the Leader of the House on tonight’s debate. I am sorry that the official Opposition did not receive a copy of that letter. It would have been helpful.

As we have heard, the handling of this issue has been quite appalling. Noble Lords who have taken part and followed these debates closely will recall and no doubt share some of our exasperation as we have tried to extract details from Ministers on the issues being debated. The noble Lords, Lord Faulks and Lord Bates, are the fourth and fifth Ministers whom I have debated this issue with, which started originally with a Statement from the noble Lord, Lord McNally.

I have asked a number of questions since the beginning of this exercise and, ever the optimist, I will raise those again in the hope that I will get some answers. I appreciate that the Government have supplied huge volumes of information but that has not been matched by clarity—a point made by the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments. Through this whole process, the most helpful documents and information that I have seen—this point was made by the noble Baroness, Lady Prashar—were from our own EU Committee. I am grateful to that committee for its briefings in which they were able to talk to lawyers and others with direct experience of these issues. Their experience and advice were equally valuable. This issue requires a great detail and accuracy, yet it has every appearance of a political charade designed to placate anti-European sentiment without full and proper examination of the detail of all its implications. Let us set tonight’s debate in context and be clear about our position in the Labour Party and our commitment to the necessity of fighting crime across boundaries.

The key parts of the EU-wide co-operation that we support and now recognise in the 35 measures are mutual exchange of information in criminal investigations, locating and confiscating the proceeds of crime, criminal record checks, joint cross-border investigations and the European arrest warrant. They are essential crime-fighting tools. This is not some theoretical argument about whether we are pro- or anti-EU co-operation. This debate should only ever have been about hard-nosed, practical measures in the interests of the safety and security of UK citizens. Those of us who made the case for the European arrest warrant welcome the Government’s conversion to its value and importance and the eventual acceptance of the European supervision order which I am sorry was delayed by the Government. It would have been very helpful in making the case for the European arrest warrant had that been brought in earlier.

We have heard examples of problems with the European arrest warrant. The noble Lord, Lord Inglewood, spoke about the important changes that have been made. But equally there are numerous other examples. When Jeremy Forrest left the country with a young schoolgirl, he was brought back within days. That would not have happened prior to the European arrest warrant. There are other cases where terrorists have been brought back to the UK much more quickly than they would have been without the European arrest warrant.

Some of us in your Lordships’ House are old enough to remember the costa del crime, when criminals fled to Spain and were not brought back for months or even years. There is a huge value in the European arrest warrant and I am shocked that so many noble Lords are prepared to take on board a few cases. They do not want to change the European arrest warrant but instead throw the baby out with the bathwater, denying its value to British citizens.

We welcome the Government’s conversion on this issue. We welcome the Government’s acceptance of the value of joint EU investigation teams, the acceptance that crime does not stop at the Channel and that such co-operation is essential. We are now clear about what the Government are proposing we opt back into. I am grateful to the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee for its 13th report enhancing that clarity. I share its criticisms of the lack of clarity in the Explanatory Memorandum.

The noble Lord, Lord Boswell, made an important point about the 35 measures. Measures proposed previously by the EU Committee beyond those 35 have not been given consideration in full and by Parliament. I can think of one in particular that I would have been interested in considering further—recognition around driving offences. If you talk to people in the streets they will tell you time and again that they do not believe the issues of co-operation on driving offences and disqualification are taken seriously enough.

We understand what we are opting back into, but I seek clarification from the Minister on those issues that the Government are seeking not to opt back into and that we would be permanently excluded from. In terms of numbers there were originally 133 crime, law and order, and policing measures, and the Government wanted to opt back in to 35. An additional seven were replaced and the Government opted in. There was a lot of debate in the press at the time, with the two government parties arguing about the precise number of measures that would be opted out of and opted back into.

For there to be any real value in this process it had to be far more than a tidying-up exercise of jettisoned measures that were defunct, irrelevant or useless. There had to be some meaning to it. It could not just be some kind of academic exercise in clearing up those that could have withered on the vine, a point that my noble friend Lord Davies made. The noble Lord, Lord McNally, was the first Minister to raise these issues in your Lordships’ House. He referred to measures that were obsolete, defunct or simply unused. He wrote that the Government were keeping the wheat and losing the chaff. I asked the noble Lord, Lord McNally, in 2012, the noble Lord, Lord Taylor, in 2013 and in 2014, and the noble Lord, Lord Bates, last week for some clarity on what that meant and the value of the measures that the Government want permanently to opt out of. There are three noble Lords here who have experience of this issue. To date, I have received no meaningful answers.

The questions are straightforward. I shall have one last shot at this: can I try again? First, how many and which of the measures of around 100 that the Government plan to opt out of permanently are of any value or even apply to the UK? Secondly, how many were being used and in operation prior to the opt-out decision and how many of those that have been permanently opted out of were harmful to the interests of the UK? Some clear answers to those questions would be extremely useful. Can the Minister answer those? Is he about to intervene?

[The Minister of State, Ministry of Justice (Lord Faulks) (Con)]

No.

[Baroness Smith of Basildon]

I will be patient—I know that he is just taking notes.

To bring clarity to this debate it would be really helpful to know whether this is a serious policy process to ensure the safety and security of British citizens, or whether it is a numerical exercise carried out for party political reasons and of no real value. One of the noble Lords from UKIP referred to the by-election happening later this week in Rochester. I hope that this debate has played no part in the Government’s decision in what they were seeking to do in opting in and opting out. It has to be a valuable exercise, or it is cosmetic. We need answers.

Finally, can I make a plea to the Government for evidence-based policy-making? Unless I receive an answer tonight that would convince me to the contrary, I believe that in so many ways we seem to have government by numbers. We have seen it in the nonsense of net immigration figures. Success for the Government on net migration reduction would be to have lots of highly qualified professionals leaving the country and a huge reduction in fee-paying students not coming to the country. As far as the Government are concerned that would be a success. What a nonsense.

On the Deregulation Bill and the Government’s policies on regulation, every impact assessment makes it clear that for every new regulation that comes in, two have to go out. Why is there no assessment on the value of what the regulation does? Why are numbers so important here? What magic is there in the figure of 35 regulations to be opted back into without a full assessment of those that are being permanently ditched? In all these contexts, numbers alone are irrelevant. What matters is their value. That is what we need to understand from the Minister tonight. Can he bring clarity to this debate and explain in practical terms, not political ones, the value of this very long exercise, which has no doubt been very expensive?

[Lord Faulks]

My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have taken part in this debate. It has been remarkable for the self-discipline exercised by speakers in dealing with complex matters that raise strong feelings on various sides. It is not the first time that we have visited these issues in this House. As the noble Lord, Lord Hannay, said, in July the matter was dealt with in some considerable detail.

At the outset, I pay considerable and very well merited tribute to the House of Lords committees, which have scrutinised and re-scrutinised with great rigour the complex mechanism and the pros and cons of the opt-out and the opt-in. If that has not been made sufficiently clear beforehand, I make it clear now. The House is greatly in the debt of those committees, their chairmen and members. The process has been extremely thorough, and the House of Lords, through those committees, has done its job very well.

23:00

Of course, I am aware of the many criticisms that have been offered throughout these debates, which I think could largely be said to be criticisms of process rather than of the final decision taken by the Government to opt in to the 35 measures. I appreciate that there are those who think there should not have been the possibility of opting out, so that this problem would not have arisen. That power was given to the Government by the previous Government, and the Government decided quite some time ago that they were going to exercise it, to opt out and then to opt back in.

In July 2013 the Prime Minister exercised the opt-out. Let me be clear: if we had not exercised the opt-out in July last year, on 1 December the court would have had jurisdiction over every one of the measures that we are concerned with. This is not something the Government were inclined to accept. Of course, due to the process agreed in the Lisbon treaty, we have no choice but to negotiate re-entry into measures we want to participate in, to protect our citizens in the fight against international crime, together with our European partners.

With respect, I disagree with the noble Lord, Lord Willoughby de Broke. All we are seeking to do is to continue the arrangements, not to enter into some new arrangement which will enlarge the capacity of the European Court of Justice.

As my noble friend Lord Bates told noble Lords earlier, the Government are pleased to be able to inform the House that following detailed negotiations in Brussels, the Government have now completed the process and reached a deal to rejoin the list of 35 measures we published in Command Paper 8897 in July of this year. I know that there was anxiety in previous debates as to whether this was something by way of brinkmanship and that we might not be able to conclude matters in time. I was unable, in my brief involvement in those earlier debates, to give details of the negotiations that went on but I am glad to say that they have come to fruition.

My noble friend Lord Bates set out the minor changes that have been made to the list of 35 measures that this House approved in July 2013. I can confirm that there have been no further changes from the list we brought to the House in July 2014, and the Government are now delivering what they promised they would, with the agreement of the Commission and the Council. The package of measures which we say—and I think many noble Lords would agree—are in the national interest for the United Kingdom to rejoin includes the European arrest warrant. It also includes a number of important measures on the justice side, such as the prisoner transfer framework decision, which provides for non-consent-based transfers throughout the European Union, enabling us to remove foreign criminals from our jails without their consent. This not only frees up a place in our prisons but avoids the cost of holding a foreign criminal in our prisons.

I was asked to give some idea of the number of British nationals who have been surrendered between April 2009 and March 2014. I can tell the House that a total of 5,072 people were surrendered by the UK using the arrest warrant. Over 95% of these were foreign nationals. Of the 217 British nationals surrendered, 18 were wanted for murder, three were wanted for rape, and 17 were wanted for child sex offences.

The vote today is on the draft regulation that will provide for domestic implementation of a number of specific elements of the package. It is also a vote to remain part of these 35 vital measures. In answer to my noble friend Lord Bowness, I confirm that there is nothing further that your Lordships’ House has to do to complete what has perhaps been a rather protracted process.

[Lord Bowness]

I hope my noble friend will forgive me for interrupting. My question was whether there was any further parliamentary process. I think I am convinced that it is the end of the road as far as this House is concerned.

[Lord Faulks]

My noble friend is, of course, quite right to ask me to qualify that. I should say that there is nothing more for Parliament to do. I understand that there may or may not be a debate in relation to the European arrest warrant in the House of Commons.

I will now deal with what happened in the House of Commons. It forms part of the concern of my noble friend Lord Boswell. I came back from China this weekend, where I had been discussing the rule of law issues which, as my noble friend Lord Lamont said, are very much a matter of priority for this country. On the flight back, I had the opportunity of reading the debate in the House of Commons; it was not an edifying experience. The expectation was that the debate would focus on the European arrest warrant, but that was not one of the measures that required any legislative action, so it was not within the scope of the Motion to approve the statutory instrument.

The Home Secretary, my right honourable friend Theresa May, indicated that the debate could concern itself by “proxy” with the European arrest warrant. The party opposite would have none of this and there ensued a bad-tempered and rather uninformative debate that eventually resulted, after three votes, in the statutory instrument—the subject of the Motion—being approved and the European arrest warrant not being fully debated. This did not reflect well on Parliament. I am glad to say, albeit by an amendment, your Lordships’ House does not have the procedural impediments that the House of Commons has, and all 35 measures, insofar as it was necessary, could be debated and, indeed, have been.

The European arrest warrant has been the subject of debate—

[Lord Stoddart of Swindon]

The Minister said that the debate became a bad one because of the behaviour of the Opposition in the House of Commons. Surely I am right in believing that the Government were reprimanded by the Speaker, and that is something quite different. It seems to me that he has made an allegation against the Opposition that really is not true.

[Lord Faulks]

I am certainly not in a position to criticise the Speaker; it would be entirely improper for me to do so. I am entitled to comment on what transpired in the House of Commons. I did not acquit anybody of contributing to what was a thoroughly uninformative debate. The position, as far as the Opposition were concerned, was that the shadow Home Secretary felt that the scope of the debate did not permit her to discuss the European arrest warrant, and that was the view of many in the House of Commons. The Speaker gave the observations that he did, but I do not think that it is appropriate for me to criticise him or not.

The shadow Home Secretary was also asked during the debate whether the party opposite would have exercised the opt-out—and, if so, which measures it would have opted into. Her response was, “Nice try”, so I am not sure that that was a particularly dignified response to what was a serious question.

[Baroness Smith of Basildon]

The Minister is straying somewhat. He is here to explain the behaviour and conduct of the Government—who were, as the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, said, criticised by the Speaker. He seems to want to deflect that criticism on to the Opposition. May I suggest that he returns to his brief and tries to explain how the Government made such an absolute shambles of this whole process?

[Lord Faulks]

It is necessary, I would suggest to the House—and I am about to move on to the European arrest warrant—for those who may not have had the opportunity to read the debate to appreciate what went on. Those who have read it will form their own view as to how helpful it was.

Considerable anxieties have understandably been felt in the past about the European arrest warrant and about particular cases. There is insufficient time, as the House will understand, for me to go into the details of those, but what is important is the fact that the European arrest warrant now has additional safeguards. In one of the more useful contributions to the debate in the other place, the right honourable James Arbuthnot pointed out that there is considerable judicial oversight of the European arrest warrant. Following the changes in the law made by the Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act, a British judge must now consider whether the alleged offence and likely penalty are sufficient to make someone’s extradition proportionate. A British judge must also consider whether measures less coercive than extradition are available to foreign authorities.

As to dual criminality, the European arrest warrant must be refused if all or part of the conduct for which a person is wanted took place in the UK and is not a criminal offence in this country. Furthermore, a decision to charge and try an individual can be questioned by use of video link without the suspect having to leave the United Kingdom. These are all important safeguards which should mitigate some of the anxieties that have been expressed about the unsatisfactory nature of foreign jurisdictions. A large number of people who are not necessarily enthusiasts for the European project have been persuaded that it would be a great mistake to lose the European arrest warrant. I respectfully agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, that this is a correct decision.

My noble friend Lord Lamont asked whether it was possible for us to come to a separate, bilateral treaty with other European Union countries—after all, we have extradition agreements with other countries. There is of course the considerable problem of timing, as the House will be aware. Denmark negotiated a separate deal. The deal struck through Protocol 36 means that the United Kingdom has to follow the rules set out. Denmark has its own protocol so could make its own arrangements, but they are not the arrangements that we would want to copy. Every agreement that Denmark has made separately with the EU has required it to submit to the jurisdiction of the European Court of Justice and, in effect, the Danish agreement simply binds Denmark to EU law by another means—which I suspect is not what most who are interested would have in mind. Of course it would be possible, but it would be cumbersome and it would probably be expensive to make such separate agreements. Far more sensible is to have the now tried and improved system of the European arrest warrant that we have.

[Lord Lamont of Lerwick]

My noble friend did not address the point that I raised in respect of the Government’s safeguard, so called, that extradition should not take place until a decision has been made by a foreign court to prosecute and to try—I drew a distinction between a decision to prosecute and a decision to try. I referred to the numerous delays that took place in the case of Mr Symeou. That was why I suggested that the safeguard was not really a safeguard. My noble friend has not addressed that point.

[Lord Faulks]

We consider that the safeguard should be capable of answering that particular problem. The important issue is whether there is an unnecessary delay. It will be appropriate to look at the particular facts of the case and for the judge responding to the warrant to decide whether he or she is satisfied about the arrangements. That, I suggest, is an answer, and unfortunate cases such as that of Andrew Symeou, which I accept was an egregious example of the European arrest warrant not working satisfactorily, should be avoided.

[Lord Hannay of Chiswick]

Before the Minister moves on from this point, does he not agree that it is perhaps a pity that our debate tonight has not mentioned explicitly one really crucial dimension for this country, which is the Anglo-Irish dimension? It is a very important one. All of us who have taken evidence on this matter are perfectly clear that the European arrest warrant has enabled the depoliticisation of extradition proceedings between the two parts of the island of Ireland. That has been of enormous benefit to both of them. If we were to junk the European arrest warrant, the Irish have no substitute to put in its place because they removed the Council of Europe convention when they transposed the arrest warrant into their legislation. Therefore, we would risk falling back into the worst turmoil of politicised extradition proceedings, often for enormously serious crimes.

23:15

[Lord Faulks]

I am very grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Hannay, for his intervention. I absolutely agree with his observations. Indeed, moving from the specific to the general, what is really important about the European arrest warrant is that it is not exclusively about Europe. It is a practical matter about criminal justice, acknowledging the fact that crime knows no borders, and that we must have satisfactory arrangements. This is the best way of securing those. Whatever noble Lords’ views—relative enthusiasm or otherwise—for the European project, the arguments seem to be overwhelming now in favour of the European arrest warrant.

Time does not permit me to go into arguments about matters that we have not yet reached a conclusion on; for example, Prüm was mentioned. The United Kingdom will not join Prüm on 1 December. Regarding law enforcement and other member states, I have no observations about the conversation referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Sharkey. Others have said that it will bring benefits. Agreement has been reached that we will conduct a full business and implementation case and a small-scale pilot. This will consider not only any benefits of Prüm but also the civil liberties protections available. This will be reported to Parliament by way of a Command Paper in September 2015 and the House will then be given a vote on the matter.

Regarding the lateness of bringing this matter to Parliament, I submit to the House that this is the earliest possible opportunity following full agreement of the Council, which was achieved only the week before last when Spain finally dropped its reservation to approve a good deal for Britain and a package of measures vital in the fight against serious crimes. It will not have escaped the notice of the House that it is only nine working days before 1 December 2014, so we cannot afford further delay. For that reason, it is right that we consider, and vote on if necessary, the overall package and the regulation together.

The noble Baroness, Lady Smith, asked about a letter written by the Leader of the House. That letter is dated only today. However, it forms part of a communication between the noble Baroness and the noble Lord, Lord Boswell. I will make sure that she and all participants in the debate receive a copy of that letter. It explains the process by which this matter has reached the House and attempts to clarify the position. I entirely accept that the debate has come at a rather later hour than any of us would have liked. One of the reasons it was scheduled tonight was to accommodate the EU Committee, but matters went on longer than expected so noble Lords have had to be economical in their observations in relation to the various issues that have arisen.

We have now reached the position—albeit criticisms have been made forcefully and, no doubt, with some considerable justification—where we have completed the process in this House. We have had a number of debates about the merits, which we have answered—

[Baroness Smith of Basildon]

My Lords, can the noble Lord answer the questions that I have posed, which I have posed in all our debates, or can he write to me with his answers, given the time that we have and that he still has not reached my questions?

[Lord Faulks]

Clearly, I do not have time to go through the reasons why we have not opted into all the measures that we have not opted into. The presumption is that we opt in to matters that we consider are in our national interest, and we have given reasons for doing that.

Time is running against me. I entirely accept that matters might have been more expeditiously dealt with, but a number of factors caused delays. The Government have been kept very much up to the mark by your Lordships’ House. I hope that with the explanation that I have been able to give and the letter which has so recently been written, the noble Lord, Lord Boswell, will feel inclined to withdraw his amendment to the Motion.

[Lord Boswell of Aynho]

My Lords, at this late hour, perhaps I may briefly distil the debate into three considerations. The first is the remarkable complexity of the issues involved. I noticed that the noble Baroness, Lady Ludford, asked about the 11 into 10 problem with the regulations, which was not answered in detail, although the noble Lord, Lord Sharkey, referred to it. I answer, in no sense criticising anyone nor intending to wind up on all the points that have been made, that that was the framework directive on freezing orders, and the United Kingdom had already opted in to the post-Lisbon amending legislation, so Protocol 36 no longer applied to the framework. Although the Explanatory Note was slightly—I am sure, unintentionally—misleading on the point, it was true that this had to be transposed into national law but, contrary to the Explanatory Note, it was not among the 35 measures under consideration. I mention that because it is a good example of the complexity of all this.

At the same time, alongside all that complexity, there are some simple practical issues. Are we happy for terrorists to cross the Irish land frontier and not have any recourse to extract them? Are we happy for people to commit crimes across Europe of a very unpleasant nature, often co-ordinated as part of a criminal gang, and for us to have no recourse? Are we happy for the judicial systems to work alongside each other? There is complexity and simplicity.

The Minister has acknowledged that there is considerable concern about the handling failure, which was, frankly, the substance of my amendment. He has been both generous in his comments about the scrutiny that we have carried out and modestly contrite about the failures that may have occurred. This is now the moment to move on, particularly in view of the fact that there is strong but not universal support for the substance of the 35 measures.

In concluding, I should like to say how grateful I am for the support and thoughtfulness that have been expressed in the debate. Collectively, we have made our point and, on that basis, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment to the Motion withdrawn.

Motion agreed.

House adjourned at 11.23 pm.